# Sei Ging....the "Four Energies" and Wing Chun



## KPM (Feb 7, 2016)

People that are familiar with the southern Chinese martial arts often associate the “four energies” with the Hakka arts….Southern Mantis, Bak Mei (White Eyebrow), and Dragon style.  Many people don’t seem to realize that the older versions of Wing Chun and Weng Chun contain these elements as well.  These four energies are explicitly part of the “18 Kiu Sau Principles” of Tang Yik Weng Chun, which are its guiding “keywords.”  They are also part of Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun.  They are included in the “mental methods” of Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun.  CSL Wing Chun is a “modern” system, but its keywords are taken from Sum Nun Wing Chun and Gu Lao Wing Chun.  When Ip Man began teaching in Hong Kong he dropped a lot of the more traditional aspects of the system, including the use of keywords.  So some branches of the Ip Man system continue to use these “four energies” to an extent without naming them or putting much  emphasis on them.  Some branches don’t make much use of them at all.  But to deny that they are a part of Wing Chun is to take a rather narrow and uninformed view of the different varieties of Wing Chun methods available.

This is not a recent “add on” to the system.  The fact that they are present in both Tang Yik Weng Chun and Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun….both of which are “old” systems…should clearly indicate this.  Wing Chun and Weng Chun are different systems.  One might say they are cousins.  But they shared a common root approximately 150 years ago.  The fact that the “four energies” are found in both systems suggests they were there from the beginning.

These “four energies” are almost always grouped together.  They are:

浮 Fou = Float or Rise.  This is usually translated as “rise” when you are doing it, and “float” when you are doing it to someone else!

沉 Chum = sink, lower

吞 Tun = Swallow or sometimes translated as “suck” as in to “suck someone in”

吐  Tou = Spit or expel


Sink and rise are pretty self-explanatory. They suggest motion on the vertical plane…up and down. Everyone has Chum/Jum Sau and Jut Sau in their Wing Chun.  These employ the concept of “sink”.  Another example is from the movements that close each section of the dummy form in Ip Man Wing Chun.  Each section typically closes with a double Jut Sau (sink) followed by a double Tok Sau (rise).  Some people do this using only the arms, which doesn’t really embody the concept.  But some do it use sinking and rising with the body, which is more in line with the keywords.

These concepts are trained explicitly in some of the Pin Sun short sets.  One of these is called “Saam Gin Choi” or “Three arrow punch.”  This is a pivot with a straight punch, then you drop your weight (sink) with a punch that drops straight downward, and then you raise your level up (rise) as you do a rising punch towards the throat…all with the same arm.  One variation of the set even uses a Gwai Ma with the second punch, which involves bending one knee and dropping it towards the ground.  This “sinking” with a Gwai Ma to punch low is also found in the Tang Yik Weng Chun dummy form.

Swallow and Spit suggest motion on the horizontal plane but take a little more explaining for most people.  Swallow is to take in or absorb force and energy.  Spit is to put out or expel force and energy.  Pin Sun Wing Chun even has a technique called “Tun Sau” or “swallowing hand.”  This is simply a Tan Sau that moves back instead of going forward.  Chu Sau Lei WCK does the same thing.  But they just call it a “Tan Sau” whether it goes forward or moves back.  It is considered “spreading” either way!  This is simply a manifestation of the idea of Yin and Yang.  The Tan shape can go forward to meet and deflect with a Yang energy, or it can move back to absorb and deflect with a Yin energy.  In Pin Sun the same is true of the Bong and the Gan.  A Bong that collapses so that the elbow goes forward while deflecting and absorbing (swallow) is called a “Got Bong” or “cutting Bong.”  This is very similar to the elbow motion in most Ip Man Biu Gee forms.  A Gan that pulls in while deflecting is called a “Got Gan” or “cutting Gan.”  Both of these are found in Tang Yik Weng Chun as well, because it seems to be common sense for many techniques to have a Yin and a Yang aspect making use of the concepts of “Swallow” and “Spit.”  Pin Sun has a short set that embodies the “Swallow” and “Spit” concepts as well.  The “Baat Gwa Lung Na” or “Eight direction dragon grab” set is essentially a Lop Sau with both hands while pivoting.  The double Lop goes all the way back to your hip.  This is “swallow” to its fullest expression!  This is a Kum Na technique intended to yank an opponent right off of his feet. At the very least it will disrupt his structure and balance and create an opening for your strike.  The two-man version of this set involves one person punching, the other intercepting the punch with a Lung Na, and then returning a punch of his own so the partner can do the Lung Na.  But more than just being a set up for the partner to do the Lung Na technique, the punch represents the “Spit” that comes immediately after the “Swallow.”  It real use you would do the Lung Na to disrupt the opponent’s balance and immediately punch back into the opening you have created.

This speaks to the point that these older versions of Wing Chun include a Kum Na or grappling element to them.  It should be obvious that any kind of standing grappling is going to use “sink, rise, spit, and swallow”….you are going to be pushing, pulling, pressing and lifting in some form or another.  The fact that Ip Man Wing Chun does not include a Kum Na component is very likely why people that are only familiar with Ip Man Wing Chun do not believe that the “four energies” are part of Wing Chun.  But while the "four energies" are most clearly seen in a standing grappling context, they are an integral part of the punching and defending methods as well.

I should also mention that these four are seldom used in isolation.  They are typically going to be used together.  For example, when you do a Tok Sau on the dummy you don’t lift straight up….which is what “rise” would suggest.  Rather you lift up with a forward vector.  So there is a bit of “spit” in your “rise.”  Likewise, when you absorb an incoming force you don’t just move straight back, there is an aspect of “sink” used as well.

Some of you are probably thinking that “swallow” goes against the idea of forward pressure in Wing Chun.  It does!  But Wing Chun shouldn’t be limited to ONLY doing forward pressure!  There is a time for going right up the middle with forward pressure and a time to use angling and absorbing.  To only do one without knowing how to use the other is a bit one-dimensional.  As I already pointed out, if you have a Kum Na element to your Wing Chun, then angling and absorbing are just naturally going to be part of it.  This angling and absorbing ability is part of the reason Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun is called what it is.  “Pin Sun” means “sidebody” and refers to this angling and absorbing ability using the pivot.  So the “four energies” are very important to the body dynamic in Pin Sun Wing Chun and are found in nearly every technique in some form or another.  The same is true of Tang Yik Weng Chun.  TYWK does not use a pivot in the same way as Pin Sun, and the body dynamic is not exactly the same....but it still employs the four energies in some way in nearly every technique.


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 7, 2016)

Nice info. I just want to add that in a Ip chun book I have he did specifically mention that the Wing chun Ip taught when he Ip chun was a kid in Foshan compared to the stuff he taught in Hong kong was a bit more complicated with its terminology and Ip had simplified it. Just something I read in a book authored by Ip chun & Michael Tse.

Just going to add this on this thread since its the same topic really.

Quite often when I spar with my muay thai training partner, when he throws a hook ill use my CSL tan and spread/swallow, shift to the side slightly following his footwork and then with the same hand shoot out another punch while his hand is coming back and while his other punch may be coming around the other side or down the middle I cover with the other hand with a CSL wu cover or just biu sao or Tan. Works quite good for me. All about timing.

It is the Chu Sau Lei application of Tan/tun which is slightly different to a normal Ipman wc Tan. But when im doing it I will sink into my stance and link my body to give me structural power then once thats done and his hand is on its way back, I rise slightly/springy and shoot my front punch with the same hand.

Just some experience I have had not in training but in sparring against a non compliant partner.


----------



## geezer (Feb 7, 2016)

,KPM looks like you were writing this very informative post right when I was posting my last response over on the other thread dealing with "tun-tou" or swallow-spit. I mentioned that I had heard about mainland branches incorporating these energies but knew nothing about them. This post of yours addresses that topic perfectly.

In the "WT" that formed the core of my WC training, we always maintained forward (outward) "springy energy" and so would not withdraw force towards our own center. On the other hand, many techniques like jum, tan, lap, gaun, etc., _especially when applied with a turn_, can create a "suction effect" that can definitely pull an opponent forward and off-balance. Yet in fact our _own_ energy, although perhaps light and yielding, is still directed outwards. So in _this_ sense, I see the concept of "tun-tou" being applicable to what we do.


Maybe, even in Yip Man WC, we have retained all four of these classic energies, but have made the movements so minimal in our quest for simplicity and efficiency, that it is not outwardly apparent, and most of our branches don't even talk about them any more. But if you look hard, perhaps the traces are still there ...and are still functional as well.


----------



## KPM (Feb 7, 2016)

In the "WT" that formed the core of my WC training, we always maintained forward (outward) "springy energy" and so would not withdraw force towards our own center.

---Yes.  Even in Pin Sun or Tang Yik Weng Chun you would not use "swallow" to draw something into your own center.  If the amplitude is large enough that something would approach your center you pivot so that it is going past your center and not into it. 

On the other hand, many techniques like jum, tan, lap, gaun, etc., _especially when applied with a turn_, can create a "suction effect" that can definitely pull an opponent forward and off-balance. Yet in fact our _own_ energy, although perhaps light and yielding, is still directed outwards. So in _this_ sense, I see the concept of "tun-tou" being applicable to what we do.

---Exactly!   But in a Kum Na application, one might not direct the energy outwards until the lock is set or the trip or toss is executed.  So in some cases is these older versions of Wing Chun, it can  appear  that you are drawing someone directly into your center.  But the point is that you are controlling the action and bringing them in so that you can then "spit" them out!  Like getting sucked into a the center of a whirlwind and tossed right back out again!  ;-) 


Maybe, even in Yip Man WC, we have retained all four of these classic energies, but have made the movements so minimal in our quest for simplicity and efficiency, that it is not outwardly apparent, and most of our branches don't even talk about them any more. But if you look hard, perhaps the traces are still there ...and are still functional as well.

---I think that is true.  If you look for them, they are there.  They have just become somewhat "muted."  A lot of Ip Man Wing Chun has lost the ability to use the body for power generation.  Its almost all arm and step with hardly any body dynamic at all.  The four energies are a body dynamic, not just an arm motion.  They are intimately connected with the use of the Kwa.   When Ip Man Wing Chun guys started tilting the hips and "locking" the Kwa, the ability to use the four energies was hampered.  Those that keep their  weight back near the heels are going to have a hell of time trying to do "sink" and "rise" very well with the body. 

---Also forget to mention the coupling of "Swallow" and "Spit."  When one side does swallow and the other spit, this is pretty much the definition of producing powerful torque in a technique.  Its not just pivoting or turning.  Its a wrenching or ripping torque.   Most Wing Chun does this to some extent with the Lop Da.


----------



## KPM (Feb 8, 2016)

I thought of another good example of "spit" that everyone should know.  It is the use of the "butterfly palms"....Wu Dip Jeung, or Po Pai Palms.  With this double palm technique it is not really a strike and not really just a push.  It is both, or something in between.  You "expel" the opponent forcefully....spit!  You can see a perfect example of this if you look up one of Gary Lam's videos that shows him doing Chi Sau and using this to launch his partner into the mattress!  Sometimes his partner is practically lifted up off of his feet.  This is "spit" or "expel."


----------



## guy b (Feb 8, 2016)

geezer said:


> In the "WT" that formed the core of my WC training, we always maintained forward (outward) "springy energy" and so would not withdraw force towards our own center. On the other hand, many techniques like jum, tan, lap, gaun, etc., _especially when applied with a turn_, can create a "suction effect" that can definitely pull an opponent forward and off-balance. Yet in fact our _own_ energy, although perhaps light and yielding, is still directed outwards. So in _this_ sense, I see the concept of "tun-tou" being applicable to what we do.



Is this consistent with the idea of lin siu dai da?


----------



## geezer (Feb 8, 2016)

_


guy b said:



			Is this consistent with the idea of lin siu dai da?
		
Click to expand...

_
I agree, this is the correct question to ask when applying *any* technique, i.e. "Is it as direct and efficient as possible?"

In certain circumstances using a body turn and causing the "suction effect" I referred to above may be the most efficient way to remove an obstruction and deliver a strike, especially when confronting very powerful attack from your opponent. By using your opponent's force to turn, you off-line and establish a better angle to counterattack. Any disruption to your opponent's balance just helps that much more.

One thing we sometimes forget in talking about_ lin siu di dar_ (simultaneous defense and attack), and _da sau jik si siu sau_  (attacking hand is defending hand), is the axiom:_ never clash force_. If the direct route is obstructed we have to remove the obstacle or go around. If we can't be perfectly efficient,  we act as efficiently_ as possible_.


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 8, 2016)

Yikes. Interesting comments by "Geezer" and "KPM". My own view is as follows
 Ip Man wing chun contains many principles, concepts and applications.
 After 40 years of wing chun I have yet to see how any additions from Tang Yik, Gulo,Pin Sun etc are necessary. The more Ip Man  wing chun is done, the more petals of understanding  unfold. Thus kum na does not need to be added on or imported. The seeds of kum na are there. The Tang Yik dummy  pole work is impressive to look at- but not necessary with Ip Man's stream lining of kwan work.

There are stages of development in chi sao work- one can do kum nao out of chi sao.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 8, 2016)

I believe it is there already and agree with Joy.
But is it wrong in looking elsewhere for confirmation if it hasn't been emphasized in ones training? There are a number of aspects in my journey that I had but didn't realize until seeing other training. Sometimes we can't see the forest because of the trees...until another points it out or we allow ourselves to view from a differing perspective.


----------



## KPM (Feb 8, 2016)

^^^^^ Exactly!  That's why I said that the "four energies" were present in Ip Man Wing Chun but for many have become somewhat "muted" or deemphasized.  Same for any Kum Na applications.   Someone might not even realize that a certain movement has a Kum Na application until it is pointed out to them or they see someone from another system doing something very similar.    Joy mentions Ip Man "streamlining" things. I think this is true.  He had "streamlined" the empty hand methods a fair bit when teaching in HK.  Unfortunately that can mean some things don't get much attention.


----------



## KPM (Feb 8, 2016)

geezer said:


> . Any disruption to your opponent's balance just helps that much more.
> .


 
To me, disrupting the opponent's structure and balance IS an attack!  It is attacking their core!  I think there is no difference between throwing a punch that you know is going to be answered so that you can set your opponent up for the next punch...and "sucking them in" to attack and destroy their balance so that you can set your opponent up for the next punch.  Both are "attack by combination", to use Bruce Lee's terminology.  ;-)


----------



## guy b (Feb 8, 2016)

geezer said:


> One thing we sometimes forget in talking about_ lin siu di dar_ (simultaneous defense and attack), and _da sau jik si siu sau_ (attacking hand is defending hand), is the axiom:_ never clash force_. If the direct route is obstructed we have to remove the obstacle or go around. If we can't be perfectly efficient, we act as efficiently_ as possible_.



Which kuen kuit do you mean?


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 8, 2016)

Hi KPM,

An interesting read, but I fear I may be missing the point - these four things listed are very general descriptors of energy concepts,  AFAIK, all CMA have style specific versions of the four things you mentioned. There are more specific descriptors per style, as you mention the 18 Paired Kiu Sau in Weng Chun and in Wing Chun, Loi Lau Hoi Sung. The descriptors you mention are more akin to asking "Would you like to have lunch?" vs Loi Lau Hoi Sung being "Would you like to have lunch at this specific restaurant?"

Are these four things new info to you? Old hat here.


----------



## geezer (Feb 8, 2016)

guy b said:


> Which kuen kuit do you mean?



Not anybody's "kuen kuit" in particular (although injunctions against crashing against a strong bridge or powerful opponent are contained in several kuit). However, I'm just referring to the general rule that _you avoid crashing force against force_. That is fundamental in the VT I train. Isn't it part of yours as well?


----------



## KPM (Feb 8, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> Hi KPM,
> 
> An interesting read, but I fear I may be missing the point - these four things listed are very general descriptors of energy concepts,  AFAIK, all CMA have style specific versions of the four things you mentioned. There are more specific descriptors per style, as you mention the 18 Paired Kiu Sau in Weng Chun and in Wing Chun, Loi Lau Hoi Sung. The descriptors you mention are more akin to asking "Would you like to have lunch?" vs Loi Lau Hoi Sung being "Would you like to have lunch at this specific restaurant?"
> 
> Are these four things new info to you? Old hat here.



Not new to me!  But new to some in the forum I think....at least as coming from a Wing Chun perspective!   I only started this thread because in other threads a certain person had said that these things have no place in Wing Chun, and that if any Wing Chun system had them....then they have to have been "grafted on" from another system.  I was simply pointing out how wrong that viewpoint is!


----------



## JPinAZ (Feb 8, 2016)

I tend to agree with the viewpoint that they might be 'grafted on'.
As Eric has pointed out, WC already has LLHS which covers WC 'energy concepts' to a deeper level than these more common descriptors. If someone claims WC always had them from the start, then we shouldn't have to look to non-WC systems for validation. Now, if we look at the one small sub-branch of WC (Pin Sun) that most accept as a more simplified/streamlined training method of WC, then it seems more logical that these more common & simplified ideas were used in place of the deeper WC concept of LLHS. 
(and nothing against pin sun as a competent fighting art in this statement, just referencing what is commonly accepted of the branch)


----------



## guy b (Feb 8, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> Hi KPM,
> 
> An interesting read, but I fear I may be missing the point - these four things listed are very general descriptors of energy concepts,  AFAIK, all CMA have style specific versions of the four things you mentioned. There are more specific descriptors per style, as you mention the 18 Paired Kiu Sau in Weng Chun and in Wing Chun, Loi Lau Hoi Sung. The descriptors you mention are more akin to asking "Would you like to have lunch?" vs Loi Lau Hoi Sung being "Would you like to have lunch at this specific restaurant?"
> 
> Are these four things new info to you? Old hat here.



Agree, there is nothing specific here. Doesn't compare to the theory of the same in SPM, for example. I would like to know if there is more to it than this?

At the same time the way it is described it appears to contradict certain VT maxims. Confusing.


----------



## KPM (Feb 8, 2016)

I tend to agree with the viewpoint that they might be 'grafted on'.

---Like I pointed out earlier, its also part of Tang Yik Weng Chun, which has stayed pretty independent of the Wing Chun streams.   I've been told Fukien White Crane has them as well.  So it wasn't "grafted on" from anywhere else.  It was simply part of the martial culture of southern China. 

If someone claims WC always had them from the start, then we shouldn't have to look to non-WC systems for validation.

---I'm sorry, but that comment makes no sense.

Now, if we look at the one small sub-branch of WC (Pin Sun) that most accept as a more simplified/streamlined training method of WC, then it seems more logical that these more common & simplified ideas were used in place of the deeper WC concept of LLHS.

---No it doesn't.  Pin Sun is an older version of Wing Chun.  Perhaps the concept of LLHS is a more recent and deeper refinement and addition to the system?


----------



## guy b (Feb 8, 2016)

geezer said:


> Not anybody's "kuen kuit" in particular (although injunctions against crashing against a strong bridge or powerful opponent are contained in several kuit). However, I'm just referring to the general rule that _you avoid crashing force against force_. That is fundamental in the VT I train. Isn't it part of yours as well?



I haven't heard that one. Can you show me some examples of what you mean?


----------



## guy b (Feb 8, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> As Eric has pointed out, WC already has LLHS which covers WC 'energy concepts' to a deeper level than these more common descriptors.



This is the puzzling thing about it. If you look to any of the systems which are based on these concepts, you find a detailed and non contradictory conceptual base coupled with a strategic approach which is fully consistent and in fact based upon these ideas. You also find physical movements which are much more suited to these concepts than those in wing chun. Why would wing chun include these ideas, but not in any fundamental way, and lack the tools and strategies to make them work effectively? It doesn't make sense. 

Is there more to it that is not spoken about publicly? If so then would it be possible to talk in generalities about this without revealing the detail?


----------



## geezer (Feb 8, 2016)

guy b said:


> I haven't heard that one. Can you show me some examples of what you mean?



Examples of force against force? You've got to be kidding! Avoiding crashing force against force is at the core of ..._my_.... WC/VT. I've encountered this in at least three lineages. This is the essence of what the WC origin myth is all about. Ideally, if an old woman (Ng Mui) or young girl (Yim Wing Chun) couldn't make it work ... it isn't Wing Chun. Please don't tell me that this concept is foreign to you!


----------



## guy b (Feb 8, 2016)

geezer said:


> Examples of force against force? You've got to be kidding! Avoiding crashing force against force is at the core of ..._my_.... WC/VT. I've encountered this in at least three lineages. This is the essence of what the WC origin myth is all about. Ideally, if an old woman (Ng Mui) or young girl (Yim Wing Chun) couldn't make it work ... it isn't Wing Chun. Please don't tell me that this concept is foreign to you!



I mean show me the concept you are talking about-

Is it loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung? I don't think it is, but I could be wrong I guess.

Is it lin siu dai da? Doesn't seem to be, to me at least

Is it jeu ying bat jeu sau? Again I can't see how that would be the case.

Where is this idea and how do you interpret it in terms of other wing chun concepts and your wing chun strategy?


----------



## geezer (Feb 8, 2016)

guy b said:


> I mean show me the concept you are talking about-
> 
> Is it *loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung?*



This is key to everything. You don't use brute force to crash through your opponent's defenses. You just _stay with what comes, follow the retreat and thrust forward when the hand is free_ (my old Chinese sifu's translation). Do _that _and you aren't crashing force, right?


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

geezer said:


> This is key to everything. You don't use brute force to crash through your opponent's defenses. You just _stay with what comes, follow the retreat and thrust forward when the hand is free_ (my old Chinese sifu's translation). Do _that _and you aren't crashing force, right?



I think this is saying intercept and impose yourself upon the advancing opponent, attack the attack, do not collapse or retreat. Apply constant forward pressure in following the opponent, eat space and close options, cause them to make mistakes and be ready to capitalise on those. When an opportunity presents, attack with full commitment.

I don't see any prohibition against clashing with the opponent. In fact I think that in fighting with VT a certain amount of clashing is very likely. It is being able to control those attacking lines while cutting into the opponent that makes for effective VT, not avoidance of conflict or force meeting force, in my opinion. Force meeting force effectively is beneficial.


----------



## KPM (Feb 9, 2016)

I think this is saying intercept and impose yourself upon the advancing opponent, attack the attack, do not collapse or retreat. Apply constant forward pressure in following the opponent, eat space and close options, cause them to make mistakes and be ready to capitalise on those. When an opportunity presents, attack with full commitment.

---That may very well have been Wong Shun Leung's interpretation of the Kuen Kuit.  But that is not how everyone sees it.  Again, the Wing Chun world is much bigger than WLSVT!   I will say again......WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged.


----------



## KPM (Feb 9, 2016)

If you look to any of the systems which are based on these concepts, you find a detailed and non contradictory conceptual base coupled with a strategic approach which is fully consistent and in fact based upon these ideas.

---You seem to have a hard time accepting that Wong Shun Leung developed a logical and consistent conceptual base you are seeing that runs through his system, and tailored his understanding of everything else to match it and build upon it.  I think he was quite ingenious myself.  But that is why you look at other Wing Chun and can't understand what they are doing.  Other versions of Wing Chun (especially the older mainland versions) are a bit more "open" in their concepts and use and allow for more options than WSLVT.  What we have been talking about on this thread is a perfect example.  You don't see the four energies fitting in with your WSLVT at all.   And maybe they don't!  But that doesn't mean they aren't part of Wing Chun, because WSLVT has been somewhat "streamlined" for what WSL wanted it to do.   As a result it is rather one-dimensional.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  But again....WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged.  WSLVT is a somewhat "specialized" version of Wing Chun.   And again, that is not a criticism.  There is nothing wrong with that.  But failing to see that leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and poor judgment of what other's are doing in their Wing Chun....which has been quite evident on this forum.


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

[QUOTE="KPM, post: 1746623, member: 32524"---That may very well have been Wong Shun Leung's interpretation of the Kuen Kuit.  But that is not how everyone sees it.  Again, the Wing Chun world is much bigger than WLSVT!   I will say again......WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged.[/QUOTE]

I am aware that you feel this way.

The question is about the contradiction between concepts that tun tou brings to wing chun. If we find contradiction in our understanding of the concepts then doesn't it highlight either a problem with our understanding, or a system that is internally inconsistent (i.e. broken)?

If tun tou is indeed an integral part of the system then why is the whole system not arranged in a way that is consistent with the basic idea? It is a very fundamental one in other systems that use it. What you wrote about Mainland wing chun appears more tagged on than fundamental.


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> You don't see the four energies fitting in with your WSLVT at all. And maybe they don't! But that doesn't mean they aren't part of Wing Chun, because WSLVT has been somewhat "streamlined" for what WSL wanted it to do.



If a conceptually based system is based upon mutually contradictory concepts, then can that system be said to function as a system? Isn't it then more like a collection of techniques?


----------



## KPM (Feb 9, 2016)

If tun tou is indeed an integral part of the system then why is the whole system not arranged in a way that is consistent with the basic idea? It is a very fundamental one in other systems that use it. What you wrote about Mainland wing chun appears more tagged on than fundamental

----I am aware that you feel this way.  That doesn't mean that you are right.  I'm just going by the evidence.  It is there, whether you agree with it or not.


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> I'm just going by the evidence.  It is there, whether you agree with it or not.



I'm not arguing whether it is there or not; you say it is and so I believe you.

The question is about the contradiction that it introduces and about the degree to which it is integrated, especially in comparison to other systems with this basic idea.

If we find contradiction in our understanding of the concepts then doesn't it highlight either a problem with our understanding, or a system that is internally inconsistent (i.e. broken)?

If we find a lack of integration then doesn't that indicate a recent addition and/or an introduction that wasn't understood and/or knowledge that has been lost?


----------



## KPM (Feb 9, 2016)

guy b said:


> If we find contradiction in our understanding of the concepts then doesn't it highlight either a problem with our understanding, or a system that is internally inconsistent (i.e. broken)?


 
I've already pointed out that you are basing your idea of "contradiction of concepts" on your understanding of WSLVT.   Again....WSLVT is not the standard by which all other Wing Chun is judged.  The "four energies" do not contradict anything in these older mainland versions of Wing Chun.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 9, 2016)

We say:
"Receive what comes,
Follow what goes,
Thrust Forward when the hand is Free"

To intercept is to meet and receive. What I've been taught it is more like shaking hands with someone. 
We do not pit force against force or strength against strength but rather utilize wing chun's understanding of angles and sensitivity to force for overcome it. We meet and defuse by redirecting the force through pivoting. The pivoting also moves the center of gravity and core out of the path of the force. In this way it is possible to disperse and return a force.


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> I've already pointed out that you are basing your idea of "contradiction of concepts" on your understanding of WSLVT.   Again....WSLVT is not the standard by which all other Wing Chun is judged.  The "four energies" do not contradict anything in these older mainland versions of Wing Chun.



Can you explain how tun tou doesn't contradict lin siu dai da? Or does Mainland wing chun not have this concept?

And why the lack of integration compared to other styles based upon these ideas, e.g. white crane, SPM?


----------



## geezer (Feb 9, 2016)

Guy, you posited that contradictory concepts may indicate something recently added on. It may just as well be something very old that hasn't been weeded out. Either way, consistency is generally good in a system. But I've never seen KPMs WC. Without actually working with him, I'd feel like an idiot if I passed judgement on what he does.


----------



## KPM (Feb 9, 2016)

guy b said:


> Can you explain how tun tou doesn't contradict lin siu dai da? Or does Mainland wing chun not have this concept?
> 
> And why the lack of integration compared to other styles based upon these ideas, e.g. white crane, SPM?


 
I've already determined in past conversations with you that it doesn't matter what I say.  Whatever I would write would not be good for you and wouldn't convince you of anything.  So why would I bother?


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

geezer said:


> It may just as well be something very old that hasn't been weeded out.



I did say that it could also represent knowledge that has been lost. It could also represent an understanding that is maintained in secrecy. There are several options. 

In terms of "passing judgement" all I can say is that from the perspective of YM wing chun it looks like tun tou contradicts some core wing chun concepts at quite a fundamental level. It also looks this way to me as someone who has learned these ideas through SPM; a system very much based upon them.

If this is not the case then I would welcome the opportunity to learn why I am wrong. Perhaps Mainland wing chun is not based around the same concepts as YM wing chun? If this was the case then it would truly be a different system rather than a variation. I guess it is for KPM or someone else from Mainland wing chun to explain if they want to. 

I can't speak from the perspective of Mainland wing chun because I don't know much about it, beyond comparing to YM wing chun. I don't know the conceptual basis of mainland wing chun or how it justifies the things it does. Nobody in Mainland wing chun should feel threatened by or angry about questions from someone without the information they take for granted. Personally I would welcome the opportunity.


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> I've already determined in past conversations with you that it doesn't matter what I say.  Whatever I would write would not be good for you and wouldn't convince you of anything.  So why would I bother?



If you really feel this way then why post a thread in reply to my thread about tun tou? Why post on my threads at all?

I think that you don't really feel this way. I believe you are probably just upset from previous arguments. 

Please allow me to apologise again for any offence I have caused. I would welcome the opportunity to work together to make this forum a better place again.


----------



## KPM (Feb 9, 2016)

In terms of "passing judgement" all I can say is that from the perspective of YM wing chun it looks like tun tou contradicts some core wing chun concepts at quite a fundamental level.

---You mean WSLVT?

If this is not the case then I would welcome the opportunity to learn why I am wrong.

---I don't believe you and I'm sure others don't as well.  Because our experience with you here in the forum has not shown that.

  Nobody in Mainland wing chun should feel threatened by or angry about questions from someone without the information they take for granted. Personally I would welcome the opportunity.

---But you didn't really start by asking questions.  You started out by making broad assumptions and stating them as fact on the other thread.  Its how you approach things.  Remember past discussions about using "tact"?


----------



## KPM (Feb 9, 2016)

guy b said:


> If you really feel this way then why post a thread in reply to my thread about tun tou? Why post on my threads at all?
> 
> .


 
Because you were so wrong about what you were saying I felt the need to speak up for the benefit of others on the forum.  So you wouldn't mislead them.  I could care less what you think anymore.


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> You mean WSLVT?



All of the YM wing chun that I have experienced me to believe what I do. I have not seen Mainland wing chun, apart from my experience with Alan Orr's



> I don't believe you and I'm sure others don't as well.  Because our experience with you here in the forum has not shown that



It's a shame you feel that way. I am sure most people would just like a return to a more pleasant atmosphere



> But you didn't really start by asking questions.  You started out by making broad assumptions and stating them as fact on the other thread.  Its how you approach things.  Remember past discussions about using "tact"?



I have only spoken from the perspective of things I have experienced. There is no need to make every thread about your personal grievances KPM. I am happy to help clear the air if I can. Please PM me if you wish to continue so that we don't clog up the forum with stuff that nobody wants to read.


----------



## guy b (Feb 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> Because you were so wrong about what you were saying I felt the need to speak up for the benefit of others on the forum.  So you wouldn't mislead them.  I could care less what you think anymore.



I haven't been misleading anyone- I have been speaking from my experience. If you would also like to share your experience of mainland wing chun then I am sure that it can only benefit the discussion


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 9, 2016)

I have to be honest  I dont really care if the Tun Tou concepts are from somewhere else. It works quite good for me and I finally have strength in my stance. Iv been feeling wing chun gets too restricted sometimes and people become robotic because they are scared of violating principles and so focused on " been wing chun". I just feel like wing chun is my guide and I do as much as possible when fighting.. but been locked up like that and feeling like certain movements are "bad" can hinder been a good fighter. Idk just a thought.

I mean just go look at most the wing chun vs xxxx videos on youtube and most the time its a wc guy standing in bai jong with his hands up and then they just get wrecked and dont even parry a single punch. I bet alot of them have trained for a while doing drills and learning some principles but then it just falls apart. They are so restricted and " stuck in the mud"

Actually sparring alot ( and getting hit) and getting into fights makes you think alot and some of these principles arent as effective against certain styles of fighting. From what iv seen from the "Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jik Chung" applications from WSL , doing it against a good kickboxer/boxer might make them change angles and get your from the outside with a good hook. Its happened to me a few times when trying to apply it in sparring ( maybe im just doing it wrong/misinterpreting). But then in a street altercation against a adrenaline/anger fueled swing I think its good and overwhelming.  Guy b/LFJ thoughts on that ?

In Alans book there is a quite interesting interview with a Lun Kai WC Sifu Mark Hobbs who says Ip taught Lun Kai a very specific methodology about structure that seems to be missing in most HK WC. Ill type out one paragraph from it.

" Creating structure is about aligning the ( Gwot Kwa) skeletal system to be able to structurally maintain posture when a force is been exerted against you. This allows you to ( Tun)  absorb the pressure by transferring the pressure against you into the ground- ( Ma) to root. " 

Thats written word for word and is part of Mark hobbs reply about Lun Kai Foshan Ip man wc


----------



## JPinAZ (Feb 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> I tend to agree with the viewpoint that they might be 'grafted on'.
> 
> ---Like I pointed out earlier, its also part of Tang Yik Weng Chun, which has stayed pretty independent of the Wing Chun streams.   I've been told Fukien White Crane has them as well.  So it wasn't "grafted on" from anywhere else.  It was simply part of the martial culture of southern China.



What you've been told doesn't mean anything to me (no offence). There are a lot of people saying a lot of things lately - without knowing motives, it's all just hear-say. And, what was part of general 'martial culture' still doesn't really mean anything in regards to the WC system except for some very general and surface-level similarities.



KPM said:


> If someone claims WC always had them from the start, then we shouldn't have to look to non-WC systems for validation.
> 
> ---I'm sorry, but that comment makes no sense.
> 
> ...



It's simple, looking at Weng Chun, White Crane or anything else has little-to-nothing to do with the WC system except to compare differences and see _some_ surface-level similarities. If these 4 ideas were an essential part of 'older' WC as you say, we would see it in more than this one small sub-branch LJ passed on at the end of his career (that's if he truely passed on these 4 energetics in his teaching).But if he did, and they are only fraction of the 18 Weng Chun had, why weren't all the concepts passed on? Why only 4, were the Gulo people cheated? (not saying they were/weren't just a thought) And, LJ did a lot of teaching prior to Pin Sun - these basic ideas aren't seen in anything he passed on prior to Pin Sun (more on that in a minute)

So talking about these other arts really only leans towards validating than it's more likely that someone borrowed from one of these others arts to add to this one single line you see these things in (whether in was LJ himself or someone later). Which is fine if it helps make sense of what they were doing. But I don't see any need to look to other arts to know what WC has. I've studied 2 lineages of WC (one from Red Boat/Ip Man and one from Boxer Society) and been exposed to many others and in none of them were these 4 descriptors present (or needed IMO). If they help someone make sense of their WC fine, but LLHS/LSJC is all I've seen WC to need.

Now, as far as claiming Pin Sin as 'older version of Wing Chun' that is rather silly and makes little sense. First, all WC is the really same age having come from the same source. 
Second, older that what? WSL lineage? LT Lineage? Ok, _maybe_. But not older that what LJ passed on earlier in his career, all of which has LLHS concept.. Either way, saying something is 'older' still doesn't validate your theory.

Finally, just knowing that Pin Sun was a creation to simplify teaching of the art in LJ's _final years _as he was winding down/retired tells me, if anything, it's more of a 'newer art' relative to what was passed on previously by LJ  (all of which has LLHS) - as well as what was taught before and outside of what LJ did (as there were many other teachers of WC before and during his time). Heck, wasn't what Ip Man taught from LJ's earlier teachings before he created the simplified Gulo sets? I guess in a round-about way, what WSL, LT, William Cheung, etc teach IS technically 'older' than Pin Sun, even if they are named for people that were born after LJ passed away since the come from LJ's earlier teaching....


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 10, 2016)

I dont agree that LLHS/LSJC is all you need. Its only one concept. Its is not the end all be all imo. 

Weng chun and Wing chun both have Fung Siu Ching as someone in the family tree. Fung siu ching apparently taught Yuen Kay San from Wing chun. Just saying.


----------



## KPM (Feb 10, 2016)

What you've been told doesn't mean anything to me (no offence).

---Likewise.   But when my Sifu shows me a hand-written document passed down from Tang Yik that outlines the "18 Kiu Sau Principles", including the "four energies" noted here....I tend to believe him.


And, what was part of general 'martial culture' still doesn't really mean anything in regards to the WC system except for some very general and surface-level similarities.

---Now you are sounding like our resident "True Believers."   I've already pointed out that some current Ip Man lines still have these "four energies".....some using or emphasizing them more than others.  If you see it as "surface level" then that's likely because it has been a bit deemphasized or even lost over time.  In the mainland systems I have mentioned,  It may not be a central focus like it is in the Hakka systems, suggesting only that these systems may be a bit more diverse and make use of multiple concepts other than these 4.  They use more keywords that these "four energies."  That isn't "surface level", that's simply a matter of how much emphasis something gets.



If these 4 ideas were an essential part of 'older' WC as you say, we would see it in more than this one small sub-branch LJ passed on at the end of his career

---What makes you think we don't?  And what makes you think it was LJ that came up with it?  I've already pointed out it is part of Tang Yik Weng Chun.  Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nun Wing Chun has this as well.  So it very likely preceded LJ. 



why weren't all the concepts passed on? Why only 4, were the Gulo people cheated?

---Who said the Ku Lo people only got these 4???



And, LJ did a lot of teaching prior to Pin Sun - these basic ideas aren't seen in anything he passed on prior to Pin Sun (more on that in a minute)

---How do you know what LJ passed on prior to Pin Sun?



So talking about these other arts really only leans towards validating than it's more likely that someone borrowed from one of these others arts to add to this one single line you see these things in (whether in was LJ himself or someone later).

---I don't follow your logic.  If these concepts were "borrowed", then it happened pretty early on in Wing Chun's history and has been taught as part of Wing Chun for multiple generations.  Nothing evolves in a vacuum.  Everything gets influenced by what's going on around it.  I'm sure that there are many aspects of Wing Chun that were "borrowed"....uh...like the knives....and the pole!!  Does that make then any less "Wing Chun"???



Which is fine if it helps make sense of what they were doing. But I don't see any need to look to other arts to know what WC has.

---No one is "looking to other arts."   I'm not the one comparing it to SPM's ideas of these concepts.  I have talked about and described everything from a Wing Chun perspective.



Now, as far as claiming Pin Sin as 'older version of Wing Chun' that is rather silly and makes little sense. First, all WC is the really same age having come from the same source. 

---Uh.  No.  Some Wing Chun systems are actually fairly modern creations.  But this is not the place to go into that.



Finally, just knowing that Pin Sun was a creation to simplify teaching of the art in LJ's _final years _as he was winding down/retired tells me, if anything, it's more of a 'newer art' relative to what was passed on previously by LJ  (all of which has LLHS) -

---Again, how do you know what LJ passed down prior to Pin Sun?   Chan Yiu Min's art is certainly not representative.  How do YOU know that LLHS was there from the beginning and was not a later refinement of some of these other concepts?



Heck, wasn't what Ip Man taught from LJ's earlier teachings before he created the simplified Gulo sets?

---Now I think you are confused.   Ip Man learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So.  Chan Wah Shun learned from Leung Jan.  But it is hard to really know what Leung Jan was teaching because there are not independent lines from Leung Jan to compare.  We don't even really have independent lines from Chan Wah Shun to compare.  CWS's son carried on his lineage,  but added a lot of stuff and changed things around.   Ip Man also learned a bit from Yuen Kay Shan and adapted and changed things around.  Fung Chun taught the same thing in Ku Lo village for over 60 years.  He learned from Wong Wah Sam, who learned from Leung Jan.  That's probably as close as anyone can come to forming an idea of what Leung Jan's Wing Chun was like.  He may have changed the curriculum to teach the method in the form of short sets, but he wouldn't have changed the basic frame and concepts.


I guess in a round-about way, what WSL, LT, William Cheung, etc teach IS technically 'older' than Pin Sun, even if they are named for people that were born after LJ passed away since the come from LJ's earlier teaching....

---Now there's some twisted logic!  ;-)


----------



## JPinAZ (Feb 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> What you've been told doesn't mean anything to me (no offence).
> 
> ---Likewise.   But when my Sifu shows me a hand-written document passed down from Tang Yik that outlines the "18 Kiu Sau Principles", including the "four energies" noted here....I tend to believe him.



Ok. What does that have to do with WC?



KPM said:


> ---Now you are sounding like our resident "True Believers."



And this is where I stop reading. I'm not going to get lumped into your increasingly negative, and honestly, 'weird' personal attachment to a few other members here. If you can't stop from making everything personal, I'm not interested


----------



## Phobius (Feb 10, 2016)

How does swallow allow one to attack when the way is free?

Without that forward intent it would be hard in some scenarios to find an opening when it pops up...

Of course there is the need perhaps to do a swallow with forward intent but sounds like this is not part of what you are describing.


----------



## KPM (Feb 10, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> Ok. What does that have to do with WC?
> 
> 
> 
> And this is where I stop reading. I'm not going to get lumped into your increasingly negative, and honestly, 'weird' personal attachment to a few other members here. If you can't stop from making everything personal, I'm not interested


 
Fine.  Because you weren't making sense, and you were coming across negative yourself.  Maybe you don't see it.  But your tone in your responses on this thread were not exactly of the "friendly discussion" type.


----------



## KPM (Feb 10, 2016)

How does swallow allow one to attack when the way is free?

----Maybe the way is not free until you use something with the "swallow" concept that creates an opening.   A very simple example is Lop Da.  Someone punches at you and you respond with Bong Sau.  But the "way is not free" yet!  So you do a Lop Sau that brings their arm down and creates the opening for your return punch.  Technically the Lop motion is using the "swallow" concept by going with the energy of the oncoming punch and "sucking the opponent in."   The magnitude of the Lop Sau can vary, and therefore use the "swallow" concept to varying degrees.



Of course there is the need perhaps to do a swallow with forward intent but sounds like this is not part of what you are describing.

---I think there is a difference between forward "intent" and forward "pressure."   My intent can be to go forward...as a strategy, but my pressure may not be constantly forward.  "Swallow" does not have forward pressure, but it can be part of forward "intent."   Watch one of Alan Orr's videos of him doing free Chi Sau and you will see a perfect example.   Alan uses a lot of forward pressure.  Some have even accused him of "leaning" (which isn't true.)  But he is also sensitive to the opponent's pressure.  If he presses in and the opponent overreacts, he will de-link and suddenly reverse his press (suddenly "swallow") so that the opponent finds himself lurching forward under his own steam.  That's why it looks like Alan is "rag-dolling" someone around the floor, constantly keeping them off-balance.  He is using his skill at knowing when to press forward, and when to "absorb" or "swallow"....all the while having forward "intent."    Does that make sense?  It isn't a matter of ALWAYS pressing forward.  You have to know when to de-link and actually NOT press forward in order to suddenly have the opponent off-balance and at a disadvantage.  This can be coupled with a small pivot and a sudden "lift" to effectively make the opponent feel like he is momentarily "floating".   This is using the concept of "rise" or "float."


----------



## KPM (Feb 10, 2016)

A friend just sent me an additional data point.   Lo Kwai was an early student of Leung Jan while he was teaching in Foshan prior to his retirement to Ku Lo village.   His line is preserved and contains the following keywords or  Sup Bot Fatt (18 Methods) / Sup Bot Ging (18 Energies): Tao - spit Tun - swallow Fao - raise Chum - sink Mo - touch Dong - swing Na - adhere Kum - grasp Lao - leak Tong - press Biu - thrust Zhan - vibrate, Huai - spiral Juan - roll Shuai - throw Zhi - straight Darp - join Jui - follow.

Note the first 4 are the "four energies."  I don't know how legitimate this line from Leung Jan is, but here at least is a suggestion that LJ himself taught the "four energies" as part of his system early on, and taught them to more people than just Wong Wah Sam.    So again, even if you consider these concepts to be an "add on" to the system, it would have happened very early in Wing Chun's history.  Knives and pole were also both an "add on" early in Wing Chun history.  So at what point then would you consider these things as part of Wing Chun and not just an "add on"????   Personally I think that referring to them as an "add on" just because you don't find them in your own version of Wing Chun is a bit off.


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> How does swallow allow one to attack when the way is free?



Because you have two hands/arms, two legs, and two sides of your horse. One swallows, while simultaneously the other spits (strikes)..

one side of your body enhancing the swallow with properly trained "yin" mechanics...while simultaneously the other side of your body enhancing the spit (strike) with "yang". Same for your feet. Properly trained, these various elements combine and work together quite nicely. Just my opinion


----------



## JPinAZ (Feb 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> Fine.  Because you weren't making sense, and you were coming across negative yourself.  Maybe you don't see it.  But your tone in your responses on this thread were not exactly of the "friendly discussion" type.



^^^ Utter nonsense.


----------



## geezer (Feb 10, 2016)

In my lineage when a certain level of force is passed, you may release the force with a bong, tan, turn, etc. It timed right, it can definitely cause your opponent to lurch forward and practically fall onto your attack. This does not seem so very different from the _linking and unlinking_  I've seen Alan Orr demonstrate on his videos. 

In my lineage, this is accomplished without abandoning forward intent. I can see how it could be called "swallowing".  But do you really need to complicate things by listing "18 energies". I like to keep things simple. I just see it as dissolving and attack.


----------



## Vajramusti (Feb 10, 2016)

geezer said:


> In my lineage when a certain level of force is passed, you may release the force with a bong, tan, turn, etc. It timed right, it can definitely cause your opponent to lurch forward and practically fall onto your attack. This does not seem so very different from the _linking and unlinking_  I've seen Alan Orr demonstrate on his videos.
> 
> In my lineage, this is accomplished without abandoning forward intent. I can see how it could be called "swallowing".  But do you really need to complicate things by listing "18 energies". I like to keep things simple. I just see it as dissolving and attack.


-----------------------------------------------
*Blind Men & Elephant parable*

The parable of the blind men and the elephant is used to illustrate how biases can blind us, preventing us from seeking a more complete understanding on the nature of things. It is often used as a warning against the promotion of absolute truths.

The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in India (Pali Buddhist Udana) from where it is widely diffused. Made famous by the great Sufi master Jalal ud-din-i Rumi (1207-1273 c.e.) in his _Mathnawi of Jalalu’ ddin Rumi, _the parable has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies.






“Blind monks examining an elephant” by Itcho Hanabusa 1888

The parable went something like this:

In a distant village, a long time ago, there lived six blind men. One day the villagers announced, “Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.”

They had never seen or felt an elephant before and so decided, “Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” And thus they went down to the village to touch and feel the elephant to learn what animal this was and they described it as follows:

“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.

“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” argued the second after touching  the tail.

“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” the third man spouted after touching the trunk.

“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man feeling the ear.

“It is like a huge wall,” sounded the fifth man who groped the belly .

“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man with the tuskin his hand.

They all fell into heated argument as to who was right in describing the big beast, all sticking to their own perception. A wise sage happened to hear the argument, stopped and asked them “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.”

The wise man then calmly said, “Each one of you is correct; and each one of you is wrong. Because each one of you had only touched a part of the elephant’s body. Thus you only have a partial view of the animal. If you put your partial views together, you will get an idea of what an elephant looks like.”

At various times it has provided insight into the relativity, opaqueness or inexpressible nature of truth, the behaviour of experts in fields where there is a defecit or inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect for different perspectives.

Although the parable’s function is to call attention to a lack of objectivity and consideration of other approaches and perspectives when trying to understand the nature of things, we do have to warn that not all perspectives are equally valid, and even valid arguments are not necessarily equally sound. I would like to thank Dr. Peter Kabai for this reminder.

Each of us lives in our own world, with our own life experiences and sensory perceptions, which often lead us to biases characterized by a lack of general objectivity, open-mindedness or the consideration of the points of view of others.

In a world where issues are usually and uncritically two sided: black or white: good or bad; ethical or unethical, it is easy to fall into heated debates, each defending a point of view often times equated to truths.


----------



## guy b (Feb 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> Someone punches at you and you respond with Bong Sau. But the "way is not free" yet!



Bong clears the way in YM wing chun


----------



## guy b (Feb 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> Knives and pole were also both an "add on" early in Wing Chun history



Pole is not an add on. It is the basis of the system, in everything that it does. Knives are a biu jee idea, a modification of the system for particular eventualities.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 10, 2016)

Wise words Joy.
Unfortunately those who should heed the lesson above will not for they are thinking it is the others who need it and not them.


----------



## guy b (Feb 10, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> One swallows, while simultaneously the other spits (strikes)



Tun tou is sequential, it has to be to work. It is not half body. Splitting is not tun tou.


----------



## guy b (Feb 10, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------
> *Blind Men & Elephant parable*
> 
> The parable of the blind men and the elephant is used to illustrate how biases can blind us, preventing us from seeking a more complete understanding on the nature of things. It is often used as a warning against the promotion of absolute truths.
> ...



Truth in everything is also a way to no truth at all. Some things are either just wrong or just different


----------



## guy b (Feb 10, 2016)

JPinAZ said:


> If they help someone make sense of their WC fine, but LLHS/LSJC is all I've seen WC to need.



The problem with tun tou is that it is actively contradictory in terms of certain other wing chun concepts. So the question is, does Mainland wing chun have the same conceptual base as YM wing chun? If it does then how does it resolve the contradiction that is inherent from a YM wing chun perspective?


----------



## guy b (Feb 10, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Wise words Joy.
> Unfortunately those who should heed the lesson above will not for they are thinking it is the others who need it and not them.



It is like pearls before swine. Only special people can see it of course. We are all one, apart from those guys


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 10, 2016)

Threads like this make me glad I don't practice YM wing chun anymore.


----------



## KPM (Feb 10, 2016)

guy b said:


> It is like pearls before swine. Only special people can see it of course. We are all one, apart from those guys



That's rich!


----------



## geezer (Feb 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> That's rich!



Well of course. Poor people don't even have pearls.


----------



## guy b (Feb 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> That's rich!



Why are you rolling your eyes at me? I didn't say it


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 11, 2016)

I am utterly unqualified to offer opinions on the various historical and technical aspects of WC. I just wanted to ask if I'm the only one who finds "swallow" and "spit" to have ... _unfortunate_ connotations in English? If I hear those terms, I don't immediately think of _martial_ arts.


----------



## KPM (Feb 11, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I am utterly unqualified to offer opinions on the various historical and technical aspects of WC. I just wanted to ask if I'm the only one who finds "swallow" and "spit" to have ... _unfortunate_ connotations in English? If I hear those terms, I don't immediately think of _martial_ arts.


 

True!  Maybe "absorb" and "expel" would be better English translations!


----------



## yak sao (Feb 11, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I am utterly unqualified to offer opinions on the various historical and technical aspects of WC. I just wanted to ask if I'm the only one who finds "swallow" and "spit" to have ... _unfortunate_ connotations in English? If I hear those terms, I don't immediately think of _martial_ arts.



Hmmm....I don't know what else you could possibly be referring to. Please elaborate


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 11, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I just wanted to ask if I'm the only one who finds "swallow" and "spit" to have ... _unfortunate_ connotations in English? If I hear those terms, I don't immediately think of _martial_ arts.


These 2 terms are commonly used in the CMA.

Swallow - When your opponent attack you, you borrow his forward momentum and pull him into you. If he keeps moving in, you keep pull him in until he is down, or punch at him while he is moving toward you.

Spit - When he tries to move back, you borrow his backward movement and push him away. If at the same time you hook his leg back, he will be down.

IMO, the "swallow" makes sense in both the grappling art and the striking art. But the "spit" doesn't make sense in the striking art. In the striking art, you want "head-on collision" and you don't want "rear-end collision".

You

- "punch" when your opponent is moving in toward you.
- "push" when your opponent is moving away from you.

That's the difference between "punch" (used in striking art) and "push" (used in grappling art). To punch someone while his body is moving back is not a good idea. Most of your punching force will be cancelled out by his backward body movement.


----------



## KPM (Feb 11, 2016)

^^^^ "Spit" or "Expel" can be a strike in Wing Chun.  Perfect example is the "Biu Choi" punch in Pin Sun.  You can "swallow" or "absorb" with a cutting Bong with a pivot inward followed immediately with a pivot outward while doing a Biu Choi with the Bong arm.  It is very sudden and "ballistic".....expel.


----------



## lsanczyk (Sep 9, 2016)

Are not the "gow gup sao", the emergency techniques of Biu Gee, sometimes "bending" the principles? Why not see the got/gat/gwat techniques as tools you will wish to have when your "clash force with force" methods doesn't work?


----------



## Nobody Important (Sep 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> People that are familiar with the southern Chinese martial arts often associate the “four energies” with the Hakka arts….Southern Mantis, Bak Mei (White Eyebrow), and Dragon style.  Many people don’t seem to realize that the older versions of Wing Chun and Weng Chun contain these elements as well.  These four energies are explicitly part of the “18 Kiu Sau Principles” of Tang Yik Weng Chun, which are its guiding “keywords.”  They are also part of Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun.  They are included in the “mental methods” of Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun.  CSL Wing Chun is a “modern” system, but its keywords are taken from Sum Nun Wing Chun and Gu Lao Wing Chun.  When Ip Man began teaching in Hong Kong he dropped a lot of the more traditional aspects of the system, including the use of keywords.  So some branches of the Ip Man system continue to use these “four energies” to an extent without naming them or putting much  emphasis on them.  Some branches don’t make much use of them at all.  But to deny that they are a part of Wing Chun is to take a rather narrow and uninformed view of the different varieties of Wing Chun methods available.
> 
> This is not a recent “add on” to the system.  The fact that they are present in both Tang Yik Weng Chun and Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun….both of which are “old” systems…should clearly indicate this.  Wing Chun and Weng Chun are different systems.  One might say they are cousins.  But they shared a common root approximately 150 years ago.  The fact that the “four energies” are found in both systems suggests they were there from the beginning.
> 
> ...


This was a good post Keith. You brought up some things that many don't know about in the context of the original terminology found in Wing Chun. These energies are present in my WC as well, in actuality we do all 8. Float, spit, sink, rise, lift, swallow, rebound & burst. Float, sink, spit & swallow are the 4 major energies from which the others are derived. Rarely are they used singularly, but often in conjunction, ex; swallow & rebound or rise & burst. Forward pressure now becomes subjective, especially where Kam Na is concerned.


----------



## anerlich (Sep 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> But new to some in the forum I think....at least as coming from a Wing Chun perspective



Not to me, bro.



KPM said:


> I only started this thread because in other threads a certain person had said that these things have no place in Wing Chun, and that if any Wing Chun system had them....then they have to have been "grafted on" from another system.



It would be good if this certain person took the bait, lest innocent parties feel you are somehow denigrating their substyle of WC (YM) by making inaccurate generalisations about it and its practitioners.


----------



## anerlich (Sep 9, 2016)

guy b said:


> Is there more to it that is not spoken about publicly? If so then would it be possible to talk in generalities about this without revealing the detail?



In my experience I've found that things that "aren't talked about publicly" usually aren't worth talking about anyway. Talking in riddles is for children and charlatans IMO.


----------



## dudewingchun (Sep 10, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> This was a good post Keith. You brought up some things that many don't know about in the context of the original terminology found in Wing Chun. These energies are present in my WC as well, in actuality we do all 8. Float, spit, sink, rise, lift, swallow, rebound & burst. Float, sink, spit & swallow are the 4 major energies from which the others are derived. Rarely are they used singularly, but often in conjunction, ex; swallow & rebound or rise & burst. Forward pressure now becomes subjective, especially where Kam Na is concerned.



What wing chun do you do?


----------



## Nobody Important (Sep 10, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> What wing chun do you do?


Not Yip Man


----------



## geezer (Sep 10, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> *Not Yip Man*



_That's_ a system of WC?


----------



## dudewingchun (Sep 10, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> Not Yip Man



Very detailed answer


----------



## Nobody Important (Sep 10, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Very detailed answer


Lol! Yuen Chai Wan Wing Chun


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 11, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> Lol! Yuen Chai Wan Wing Chun


\\\\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YKS's elder brother who moved to Viet Nam? His Wc: supposed to develop north/south versions.


----------



## Nobody Important (Sep 11, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> \\\\
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YKS's elder brother who moved to Viet Nam? His Wc: supposed to develop north/south versions.


Correct. His version while at the ex-pats association was no different than his brothers. Chinese learned different material than Vietnamese in beginning. When he went south it changed a bit & the focus was predominately SNT, 36 move dummy & pole. Subsequent generations changed much, adding in 5 animals & Chi Kung. North later added in La Phu Son (a system of bridging from Lo Fu San in China where SPM, White Brow & Dragon came from). Some branches also added in Vietnamese Hung Fist. Very diverse & muddled system now days. My branch comes from north from ex-pats assoc. Last I knew Yuen Chai Wan's son was still alive in south, he does not practice WC.


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 11, 2016)

Nobody Important said:


> Correct. His version while at the ex-pats association was no different than his brothers. Chinese learned different material than Vietnamese in beginning. When he went south it changed a bit & the focus was predominately SNT, 36 move dummy & pole. Subsequent generations changed much, adding in 5 animals & Chi Kung. North later added in La Phu Son (a system of bridging from Lo Fu San in China where SPM, White Brow & Dragon came from). Some branches also added in Vietnamese Hung Fist. Very diverse & muddled system now days. My branch comes from north from ex-pats assoc. Last I knew Yuen Chai Wan's son was still alive in south, he does not practice WC.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understood. Good summary.


----------

