# Deficiencies in WSL teachings



## guy b.

Post your view please. No offence will be taken. I welcome the opportunity to learn from other perspectives.


----------



## geezer

Only people who have spent some time studying  WSL VT could really contribute here. That counts me out. Next time you want to know about deficiencies in LT WT I could contribute ...but I'd mostly be talking about my own deficiencies. Funny, now that I train an offshoot, NVTO VT, I have the same deficiencies. You can change association or even the lineage but you're stuck with the same old practitioner!


----------



## Marnetmar

I'm certainly no master and I've never actually trained in WSLVT so I'm not really qualified to say anything, but the more I think about the idea of pivoting on the heels and initiating motion at the hips, the less it makes practical sense to me, even taking the idea of not giving up the centerline into account. KPM talks a little bit about it in this video and basically sums up the problems I have with it:






However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to dismiss that aspect of WSLVT entirely -- when seeing different ways of practicing things, unless what's on display is completely absurd, I think there's a 95% probability that the people practicing differently simply know something that I don't.

Plus, pivoting on the heels is literally the *only *aspect of WSLVT, from what amount of it that I've seen, that I actually have a problem with.


----------



## LFJ

Marnetmar said:


> KPM talks a little bit about it in this video and basically sums up the problems I have with it:



Most of what he argues against seems to be a straw man, unless he was actually taught that way in other lineages.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Most of what he argues against seems to be a straw man, unless he was actually taught that way in other lineages.



I'm not at all sure if that clip by KPM that Marnetmar posted is particularly directed at WSL VT. Some of it's criticisms apply to a number of Ip Man branches. Many WC/VT guys do the "slouch" in their stances. The Ho Kam Ming lineage is another group that turns on the heels. In LT WT I learned to turn on the "center of the foot" as KPM advocates, but we shift weight completely from side to side, or to the rear foot if advancing. Also, we started out with hips tilted forward and constant adduction of the thighs which sounds a bit like his "locked qua" --whatever that is.

So I see that clip as KPM sharing what he has found to be optimal in his experience. I probably agree with about half of what he said. Regardless it was a good, thought-provoking video. At least for me, since I've gotten to the point where I'm trying to think for myself rather than follow a sifu's every word, no matter how good he may be. The real question for me now is, given all my faults, _what will actually work for me._

Oh and another thing...@KPM: Tell me _about that dummy_. The base set up looks very practical. Is it water or sand filled? I have a decent Koo Sang teak dummy at the house, but am looking for something economical and portable to use at the gym I rent space at.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Oh and another thing...@KPM: Tell me _about that dummy_. The base set up looks very practical. Is it water or sand filled? I have a decent Koo Sang teak dummy at the house, but am looking for something economical and portable to use at the gym I rent space at.



The Warrior: Warriors - Phase 1

You can put either sand or water in the base.  I have sand in mine and it is pretty stable.  It has wheels on the back side of the base.  So you can pull the trunk out of the base, tip the base up onto its back, and roll it to where you want it.  You could it even take it down and roll it into a closet or storage space when not in use if you are at an open gym where you wouldn't want people messing with it.  The trunk is thick PVC covered in a layer of padding and marine grade vinyl.  The arms and leg are hardwood.  The padding is great!  Between the padding and a pair of MMA gloves I can work mine almost as hard as I would a heavy bag.  The base is very stable and will tip under heavy pressure but has never fallen over.  There is just enough "play" in the socket where the trunk fits into the base that the dummy has some give to it somewhat like a dummy mounted on the wall with cross-slats.  It isn't like hitting a tree trunk. 

The one draw-back is that the base tends to slide across the floor.  But I think it if was placed on a rubber mat, it would take care of it.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> The Warrior: Warriors - Phase 1
> 
> You can put either sand or water in the base.  I have sand in mine and it is pretty stable.  It has wheels on the back side of the base.  So you can pull the trunk out of the base, tip the base up onto its back, and roll it to where you want it.  You could it even take it down and roll it into a closet or storage space when not in use if you are at an open gym where you wouldn't want people messing with it.  The trunk is thick PVC covered in a layer of padding and marine grade vinyl.  The arms and leg are hardwood.  The padding is great!  Between the padding and a pair of MMA gloves I can work mine almost as hard as I would a heavy bag.  The base is very stable and will tip under heavy pressure but has never fallen over.  There is just enough "play" in the socket where the trunk fits into the base that the dummy has some give to it somewhat like a dummy mounted on the wall with cross-slats.  It isn't like hitting a tree trunk.
> 
> The one draw-back is that the base tends to slide across the floor.  But I think it if was placed on a rubber mat, it would take care of it.



Keith, what about the height? Is there any way to adjust it? I'm on the short side of average at around 5' 8". but I have students who are both shorter and taller.


----------



## geezer

Oh... now back to the OP. I probably watch too much Youtube. Anyway, I have found some of the clips by David Peterson to be useful. Recommended some to students. Not too much I disagree with. But then I didn't know that he was so inferior a teacher to some others!


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b. said:


> Post your view please. No offence will be taken. I welcome the opportunity to learn from other perspectives.


I don't know if this is a system weakness or a training issue but what I see that's common in many branches is super dedicated to controlling the center line, and not good foot movement.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know if this is a system weakness or a training issue but what I see that's common in many branches is super dedicated to controlling the center line, and not good foot movement.


Since your hands may not be in your center all the time, to protect your center from outside in by using circular move to counter linear move such as to use double hay-makers to counter jab and cross is not emphasized enough in training.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Keith, what about the height? Is there any way to adjust it? I'm on the short side of average at around 5' 8". but I have students who are both shorter and taller.



No, that's another draw-back.  You can't change the height.  It is set for an average height of about 5'10" by the way I personally like the dummy mounted.  Some like it higher or lower.  You could make it higher by simply placing the whole thing on a raised base board, or lower by putting a raised base board in front of it to stand on.


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Oh... now back to the OP. I probably watch too much Youtube. Anyway, I have found some of the clips by David Peterson to be useful. Recommended some to students. Not too much I disagree with. But then I didn't know that he was so inferior a teacher to some others!



The only people I have EVER heard have anything bad to say about David Petersen....is Guy and LFJ!


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Many WC/VT guys do the "slouch" in their stances. The Ho Kam Ming lineage is another group that turns on the heels.



The slouch, as he shows it, is a remedy to leaning back as a result of incorrect pelvic tilt. I guess only virgins don't know how to execute a proper pelvic tilt without screwing up their spines.

I don't know about HKM lineage, but shifting on the heels in training doesn't mean we're hobbling around with weight over our heels all the time as he suggests, and in fighting, we're not just going to be standing in place and pivoting anyway. 

Before you go about legitimately criticizing something, you gotta understand how it's done, the training purpose, and how it actually relates to fighting...


----------



## LFJ

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't know if this is a system weakness or a training issue but what I see that's common in many branches is super dedicated to controlling the center line, and not good foot movement.



Sounds like probably both.

WSLVT doesn't do the classic one leg forward with both hands posed on the center line though...

Our footwork is very mobile and spatial domination can be attained without trying to stubbornly occupy the center line. Doing so actually makes fighting more difficult.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

The way it looks to me is that WSL style has forgone some of the force generation and stance concepts in favour of a higher focus on fighting and application. 

For the purpose of WSL VT there is nothing really deficient. As Darren Elvey described to me in a seminar, WSL streamlined his wing chun to make it more effective in urban combat. The purpose of WSL VT is to shut down and finish a street attack in the shortest time possible. To that extent, it meets its goal effectively IMO.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Many of the wing chun I have seen has very little structure, that is they cannot hold any pressure. They always speed up to compensate for this. Then I trained CST that is all about structure pressure and force. From a CST perspective, it is quite annoying rolling with certain Wing Chun types because they tend to just want to speed up. They can't hold any pressure or dont want to. Also they consider every little touch on your body at hit. Even if there is nothing behind it.

When I first exchanged with WSL guys, it was a breath of fresh air because I could actually roll with them. They had good springy structure. And they were about getting a good solid clear hit in with their body behind it. Not just flick someone and say that that was an opening. I learned a lot from cross training with them. I had holes in my structure which got fixed.

I think they have a healthy balance between some good structural understanding and applying it in application. I believe WSL didn't go too deep into the force generation and structure side of things because he felt that only a certain amount is neccessary in combat. I believe the WSL guys I trained with probably had a similar mindset. And to be honest they have a good point.

That said, IMO there is a limitation to how powerful you can get in this system. I can see both views and they are both right. They might say they don't need anymore structure or force to be effective in fighting and that might be correct.


----------



## guy b.

I would say that power develops slowly over a long time. If the expression of ultimate power is your immediate goal then VT is probably not the best vehicle for that. There are more advantageous and obvious ways to use the body to that end. For a beginner it seems impossible to exert KO force from VT structure, but over time with the poon sau, lap sau, stepping drills, wall bag, pole and other training it starts to become possible until eventually large amounts of force can be delivered from that same structure as understanding and physical capacity develops. I would say that the main focus of the system is safety, simplicity (working without thinking) and resilience under pressure, and this is why the development of effective force takes a long time.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> I would say that power develops slowly over a long time.


Many CMA systems (such as long fist, praying mantis, Zimen, WC, ...) use that argument - power develops slowly over a long time. Many CMA system (such as Baji, Chen Taiji, XYLH, ...) provide simple methods to develop power within short period of time (such as 3 months).

Someone has cross trained long fist and praying mantis for many years. When he started to train the Baji system, he suddenly felt that he finally understood "power generation". His public comment "Baji helps him to open his eyes." made both of his long fist teacher and his praying mantis teacher mad at him big time.

Some simple power generation drills do exist in some of the CMA systems if you search hard enough.

Here is an example of Chen Taiji power generation drills.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> As Darren Elvey described to me in a seminar, WSL streamlined his wing chun to make it more effective in urban combat. The purpose of WSL VT is to shut down and finish a street attack in the shortest time possible.



That's a peculiar thing to say, as that is the purpose of VT to begin with. WSL didn't make it so.



Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I believe WSL didn't go too deep into the force generation and structure side of things because he felt that only a certain amount is neccessary in combat.



WSLVT training places an enormous emphasis on force generation, developed in stages. After all, VT is useless if you can't make the punch count.

As far as "holding pressure", there is partner training to develop solid structure to support the punch in motion from any position, but we aren't looking to "hold pressure" during a fight in some sort of grappling or stand-your-ground strategy. We want to be mobile and attack.

A lot of force and structure training is there, but it is mostly abstract. We keep an offensive mindset for free fighting.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> That's a peculiar thing to say, as that is the purpose of VT to begin with. WSL didn't make it so.



Yes, that is true. I meant to say, "He streamlined his wing chun to make it combat effective in a short time."



LFJ said:


> WSLVT training places an enormous emphasis on force generation, developed in stages. After all, VT is useless if you can't make the punch count.
> 
> As far as "holding pressure", there is partner training to develop solid structure to support the punch in motion from any position, but we aren't looking to "hold pressure" during a fight in some sort of grappling or stand-your-ground strategy. We want to be mobile and attack.
> 
> A lot of force and structure training is there, but it is mostly abstract. We keep an offensive mindset for free fighting.



Sometimes the holding can help you work out the path of force and movement to help you when it is more dynamic and clashy. Effecting or controlling you partner's balance is an important skill and that apparently YM was an expert at.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Sorry just adding to the foot turning discussion. 
CST turns on the middle of the foot not the heel. Leung Ting style here turns on the middle of the foot. 
WSL and Lo Man Kam style here turn on the heels.


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Many CMA systems (such as long fist, praying mantis, Zimen, WC, ...) use that argument - power develops slowly over a long time. Many CMA system (such as Baji, Chen Taiji, XYLH, ...) provide simple methods to develop power within short period of time (such as 3 months).
> 
> Here is an example of Chen Taiji power generation drills.



Nothing wrong with Chen tai chi, but it isn't VT. 

The reason that VT takes a while to develop power is that the body usage is unnatural and training is required to get used to it. Once the positions are familiar, power comes with the drills designed to produce it.


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Sometimes the holding can help you work out the path of force and movement to help you when it is more dynamic and clashy.



This is addressed during partner drills in WSL VT. I am most interested in what you think these drills lack, and why more is needed?


----------



## KPM

_[The slouch, as he shows it, is a remedy to leaning back as a result of incorrect pelvic tilt. I guess only virgins don't know how to execute a proper pelvic tilt without screwing up their spines._

---I agree.  But then just take a look around.  You see a lot of Wing Chun people slouching.   Even WSL's training partner on that famous video tape he did!

_I don't know about HKM lineage, but shifting on the heels in training doesn't mean we're hobbling around with weight over our heels all the time as he suggests, and in fighting, we're not just going to be standing in place and pivoting anyway._

---I didn't say that at all.  I said some people can make it work very well.   All I said was that from a biomechanical standpoint it is not the optimal way to do things.   Now you are the one creating "strawman" arguments.

_
Before you go about legitimately criticizing something, you gotta understand how it's done, the training purpose, and how it actually relates to fighting..._

---If you are trying to imply that I never trained in that method and therefore don't know what I am talking about, you are wrong.  I was speaking from the perspective of optimal biomechanics.  Not "sifu sez...."


----------



## KPM

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> The way it looks to me is that WSL style has forgone some of the force generation and stance concepts in favour of a higher focus on fighting and application.
> 
> For the purpose of WSL VT there is nothing really deficient. As Darren Elvey described to me in a seminar, WSL streamlined his wing chun to make it more effective in urban combat. The purpose of WSL VT is to shut down and finish a street attack in the shortest time possible. To that extent, it meets its goal effectively IMO.



I agree with this completely!  And this is what makes it rather "one dimensional" as I have pointed out in the past.  Nothing wrong with that!  It is still a great system for what it is intended to do!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

I don't really think WSL drills lack anything. They are good combat and application drills. One of the things I like about them is that they teach you to move in the right way without thinking. 

I would just say WSL has taken a strong combat approach and not gone deep with the force generation and internal side. THe guys here in Auckland are highly focussed on street attacks and varoius scenarios where you could get attacked or a fight could start. 

We don't really have such a strong combat focus. We dont really practice scenarios where you will get attack or how to defend against this or that. We focus on force, structure and power. 

So CST and WSL were both the senior teachers at YM's school for many years. Many of the third generation students of yip man were either taught by WSL or CST and YM was starting to wind down as a teacher. CST and WSL were great mates. CST was there playing Majong with WSL when he had the heart attack. I am pretty sure they both respected each other. But it is clear WSL took a combat focus and CST focussed on force.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ And I am sure BOTH would say they were teaching what Ip Man taught!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> _I don't know about HKM lineage, but shifting on the heels in training doesn't mean we're hobbling around with weight over our heels all the time as he suggests, and in fighting, we're not just going to be standing in place and pivoting anyway._
> 
> ---I didn't say that at all.  I said some people can make it work very well.   All I said was that from a biomechanical standpoint it is not the optimal way to do things.   Now you are the one creating "strawman" arguments.



When you were talking about weight distribution in a neutral stance and why one shouldn't be back on their heels when sending or receiving force, it seemed you were saying heel shifters must be on their heels at all times... Or were you just making a general statement about optimal weight distribution?



> _Before you go about legitimately criticizing something, you gotta understand how it's done, the training purpose, and how it actually relates to fighting..._
> 
> ---If you are trying to imply that I never trained in that method and therefore don't know what I am talking about, you are wrong.  I was speaking from the perspective of optimal biomechanics.  Not "sifu sez...."



You trained in a lineage that taught you to lean back to tilt the pelvis, and to keep weight back on your heels in a neutral stance?

Well, in any case, that's not the Wong way.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ^^^^ And I am sure BOTH would say they were teaching what Ip Man taught!



Except CST was honest about coming up with his own ideas...


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Except CST was honest about coming up with his own ideas...



And you are saying that WSL wasn't?


----------



## Marnetmar




----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> And you are saying that WSL wasn't?



He's replying to the quote


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

There's a youtube clip of CST talking about the evolution of his teaching. In his first few decades of teaching, he reckons he taught in exactly the way YM taught him with out adding or subtracting anything. During this time he had students competing and fighting. Then he went through 2 different phases of teaching after that which took a different path.


----------



## Marnetmar

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> There's a youtube clip of CST talking about the evolution of his teaching. In his first few decades of teaching, he reckons he taught in exactly the way YM taught him with out adding or subtracting anything. During this time he had students competing and fighting. Then he went through 2 different phases of teaching after that which took a different path.



Sounds like a similar story to Kenneth Chung's.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Marnetmar said:


> Sounds like a similar story to Kenneth Chung's.


Can I ask about what happened with Keneth Chung? I quite like what I have heard from him.


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> There's a youtube clip of CST talking about the evolution of his teaching. In his first few decades of teaching, he reckons he taught in exactly the way YM taught him with out adding or subtracting anything. During this time he had students competing and fighting. Then he went through 2 different phases of teaching after that which took a different path.



Do you have a link to the clip? I would be interested to hear his reasons for changing


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

This is one of them. Can't remember if it is the same. But watch from 12:54 and he explains.


----------



## Marnetmar

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Can I ask about what happened with Keneth Chung? I quite like what I have heard from him.



When Ken first learned from Leung Sheung (1963-1968) and came to the U.S he taught a very rugged and aggressive version of Wing Chun, which is what people like Eddie Chong got. Its forms and mechanics were more in line with what you'd see from Ng Wah Sum. Then he went back and learned from Leung Sheung again between 1973 and 1978, and when he came back he taught in a similar way, but with a much softer and more internal approach. Over time he went further and further in this direction, and his WC now is almost Tai Chi-like in its approach.


----------



## Vajramusti

LFJ said:


> When you were talking about weight distribution in a neutral stance and why one shouldn't be back on their heels when sending or receiving force, it seemed you were saying heel shifters must be on their heels at all times... Or were you just making a general statement about optimal weight distribution?
> 
> 
> 
> You trained in a lineage that taught you to lean back to tilt the pelvis, and to keep weight back on your heels in a neutral stance?
> 
> Well, in any case, that's not the Wong way.


-----------------
lots of inaccuracies.


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------
> lots of inaccuracies.



What are they?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> What are they?



Probably not what Joy intended with his comment, but the inaccuracies in LFJ's comment is that I never said "heel shifters" are back on their heels at all times, and I never said I trained in a lineage that tilted the pelvis back to an extreme, or keeps the weight all the way back on the heels in a neutral stance.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Probably not what Joy intended with his comment, but the inaccuracies in LFJ's comment is that I never said "heel shifters" are back on their heels at all times, and I never said I trained in a lineage that tilted the pelvis back to an extreme, or keeps the weight all the way back on the heels in a neutral stance.



Timestamp 1:00

"_When people open their stance with their Wing Chun, there's this idea amongst a lot of lineages that you have to tilt your pelvis forward._"

*leans upper body back*

"_Watch what happens to my body automatically. If I'm in a neutral stance and I go to tilt my pelvis forward I'm automatically leaning backwards and putting my weight on my heels._"


First of all, you're not tilting your pelvis forward. You're just pushing your pelvis forward. And secondly, your body is not leaning back automatically. You are doing that on purpose. It's entirely possible to do a _posterior_ pelvic tilt without affecting your vertical axis or weight distribution in any way.

You then go on to say why your weight shouldn't be back on your heels, suggesting that people are keeping weight over their heels in a neutral stance and when engaging with an opponent, all based on you doing a pelvic tilt incorrectly.

I also disagree with your pushing from the ball of the foot to deliver force and your sports examples to justify it. Sprinters and tennis players care about speed and agility but aren't concerned with a bouncing COG or an interrupted line of force when stepping. We must be.

With correct alignment, the line of force from your fist goes through your elbow, to your hips, and back to the heel in a straight line, with equal and opposite force in the reverse.

Your forefoot is in front of that line, which means when pushing through the ball of your foot you are engaging and holding the force in your calf muscles and not allowing it to transfer into the ground through the heel as is the natural direction it wants to go.

By pushing through the ball of the foot you are encouraging more exclusive activation in your quadriceps, especially the relatively small VMO. Whereas, allowing the force to go through the heel will also fire the larger and more powerful posterior chain muscles of the leg which you are inhibiting by holding force in your calf and encouraging VMO "isolation".

Demonstration: Stand with a right rear leg and press into a solid object with your right arm with the elbow down like a VT punch and a slight posterior pelvic tilt (not leaning your upper body back like a clown). Push through the ball of your rear foot and you will feel almost nothing but the calf and VMO, relatively small muscles. Then allow the force to go through the heel and you will feel the entire anterior and posterior musculature of the leg firing together. = Greater force. Then try a short explosive punch with the same setup on someone holding a pad. You will notice you won't have near the amount of leg drive if you don't send it through your back heel. Do that and you'll have much greater force in your punch.

Also when pushing through the balls of your feet your heels are being raised slightly or wanting to (releasing weight) as the calves are firing and your feet are rocking forward and backward as you’re fighting to handle the force in your calves then relaxes off of them after issuing force, rather than allowing the force to solidly transfer into the ground through the heels.

This can be seen when hitting your BOB and dummy. It’s subtle but makes a big difference you can feel and can work against you if the opponent happens to cut into your timing.

In VT, we want to maintain an uninterrupted line of force at all times by not taking big steps and rocking the feet between heel and toes.

Now, that is not to say we are hobbling around on our heels either. Weight is evenly dispersed with the natural balance point over mid-foot. When delivering force though, it must be allowed to go through the heel with equal and opposite force in a straight line to the fist for punching power, stability, and balance during high speed movement in a fight.

Shifting on the heels in training is also not an application. When we pull someone in a drill and they shift on the heels it is testing central axis, balance, line of force, etc.. Many things.

People just look at the hands though and think pull, punch, block… technique applications. They don't understand the abstract nature of drilling and how it relates to free fighting.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> Timestamp 1:00
> 
> "_When people open their stance with their Wing Chun, there's this idea amongst a lot of lineages that you have to tilt your pelvis forward._"
> 
> *leans upper body back*
> 
> "_Watch what happens to my body automatically. If I'm in a neutral stance and I go to tilt my pelvis forward I'm automatically leaning backwards and putting my weight on my heels._"
> 
> 
> First of all, you're not tilting your pelvis forward. You're just pushing your pelvis forward. And secondly, your body is not leaning back automatically. You are doing that on purpose. It's entirely possible to do a _posterior_ pelvic tilt without affecting your vertical axis or weight distribution in any way.



Poor old KPM.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> Your forefoot is in front of that line, which means when pushing through the ball of your foot you are engaging and holding the force in your calf muscles and not allowing it to transfer into the ground through the heel as is the natural direction it wants to go.
> 
> By pushing through the ball of the foot you are encouraging more exclusive activation in your quadriceps, especially the relatively small VMO. Whereas, allowing the force to go through the heel will also fire the larger and more powerful posterior chain muscles of the leg which you are inhibiting by holding force in your calf and encouraging VMO "isolation".



I already went through this with KPM, who used lots of example from sports involving delivery of impulse force like tennis which, when photo checked, showed that heels touch ground at the moment of force transferrance. Discussing sprinters for example is irrelevant because sprinters are doing a different thing. The problem for KPM is that he can't admit error in biomechanical analysis because he is some kind of professional in this area. A shame for him, because he is certainly wrong here. 



> In VT, we want to maintain an uninterrupted line of force at all times by not taking big steps and rocking the feet between heel and toes.
> 
> Now, that is not to say we are hobbling around on our heels either. Weight is evenly dispersed with the natural balance point over mid-foot. When delivering force though, it must be allowed to go through the heel with equal and opposite force in a straight line to the fist for punching power, stability, and balance during high speed movement in a fight.
> 
> Shifting on the heels in training is also not an application. When we pull someone in a drill and they shift on the heels it is testing central axis, balance, line of force, etc.. Many things.
> 
> People just look at the hands though and think pull, punch, block… technique applications. They don't understand the abstract nature of drilling and how it relates to free fighting.



Correct, good post


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Timestamp 1:00
> 
> "_When people open their stance with their Wing Chun, there's this idea amongst a lot of lineages that you have to tilt your pelvis forward._"
> 
> *leans upper body back*
> 
> "_Watch what happens to my body automatically. If I'm in a neutral stance and I go to tilt my pelvis forward I'm automatically leaning backwards and putting my weight on my heels._"
> 
> 
> First of all, you're not tilting your pelvis forward. You're just pushing your pelvis forward. And secondly, your body is not leaning back automatically. You are doing that on purpose. It's entirely possible to do a _posterior_ pelvic tilt without affecting your vertical axis or weight distribution in any way.
> 
> You then go on to say why your weight shouldn't be back on your heels, suggesting that people are keeping weight over their heels in a neutral stance and when engaging with an opponent, all based on you doing a pelvic tilt incorrectly.
> 
> I also disagree with your pushing from the ball of the foot to deliver force and your sports examples to justify it. Sprinters and tennis players care about speed and agility but aren't concerned with a bouncing COG or an interrupted line of force when stepping. We must be.
> 
> With correct alignment, the line of force from your fist goes through your elbow, to your hips, and back to the heel in a straight line, with equal and opposite force in the reverse.
> 
> Your forefoot is in front of that line, which means when pushing through the ball of your foot you are engaging and holding the force in your calf muscles and not allowing it to transfer into the ground through the heel as is the natural direction it wants to go.
> 
> By pushing through the ball of the foot you are encouraging more exclusive activation in your quadriceps, especially the relatively small VMO. Whereas, allowing the force to go through the heel will also fire the larger and more powerful posterior chain muscles of the leg which you are inhibiting by holding force in your calf and encouraging VMO "isolation".
> 
> Demonstration: Stand with a right rear leg and press into a solid object with your right arm with the elbow down like a VT punch and a slight posterior pelvic tilt (not leaning your upper body back like a clown). Push through the ball of your rear foot and you will feel almost nothing but the calf and VMO, relatively small muscles. Then allow the force to go through the heel and you will feel the entire anterior and posterior musculature of the leg firing together. = Greater force. Then try a short explosive punch with the same setup on someone holding a pad. You will notice you won't have near the amount of leg drive if you don't send it through your back heel. Do that and you'll have much greater force in your punch.
> 
> Also when pushing through the balls of your feet your heels are being raised slightly or wanting to (releasing weight) as the calves are firing and your feet are rocking forward and backward as you’re fighting to handle the force in your calves then relaxes off of them after issuing force, rather than allowing the force to solidly transfer into the ground through the heels.
> 
> This can be seen when hitting your BOB and dummy. It’s subtle but makes a big difference you can feel and can work against you if the opponent happens to cut into your timing.
> 
> In VT, we want to maintain an uninterrupted line of force at all times by not taking big steps and rocking the feet between heel and toes.
> 
> Now, that is not to say we are hobbling around on our heels either. Weight is evenly dispersed with the natural balance point over mid-foot. When delivering force though, it must be allowed to go through the heel with equal and opposite force in a straight line to the fist for punching power, stability, and balance during high speed movement in a fight.
> 
> Shifting on the heels in training is also not an application. When we pull someone in a drill and they shift on the heels it is testing central axis, balance, line of force, etc.. Many things.
> 
> People just look at the hands though and think pull, punch, block… technique applications. They don't understand the abstract nature of drilling and how it relates to free fighting.



Now this is off topic but these are the constructive posts I like. They counter an argument, explains your view clearly. 

KPM may or may not agree but that is his concerns. Please continue at least every now and then like this.

Nice work. As for argumentation I failed to read the entire thread but agree with most if not all the things you said here about pelvic and power.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

KPM is correct in that there is this idea in many wing chuns that you have to tilt your pelvis which can cause you to lean back. And I have seen many lineages that do this and are literally leaning back and have an unstable stance. Can you tilt the pelvis forward without leaning back? Yes. It can be good. But it can also cause the hunch depending on how it is done. 

The way we learn it in CST is that the titled pelvis is not actually an overtly physcal tilting of the hip. It is much more sublte. Basically you should stand naturally like you would normally stand.


----------



## KPM

Phobius said:


> Now this is off topic but these are the constructive posts I like. They counter an argument, explains your view clearly.
> 
> KPM may or may not agree but that is his concerns. Please continue at least every now and then like this.
> 
> Nice work. As for argumentation I failed to read the entire thread but agree with most if not all the things you said here about pelvic and power.



Its not constructive because most of it is a strawman argument against things that were not what I was saying.  Trying to refute all of it would take too much energy and would go nowhere.  I know this from experience dealing with these two.  So they can make all the smug comments they want.  Please don't encourage them.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> KPM is correct in that there is this idea in many wing chuns that you have to tilt your pelvis which can cause you to lean back. And I have seen many lineages that do this and are literally leaning back and have an unstable stance.



In lineages where I've seen it, such as LTWT, people have told me the leaning back is by tactical design. They do it intentionally to keep the head further away from the opponent and more weight off the front leg for various reasons. I don't like it, but it's not an unwanted consequence of the pelvic tilt. And it should also not be overdone.



> Can you tilt the pelvis forward without leaning back? Yes. It can be good. But it can also cause the hunch depending on how it is done.



Like, incorrectly? KPM was quite obviously leaning back on purpose to make his point.

And I wish you guys would stop saying tilt the pelvis forward. It's not forward. It's a _posterior_ pelvic tilt and in no way affects the vertical axis or weight distribution over the feet. See the image below. Perfectly upright. No hunch compensation required.

Tilting the pelvis _forward_ is an _anterior_ pelvic tilt, and I've never seen any WC lineage do this.

What KPM did in his video is the forward shifted pelvis/ swayback, while saying forward (anterior) pelvic tilt. Obviously a bit confused. And it should be neither of those anyway.









> The way we learn it in CST is that the titled pelvis is not actually an overtly physcal tilting of the hip. It is much more sublte. Basically you should stand naturally like you would normally stand.



I'm not completely locked out and immobile either. It's simply engaging the core which pulls the belly in and the front of the pelvis up, and engaging the glutes and hamstrings which pulls the back of the pelvis down and flattens the lumbar spine. This allows the line of force to continue from the elbow through the hips and into the heels.

The force is incoming. If you do nothing you will be pushed over backward. So it must go back but we also want to direct it downward into the ground. So the pelvis is tilted in that direction and the force is rolled through the pelvis and into the heels. 

(Again, if we push from the balls of the feet we are holding the force in our calves, causing many problems outlined in my previous post, and not allowing it to go into the ground following the line it wants, i.e. through the heels.)

Maintain a neutral pelvic tilt while exchanging force with a partner in _pun-sau_ and you will be easily unbalanced, because the force is not transferred back and down by tilting the pelvis posteriorly in that direction.

While exchanging force, slightly tilt the pelvis back (without affecting the vertical axis or weight distribution) and you will find the point where it redirects force to the heels. It's subtle and stable. Not a rigid lockout.

I've done this with giants that outweighed me by 50+ lbs. I didn't budge and easily launched them away. That would be impossible without a proper pelvic tilt and full lower body force through the heels. Small calves and VMO muscles with a "floating" pelvis won't generate near the required force.

Also, take a shot to the gut with relaxed abdominals and you will quickly learn to engage them!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Its not constructive because most of it is a strawman argument against things that were not what I was saying.



Most?

Literally all but the first few sentences were addressing your idea of pushing from the balls of the feet when issuing force as everyone can see you talking about in your video.

Taking your ball and going home is not constructive...


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> Its not constructive because most of it is a strawman argument against things that were not what I was saying.  Trying to refute all of it would take too much energy and would go nowhere.  I know this from experience dealing with these two.  So they can make all the smug comments they want.  Please don't encourage them.



OFF TOPIC:
It was constructive. I did not say that it was somehow doing yours justice but that they provided good explanation to each point. Meaning they made it very possible for you to communicate with them on where they misunderstood you or if they should look at something more closely.

They did open that post up for debate. You have to give credit where credit is due, after all I have complained endlessly that they don't do this normally.


----------



## Phobius

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> KPM is correct in that there is this idea in many wing chuns that you have to tilt your pelvis which can cause you to lean back. And I have seen many lineages that do this and are literally leaning back and have an unstable stance. Can you tilt the pelvis forward without leaning back? Yes. It can be good. But it can also cause the hunch depending on how it is done.
> 
> The way we learn it in CST is that the titled pelvis is not actually an overtly physcal tilting of the hip. It is much more sublte. Basically you should stand naturally like you would normally stand.



It has been referred to as straighten your back by many. Gymnastics sometimes say to tilt your pelvic forward to achieve it. It is nothing magical. (this is where my English limits me as they say it similar but not identical if translated)  

If you stand that way naturally it is really great. Many sadly don't due to sitting too much on chairs, sofas,  working with computers daily and so on. Many lose that ability of correcting the spine.

This is what I have seen.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> It has been referred to as straighten your back by many. Gymnastics sometimes say to tilt your pelvic forward to achieve it.



Tilting your pelvis forward arches your lumbar spine forcing it into hyper-lordosis. It doesn't straighten your back. Again, look at the image above. The lumbar spine is pulled flat in the _posterior_ pelvic tilt, not anterior.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Tilting your pelvis forward arches your lumbar spine forcing it into hyper-lordosis. It doesn't straighten your back. Again, look at the image above. The lumbar spine is pulled flat in the _posterior_ pelvic tilt, not anterior.



Now you are missing a crucial point. English is not my native language. So I do not know what to call it. But a tilt is still a tilt, that other thing I do not call a tilt. Posterior or forward, if translating from my own language it would be more similar to forward tilt.

Edit: Actually correcting myself. It is upward tilt we would call it. Not forward.

I can agree with whatever you call it as it is irrelevant. But spine needs to be straight and without a tilt it won't be.

I think if a person does not sit too much in chairs and so on we would have that tilt correctly without thinking. Damages of a western lifestyle.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Tilting your pelvis forward arches your lumbar spine forcing it into hyper-lordosis. It doesn't straighten your back. Again, look at the image above. The lumbar spine is pulled flat in the _posterior_ pelvic tilt, not anterior.



I will point out one thing.  The pelvis is a three dimensional structure.  "Forward" and "back" are relative terms depending on whether you are referring to the superior aspect of the pelvis or the inferior aspect of the pelvis.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> I will point out one thing.  The pelvis is a three dimensional structure.  "Forward" and "back" are relative terms depending on whether you are referring to the superior aspect of the pelvis or the inferior aspect of the pelvis.



Gotta admit though in your movie, you talk about tilting pelvic forward causing body to lean backwards. It is not actually accurate, the tilt you do is very well known core structure and it does not cause you to lean backwards. However what you do in the movie seems more like a shift of pelvic forward alongside the tilt. This shifting does cause you to lean back because what you are actually doing is bending your back backwards.

So in your movie you are stating that many lineages want a tilt of pelvic area but in arguments on why it is bad you are not actually doing a tilt but rather overdoing it to make a statement. This is fine since you don't do training in that tilt but it is worth pointing out.

In addition the tilting of the pelvic to straighten your back is a very well known thing in gymnastics, it allows them to generate power through core muscles which is crucial for their moves. Same way I use it for my WT.

As for shifting on heels, well I do not do that. I just agree that heels in ground will generate more power when back is straight, but there are other downsides of keeping heels in ground when shifting during fight. At least for me it might be quick to shift but terrible if the unexpected happends during fight in meantime. So not heels for me, means I have too little control on my footwork in that instant, instead I can ground a heel if need be.

(Note that I do not consider heels to be only way to generate power, far from it. Nor is it the only way I am using)


----------



## KPM

_Gotta admit though in your movie, you talk about tilting pelvic forward causing body to lean backwards. It is not actually accurate_

---Tilting the inferior aspect of the pelvis forward by pushing the hips forward (which is what a lot of people are taught) flattens the low back and will tilt the entire torso backwards if you do nothing to compensate.  There are degrees of this of course.  What I showed in my video was the worst case scenario so it would be more clear to the viewer what I was trying to demonstrate.  But we've all still seen people that do things to this extreme.   In fact, Wong Shun Leung's student/primary training partner in that old video had this problem, as well as a pretty pronounced "slouch."


_, the tilt you do is very well known core structure and it does not cause you to lean backwards. However what you do in the movie seems more like a shift of pelvic forward alongside the tilt. This shifting does cause you to lean back because what you are actually doing is bending your back backwards_.

---And this is what many are taught...to effectively thrust the hips forward.


_In addition the tilting of the pelvic to straighten your back is a very well known thing in gymnastics, it allows them to generate power through core muscles which is crucial for their moves. Same way I use it for my WT._

---This is useful when your power must involve rigidity.  Flattening the lower back and firing the core produces rigidity along the spine.  But it also pretty much eliminates the Kua from actively generating power itself, because it becomes essentially immobilized.  But you can "link and "delink" or turn it "on" and "off."  So in other words you can produce this rigidity when you want to receive force and direct it to the ground as LFJ described.  But you should also be able to turn it "off" and allow the Kua to "float" so that it can be part of short-range power generation.  This is optimal mechanics.  But most people don't ever really turn it "off" so they can use the Kua effectively to generate power.


_As for shifting on heels, well I do not do that. I just agree that heels in ground will generate more power when back is straight, but there are other downsides of keeping heels in ground when shifting during fight. At least for me it might be quick to shift but terrible if the unexpected happends during fight in meantime. So not heels for me, means I have too little control on my footwork in that instant, instead I can ground a heel if need be._

---Exactly!  The longer you have your weight back on the heels and your body in an up-right position the more vulnerable you are to being off-balanced by an incoming force.  Again, that's just simple biomechanics.  So from a viewpoint of optimal biomechanics you have your weight back on your heels as little as possible.  That doesn't mean you never have your weight back on your heels.  But you avoid it when you can, and use it for effect when appropriate.  Pivoting in an up-right position is one of those times when being back on the heels makes you vulnerable.  Like I pointed out in the video, people can absolutely make it work!  But pivoting near the K1 point also works very well and doesn't leave you as vulnerable to being off-balanced by an incoming force.  So this is optimal biomechanics.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I will point out one thing.  The pelvis is a three dimensional structure.  "Forward" and "back" are relative terms depending on whether you are referring to the superior aspect of the pelvis or the inferior aspect of the pelvis.



Ooh, nice clever save!  But come on. Who the hell ever refers to that when saying tilt the pelvis?

It's pretty straightforward what anterior and posterior pelvic tilt mean. Is the pelvis rolling forward or backward? When a car is spinning its wheels in reverse do you say the wheels are rolling forward because the "inferior aspect" is coming "forward"? lol 

You don't need to make everything a competition. Just talk facts and compare methods. 



> But you can "link and "delink" or turn it "on" and "off." So in other words you can produce this rigidity when you want to receive force and direct it to the ground as LFJ described.



What about when you _don't_ want to receive force but do anyway?



> But you should also be able to turn it "off" and allow the Kua to "float" so that it can be part of short-range power generation. This is optimal mechanics. But most people don't ever really turn it "off" so they can use the Kua effectively to generate power.



Use your _kua_ like that while pushing through the balls of the feel and you kill your leg drive, concentrating instead on your humping action. Whatever power you can generate that way is nowhere near as great as full lower body force. I mean, you can try it as I described earlier and see for yourself.



> Pivoting in an up-right position is one of those times when being back on the heels makes you vulnerable. Like I pointed out in the video, people can absolutely make it work! But pivoting near the K1 point also works very well and doesn't leave you as vulnerable to being off-balanced by an incoming force. So this is optimal biomechanics.



Think back to your last fight, if you've ever had one. When were you standing in place and pivoting both feet together while force was incoming, in whatever way you do?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Ooh, nice clever save!  But come on. Who the hell ever refers to that when saying tilt the pelvis?



Note in my response to Phobius that I pointed out that people are typically taught to push the hips forward...hips are the lower aspect of the pelvis.  This is why trying to discuss anything "constructive" with you is pretty pointless.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Note in my response to Phobius that I pointed out that people are typically taught to push the hips forward...hips are the lower aspect of the pelvis.  This is why trying to discuss anything "constructive" with you is pretty pointless.



Who teaches that? What lineages?

CSL is the only one I've seen tell you to literally press your hips forward, so much that your body comes forward over your forefoot. The spine is kept erect by pressing up and forward with the sternum, but the hips and torso actually travel forward as you press from the balls of the feet and this engages almost exclusively the calves and VMO. Then when pressure is released you "delink" and settle back to the natural balance point over mid-foot.

The problems with this are as I've already described. It doesn't allow force to actually transfer into the ground via the natural line to the heels to create real stability and full lower body force equal and opposite in the reverse. Instead, it holds force in the relatively small muscles of the calves and VMO, from which not a great deal of force can be delivered even with your little humping action.

Additionally, it means you are swaying your weight forward and backward on the feet which interrupts the line of force and compromises balance if cut into. We avoid this for some of the same reasons we avoid swaying the axis side to side.

In WSLVT, we maintain a steady stance over the natural balance point at mid-foot and when force is sent and received it is allowed to transfer back through the heels, and this doesn't require us to adjust our central axis backward or forward from the balance point. It simply activates the lower body musculature, solidifying the stance with little to no perceptible movement until releasing the immense force the leg drive generates. This means we are always stable with no interruption in line of force and no swaying of bodyweight.

If you have to do a big movement humping your hips into the target and leaning forward, you're wasting effort and not even getting as a big a return as you could with full lower body force through the heel.

I'm just repeating things now, but you can try it out and feel the difference.

Plus we must always keep our minds in free fighting, not _chi-sau_ energy drills. It is the simple things that work most reliably. It's more practical to maintain a steady baseline than it is to make all kinds of adjustments in a high speed, high stress situation.


----------



## dudewingchun

LFJ said:


> Who teaches that? What lineages?
> 
> CSL is the only one I've seen tell you to literally press your hips forward, so much that your body comes forward over your forefoot. The spine is kept erect by pressing up and forward with the sternum, but the hips and torso actually travel forward as you press from the balls of the feet and this engages almost exclusively the calves and VMO. Then when pressure is released you "delink" and settle back to the natural balance point over mid-foot.
> 
> The problems with this are as I've already described. It doesn't allow force to actually transfer into the ground via the natural line to the heels to create real stability and full lower body force equal and opposite in the reverse. Instead, it holds force in the relatively small muscles of the calves and VMO, from which not a great deal of force can be delivered even with your little humping action.
> 
> Additionally, it means you are swaying your weight forward and backward on the feet which interrupts the line of force and compromises balance if cut into. We avoid this for some of the same reasons we avoid swaying the axis side to side.
> 
> In WSLVT, we maintain a steady stance over the natural balance point at mid-foot and when force is sent and received it is allowed to transfer back through the heels, and this doesn't require us to adjust our central axis backward or forward from the balance point. It simply activates the lower body musculature, solidifying the stance with little to no perceptible movement until releasing the immense force the leg drive generates. This means we are always stable with no interruption in line of force and no swaying of bodyweight.
> 
> If you have to do a big movement humping your hips into the target and leaning forward, you're wasting effort and not even getting as a big a return as you could with full lower body force through the heel.
> 
> I'm just repeating things now, but you can try it out and feel the difference.
> 
> Plus we must always keep our minds in free fighting, not _chi-sau_ energy drills. It is the simple things that work most reliably. It's more practical to maintain a steady baseline than it is to make all kinds of adjustments in a high speed, high stress situation.



You dont actually understand what we are doing in CSL properly.

Intersting about the WSL way


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> You dont actually understand what we are doing in CSL properly.
> 
> Intersting about the WSL way



Please take the opportunity to explain


----------



## KPM

dudewingchun said:


> You dont actually understand what we are doing in CSL properly.



So true!  Yet LFJ called me on commenting on his WSLVT when I haven't actually studied the system directly.  Oh , the irony!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I already went through this with KPM, who used lots of example from sports involving delivery of impulse force like tennis which, when photo checked, showed that heels touch ground at the moment of force transferrance.



Missed this comment earlier!   Just what photos are you talking about?  I don't remember you producing any photos.  I only remember you making statements like we should all believe you actually know what you are talking about.


----------



## LFJ

dudewingchun said:


> You dont actually understand what we are doing in CSL properly.



No? This video below is an old one. Has he changed his method again since then?

0:25 His torso leans past his toes.

0:28 "_To expel him I push my hips and I drive my balls of my feet into the ground and I have to push my pelvis forward._"

Doing this is shifting your bodyweight over your toes and as I said this engages almost exclusively the relatively small calves and VMO muscles. The force is mainly coming from pressing the bodyweight forward and using these small muscles.

0:49 His knees and torso are leaning way past his toes.

1:18 "_Now my feet look flat, but they're not. The heels are always slightly risen as you issue the force._"

This just proves what I said. The heels are rising slightly because he's leaning over the toes and pressing through the balls of the feet engaging what? The calves.

The line of force is actually diagonally back and down toward the heels, but he's holding the force in his calves, not allowing it to go into the ground. He has to because he's leaning forward so much. As a result, instead of letting the force follow its line into the ground and engaging the full lower body musculature, he has to counter the reaction force with the calves and VMO and excessively lean into it to expel. This has not near the power from ground force and leg drive through the heel into the ground, or the balance and stability, and has many tactical vulnerabilities.

This is also why it's so easy for him to unbalance people in _chi-sau_. He presses into them, they react like this and then he delinks or suddenly changes direction on them and they bounce away. That wouldn't happen if they weren't constantly swaying their central axis forward and back, changing bodyweight positions/ balance points over the feet.

They're given too many things to adjust and worry about. May be fine to play with in their type of _chi-sau_, and they might get better at it, but in a high speed, high stress situation that's going to cause problems.

And in fact, this is why we never see these unbalancing bridge skills in any of their fights. Because in the heat of a fight they subconsciously know it's more practical, reliable, and safe to maintain a steady stance without swaying the central axis in any direction and to focus on striking.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> So true!  Yet LFJ called me on commenting on his WSLVT when I haven't actually studied the system directly.  Oh , the irony!



LFJ provides detailed posts setting out his argument in a logical way. You usually provide emotional one liners and a smilie. It doesn't really compare. 

I really hope that dudewingchun will come back with some comments in order to clarify understanding of CSL


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Missed this comment earlier!   Just what photos are you talking about?  I don't remember you producing any photos.  I only remember you making statements like we should all believe you actually know what you are talking about.



It was the last time you tried to discuss biomechanics. It wasn't that memorable


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> It was the last time you tried to discuss biomechanics. It wasn't that memorable



What photos?  Kindly reproduce those photos if you think they so solidly disprove what I said.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> LFJ provides detailed posts setting out his argument in a logical way. You usually provide emotional one liners and a smilie. It doesn't really compare.
> 
> I really hope that dudewingchun will come back with some comments in order to clarify understanding of CSL



But you see that's the problem that everyone has discovered in the way you and LFJ post.  You aren't really interested in discovering  what people do.  What you are really interested in is finding the differences with what you do and figuring out a way to say it isn't as good or won't work.  Why should anyone try and engage either of you in an in-depth discussion when you have proven time  and again that it will go nowhere good?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> What photos?  Kindly reproduce those photos if you think they so solidly disprove what I said.



It was pictures of baseball players, tennis players, and so on. You said that they had heels raised when expressing power. I said heel is down at the moment of power expression. Pics showed heel down.

I don't know which thread it was.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> You aren't really interested in discovering what people do.



I am very interested in discovering what people do. It just isn't forthcoming. When people have entered into discussion they generally get angry and give up or get abusive when a problem is pointed out. I don't understand this response- if what you do has good reason then just expand the explanation to answer the criticism. This is helpful to both parties in terms of developing understanding, and also helps to define the differences between different approaches. Criticism is a place to start discussing, not a place to stop. It isn't personal.

I really hope that dudewingchun will reply here for example, because LFJ's criticism was good and covered a lot of apparent issues with the CSL approach. Anering these criticisms would help to develop understanding of the CSL approach and how it differs from VT.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You aren't really interested in discovering  what people do.  What you are really interested in is finding the differences with what you do and figuring out a way to say it isn't as good or won't work.



This very thread is proof that we are open to having our minds changed if people can point out deficiencies in the system we train and/or present a better method.

If analysis shows another method isn't as good or won't work, it's not because I "_figured out a way_" to say it's so. If you think my analysis is flawed, explain it to us.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> This very thread is proof that we are open to having our minds changed if people can point out deficiencies in the system we train and/or present a better method.
> 
> If analysis shows another method isn't as good or won't work, it's not because I "_figured out a way_" to say it's so. If you think my analysis is flawed, explain it to us.



This is maybe not the norm but what I have learned or been taught on the matter aligns well with what LFJ has written here.

Sadly my information on CSL is below average and can't disagree on topic so I guess my post is pointless.

KPM, please see if you can explain your thoughts as well in detail. Not for them but there are others who are curious as well. Oh and you can always try what has been said here as well,  could be that some of it is already similar to what you do occasionally?

And no I don't agree about turning on heels, not good at explaining but with active footwork against live opponent it makes me slow. I lose power in my inner thigh for explosiveness and speed in moving to another position and structure quickly during turn if need be,  when attempting on heels. Instead I find it better to ground my heel during turn if needed or when done with turn only.


----------



## LFJ

guy b. said:


> It was pictures of baseball players, tennis players, and so on. You said that they had heels raised when expressing power. I said heel is down at the moment of power expression. Pics showed heel down.
> 
> I don't know which thread it was.



Here's a post where KPM contradicts that statement after you said a tennis player goes down on the heels to complete the power chain to the ground.

KPM: "_They are only on their heels for a brief moment. When they are moving, pivoting, angling, going for the ball....they are much closer to the K1 point. And I never said that any of the approaches of Wing Chun I mentioned were exclusively on the K1 point. They will also put weight back on the heels at the proper moment of complete a power connection. Just like the Tennis player._"

...Just like the tennis player...

It's erroneous to compare how tennis players move when going for the ball and how a VT practitioner should issue force. Neither have bodyweight shifted back over the heels during movement, and at the moment of power expression, both have heels down.

That is not to say our bodyweight shifts back over the heels to issue force. Remaining over the natural balance point at mid-foot, with the heel down, force is directed through the heel and out in the opposite direction as we drive our entire bodyweight forward as a unit from the whole leg. A tennis player will lift their heel on the follow through of a swing. We aren't swinging.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> And no I don't agree about turning on heels, not good at explaining but with active footwork against live opponent it makes me slow. I lose power in my inner thigh for explosiveness and speed in moving to another position and structure quickly during turn if need be,  when attempting on heels. Instead I find it better to ground my heel during turn if needed or when done with turn only.



Does anyone ever really stand still and pivot on both feet during a fight, in whichever way they do it?

The heel pivot is a training tool to test certain attributes and skills, not an application. It's kind of funny to hear criticisms that assume we're fighting like _laap-sau_ drills and what "could happen" to us.

For me, when I'm in fights I'm constantly mobile, cutting in, driving forward. When doing this, feet are flat and make short, almost gliding steps so that I maintain balance, a non-bouncing COG, and an uninterrupted power chain to the ground for delivering force at any moment.

This is just training, but watch his feet. Only short shuffling steps.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> It was pictures of baseball players, tennis players, and so on. You said that they had heels raised when expressing power. I said heel is down at the moment of power expression. Pics showed heel down.
> 
> I don't know which thread it was.



Sorry.  I don't recall you ever producing any actual pictures.


----------



## KPM

_I am very interested in discovering what people do. It just isn't forthcoming._

---That's a load of BS, because you've proven that untrue in multiple discussions!

_When people have entered into discussion they generally get angry and give up or get abusive when a problem is pointed out._

---People typically get frustrated with you when you refuse to acknowledge their points, when you make sweeping generalizations that you think should apply to all of Wing Chun, when you tell people they must be doing something wrong because it doesn't match what you do, etc.  You really do lack personal insight here! 

_Criticism is a place to start discussing, not a place to stop. It isn't personal._

---You obviously haven't learned what it means to be tactful and respectful in polite conversation!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> This very thread is proof that we are open to having our minds changed if people can point out deficiencies in the system we train and/or present a better method.
> 
> If analysis shows another method isn't as good or won't work, it's not because I "_figured out a way_" to say it's so. If you think my analysis is flawed, explain it to us.



And that would be pointless when your mind is already made up and you would refuse to see the logic in what I am saying.  You've have already shown that in the past.  So really, why would I  waste my time with you?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Here's a post where KPM contradicts that statement after you said a tennis player goes down on the heels to complete the power chain to the ground.
> 
> KPM: "_They are only on their heels for a brief moment. When they are moving, pivoting, angling, going for the ball....they are much closer to the K1 point. And I never said that any of the approaches of Wing Chun I mentioned were exclusively on the K1 point. They will also put weight back on the heels at the proper moment of complete a power connection. Just like the Tennis player._"
> 
> ...Just like the tennis player...
> 
> .



That doesn't contradict anything.   They only put weight back on the heels at the proper MOMENT to complete a power connection....then the force transitions forward towards the K1 point.  It is a MOMENT.  They don't stay back on the heels for nearly as long as it takes a Wing Chun guy to do a pivot on the heels.   Again, this is why it is pointless to try and discuss anything like this with you.  You aren't interested in what I have to say.  You are only interested in arguing and trying to disprove what I have to say.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> when you tell people they must be doing something wrong because it doesn't match what you do



You keep saying this, but we've never made such an argument.

Obviously I have detailedly outlined issues I see with other methods and why I might consider them "wrong", and it has not once been "_because it doesn't match what I do_".



> And that would be pointless when your mind is already made up and you would refuse to see the logic in what I am saying. You've have already shown that in the past. So really, why would I waste my time with you?



This thread was created because our minds are open and we welcome criticism. If you are unable or unwilling to attempt to refute the points I've made here, I at least hope you are honest enough with yourself to consider them in your training, if you care. You don't have to tell anyone here.



> They don't stay back on the heels for nearly as long as it takes a Wing Chun guy to do a pivot on the heels.



You're comparing force delivery in application of sport to pivoting in VT training. You aren't even comparing skills in actual use. Your comparison is erroneous and entirely pointless.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Sorry.  I don't recall you ever producing any actual pictures.



Are you saying pictures would not have proved his point? Because you have been found to agree that they are heel down when expressing power. So, just what is your point about pictures?

A Google search will find you many. They are heel down to initiate transference of energy and then up on the follow through of the swing.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> This thread was created because our minds are open and we welcome criticism. If you are unable or unwilling to attempt to refute the points I've made here, I at least hope you are honest enough with yourself to consider them in your training, if you care. You don't have to tell anyone here.
> 
> .



Gee thanks!    And you still wonder why I am unwilling to waste my time and effort on you?


----------



## dudewingchun

Sorry you would have to ask Alan to reply because I cant really answer. It is a good breakdown I think. Im not sure about some of the things you have pointed out.

We do not shift past our toes though. You would fall forward.


----------



## geezer

dudewingchun said:


> Sorry you would have to ask Alan to reply because I cant really answer. It is a good breakdown I think. Im not sure about some of the things you have pointed out.
> 
> We do not shift past our toes though. You would fall forward.



_@Dude_: That clip of Alan that LFJ posted was nearly 10 years old. Do you notice any changes in Alan's stance, specifically regarding the pelvis, and any "appearance" of leaning forward between then and the way he moves now?


----------



## dudewingchun

geezer said:


> _@Dude_: That clip of Alan that LFJ posted was nearly 10 years old. Do you notice any changes in Alan's stance, specifically regarding the pelvis, and any "appearance" of leaning forward between then and the way he moves now?



It just is not as obvious as in those videos and more developed now.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Gee thanks!    And you still wonder why I am unwilling to waste my time and effort on you?



Yes I do wonder why


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> It just is not as obvious as in those videos and more developed now.



I don't think much use in asking Alan about it- he generally has refused to discuss in the past.

If Alan hasn't asked you not to then I personally would be very glad to hear your take on it. You must have some formulated ideas of how it works, otherwise how would you be able to dismiss LFJ's criticism? Discussing those ideas might be very helpful for both of us.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Yes I do wonder why



Then you haven't been paying attention.  Which is par for the course!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I don't think much use in asking Alan about it- he generally has refused to discuss in the past.
> .



Likely because he knows your posting habits.  You come off all innocent and nice when trying to get someone to divulge info.  But things quickly change when the discussion gets going.  We've seen that over and over now.  And if you don't, again that's just evidence that you seriously lack personal insight.


----------



## LFJ

For not wanting to waste your time and effort on us, you sure hang around this thread a lot. Probably waiting for more crumbs. If you don't have any refutation to make, I don't know why else you keep coming back.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> For not wanting to waste your time and effort on us, you sure hang around this thread a lot. Probably waiting for more crumbs. If you don't have any refutation to make, I don't know why else you keep coming back.



Agree, seems like a waste of time.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Does anyone ever really stand still and pivot on both feet during a fight, in whichever way they do it?
> 
> The heel pivot is a training tool to test certain attributes and skills, not an application. It's kind of funny to hear criticisms that assume we're fighting like _laap-sau_ drills and what "could happen" to us.



Well most people do things as they did when training them. It is not always easy to remove what has been trained from head to do it another way. I assume then if this is not how you do that turn, that you have other drills where you do the turn as expected?

Not in any way saying what you are doing is bad, it is just that abstract training is not that frequent for me. Interesting to hear more about though, well mildly interesting to be honest since you said heel pivot is just abstract training to better understand structure I assume.



LFJ said:


> For me, when I'm in fights I'm constantly mobile, cutting in, driving forward. When doing this, feet are flat and make short, almost gliding steps so that I maintain balance, a non-bouncing COG, and an uninterrupted power chain to the ground for delivering force at any moment.
> 
> This is just training, but watch his feet. Only short shuffling steps.



Unrelated but you mentioned bouncing (not that you do it but that you don't). Trained Karate at one point, they kept insisting on moving a certain way and then it came to fighting or kumite as they called it. It was a bounce festival. Everyone was going up and down, me to and I just never could get a grip on how to bounce while maintaining quick movability. Turns out I failed to understand that they were more interested in sport application and points.

Personally have respect for small gliding steps, it is all there in the curriculum. But I am not a purifist or how it is called, if it works, it works.[/QUOTE]


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> I assume then if this is not how you do that turn, that you have other drills where you do the turn as expected?



What turn? In fighting I don't do much standing still and pivoting on both feet.

I see people talk about how they should pivot this way or that, and then demo it against a guy who steps in and poses a single punch for them to do _bong_, _taan_, or _jam_. But against a faster, more dynamic attack, especially one that is more than a single punch... they actually step/move, because... duh!

I have reasons for pivoting on the heels and why not other ways in forms and drills, but it's not because I'm going to be standing there like that in a fight.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> What turn? In fighting I don't do much standing still and pivoting on both feet.
> 
> I see people talk about how they should pivot this way or that, and then demo it against a guy who steps in and poses a single punch for them to do _bong_, _taan_, or _jam_. But against a faster, more dynamic attack, especially one that is more than a single punch... they actually step/move, because... duh!
> 
> I have reasons for pivoting on the heels and why not other ways in forms and drills, but it's not because I'm going to be standing there like that in a fight.



Ok, maybe I was not clear at all. I can grant you that. 

I meant pivot on one foot, if you train to pivot on heels for abstract purposes only then how do you train to pivot during fight?

Doubt you pivot on both feet, but there might be some situation where it occurs in real life. Just have no example of it, was just interested in the pivot itself because there are times when you do pivot on your feet even if not both and not for the same reason or same stance.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Ok, maybe I was not clear at all. I can grant you that.
> 
> I meant pivot on one foot, if you train to pivot on heels for abstract purposes only then how do you train to pivot during fight?
> 
> Doubt you pivot on both feet, but there might be some situation where it occurs in real life. Just have no example of it, was just interested in the pivot itself because there are times when you do pivot on your feet even if not both and not for the same reason or same stance.



I think you have misunderstood LFJ's post.

He isn't saying that pivoting on the heels during drilling is completely abstract, just that it isn't an application

One example of pivoting is retreating footwork

For example here:

https://video-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v...=3ac306206cc11384d32ba5eeb42b4cc6&oe=573A16E0


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> He isn't saying that pivoting on the heels during drilling is completely abstract, just that it isn't an application



How are you guys defining the word "application" in terms of your Wing Chun?


----------



## guy b.

Done in reality exactly as in the drill


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Done in reality exactly as in the drill



What "drill" are you talking about?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> What "drill" are you talking about?



I was talking about drilling in general, because you asked for a generalised definition of application.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I was talking about drilling in general, because you asked for a generalised definition of application.



Do you punch the same way in fighting that you do in your general drills?  Do you step in with footwork in fighting the way you do in your Lop Da/Chi Sau drills?


----------



## dudewingchun

I would reply but tbh I dont know if you are right or wrong in your synopsis about CSL. Alan hasnt told me not to post on forums, I just decided to tone down the amount of forum posting I do. 

In my own experience though I prefer the CSL and get better results from it then from having my weight in my heels. But we have it on the balls of our feet as a neutral position, we constantly adjust our foot bow to the pressure we are taking.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> I would reply but tbh I dont know if you are right or wrong in your synopsis about CSL. Alan hasnt told me not to post on forums, I just decided to tone down the amount of forum posting I do.
> 
> In my own experience though I prefer the CSL and get better results from it then from having my weight in my heels. But we have it on the balls of our feet as a neutral position, we constantly adjust our foot bow to the pressure we are taking.



Ok, thanks for reply. We don't have our weight on our heels either


----------



## guy b.

Joy said:
			
		

> Besides Fong Sifu and Ho sigung I can't comment on the teaching approach of the others- just their results
> in chi sao. Wong had lots of fights but I was surprised by his lack of structure. CST was soft. Hawkins could be sneaky. Kan had lots of power.
> I gained more respect for Fong/Ho after doing chi sao with others.



A criticism of WSL, so adding to this thread


----------



## guy b.

One from KPM:



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> This little jewel of a comment was just made on another forum. It has nothing to do with the dynamic duo, but was simply summing up someone else's impression of WSL lineage people. I thought I would leave it here for your enjoyment.
> 
> _ IMO... (Oh God, I can already feel the responses coming)... WSL lineage guys have a certain mindset that comes directly from the way they train. It's a relatively simple approach to Wing Chun, with no complicated or sophisticated power generation methods, and is based around heavily training a fairly simple set of drills that maintain a line, cut angles, etc., and with a focus on disengaging (so placing very little emphasis, sometimes none at all, on sticking). It's simple, and it works well, especially when playing with people from 'other WCK' lineages. Why? Because a 'simple, trained well' method often beats 'detailed, but longer to master' methods. Because of this, many people from the WSL lineage seem to have a feeling of superiority. Simply put, WSL guys often do what they do better than other Wing Chun lineages doing what they do. To me, WSL guys often look a little stiff in their movements, and often use a fair amount of muscle, but... they make it work._


----------



## geezer

Not sure if that last quote of KPM's posted above by Guy is as much a statement of a "deficiency" as an observation about what WSL VT seems to e_mphasize _relative to some other branches. Saying, "...they make it work." is not really pointing out a _deficiency. 
_
Along the same line as what KPM seemed to be referring to in the quote above, I have noticed over the years that some of the WSL-PB-VT posters on this and "the other" forum have insisted that WSL-VT doesn't use certain specific techniques seen in other branches of VT/WC. The arguments sometimes go beyond functionality and in WSL-PB-VT there seems to be an even stronger than typical WC belief that _less is more. 
_
Not only have certain WSL-PB-VT practitioners posted that there is no _tan-da _in their system, I believe I also recall some folks (perhaps Kevin G?) discounting hooking punches and uppercuts as not proper VT. And de-emphasizing elbows too, perhaps? Regardless, the emphasis was always _less is more. _ IMO some of these attitudes can be taken too far. But _if it works, _I don't think I'd call it a _deficiency_. Perhaps just a _narrower focus?_


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ The word I have used in the past is "one dimensional."  I still think that is accurate.  I also think that a system that is that "simplified" and "specialized" has no need for all of the typical content of the Wing Chun curriculum.  They have made training with the dummy or the pole over-kill, since all they get out of them are "abstract" ideas.  It doesn't take an entire dummy form to teach you how to punch properly!  They will say I am wrong because I haven't studied their system and don't know how they view their dummy form.  Maybe that's true.  But if it takes the entire typical Wing Chun curriculum to learn to do what is summarized above, then they haven't simplified things as much as they think!


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> The arguments sometimes go beyond functionality and in WSL-PB-VT there seems to be an even stronger than typical WC belief that _less is more._



It's just adhering to the VT principles of simplicity, directness, and efficiency.



KPM said:


> ^^^^^ The word I have used in the past is "one dimensional."  I still think that is accurate.  I also think that a system that is that "simplified" and "specialized" has no need for all of the typical content of the Wing Chun curriculum...
> 
> ...But if it takes the entire typical Wing Chun curriculum to learn to do what is summarized above, then they haven't simplified things as much as they think!



You can't accurately describe what you have 0 clue about.

The system hasn't been simplified or specialized. It is what it is. Every element of the system has a clear place and purpose in the process of developing fighting skill. It's the actual fighting that is simple compared to the training system. Train hard, fight easy.


----------



## dudewingchun

LFJ said:


> It's just adhering to the VT principles of simplicity, directness, and efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't accurately describe what you have 0 clue about.
> 
> The system hasn't been simplified or specialized. It is what it is. Every element of the system has a clear place and purpose in the process of developing fighting skill. It's the actual fighting that is simple compared to the training system. Train hard, fight easy.



What you guys reckon about Barry Lee WSLVT?


----------



## LFJ

I have never met him nor seen his VT.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> What you guys reckon about Barry Lee WSLVT?



There's a guy on the internet with some clips which I am not a fan of, but no idea if representative. Have never experienced anything from Barry Lee.


----------



## LFJ

Joy said:
			
		

> Besides Fong Sifu and Ho sigung I can't comment on the teaching approach of the others- just their results
> in chi sao. Wong had lots of fights but I was surprised by his lack of structure. CST was soft. Hawkins could be sneaky. Kan had lots of power.
> I gained more respect for Fong/Ho after doing chi sao with others.



I would have to give WSL and CST both the benefit of the doubt here.

By all accounts, they were very humble people while HC and VK could be quite arrogant.

All students of CST said he was immovable. He delved so deeply into structural force development, and yet he was soft? I reckon he was like WSL, who was always careful not to embarrass other sifus when invited overseas for seminars and so toned things down quite a bit.

PB looked at this video below and estimated WSL was giving probably no more than 5%, and that's with a follower of his, adjusted to his skill level at the time. "Touching hands" with some random guy at an overseas seminar who has an entirely different concept of VT, he was probably giving 1%, if that, being nice and having fun.

And Joy walks away feeling good about himself and his teachers!


----------



## Juany118

Marnetmar said:


> I'm certainly no master and I've never actually trained in WSLVT so I'm not really qualified to say anything, but the more I think about the idea of pivoting on the heels and initiating motion at the hips, the less it makes practical sense to me, even taking the idea of not giving up the centerline into account. KPM talks a little bit about it in this video and basically sums up the problems I have with it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to dismiss that aspect of WSLVT entirely -- when seeing different ways of practicing things, unless what's on display is completely absurd, I think there's a 95% probability that the people practicing differently simply know something that I don't.
> 
> Plus, pivoting on the heels is literally the *only *aspect of WSLVT, from what amount of it that I've seen, that I actually have a problem with.



That video actually makes no sense to me, in so far as the pelvis issue because I do what he says should make me slouch, and it simply doesn't.  You are tilting your pelvis forward to straighten the spine, not pelvic thrusting like you are doing the....


----------



## guy b.

Joy said:
			
		

> Besides Fong Sifu and Ho sigung I can't comment on the teaching approach of the others- just their results
> in chi sao. Wong had lots of fights but I was surprised by his lack of structure. CST was soft. Hawkins could be sneaky. Kan had lots of power.
> I gained more respect for Fong/Ho after doing chi sao with others



If Victor Kan compared favourably to some of these others in Joy's experience then I would have to agree with LFJ; a bit of helpful and kindly face saving going on


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> If Victor Kan compared favourably to some of these others in Joy's experience then I would have to agree with LFJ; a bit of helpful and kindly face saving going on



I met a couple Victor Kan guys once. They do use a lot of force and power in their rolling. Don't know about the rest of their wing chun. So wasn't surprised when Joy said that.


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I met a couple Victor Kan guys once. They do use a lot of force and power in their rolling. Don't know about the rest of their wing chun. So wasn't surprised when Joy said that.



Using a lot of power as in forcing things and having a lot of power as in potential to impart force are different things.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> Using a lot of power as in forcing things and having a lot of power as in potential to impart force are different things.



The more you work with force the more efficient and better you get at using it.


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> The more you work with force the more efficient and better you get at using it.



Which end of the spectrum were the VK guys you met?

Being well practised in the wrong way can make a person good at imparting force in an inefficient or non-optimal way. The important thing is to practice in the right way and to get good at imparting useful force at the right time and for the right reason.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Can't really say. Kind of force things a little. Sort of do things like try yank you bong down at the top of the roll. Solid structure in rolling etc. Dont know what their approach is in fighting or application scenarios.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Kind of force things a little.



I hear "hard" and "karatefied" from former longterm members of that lineage.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I hear "hard" and "karatefied" from former longterm members of that lineage.



Wait, are you and WC Aukland agreeing? In that case there must be something to what you are saying. In my own lineage, certain individuals with modestly above average skill but significantly above average power have gone the same route. I call it going to the _Hard Side_. It seems that  skill plus superior power creates a fast path for fighting ...until you meet someone with superior skill. Is this what happened with Victor Kan? 

Here's an example. This guy apparently came out of LT's WT system  and imitates Leung Ting's appearance in the mid 80's from the yellow-striped black uniform to the lock of hair that falls across his eyes. But LT was always very soft and elastic in his movements. This guy, on the other hand, has totally gone over to the "Hard Side":






Personally, I'm _not_ a fan.


----------



## Danny T

geezer said:


> Wait, are you and WC Aukland agreeing? In that case there must be something to what you are saying. In my own lineage, certain individuals with modestly above average skill but significantly above average power have gone the same route. I call it going to the _Hard Side_. It seems that  skill plus superior power creates a fast path for fighting ...until you meet someone with superior skill. Is this what happened with Victor Kan?
> 
> Here's an example. This guy apparently came out of LT's WT system  and imitates Leung Ting's appearance in the mid 80's from the yellow-striped black uniform to the lock of hair that falls across his eyes. But LT was always very soft and elastic in his movements. This guy, on the other hand, has totally gone over to the "Hard Side":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I'm _not_ a fan.


This is a different wc than I've experienced. Totally Hard with a lot of wide open telegraphed movements.
Not a fan if this is representative of everything he does.


----------



## WTchap

I guess a 'deficiency', one could argue, is the lack of soft/internal work? But in my opinion, that is true of most WCK coming from the Yip Man line. On another forum, Sergio Iadarola wrote about a seminar he'd given and some guys from the WSL lineage were present (mostly from PB). One of those guys, Niels Pivato, wrote the following:

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

If the way is free go forward
If there is contact keep sticking!
If your opponent is stronger, yield
If the opponent retreats, follow!

Like this many teachers explain the Wing Chun system, add the 4 fighting principles and that's the internal martial art. Wing Chun requieres to unleash the force in a soft way.

After 30 years of experience in the martial arts (Judo in the first Bundesliga Thaiboxing, WT/VT/WC) I know what it means to use or not to use force in a self-defense situation, in sparring or in a tournament 
I started my journey in the biggest Wing Tsun association in Europe. After that my way lead me to some of the best represantatives of this martial art. Special thanks go to Martin Dragos and Philipp Bayer.
But I couldn´t find the real "internal" Wing Tsun. Everybody worked with muscular force. It didn´t matter how fast or dynamic the styles where, force was always a crucial criteria for the functionality.

Sifu Sergio Iadarola caught my attention through videos in the internet talking about the real internal Wing Chun it made me curious so I contacted Sifu Sergio to see if it was real. We fixed a date and I flew to Hong Kong.

What I experiecend there convinced me totally! His Wing Chun works without effort and without any force exertion. You can see clearly that his years of research paid off. Sifu Sergio makes it possible to transform old knowledge about this internal martial art into a functioning Wing Chun.

I'm happy and proud to be able to learn from him as a private student. 

Sifu Niels Pivato

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


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> I guess a 'deficiency', one could argue, is the lack of soft/internal work? But in my opinion, that is true of most WCK coming from the Yip Man line. On another forum, Sergio Iadarola wrote about a seminar he'd given and some guys from the WSL lineage were present (mostly from PB). One of those guys, Niels Pivato, wrote the following:
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> If the way is free go forward
> If there is contact keep sticking!
> If your opponent is stronger, yield
> If the opponent retreats, follow!
> 
> Like this many teachers explain the Wing Chun system, add the 4 fighting principles and that's the internal martial art. Wing Chun requieres to unleash the force in a soft way.
> 
> After 30 years of experience in the martial arts (Judo in the first Bundesliga Thaiboxing, WT/VT/WC) I know what it means to use or not to use force in a self-defense situation, in sparring or in a tournament
> I started my journey in the biggest Wing Tsun association in Europe. After that my way lead me to some of the best represantatives of this martial art. Special thanks go to Martin Dragos and Philipp Bayer.
> But I couldn´t find the real "internal" Wing Tsun. Everybody worked with muscular force. It didn´t matter how fast or dynamic the styles where, force was always a crucial criteria for the functionality.
> 
> Sifu Sergio Iadarola caught my attention through videos in the internet talking about the real internal Wing Chun it made me curious so I contacted Sifu Sergio to see if it was real. We fixed a date and I flew to Hong Kong.
> 
> What I experiecend there convinced me totally! His Wing Chun works without effort and without any force exertion. You can see clearly that his years of research paid off. Sifu Sergio makes it possible to transform old knowledge about this internal martial art into a functioning Wing Chun.
> 
> I'm happy and proud to be able to learn from him as a private student.
> 
> Sifu Niels Pivato
> 
> ---------------------




I think saying anything about a specific Ip Man derived line is to much of a generalization though.  As an example I train Ip Man line via GM William Cheung.  It is very much about being "loose", having a flow.  My Sifu as I started was constantly on my case about trying to meet force with force. We actually train under three precepts, one of which is "never meet force with force." He will even use as Tai Chi Chuan an analogy (though clearly a very loose analogy) as to how we should move vs say boxing.  So it is taught, in a way, as a hybrid between internal and external arts.


----------



## WTchap

Well, it's my opinion as someone now studying Xingyi and working through specific internal training methods.  Being loose and having flow is a requirement, but there's so much more to internal work. So IMO, most lines from YM don't have it - unless they've added it in from elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that, by the way. If it works, it works.  

But the point of my post was more that someone who trained in the WSL method (in this case, via Phillip Bayer) met with someone outside of that group, and he was left wanting (enough so that he would become a private student of the person he visited). 

So for him, there are 'deficiencies' in the WSL method. 

Which, again, is no problem, really. There's no perfect method in any MA.


----------



## Vajramusti

WTchap said:


> Well, it's my opinion as someone now studying Xingyi and working through specific internal training methods.  Being loose and having flow is a requirement, but there's so much more to internal work. So IMO, most lines from YM don't have it - unless they've added it in from elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that, by the way. If it works, it works.
> 
> But the point of my post was more that someone who trained in the WSL method (in this case, via Phillip Bayer) met with someone outside of that group, and he was left wanting (enough so that he would become a private student of the person he visited).
> 
> So for him, there are 'deficiencies' in the WSL method.
> 
> Which, again, is no problem, really. There's no perfect method in any MA.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal and external are both important in good wing chun. True that imho much wing chun that I have seen
has much internal work that is missing, resulting in dependence on set techniques.


----------



## geezer

WTchap said:


> But the point of my post was more that someone who trained in the WSL method (in this case, via Phillip Bayer) met with someone outside of that group, and he was left wanting (enough so that he would become a private student of the person he visited).
> 
> So for him, there are 'deficiencies' in the WSL method.
> 
> Which, again, is no problem, really. There's no perfect method in any MA.



Impossible! I've read what Guy B. and LFJ have said and this can't be! Hundreds, maybe thousands of people have left  the other flawed branches of WC/VT to see the light and train WSL-PB-VT. Nobody ever leaves....   _alive.  Bwa-haa-ha-ha-ha-haaa _


----------



## WTchap

geezer said:


> Impossible! I've read what Guy B. and LFJ have said and this can't be! Hundreds, maybe thousands of people have left the other flawed branches of WC/VT to see the light and train WSL-PB-VT. Nobody ever leaves....   _alive.  Bwa-haa-ha-ha-ha-haaa _



Don't believe the hype from PB students.   But seriously, it always looked to me like PB is very good at what he does. In most cases, someone doing a hard system of WCK well, will beat someone doing a softer system of WCK not so well.  I guess this PB student met, in Sergio, someone who could negate that hard system.

Most people won't get to meet someone with very good internal skills, so for those people they're happy with what they have (be it hard VT from PB, or whatever other lineage). It works for them, and that's good enough. Of course, it works until it... doesn't. 

But most people get by with what they have, so it's all good.


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> Well, it's my opinion as someone now studying Xingyi and working through specific internal training methods.  Being loose and having flow is a requirement, but there's so much more to internal work. So IMO, most lines from YM don't have it - unless they've added it in from elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that, by the way. If it works, it works.
> 
> But the point of my post was more that someone who trained in the WSL method (in this case, via Phillip Bayer) met with someone outside of that group, and he was left wanting (enough so that he would become a private student of the person he visited).
> 
> So for him, there are 'deficiencies' in the WSL method.
> 
> Which, again, is no problem, really. There's no perfect method in any MA.



But the thing is, what is internal?  To me internal arts are about having good structure, not using raw muscle strength.  It's not magic, it is about using physics.  It starts with good structure and then being able to focus, from that foundation the energy of your entire body to the point of defense or offense, via those concepts of flow, being loose and flexible.  You are never meeting force with force, because that becomes a muscle game but using the above principles to deflect, redirect and attack. That is GM William Cheung's WC, and he comes from the Yip Man lineage. 

When I said my Sifu uses Tai Chi Chuan as a "loose" analogy is because Tai Chi movements are different in many ways, but many of the over arching principles are the same.  I think the only real difference is that, in WC (at least what I study) the language used leans more towards sounding Scientific vs metaphysical.  You may disagree with how I see it but when I studied Aikido I listened to my Sensei and said "he is talking about Chi and inner strength but really he is simply teaching me to use the laws of physics.  It's not mystical, it's science."

Now that is not to say the WC I study does not also use some clearly external principles as well, it is indeed a hybrid BUT I have a friend who lives in Australia now and he studies "Internal Wing Chun" but when he comes back home to visit his parents and we talk, the Principles really seem to be the same, they are simply taught in a different way.  Example, in terms of using a Tan Sao I am thinking about the degree of the angle (science) and visualize my arm movement as spreading peanut butter (no exaggeration that's the way it works in my head) all from the foundation of my structure, the idea that my arm is not stopping a blow.  The angle and movement of the arm is deflecting the blow and what energy is not diverted by these things gets channeled via my structure into the ground rather than stopping at my shoulder or hips.  He applies it in the exact same way, he only describes it differently. /Shrug.


----------



## WTchap

Juany118, well, it's okay to disagree. I've met lots of WCK people who have felt the way you do - and maybe you're all correct, and I'm wrong. 

All I know is that the training is very different, IMO - the method, I mean. And, for me too, there's nothing mystical in it. You're just training your body in a different way, and that allows it to function in a particular way. 

In my experience, most WCK for example, doesn't have a focus on 'using' the middle and lower dantien, and corresponding use of mingmen (so, to remove the Chinese and to think about it more practically - most WCK is not linking various lines to the deep muscles of the abdomen and the lumbar fascia); does not look to create the same connections in the body; not opening and closing, pairing, spiralling, etc., in quite the same way; not training facia throughout the body in the same way, etc., etc. 

Plus, I found that some use of the body in WCK prevents certain things from happening or working well, from an internal arts perspective. 

It seems to me that there's a trend developing in WCK today, a movement!  People are adjusting their traditional WCK frame, modifying certain aspects of the training, injecting tech from other arts, and coming up with something new (though sometimes they repackage it as something old, and now rediscovered).

But like I said in an earlier post - if it works, it works. So it's all good from a practical point of view.


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> Juany118, well, it's okay to disagree. I've met lots of WCK people who have felt the way you do - and maybe you're all correct, and I'm wrong.
> 
> All I know is that the training is very different, IMO - the method, I mean. And, for me too, there's nothing mystical in it. You're just training your body in a different way, and that allows it to function in a particular way.
> 
> In my experience, most WCK for example, doesn't have a focus on 'using' the middle and lower dantien, and corresponding use of mingmen (so, to remove the Chinese and to think about it more practically - most WCK is not linking various lines to the deep muscles of the abdomen and the lumbar fascia); does not look to create the same connections in the body; not opening and closing, pairing, spiralling, etc., in quite the same way; not training facia throughout the body in the same way, etc., etc.
> 
> Plus, I found that some use of the body in WCK prevents certain things from happening or working well, from an internal arts perspective.
> 
> It seems to me that there's a trend developing in WCK today, a movement!  People are adjusting their traditional WCK frame, modifying certain aspects of the training, injecting tech from other arts, and coming up with something new (though sometimes they repackage it as something old, and now rediscovered).
> 
> But like I said in an earlier post - if it works, it works. So it's all good from a practical point of view.



Oh I would agree, there is no spiraling etc.  The art is, for the most part, linear.  That is why I said it was hybrid.  Example, I see the defensive principle of deflecting and channeling the attackers remaining energy through my body into the ground vs meeting force with force in a block, to be using internal principles. 

Here is a question this is how I picture doing a basic punch (in my perfect dream). I am punching directly, but I am not using my arm from the shoulder (read muscle alone).  I am again using my structure so that the punch basically starts at my feet, my elbow is essentially my focal point (for lack of a better term) moving the hand forward, my entire body focused through there, attacking from my center as I step in.  While in appearance it looks purely external, when you follow it to the foundation of the strike, isn't the underlying principle similar to what some internal arts achieve via a more circular action by snapping/spiraling from the waist?  Essentially two different ways, one spiralling one more direct but both using the same principle as the foundation?


----------



## WTchap

I think that the problem/difficulty comes if we look at things only as a chain or sequence. For sure, in internal arts there are chains of movements and motions, but this is true of all martial arts.

For example, you said, “channeling the attackers remaining energy through my body into the ground” and this sounds like an internal principle (and confusingly, in a way it is ), but I would argue that a good Judoka does this too, as does a wrestler.

Or in your example of a punch, you said, “I am again using my structure so that the punch basically starts at my feet,” and this sounds right too as an internal idea, in a way, as most people/laymen assume a punch is just a closed fisted strike using the arm. But most Western boxers would tell you they also do what you’re describing, as would someone showing you a punch from, say, Shotokan Karate. You could also argue that a basketball player shoots a ball in the same way (go Golden State Warriors!). 

IMO, it’s better to think about the ‘how and why' behind the movements. To give a simple example, most MAs have pushing and pulling motions, and when we do this, we always have a connection to the ground. In the internal work I do, if we just look at this in relation to the waist, without thinking about the other many connections, how we train intent, use of fasia, etc., if I use a pushing motion, the mingmen point opens, the dantien point closes and the centre rotates over and forwards. If I use a pulling motion, the dantien point opens, mingmen point closes, and so on and so forth. So while I’m connected to the floor, my movement really starts in the waist. Of course, the waist is only one part of the body used…

So 'why' do this? Well, in Xingyi, for example, the use of dantien and mingmen, can create powerful forward (and downward) movements if you have the development, control and mobility of this area of the body.

But ‘how’ do we train the waist (as an example)? We have a variety of practices, LOL, but they are working on ‘pairing’, as my teacher calls it. Classically, it is like Yin Yang theory, or in an art like Aikido, it’s what Ueshiba referred to as ‘Heaven and Earth’ and the ‘floating bridge.’ Separation of the body into two complimentary sides, oppositely paired in their function. This Yin Yang pairing will apply to many things with the body. There’s this awesome quote from Ueshiba. “The working of the attraction point, between yin and yang, is the birthplace of all techniques.” The same idea’s found in Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua, etc.

What I’m saying, in a really long, drawn out and boring way, is that there’s a variety of things you train in internal arts (exercises, partner work, ways of testing, various mind training, etc.), but the goal is to make changes “in” the body. Then, whatever you’re doing, is internal because everything your doing is making use of the body developments (pairings, alignments, use of connective tissues, open and closing methods, etc.), it’s there in your punch, your push, your slap, when you stand, when you step, and so on.

But, it takes time to make these changes. So the arts, IMO, function well on a basic/practical level (Xingyi with only its gross movements, strategies, etc., is a practical art) but the art “within” the art, takes time to develop in the body.

But enough of this internal malarky, we're supposed to discussing the deficiencies in the WSLVT method.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Juany118 said:


> I think saying anything about a specific Ip Man derived line is to much of a generalization though.  As an example I train Ip Man line via GM William Cheung.  It is very much about being "loose", having a flow.  My Sifu as I started was constantly on my case about trying to meet force with force. We actually train under three precepts, one of which is "never meet force with force." He will even use as Tai Chi Chuan an analogy (though clearly a very loose analogy) as to how we should move vs say boxing.  So it is taught, in a way, as a hybrid between internal and external arts.



No offence to William Cheung's style of wing chun, but I wouldn't call it internal in the least. Just not meeting force with force doesn't mean it's internal. Nor just being loose and flowing. 

To me internal martial arts is about being able to receive and issue unusual high force effortlessly.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

WTchap said:


> In my experience, most WCK for example, doesn't have a focus on 'using' the middle and lower dantien, and corresponding use of mingmen (so, to remove the Chinese and to think about it more practically - most WCK is not linking various lines to the deep muscles of the abdomen and the lumbar fascia); does not look to create the same connections in the body; not opening and closing, pairing, spiralling, etc., in quite the same way; not training facia throughout the body in the same way, etc., etc.



In CST we require these things. A very deep level of relaxation is required and as well as a very precise allignment. We focus heavily on circles and understanding exactly how limbs move. 

There is another Yip Man student called Derek Fung. He was a second generation student. He is based in Sydney. He is very powerful and has similar understandings and approach to CST. I.e. understanding join rotation, circles, force vectors etc. I talked to a student of his recently and he said that Derek Fung learned this stuff from YM. 

Then we have the likes of Hawkings Cheung who said that in chi sao,  YM could gently control your balance and take you in any direction he wanted. Hawkings recalls a time when he was thrown out a door. 

CST was fascinated in YM's power before he started learning wing chun when he saw YM throw a much bigger and stronger Leung Sheng across the room. 

To me there is plenty of evidence that Yip Man had high level internal skills. I believe many of his students only got the outer shell of wing chun.


----------



## Juany118

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> No offence to William Cheung's style of wing chun, but I wouldn't call it internal in the least. Just not meeting force with force doesn't mean it's internal. Nor just being loose and flowing.
> 
> To me internal martial arts is about being able to receive and issue unusual high force effortlessly.



I don't, it's why I explained the specific theory of the use of structure, precise angles and force vectors in defense, which is very much internal in practice based on my Aikido experience.  Some of the attacks also follow the same principle.  Do all of the defenses and attacks use these principles?  Nope, but many do.

If you thought I was saying Grand Master Cheung's WC is a "pure" internal version of WC, I apologize, because it isn't. That is why I describe it as a hybrid, by which I mean having some techniques that use internal principles, others using external principles.


----------



## WTchap

I don’t know enough about the CST method to really pass judgment on it. From what I’ve seen, it always looks like really solid use of alignment and leverage, for sure.  But the test for anything internal, IMO, is in ‘feeling’ it. As soon as you make contact with someone good, you know. Unfortunately, I’ve never met anyone really good from this line (never met an instructor, for example).

I know it was said that CST had training in other arts, but there was some dispute over when, and how much, etc. It could be relevant, I suppose. I don’t think I’ve heard of Derek Fung before, I’ll have to look him up.

I’m certainly not saying that you’re wrong – but Wing Chun from Yip Man (whether it be WC/VT/WT) does have a serious problem… everyone says that what they do, is what they were taught from Yip Man.  

I think there’s a ton of evidence (anecdotal in the sense that it’s stories told, and sadly very little footage) that Yip Man had great skills. I wouldn’t say, personally, there’s any evidence that he had “high level internal skills.” Certainly, I’m not aware of anything he said (interviews), or wrote that referenced it, and with the exception of CST, until you mentioned Derek Fung, I’ve not heard anyone else who learned from YM use the usual ‘language’ you normally hear in connection to internal work. 

But who knows; WCK from Yip Man is an art dogged by hearsay and rumors, and conflicts and debates, and lineage wars and ‘sifu sez’ cultism.   Everyone thinks they got something special from the man. Maybe some did. Certainly, today everyone studying the art thinks that their lineage did. 

I think WC/WT/VT is a great system, in most of its variants, but I see it as a great external system. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. Some of the best fighters I ever met were Thai boxers in Thailand, and there was nothing 'internal' about what they did. Deadly guys.


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> I don’t know enough about the CST method to really pass judgment on it. From what I’ve seen, it always looks like really solid use of alignment and leverage, for sure.  But the test for anything internal, IMO, is in ‘feeling’ it. As soon as you make contact with someone good, you know. Unfortunately, I’ve never met anyone really good from this line (never met an instructor, for example).
> 
> I know it was said that CST had training in other arts, but there was some dispute over when, and how much, etc. It could be relevant, I suppose. I don’t think I’ve heard of Derek Fung before, I’ll have to look him up.
> 
> I’m certainly not saying that you’re wrong – but Wing Chun from Yip Man (whether it be WC/VT/WT) does have a serious problem… everyone says that what they do, is what they were taught from Yip Man.
> 
> I think there’s a ton of evidence (anecdotal in the sense that it’s stories told, and sadly very little footage) that Yip Man had great skills. I wouldn’t say, personally, there’s any evidence that he had “high level internal skills.” Certainly, I’m not aware of anything he said (interviews), or wrote that referenced it, and with the exception of CST, until you mentioned Derek Fung, I’ve not heard anyone else who learned from YM use the usual ‘language’ you normally hear in connection to internal work.
> 
> But who knows; WCK from Yip Man is an art dogged by hearsay and rumors, and conflicts and debates, and lineage wars and ‘sifu sez’ cultism.   Everyone thinks they got something special from the man. Maybe some did. Certainly, today everyone studying the art thinks that their lineage did.
> 
> I think WC/WT/VT is a great system, in most of its variants, but I see it as a great external system. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. Some of the best fighters I ever met were Thai boxers in Thailand, and there was nothing 'internal' about what they did. Deadly guys.



I think you are right and tbh I have always thought the idea of "Yip Man Lineage" was a bit of a mistake.  From what I have read those students who learned extensively from YM himself were taught very much in the idea of WC as a concept as he would teach to each individual's strengths and weaknesses.  I say extensively because by the late 50's early 60's the senior students did the bulk of the teaching from what I can tell via interviews etc.  

This is what has led, imo, to the debate over who is teaching "real" Yip Man WC.  Imo none of them are, they are teaching the WC that started with what YM tailored to them which has then been modified by decades of experience there after.  Of course many of the principles are going to be the same, but not enough, imo, for anyone to say "this is the true Yip Man WC." That is simply marketing speak.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

WTchap said:


> I know it was said that CST had training in other arts, but there was some dispute over when, and how much, etc. It could be relevant, I suppose. I don’t think I’ve heard of Derek Fung before, I’ll have to look him up.



Yes, this is something that I often hear from people outside our line. CST learned Tai Chi for a couple of years as a youngster. His dad made him learn because he was rather sickly. All his bios show he was largely uninterested in it and didn't stick at it. Tai Chi would have no bearing on his wing chun. CST was highly taken by YM's skills (particularly his power) and was passionate about wing chun at its scientific principles. 

Yes, I hadn't heard of Derek Fung either until a couple of years ago when a guy joined our class from his line. The quite famous (on youtune anyway....) Nord Wing Chun is a student of his. 

Having a general interest in internal martial arts, I have seen some of the mechanics behind them. There is nothing quite like CST's approach. It's not anything like Tai Chi. It's pure wing chun.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Juany118 said:


> This is what has led, imo, to the debate over who is teaching "real" Yip Man WC. Imo none of them are, they are teaching the WC that started with what YM tailored to them which has then been modified by decades of experience there after. Of course many of the principles are going to be the same, but not enough, imo, for anyone to say "this is the true Yip Man WC." That is simply marketing speak.



Yeah, that is very much the impression I also have. Every account I have heard seems to point to this. I remember in an article someone talked about how two of his high level students were debating the use of a movement, and he would say they were both right. Also heard several YM students suggest that he liked people to work things out for themselves. But at the same time he spent more time with people who were dedicated. That makes sense to me. 

All these weird assertions that people make about YM which make him look like an A-hole. Would you really teach one person a secret superior version of wing chun and not teach others who have spent longer with you? Would you teach someone more because they happened to be more talented over someone who is more dedicated and practices more? Would you teach someone more just because they fought more? No. 

As a teacher you give your time and attention to the people who show the most dedication. Nothing secret or mysterious in that.


----------



## Juany118

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Would you teach someone more just because they fought more? No.



I agree with everything you say except this bit.  My ex, and luckily still best friend (my wife is cool with this how awesome is THAT!!!!) was born in Hong Kong.  Her Grandfather was CRAZY into Martial Arts.  Apparently in his younger days he studied Kung Fu (forget which flavor) in Hong Kong and till his death in the US practiced Yang Style Tai Chi every day.  He told me that while the principle of many Martial Arts is to avoid fighting whenever possible that, sadly, in Hong Kong, during the 40's and 50's (YM's hey day) that wasn't possible. 

The schools of Hong Kong lived or died on attracting new students.  New students at the time came to the schools with the greatest reputations for winning street fights.  The way he described it tbh I had a hard time not looking at the Martial Arts schools as sanctioned street gangs.  In that kind of Darwinistic environment it would actually benefit the Sifu to teach someone more because they fought, and won, because that student was the advertising for your school.  Mr. Fung said that it really wasn't until the early to mid 60's when the cops really started clamping down on the issue because until then they were so busy dealing with the chaos that was being born by people fleeing the Chinese Civil war and then when the Communists won the people that could trying to get the heck out of Dodge.  Between her Grand Father and Father (he served in the British Navy with the Hong Kong Fleet in the late 60's and early 70's) the stories I heard about life there from WWII up to the mid 1970's were damn fascinating.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Juany118 said:


> I agree with everything you say except this bit. My ex, and luckily still best friend (my wife is cool with this how awesome is THAT!!!!) was born in Hong Kong.



LOL! She's a keeper mate!

Yeah I could see how that might be possible. Depends to what extent though. Say, some random new guy who comes along and fights a lot and doesn't come to class often probably won't be that valued. 

Also there is an article written by WSL about Bruce Lee and how he picked a fight with a kung fu school whose teacher was freinds with WSL. WSL was highly embarrassed by Bruce's behaviour and had to apologize on Bruce's behalf.


----------



## Juany118

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> LOL! She's a keeper mate!
> 
> Yeah I could see how that might be possible. Depends to what extent though. Say, some random new guy who comes along and fights a lot and doesn't come to class often probably won't be that valued.
> 
> Also there is an article written by WSL about Bruce Lee and how he picked a fight with a kung fu school whose teacher was freinds with WSL. WSL was highly embarrassed by Bruce's behaviour and had to apologize on Bruce's behalf.



Oh I know and she never stops reminding me  lol

Oh there are definitely qualifiers, no doubt about that.  Do you show dedication to the school?  Do you show respect for your Master and your school while doing so? I was just trying to add contemporary context.  Today, especially in the West, students getting into fights outside the school would be frowned on.  HK in the tumultuous 40's and 50's though was in many ways a very different place.  Ancient Chinese traditional meeting 20th century chaos made for "interesting" times.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Impossible! I've read what Guy B. and LFJ have said and this can't be! Hundreds, maybe thousands of people have left  the other flawed branches of WC/VT to see the light and train WSL-PB-VT. Nobody ever leaves....   _alive.  Bwa-haa-ha-ha-ha-haaa _



lol... So, I need a copout then...

Let's see. This guy was actually a WTer until a few years ago with less than 10 years total experience. Not sure how much he knows about VT.

But alright. I'll give you him, because for every inexperienced guy who jumps ship, how many with 15-20+ years of experience and teaching in a former lineage have come in the other direction?

So many they need not be paraded in Facebook posts to bolster reputation. The sheer number speaks for itself.



WTchap said:


> Don't believe the hype from PB students.   But seriously, it always looked to me like PB is very good at what he does. In most cases, someone doing a hard system of WCK well, will beat someone doing a softer system of WCK not so well.  I guess this PB student met, in Sergio, someone who could negate that hard system.
> 
> Most people won't get to meet someone with very good internal skills, so for those people they're happy with what they have (be it hard VT from PB, or whatever other lineage). It works for them, and that's good enough. Of course, it works until it... doesn't.
> 
> But most people get by with what they have, so it's all good.



If this guy thought VT was a "hard system" then he clearly didn't get very far. I would definitely not say WSLVT is a "hard" system. It is very aggressive in attack, but doesn't rely on muscular force, rather biomechanical leverages. Both YM and WSL were pretty small in stature but could handle giants with ease.



Wing Chun Auckland said:


> To me internal martial arts is about being able to receive and issue unusual high force effortlessly.



Under this definition, you could say WSLVT is "internal". We just don't deal with already debunked _Qigong_ nonsense as an explanation or marketing strategy.


----------



## WTchap

To be fair, the description of WSLVT being a "hard" system was my word choice. Hard, as opposed to soft. The guy from the seminar described the previous WT/WC/VT he'd studied as working "with muscular force. It didn´t matter how fast or dynamic the styles where, force was always a crucial criteria for the functionality."

I've never studied with PB, so I wouldn't know first hand, but the person who wrote about his experiences was/is, I believe, a direct student. No? 

YM was certainly small in stature. WSL, I always thought, looked quite sturdy (certainly he looked quite strong).

Fully agree with you regarding "debunked Qigong" and its theory. No internal art practice today should be discussing this/working with it as a model. It's just not required to understand how internal arts work and should be trained.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> Under this definition, you could say WSLVT is "internal". We just don't deal with already debunked _Qigong_ nonsense as an explanation or marketing strategy.



In a Darren Elvey seminar I went to, he said something about how you can't get into some WSL inner circle gathering or group if you believe in qigong or something like that. But yeah I would agree that if you are finding the right structures and shapes against force that don't cause noticeable muscular tension, then that is internal. 

There are a lot of internal martial arts that talk about chi flow and know all the terms and stuff, but can't actually do any structure tests against a resisting partner. I held an internal martial art meet up at one point to exchange with other internal martial artists. I was disappointed. People and even teachers turned up who knew a lot of application and all the terms and stuff but couldn't do any force demonstrations. Couldn't hold their stance against pressure. Couldn't move limbs against pressure etc. Bottom line is you have to be able to do this stuff.


----------



## LFJ

@WTchap I don't know the guy. So I can't say what his experiences were. But as far as my understanding, we certainly place a lot of emphasis on power development to make a punch that counts. After all, you won't get far with a weak punch. It's not about pure muscular force though, more biomechanical leverages which allow smaller people to accomplish the same goal. @Wing Chun Auckland calls this internal. I'm fine with that. I usually avoid that term though, as it tends to carry some baggage that I completely reject.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> @WTchap I don't know the guy. So I can't say what his experiences were. But as far as my understanding, we certainly place a lot of emphasis on power development to make a punch that counts. After all, you won't get far with a weak punch. It's not about pure muscular force though, more biomechanical leverages which allow smaller people to accomplish the same goal. @Wing Chun Auckland calls this internal. I'm fine with that. I usually avoid that term though, as it tends to carry some baggage that I completely reject.



That was kinda where I was going (your last bit). In the end the ideas of "building Chi" and such sound like metaphysical mumbo jumbo.  In the end it is really just understanding and controlling how your body is positioned in 3 dimensional space.  Once you do this, rather than using raw strength you can use the principles of leverage, vectors or force etc to perform actions, whether they be defense or attack, linear or circular.

I think one of the problems is that people sometimes mistake what is often called "hard" and "soft" with "external" and "internal."  the linear arts tend to be stereotyped as "hard" and the "soft" as  circular.  However something that is linear can use the principles of leverage, vectors of force etc, those things we associate with internal arts.  Something that is circular can be about simply building momentum to intensify raw strength.  I think this leads to some false assumptions on occassion.  In the end Internal Martial Arts describe their principles using language that existed before Newton and the laws of physics were explained scientifically.

Sorry if that seemed overly simplistic but I have been up for 24 hours now and am getting punchy.


----------



## LFJ

I agree. Sometimes WSLVT is called "hard" because it is an imposing attack method. But it can be called "soft" or "internal" if you are defining those as using principles of leverage, force vectors, etc..

Although we don't go force against force, we are also not soft and yielding as to be passive and reactive. However, if someone thinks we are using pure muscular force to accomplish our tasks, they are simply wrong.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I agree. Sometimes WSLVT is called "hard" because it is an imposing attack method. But it can be called "soft" or "internal" if you are defining those as using principles of leverage, force vectors, etc..
> 
> Although we don't go force against force, we are also not soft and yielding as to be passive and reactive. However, if someone thinks we are using pure muscular force to accomplish our tasks, they are simply wrong.



This is also very much the school of Cheung's "Traditional" WC.  It seems that a lot of the idea as to what is internal vs external is as much appearance and semantics (is it described scientifically or spiritually and/or metaphorically) vs how it is actually being achieved mechanically.


----------



## WTchap

_"Sometimes WSLVT is called "hard" because it is an imposing attack method. But it can be called "soft" or "internal" if you are defining those as using principles of leverage, force vectors, etc."_

Principles of leverage, force vectors, etc., are all good (many/most arts use them) - and the internal arts use them too; but for me at least, they aren't what make the internal arts "internal." 

If any here know the person from WSLPBVT who attended Sergio's seminar, it would good to hear more from him about his impressions/experience.


----------



## LFJ

Internal is not a term I would ever choose to describe WSLVT anyway. I just couldn't see a problem with the definition that was given above.

It would be interesting to hear more from that person, in particular how much instruction he received under PB since it seems as though WT was/is his base, same as Sergio.


----------



## kakkattekoi

@guy b may I ask what lineage u r training from?


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ....I usually avoid that term _(internal)_ though, as it tends to carry some baggage that I completely reject.



Yeah, well I usually argue with what you have to say!  ....but in this instance I agree totally.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

I don't really have a problem with the term "internal" because its really about stuff happening inside you. Force goes through you, you make adjustments to the pressures you feel etc. You have mental models and ways to think about how to move or initiate a move that have a completely different effect. These are all things that can't been seen from someone outside.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I don't really have a problem with the term "internal" because ...


This person tried to define "internal" as "Dantian movement". If your power generation has to do with your "Dantain movement", you have "internal", otherwise you don't.






Can you rotate your Dantain like this?


----------



## guy b.

kakkattekoi said:


> @guy b may I ask what lineage u r training from?



WSL VT


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This person tried to define "internal" as "Dantian movement". If your power generation has to do with your "Dantain movement", you have "internal", otherwise you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you rotate your Dantain like this?



I don't agree that this is the only way to define internal skills. This is the first time I have heard a definition that points exclusively to dantien usage. Of course I am aware of dantien rotation etc. But I would just classify it as one level or type expressoin of internal martial arts. 

The end result is what matters. How you affect people and whether it relies on strength to do it. I get that dantien rotation etc. is a big thing and you can make your movements initiate from that, but that is not the only way to generate great force without strength.


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I don't agree that this is the only way to define internal skills. This is the first time I have heard a definition that points exclusively to dantien usage. Of course I am aware of dantien rotation etc. But I would just classify it as one level or type expressoin of internal martial arts.
> 
> The end result is what matters. How you affect people and whether it relies on strength to do it. I get that dantien rotation etc. is a big thing and you can make your movements initiate from that, but that is not the only way to generate great force without strength.



Like LFJ, I would try to avoid the word internal when referring to VT, or any MA really, because it seems to be a way for all sorts speculation and odd theory to appear. Of course you can't move without using muscles, your dantien is not a big rotating ball below your navel, and qi doesn't flow along meridians within your body. That kind of explantion leads nowhere. 

I have heard quite an interesting explanation of what "internal" means from my teacher in Yiquan, which is a simplified form of Hsing Yi, and this is what I tend to subscribe to. Of course it is a completely physical mechanism. Looking at what CST did with his VT, it is believable that he did much the same thing YQ does in terms of "internal" force development. PM me if you are interested and I will send you a link.


----------



## WTchap

@guy b

_“Your dantien is not a big rotating ball below your navel.”_

Yes, it's not really a ball (no ball actually exists) but the mental image of a ball is very useful in training the dantien – and sometimes, because of the play of muscles/tissues in use, it can feel ‘like a ball’ if you have good development and if someone were to put a hand on your stomach while you were moving this area.

The dantien, as an area/place, is a junction for various lines in the body. Exercises with it work to pull, stretch and rotate the center, and this aids in utilising connections throughout the rest of the body. Kind of like taking up slack. Some people talk about a ‘body suit’, the idea that, as when wearing a t-shirt for example, when you pull on the material, all parts of it start moving. The harder you pull and stretch it, the more the areas you'e not directly pulling, start moving.

So Dantien and Mingmen work is never really something isolated, you use it in conjunction with everything else you're training in the internal arts.

Dantien 'rotation' can only really be worked on when you’ve developed this area/tissues (inside the frame of the pelvis). A good explanation of this, physically, is: “The major muscle groups of the center, in this instance, are the Diaphram forming the top of the Centre, The Psoas Major/Minor and lower Erector Spinae at the back, The Illiacus, internal obliques, external obliques, the external oblique aponeursis, transverse abdominus, the lower rectus abdominus as well as all of the Tendinous tissues that are linking, covering and associating these various muscles. Finally, the base of the centre is composed of all the pelvic floor muscles and associated tissues.”

IMO, the above definition covers lower dantien, middle dantien and also the mingmen point. Earlier in the thread I was mentioning how the internal arts use 'pairing' (yin-yang, heaven-earth, and this is really something connected to dantien work. So to use one of my favourite quotes (again ) Daito Ryu/Aikido's Ueshiba referred to ‘Heaven and Earth’ and the ‘floating bridge', and said, “The working of the attraction point, between In and Yo (Yin and Yang), is the birthplace of all techniques.” 

Basically, in one sentence he summed up what I just wrote in four paragraphs.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> Dantien 'rotation' can only really be worked on when you’ve developed this area/tissues (inside the frame of the pelvis). A good explanation of this, physically, is: “The major muscle groups of the center, in this instance, are the Diaphram forming the top of the Centre, The Psoas Major/Minor and lower Erector Spinae at the back, The Illiacus, internal obliques, external obliques, the external oblique aponeursis, transverse abdominus, the lower rectus abdominus as well as all of the Tendinous tissues that are linking, covering and associating these various muscles. Finally, the base of the centre is composed of all the pelvic floor muscles and associated tissues.”
> 
> IMO, the above definition covers lower dantien, middle dantien and also the mingmen point. Earlier in the thread I was mentioning how the internal arts use 'pairing' (yin-yang, heaven-earth, and this is really something connected to dantien work. So to use one of my favourite quotes (again ) Daito Ryu/Aikido's Ueshiba referred to ‘Heaven and Earth’ and the ‘floating bridge', and said, “The working of the attraction point, between In and Yo (Yin and Yang), is the birthplace of all techniques.”



So basically moving using musculature


----------



## WTchap

Well, at the very start of the process, yes. But I suppose the key is in developing _what_ you're moving, and _how_, and then in turn how you _use_ that in relation to _other_ connections.   It's a Chinese martial art thing... there's always layers of complexity behind the simplicity


----------



## guy b.

After the start of the process, what do you use to move besides your muscles?


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

WTchap said:


> IMO, the above definition covers lower dantien, middle dantien and also the mingmen point. Earlier in the thread I was mentioning how the internal arts use 'pairing' (yin-yang, heaven-earth, and this is really something connected to dantien work. So to use one of my favourite quotes (again ) Daito Ryu/Aikido's Ueshiba referred to ‘Heaven and Earth’ and the ‘floating bridge', and said, “The working of the attraction point, between In and Yo (Yin and Yang), is the birthplace of all techniques.”



Tenchijin, right? What internal art do you study?


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> _"Sometimes WSLVT is called "hard" because it is an imposing attack method. But it can be called "soft" or "internal" if you are defining those as using principles of leverage, force vectors, etc."_
> 
> Principles of leverage, force vectors, etc., are all good (many/most arts use them) - and the internal arts use them too; but for me at least, they aren't what make the internal arts "internal."
> 
> If any here know the person from WSLPBVT who attended Sergio's seminar, it would good to hear more from him about his impressions/experience.



The thing is though, in my experience (admittedly my only internal experience is Aikido and a little Tai Chi) the difference is ultimately philosophical and not in how the body does what it does. 

When describing the purpose of developing Chi, when you strip away the philosophy, you are talking about simply understanding where your feet, center and shoulders/elbows are, in relation to each other, in 3 dimensional space so as to more effectively deliver or deflect/absorb incoming force.  Example, Tai Chi Chuan pushing.  Your feet, center and upper body need to be aligned properly, in this way you aren't simply using the arms or the arms and waist/lower back.  Instead you are pushing starting at that back foot (simplified description) and that force meets with the force generated by your center which hen meets with the force generated by your upper body.  WC-WC, same thing, your elbow may be the "trigger" of the gun for your punch but your structure is vital, it starts with that back leg, goes to the center, to the upper body, all of that following the elbow as the punch launches from the center line, not off to the side, for more energy.  The same works in reverse, the energy of an attack that I did not deflect gets channeled through my body down to the ground if I have proper structure.  If my structure is off then the energy can stop at my waist, causing me to stop forward momentum or even stagger back.

Also, while internal art may tend to be more circular than linear when utilizing these skills, we tend to come back to a philosophical reason as to why.  You can have an art that is linear and that is thus assumed to be external not because the physics of how they operate are different but because of philosophy and superficial appearance.  I have a Chen-Style Tai Chi Chuan teacher in my area who I love to study with one day.  I sat in on a class one day and he said "remember, Chi is not magic, it's simply understanding physics." I asked him about it later and he said that the things you are doing to focus your Chi are very much part of Taoist religious philosophy but it also acts as a teaching tool to allow you to better understand your own body's mechanics and thus be able to move properly.  He personally loves the philosophical aspect but he believes, and he may be wrong or course, that a person could teach Chen Style simply via demonstrating the moves and scanning it like a physics class.


----------



## WTchap

@guy b

_“After the start of the process, what do you use to move besides your muscles?”_

I know it will sound like splitting hairs, but I wouldn’t frame it as using something else _to_ move, but more that you’re tying in everything else _with_ the movements. Or, think of it like the dantien work as being the engine, fueling other things that happen. It’s a prime mover (no pun intended).


@Wing Chun Auckland

_“Tenchijin, right?”_

Yes, though this word always looks wrong to me – like we’re directly mixing Japanese and Chinese. But yes, heaven and earth force.

_“What internal art do you study?”_

Xingyi, and I also study some internal training methods from someone with a background in Xingyi, Bagua, Tai Chi and Daito Ryu. I meet with Wing Tsun friends as often as I can, and still like to spar a little with them. So no longer actively studying Wing Tsun (which I first started in 1999).

@Juany118

_“When describing the purpose of developing Chi, when you strip away the philosophy, you are talking about simply understanding where your feet, center and shoulders/elbows are, in relation to each other, in 3 dimensional space so as to more effectively deliver or deflect/absorb incoming force.”_

Well, I never describe Chi in Chinese martial arts . I think it's all too vague, and something not supported by any research. I much prefer a "this is how something works, this is how you train it, this is how you use it" approach. I'm simple like that. 

Regarding positioning, yes, it’s important, but I think there is much more to this in terms of delivering force/dealing with force. To use your Tai Chi example, when we talk about the legs, it’s so much about the pushing from the rear leg (everyone, in any art, uses the legs in this way to drive – it’s how the legs work ) but more about how the legs are connected to the center and how they work in terms of “two complimentary sides, oppositely paired in their function.” In your Tai Chi training, I’m sure you learned about shifting and relaxing a part of the leg to stretch the muscle into a movement. It is kind of like that.
_
“The same works in reverse, the energy of an attack that I did not deflect gets channeled through my body down to the ground if I have proper structure. If my structure is off then the energy can stop at my waist, causing me to stop forward momentum or even stagger back.”_

This makes sense, but my feeling is that it is true of ALL arts.

_“Also, while internal art may tend to be more circular than linear when utilizing these skills, we tend to come back to a philosophical reason as to why. You can have an art that is linear and that is thus assumed to be external not because the physics of how they operate are different but because of philosophy and superficial appearance.”_

In my experience, these arts are linear and circular together. Not really more of one than another. It’s a bit like Tai Chi teachers encouraging _Song_, and then people misunderstand and become too relaxed. You need to use relaxation _and_ tension – otherwise you’re just a ragdoll.


But to be honest, we probably just see things a bit differently. For me, the internal arts and Wing Chun are two very different beasts. If others see it differently, well... it makes for interesting discussion.


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> @guy b
> 
> 
> _
> “The same works in reverse, the energy of an attack that I did not deflect gets channeled through my body down to the ground if I have proper structure. If my structure is off then the energy can stop at my waist, causing me to stop forward momentum or even stagger back.”_
> 
> This makes sense, but my feeling is that it is true of ALL arts.
> 
> _“Also, while internal art may tend to be more circular than linear when utilizing these skills, we tend to come back to a philosophical reason as to why. You can have an art that is linear and that is thus assumed to be external not because the physics of how they operate are different but because of philosophy and superficial appearance.”_
> 
> In my experience, these arts are linear and circular together. Not really more of one than another. It’s a bit like Tai Chi teachers encouraging _Song_, and then people misunderstand and become too relaxed. You need to use relaxation _and_ tension – otherwise you’re just a ragdoll.
> 
> 
> But to be honest, we probably just see things a bit differently. For me, the internal arts and Wing Chun are two very different beasts. If others see it differently, well... it makes for interesting discussion.



On the last point, like I said I will never say that the WC I study is an internal art by definition, there are certainly some maneuvers that are definitely external, it is a hybrid mixing internal with external.

As for the bit regarding proper structure, from my study of Aikido and Ryushinkan, its very different.  Aikido is very much about your own movement as well, so you dissipate the remaining incoming energy by "going with the flow" or moving away from your attacker (unlike WC which is designed to almost always move towards your attacker, even if it is to move on the diagonal to get to his blind side.) You still do not meet force with force but it's a different method. 

Ryuskinkan was a very much in the style of other forms of "traditional" Karate-Do, uses blocks more than deflections and often using wider "strong roots" stances so that you absorb the impact, vs allowing the energy to pass through you (for lack of a better term).  You were meeting force with force however your goal was to have a foundation strong and stable enough in defense to resist. I would call this a prototypical external martial art.

These arts, and Kali are the limits however of martial art experience (I don't count my high school and college Olympic Fencing)  so mileage may vary


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> @guy b
> 
> So to use one of my favourite quotes (again ) Daito Ryu/Aikido's Ueshiba referred to ‘Heaven and Earth’ and the ‘floating bridge', and said, “The working of the attraction point, between In and Yo (Yin and Yang), is the birthplace of all techniques.”



One of favorites as well, I actually love most of his quotes (I still study Zen, just not Aikido because I no longer have one that teaches with a "combative philosophy", perhaps after I no longer see the Martial Arts as a "work tool" when I retire I will return to it.)  This is my favorite regarding Combative arts because it indicates that it is not just the Art you study that wins the day..

"It is necessary to develop a strategy that utilizes all the physical conditions and elements that are directly at hand. The best strategy relies upon an unlimited set of responses."


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> I know it will sound like splitting hairs, but I wouldn’t frame it as using something else _to_ move, but more that you’re tying in everything else _with_ the movements.



So you are using muscles to move in a particular way. Ok

Your descriptions of dantien sounds a bit more like tai chi than hsing yi to me

What is the physical purpose of focus on the dantien, of visualising it as a ball, and so on?


----------



## WTchap

_"So you are using muscles to move in a particular way. Ok"_

Of course.  Can't move, in any way, using any method, without them. 

_"Your descriptions of dantien sounds a bit more like tai chi than hsing yi to me"_

I learned them via Xingyi. But while Bagua, Tai Chi and Xingyi are distinct arts, often with their own approach to strategy, etc., what's "inside" them is fundamentally the same (or at least, very, very similar). The biggest difference, IMO, is how they choose to use them.

_"What is the physical purpose of focus on the dantien, of visualising it as a ball, and so on?"_

I'd say that the physical purpose (regarding the dantien focus) is to get "more bang for your buck." It can aid in greater power development, and help to get the power out. Using it can help in other ways too, how you manage incoming force, for example. I have a friend who trains this and also competes in BJJ - people are often surprised at how hard it is to move him, even though he's remaining agile and mobile, and at how he can take their balance while feeling very relaxed.

In terms of "visualising it as a ball", the simplest reason is that it's a good learning tool. If a teacher explains a physical movement, puts your hand on his stomach, side, lower back, and you feel the movements - and then he tells you to mimic the movements while "engaging the Psoas Major, the transverse abdomens and the lower rectus abdominus"... well...

... most of us won't know what these are and where they are, and even if we learn about them, it will be brain-overload to try and focus on all of this at the same time (at least for someone like me) 

We, people in general, often work better when we have something we can visualise. Visualising all of this as a ball, makes sense to our brains. And, at times, it _feels_ like a ball moving, even if this isn't anatomically what is happening. It's a bit like the "spine wave" in Xingyi... technically, it's not exactly a wave, even though it feels like one. So it's a good visualisation for _training_. 

Most people have seen the Bagua teacup exercise (where by keeping the palm up, you're training mobility in the shoulder while stretching parts of the arm and, at the same time keeping a smooth, open, loosening movement). It's not natural to hold the palm like this, you want to start turning it, but by visualising holding a cup and not spilling the tea, you're helping the body to learn faster. 

Plus, visualisation is linked to the "intent" work, so you're adding in another component.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> In terms of "visualising it as a ball", the simplest reason is that it's a good learning tool



Sounds different to the Hsing Yi derived system I do. What is the teaching progression?


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> Sounds different to the Hsing Yi derived system I do. What is the teaching progression?



Yes, Yiquan is a relatively new variant. I quite like what I've seen of it, but it's very much a stripped down version of Xingyi. Some people like it for that, and some feel it lacks Xingyi's depth. For me, Xingyi is more my flavour.

The Xingyi I learn is quite a large system (standing exercises and other jibengong, five elements, 12 animals, various weapons, various degrees of sparring, etc.) 

What part of the progression do you mean?


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> Yes, Yiquan is a relatively new variant. I quite like what I've seen of it, but it's very much a stripped down version of Xingyi. Some people like it for that, and some feel it lacks Xingyi's depth. For me, Xingyi is more my flavour.
> 
> The Xingyi I learn is quite a large system (standing exercises and other jibengong, five elements, 12 animals, various weapons, various degrees of sparring, etc.)
> 
> What part of the progression do you mean?



I mean specifically to develop "internal stength/qi" or whatever you like to call it. Is there a specific targetted way of achieving it? If so then this will tell you exactly what it is you are developing in physical terms. 

Tai chi attempts to develop the same thing as Yiquan but in a different way. Tai chi method I think pretty low %. I believed that Hsing Yi the same as Yiquan, but maybe not. 

Yiquan is definitely stripped down. It is actually quite minimalist, which is what I like about it. It is good in that it teaches the development of "internal" very rapidly and in a targeted way without diversions, confusions, contradictions, and it works. I am not so much of a fan of the applied side of Yiquan- possibly an improvement on Hsing Yi but nothing special. But for developing "internal" it is I think the best available and is a great add on system, e.g. many kyokushin add Yiquan


----------



## WTchap

@guy b.  Dude, you have a way of asking short, quickly typed questions that require longish answers. 

_“I mean specifically to develop "internal stength/qi" or whatever you like to call it.”_

Yes, let’s call it “internal strength,” as “Qi” just confuses everything and is so open to weird interpretations, we’ll end up talking in circles.

_“Is there a specific targetted way of achieving it?”_

Yes

_“If so then this will tell you exactly what it is you are developing in physical terms.”_

In brief…

*The method:*

(each of the things listed below have various training practices/subsets, and we work them with drills, solo work, sometimes partner work, ways of testing, etc.)

Learn to set up the frame; learn how to loosen/soften the body; learn how to align, learn how to pull and connect; learn how to wind and spiral; learn how to pair; learn how to integrate.

Inside of all of that you find the stuff and training that people in the internal arts usually reference: dantien and mingmen, breathing, intent, six harmonies, cross-body, kwa, full body power, contract and expand, open and close...

....and so on.

And it works in a cycle, too. As you progress you’re constantly returning to earlier material to refine it, further develop it, better integrate it, etc. Hence, why you never stop “basic” training like Santi, the five element fists, etc.


*What you develop (in physical terms):*

Releasing/getting rid of pre-existing problems (tension, mobility issues, etc.); a higher yield on alignment (because it now becomes more ingrained) that allows force/power to transmit nicely; building/developing the right/“correct” musculature, connective tissues, so that it better functions as chains, and more deeply connects the body (by binding and cutting out the slack) – allowing for greater power generation; the ability to tie all of this in with movement/interaction by pairing parts of the body (in both linear ways and circular ways) – which allows you to use much of the above in a practical way (fighting application)… 

... and so on (this is all just a brief explanation, otherwise I'll be typing all night) 

Intent and visualization work aids with all of the above, but also has the benefit of helping you program movement patterns (so I’d group this in with something "physical"). So intent is work based around the mind's _will_ to act, and the body’s ability to _actually_ act (mind/body connection). This is the bit where people go, “Whaaaaat….”. Feedback loops, single point training, act before you act, etc. 

Or… linking thought and mechanical action/reaction to improve movement capacity...

... and so on....


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

I have seen and felt several different ways of generating force against force that does not rely on strength and to me is amazing. I have heard people just use the term "unusual force" to describe internal martial arts and I like that description the most.

A lot of different mechanics can be used to produce a certain result. Some concepts overlap and some don't. To me, use of the dantien etc. is one type or expression of internal martial arts. The different ways you produce force are just different approaches. But there is overlap.

With a lot of internalists I have met they talk about all these concepts and dantien rotation and things but can't actually demonstrate basic force generation tests against a partner.

Wing Chun, the way we practice it, is definitely internal. I also practice another art that I picked up in Japan because I couldn't do wing chun there. They emphasized different ways to generate force using like what has been mentioned above. Tenchijin (heaven. earth, person), cross body, "the suit" - fascia connections etc, using gravity etc. These people also had a similar direct approach to internal skills, i.e. they must be demonstratable on a partner.

One of the exercises in this art that I really like is stepping forward with arms spread in opposite directions and then stepping forward while rotating the straight arms to the opposite direction. Doing this enables you to feel a stretch above the pelvis that helps you to raise your leg for a kick. So this exercise and others like it are designed to help you feel those subtle pulls within. Applying this idea to my wing chun hook kick on a pad, made it way more powerful. But after learning Bil Jee form, I realised this concept is also held within wing chun. When you do the elbows to either side, the over exagertated movement helps you to realise the connection that makes you turn. Yes, eventually it starts to feel like a ball that you can generate the movement from, rolling under or over and having an effect on the rest of your body.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> Learn to set up the frame; learn how to loosen/soften the body; learn how to align, learn how to pull and connect; learn how to wind and spiral; learn how to pair; learn how to integrate.
> 
> Inside of all of that you find the stuff and training that people in the internal arts usually reference: dantien and mingmen, breathing, intent, six harmonies, cross-body, kwa, full body power, contract and expand, open and close...
> 
> ....and so on.
> 
> And it works in a cycle, too. As you progress you’re constantly returning to earlier material to refine it, further develop it, better integrate it, etc. Hence, why you never stop “basic” training like Santi, the five element fists, etc.



I don't really know what any of this means. Can you describe it in simple physical terms?



WTchap said:


> Releasing/getting rid of pre-existing problems (tension, mobility issues, etc.); a higher yield on alignment (because it now becomes more ingrained) that allows force/power to transmit nicely; building/developing the right/“correct” musculature, connective tissues, so that it better functions as chains, and more deeply connects the body (by binding and cutting out the slack) – allowing for greater power generation; the ability to tie all of this in with movement/interaction by pairing parts of the body (in both linear ways and circular ways) – which allows you to use much of the above in a practical way (fighting application)…
> 
> ... and so on (this is all just a brief explanation, otherwise I'll be typing all night)



I don't see how the first part relates to the second. What is it you are actually aiming to do, and how do you do it? In simple physical terms if possible please. What do you do, why do you do it, how does it achieve what you want it to achieve?



WTchap said:


> Intent and visualization work aids with all of the above, but also has the benefit of helping you program movement patterns (so I’d group this in with something "physical"). So intent is work based around the mind's _will_ to act, and the body’s ability to _actually_ act (mind/body connection). This is the bit where people go, “Whaaaaat….”. Feedback loops, single point training, act before you act, etc.



Why do you use visualisation. What do you aim to do with it in physical terms?


----------



## WTchap

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I also practice another art that I picked up in Japan because I couldn't do wing chun there. They emphasized different ways to generate force using like what has been mentioned above. Tenchijin (heaven. earth, person), cross body, "the suit" - fascia connections etc, using gravity etc. These people also had a similar direct approach to internal skills, i.e. they must be demonstratable on a partner.



Did you study Aunkai, by any chance? It's a modern art, but the founder studied some Tai Chi and Xingyi, and then later delved into Koryu, which in many people's opinion contains internal work (I'd agree with this, the more research being done, the more obvious it seems - which is fascinating).


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> I don't really know what any of this means. Can you describe it in simple physical terms? I don't see how the first part relates to the second. What is it you are actually aiming to do, and how do you do it? In simple physical terms if possible please. What do you do, why do you do it, how does it achieve what you want it to achieve? Why do you use visualisation. What do you aim to do with it in physical terms?



I'm a little surprised by your post, to be honest.  If you're studying Yiquan, much of what I wrote should be fairly apparent and clear. Yiquan stripped away the Xing, but kept the basic Yi, after all. 

Maybe a little info from you would help to put us on the same page (or, at the least, help me to better understand what your Yiquan training involves).


In your Zhan Zhuang training, what are you trying _to do_ with the postures? 
In your Shi Li practice, _how_ are you testing, and _what_ are you testing?
When you work Fa Li, how would you describe the _body unity _in relation to _whole body/full body strength_?

I ask, because years back I met a Yiquan instructor and we spent about four hours in a local park working through some of his material. There was a definite correlation between that work, and some of what I've briefly outlined in earlier posts on this thread; and there was a fair bit of visualisation/intent going on in that training, too.

So I'm a little confused by your questions.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

WTchap said:


> Did you study Aunkai, by any chance? It's a modern art, but the founder studied some Tai Chi and Xingyi, and then later delved into Koryu, which in many people's opinion contains internal work (I'd agree with this, the more research being done, the more obvious it seems - which is fascinating).



Yep, Aunkai. Some of your language sounded a bit aunkai-ish. That's why I asked what you practiced.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> I'm a little surprised by your post, to be honest.  If you're studying Yiquan, much of what I wrote should be fairly apparent and clear. Yiquan stripped away the Xing, but kept the basic Yi, after all.
> 
> Maybe a little info from you would help to put us on the same page (or, at the least, help me to better understand what your Yiquan training involves).
> 
> 
> In your Zhan Zhuang training, what are you trying _to do_ with the postures?
> In your Shi Li practice, _how_ are you testing, and _what_ are you testing?
> When you work Fa Li, how would you describe the _body unity _in relation to _whole body/full body strength_?



It's not that I don't know what I do, but that your previous post contains all the usual terms used when discussing "internal", which I think gets nowhere in terms of understanding. I don't know what you do, which is why I asked. 

My Yiquan involves all of these things. But the reason for it is the interesting bit.


----------



## WTchap

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Yep, Aunkai. Some of your language sounded a bit aunkai-ish. That's why I asked what you practiced.



Good stuff, you were lucky to get some training in it. The language is similar, I think, as I'm trying not to use the traditional Chinese terminology that bogs down discussion . With the exception of things like Kwa, Dantien, Mingmen, etc, as I think most people studying Chinese arts know this.


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> My Yiquan involves all of these things. But the reason for it is the interesting bit.



This is what I'm not getting. If your Yiquan involves these things, then joining the dots is really easy. @Wing Chun Auckland is understanding, via his Aunkai experience, and so I can't understand how you "don't know" what I do, and what I mean, via your Yiquan experience.

It might help me to better understand where you're at, if you can answer my 3 questions. 

Cheers.


----------



## guy b.

If I reply to your questions then i will be answering my own previous questions to you, which would be a waste of time. For me the why and how is pretty simple and can be explained in a few sentences. I am curious as to whether you share a similar understanding or something different. Internal MA is filled with opaque language and convoluted explanation which makes signal to noise very low a lot of the time.


----------



## WTchap

Guy, that's bad form on a forum meant for dialogue and exchange, IMO. You asked questions, I gave you answers. I'm happy to answer more for you, but first a little _give and take_.

If you don't want to answer my questions (which I asked so that I can better understand how _you_ see things in this discussion), then it's kinda silly for you to expect me to keep answering all of yours. 

I hope that you're not trolling here.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> Guy, that's bad form on a forum meant for dialogue and exchange, IMO. You asked questions, I gave you answers. I'm happy to answer more for you, but first a little _give and take_.
> 
> If you don't want to answer my questions (which I asked so that I can better understand how _you_ see things in this discussion), then it's kinda silly for you to expect me to keep answering all of yours.
> 
> I hope that you're not trolling here.



You questions are a more specific reformulation of my questions. If I answer those then you will have my answer to my own previous questions, which renders my own questions null and void.

From your answers to my questions I am none the wiser about the purpose of your practice, and how you achieve it. Which is why I asked again. 

I'm not trolling, just not a fan of skirting around the issue. Most forum discussion on internal MA never actually gets to the point at all, because everyone is either unsure of what it is, or unwilling to share it with others.


----------



## WTchap

@guy b. What I'm having trouble getting my head around, is the idea that you train Yiquan but that you are "none the wiser" from my explanations regarding the training methods and their purpose. It is found, after all, in all internal arts. 

Which is why it sounds like you're trolling. 

What I've written isn't 'skirting around the issue', but if you want a very simplified answer, you can have one - but it won't be a _comprehensive _answer, and that itself means it becomes open to interpretation (to the point where it becomes so generic it loses meaningful anything. Why? Because the devil is in the details)

_What's the purpose of Xingyi's body work?_
To unify the body

_How do you do this?_
By creating connections* inside the body

_What effect does that have?_
Utilising the connections* allows you to generate more power in terms of efficient output; and allows you to handle, more efficiently, power experienced as input.

The problem with the above three points is this:
What's a Ferrari? _A vehicle with four wheels_
What's a GoCart? _A vehicle with four wheels_
What's a Monster Truck? _A vehicle with four wheels_

Each answer is correct, but leads to:
Hey, I love your new truck. _It's not a truck, it's a Ferrari!_
(or, teacher says we unify the body in XYZ Martial Art, therefore what we do must be internal)

So a simple explanation regarding Xingyi training tells you _something_, but if you want to understand more, take a look at the brief outlines I gave earlier (posts #157, #167 and #171). Brief, because if you train an internal art, then "winding" and "pairing", for example, will make sense to you - you shouldn't be "none the wiser." The same with the use of "intent and visualisation." The same with "connections* in the body."

If, for whatever reason, you train Yiquan and really, genuinely, don't know what I'm talking about, then the only way for you to understand me is if I go into ever-greater detail.  

I'd rather not write a training manual, you know? 

It makes me wonder what you're training in your Yiquan standing work. It makes me wonder why you say have all the things I've mentioned, but that you don't understand what I'm talking about. It's like saying, "I'm a good swimmer, but yeah... I've never actually been in the water." 



So why not talk a little about what you do. Let's see if there's some common ground. Give a little noise so that others can gauge your signal.

-----------------
Connections*

If I talk about connections and you don't know what I mean, I need to... what... outline every aspect of Fascia and musculature in the body? Explain how it ties back to core muscle groups? Explain the role of breathing and how it impacts on the above? Explain what happens when muscle is twisted around bone? Explain power lines in the body? Explain the function of tendons - and then should I explain the nature of elasticity? 

And then, after I've done all of that... what.... I should also give you an example of usage for each of the above points?


----------



## KPM

WTchap said:


> Guy, that's bad form on a forum meant for dialogue and exchange, IMO. You asked questions, I gave you answers. I'm happy to answer more for you, but first a little _give and take_.
> 
> If you don't want to answer my questions (which I asked so that I can better understand how _you_ see things in this discussion), then it's kinda silly for you to expect me to keep answering all of yours.
> 
> I hope that you're not trolling here.



You are discovering what many of us here have already figured out.   Guy just likes to argue.  He will ask pointed questions and expect in-depth answers and explanations, but when questioned himself will only give short and superficial replies.   Just a "heads up" so you don't waste too much of your time.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> @guy b. What I'm having trouble getting my head around, is the idea that you train Yiquan but that you are "none the wiser" from my explanations regarding the training methods and their purpose. It is found, after all, in all internal arts.
> 
> Which is why it sounds like you're trolling



I am not trolling.Training methods are ubiquitous, the purpose (and hence the understanding and utility of the training) can vary. 



> What I've written isn't 'skirting around the issue', but if you want a very simplified answer, you can have one - but it won't be a _comprehensive _answer, and that itself means it becomes open to interpretation (to the point where it becomes so generic it loses meaningful anything. Why? Because the devil is in the details)



You can explan the basic purpose in detail in one or two sentences.



> (or, teacher says we unify the body in XYZ Martial Art, therefore what we do must be internal)



Well exactly, this is why the purpose is of the training is important. "Unify the body" or "create connections" is needlessly opaque and non-physical. You could say something nearly as concise but much more information dense and useful.



> if you train an internal art, then "winding" and "pairing", for example, will make sense to you - you shouldn't be "none the wiser." The same with the use of "intent and visualisation." The same with "connections* in the body."



There is no indication of why these things are done, how they are done, or progression. Without that, it isn't really conveying any info beyond what would appear on any tai chi school website. I am happy with my own translation to normal language of these terms, but we aren't really discussing anything in using them. They are just part of the fluff and nothing that surrounds internal training.



> If, for whatever reason, you train Yiquan and really, genuinely, don't know what I'm talking about, then the only way for you to understand me is if I go into ever-greater detail.



I tend to disagree. Rather than saying something like create connections, say which connections and talk about why and how to create. Don't go more detailed with language that is opaque, instead simplify and clarify. 



> I'd rather not write a training manual, you know



You really don't need to. A couple of sentences should suffice. My own understanding of it is not that complex. It is the whole focus of Yiquan, and it is simple in the extreme. 



> It's like saying, "I'm a good swimmer, but yeah... I've never actually been in the water.



Anyone can learn to swim and there is nothing particularly difficult about it- you just need to persevere. Complicated description is not required.



> If I talk about connections and you don't know what I mean, I need to... what... outline every aspect of Fascia and musculature in the body?



No, you just need to mention the basic idea, which can probably be done in fewer than 10 words. 



> Explain how it ties back to core muscle groups? Explain the role of breathing and how it impacts on the above? Explain what happens when muscle is twisted around bone? Explain power lines in the body? Explain the function of tendons - and then should I explain the nature of elasticity



None of this required. 



> And then, after I've done all of that... what.... I should also give you an example of usage for each of the above points?



Not required


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> You are discovering what many of us here have already figured out.   Guy just likes to argue.  He will ask pointed questions and expect in-depth answers and explanations, but when questioned himself will only give short and superficial replies.   Just a "heads up" so you don't waste too much of your time.



Please do not listen to KPM- he bears me a personal grudge. Ironically I have typed many pages of explanation for him which he conveniently forgets.


----------



## WTchap

KPM said:


> You are discovering what many of us here have already figured out. Guy just likes to argue. He will ask pointed questions and expect in-depth answers and explanations, but when questioned himself will only give short and superficial replies.   Just a "heads up" so you don't waste too much of your time.



Thanks, KPM. Yes, I was beginning to form this picture


----------



## WTchap

@guy b.

_"You can explan the basic purpose in detail in one or two sentences."_

I did.

_"'Unify the body' or 'create connections' is needlessly opaque and non-physical. You could say something nearly as concise but much more information dense and useful."_

Creating 'connections' is not _non-physical_, it is all physical. You wanted simple, so I gave it. If you want more detail, I have to write much more - and frankly, when I write more you don't understand (even though you say you understand, and say you have it/do it, too).

Maybe you should respond by telling us your understanding, so it doesn't look like you're just digging for info because you don't have it. I'd love for that to be wrong - I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on what _you do_. Each day I put in 45-60 minutes of internal body development work, so believe me... nothing would please me more than hearing of someone else's experience.

_"There is no indication of why these things are done, how they are done, or progression."_

Sure there was. But again, you're asking me to force-feed you data. Data you should already have, IMO.

Like I said, from just 4 hours or so with a Yiquan instructor I could see a correlation.

When I give it to you in a simple way, you want more. Then you say it can be summed up in just 10 words, LOL. There are books dedicated to this material. Again, first demonstrate your understanding of something, then we can progress and discuss.

_"They are just part of the fluff and nothing that surrounds internal training."_



_"Rather than saying something like create connections, say which connections and talk about why and how to create. Don't go more detailed with language that is opaque, instead simplify and clarify."_

So, you want me to say "which connections" and talk about "how" and "why" (which is in itself pretty detailed), but I should... _simplify_ for you. 

_"A couple of sentences should suffice."_

Good Lord!

_"My own understanding of it is not that complex. It is the whole focus of Yiquan, and it is simple in the extreme."_

Again, first it would be useful for you to actually demonstrate your _own understanding of it_.

So far all you've done is ask a barrage of questions, and claimed you already have an understanding - but your questions indicate that you _don't_ have an understanding of this (body work, process, benefits, etc.)

I'm happy to discuss all of this with you, but until you actually start talking and sharing, I think I'll just assume that you're looking for an argument, as @KPM has said. You've not shown anything to dispel this.


----------



## WTchap

Hang on... am I the butt of a huge joke, and you're actually Hendrik Santo


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> @guy b.
> 
> _"You can explan the basic purpose in detail in one or two sentences."_
> 
> I did.
> 
> _"'Unify the body' or 'create connections' is needlessly opaque and non-physical. You could say something nearly as concise but much more information dense and useful."_
> 
> Creating 'connections' is not _non-physical_, it is all physical. You wanted simple, so I gave it. If you want more detail, I have to write much more - and frankly, when I write more you don't understand (even though you say you understand, and say you have it/do it, too).
> 
> Maybe you should respond by telling us your understanding, so it doesn't look like you're just digging for info because you don't have it. I'd love for that to be wrong - I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts on what _you do_. Each day I put in 45-60 minutes of internal body development work, so believe me... nothing would please me more than hearing of someone else's experience.
> 
> _"There is no indication of why these things are done, how they are done, or progression."_
> 
> Sure there was. But again, you're asking me to force-feed you data. Data you should already have, IMO.
> 
> Like I said, from just 4 hours or so with a Yiquan instructor I could see a correlation.
> 
> When I give it to you in a simple way, you want more. Then you say it can be summed up in just 10 words, LOL. There are books dedicated to this material. Again, first demonstrate your understanding of something, then we can progress and discuss.
> 
> _"They are just part of the fluff and nothing that surrounds internal training."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Rather than saying something like create connections, say which connections and talk about why and how to create. Don't go more detailed with language that is opaque, instead simplify and clarify."_
> 
> So, you want me to say "which connections" and talk about "how" and "why" (which is in itself pretty detailed), but I should... _simplify_ for you.
> 
> _"A couple of sentences should suffice."_
> 
> Good Lord!
> 
> _"My own understanding of it is not that complex. It is the whole focus of Yiquan, and it is simple in the extreme."_
> 
> Again, first it would be useful for you to actually demonstrate your _own understanding of it_.
> 
> So far all you've done is ask a barrage of questions, and claimed you already have an understanding - but your questions indicate that you _don't_ have an understanding of this (body work, process, benefits, etc.)
> 
> I'm happy to discuss all of this with you, but until you actually start talking and sharing, I think I'll just assume that you're looking for an argument, as @KPM has said. You've not shown anything to dispel this.



Ok


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> Hang on... am I the butt of a huge joke, and you're actually Hendrik Santo



All these aliases eh? Difficult to know who you are talking to sometimes.


----------



## geezer

WTchap said:


> Hang on... am I the butt of a huge joke, and you're actually Hendrik Santo



In that case, HS must have been taking ESL classes. I commend him on his remarkable progress!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Ok



Brilliant response to WTChap's various points and questions in his last post.  Your response is full depth and in-sight and "pages of explanation" that has cleared up many misunderstandings in this current discussion!


----------



## WTchap

KPM said:


> Brilliant response to WTChap's various points and questions in his last post.  Your response is full depth and in-sight and "pages of explanation" that has cleared up many misunderstandings in this current discussion!



Well, I have say that Guy is the first internal arts practitioner I've talked to who _didn't_ want to talk about their training.  Probably that tells us something. I regret taking the time, to be honest


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> Well, I have say that Guy is the first internal arts practitioner I've talked to who _didn't_ want to talk about their training.  Probably that tells us something. I regret taking the time, to be honest



I would like to talk but was unable to determine what you mean due to unclear language. I don't want to force you if you don't want to tell me; it is up to you. That is why I stopped asking and accepted your last post as a statement. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> I would like to talk but was unable to determine what you mean due to unclear language. I don't want to force you if you don't want to tell me; it is up to you. That is why I stopped asking and accepted your last post as a statement. Thanks for taking the time.


Perhaps it would help if you could illustrate by explaining an example in language you understand. This way others could see where you are coming from. Maybe write about the internal connection of Yiquan as you understand it. Then comparisons could be made without confusion. Just a suggestion.


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> Well, I have say that Guy is the first internal arts practitioner I've talked to who _didn't_ want to talk about their training.  Probably that tells us something. I regret taking the time, to be honest



Just quoting this WTchap as you mentioned "talking about training.". I was wracking my brain trying to remember how in my WC class they speak about internal principles rather than how mechanically it mirrors said principles and I remembered finally.  It took me awhile though because it was told to me the first time I learned Sil Mum Tao.

There the Sifu says, when doing the Wu Sau/Fook Sau set which incidentally we do noticeably slower than the rest,

"this section with the Tan Sau it's training as is done in some of the internal arts.  The tip of the things stays on the roof of your mouth, and you always visualize the energy going forward and out through the arms.  The internal path way is that you inhale, up over the head, down around the back into the dantien, you pause and the energy comes back up the front and out.  You do this repeatedly as you are going through this section of he form."

Just took me a bit because it had been a while since I heard the explanation.  There are a few other things in principle as I have said but this is one time I can remember where it is explicitly stated.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> Perhaps it would help if you could illustrate by explaining an example in language you understand. This way others could see where you are coming from. Maybe write about the internal connection of Yiquan as you understand it. Then comparisons could be made without confusion. Just a suggestion.



Yiquan does one thing. It is a simple thing. Either you are talking about it, or not. No languange difficulty because no complexity. I have no desire to talk about it if you don't want to.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> Yiquan does one thing. It is a simple thing. Either you are talking about it, or not. No languange difficulty because no complexity. I have no desire to talk about it if you don't want to.


I wasn't part of the discussion, simply trying to mediate. I should have butted out. I have no interest in discussing the topic of Yiquan.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> I wasn't part of the discussion, simply trying to mediate. I should have butted out. I have no interest in discussing the topic of Yiquan.



Ok

I believe the subject of "internal" was raised as something missing from WSL VT. Difficult to answer if unable to identify what the criticism is.


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> Ok. I believe the subject of "internal" was raised as something missing from WSL VT. Difficult to answer if unable to identify what the criticism is.



I think the original point (in post #121) was in relation to a WSLVT instructor (Sifu Niels Pivato) who talked about learning in the EWTO and with WSLPBVT, and said that "everybody worked with muscular force", and that this force was "always a crucial criteria for the functionality."

He met with Sergio Iadarola and, it seems, he is now a private student with him. 

So the original criticism was that WSLVT (and others, e.g. the EWTO) relied too much on force/strength.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> everybody worked with muscular force



Not working with muscular force is not possible. Internal MA also uses mucsulature to move.


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> Not working with muscular force is not possible. Internal MA also uses mucsulature to move.



For sure! Every movement uses muscle.

But I think that the implication was more along the lines that what this particular person experienced from Sergio (perhaps a softer/more internal method) was able to nullify a harder method (WSLPBVT) that was, in his opinion, needing more _overt muscular force_ for functionality.

He wrote of the seminar he attended: _"What I experiecend there convinced me totally! His Wing Chun works without effort and without any force exertion."_

Like you say,_ 'without force exertion' _doesn't make sense (there's always force used), but I think that we get his general point. And that is one often associated with internal arts - they appear to function without too much effort and overt strength. 

That's why I posted that a soft/internal aspect is maybe a deficiency of the WSL method.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> Like you say,_ 'without force exertion' _doesn't make sense (there's always force used), but I think that we get his general point. And that is one often associated with internal arts - they appear to function without too much effort and overt strength.



I'm not sure that I understand his general point- it isn't clear what he is trying to say. Without force exertion is nonsensical. Without the _appearance_ of force exertion? Sounds like a trivial objection.


----------



## WTchap

I'm not him, so I can't speak of his direct experiences. But here's mine... and so this is why I see it as a valid point, rather than a trivial objection.

You will always find someone out there who is stronger than you - and that's a huge natural advantage for the other guy. If you have a _functional_ _method_ (and not _all_ soft/internal arts are trained with enough resistance and free-play to test functionality, IMO), one that allows you to negate (as much as is physically possible), superior strength, then this helps to balance out your disadvantage.

One Xingyi teacher that I know is about my size, and probably we have about the same muscle development, but the force he generates during relaxed movements is far greater than mine - like, FAR greater . A Tai Chi teacher that I know is maybe 5 inches shorter than me, considerably lighter, too, is 10+ years older and is not a strong guy, but in stand-up grappling he outclasses me almost every time - he's very good at nullifying force whilst taking/controlling my center at the same time.

I've not met Sergio (and I have a few problems with some of the things he says/conclusions he reaches), but I know three people who have met and trained with him (two attended seminars, one started regular lessons). All said the same thing - he was happy to Chi Sau with them and feel what they had, and he was happy to let them try whatever they wanted. All of them had difficulties and said he was very relaxed and hard to hit (he absorbed and redirected whilst staying very loose), and he could take their balance and structure without seeming to do too much to achieve it.

Besides, as we get older our strength and speed can diminish, so it certainly can't hurt to explore methods that require less to gain similar (or perhaps, in some cases, better) results.


----------



## Juany118

WTchap said:


> For sure! Every movement uses muscle.
> 
> But I think that the implication was more along the lines that what this particular person experienced from Sergio (perhaps a softer/more internal method) was able to nullify a harder method (WSLPBVT) that was, in his opinion, needing more _overt muscular force_ for functionality.
> 
> He wrote of the seminar he attended: _"What I experiecend there convinced me totally! His Wing Chun works without effort and without any force exertion."_
> 
> Like you say,_ 'without force exertion' _doesn't make sense (there's always force used), but I think that we get his general point. And that is one often associated with internal arts - they appear to function without too much effort and overt strength.
> 
> That's why I posted that a soft/internal aspect is maybe a deficiency of the WSL method.



I'm am thinking he means muscular or force exertion like this...

Picture needing to flip a 200 lbs block on its side.  Now you can go up, pit your fingers under one edge and lift OR you can get a long rod or staff, a log or such to be a fulcrum and use mechanical advantage and thus use far less personal exertion .

That to me is just WC period though.  The structure of your body having each attack, or defense not founded in just the limb, or even that limb and torso but straight to the ground.  The angle of a _tan-sau_ or _bong-sau_ not only providing for deflection vs block but also making a stronger structure for the limb itself than a straight limb or one at 90 degree angles etc.  The nature of the art, if performed properly, requires less raw muscle use than some other because it essentially uses principles of mechanical advantage and leverage for many of the applications.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> One Xingyi teacher that I know is about my size, and probably we have about the same muscle development, but the force he generates during relaxed movements is far greater than mine - like, FAR greater . A Tai Chi teacher that I know is maybe 5 inches shorter than me, considerably lighter, too, is 10+ years older and is not a strong guy, but in stand-up grappling he outclasses me almost every time - he's very good at nullifying force whilst taking/controlling my center at the same time.



And how do you think they do this, is it magic?

Do you think that you would have a similar experience with (say) Philipp Bayer? Or do you think he would be muscling and forcing techniques against you?


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> And how do you think they do this, is it magic?
> 
> Do you think that you would have a similar experience with (say) Philipp Bayer? Or do you think he would be muscling and forcing techniques against you?



Are you completely obtuse purposely or do you simply like repeating the same questions over and over and over again? It's not "magic" what wtchap was explaining, stop trying to demean people's explanations. As you already know, he's talking about a softer more internal approach rather than the stiff, rounded shouldered Bayer approach. 
Maybe you should spend a little more time reading people's replies to your typically loaded questions and then perhaps you wouldn't come across as so anally retentive...


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> Are you completely obtuse purposely or do you simply like repeating the same questions over and over and over again? It's not "magic" what wtchap was explaining, stop trying to demean people's explanations. As you already know, he's talking about a softer more internal approach rather than the stiff, rounded shouldered Bayer approach.
> Maybe you should spend a little more time reading people's replies to your typically loaded questions and then perhaps you wouldn't come across as so anally retentive...



What is a "softer more internal approach"? What does it consist of?


----------



## Marnetmar

Danny T said:


> This is a different wc than I've experienced. Totally Hard with a lot of wide open telegraphed movements.
> Not a fan if this is representative of everything he does.



I think it's an example of "something in our current training doesn't work, so we're going to do it harder to try and make it work instead of trying something different".


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> And how do you think they do this, is it magic?



Yes, mate... it's _magic_. [finally, forum members has discovered language that you can actually understand] 



guy b. said:


> Do you think that you would have a similar experience with (say) Philipp Bayer? Or do you think he would be muscling and forcing techniques against you?



Dependent on whether we've taken your Philipp Bayer _Love Potion_ beforehand? Should I or others only use your _Muggle_ methods? Did you not read chapter 6 of _How to Play with Bayer Dumbledore and Other Beastly Monsters_?




 



guy b. said:


> What is a "softer more internal approach"? What does it consist of?



Are you telling us that your Yiquan instructor _isn't_ from Hogwarts????  Has he/she taught you nothing? 

Call the _Daily Prophet_ and ask them.


----------



## LFJ

A deficiency means an inadequacy or flaw.

Not containing _Qi_ talk or energy tricks is not an inadequacy or flaw. The system functions perfectly fine as it is meant to without that kind of thing.

If someone wants to learn that stuff, that's their personal preference, not a system flaw.

VT doesn't contain ground fighting either. But I don't think that could qualify as a deficiency. VT is not intended to be used on the ground, nor is it designed to bounce people away with imperceptible movement and mystical energies.

What I have observed in some other lineages are apparent violations of universally recognized principles. That's what I would call a deficiency.

This guy following Sergio wants to learn unrelated energy tricks he didn't find in VT. That's not a system flaw.


----------



## LFJ

Combining Tai Chi and Wing Chun. The result? Not knowing either.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Combining Tai Chi and Wing Chun. The result? Not knowing either.



Impressive. I wish I knew how to get my training partners to freeze like that. Must be the combo of Tai Chi/WT/and perhaps even some HS pixie dust thrown in for good measure?


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> Yes it's _magic_.



If you aren't able to identify what VT is lacking in physical terms, then yes it does sound like something that needs to be believed before it can be seen. 



WTchap said:


> One Xingyi teacher that I know is about my size, and probably we have about the same muscle development, but the force he generates during relaxed movements is far greater than mine - like, FAR greater . A Tai Chi teacher that I know is maybe 5 inches shorter than me, considerably lighter, too, is 10+ years older and is not a strong guy, but in stand-up grappling he outclasses me almost every time - he's very good at nullifying force whilst taking/controlling my center at the same time.



People that are better than you are better than you and feel very strong- this is not uncommon. It doesn't require a new phenomenon in order to be explained. 

Until there is some physical explantion of what "internal" means, then there isn't anything concrete to reply to in this criticism.


----------



## WTchap

LFJ said:


> A deficiency means an inadequacy or flaw.



@guy b. started the thread saying, "_Post your view please. No offence will be taken. I welcome the opportunity to learn from other perspectives._"

What I posted is what Sifu Niels Pivato obviously feels is a flaw. His comment states that in his previous WSLVT/WT experience, he found that in order for people to make it functional, strength was required. For him, that is obviously an inadequacy, as a softer approach, in his opinion, is lacking.

If he was willing to become a student of Sergio, having previously had _physical_ training directly with Philipp Bayer, this would indicated that his _physical_ training with Sergio exposed a deficiency in his VT. If WSLPBVT works, and what Sergio does is just tricks, wouldn't it be Sergio's method that was exposed?

I don't expect you (@LFJ and @guy b.) to agree with him - but Guy did ask for perspectives. Sifu Niels Pivato has a fair bit of experience, and he offered a perspective.



LFJ said:


> Not containing _Qi_ talk or energy tricks is not an inadequacy or flaw.



I agree that _Qi talk_ is not needed. _Energy tricks_... well, I don't see it as a trick. I'm guessing the same is true for Sifu Niels Pivato.



LFJ said:


> VT is not intended to be used on the ground, nor is it designed to bounce people away with imperceptible movement and mystical energies.



How do you bounce someone away with _mystical energies_? You can't. What is happening is physical. The process is physical, and is trained in a physical way.



guy b. said:


> If you aren't able to identify what VT is lacking in physical terms, then yes it does sound like something that needs to be believed before it can be seen.



As I said above, it _is_ a physical process. Do you think Tai Chi's _Peng_ is not physical? Is what you train in Yiquan (your post training and _Fa Li _training, for example), not physical?



guy b. said:


> People that are better than you are better than you and feel very strong- this is not uncommon. It doesn't require a new phenomenon in order to be explained.



This isn't exactly what I meant. Both of the people I mentioned feel very relaxed. I am stronger than the Tai Chi teacher, for example, but he still has the upper-hand - he is better but doesn't_ feel stronger _than me. He is more connected, for sure.



guy b. said:


> Until there is some physical explantion of what "internal" means, then there isn't anything concrete to reply to in this criticism.



Earlier in the thread you asked about internal work, and I said that creating connections in the body was a part of this (and just one part).

I said: _"Connections* If I talk about connections and you don't know what I mean, I need to... what... outline every aspect of Fascia and musculature in the body? Explain how it ties back to core muscle groups? Explain the role of breathing and how it impacts on the above? Explain what happens when muscle is twisted around bone? Explain power lines in the body? Explain the function of tendons - and then should I explain the nature of elasticity?"_

Do you really not see Fascia and musculature as physical? Are core muscles groups not physical? What about breathing - it has no physical effect? Twisting muscle - not a physical act, with a physical result? Tendons - not something physical in your body? Tying together all of these things, linking them, is, what... _mystical_ nonsense?


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> What is a "softer more internal approach"? What does it consist of?


You're now taking the p$ss, right?


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> His comment states that in his previous WSLVT/WT experience, he found that in order for people to make it functional, strength was required. For him, that is obviously an inadequacy, as a softer approach, in his opinion, is lacking.



Strength is required for any movement, including internal MA movement. All movement requires muscles to exert forces on the skeleton. A "softer approach", whatever that might mean, is no different. 



WTchap said:


> If he was willing to become a student of Sergio, having previously had _physical_ training directly with Philipp Bayer, this would indicated that his _physical_ training with Sergio exposed a deficiency in his VT



Maybe he just likes to believe in fairy tales? Without more information I have no way of evaluating his claims because it is difficult to tell what exactly he is claiming. 



WTchap said:


> As I said above, it _is_ a physical process. Do you think Tai Chi's _Peng_ is not physical? Is what you train in Yiquan (your post training and _Fa Li _training, for example), not physical?



I know what I train in Yiquan. But nobody has given any indication of what this person thinks Sergio's system offers that is lacking in VT. If it is something physical then describe what it is in simple physical terms showing how it is different to movement in VT. 



WTchap said:


> he is better but doesn't_ feel stronger _than me. He is more connected, for sure



I don't know what this means



WTchap said:


> I said: _"Connections* If I talk about connections and you don't know what I mean, I need to... what... outline every aspect of Fascia and musculature in the body? Explain how it ties back to core muscle groups? Explain the role of breathing and how it impacts on the above? Explain what happens when muscle is twisted around bone? Explain power lines in the body? Explain the function of tendons - and then should I explain the nature of elasticity?"_



I believe you didn't go on to explain your understanding of any of these things. Please do.



WTchap said:


> Do you really not see Fascia and musculature as physical? Are core muscles groups not physical? What about breathing - it has no physical effect? Twisting muscle - not a physical act, with a physical result? Tendons - not something physical in your body? Tying together all of these things, linking them, is, what... _mystical_ nonsense?



Everyone has fascia, musculature, tendons and so on which allow the body to move in a connected rathr than disjointed way, barring physical impediment. Everyone breathes and everyone coordinates breath with physical effort naturally. I'm not seeing what is special about metion of these mundane things.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> You're now taking the p$ss, right?



Not at all, please describe in simple physical terms.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> A deficiency means an inadequacy or flaw. Not containing _Qi_ talk or energy tricks is not an inadequacy or flaw. The system functions perfectly fine as it is meant to without that kind of thing. If someone wants to learn that stuff, that's their personal preference, not a system flaw.



--Fair enough.



LFJ said:


> ...VT doesn't contain ground fighting either. But I don't think that could qualify as a deficiency. VT is not intended to be used on the ground...



--I would disagree. Although VT/WC doesn't need ground fighting to be effective, it definitely needs reliable strategies to _both_ defend against a. grapplers who would take you to the ground, and  b. to escape and recover from the ground to your standup game if the unexpected occurs. Most lineages of VT/WC  do not adequately address both these areas, leaving practitioners vulnerable to a good grappling attack. In my view, that is a _deficiency_ that is best acknowledged and dealt with.



LFJ said:


> ...What I have observed in some other lineages are apparent violations of _universally recognized _principles. That's what I would call a deficiency.



--Hmmm. Not disagreeing mind you, but if those lineages violate these principles, how can they be _universally recognized?  _


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> it definitely needs reliable strategies to _both_ defend against a. grapplers who would take you to the ground, and b. to escape and recover from the ground to your standup game if the unexpected occurs. Most lineages of VT/WC do not adequately address both these areas, leaving practitioners vulnerable to a good grappling attack. In my view, that is a _deficiency_ that is best acknowledged and dealt with.



VT isn't concerned with fighting on the ground. Personally I think this a good thing, because it is clear and there is no muddled/bad teaching of second hand grappling in the system. Bjj is an excellent ground grappling system which is readily available in most western countries. If grappling is a concern then bjj is the place to look for answers.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> VT isn't concerned with fighting on the ground. Personally I think this a good thing, because it is clear and there is no muddled/bad teaching of second hand grappling in the system. Bjj is an excellent ground grappling system which is readily available in most western countries. If grappling is a concern then bjj is the place to look for answers.



_I quite agree._ That doesn't change the fact that VT/WC is deficient in offering protection against a good grappler/ground fighter. Maybe if some of the other groups that have attempted to concoct their own anti-grappling programs were able to accept that_ this is an area VT/WC doesn't address very well,_ they would come to the same conclusion as you and I.

God, wierd finding myself agreeing with Guy. ...I think I kinda like it!


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> Strength is required for any movement, including internal MA movement. All movement requires muscles to exert forces on the skeleton. A "softer approach", whatever that might mean, is no different.



We've been over this - at least once already. Yes - muscle, and therefore strength, is always used, whatever the art. But if you can't see the difference between the use of strength in an internal art, compared to an external art, then I'm sorry... for starters you're either not training Yiquan, or your teacher in that art is not teaching you properly. It's that simple.



guy b. said:


> Maybe he just likes to believe in fairy tales? Without more information I have no way of evaluating his claims because it is difficult to tell what exactly he is claiming.



Just use your head. If you advocate that PB is a good instructor, and that the art he teaches is effective, then it stands to reason that Sifu Niels Pivato, who learned WSLPBVT _directly_ from PB, has trained in a system that is practical, hands on and not based on fairy tales... yet when Pivato met Sergio, he was shown something that was enough for him to want to learn from Sergio. You think Pivato was convinced by talking about it? That he attended a seminar and didn't want, ask for and get, hands-on time with Sergio? Really? 



guy b. said:


> I know what I train in Yiquan.



With all due respect, either the Yiquan you train is not actually Yiquan, or you haven't understood what you've been taught. It is an internal art, yet you seem to know nothing about what makes an internal art, internal. We both agree that Qi myth and fairy tales should not be a part of the equation, and that leaves a physical explanation - yet you don't seem to understand any of the physical hallmarks that run through _all_ of the internal arts. You constantly ask what the physical processes and training are (but if you have it, you'll know it, Guy) and when I talk about it in brief, you say you _don't understand the language_. 



guy b. said:


> But nobody has given any indication of what this person thinks Sergio's system offers that is lacking in VT.



Really? 



guy b. said:


> If it is something physical then describe what it is in simple physical terms showing how it is different to movement in VT.



As you are refusing to read what I've written in the past, including what I wrote about 'connections' in my previous post... do me a favour. First, go speak with your Yiquan teacher. Ask him or her the same question. The, let's talk some more.



guy b. said:


> I don't know what this means



Believe me, I'm beginning to believe you. I think you really, genuinely don't know.  



guy b. said:


> I believe you didn't go on to explain your understanding of any of these things. Please do.



You want me to detail how I train these things, and train them on a daily basis. That's what it would take, a detailed explanation. Sorry, I'm not going to do the job of your Yiquan teacher. God, I hope you're not paying him/her for your _lessons_.



guy b. said:


> Everyone has fascia, musculature, tendons and so on...



Yep, and that's the beauty of the internal systems - everything they have to offer is available to anyone who wants to train it. No mysterious force, no Harry Potter magic. 



guy b. said:


> .... which allow the body to move in a connected rathr than disjointed way, barring physical impediment.



Yes, but _how_ do we use them? Do we automatically use them in an optimal way for a specific outcome - in this case, fighting? I remember once, on another forum, someone from WSLVT said that the elbow position used in their art was not natural - it had to be trained for function. We all have an elbow, and we use it, quite naturally, for many things... but we don't all automatically use it the VT way. 

Or, to give another example, anyone can grab a sword and draw it, but can everyone draw a sword like Kuroda Sensei. Check 0:46 - 0:53 in this video:





His speed is more than _just_ the result of lots of practise - it is _how_ he practices. I'm not going to write an essay on it - do some research if you're interested. But I'll give you one word (even though I know you don't want to understand it): connections. And yes, I'm meaning _in_ the body. 



guy b. said:


> Everyone breathes and everyone coordinates breath with physical effort naturally.



Yes, but does a person studying advanced yoga, for example, just breathe in exactly the same way as a guy sitting at home, watching TV? Or do you concede that what an advanced yoga practitioner has learned to do with their breathing is different from how _everyone coordinates breath_? 



guy b. said:


> I'm not seeing what is special about metion of these mundane things.



I know you're not seeing it. You're not able to see how mundane things can be trained and used in a way that offers additional benefits.

Look, you've heard of Wang Xiangzhai, yes?  He created the art you say you study. He wrote that his Zhan Zhuang exercises should include, among other things, movement and non-movement, empty and full, relaxed and tense. Does everyone do this automatically because we all _have the same fascia, musculature, tendons and so on_. Or does Yiquan have a training methodology that teaches you _how_ to use the body? (and I'm not even touching on the art's heavy use of visualisation and intent training... which, yes, has to have a connection to what you're doing physically).

I'm not even sure why I bother asking you these questions - it's pretty clear that you're not studying an internal martial art.


----------



## KPM

For what its worth WTChap, I've been following everything you've been saying recently in this thread.  And I have never studied I Chuan, Hsing I, or Tai Chi.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> For what its worth WTChap, I've been following everything you've been saying recently in this thread.  And I have never studied I Chuan, Hsing I, or Tai Chi.


The "Internal" training can help you (general YOU) to pay attention on some areas that you may not pay enough attention before. But if you already pay attention in those areas, the term "internal" will have little meaning to you.

- Your arm should coordinate with your leg (3 outer harmonies). This is my major concern about WC SNT that I don't see such "coordination".
- Your mind should always focus on your leading hand at any moment (3 inner harmonies).
- You should only see body move (Shenfa) and not arm move. This is also my concern about WC SNT that I only see arm move and I don't see much body move.
- Your body should push/pull your limbs.
- All power generation come from bottom and up, back and forward.
- You power generation come from compress and release.
- The beginning of your next move should be blended nicely with the end of your previous move.
- Your opponent may force you to move back but he will never break your structure.
- Your structure should be from the top of your head all the way to the back of your foot.
- Concentrate on "body unification" and ignore "muscle group isolation".
- If your opponent wants to move in a certain way, help him to move more than he wants to, and lead him into the emptiness.
- ...


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> But if you can't see the difference between the use of strength in an internal art, compared to an external art, then I'm sorry... for starters you're either not training Yiquan, or your teacher in that art is not teaching you properly.



I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be. You are doing that, via the experience of someone else. For you to make that criticism, you need to identify what it is that you mean by the term, or provide more infomation from the person you quoted where he is more specific. So far this person taked about moving without the use of strength, which you argree is clearly nonsense. Beyond that he really hasn't provided any detail at all. 

As far as my training in Yiquan goes, you haven't mentioned what it is that Yiquan trains, which is why I see no need to discuss it. It will take you a sentence or two. It is simple. 

You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to. All of the very non-specific description you have given so far are the kind of thing you can find on the website of any Tai Chi school. And that includes Tai Chi schools who have no clue what it is they are trying to do. Really you need to be more specific or this criticism of WSL VT can't be answered. I don't mind either way, up to you.


----------



## Juany118

guy b. said:


> I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be. You are doing that, via the experience of someone else. For you to make that criticism, you need to identify what it is that you mean by the term, or provide more infomation from the person you quoted where he is more specific. So far this person taked about moving without the use of strength, which you argree is clearly nonsense. Beyond that he really hasn't provided any detail at all.
> 
> As far as my training in Yiquan goes, you haven't mentioned what it is that Yiquan trains, which is why I see no need to discuss it. It will take you a sentence or two. It is simple.
> 
> You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to. All of the very non-specific description you have given so far are the kind of thing you can find on the website of any Tai Chi school. And that includes Tai Chi schools who have no clue what it is they are trying to do. Really you need to be more specific or this criticism of WSL VT can't be answered. I don't mind either way, up to you.




Pretty sure on that last bit he did, if in broad strokes, earlier when I raised that the Wing Chun I study rather holistic, or hybrid, and thus contains internal and external principles side by side.  I noted the "physics" of maneuvers that are consistent with Internal arts and so argued that if the mechanics are the same then, regardless of the teaching method or semantics involved those techniques can be seen as internal.  He argued, while noting method and semantics differences, that this is not the case in his opinion.  Simply because he does not produce a treatise on the subject to your satisfaction doesn't mean it wasn't addressed.


----------



## guy b.

Juany118 said:


> Pretty sure on that last bit he did, if in broad strokes, earlier when I raised that the Wing Chun I study rather holistic, or hybrid, and thus contains internal and external principles side by side.



You could go to wikipedia and copy paste something similar. There is nothing specific enough to answer.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be. You are doing that, via the experience of someone else. For you to make that criticism, you need to identify what it is that you mean by the term, or provide more infomation from the person you quoted where he is more specific. So far this person taked about moving without the use of strength, which you argree is clearly nonsense. Beyond that he really hasn't provided any detail at all.
> 
> As far as my training in Yiquan goes, you haven't mentioned what it is that Yiquan trains, which is why I see no need to discuss it. It will take you a sentence or two. It is simple.
> 
> You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to. All of the very non-specific description you have given so far are the kind of thing you can find on the website of any Tai Chi school. And that includes Tai Chi schools who have no clue what it is they are trying to do. Really you need to be more specific or this criticism of WSL VT can't be answered. I don't mind either way, up to you.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be.
> 
> ...You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to. All of the very non-specific description you have given so far are the kind of thing you can find on the website of any Tai Chi school. And that includes Tai Chi schools who have no clue what it is they are trying to do. Really you need to be more specific or this criticism of WSL VT can't be answered. I don't mind either way, up to you.



Dang. It's happening again. I seem to find myself agreeing with Guy _again_. 

My concept of VT/WT/WC doesn't deny the possible benefits of "internal" training, but we don't emphasize it either. We consider our system "soft" in that we stress relaxation and proper structure rather than pure  muscular strength to achieve power, and we seek to borrow force rather than clashing with it. So we are "soft" but not "internal" ...at least in the sense that some of the classical Chinese arts are. 

If you want to talk about qi, dantien, meridians, and the like, fine. On the other hand, like GM Yip, we feel that everything we do can be adequately explained with simple scientific principles as well. There are many ways to explain things that can be useful to the student. I'm good with whatever works, since the proof is in the pudding.


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> I am not claiming that VT is deficient in "internal" strength, whatever that might be. You are doing that, via the experience of someone else. For you to make that criticism, you need to identify what it is that you mean by the term...



If you reread my posts, you'll see I've answered this already.



guy b. said:


> ...or provide more infomation from the person you quoted where he is more specific.



As a WSLVT practitioner, if you're really interested I'd suggest _you_ contact him. I can see where he's coming from, and so from his already-stated perspective I don't _need_ to know more - though I'd be interested to hear it, sure.



guy b. said:


> So far this person taked about moving without the use of strength, which you argree is clearly nonsense



Yes, and that has also already been addressed in earlier posts. His point is imperfectly worded, but most _reasonable_ people can see the point he's trying to make.



guy b. said:


> As far as my training in Yiquan goes, you haven't mentioned what it is that Yiquan trains, which is why I see no need to discuss it. It will take you a sentence or two. It is simple.



I'd rather that _you_ describe Yiquan in _a sentence or two_, to be honest - as, IMO, it is actually a deep art. Simplified in form (_Xing_), complex in _Yi_.

However, I'll talk about it in part in answer to your question below...



guy b. said:


> You have mentioned body connection, muscles, fascia, tendons and so on, but without describing what the difference is between the use of these body structures in normal day to day life, and in "internal" MA, there isn't anything for me to reply to.



Again, I've already answered this in previous posts. I said that the difference is to "get more bang for your buck." This work can aid in greater power development, and help to get the power out. Using it can help in other ways too, for example, how you manage incoming force. The difference between this and "_normal day to day life_" as you put it, is optimisation. Hence, why I referenced Yoga and breathing, and Kuroda Sensei and a sword draw.

But if you want to look at _some_ of this from Yiquan, I'd say look to Yiquan's Zhan Zhuang (as all internal arts make use of the same training you find here).

In a _static_ pose, you're relaxing into the posture, trying to maintain it using only the necessary postural muscles, but using the natural effect of gravity to add in '_some_' tension in the tissues required for a release of energy/force (so Zhan Zhuang training is connected to Fa Li training). I know you're going to say "_what tissues?_"... well, think about it for a bit, or ask your teacher.

The postures also typically make use of the _winding_ and/or _pulling_ that I mentioned in earlier replies to your questions, to help with this. They also might use a form of _pairing_, too. I know you're going to ask "_what does winding, pulling and pairing mean?_"... well, think about it a bit, or ask your teacher.

All of the tissues and muscle groupings 'connect' back to the center, and so this training as a whole helps work, and connect, the parts of the body that have great potential for storing and releasing. There is an elastic quality to this work. From this, you can probably understand why I earlier quoted Wang Xiangzhai talking about _movement and non-movement, empty and full, relaxed and tense_. If you don't understand, think more about it, or ask your teacher.

Tai Chi should also make use of this, as should Xingyi, as should Bagua.

The reason that there's so much visualisation in this practise relates back to what I've posted earlier on this subject. In Zhan Zhuang, the _optimisation_ I mentioned relates to working the high potential for power/force, and is trained from static postures that are not actually static at all (as described above).

How you think that can be summed up in "two sentences, it's simple" is beyond me (and brevity itself).


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> Dang. It's happening again. I seem to find myself agreeing with Guy _again_.
> 
> My concept of VT/WT/WC doesn't deny the possible benefits of "internal" training, but we don't emphasize it either. We consider our system "soft" in that we stress relaxation and proper structure rather than pure  muscular strength to achieve power, and we seek to borrow force rather than clashing with it. So we are "soft" but not "internal" ...at least in the sense that some of the classical Chinese arts are.
> 
> If you want to talk about qi, dantien, meridians, and the like, fine. On the other hand, like GM Yip, we feel that everything we do can be adequately explained with simple scientific principles as well. There are many ways to explain things that can be useful to the student. I'm good with whatever works, since the proof is in the pudding.


I find this agreeable, however, the topic of "internal" can be quite ambiguous & suggestive. It depends on how one views & understands the topic of internal. Is it simply relaxation & intent, is it structure & alignment, is it breathing, is it a mindset, is it chi or is it all these things? If so to what degree is each emphasized & why? 

Without specific excepted parameters agreed upon by all parties a discussion on internal can become quite a quagmire.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> I find this agreeable, however, the topic of "internal" can be quite ambiguous & suggestive. It depends on how one views & understands the topic of internal. Is it simply relaxation & intent, is it structure & alignment, is it breathing, is it a mindset, is it chi or is it all these things? If so to what degree is each emphasized & why?
> 
> Without specific excepted parameters agreed upon by all parties a discussion on internal can become quite a quagmire.



Correct. Without specific information it is possible to be talking about completely different things while both using the fuzzy language of "internal"


----------



## WTchap

Nobody Important said:


> Without specific excepted parameters agreed upon by all parties a discussion on internal can become quite a quagmire.



Aint that the truth!  In my opinion, the greatest contribution to sorting out 'internal' comes from today's teachers - and often (though not always) from people in the West.

Masters from the past new their arts' results from experience, but perhaps described the cause and effect incorrectly. So we have odd stories and theories concerning _Qi/Chi_, claims/ideas that have not (as yet) been reliably tested.

I don't think in terms of _Qi_. It's far simpler to look at what is actually happening physically.



Nobody Important said:


> Is it simply relaxation & intent, is it structure & alignment, is it breathing, is it a mindset, is it chi or is it all these things?



With the exception of _Qi_, I think it is all of these things plus the use of the dantien, and utilising "connections" LOL  - the 'body suit' is a nice way of tying the latter two together in a way that makes sense (without needing too much knowledge of anatomy)



Nobody Important said:


> If so to what degree is each emphasized & why?



From what I'm taught, all of the above is learned and is _equally_ important. But maybe the quagmire can't be fully avoided (it is a kinda complex form of training), and in that sense it's like the "what did Yip Man teach?" arguments, or "who got the real YM Wing Chun?" discussions... these topics have been debated pretty much ever since YM's death in the 70s. 

And sometimes, no names need be mentioned, some people just like to argue.


----------



## WTchap

guy b. said:


> Without specific information it is possible to be talking about completely different things while both using the fuzzy language of "internal"



Well, regarding Zuan Zhuang in Yiquan, I gave you (above) enough information for you to tell me how it relates to your own understanding and training in Yiquan.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> If you reread my posts, you'll see I've answered this already.



You haven't answered in a specific way, only in terms so general as to be meaningless



WTchap said:


> As a WSLVT practitioner, if you're really interested I'd suggest _you_ contact him. I can see where he's coming from, and so from his already-stated perspective I don't _need_ to know more - though I'd be interested to hear it, sure



I don't need to know either. I know what I am training in internal MA and I strongly suspect, from what they say, that this person has no clue. I am inviting criticism in this thread. If there is criticism to make then make it please. 



WTchap said:


> most _reasonable_ people can see the point he's trying to make.



I am sorry, I don't see it, and I am a reasonable person with internal MA experience. What he is saying seems on the face of it to be nonsense. I think that he is probably trying to rationalise his illogical choice to himself, rather than face the unpalatable truths about himself which would make his choice logical. 



WTchap said:


> I'd rather that _you_ describe Yiquan in _a sentence or two_, to be honest



I think this is probably because you are worried you will give the wrong answer



WTchap said:


> In a _static_ pose, you're relaxing into the posture, trying to maintain it using only the necessary postural muscles, but using the natural effect of gravity to add in '_some_' tension in the tissues required for a release of energy/force (so Zhan Zhuang training is connected to Fa Li training). I know you're going to say "_what tissues?_"... well, think about it for a bit, or ask your teacher.
> 
> The postures also typically make use of the _winding_ and/or _pulling_ that I mentioned in earlier replies to your questions, to help with this. They also might use a form of _pairing_, too. I know you're going to ask "_what does winding, pulling and pairing mean?_"... well, think about it a bit, or ask your teacher.
> 
> All of the tissues and muscle groupings 'connect' back to the center, and so this training as a whole helps work, and connect, the parts of the body that have great potential for storing and releasing. There is an elastic quality to this work. From this, you can probably understand why I earlier quoted Wang Xiangzhai talking about _movement and non-movement, empty and full, relaxed and tense_. If you don't understand, think more about it, or ask your teacher.
> 
> Tai Chi should also make use of this, as should Xingyi, as should Bagua.
> 
> The reason that there's so much visualisation in this practise relates back to what I've posted earlier on this subject. In Zhan Zhuang, the _optimisation_ I mentioned relates to working the high potential for power/force, and is trained from static postures that are not actually static at all (as described above).
> 
> How you think that can be summed up in "two sentences, it's simple" is beyond me (and brevity itself).



It can be summed up in 3 or 4 words, none of which appear here


----------



## Nobody Important

WTchap said:


> Aint that the truth!  In my opinion, the greatest contribution to sorting out 'internal' comes from today's teachers - and often (though not always) from people in the West.
> 
> Masters from the past new their arts' results from experience, but perhaps described the cause and effect incorrectly. So we have odd stories and theories concerning _Qi/Chi_, claims/ideas that have not (as yet) been reliably tested.
> 
> I don't think in terms of _Qi_. It's far simpler to look at what is actually happening physically.
> 
> 
> 
> With the exception of _Qi_, I think it is all of these things plus the use of the dantien, and utilising "connections" LOL  - the 'body suit' is a nice way of tying the latter two together in a way that makes sense (without needing too much knowledge of anatomy)
> 
> 
> 
> From what I'm taught, all of the above is learned and is _equally_ important. But maybe the quagmire can't be fully avoided (it is a kinda complex from of training), and in that sense it's like the "what did Yip Man teach?" arguments, or "who got the real YM Wing Chun?" discussions... these topics have been debated pretty much ever since YM's death in the 70s.
> 
> And sometimes, no names need be mentioned, some people just like to argue.


I think that any discussion that involves Dantian could not exclude simultaneous discussion of Chi. It is a major chakra in CMA, the Field of Cinnabar, and as such a storage place of Chi. I think yao (waist) is a better topic & less controversial, lol.


----------



## WTchap

@guy b. 

Okay (_sigh_), I'm done with you. If that's your response to Zuan Zhuang training in Yiquan, then:


Sorry, I don't believe you're actually studying the art - you're just bull$hitting your way to more questions
There's no point in me trying further. No matter how much I give you, no matter how much I try to explain something to you, you're just going to continue saying that to you it is "meaningless"
Your inability to even attempt an answer to others questions is just rude. 
You're a troll . Congratulations, you convinced me to keep trying. Idiotically, I did try.

Good luck with whatever the heck internal art you think you're training.


----------



## WTchap

Nobody Important said:


> I think that any discussion that involves Dantian could not exclude simultaneous discussion of Chi. It is a major chakra in CMA, the Field of Cinnabar, and as such a storage place of Chi.



I think that for some, this is how they describe it. For me, _Qi_, and talk of monitoring it etc., is a very wiggly can of worms. 

The dantien and mingmen training that I’ve been taught is a set of physical exercises for this area of the body (combining breath work with physically expanding and contracting, etc.; and then leading on to rotational movements and side-to-side movements, and so on). There’s a lot of stretching going on, and it takes a bit of coordination, too. It's good training – and in some exercises it shows well how movement in the dantien area can directly correspond with/lead the arms.



Nobody Important said:


> I think yao (waist) is a better topic & less controversial, lol.



Less controversial, for sure.


----------



## guy b.

WTchap said:


> @guy b.Okay, I'm done



Ok



WTchap said:


> Sorry, I don't believe you're actually studying the art



That's your perogative. I am stuying Yiquan



WTchap said:


> o matter how much I try to explain something to you, you're just going to continue saying that to you it is meaningless



I think you aren't that good at explaining. If you want to make a criticism you need to be clear. Virtually nothing in internal MA is clear, and most understand very little.



WTchap said:


> Your inability to even attempt an answer to others questions is just rude



I'm sorry, the only questions I saw were ones where you were attempting to get me to answer my own question to you. If I missed anything different then please ask again and I will do my best to answer (if it is important to you). 



WTchap said:


> Congratulations, you convinced me to keep trying



I am not interested in continuing meaningless discussion, which is what this has amounted to. I do wish to answer criticism of VT where it arises. Since you didn't provide anything concrete it wasn't possible to answer and I wouldn't count it as meaningful criticism. Sorry. I am very happy to stop talking about it.


----------



## KPM

WTchap said:


> You're a troll . Congratulations, you convinced me to keep trying. Idiotically, I did try.
> 
> .



Don't say I didn't warn you!


----------



## Dirty Dog

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
*
Please return to the original topic and keep it polite. Further name calling and rudeness will result in the thread being locked and infraction points being issued.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I think that any discussion that involves Dantian could not exclude simultaneous discussion of Chi. It is a major chakra in CMA, the Field of Cinnabar, and as such a storage place of Chi. I think yao (waist) is a better topic & less controversial, lol.



Actually I think you can IF you stop for a moment and simply look to where the dantian are located (meaning lower, middle and upper).  If you stop looking at them as chakra and instead simply as locations in 3 dimensional space, they maintain their importance, especially in Wing Chun.  Those points, when in proper alignment with our feet, are the very foundation of Wing Chun.  That synergy creates our Structure.

The lower dantian is also important on its own.  Proper breathing is vital for all martial arts if your intent is to engage in real martial combat.  Dantian breathing provides the body with more oxygen and thus helps to regulate your heart rate when that hormone dump comes when "fight or flight" kicks in.  It is also vital simply in doing the forms and other practice because it helps us relax, find our center and thus have the "flow" necessary to properly execute all of our techniques.  Wing Chun is not like many Karate forms when you meet force with force,  where you are trying to put your fist "through" the target.  We wish to deflect, to flow and find the blind side.  We wish to impart our energy into the target instantaneously, but not follow through in the way of many forms of Karate and other arts because if we do, inevitably energy will feed back into our arm and thus our body, disturbing our structure (thank you Issac Newton  )  With the dantian breathing relaxing us as we train we develop the muscle memory to also flow when the real fight comes.

They are still important, even vital to martial arts, one simply needs to strip away the philosophy.  We have to remember that the reason these centers exist is because the ancients knew of their importance they simply did not have the science to explain why they were important.  When you lack that science, you turn to philosophy and metaphysics to define why they are important.  This is not to diminish what these ancient masters taught.  They were brilliant in that they knew these centers were important, they simply lacked the knowledge to define the true reason why.  Copernicus was brilliant in proving the heliocentric model.  However he lacked the knowledge to understand what Kepler later did, that the planets had elliptical orbits.  This lack of knowledge doesn't diminish his brilliance.


----------



## geezer

WTchap said:


> ...And sometimes, no names need be mentioned, *some people just like to argue*.




I like to argue. Why else would I hang out on this contentious forum!


----------



## geezer

Dirty Dog said:


> *ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> *
> Please return to the original topic and keep it polite. Further name calling and rudeness will result in the thread being locked and infraction points being issued.



Oops. Missed this. I promise I'll be good.


----------



## LFJ

WTchap said:


> What I posted is what Sifu Niels Pivato obviously feels is a flaw. His comment states that in his previous WSLVT/WT experience, he found that in order for people to make it functional, strength was required. For him, that is obviously an inadequacy, as a softer approach, in his opinion, is lacking.



Besides strength obviously being required to accomplish anything physical, if his VT was not functional without him being stronger than the opponent, then he was doing it wrong and what he thinks is a flaw in VT, is actually a flaw in his understanding.



> Sifu Niels Pivato has a fair bit of experience, and he offered a perspective.



Only a few years in VT, and less than 10 in total, but that's just time. It doesn't tell us how much direct instruction he received in that time. From his statement, it seems not much.



> How do you bounce someone away with _mystical energies_? You can't. What is happening is physical. The process is physical, and is trained in a physical way.



You can't bounce someone away without using physical strength at all. This doesn't mean you have to be stronger than them though, if you are using biomechanical leverages to your advantage, but you must transfer your strength into them. Soft energy or whatever won't do it.

Again, if someone doesn't understand this, the flaw is in their understanding (and dreaming), not the system they haven't learned well.

I heard another 1st generation student of WSL (although with _very_ negligible direct experience) talk about turning to Tai Chi to help him learn about soft energy to augment his VT. 

This is the video he posted of his teacher, and he told people not to knock things they haven't gone and felt personally.

All I can say to that, is that there are many stupid people in this world. 

Do you believe this old man is really able to send this guy hopping 30 yards by giving him a little _Qi_ bump from the belly?

Sergio teaches the same kind of nonsense and talks about _Qi_ as he performs on paralyzed demo dummies. If someone thinks VT is lacking this stuff, that's their retarded opinion, not a system flaw of VT.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Although VT/WC doesn't need ground fighting to be effective, it definitely needs reliable strategies to _both_ defend against a. grapplers who would take you to the ground, and  b. to escape and recover from the ground to your standup game if the unexpected occurs. Most lineages of VT/WC  do not adequately address both these areas, leaving practitioners vulnerable to a good grappling attack. In my view, that is a _deficiency_ that is best acknowledged and dealt with.



Best acknowledged and dealt with by reinventing the wheel though? Certainly not.

I think VT has enough tools to fight grapplers in standup. If already on the ground though, you should not try to _chi-sau_ the guy or something.

If you try to adapt VT to the ground, that's when its lack of ground game would become a system flaw.

I wouldn't count lack of something outside of what it is designed to do as a system flaw, because it still works as it's supposed to... and it wouldn't be specific to WSLVT anyway.



> --Hmmm. Not disagreeing mind you, but if those lineages violate these principles, how can they be _universally recognized?  _



Because they also recognize the same principles, but what they say and do are still directly opposed. They just don't realize it.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> Sergio teaches the same kind of nonsense and talks about _Qi_ as he performs on paralyzed demo dummies. If someone thinks VT is lacking this stuff, that's their retarded opinion, not a system flaw of VT.



There is never ever a simple physical discussion about what is happening. Always it is couched in obscure language. When you ask for simplification you are a troll or just don't get it.

Of course all is physical. Things that claim not to be physical, or which look extremely unlikely, are generally tricks or setup situations. When someone tells of the soft style master who can easily control them and neutralise everything they do, well then they should try rolling with a good BJJ black belt or sparring a good boxer/MT fighter or standup grappling a good judo player. In these situations they will also feel completely powerless; nothing they try will work and they will be handled like a child. This is just what happens when someone really good goes against someone not very good. No internal strength or special powers required.


----------



## WTchap

LFJ said:


> Besides strength obviously being required to accomplish anything physical...



Yes, of course - I don't think anyone has disagreed with this. Sifu Niels Pivato certainly worded his comments incorrectly, but I won't hold his not being a native English speaker against him. He was meaning, of course, what you say below - functionality requiring greater strength (in his opinion) regarding VT.



LFJ said:


> ...if his VT was not functional without him being stronger than the opponent, then he was doing it wrong and what he thinks is a flaw in VT, is actually a flaw in his understanding. Only a few years in VT...



A flaw in his understanding I can accept, but this would also indicate a flaw in his teacher's teachings (I heard he was a direct student of PB, but I don't know that first hand). Years ago on the KungFuMagazine forum, a WSLPBVT student said that it only takes PB a few hours to explain his system and that, following that, you'll see the system the "correct way."

Putting aside the possibility of hyperbole from that person on the other forum, you're saying that Pivato had _only a few years _in VT. A few years ought to be enough for PB to correct someone's misunderstanding, I would imagine, even if they weren't meeting too frequently (but who knows, maybe they met often).



LFJ said:


> You can't bounce someone away without using physical strength at all.



Of course. I'm not disagreeing with you on this point.



LFJ said:


> This doesn't mean you have to be stronger than them though, if you are using biomechanical leverages to your advantage, but you must transfer your strength into them.



I agree that you have to transfer force into them. I think the difference is in how it feels, based on where the force comes from and how it is transferred. The person you engage with feels softer, more relaxed, yet still powerful. The engine is different, is all.



LFJ said:


> I heard another 1st generation student of WSL (although with _very_ negligible direct experience) talk about turning to Tai Chi to help him learn about soft energy to augment his VT.



I've never met Clive Potter, so I don't know how direct his learning was from WSL. But he's not the first to do this, of course. Hawkins Cheung has also had many, many years of Tai Chi training, and he rates it highly... and he was direct student of Yip Man.



LFJ said:


> This is the video he posted of his teacher, and he told people not to knock things they haven't gone and felt personally. All I can say to that, is that there are many stupid people in this world. Do you believe this old man is really able to send this guy hopping 30 yards by giving him a little _Qi_ bump from the belly?



No, I don't believe in any of these displays of people being sent hopping back 30 yards, or those videos that have people jumping around like kangaroos, etc. I've met people who claim they can do it, and I've stood there and not needed to move my feet at all.

However, I _have_ experienced nauseating amounts of pain from strikes that seemed to come from very little movement and were issued in a very relaxed way - the effect seeming disproportionate to the _apparent_ effort and movement. I've been sent into the ground like I was on the receiving end of a piledriver, and that was done, also, with a very small and _seemingly_ soft movement. I once received a light-looking slap to a punch that made me not want to look at my arm for fear that I'd see it was broken. And in all of these cases, the teachers were happy to show how they powering their movements. What they were doing with the dantien is not something I've ever seen/felt in WCK. So I'd guess you're also not doing it in WSLVT.

But honestly, I think that none of the above will mean anything to someone who hasn't felt the pain of it, firsthand.



LFJ said:


> Sergio teaches the same kind of nonsense and talks about _Qi_ as he performs on paralyzed demo dummies. If someone thinks VT is lacking this stuff, that's their retarded opinion, not a system flaw of VT.



I can't ever easily agree with someone who talks about _Qi_, but I do personally know three people (from two different YM lines of Wing Chun) who have met Sergio and all came away saying that they had huge trouble dealing with him in Chi Sau; that he was very relaxed and soft, seemed to nullify all they did, and seemed to use very little effort to do it all. Sifu Niels Pivato would be the first I've heard of from the WSL lineage to experience this, but I'm pretty sure that Sergio has said there have been other WSL lineage guys who have attended his seminars.

He's happy for anyone to attend, and he's happy to Chi Sau with anyone who wants to. I guess you'd just have to go visit him if you want to know for sure. Heck, have a friend video it and if Sergio's full of $hit, then you'll have an interesting video to upload.  He lives in Hong Kong, but each year seems to travel fairly frequently to Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, all over Europe, etc. I'm sure you could meet him if you wanted to know firsthand. Why not reach out to him? You never know, he might even come to you if he's nearby.


----------



## geezer

@WTchap: now we know YOUR identity:

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/4ea42c6f2c6c4b1cb1d405729d48a5cf/galileo-galilei-cw210g.jpg

Now _put away that damned telescope_ and stop denying that by virtue of his devotion to the doctrine of PB-WSL-VT, LFJ already knows everything worth knowing!


----------



## LFJ

WTchap said:


> you're saying that Pivato had _only a few years _in VT. A few years ought to be enough for PB to correct someone's misunderstanding, I would imagine, even if they weren't meeting too frequently (but who knows, maybe they met often).



Or maybe they met once at a seminar a few years ago. I don't know the guy, but that's what it sounds like. A time period tells us nothing about their experience in that time.

As to the rest, I'm not at all interested in what Sergio does or other demo styles.


----------



## WTchap

LFJ said:


> Or maybe they met once at a seminar a few years ago. I don't know the guy, but that's what it sounds like. A time period tells us nothing about their experience in that time.



Well, his website has now been updated to reference Sergio's organisation (via a logo), but the site's metadata on Google still references the old page(s) - and those indicate that he was teaching VT from Philipp Bayer. 




 

I don't suppose PB would allow someone to teach using his name, if they'd only met once at a seminar. 



LFJ said:


> As to the rest, I'm not at all interested in what Sergio does or other demo styles.



I guess that's a subtle way of saying that you wouldn't meet him to test/see if he has something or not. Certainly, it's easier to attack him "online" as teaching _nonsense, _than it is to meet him and try your luck (and system) face to face 


@geezer No... my beard is never so bushy.


----------



## LFJ

WTchap said:


> I don't suppose PB would allow someone to teach using his name, if they'd only met once at a seminar.



Of course not, but you'd be surprised how often that has happened.



> I guess that's a subtle way of saying that you wouldn't meet him to test/see if he has something or not. Certainly, it's easier to attack him "online" as teaching _nonsense, _than it is to meet him and try your luck (and system) face to face



I'm not compelled to go out of my way to meet Fang Ning either (the old belly bouncing guy in the video above), and people have said the same things.


----------



## WTchap

LFJ said:


> Of course not, but you'd be surprised how often that has happened.



 But still, as both he and PB are based in Germany, and I think he's probably trained with PB more than once in 3 or so years, you'd think...



LFJ said:


> I'm not compelled to go out of my way to meet Fang Ning either (the old belly bouncing guy in the video above), and people have said the same things.



Yes, personally I wouldn't go looking for Fang Ning either. 

But with Sergio... I'd imagine you'd get more out of it. But, sometimes people don't like to challenge their worldview, you know? You've invested a lot of time, I'm guessing, in the WSLVT method you train (and promote here)...

... and so, to steal a line from Alexander McQueen:_ "I never look at other people's work. My mind has to be completely focused on my own illusions."_


----------



## LFJ

As I said, I don't know the guy, but judging by his statements, if he thinks VT only works if you're stronger than the opponent then it leaves his experience very questionable.

Ha, I look at what Sergio does. It just does not impress, and so I'm not compelled to go out of my way for it. Just like with Fang Ning.

Others have impressed or interested me and I have sought them out and changed views where warranted. So I'm not professionally or emotionally invested or married to anything, but if videos show obvious nonsense, I'm not gonna waste my time going to look for it.


----------



## guy b

WTchap said:


> Yes, personally I wouldn't go looking for Fang Ning either.
> 
> But with Sergio... I'd imagine you'd get more out of it.



Why would you imagive that? It looks like just the same kind of thing.


----------



## WTchap

guy b said:


> Why would you imagive that? It looks like just the same kind of thing.



Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear earlier. 

Following your earlier inability to understand anything internal art-related, and your outright refusal to speak about the Yiquan that you _say_ you train (ahuh), I'm done replying to your trolling comments. So there's no need for you to quote anything I've said and ask _yet more_ questions. 

I have no interest in your bull$hit - you're a charlatan. Go knock yourself out trolling someone else.


----------



## guy b

WTchap said:


> Following your earlier inability to understand anything internal art-related, and your outright refusal to speak about the Yiquan that you _say_ you train, I'm done replying



I'm very sorry you feel that way. I certainly have a good understanding of Yiquan, having trained it for several years with a very good teacher. I have answered questions about Yiquan on the thread about Yiquan. I am however keen not to provide information to people whose interest is not honest, because the best way to discourage trolling is not to participate.

Trolling is trying to elicit a response for entertainment or other purposes. I am not interested in doing this. Judging from your posts to LFJ on this thread, it looks like you might be.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> .... the best way to discourage trolling is not to participate.



Yep. You are quite right. 

Incidentally, this is exactly why some of our most respected members have not responded to some of your questions  in the past. Just something we all need to keep in mind.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Or maybe they met once at a seminar a few years ago. I don't know the guy, but that's what it sounds like. A time period tells us nothing about their experience in that time.
> 
> As to the rest, I'm not at all interested in what Sergio does or other demo styles.



How do the various videos of PB slapping students around who are giving him very little resistance NOT also qualify as a "demo style"???


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I am however keen not to provide information to people whose interest is not honest, because the best way to discourage trolling is not to participate.
> 
> Trolling is trying to elicit a response for entertainment or other purposes. I am not interested in doing this. Judging from your posts to LFJ on this thread, it looks like you might be.



Oh my GOD!  The irony is killing me!!!!!   Opps!  I'll probably get another warning from the mods now!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> How do the various videos of PB slapping students around who are giving him very little resistance NOT also qualify as a "demo style"???



Haven't seen those videos.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Oh my GOD!  The irony is killing me!!!!!   Opps!  I'll probably get another warning from the mods now!



Believe me, it is a genuine pleasure not to have to answer what are in charitable terms your inane misunderstandings (in less charitable terms dishonesty and outright trolling). It gets tiring. Unfortunately you have been replaced by new people who appear just as logically challenged as you have always been.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Haven't seen those videos.



Nor me. I hope KPM will share them with the forum.


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Oh my GOD!  The irony is killing me!!!!!   Opps!  I'll probably get another warning from the mods now!


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

why bother responding?


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------
> 
> why bother responding?



You are, of course, right!  I need to practice my "resistance skills"!


----------



## KPM

Cut & paste didn't work right!


----------



## nikthegreek_3

guy b. said:


> Post your view please. No offence will be taken. I welcome the opportunity to learn from other perspectives.


Well... Very interesting question. Replying on behalf of my teacher who has studied the WSL system under 3 sublineages:
  "It is more a matter of the way you are taught. Since Wing Chun develops mentality and tools, one can use them in different ways. I had been studying the system under one WSL's student, i supposed that finished it and after going to another WSL's student, things seemed completely different. But they were not. Everything was the same. What was different was the personal expression of each student. Example: One WSL's student is very tall, he will use tools that are ideal for longer distance. Another is very short, so he uses tools to keep a very short distance. If i stayed in one lineage, i would have missed the other part. It would not be a WSL deficiency. It would have been that i have not learned things completely. Wing Chun includes all kind of methods. E.g. methods to take advantage of your power (if you are stronger than your opponent), and tools to avoid using power (if your opponent is stronger). You just have to know the tools and how to use them."


----------

