# Siu Lim Tau Comparison



## Nobody Important

I thought this was an interesting video highlighting different approaches to Wing Chun.






Having read up a little on each branches history and theoretical approach , I can see their methodology come through in their forms.


----------



## KPM

Cool!  Well done!  And directed by the forum's own Jonathan Sandberg (JP in AZ)!


----------



## guy b

There are many large problems with the Moy Yat (Yip Man) version as performed here. The HFY looks like a completely different system not focused on the same things. TWC looks like it _might_ be a highly corrupted form of YM- if so then hard to see how it wouldn't be broken beyond repair.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> There are many large problems with the Moy Yat (Yip Man) version as performed here. The HFY looks like a completely different system not focused on the same things. TWC looks like it _might_ be a highly corrupted form of YM- if so then hard to see how it wouldn't be broken beyond repair.


Your beliefs are only applicable to you, to which no other branch is obligated to subscribe. What you hold to be truth is contrary to reality. The Wing Chun that you practice is NOT the standard to which all Wing Chun branches are held. Each branch has it's own interpretations & applications of the movement & theory. Each has equal rights to the label of Wing Chun.

Who are you to say what is right or wrong? I believe your approach is limited in scope for lacking core methods utilized by older branches, yet I don't insist what you do as broken. You do not employ the same strategies, tactics, methods, movements, theories etc. as these branches. Since you do not, what makes you think your method is applicable to them?

Quit trying to insist that what you possess is superior in theory, approach, function & application & that everyone should follow your approach. There is no singular, linear approach to Wing Chun. You cannot organize all the various interpretations into a neat little package and expect everyone to accept that as the only way, and suggest if they don't accept it, then what they have is broken or not Wing Chun. You don't get to decide what is or isn't legitimate, how to interpret based on your intelligence and comprehension or appoint standards.

Wing Chun existed long before Yip Man, Wong Sheung Lung & Philip Bayer and you, hard to believe that in an art that has spanned centuries and been learned by thousands, that only a few "chosen" ones learned the "truth" according to you. It has become quite evident that your knowledge & understanding are extremely limited when it comes to what constitutes the label of Wing Chun.

Personally I'm sick of your negativity & divisiveness. If you don't have anything constructive or positive to say don't post. Your behavior is getting old real quick.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Nobody Important said:


> I thought this was an interesting video highlighting different approaches to Wing Chun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having read up a little on each branches history and theoretical approach , I can see their methodology come through in their forms.


Good timing.  I was thinking earlier how I wanted to find a video that shows the differences, now I don't have to look.

Quick question. DoesWing Chun have any forms that show more movement with footwork or are most of the forms stationary like this one?


----------



## Nobody Important

JowGaWolf said:


> Good timing.  I was thinking earlier how I wanted to find a video that shows the differences, now I don't have to look.
> 
> Quick question. DoesWing Chun have any forms that show more movement with footwork or are most of the forms stationary like this one?


There is great variety depending on the branch. Cho Family, Vietnamese & William Cheung branches have lots of movement. Cho Family because they have some Choy Lay Fut influence, Vietnamese has some 5 Animal influence and William Cheung possibly has connection to Hung Fa Yi. The HFY people would have to verify as I've not seen their other sets.

Wing Chun is very diverse. Unfortunately a lot of branches are held in comparison to Yip Man branch as the standard of accepted practice. In reality this just isn't true. Many branches are much older, and as such contain much more diverse material.

Pao Fa Lian Wing Chun, Chi Sim Wing Chun & Chan Family Wing Chun have numerous forms with movement also.


----------



## Transk53

Very interesting vid. Will definitely be looking a lot further into the differing approaches.


----------



## Marnetmar

I get the feeling this video was designed to make Moy Yat/Yip Man guys look bad and make HFY look good while piquing people's interest at its apparent similarity to TWC. At least choose a good example of each one if you're going to do a video like this.


----------



## Nobody Important

@JowGaWolf






This is the branch from Chan Yiu Min, son of Chan Wah Shun the teacher of Yip Man. Commonly accepted as altered Wing Chun having some other southern art added in. I do find it cohesive though and still working within the "accepted" parameters. When they move they try to maintain WC mechanics. IMO it shows how WC can look while moving about.






Pao Fa Lien version of SNT.






Vietnamese SNT






Malaysian Wing Chun


----------



## JowGaWolf

Nobody Important said:


> There is great variety depending on the branch. Cho Family, Vietnamese & William Cheung branches have lots of movement. Cho Family because they have some Choy Lay Fut influence, Vietnamese has some 5 Animal influence and William Cheung possibly has connection to Hung Fa Yi. The HFY people would have to verify as I've not seen their other sets.
> 
> Wing Chun is very diverse. Unfortunately a lot of branches are held in comparison to Yip Man branch as the standard of accepted practice. In reality this just isn't true. Many branches are much older, and as such contain much more diverse material.
> 
> Pao Fa Lian Wing Chun, Chi Sim Wing Chun & Chan Family Wing Chun have numerous forms with movement also.


I would like to see the Wing Chun forms with the foot movement beyond the pivot. I usually see the forms where someone is just standing still in one spot. Don't worry I'm not one of those guys that believes there's only one correct way to do Wing Chun.

Thanks for the videos.  I didn't see them until after I typed this message


----------



## Nobody Important

JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to see the Wing Chun forms with the foot movement beyond the pivot. I usually see the forms where someone is just standing still in one spot. Don't worry I'm not one of those guys that believes there's only one correct way to do Wing Chun.
> 
> Thanks for the videos.  I didn't see them until after I typed this message


Plenty of branches with movement, they are just not as popular as branches coming from Leung Jan.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> There are many large problems with the Moy Yat (Yip Man) version as performed here. The HFY looks like a completely different system not focused on the same things. TWC looks like it _might_ be a highly corrupted form of YM- if so then hard to see how it wouldn't be broken beyond repair.



And again, tell us how you DON'T believe that WSLVT is the only "real" version of VT!


----------



## Transk53

And if it is not WSL VT, every other branch of Wing Chun is broken and corrupt. That pretty much the gist of Guy B's universe?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And again, tell us how you DON'T believe that WSLVT is the only "real" version of VT!



Tell us again how you don't share the same opinion of William Cheung and his TWC.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Nobody Important said:


> I thought this was an interesting video highlighting different approaches to Wing Chun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having read up a little on each branches history and theoretical approach , I can see their methodology come through in their forms.


I wish they had put the lineage name above or below each video, to make it easier to keep up with which style is which. Probably more useful to those of us not familiar with the different styles.


----------



## PiedmontChun

JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to see the Wing Chun forms with the foot movement beyond the pivot. I usually see the forms where someone is just standing still in one spot. Don't worry I'm not one of those guys that believes there's only one correct way to do Wing Chun.
> 
> Thanks for the videos.  I didn't see them until after I typed this message



The 1st form, Siu Nim Tau, is stationary. The 2nd form, Chum Kiu, has turning / shifting, stepping, and kicks. The 3rd form, Biu Jee, adds additional footwork. The Dummy form uses footwork from the Chum Kiu in a particular way, and the weapons forms all add some footwork not found in the Chum Kiu (to my very limited knowledge of those later forms).

To your point Jow, the reason you likely see more comparison of one's SNT to another's SNT or focus on that is that it contains the "seed" techniques and essentially the conceptual base for the system, far more than the other forms do. Differences between different versions of SNT highlight where lineages have changed or diverged from each other, not just a change to individual techniques, but likely the concept behind it. I have a hard enough time trying to learn all of what is there in my own branch's SNT, I don't have the gumption or drive to try and break down other's to understand it.


----------



## wtxs

Transk53 said:


> And if it is not WSL VT, every other branch of Wing Chun is broken and corrupt. That pretty much the gist of Guy B's universe?



Pretty much high light the case of the frog in the bottom of a well ... his universe encompass only  all that he could or want to see.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Your beliefs are only applicable to you, to which no other branch is obligated to subscribe. What you hold to be truth is contrary to reality. The Wing Chun that you practice is NOT the standard to which all Wing Chun branches are held. Each branch has it's own interpretations & applications of the movement & theory. Each has equal rights to the label of Wing Chun.



My comments are obviously from the point of view of YM Ving Tsun. The Moy Yat version presented has several large problems, possibly intentionally, which I think Martenmar also picked up on. It isn't a good representation of the system.

Commenting again from the point of YM VT, there is nothing negative or divisive in noticing that HFY wing chun looks like a different system compared to YM VT. They themselves claim that it is different.

Again from the point of view of YM VT I can see a vague resemblance in the TWC form. If it is supposed to work as YM VT works then this will be a problem (it will be broken). If not and other justifications exist for the movements (which I am sure they do), then what is the problem in noting that it won't function as YM VT functions? I'm not going to pretend it would all work great from the point of view of YM VT, because that would be misinformation and untruth, which wouldn't help anyone.



> I believe your approach is limited in scope for lacking core methods utilized by older branches, yet I don't insist what you do as broken. You do not employ the same strategies, tactics, methods, movements, theories etc. as these branches. Since you do not, what makes you think your method is applicable to them?[



I am commenting as a practitioner of YM VT



> Quit trying to insist that what you possess is superior in theory, approach, function & application & that everyone should follow your approach. There is no singular, linear approach to Wing Chun. You cannot organize all the various interpretations into a neat little package and expect everyone to accept that as the only way, and suggest if they don't accept it, then what they have is broken or not Wing Chun. You don't get to decide what is or isn't legitimate, how to interpret based on your intelligence and comprehension or appoint standards.



When no other theory is presented by anyone, it is hypocritical to be touchy about the interpretations of those people who are prepared to provide detailed explantion. YM VT works in a particular way and I don't see why discussion of this should be avoided so that people don't get offended. I don't have any opinion on wing chun that is not YM VT, other than to note that it is different



> hard to believe that in an art that has spanned centuries and been learned by thousands, that only a few "chosen" ones learned the "truth" according to you



Not something I have ever claimed. No evidence that wing chun was around earlier than mid 19th century.



> Personally I'm sick of your negativity & divisiveness. If you don't have anything constructive or positive to say don't post. Your behavior is getting old real quick.



Post alternative interpretations if you don't like mine.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I can see their methodology come through in their forms.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## Nobody Important

_If it is supposed to work as YM VT works then this will be a problem (it will be broken). If not and other justifications exist for the movements (which I am sure they do), then what is the problem in noting that it won't function as YM VT functions? _

--------Why do you constantly need to point out how other branches won't work when approached with your VT methodology? In my opinion, you do it in effort to appear superior. They aren't your method, they are their own. No need to degrade them because you don't approve of their approach.
_
YM VT works in a particular way and I don't see why discussion of this should be avoided so that people don't get offended. I don't have any opinion on wing chun that is not YM VT, other than to note that it is different_

----------I don't remember asking you how your YM VT works. Nor did I ask you to impose your opinion as to why you feel other branches are inferior to your assumed superior method, because this is what you insinuate. Why do you feel the need to offend constantly? Your YM VT is not the standard to which others are held. Get over yourself. If you don't have an opinion on anything other than YM VT why don't you go post on a board dedicated strictly to YM VT?


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> There are many large problems with the Moy Yat (Yip Man) version as performed here. The HFY looks like a completely different system not focused on the same things. TWC looks like it _might_ be a highly corrupted form of YM- if so then hard to see how it wouldn't be broken beyond repair.



My personal perspective might be much the same. But, holy moly! This is no way to begin a productive discussion on an open forum!!! Are you really surprised at the hostile you got? 

How about a less confrontational approach? I will try to demonstrate what I mean:

Yes, I too see some things in the Moy Yat VT version of SNT _as shown_ that would be counterproductive _...from the perspective of the VT I practice._ For example, the very high position of the double _lan-sau_ or "bar arms" preceeding the double _fak-sau_ movement (left hand frame at 2:30 in the clip) would be problematic in the context of my VT.

Interestingly, when I was first taught this, we also held our _sheung lan sau_ or "double bar-arms" nearly as high as shown here. Later, I learned to let the lan sau settle to a lower position, more in front of the chest. I found this helped me maintain a better structure, with my shoulders relaxed and down, my weight sunken, and my stance better rooted. The slightly lower position also kept my arms and energy closer to centerline and reminded me to focus my energy and intent forward.

Those would be the essential reasons. There are also concerns that could be related to common applications ...such as keeping your arms lower so that you do not get uprooted, but rather can direct the resistance you receive from your opponent downward into your stance. I believe Alan Orr did a nice video on this relating to the way he uses bong-sau to press and move an opponent. We often aply lan-sau similarly.  A caveat here would be that _applications are specific, situational, and limited_. They can be useful to as examples to illustrate how a technique can come into play, but in my VT they are _not_ the reason behind the movements. That is conceptual.

Anyway, that would be my quick, off-the-cuff response ...from the perspective of what I do, expressed honestly, ...but without presuming to know what the Moy Yat practitioner intended, and without being judgemental. Maybe you could try a similar approach?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Tell us again how you don't share the same opinion of William Cheung and his TWC.




Huh?  That doesn't even make sense!


----------



## Transk53

wtxs said:


> Pretty much high light the case of the frog in the bottom of a well ... his universe encompass only  all that he could or want to see.



I for one am glad that I don't have such a insular skill set. it just so stupid to blind oneself with that the notion that taking one viewpoint actually helps, it doesn't, it blinds.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Marnetmar said:


> I get the feeling this video was designed to make Moy Yat/Yip Man guys look bad and make HFY look good while piquing people's interest at its apparent similarity to TWC.


 As a person that doesn't do Wing Chun, I couldn't tell who was looking bad or not.  The most that I saw as some mechanics issues where the punch wasn't connected to the core, but things like that aren't a big deal for me.  It says more about the person doing the Wing Chun than about the system and these guys can only do Wing Chun to the best of their abilities.

But for all of these other things that Wing Chun people say such as "Make style Wing Chun style A look bad" isn't going to register with people outside of Wing Chun.  The most they are going to do is look for similarities that Wing Chun has in their systems and critique that.  If you are worried about looking bad to the outsider than don't.  If you are worried about looking bad to an insider than don't.  You Wing Chun guys are trenched in pretty good, so a video like this isn't going to change you mind about what you do.



PiedmontChun said:


> To your point Jow, the reason you likely see more comparison of one's SNT to another's SNT or focus on that is that it contains the "seed" techniques and essentially the conceptual base for the system, far more than the other forms do. Differences between different versions of SNT highlight where lineages have changed or diverged from each other, not just a change to individual techniques, but likely the concept behind it.


  Thanks, this makes sense to me as it is something that I would expect to naturally happen within fighting systems as they are passed down through the generations.   The more students and teachers one has in a system, the faster and more wide spread the changes will be.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Yes, I too see some things in the Moy Yat VT version of SNT _as shown_ that would be counterproductive _...from the perspective of the VT I practice._ For example, the very high position of the double _lan-sau_ or "bar arms" preceeding the double _fak-sau_ movement (left hand frame at 2:30 in the clip) would be problematic in the context of my VT.


This is probably an issue of the practitioner and not the style. For example,when I see someone do something in wrong in Jow Ga, I don't stay the way Jow Ga does it is wrong.  I say the way the practitioner is doing is not the way that most schools teach, or I'll pull out the application of that technique and explain why it needs to be performed a certain way.  Everyone who does wing chun isn't going to be good at it and that includes some of the sifus who teaches it.  If the teacher doesn't understand the application and why a technique must be done a certain way then, it's only natural that there will be some techniques that are less stellar than say someone form your school.

And this is how you presented your case of why it's incorrect for your school.  The detail that you gave is useful information. It allows other Wing Chun practitioners to think about why they may do things a certain way.  Jow Ga has a move that's similar to the double lan-sau and the double fak-sau movement, and your explanation made me think about how that similar move is done in a non-Wing Chun martial arts



geezer said:


> Later, I learned to let the lan sau settle to a lower position, more in front of the chest. I found this helped me maintain a better structure, with my shoulders relaxed and down, my weight sunken, and my stance better rooted. The slightly lower position also kept my arms and energy closer to centerline and reminded me to focus my energy and intent forward.


This statement is true in Jow Ga. the only different is the degree in which the arms are crossed.  In Wing Chun your arms are on top of each other in Jow Ga the arms are crossed to where my hands are not on my shoulder and my arms for a cross.  Based on how you described this, I can only assume that these techniques have similar purposes

The guy on the right (red and black) does the lan sau closer to the way that it was taught to me.  That the drop that follows the double lan sau has purpose.  The guy in the middle drops his lan sau as well so in my eyes it's the same technique in Wing Chun, however the guy on the left never drops his. It doesn't mean that it's wrong it just means that from my perspective in what I train in, there is something that usually comes after that move, normally it's a drop or collapse type movement because of what the double lan sau does.  I don't know if the follow up technique was intentionally left out or if the technique that follows is a legitimate technique that can be used after the double lan sau.  Of course all of this is wrong if my assumption about the Wing Chun double lan sau is wrong.


----------



## Mattattack

Nobody Important said:


> Wing Chun is very diverse. Unfortunately a lot of branches are held in comparison to Yip Man branch as the standard of accepted practice. In reality this just isn't true. Many branches are much older, and as such contain much more diverse material.



Which is exactly why watching this video was interesting for me as a practitioner from a Yip Man branch.  Neat!



PiedmontChun said:


> To your point Jow, the reason you likely see more comparison of one's SNT to another's SNT or focus on that is that it contains the "seed" techniques and essentially the conceptual base for the system, far more than the other forms do



Very true.  That's one thing I like about Wing Chun.  I've learned SNT, Chum Kiu, and I'm learning some of the Chi Sao sections if that tells you where I am about now, and SNT keeps becoming more and more important as I train.

I made a T-shirt to train in with something my teacher said on the back "Siu Nim Tao Much?"



JowGaWolf said:


> You Wing Chun guys are trenched in pretty good, so a video like this isn't going to change you mind about what you do.



Yeah, I'm continually shocked by how vociferous it can get.


----------



## Transk53

Mattattack said:


> Which is exactly why watching this video was interesting for me as a practitioner from a Yip Man branch.  Neat!
> 
> 
> 
> Very true.  That's one thing I like about Wing Chun.  I've learned SNT, Chum Kiu, and I'm learning some of the Chi Sao sections if that tells you where I am about now, and SNT keeps becoming more and more important as I train.
> 
> I made a T-shirt to train in with something my teacher said on the back "Siu Nim Tao Much?"
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm continually shocked by how vociferous it can get.



Yeah once sets of fingers get warmed up for the KB, then overly so


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> They aren't your method, they are their own.



If they are a different method then why would anyone be offended if they wouldn't work according to YM VT?



Nobody Important said:


> I don't remember asking you how your YM VT works.



You posted a clip comparing a flawed version of YM VT SNT vs apparently similar forms from other systems on a public forum. If you don't want any comment then suggest you PM them privately to people you think might be interested.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> If they are a different method then why would anyone be offended if they wouldn't work according to YM VT?.



Yet, to judge by all the negative responses, once again you came of as insufferably rude in the eyes of just about everybody else here. And you ask, "why would anyone be offended?" ...Gee, I wonder!


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Yet, to judge by all the negative responses, once again you came of as insufferably rude in the eyes of just about everybody else here. And you ask, "why would anyone be offended?" ...Gee, I wonder!



I would say at this point it is a knee jerk reaction


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> If they are a different method then why would anyone be offended if they wouldn't work according to YM VT?
> 
> 
> 
> You posted a clip comparing a flawed version of YM VT SNT vs apparently similar forms from other systems on a public forum. If you don't want any comment then suggest you PM them privately to people you think might be interested.


It appears it's you who gets offended when YM VT doesn't work according to other systems.

I never said it was flawed, you assumed because it is different to yours. I don't judge a system by one practitioner, just as I don't judge a practitioner by their system. Someday maybe you'll understand that.

Lastly, this conversation is finished. You've said your piece. This thread isn't about, broken, inferior or illegitimate. It's about the variety present within Wing Chun, let's try to leave the negativity and politics out of it.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I would say at this point it is a knee jerk reaction



So....are you saying that you have been "insufferably rude" here so often that people have just come to expect it of you???


----------



## Nobody Important

Remember to keep in mind that when watching someone performing a form that they may not be thinking the same as you. Your purpose & understanding for doing a movement may not be the same as theirs. Where you emphasize push they my emphasize lift. It's all about application, without it, it's impossible to tell intention. All this "It wouldn't work in my system" nonsense is moot. Without having intimate knowledge of how their methodology interplays with the movements it all just speculation. What you see as a block maybe a strike or lock to them. Best thing to do instead of speculate & judge is to ask why. Siu Lim Tau is "Little Imagination" not "Little Written in Stone".


----------



## KPM

Uh-oh!  You said "application"!!!!


----------



## Nobody Important

@JowGaWolf

I'll be labeled as a heretic for this, but, Jow Ga has a fair amount of Hung Gar influence. I'm of the belief that Hung Gar, especially Lam family, has a good deal of Wing Chun in it, though expressed differently to the mainstream stuff. My question is , does Jow Ga have a set similar to Lam family Tiger & Crane's that contains the short bridge opening? If so what is your impression as to it's purpose?


----------



## Transk53

You know what this getting ridiculous. I have been in the sin bin, and embarrassing so. Yes I am going to get in trouble here, but please, how much longer does any member, have to put up with Guy B, and LFJ collaborating, and trolling? IMHO of course.


----------



## Cephalopod

Hey!
I have a very particular question about the vid, especially for anyone familiar with HFY:

At 3:23 the HFY guy (in the center) forms a bong sau and then lifts it straight up into, well, a high bong sau.

A lifting movement with the elbow pronated like this would just annihilate my shoulder if it was against any kind of resistance.

Any idea what is being trained?


----------



## Mattattack

Im kind of afraid to say anything about anything on this thread


----------



## Cephalopod

Mattattack said:


> Im kind of afraid to say anything about anything on this thread


Noooo!
The reasonable level-headed folks must re-take the thread!!
We will rule by superior numbers!!


----------



## Nobody Important

Mattattack said:


> Im kind of afraid to say anything about anything on this thread


Please don't be. Feel free to state or inquire about any thought you have. As long as you aren't divisive or trolling you'll be alright.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> My personal perspective might be much the same. But, holy moly! This is no way to begin a productive discussion on an open forum!!! Are you really surprised at the hostile you got?
> 
> How about a less confrontational approach? I will try to demonstrate what I mean:
> 
> Yes, I too see some things in the Moy Yat VT version of SNT _as shown_ that would be counterproductive _...from the perspective of the VT I practice._ For example, the very high position of the double _lan-sau_ or "bar arms" preceeding the double _fak-sau_ movement (left hand frame at 2:30 in the clip) would be problematic in the context of my VT.
> 
> Interestingly, when I was first taught this, we also held our _sheung lan sau_ or "double bar-arms" nearly as high as shown here. Later, I learned to let the lan sau settle to a lower position, more in front of the chest. I found this helped me maintain a better structure, with my shoulders relaxed and down, my weight sunken, and my stance better rooted. The slightly lower position also kept my arms and energy closer to centerline and reminded me to focus my energy and intent forward.
> 
> Those would be the essential reasons. There are also concerns that could be related to common applications ...such as keeping your arms lower so that you do not get uprooted, but rather can direct the resistance you receive from your opponent downward into your stance. I believe Alan Orr did a nice video on this relating to the way he uses bong-sau to press and move an opponent. We often aply lan-sau similarly.  A caveat here would be that _applications are specific, situational, and limited_. They can be useful to as examples to illustrate how a technique can come into play, but in my VT they are _not_ the reason behind the movements. That is conceptual.
> 
> Anyway, that would be my quick, off-the-cuff response ...from the perspective of what I do, expressed honestly, ...but without presuming to know what the Moy Yat practitioner intended, and without being judgemental. Maybe you could try a similar approach?



Sorry, didn't see this before my post.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> It appears it's you who gets offended when YM VT doesn't work according to other systems



I'm not offended, so no problem



Nobody Important said:


> I never said it was flawed, you assumed because it is different to yours. I don't judge a system by one practitioner, just as I don't judge a practitioner by their system. Someday maybe you'll understand that.



I said it is flawed from the point of view of YM VT, because it is



Nobody Important said:


> It's about the variety present within Wing Chun, let's try to leave the negativity and politics out of it.



To represent variety properly it needs a correct version from YM VT


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> So....are you saying that you have been "insufferably rude" here so often that people have just come to expect it of you???



People get into the habit of being "offended" as a way of applying social pressure upon individuals not playing by the rules of the group


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> People get into the habit of being "offended" as a way of applying social pressure upon individuals not playing by the rules of the group



No, individuals are what they are


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Remember to keep in mind that when watching someone performing a form that they may not be thinking the same as you. Your purpose & understanding for doing a movement may not be the same as theirs.



YM VT not a grab bag of ideas you like. It is designed to work in one way. Without that systemic unerstanding it simply doesn't work. I have no comment on other systems that I don't do.



> Where you emphasize push they my emphasize lift. It's all about application, without it, it's impossible to tell intention. All this "It wouldn't work in my system" nonsense is moot. Without having intimate knowledge of how their methodology interplays with the movements it all just speculation.



No, YM VT works like YM VT



> What you see as a block maybe a strike or lock to them. Best thing to do instead of speculate & judge is to ask why. Siu Lim Tau is "Little Imagination" not "Little Written in Stone



SNT is little idea. The idea was missing from that video.

In YM VT if you see a lock then someone is making it up as they go along.


----------



## Mattattack

Nobody Important said:


> Please don't be. Feel free to state or inquire about any thought you have. As long as you aren't divisive or trolling you'll be alright.



Eh, the discussion needs to veer back to highlighting differences in styles, regardless of how good or bad the people in that video are.



Cephalopod said:


> Hey!
> I have a very particular question about the vid, especially for anyone familiar with HFY:
> 
> At 3:23 the HFY guy (in the center) forms a bong sau and then lifts it straight up into, well, a high bong sau.
> 
> A lifting movement with the elbow pronated like this would just annihilate my shoulder if it was against any kind of resistance.
> 
> Any idea what is being trained?



This is the stuff I find to be more interesting.  Would that be just a high man sau?


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> YM VT not a grab bag of ideas you like. It is designed to work in one way. Without that systemic unerstanding it simply doesn't work. I have no comment on other systems that I don't do.



A grab bag of ideas you like, oh yes indeed.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> I said it is flawed from the point of view of YM VT, because it is
> 
> 
> To represent variety properly it needs a correct version from YM VT


Who cares, we're not pointing out perceived flaws. I wanted to highlight differences.

No it doesn't. Again there is no accepted standard to which all other branches are to be held to. Who gets to decide what branch of YMVT is correct? This elitism is ridiculous.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> YM VT not a grab bag of ideas you like. It is designed to work in one way. Without that systemic unerstanding it simply doesn't work. I have no comment on other systems that I don't do.
> 
> 
> 
> No, YM VT works like YM VT
> 
> 
> 
> SNT is little idea. The idea was missing from that video.
> 
> In YM VT if you see a lock then someone is making it up as they go along.


You can keep your technically challenged method to yourself. I'm not interested in elitism, dogma or singularity. If you want to believe that Wing Chun is nothing more than elaborate boxing fine with me. I don't subscribe to your assumptions. You would fare better results by studying Western Boxing if you are going to relegate Wing Chun solely to a punching art IMO. It's counter-productive to practice skill sets that emphasize Chi Sau as a means to punching. Much more efficient to simply move & punch if the strategy is to punch.


----------



## Cephalopod

Mattattack said:


> Eh, the discussion needs to veer back to highlighting differences in styles, regardless of how good or bad the people in that video are.


Three cheers to that!



Mattattack said:


> This is the stuff I find to be more interesting.
> Would that be just a high man sau?


I don't think so.
A man sau would have a supinated elbow (elbow in) so that you're not presenting an 'asking hand' in a highly weakened position.
Assuming that you are training transitions from one position to another in your Sil lim tau, it's the lifting movement that gets me. Ouch.

But maybe there's an idea behind it that I haven't thought of.
Anyone?


----------



## Nobody Important

Mattattack said:


> Eh, the discussion needs to veer back to highlighting differences in styles, regardless of how good or bad the people in that video are.
> 
> This is the stuff I find to be more interesting.  Would that be just a high man sau?


I agree completely. I'm not interested in perceptions of correct or incorrect performances. Just the differences each branch highlights and why. There is no need for imposing belief as to why it's "incorrect" or "inconsistent" with your personal view. We all approach things differently, we cannot learn when forced to accept something as "truth" simply because some individuals believe we should all be held to their belief without question


----------



## Mattattack

It looks like the circles in the HFY are a lot bigger


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I wanted to highlight differences.



Then you need a functional variant, or you are looking at pretend differences.



Nobody Important said:


> Who gets to decide what branch of YMVT is correct?



It is one system recently split. Quite easy to tell


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> It's counter-productive to practice skill sets that emphasize Chi Sau as a means to punching.



Obviously you don't understand YM VT



Nobody Important said:


> Much more efficient to simply move & punch if the strategy is to punch



The strategy is not to punch, it is llhs, lsjc. The punch is the main weapon


----------



## guy b

Cephalopod said:


> A man sau would have a supinated elbow (elbow in) so that you're not presenting an 'asking hand' in a highly weakened position.



Careful you don't say anything that might "offend" anyone


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> You can keep your technically challenged method to yourself. I'm not interested in elitism, dogma or singularity. If you want to believe that Wing Chun is nothing more than elaborate boxing fine with me. I don't subscribe to your assumptions. You would fare better results by studying Western Boxing if you are going to relegate Wing Chun solely to a punching art IMO. It's counter-productive to practice skill sets that emphasize Chi Sau as a means to punching. Much more efficient to simply move & punch if the strategy is to punch.



It sounds like you don't believe that VT is a system at all, what with varying strategies, making the movements mean whatever you like, it being in the mind of the practitioner, etc? When correct can no longer be differentiated from incorrect for fear of causing offence, meaning disappears entirely.


----------



## Nobody Important

Cephalopod said:


> Three cheers to that!
> 
> 
> I don't think so.
> A man sau would have a supinated elbow (elbow in) so that you're not presenting an 'asking hand' in a highly weakened position.
> Assuming that you are training transitions from one position to another in your Sil lim tau, it's the lifting movement that gets me. Ouch.
> 
> But maybe there's an idea behind it that I haven't thought of.
> Anyone?


As for the bong sau in question at 3:23 being performed by the HFY guy. I can't speak for HFY, but we have a similar movement in Yuen family WC. What's being performed is what we'd call Dai Bong (Big Wing). It's a sweeping movement to the inside followed by a transition to Tan Sau. This sweep is for protecting the abdomen from a gut punch, flipping it over to Tan Sau allows you to now be atop the opponents bridge from a second strike to head. In that transition process is Jan Jou (Standing Elbow) & Jung Bong (Center Wing) respectively. This would be an alternative use, defending a gut punch with standing elbow to face punch with center wing. There are more applications that involve one punch instead of two, as well as, locking techniques based on those movements. How HFY perceives them IDK.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> It sounds like you don't believe that VT is a system at all, what with varying strategies, making the movements mean whatever you like, it being in the mind of the practitioner, etc? When correct can no longer be differentiated from incorrect for fear of causing offence, meaning disappears entirely.


Whereas you believe all other branches of Wing Chun are broken, inconsistent or flawed because of their various interpretations to use, I believe your method to be limited in it's use. Difference of opinion is all. Seems the only person I offend is you because I don't subscribe to your belief in Wing Chun as having a singular & limited purpose or that YMVT is the only correct version. 

Can we move on? Or are you going to continue to insist that your interpretation is right & anything contrary to your understanding is false?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Obviously you don't understand YM VT
> 
> 
> 
> The strategy is not to punch, it is llhs, lsjc. The punch is the main weapon


Why bother when it could all be bypassed by simply moving & punching? Or are you into making defending yourself overly complex? I don't need fancy theory or complex strategy to punch someone. Those things are needed for defending, but that's a defensive mindset. If you promote an aggressive mindset it's counter-intuitive to employ tactics that are primarily defense as the means to achieving them.

 But by all means, continue to spout your rhetoric about the YMVT superior method. Chi Sau as a catalyst for punching isn't necessary in Yuen Family Wing Chun. It isn't compatible with our theory as such.


----------



## Cephalopod

Nobody Important said:


> As for the bong sau in question at 3:23 being performed by the HFY guy. I can't speak for HFY, but we have a similar movement in Yuen family WC. What's being performed is what we'd call Dai Bong (Big Wing). It's a sweeping movement to the inside followed by a transition to Tan Sau. This sweep is for protecting the abdomen from a gut punch, flipping it over to Tan Sau allows you to now be atop the opponents bridge from a second strike to head. In that transition process is Jan Jou (Standing Elbow) & Jung Bong (Center Wing) respectively. This would be an alternative use, defending a gut punch with standing elbow to face punch with center wing. There are more applications that involve one punch instead of two, as well as, locking techniques based on those movements. How HFY perceives them IDK.



Thanks Nobody.
I get the dai bong, and the transition to tan sao would be the natural follow up. For me this would involve forward pressure and an inward roll of the elbow.
It's that lifting movement I don't get.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the ideas of standing elbow and jung bong (at least I don't think I am...my knowledge of Chinese terminology is very lacking).
You say these fit between the dai bong and the roll into tan sau? Elaborate?


----------



## Nobody Important

Cephalopod said:


> Thanks Nobody.
> I get the dai bong, and the transition to tan sao would be the natural follow up. For me this would involve forward pressure and an inward roll of the elbow.
> It's that lifting movement I don't get.
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with the ideas of standing elbow and jung bong (at least I don't think I am...my knowledge of Chinese terminology is very lacking).
> You say these fit between the dai bong and the roll into tan sau? Elaborate?


 Inside the Dai Bong to Tan Sau is the suggestion of Zhan Jou to Jung Bong (alternative movement).
Standing elbow is using the inside of the elbow (palm up & facing inward) to sweep away a gut punch. This would transition to a horizontal center bong that uses forward pressure (think high barring hand) to intercept second punch to face. It appears to lift due to raising the arm, but it is actually upward & forward (press). This releases stress on the shoulder. Does that help?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Why bother when it could all be bypassed by simply moving & punching? Or are you into making defending yourself overly complex? I don't need fancy theory or complex strategy to punch someone. Those things are needed for defending, but that's a defensive mindset. If you promote an aggressive mindset it's counter-intuitive to employ tactics that are primarily defense as the means to achieving them.



Defensive tactics are not employed as the means of achieving attack in YM VT, rather attack and defence are linked together. This increases % success in a stressful situation and decreases the chances of being hit. Moving and punching is much more 50:50. The designers of the system obviously preferred to stack the odds in their favour.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> But by all means, continue to spout your rhetoric about the YMVT superior method.



I haven't said that YM VT is superior to other systems. Maybe it is your inferiority complex making you feel that this is the case? I assure you that it is not.



> Chi Sau as a catalyst for punching isn't necessary in Yuen Family Wing Chun. It isn't compatible with our theory as such



Ok?


----------



## Cephalopod

Nobody Important said:


> Inside the Dai Bong to Tan Sau is the suggestion of Zhan Jou to Jung Bong (alternative movement).
> Standing elbow is using the inside of the elbow (palm up & facing inward) to sweep away a gut punch. This would transition to a horizontal center bong that uses forward pressure (think high barring hand) to intercept second punch to face. It appears to lift due to raising the arm, but it is actually upward & forward (press). This releases stress on the shoulder. Does that help?


I'm pretty sure I understand you. In terms of movement one variant is the reverse of the other: bong to tan; zhan jou (similar to tan shape) to bong. Both involve rolling.
In the video I'm talking about, the movement is from bong to bong (low to high). The elbow doesn't roll, it stays pronated and it just lifts.
Maybe he's just demonstrating 2 working heights for the bong and deems the transition to be moot?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Defensive tactics are not employed as the means of achieving attack in YM VT, rather attack and defence are linked together. This increases % success in a stressful situation and decreases the chances of being hit. Moving and punching is much more 50:50. The designers of the system obviously preferred to stack the odds in their favour.


I understand where you are coming from. But IMO the punch itself is easily used to accomplish this on a rudimentary level. No need for Chi Sau in any facet to achieve this effect. When Wing Chun (and this isn't a put down of Wing Chun) can effectively neutralize Western Boxing using the methodology you present, I'll give your branch a serious look. So far I'm unaware of this happening on any consistent basis, which suggests to me; if you are using your Wing Chun as strictly a striking method, your better off with Western Boxing. I don't believe Wing Chun was designed as strictly a striking art, and as such, don't force it to be so. Opinions will vary.


----------



## Cephalopod

I just watched the video again and I noticed that the TWC guy on the right does the same thing (lifting the bong sau) at 4:14.
Are there any TWC people here who could shed some light on that?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> I haven't said that YM VT is superior to other systems. Maybe it is your inferiority complex making you feel that this is the case? I assure you that it is not.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok?


Guy, you imply it with nearly every post. You compare your method with everyone else's and conclude since it isn't compatible with your understanding or with what you were taught that it's broken. You don't have to agree with someone else's view, but you also don't need to be so disdainful. You constantly chide others for not understanding WSLVT, yet tout how it's methods are superior (yes you do this) based on how others methods won't work in your system. They weren't meant to work in your system. There isn't a universal Wing Chun method, simple as that. It would be nice if there was, but then everyone would be the same and the art wouldn't have evolved as it did. Diversity is what makes Wing Chun interesting. I don't accept all views or even recognize all branches, you don't have to either. But I see no need to dismiss them simply because I don't understand them.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I'm unaware of this happening on any consistent basis, which suggests to me; if you are using your Wing Chun as strictly a striking method, your better off with Western Boxing.



Sample size completely different, VT takes a long time to become functional, "western boxing" not a coherent method, many different styles exist, western boxing represented by full time athletes, VT not so much. Impossible to arrive at any sensible conclusion regarding side by side effectiveness.


----------



## Nobody Important

Cephalopod said:


> I'm pretty sure I understand you. In terms of movement one variant is the reverse of the other: bong to tan; zhan jou (similar to tan shape) to bong. Both involve rolling.
> In the video I'm talking about, the movement is from bong to bong (low to high). The elbow doesn't roll, it stays pronated and it just lifts.
> Maybe he's just demonstrating 2 working heights for the bong and deems the transition to be moot?


Could be. I thought I seen a transition via a small roll to the high bong, but maybe it was a different section. Hard to tell or justify by superimposing my approach to their movement. Perhaps one of the HFY guys can elaborate for clarification.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Guy, you imply it with nearly every post. You compare your method with everyone else's and conclude since it isn't compatible with your understanding or with what you were taught that it's broken.



I explicitly didn't do this here. I looked at the TWC form from a YM VT perspective (in which case non functional), but TWC claims other input so not a criticism. HFY I didn't comment on because means nothing to me. Moy Yat I commented on because performed badly (fact), and is YM VT



Nobody Important said:


> you also don't need to be so disdainful. You constantly chide others for not understanding WSLVT, yet tout how it's methods are superior (yes you do this) based on how others methods won't work in your system.



I think people read offence into my replies that is not intended. I don't feel disdainful towards systems I don't understand, just have no opinion



Nobody Important said:


> There isn't a universal Wing Chun method, simple as that. It would be nice if there was



I am only interested in technical discussion on YM VT, because that is the system I know.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Nobody Important said:


> @JowGaWolf
> 
> I'll be labeled as a heretic for this, but, Jow Ga has a fair amount of Hung Gar influence. I'm of the belief that Hung Gar, especially Lam family, has a good deal of Wing Chun in it, though expressed differently to the mainstream stuff. My question is , does Jow Ga have a set similar to Lam family Tiger & Crane's that contains the short bridge opening? If so what is your impression as to it's purpose?





Nobody Important said:


> My question is , does Jow Ga have a set similar to Lam family Tiger & Crane's that contains the short bridge opening? If so what is your impression as to it's purpose?


 Good question.  I'll have to take a look since it is made of 3 different systems.  Technically I could learn some things out of Hung Ga, Choy Ga, and Northern Shaolin and still be in line with Jow Ga principles.  For me that's freaking awesome.  The reason this would be acceptable is because the Founder was proficient and all 3 systems which allowed him to put them together in a way that works.  

This is Jow Ga





This is Hung Ga Tiger Crane form that you speak of?  If so we have some of this. But it's scattered among multiple forms in Jow Ga.





In some of the forms that I know of, it seems like there is a flicker of Wing Chun type movement, but I currently don't know enough forms to know for sure just how much those Wing Chun type techniques play a part in Jow Ga.  My guess is that there was an original technique that took 2 different paths (probably more but just for simplicity we'll just say 2).  One path led to Wing Chun and the other led to Hung Ga.  Some of the techniques that look like Wing Chun may or may not be in some of the advanced forms that I don't know yet.   There is a Jow Ga form called small Eagle Claw which takes a narrow stance similar to Wing Chun and it has more bridges, but I haven't been taught that form yet. I've only seen parts of it

I would need to ask someone from one of the 3 systems that make up Jow Ga about the Wing Chun type techniques.  I don't know if Wing Chun influenced Hung Gar or if it's like the "2 path" scenario where the techniques are older than Wing Chun and Hung Ga


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Sample size completely different, VT takes a long time to become functional, "western boxing" not a coherent method, many different styles exist, western boxing represented by full time athletes, VT not so much. Impossible to arrive at any sensible conclusion regarding side by side effectiveness.


Sorry you believe that. I find boxing to be very coherent. I will agree that Wing Chun takes longer to learn, but then again, I'm approaching it differently by placing emphasis on aspects other than simply punching and the means to utilize a punch.

I would assume that a branch of Wing Chun dedicated to punching and supporting elements to facilitate punching would be relatively easy to learn. But you don't find Western Boxing coherent, so I guess that dampens my assumptions.


----------



## Nobody Important

_I explicitly didn't do this here. I looked at the TWC form from a YM VT perspective (in which case non functional), but TWC claims other input so not a criticism. HFY I didn't comment on because means nothing to me. Moy Yat I commented on because performed badly (fact), and is YM VT_

------- You just did it with your reply. Do you seriously not see that? It may be a branch coming from Yip Man, but it isn't your branch. Their approach may be different than yours. You need to accept the fact that you cannot quality control others based on your belief alone. You don't have to accept or recognize them, but I see no need to criticize simply for the sake of doing so.  Have some Mo Duk.

_
I think people read offence into my replies that is not intended. I don't feel disdainful towards systems I don't understand, just have no opinion_

------- You're constantly interjecting your opinions concerning arts other than YMVT. This very thread for example. Try using a little tact when approaching questions to difference.

_
I am only interested in technical discussion on YM VT, because that is the system I know._

------- That's fine, but let others discuss non YMVT without you interjecting your opinion of their incapatibilty with YMVT. No one wants to constantly hear how our methods are incompatible with yours, we don't care. We are looking for commonalities and different views. Not differences we don't agree upon, this is a given. We know we have differences, no need to constantly point them out.


----------



## Juany118

When was the video taken?  Only asking because the TWC has some differences from that which GM William Cheung himself can be see doing in both old and new videos.  I will be at a seminar in a couple weeks hosted by his closed door student/head of the US Branch.  I think I'll show him the video and ask what's up.

Here's the old video I mentioned.  Some of the differences are pretty obvious, even if you have never seen SLT before.






Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> _I explicitly didn't do this here. I looked at the TWC form from a YM VT perspective (in which case non functional), but TWC claims other input so not a criticism. HFY I didn't comment on because means nothing to me. Moy Yat I commented on because performed badly (fact), and is YM VT_
> 
> ------- You just did it with your reply. Do you seriously not see that? It may be a branch coming from Yip Man, but it isn't your branch. Their approach may be different than yours. You need to accept the fact that you cannot quality control others based on your belief alone. You don't have to accept or recognize them, but I see no need to criticize simply for the sake of doing so.  Have some Mo Duk.
> 
> _
> I think people read offence into my replies that is not intended. I don't feel disdainful towards systems I don't understand, just have no opinion_
> 
> ------- You're constantly interjecting your opinions concerning arts other than YMVT. This very thread for example. Try using a little tact when approaching questions to difference.
> 
> _
> I am only interested in technical discussion on YM VT, because that is the system I know._
> 
> ------- That's fine, but let others discuss non YMVT without you interjecting your opinion of their incapatibilty with YMVT. No one wants to constantly hear how our methods are incompatible with yours, we don't care. We are looking for commonalities and different views. Not differences we don't agree upon, this is a given. We know we have differences, no need to constantly point them out.


The other issue is to claim corruption is to say it is damaged and or weakened.  Problem is Guy has also said he doesn't accept the premise that if it works it's all good.  Ergo he doesn't need practical proof to prove corruption (failure in real life practice).  His arguments are formed also identical to those you would see in theological debates between different sects, not people logically discussing verifiable facts.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Sample size completely different, VT takes a long time to become functional, "western boxing" not a coherent method, many different styles exist, western boxing represented by full time athletes, VT not so much. Impossible to arrive at any sensible conclusion regarding side by side effectiveness.



 How about at least one instance of a good WSLVT guy easily handling a good western boxer??


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> When was the video taken?  Only asking because the TWC has some differences from that which GM William Cheung himself can be see doing in both old and new videos.  I will be at a seminar in a couple weeks hosted by his closed door student/head of the US Branch.  I think I'll show him the video and ask what's up.
> 
> Here's the old video I mentioned.  Some of the differences are pretty obvious, even if you have never seen SLT before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Yeah, that version of the TWC form was certainly a bit different than what I learned when I was studying TWC.


----------



## KPM

Cephalopod said:


> But maybe there's an idea behind it that I haven't thought of.
> Anyone?



In Pin Sun we have a similar motion called a "Hok Bong" or "Crane Wing."  This is essentially a rising Bong Sau that comes upward from below the attacker's limb and lifts it off-line.  Rather like a Fak Sau with the elbow bent.  This is often done simultaneously with a upward punch with the other hand...much like the "bouncing punch" that many Ip Man lineages have in their Chum Kiu form.   So imagine someone throwing a straight punch towards your face when you have both hands down, and you react by doing a  rising Bong to deflect the punch upward with a "uppercut" to his chin coming along a split second behind.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Nobody Important said:


> My question is , does Jow Ga have a set similar to Lam family Tiger & Crane's that contains the short bridge opening? If so what is your impression as to it's purpose?


 Not sure which part of the form that you are referring to.  Do you mean the techniques in the opening bow?


----------



## Vajramusti

JowGaWolf said:


> Good question.  I'll have to take a look since it is made of 3 different systems.  Technically I could learn some things out of Hung Ga, Choy Ga, and Northern Shaolin and still be in line with Jow Ga principles.  For me that's freaking awesome.  The reason this would be acceptable is because the Founder was proficient and all 3 systems which allowed him to put them together in a way that works.
> 
> This is Jow Ga
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Hung Ga Tiger Crane form that you speak of?  If so we have some of this. But it's scattered among multiple forms in Jow Ga.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In some of the forms that I know of, it seems like there is a flicker of Wing Chun type movement, but I currently don't know enough forms to know for sure just how much those Wing Chun type techniques play a part in Jow Ga.  My guess is that there was an original technique that took 2 different paths (probably more but just for simplicity we'll just say 2).  One path led to Wing Chun and the other led to Hung Ga.  Some of the techniques that look like Wing Chun may or may not be in some of the advanced forms that I don't know yet.   There is a Jow Ga form called small Eagle Claw which takes a narrow stance similar to Wing Chun and it has more bridges, but I haven't been taught that form yet. I've only seen parts of it
> 
> I would need to ask someone from one of the 3 systems that make up Jow Ga about the Wing Chun type techniques.  I don't know if Wing Chun influenced Hung Gar or if it's like the "2 path" scenario where the techniques are older than Wing Chun and Hung Ga


----------



## Vajramusti

Wing chun and hung ga? No serious relationship.


----------



## Nobody Important

Cephalopod said:


> I just watched the video again and I noticed that the TWC guy on the right does the same thing (lifting the bong sau) at 4:14.
> Are there any TWC people here who could shed some light on that?


What I seen there is a Dai Bong transitioning to Jung Bong. In Yuen Family our Jung Bong is slightly angled with elbow higher than wrist. It comes under incoming punch lifting & pressing forward simultaneously. Just as KPM described his Crane Wing. Odd to me to see that transition from Dai Bong to Jung Bong, but their reasoning is undoubtedly based upon their theoretical approach.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Vajramusti said:


> Wing chun and hung ga? No serious relationship.


Any theories about the similarities of techniques?


----------



## Nobody Important

Vajramusti said:


> Wing chun and hung ga? No serious relationship.



Wing Chun & Hung Gar were taught side by side in various Zhong Yi Associations prior to the government crackdown on these organizations in mid to late 1800s. The Leung family school funded by Leung Jan's father in Foshan was one such Zhong Yi hall. 

The oral traditions of White Crane, Wing Chun & Hung Gar are essentially the same story. Lam Sai Wing learned a form of Wing Chun from his grandfather called Red Boat Hung Gar. It consisted of the Arrow Palm form, Flowing Moon Double Knives & 6 1/2 Point Pole. You can see it's influence throughout Lam Family Hung Gar. 

The 12 Bridges theory of Hung Gar is from Wing Chun White Crane it can also be seen in Lau Fu San Chi Kung. Lau Fu San is a bridging art that contains all of Wing Chun's bridge positions & transitions. 

While not Wing Chun proper, Hung Gar & Wing Chun share a long history of intermingling. Each evolved differently, evidence of concepts, movement, theory etc. is very evident in the forms, though function has taken on different roles.


----------



## Nobody Important

JowGaWolf said:


> Not sure which part of the form that you are referring to.  Do you mean the techniques in the opening bow?


Sorry I got lost in the barrage of replies. What I was referring to was any sections of Jow Ga forms that resemble the opening sequences of forms like Tiger & Crane. The goat stance, short bridge, Tan, Bong, Fook stuff.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Nobody Important said:


> Sorry I got lost in the barrage of replies. What I was referring to was any sections of Jow Ga forms that resemble the opening sequences of forms like Tiger & Crane. The goat stance, short bridge, Tan, Bong, Fook stuff.


Oh ok. then the answer to that would be yes to sections that resemble the opening sequences of Tiger & Crane and no to Tan , Bon, and Fook Sau as far as I've seen.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> When Wing Chun (and this isn't a put down of Wing Chun) can effectively neutralize Western Boxing using the methodology you present, I'll give your branch a serious look. So far I'm unaware of this happening on any consistent basis, which suggests to me; if you are using your Wing Chun as strictly a striking method, your better off with Western Boxing.





KPM said:


> How about at least one instance of a good WSLVT guy easily handling a good western boxer??



I'm assuming you guys have multiple clips of your branches easily handling good Western Boxers using your methodologies.

Can we see a few of them?

Otherwise, by your logic, shouldn't you also be better off doing Western Boxing, since you have an even broader arsenal but aren't effectively neutralizing Western Boxing on a consistent basis?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I'm assuming you guys have multiple clips of your branches easily handling good Western Boxers using your methodologies.
> 
> Can we see a few of them?
> 
> Otherwise, by your logic, shouldn't you also be better off doing Western Boxing, since you have an even broader arsenal but aren't effectively neutralizing Western Boxing on a consistent basis?


You're absolutely right if you take the statement out of context. The difference is we're not the ones making claims of superiority. We aren't insinuating it by saying others systems are broken because they aren't cohesive with ours. I made the remark that if WSLVT was a superior striking method it should be able to easily contend with Western Boxing. This was based on Guy's remark that Boxing wasn't cohesive and WSLVT is. 

All we're asking is for you all to back off on the rhetoric, you have no more proof of your claims than anyone else. It's all speculation based on belief & personal experience. Without empirical evidence it's all just pandering. Is this agreeable?


----------



## LFJ

I don't think guy b. was making the claim that WSLVT is a superior striking method to Western Boxing.

Western Boxing not being a coherent method as compared to YMVT is that it is not one system. Many styles of it exist. YMVT is a single system with one clear approach to fighting.

I don't think you know what empirical evidence means. It is available for anyone to examine. Refusing to do so doesn't mean you get to say it doesn't exist outside of your limited personal experience.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Western Boxing not being a coherent method as compared to YMVT is that it is not one system. Many styles of it exist. YMVT is a single system with one clear approach to fighting.



So let me simplify this, Western Boxing is incoherent because several versions of it exist, but Wing Chun (Yip Man branch in particular) is coherent because there is only one version.  I think it fair to surmise that you clearly fail to see the fallacies in your logic.

I'm not buying what you're selling. Thanks for playing.


----------



## LFJ

You can't just compare YMVT and "Western Boxing" as if the latter is also one method.

Besides the fact that they have entirely different strategies and tactics and are not just "punching", as you erroneously simplify it.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> You can't just compare YMVT and "Western Boxing" as if the latter is also one method.
> 
> Besides the fact that they have entirely different strategies and tactics and are not just "punching", as you erroneously simplify it.


And you can't just always direct a conversation to advance your narrative, especially one no one wants to hear about. Kindly go derail someone else's thread.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Sorry you believe that. I find boxing to be very coherent.



I guess that's just inexperience of boxing speaking. There is no systematised method of boxing- it is the sport of hitting with gloved fists and there are many different approaches to teaching, understanding and fighting. It lacks a strategic approach as VT snd different coaches and boxers favour different ways. 



> I will agree that Wing Chun takes longer to learn, but then again, I'm approaching it differently by placing emphasis on aspects other than simply punching and the means to utilize a punch.



WSL VT is not "simply punching"



> I would assume that a branch of Wing Chun dedicated to punching and supporting elements to facilitate punching would be relatively easy to learn



You assume wrong


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> When Wing Chun (and this isn't a put down of Wing Chun) can effectively neutralize Western Boxing using the methodology you present, I'll give your branch a serious look



WSL VT does quite well against people with boxing skills in my experience, but since there isn't a standardised thing that iswestern boxing I think direct comparisons difficult


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> I guess that's just inexperience of boxing speaking. There is no systematised method of boxing- it is the sport of hitting with gloved fists and there are many different approaches to teaching, understanding and fighting. It lacks a strategic approach as VT snd different coaches and boxers favour different ways.



Yet you don't believe that this also applies to Wing Chun. Interesting.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> You just did it with your reply. Do you seriously not see that? It may be a branch coming from Yip Man, but it isn't your branch. Their approach may be different than yours.



I'm sorry, I'm not going to refrain from commenting on YM VT.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Otherwise, by your logic, shouldn't you also be better off doing Western Boxing, since you have an even broader arsenal but aren't effectively neutralizing Western Boxing on a consistent basis?



You certainly have quite a selective use of "logic."


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> I guess that's just inexperience of boxing speaking. There is no systematised method of boxing- it is the sport of hitting with gloved fists and there are many different approaches to teaching, understanding and fighting. It lacks a strategic approach as VT snd different coaches and boxers favour different ways.



Not sure I understand what you mean by no strategic approach in boxing. Different ways of teaching yes, but to say no strategy is idiotic.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You certainly have quite a selective use of "logic."



Yes, I have to suspend logic to follow your line of thought.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Yes, I have to suspend logic to follow your line of thought.



No.  I don't think you ever really try to follow anyone's line of thought other than your own.  That has become pretty clear on this forum.


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Not sure I understand what you mean by no strategic approach in boxing. Different ways of teaching yes, but to say no strategy is idiotic.



I didn't say no strategic approach in boxing. I said that it lacks a strategic approach as VT (i.e. a single strategic approach, systematic organisation), i.e. VT is a real TCMA system, western boxing is not.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:
			
		

> How about at least one instance of a good WSLVT guy easily handling a good western boxer??





LFJ said:


> I'm assuming you guys have multiple clips of your branches easily handling good Western Boxers using your methodologies.
> 
> Can we see a few of them?
> 
> Otherwise, by your logic, shouldn't you also be better off doing Western Boxing, since you have an even broader arsenal but aren't effectively neutralizing Western Boxing on a consistent basis?





KPM said:


> You certainly have quite a selective use of "logic."





LFJ said:


> Yes, I have to suspend logic to follow your line of thought





KPM said:


> No.  I don't think you ever really try to follow anyone's line of thought other than your own.  That has become pretty clear on this forum.



Lol KPM you have no shame. You are literally incapable (or unwilling) to follow a reasonable argument


----------



## geezer

To get back on track, it is fair to say that there are a variety of approaches to Western boxing, and indeed there are a variety of approaches to WC/VT ...which is what this thread was about, at least until it started down that old rabbit hoe again. Sure, WSL-VT is one particular branch of WC/VT ...but that is not what we were talking about!!!!

Is it possible to discuss WC/VT without it becoming _all _about WSL-PB-VT?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Lol KPM you have no shame. You are literally incapable (or unwilling) to follow a reasonable argument



Wow!  What is the old saying?...."that's like the pot calling the kettle black"!!


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> I didn't say no strategic approach in boxing. I said that it lacks a strategic approach as VT (i.e. a single strategic approach, systematic organisation), i.e. VT is a real TCMA system, western boxing is not.



Well, yeah another answer with a slight point. We know Western boxing is not CMA, please refrain from picking on it lol.


----------



## Transk53

geezer said:


> To get back on track, it is fair to say that there are a variety of approaches to Western boxing, and indeed there are a variety of approaches to WC/VT ...which is what this thread was about, at least until it started down that old rabbit hoe again. Sure, WSL-VT is one particular branch of WC/VT ...but that is not what we were talking about!!!!
> 
> Is it possible to discuss WC/VT without it becoming _all _about WSL-PB-VT?



One can dream. Not sure about the rabbit and the hoe though lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

geezer said:


> Is it possible to discuss WC/VT without it becoming _all _about WSL-PB-VT?


 So far it looks like it's impossible to do that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Transk53 said:


> One can dream. Not sure about the rabbit and the hoe though lol.


what?!?!  you don't have one of those?


----------



## Transk53

JowGaWolf said:


> what?!?!  you don't have one of those?



Sorry, just a bit of filthy humour on my part.


----------



## Nobody Important

To get back on track, here are Yip Man's sons Yip Chun & Yip Ching performing SNT.


----------



## Nobody Important

Here is another. I'm not sure on the lineages but I think they are, from left to right, Yuen Kay San, Mai Gei Wong and Yip Man. Not the best representations but good enough to see some stylistic variations.


----------



## KPM

I think 1 & 3 are both Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nung lineage.  #2 I'm not sure about.  But I have video of Wong Nim Yi, haven't watched it awhile, but #2 doesn't look familiar.  Definitely none of the above are Ip Man lineage!


----------



## Juany118

Cephalopod said:


> I just watched the video again and I noticed that the TWC guy on the right does the same thing (lifting the bong sau) at 4:14.
> Are there any TWC people here who could shed some light on that?


I'll rewatch it with the time in mind but like I said that seems modified.  I study with the SLT I linked in response to that as it's taught by GM Cheung and his closed door student Keith Mazza.  There are some clear differences that I hope to get some clarification on next weekend.  That said the Bong Sau sequence seemed right but I need to watch it again.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Vajramusti

geezer said:


> To get back on track, it is fair to say that there are a variety of approaches to Western boxing, and indeed there are a variety of approaches to WC/VT ...which is what this thread was about, at least until it started down that old rabbit hoe again. Sure, WSL-VT is one particular branch of WC/VT ...but that is not what we were talking about!!!!
> 
> Is it possible to discuss WC/VT without it becoming _all _about WSL-PB-VT?


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is on first? A messy thread again. I don't see our slt in the choices and I don't do the others.Western boxing has varieties and so does wing chun. The individual is an important variable. Geezer did you get my invitation to come and visit? Last week  would have been a good time.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> I think 1 & 3 are both Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nung lineage.  #2 I'm not sure about.  But I have video of Wong Nim Yi, haven't watched it awhile, but #2 doesn't look familiar.  Definitely none of the above are Ip Man lineage!


#3 definitely not YKS , movements appear very close with Yip Man branch, I believe that the video says from Canton. #2 still looks like Mai Gei Wong to me.


----------



## guy b

Here is a modified SLT from Michael Kurth which emphasises what is important about the form from the point of view of YM VT (or WSL VT if you prefer)


----------



## guy b

Basic form:


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b said:


> Here is a modified SLT from Michael Kurth which emphasises over and over what is important about the form from the point of view of YM VT


What are you referring to in that video?


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> Here is a modified SLT from Michael Kurth which emphasises what is important about the form from the point of view of YM VT *(or WSL VT if you prefer)*



Yes thanks, I _do_ prefer the clarification provided by the label WSL VT, seeing as many different branches use the name YM-VT.

BTW do you know how this highly modified version of SNT is used in Sifu Kurth's curriculum? Is it used instead of the basic WSL version of the YM SNT set, as an advanced set, or perhaps just as an additional exercise to emphasize certain elements of the standard set?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Here is a modified SLT from Michael Kurth which emphasises what is important about the form from the point of view of YM VT (or WSL VT if you prefer)



Interesting!  Is this his creation?  Or Phillip Bayer's?


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Yes thanks, I _do_ prefer the clarification provided by the label WSL VT, seeing as many different branches use the name YM-VT.
> 
> BTW do you know how this highly modified version of SNT is used in Sifu Kurth's curriculum? Is it used instead of the basic WSL version of the YM SNT set, as an advanced set, or perhaps just as an additional exercise to emphasize certain elements of the standard set?



Sean (Lobo) would know as he is a student of Kurth. 

I would assume it is a personal modification? I think interesting because of what it emphasises.


----------



## guy b

I would add that most of the WSL VT people that I know do modify the set, mostly adding additional repetition or time on the important bits. Kurth looks like he has gone a bit further along with this process.

I wouldn't agree that it is "highly modified" as geezer said because the thinking appears just the same as the basic set. He seems to be stressing the main points of the set in his modified version, rather than changing in any way.


----------



## Transk53

Changing way, like you have any experience with that. Again, What actual experience here?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I would add that most of the WSL VT people that I know do modify the set, mostly adding additional repetition or time on the important bits. Kurth looks like he has gone a bit further along with this process.
> 
> I wouldn't agree that it is "highly modified" as geezer said because the thinking appears just the same as the basic set. He seems to be stressing the main points of the set in his modified version, rather than changing in any way.



I agree.  That is how it appears to me.  This  does not seem at all out of line or odd to me, because in Pin Sun the sets are short.  So they can be repeated as many times as you want before going on to  the next set.  And nearly every set has at least one or more variations where you are doing the same thing conceptually as the original, but maybe simply in a different way.  So it makes perfect sense to me to practice your SLT this way as a training exercise.


----------



## geezer

I would agree that I would not consider Sifu Kuth's set "highly modified" if he is simply repeating movements for emphasis in a supplemental version. I do this as well... pick a segment of one of the forms and cycle through it repeatedly to really "burn it in".

On the other hand, if this replaces the standard form completely, I would consider that a significant modification. Sequence does matter to a degree.


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Changing way, like you have any experience with that. Again, What actual experience here?



That isn't me in the youtube clip


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> That isn't me in the youtube clip



Well yeah  anything else useless to say?


----------



## Eric_H

Whoa, this thread came out of nowhere, I guess as one of the resident HFY guys I'll field some of the questions/comments.

The Moy Yat form is being performed by Mark Waldrop, it's more or less how I remember learning it from my first WC teacher, Richard Loewenhagen. Sifu Loewenhagen was promoted to be a Sifu and given chops by Moy Yat directly. Whatever you think of it - the credentials are there.

The TWC form is being performed by Sifu Dale Vits, Dale's Sifu was a recognized instructor (and I think Gold Sash? I can't recall TWC's ranking system) from William Cheung directly. I have heard the TWC form has changed a lot over the years, I can't speak to what generation this one is from.

The level change with Ying Bong (Eagle Bong) in our third section of SNT - this is about riding the energy up, basically the opponent doing a mid to high level change and how you can cover the space. It does not lift the bridge on it's own, it follows it up and displaces the opponent's elbow. As already discussed, lifting with that shape... that's not great for shoulders.


----------



## geezer

Eric_H said:


> The level change with Ying Bong (Eagle Bong) in our third section of SNT - this is about riding the energy up, basically the opponent doing a mid to high level change and how you can cover the space. It does not lift the bridge on it's own, it follows it up and displaces the opponent's elbow. As already discussed, lifting with that shape... that's not great for shoulders.



This makes perfect sense to me. In the VT I practice, bong is only done at one level in SNT, and we are told that bong sau never lifts up your opponent's arm, but in chi-sau and applications, bong will often rise up riding on the opponent's rising punch just as you describe. This is a good example of why it is best not to pass judgement on things like movements in a form until you find out how they are intended or understood in the context of_ that_ system.


----------



## geezer

Whoops, retracted a post from a minute ago. It actually referenced another thread... and a post by the _other _WSL-PB-VT guy. ...My Bad!


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> in chi-sau and applications, bong will often rise up riding on the opponent's rising punch just as you describe. This is a good example of why it is best not to pass judgement on things like movements in a form until you find out how they are intended or understood in the context of_ that_ system.



In the context of _that_ system, how is "_rising up riding on the opponent's rising punch_" not considered an arm-chasing error?

Sounds like the classic "stick and follow", which is highly problematic by the principles of YMVT as I know them.


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Well yeah  anything else useless to say?



You said this when I posted it:



Transk53 said:


> Changing way, like you have any experience with that. Again, What actual experience here?



I was clarifying that it wasn't me, since you seemed to think it was. Ok?


----------



## guy b

Eric_H said:


> The Moy Yat form is being performed by Mark Waldrop, it's more or less how I remember learning it from my first WC teacher, Richard Loewenhagen. Sifu Loewenhagen was promoted to be a Sifu and given chops by Moy Yat directly. Whatever you think of it - the credentials are there.



Well, credentials or not, there are problems with that form. Moy Yat VT and WSL VT both came from YM and no reason for them to have diverged. 



> The level change with Ying Bong (Eagle Bong) in our third section of SNT - this is about riding the energy up, basically the opponent doing a mid to high level change and how you can cover the space. It does not lift the bridge on it's own, it follows it up and displaces the opponent's elbow. As already discussed, lifting with that shape... that's not great for shoulders.



I can't really envisage how this would work in practice. Do you have any video?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> In the context of _that_ system, how is "_rising up riding on the opponent's rising punch_" not considered an arm-chasing error?
> 
> Sounds like the classic "stick and follow", which is highly problematic by the principles of YMVT as I know them.



Is everything other than punching straight at the opponent considered "arm chasing" in your mind???   If someone has contact across your bridge and is doing a rising punch towards your face, why would you not lift up from below to deflect it?   How is this any more an example of "chasing hands" than doing a pivot with a Jung Bong to deflect?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Is everything other than punching straight at the opponent considered "arm chasing" in your mind???



No.   



> If someone has contact across your bridge and is doing a rising punch towards your face, why would you not lift up from below to deflect it?



Because it sounds like the definition of arm-chasing to me, especially as "follow" and "ride" were the words used to describe it.



> How is this any more an example of "chasing hands" than doing a pivot with a Jung Bong to deflect?



It's less arm-chasing because it's following the arm up?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it sounds like the definition of arm-chasing to me, especially as "follow" and "ride" were the words used to describe it.
> 
> 
> 
> It's less arm-chasing because it's following the arm up?


What is your definition of "arm chasing"? That might help.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> In the context of _that_ system, how is "_rising up riding on the opponent's rising punch_" not considered an arm-chasing error?
> 
> Sounds like the classic "stick and follow", which is highly problematic by the principles of YMVT as I know them.



Can't speak to that. I haven't seen or _felt_ how that bong is actually used. The verbal description did not sound like arm chasing to me, but words can be misleading. Perhaps I am willing to give other's _the benefit of the doubt_, whereas you often _doubt the benefit_ of what they do. 

In the VT I train, the bong would rise if it is pushed up by the opponent's punch, but the energy and intent is _forward_. Our objective is to strike on center, not to follow our opponent's arms off center. I hope that clears things up a bit.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Can't speak to that. I haven't seen or _felt_ how that bong is actually used. The verbal description did not sound like arm chasing to me, but words can be misleading. Perhaps I am willing to give other's _the benefit of the doubt_, whereas you often _doubt the benefit_ of what they do.
> 
> In the VT I train, the bong would rise if it is pushed up by the opponent's punch, but the energy and intent is _forward_. Our objective is to strike on center, not to follow our opponent's arms off center. I hope that clears things up a bit.



I guess this is what I am having trouble imagining: Why would you bong something coming from below or on the same line as your hands?


----------



## guy b

Can see why you might need to bong something above and covering your position..but seems like a poor choice for anything else. It is s remedial action after all. If no problem then why bong?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I guess this is what I am having trouble imagining: Why would you bong something coming from below or on the same line as your hands?



The punch was coming from above the hands and rising towards the face, not below the hands.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> No.
> 
> 
> 
> Because it sounds like the definition of arm-chasing to me, especially as "follow" and "ride" were the words used to describe it.
> 
> 
> 
> It's less arm-chasing because it's following the arm up?




You aren't making much sense here.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> The punch was coming from above the hands and rising towards the face, not below the hands.



Why then 'ride' and 'follow' the punch? Bong should be ballistic in nature or as LFJ says risks becoming hand chasing. If you are out of position then bong displaces so that you can recover position. Once recovered, why the bong?


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> Why then 'ride' and 'follow' the punch? *Bong should be ballistic in nature...*



In the VT I train, bong-sau is better described as _springy_ than _ballistic_. This is one of the key differences in the branches we train.


----------



## geezer

BTW the idea of the _springy bong_ also came from Yip Man. ...in his later years. Now that I'm starting to get older myself, I can attest to the fact that you have to make adjustments in emphasis as you age. What works best when you are 20, 30, or even 50 ...doesn't always work so well as you get into your 60s and beyond!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> BTW the idea of the _springy bong_ also came from Yip Man. ...in his later years. Now that I'm starting to get older myself, I can attest to the fact that you have to make adjustments in emphasis as you age. What works best when you are 20, 30, or even 50 ...doesn't always work so well as you get into your 60s and beyond!


My knees agree with you, Geezer.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> What is your definition of "arm chasing"? That might help.



Well, VT is about attacking and supporting the attack. A _bong-sau_ that "follows", "rides", or "lifts" is overly concerned with defending and controlling the arm it's doing these things to. We call this arm-chasing.

Plus, punches are too fast to calculate like that and you may be lifting it straight into your face. 

I've never seen a punch thrown in a fight starting from pre-contact with the defender's arm where they can simply "feel" and "ride" it away.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> BTW the idea of the _springy bong_ also came from Yip Man. ...in his later years.



According to a notoriously dishonest "disciple", right? Not sure why you still trust that guy.



> Now that I'm starting to get older myself, I can attest to the fact that you have to make adjustments in emphasis as you age. What works best when you are 20, 30, or even 50 ...doesn't always work so well as you get into your 60s and beyond!



Maybe, but we have some geezers in our lineage who haven't made such drastic changes that alter the entire strategy and tactics of VT.


----------



## Danny T

geezer said:


> BTW the idea of the _springy bong_ also came from Yip Man. ...in his later years. Now that I'm starting to get older myself, I can attest to the fact that you have to make adjustments in emphasis as you age. What works best when you are 20, 30, or even 50 ...doesn't always work so well as you get into your 60s and beyond!


^^^^ This!
Attributes and abilities change.
What I teach and how I teach my young fighters is different from what I teach my elder students. I also have a blind student, his training and practice is specific to him. 

Bong can be ballistic as well as can be springy unless you are closed minded to options based upon different situations, attributes, skill level, etc.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Why then 'ride' and 'follow' the punch? Bong should be ballistic in nature or as LFJ says risks becoming hand chasing. If you are out of position then bong displaces so that you can recover position. Once recovered, why the bong?



"follow",  "ride",  "ballistic"......semantics only.   The bottom line is that something is rising towards your face from on top of your bridge, so you lift up to deflect upward to keep from being smashed in the face.  What is so difficult about that?  Why would that be considered "hand chasing"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Well, VT is about attacking and supporting the attack. A _bong-sau_ that "follows", "rides", or "lifts" is overly concerned with defending and controlling the arm it's doing these things to. We call this arm-chasing.
> 
> Plus, punches are too fast to calculate like that and you may be lifting it straight into your face.
> 
> I've never seen a punch thrown in a fight starting from pre-contact with the defender's arm where they can simply "feel" and "ride" it away.


Your reply is more about what you think is wrong with that movement. I'm asking for a definition of arm-chasing, so I can understand the principles.


----------



## Eric_H

guy b said:


> Why then 'ride' and 'follow' the punch? Bong should be ballistic in nature or as LFJ says risks becoming hand chasing. If you are out of position then bong displaces so that you can recover position. Once recovered, why the bong?



I had a friend that train WSLVT back in the day, his usage of bong was an aggressive smash-in when used for intercepting. That's not how Eagle bong works for us. In this case (which is just one usage of many), it's just a spacial covering along center, a mid to high gate change, I'm not really sure how that could be considered chasing hands.


----------



## Cephalopod

KPM said:


> ... something is rising towards your face from on top of your bridge, so you lift up to deflect upward to keep from being smashed in the face.


This is the idea that raised the red flag for me when I saw the op's video.

In my experience, you can get away with a lifting deflection like this, even if you do maintain forward pressure, if the opponent is playing light trying to tap you on the forehead.
If the punch is delivered with power and intent, if the opponent has bigger arms than you, if there is a speed/tension/direction change in the course of the punch, then your shoulder muscles will get loaded, lock up and the opponent can yank on your stiff arm and send you flying.

As such, in my WC, a rising punch is dealt with by deflecting to the left or right rather than up, hopefully in the process opening up a path for attack.

On further thought, if the opponent tries to dis-engage from the mutual tension to punch again with the same hand but to the face...
That's much easier to deal with because my bong hand will extend to fill center...a new man-sau


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ....I've never seen a punch thrown in a fight *starting from pre-contact* with the defender's arm where they can simply "feel" and "ride" it away.



I do not disagree with this. Let me clarify.... 

The commonest example of the "rising bong" that I can think of is really more of a _lan-sau_ than bong-sau and its pressure is applied forward. your pressure meeting your opponent's causes the bong to rise (or turn aside, etc.). It comes into play at close range, almost clinching range. Even boxers use bong like techniques at this range. Again I seem to recall Alan Orr had a good clip covering this.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Your reply is more about what you think is wrong with that movement. I'm asking for a definition of arm-chasing, so I can understand the principles.



The definition is in the reply from LFJ. Arm/hand chasing is summed up in the idea of chase centre, don't chase hand. In practice this means displacing obstructions (as required) and attacking centre, rather than sticking and following. 

"Riding" and "following" therefore suggest hand chasing, but without seeing it would be hard to tell.


----------



## KPM

_If the punch is delivered with power and intent, if the opponent has bigger arms than you, if there is a speed/tension/direction change in the course of the punch, then your shoulder muscles will get loaded, lock up and the opponent can yank on your stiff arm and send you flying._

---Ah!  But if his intent is upward/rising....then you follow...even if "ballistically"...and are not meeting force with force.  You are simply augmenting his upward intent and taking it past its target.  I don't see how this could be considered "hand chasing" any more than a Pak Sau the deflects a punch off the target is considered "hand chasing." 


_As such, in my WC, a rising punch is dealt with by deflecting to the left or right rather than up, hopefully in the process opening up a path for attack._

---In Pin Sun we would do this rising Bong with a pivot so that it is deflecting a bit to the side as it lifts and the pivot is then driving in the rising punch with the other hand.  How is it "chasing" if the opponent is getting hit at the same time?    If you deflect left or right, you are actually opposing the attackers force more so than if you just follow it upwards and make it go past the target.  And as you rise with the Bong, you are rising with the punch!  You can't do that with a Bong deflecting to the side nearly as well. 


_On further thought, if the opponent tries to dis-engage from the mutual tension to punch again with the same hand but to the face...
That's much easier to deal with because my bong hand will extend to fill center...a new man-sau_

---Yes!  Our "Hok Bong" is somewhat like a Man Sau, but with the elbow more bent. 

---I will note, that in customary fashion, neither LFJ or Guy has offered a solution for this scenario from WSLVT even though they are criticizing other people's explanations.  And before they go off complaining about not understanding what I'm referring to... ....let me be direct:

*How would WSLVT deal with a situation where an opponent is above your bridge (both your arms are lower than his) at relatively close range and  he is throwing a rising punch towards your face?*


----------



## KPM

This is not exactly the same as my Pin Sun system, but is a related off-shoot.  I post this with hesitation because I realize it just opens things up to all kinds of negativity from the dynamic duo.  But anyway....here at 1:08 is the Hok Bong.  I don't pivot as deeply as he is, and he probably wouldn't either when using this in a real situation because it brings the Bong back too far.  But it should give you an idea of what I've been talking about.


----------



## Eric_H

Cephalopod said:


> This is the idea that raised the red flag for me when I saw the op's video.
> 
> In my experience, you can get away with a lifting deflection like this, even if you do maintain forward pressure, if the opponent is playing light trying to tap you on the forehead.
> If the punch is delivered with power and intent, if the opponent has bigger arms than you, if there is a speed/tension/direction change in the course of the punch, then your shoulder muscles will get loaded, lock up and the opponent can yank on your stiff arm and send you flying.
> 
> As such, in my WC, a rising punch is dealt with by deflecting to the left or right rather than up, hopefully in the process opening up a path for attack.
> 
> On further thought, if the opponent tries to dis-engage from the mutual tension to punch again with the same hand but to the face...
> That's much easier to deal with because my bong hand will extend to fill center...a new man-sau



Done it with full force punches, but I'm betting what you're picturing isn't what we do. I'd totally agree that if you lock up or try to lift the bridge, you're going to be in for a world of hurt against a strong force. 

One of the core differences between the YM wing chun I studied and HFY is that we're not as quick to turn left and right as this often leads to a shift/loss of center. We tend to focus more on how to "zone-in, zone-out" with one-step footwork to handle the energy, it allows us to maintain Deui Ying easier. 

Unfortunately, I think we're running into one of those things we could explain physically in about 30 seconds but will spend pages with online and still end up in the wrong place =/


----------



## Cephalopod

KPM said:


> ---Ah!  But if his intent is upward/rising....then you follow...even if "ballistically"...and are not meeting force with force.  You are simply augmenting his upward intent and taking it past its target.


I certainly appreciate this distinction.
Personally I have found that a punch to the face as you've described will not only have a vertical component that would guide my bong upward but also a more powerful horizontal component toward me that would work to collapse my bong. This is the component that I would not succeed at deflecting upward but _would_ manage to deflect to the side.



KPM said:


> ---In Pin Sun we would do this rising Bong with a pivot so that it is deflecting a bit to the side as it lifts


Ah...this makes all the difference. An example of why (I hope) I would never declare a movement as wrong without knowing the full context of the system in which it's used.


----------



## Cephalopod

Eric_H said:


> Unfortunately, I think we're running into one of those things we could explain physically in about 30 seconds but will spend pages with online and still end up in the wrong place =/


Haha...Ain't that the truth!!

When I picture lifting a bong against a full force punch it's something like this:






Probably not an accurate representation of HFY...


----------



## Cephalopod

KPM said:


> This is not exactly the same as my Pin Sun system, but is a related off-shoot.  I post this with hesitation because I realize it just opens things up to all kinds of negativity from the dynamic duo.  But anyway....here at 1:08 is the Hok Bong.  I don't pivot as deeply as he is, and he probably wouldn't either when using this in a real situation because it brings the Bong back too far.  But it should give you an idea of what I've been talking about.


Wow, funky vid!
Reminds me a bit of some Mantis that I've seen.
I can see how the Hok Bong that you pointed out is a receiving movement rather than a clashing movement. A bit like a high Lap sau.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> if his intent is upward/rising....then you follow...even if "ballistically"...and are not meeting force with force. You are simply augmenting his upward intent and taking it past its target. I don't see how this could be considered "hand chasing" any more than a Pak Sau the deflects a punch off the target is considered "hand chasing."



I think the main problem with this picture is viewing bong as some kind of cover or interception movement when someone is already in the process of punching you in the face. I would say a bit late for bong at this point. Very unlikely that you succeed in catching the punch with your bong like a movie hero and redirect it over your head. More likely you do a spazzy bong movement as you are smacked in the face with zero benefit as more punches rain down on you. 

The time for bong is the instant when hands over yours. It must be done immediately, displacing to the side like pak, and with simultaneous punch. It is to recover position, not to protect your face when someone is in the process of beating you up.



KPM said:


> neither LFJ or Guy has offered a solution for this scenario from WSLVT even though they are criticizing other people's explanations.



Sorry for not being on the internet 24/7



KPM said:


> How would WSLVT deal with a situation where an opponent is above your bridge (both your arms are lower than his) at relatively close range and he is throwing a rising punch towards your face?



Move?


----------



## KPM

_I think the main problem with this picture is viewing bong as some kind of cover or interception movement when someone is already in the process of punching you in the face_.

---How is displacing upward any different than displacing to the side as you  describe below?

_More likely you do a spazzy bong movement as you are smacked in the face with zero benefit as more punches rain down on you. _

---Speak for your spazzy self.  You have no idea without having seen it done.  

_The time for bong is the instant when hands over yours. It must be done immediately, displacing to the side like pak, and with simultaneous punch._

---How how is "displacing to the side" not "hand chasing" and "displacing upward" is?  



_Sorry for not being on the internet 24/7_

---Sorry, but you could have lead off by describing how WSLVT would do it differently rather than just criticizing what other's noted.


_
Move?_

---Genius!!!


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Your reply is more about what you think is wrong with that movement. I'm asking for a definition of arm-chasing, so I can understand the principles.



My reply defines arm-chasing within the current example for illustration. It is being overly concerned with defending and controlling the opponent's arms, rather than attacking center and supporting the attack.

The example under discussion is a flinch-like response to cover and follow a detected incoming punch. As guy b. already mentioned, by that time it'd probably be too late for a reactive cover and you'd just be lifting the punch into your face, maybe brow instead of chin. More punches would quickly follow and your bent arm would be up in the air, in no position to attack or defend again, if it is not used against you.

With directness as a guiding principle of VT, there is no reason we'd ever fling our arm over our head like that to "follow" or "ride" a punch upward. It's a clearest example of chasing the arm.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> _If the punch is delivered with power and intent, if the opponent has bigger arms than you, if there is a speed/tension/direction change in the course of the punch, then your shoulder muscles will get loaded, lock up and the opponent can yank on your stiff arm and send you flying._
> 
> ---Ah!  But if his intent is upward/rising....then you follow...even if "ballistically"...and are not meeting force with force.  You are simply augmenting his upward intent and taking it past its target.  I don't see how this could be considered "hand chasing" any more than a Pak Sau the deflects a punch off the target is considered "hand chasing."



You can't calculate for speed/tension/direction change in the course of the punch. You've already reactively flung your arm up over your head when you saw the punch coming, and they may change to attack your now open body, or face from under your raised arm.

You may try to change and defend again, but you've already been put on defense and in the "past". It's very difficult to recover by then already.

_Paak-sau_ is directed to the center, not up or sideways, and it is helping the punch take center as well.



> ---In Pin Sun we would do this rising Bong with a pivot so that it is deflecting a bit to the side as it lifts and the pivot is then driving in the rising punch with the other hand.  How is it "chasing" if the opponent is getting hit at the same time?



Your defending arm is chasing, or "following" as you say.

_



			On further thought, if the opponent tries to dis-engage from the mutual tension to punch again with the same hand but to the face...
That's much easier to deal with because my bong hand will extend to fill center...a new man-sau
		
Click to expand...

_


> ---Yes!  Our "Hok Bong" is somewhat like a Man Sau, but with the elbow more bent.



Your "Hok Bong" appears to be going over your own head as you pivot out. It can't just extend to center, from what you've shown and described.



KPM said:


> ---How is displacing upward any different than displacing to the side as you  describe below?





> ---How how is "displacing to the side" not "hand chasing" and "displacing upward" is?



You are chasing, or "following" upward. VT _bong-sau_ is directed straight into the opponent's center. It is the rotation of the elbow that displaces laterally, not following their arm like you do.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> My reply defines arm-chasing within the current example for illustration. It is being overly concerned with defending and controlling the opponent's arms, rather than attacking center and supporting the attack.
> 
> The example under discussion is a flinch-like response to cover and follow a detected incoming punch. As guy b. already mentioned, by that time it'd probably be too late for a reactive cover and you'd just be lifting the punch into your face, maybe brow instead of chin. More punches would quickly follow and your bent arm would be up in the air, in no position to attack or defend again, if it is not used against you.
> 
> With directness as a guiding principle of VT, there is no reason we'd ever fling our arm over our head like that to "follow" or "ride" a punch upward. It's a clearest example of chasing the arm.


Ah! Your first paragraph includes a great definition: "being overly concerned with defending and controlling the opponent's arms, rather than attacking center and supporting the attack"

As for Guy's response, he made it to "ignore" so I can't read his posts. You have been more reasoned in your responses, even to those you disagree with, and provide more content.

I see your points about using a rising bong sau here (though I barely understand the principles involved in bong sau, I at least understand the objections you put forth). I would point out that nobody has said anything about flinging an arm over the head - it sounds like they are talking about a controlled redirection, simply in a different direction than what you've suggested WSL VT would use.

I'm looking forward to hearing how other lineages make use of the opportunities this move presents, while avoiding the problems presented by having the arms that high.


----------



## KPM

_You can't calculate for speed/tension/direction change in the course of the punch._

---Who said anything about the opponent changing the direction or course of the punch?  If he is aiming upward and your arm is beneath his and rising, this is going to be hard for him to do!


_You've already reactively flung your arm up over your head when you saw the punch coming,_

---Big assumption and totally wrong.

_ and they may change to attack your now open body, or face from under your raised arm._

---Did you miss the part about the upward punch to the chin following a split second behind the Hok Bong?  That certainly makes responses like that somewhat difficult.   And we still have the saying "Bong Sau does not remain"....so here the Hok Bong rises and immediately switches to something else with very little if any pause.


_You may try to change and defend again, but you've already been put on defense and in the "past". It's very difficult to recover by then already._

---Totally wrong.  What can I say.   You are doing the exact same thing you accuse others of doing when you actually try to explain your WSLVT.


_Paak-sau is directed to the center, not up or sideways, and it is helping the punch take center as well._

---Guy said "_displacing to the side like pak, and with simultaneous punch",  _and I  won't even go into the problems with the idea of doing a Bong while trying to punch over the top of it.   Isn't that something you laugh at the LTWT guys for doing?




_Your defending arm is chasing, or "following" as you say._

---Only in your world.



_Your "Hok Bong" appears to be going over your own head as you pivot out. It can't just extend to center, from what you've shown and described._

---The punch is what is extending to center.  The Hok Bong is seldom done without the accompanying punch.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> Your reply is more about what you think is wrong with that movement. I'm asking for a definition of arm-chasing, so I can understand the principles.



You seldom get a direct answer from the dynamic duo Gary.   Here is the way I see it.

If you do a system that is focused on only punching the opponent, then "arm chasing" becomes anything that isn't directed into the opponent's center for the purpose of making the way for the punch which ideally should be happening at the same time.  Its like driving a wedge into the opponent's center.  Anything that deviates off of the line of drive of that wedge is considered wasted motion and therefore "arm chasing."

But if you do a system that is not no narrowly defined, "arm chasing" is also not so narrowly defined.  If you do a system that allows for controlling the opponent, for responding without necessarily always punching them out, for Kum Na type applications, and for the possibility of defending against a weapon, then "arm chasing" is not defined the  same way.  But we still need to be as direct as possible.  We still need to have our ultimate goal as controlling the opponent's center...whether by a strike or a body manipulation, etc.  So I define "arm chasing" as anything that distracts from that goal.  I think if you do more than three counts in a particular technique or defense without affecting the opponent's center and his balance in some way....then you are "arm chasing" because you have lost your focus.   For example.....if an opponent throws a relatively long range extended punch that allows me to come under it with a double grab (what we call a "Lung Na") and then pivot to guide him past me and yank him off his feet, I have definitely avoided an attack and dissolved the threat.  But this would be "arm chasing" by the other definition.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You can't calculate for speed/tension/direction change in the course of the punch.
> 
> ---Who said anything about the opponent changing the direction or course of the punch?  If he is aiming upward and your arm is beneath his and rising, this is going to be hard for him to do!



The "speed/tension/direction change" was said by Cephalopod, who you were quoting.

And you _hope_ it'll be hard for him to do.



> _and they may change to attack your now open body, or face from under your raised arm._
> 
> ---Did you miss the part about the upward punch to the chin following a split second behind the Hok Bong?



Did you miss the part about the opponent also having two arms?



> _You may try to change and defend again, but you've already been put on defense and in the "past". It's very difficult to recover by then already._
> 
> ---Totally wrong.  What can I say.



You could explain how.



> ---Guy said "_displacing to the side like pak, and with simultaneous punch",  _and I  won't even go into the problems with the idea of doing a Bong while trying to punch over the top of it.   Isn't that something you laugh at the LTWT guys for doing?



The _paak-sau_ causes lateral displacement by virtue of our attacking angle in relation to the opponent's facing, not by slapping arms left or right.

Who said anything about punching over the top of a _bong-sau_?



> _Your defending arm is chasing, or "following" as you say._
> 
> ---Only in your world.



I see no distinction between "follow" and "chase" in this context. Apparently, Pin Sun doesn't hold directness as a guiding principle, as in YMVT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> I see no distinction between "follow" and "chase" in this context. Apparently, Pin Sun doesn't hold directness as a guiding principle, as in YMVT.


Or doesn't define it the same way.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Or doesn't define it the same way.



Directness is objective and unambiguous.


----------



## wckf92

On a different note, speaking of comparing the form - is there any meaning or significance to the various spellings of it? I've always thought it was Sil Lum Tao. The OP spelled it Siu Lim Tau... I think there is a Siu "Nim" Tao/u, etc etc...? Can it all be chalked up to Mandarin vs Cantonese?


----------



## LFJ

Standard Cantonese pronunciation of "Little Idea" (simp: 小念头 trad: 小念頭) is _Siu-Nim-Tau_. 

In colloquial speech, the 'N' initial is often pronounced lazily as an 'L', hence;_ Siu-Lim-Tau. _Low what I mean? 
_
Siu-Nim-Tau_ in Mandarin is _Xiao Niantou_.

Some lineages use "Little Practice" (simp: 小练头 trad: 小練頭), which is _Siu-Lin-Tau_. This 'L' initial is originally an 'L', and the final is an 'N' here, not an 'M'.

"Sil Lum" is a nonstandard romanization of _Siu-Lam_, which is the pronunciation of "Shaolin" in Cantonese, where the single 'A' is pronounced like the 'U' as in "dumb", hence the common spelling. And the 'L' initial is originally an 'L'. This spelling has led to some confusion by non-Cantonese speakers. No lineage I'm aware of actually uses the characters for Shaolin to name this form.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Directness is objective and unambiguous.


Not entirely. Directness is a concept, and the principle behind that concept can be expressed more than one way.


----------



## KPM

_Directness is objective and unambiguous._

---Not as unambiguous as you think!  I already gave an example of using Lung Na to deflect, control, and neutralize an attacker....but you would call this "chasing hands" by your definition.   But to me, its a pretty direct response!


_Who said anything about punching over the top of a bong-sau?_

---Sorry, I guess I misunderstood what Guy was saying.  So how do you deflect inward with a Bong Sau and punch simultaneously?


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Directness is objective and unambiguous.



Hey ...I agree. And directness is a core principle in the VT I train as well as in DTE or Direct Torres Escrima.  Which goes to show that very different arts can value directness. But getting to your point, if you break down an exchange, you _can_ objectively evaluate how direct it is.

On the other hand, sometimes there are valid reasons for taking a less direct course of action. An example might be off-lining in DTE escrima ....steping diagonally forward and to the side to "get an angle" rather than charging up the middle. Some WC/VT stresses this too. _Yau pin, yap ching._ From the side through the center. It's not the absolute _shortest_ path, but it _may_ be the _most effective_ way to close in a given situation.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Not as unambiguous as you think!  I already gave an example of using Lung Na to deflect, control, and neutralize an attacker....but you would call this "chasing hands" by your definition.   But to me, its a pretty direct response!



I would call it dreaming if you think you can catch a punch out of the air and throw the guy right along as you describe. I think you watch too many movies. 



geezer said:


> Hey ...I agree. And directness is a core principle in the VT I train as well as in DTE or Direct Torres Escrima.  Which goes to show that very different arts can value directness. But getting to your point, if you break down an exchange, you _can_ objectively evaluate how direct it is.
> 
> On the other hand, sometimes there are valid reasons for taking a less direct course of action. An example might be off-lining in DTE escrima ....steping diagonally forward and to the side to "get an angle" rather than charging up the middle. Some WC/VT stresses this too. _Yau pin, yap ching._ From the side through the center. It's not the absolute _shortest_ path, but it _may_ be the _most effective_ way to close in a given situation.



Right. We try to be as direct as possible _given the circumstance_. I can't think of a circumstance where I'd lift and follow a punch up and over my head though. That's not direct in the least.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So how do you deflect inward with a Bong Sau and punch simultaneously?



_Man/wu_ launch simultaneously from different ranges to different points.


----------



## KPM

_I would call it dreaming if you think you can catch a punch out of the air and throw the guy right along as you describe. I think you watch too many movies._

---There you go again!  You routinely comment on people saying things in regard to WSLVT when they don't know the system.  But you are doing the exact same thing!  Double standard much?      Did I say anything about "catching a punch out of the air"?  That is not how we use Lung Na.  But since you don't know what Lung Na is or how  we use it, how can you pass such judgments?



_Right. We try to be as direct as possible given the circumstance. I can't think of a circumstance where I'd lift and follow a punch up and over my head though. That's not direct in the least._

---If an opponent's punch is already traveling on an upward trajectory it seems pretty direct to me to let it continue on that trajectory while taking it off the target and while punching him at the exact same time.  It's one count.  He punches, you deflect as you return a punch.  How someone can say that isn't "direct" is beyond me.  


_Man/wu launch simultaneously from different ranges to different points._

---Not a very good answer.  I'm sure Gary has no idea what you are talking about.  It isn't clear to me either, and I actually know what a "Man" and a "Wu" are!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> But since you don't know what Lung Na is or how we use it, how can you pass such judgments?



Then please provide info


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> WSL VT is not "simply punching"



Well lets seeee ...if your WSLVT don't have absorb, redirect, no chi na method, does it also applies to open hand or finger strikes?  What does that leaves you?  All we ever heard is the PUNCH.


----------



## wtxs

Transk53 said:


> One can dream. Not sure about the _*rabbit and the hoe*_ though lol.



What are you not sure about?  The rabbit can dig up lots carrots without getting its paws dirty.  Get your mind out of the gutter already.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> But since you don't know what Lung Na is or how we use it, how can you pass such judgments?



Then please provide info. I know nothing about Pin Sun and can only use what you provide. The difference is that we have provided lots of information about YM/WSL VT, but not much comes back in the other direction.

If Pin Sun works in a completely different way to WSL VT then fine by me, have fun with it. Often though it seems you want to use the same ideas, but then seem to have inconsistencies in the detail. Probably more explanation would help if there is something you feel is being missed or interpreted incorrectly?



> If an opponent's punch is already traveling on an upward trajectory it seems pretty direct to me to let it continue on that trajectory while taking it off the target and while punching him at the exact same time. It's one count. He punches, you deflect as you return a punch. How someone can say that isn't "direct" is beyond me



It is indirect in that your arm is 'following' that of the opponent off line. It is unlikely to work (as described so far in terms of catching a punch) for reasons already discussed. So far it sounds no different to the karate block and punch back with other hand picture as posted by cephalopod. It isn't taking back position or initiative from the opponent, and they can simply punch you with their other hand as you intend to do to them, i.e. it is a 50:50 situation, a gamble. It is an example of exactly what WSL VT tries to avoid by taking and keeping the initiative- you are playing the opponents game by reacting to punches he throws at you.

A good puncher will see you do this once, fake it again, and then catch you with something else. It is just not practical as described so far.

I think a better option would be to avoid the situation where you are in the process of being punched by acting earlier with bong as soon as you need to recover position. If not possible then moving would be a better option that a reactive block. At worst just covering up and waiting for the barrage of punches to stop would still be better. At least when covered you are less likely to be KO'd than when blocking karate style away from your head.



KPM said:


> Not a very good answer. I'm sure Gary has no idea what you are talking about. It isn't clear to me either, and I actually know what a "Man" and a "Wu" are



Well Gary can always ask for more detail if he is genuinely interested. He seems more keen on disagreeing and asserting his seemingly fundamental belief that everything is relative than actually listening to anything though. Some people's minds are a bit too open to filter information effectively, and Gary looks like he might be that kind of guy.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> How is displacing upward any different than displacing to the side as you describe below?



Your bong is following upward, off line. In WSL VT the recovery action of bong is towards the centre and by virture of structure displaces what is there. Bong takes back the initiative in a bad situation, re-opening an attacking line. It isn't a block.


----------



## guy b

wtxs said:


> Well lets seeee ...if your WSLVT don't have absorb, redirect, no chi na method, does it also applies to open hand or finger strikes?  What does that leaves you?  All we ever heard is the PUNCH.



The VT system consists of its concepts, strategy, and methods. The system is these rather than a catalogue of technique based applications. VT also consists of a uniquely effective learning method which is also a path to lifelong improvement. As a fully functional TCMA system, VT of course contains ideas for using open hand strikes, leg techniques, weapons and so on. But these are not the meat of the system.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Your bong is following upward, off line. In WSL VT the recovery action of bong is towards the centre and by virture of structure displaces what is there. Bong takes back the initiative in a bad situation, re-opening an attacking line. It isn't a block.



You guys are so set on your own beliefs that you can't even follow what someone else is saying.  You seem to go out of your way to try and NOT understand what is being said.  You two are so frustrating to try and have ANY kind of discussion with that I am just about done here.

A Hok Bong also "displaces what is there", and it opens the line of attack for the punch that is following just a split second behind.  It takes back the initiative because the opponent is being.....punched!  You are punching him AS he is throwing his punch, so it makes it a bit harder for him to follow on with a punch from the other hand.  And when we do the Hok Bong motion we train at least 2 in a row...very quickly..."bong does not remain." Deflect and hit upward and immediately convert that punch into a Hok Bong on the other side as you punch again.  This covers a punch that may be coming from that side if you didn't manage to land your first punch solidly enough.  

And neither of you yet have explained how you are deflecting inward with a Bong and punch simultaneously.


----------



## KPM

_Then please provide info. I know nothing about Pin Sun and can only use what you provide. The difference is that we have provided lots of information about YM/WSL VT, but not much comes back in the other direction._

----Total BS.  What little you provide about WSLVT typically has to be dragged out of you.  You often pose a rhetorical question and want others to answer before you will offer any information yourself.  You could have described how WSLVT would deal with the situation currently in question right from the start.  But you didn't.  Instead you have simply criticized what others have had to say.  



_If Pin Sun works in a completely different way to WSL VT then fine by me, have fun with it. Often though it seems you want to use the same ideas, but then seem to have inconsistencies in the detail. Probably more explanation would help if there is something you feel is being missed or interpreted incorrectly?_

----Why do you care?  You've already stated in the past that all you are concerned about is VT and have little interest in anyone else's Wing Chun.  I have been explaining something from my version of Wing Chun and you clearly haven't been trying to see it from our perspective at all.  All you can do is be critical.  We've seen that over and over in this forum.  If anything is different from the way WSLVT does it, then it is automatically wrong or "broken" in your opinion.  You have no ability to be flexible in your thinking at all.  You truly are a WSLVT "true believer".   And I'm happy for you that you have found something that makes your life fulfilled.  But please go and hang out at the "church of Wong" with the other true believers, because it is really getting a bit old here!     I'm done wasting my time on you two.   I'm joining Geezer in the wings.  



_Well Gary can always ask for more detail if he is genuinely interested. He seems more keen on disagreeing and asserting his seemingly fundamental belief that everything is relative than actually listening to anything though. Some people's minds are a bit too open to filter information effectively, and Gary looks like he might be that kind of guy._

----Oh now that's rich!  Do you really lack insight that much???   Amazing!!!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Did I say anything about "catching a punch out of the air"?  That is not how we use Lung Na.



Yes, you did:



KPM said:


> For example.....if an opponent throws a relatively long range extended *punch* that allows me to come under it with a double *grab* (what we call a "Lung Na") and then pivot to guide him past me and *yank* him off his feet, I have definitely avoided an attack and dissolved the threat.



This is grabbing a punch out of the air and throwing the guy right along, movie style... unless the punch is posed for you, which is even more unrealistic.



> ---If an opponent's punch is already traveling on an upward trajectory it seems pretty direct to me to let it continue on that trajectory while taking it off the target and while punching him at the exact same time.  It's one count.  He punches, you deflect as you return a punch.  How someone can say that isn't "direct" is beyond me.



Many things are beyond you. Following the opponent's arm off line over your head is about as far from direct as you can get.



> _Man/wu launch simultaneously from different ranges to different points._
> 
> ---Not a very good answer.  I'm sure Gary has no idea what you are talking about.  It isn't clear to me either, and I actually know what a "Man" and a "Wu" are!



_Man_ and _wu_ are lead and rear, right? They therefore launch simultaneously from different ranges, and to different points – _bong_ to open the line, and punch to the face. So there is no interruption or reaching over the top.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You could have described how WSLVT would deal with the situation currently in question right from the start. But you didn't.



I wasn't on the internet when you were demanding answers about what to do in terrible situation x y z. I actually have to go to work, live my life, and so on. When I saw your question I immediately provided an answer. 



KPM said:


> Why do you care?



Mostly it is because you want to have it both ways: Pin Sun different and special but also has all of that mundane stuff that's in regular YM VT. WSL VT is of a broader and richer system. This is why looking at what you actually do is interesting, and generally your system ends up looking like something completely different, not actually like YM VT at all. 



KPM said:


> I'm done wasting my time on you two



What again? Ok.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Yes.   You two have proven.....once again....that you are not worth the time and frustration.  I thought maybe you had changed a bit, but no.  I just need to remind myself of this in the future.


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> You said this when I posted it:
> 
> 
> 
> I was clarifying that it wasn't me, since you seemed to think it was. Ok?



Yeah sorry. I have this really annoying habit on a personal level of misconstruing things that I could probably reread severel times, and not get the point. Of course though, you seem to have a penchant for misclarifying when it suits you, or would that be when you get caught out. But of course, don't mind me, I read things wrong often. Hey i usually look like an idiot, but something I am sure of, something ain't quite right with you!


----------



## Transk53

wtxs said:


> What are you not sure about?  The rabbit can dig up lots carrots without getting its paws dirty.  Get your mind out of the gutter already.



That would be the Essex boy in me. We would give Sweden a decent contest :d


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Can't speak to that. I haven't seen or _felt_ how that bong is actually used. The verbal description did not sound like arm chasing to me, but words can be misleading. Perhaps I am willing to give other's _the benefit of the doubt_, whereas you often _doubt the benefit_ of what they do.
> 
> In the VT I train, the bong would rise if it is pushed up by the opponent's punch, but the energy and intent is _forward_. Our objective is to strike on center, not to follow our opponent's arms off center. I hope that clears things up a bit.



Okay, back from a weekend at the LA Ren Fest and then the week in NOLA (god I loved that town), so time to post again .  In TWC and even, if used properly (there is a "right bong" and "wrong bong"), the WSL-VT taught by Sifu Gary Lam, you can use a bong "out of the gate" so to speak.  Sifu Jerry Devone sometimes refers to it as the "jamming" bong.  There is actually a video of Sifu Jerry using it in a fight called MUSU, in New York, a few years back on YouTube and it sets up a KO.  You aren't hand chasing, as I understand it though.

In essence you enter with force, but knowing that your opponent would try to counter your strikes you enter with a bong (sometimes with a wu combination, the wu being the opposite hand) using forwarding energy.  This essentially acts as a wedge which opens the way to either simply transition into a strike or to trap then strike.  Either way you aren't focusing on the opponents limbs, you are using forwarding energy straight to the core of your opponent, the structure of your arms however is such that it naturally opens a path for striking.  It doesn't matter if he was already trying to punch you, if he was still in his "ready" stance, etc. you have opened the way.

This sounds like it might be similar to the hok bong that @KPM speaks to, but I may be wrong.  He may also remember the video I am speaking of.  I linked it in the thread he started about when does WC stop being WC and he said that Sifu Jerry was keeping WC structure etc in the fight, vs other videos that he linked himself.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Well, credentials or not, there are problems with that form. Moy Yat VT and WSL VT both came from YM and no reason for them to have diverged.



Well WSL himself stated that YM taught students differently (confirmed by Yip Ching among others).  As such, by definition, WSL saying "I teach what YM taught me" only means just that, that WSL taught what YM taught HIM, as YM taught to the student's individual strengths and weaknesses. As such it could well be that any divergence is due to YM teaching different things to the two students.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Well WSL himself stated that YM taught students differently (confirmed by Yip Ching among others).  As such, by definition, WSL saying "I teach what YM taught me" only means just that, that WSL taught what YM taught HIM, as YM taught to the student's individual strengths and weaknesses. As such it could well be that any divergence is due to YM teaching different things to the two students.



So you think YM taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways? 

Provide the quote where WSL says this, if you didn't just make it up.

I think you'll find that WSL actually accounts for differences by uneven distribution of information and misunderstanding.


Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
"_Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the *information was not evenly distributed*. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. *This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners*. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have *got the wrong meaning which they now pass on*. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude._"


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> So you think YM taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?
> 
> Provide the quote where WSL says this, if you didn't just make it up.
> 
> I think you'll find that WSL actually accounts for differences by uneven distribution of information and misunderstanding.
> 
> 
> Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
> "_Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the *information was not evenly distributed*. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. *This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners*. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have *got the wrong meaning which they now pass on*. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude._"


First I find it funny you use the quote you initially denied existed until I posted it.  Remember you said initially "all WSL said about YM's teaching was..." And then I produced this.

That said (and that is likely enough) I also quoted YM's own sons.  You didn't highlight "traditional manner" and part of that is teaching to the strengths of the student...Yip Ching addressed that in the quote of his I also noted elsewhere.  Those who are interested in this topic are obvious and they remember the statements I quoted .  They illustrate the issue with dogmatic adherence vs logical/practical adherence. There is obviously more than one YM student who started a different lineage.  WSL, WC, Y Ching, Y Chun and more.  WSL, after stating what he did about YM's teaching methods, NEVER said he taught the "true" YM VT.  All he said is that he taught what YM taught him.  Since they all admit that YM taught in the traditional manner, with an art as flexible as WC, there will be variations.

Or we can ignore the words of the first generation students of YM and stick to the dogma you were taught by someone else.  I prefer original sources vs the dogma of those who come after.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> So you think YM taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?



The quote from WSL makes it pretty clear what happened


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First I find it funny you use the quote you initially denied existed until I posted it.  Remember you said initially "all WSL said about YM's teaching was..." And then I produced this.



You really think in all these years I'd never seen that interview until you came along a couple months ago? 

Here I am quoting the exact lines from the same interview back in Dec. 2015. You weren't even a member here. And I can probably find earlier ones too.
wing chun history is not important



> You didn't highlight "traditional manner" and part of that is teaching to the strengths of the student...



You don't just get to reinterpret someone's words to your liking. That is _not_ _at all_ what he said.

This is why I'm so thankful WSL gave this interview. We can always point back to it whenever you guys want to make up your own dishonest version of history and put words into WSL's mouth.

This is probably the 20th time talking about this interview this year alone, since you guys just keep carrying on with your own false narrative.

People who maintain this "taught to the strengths of the student" theory are the ones with the most confused or obviously made up WC.

That YM would have taught one system in such a way that it could have several directly contradictory yet equally valid versions is asinine.

As opposed to what WSL said, which was that YM just didn't evenly distribute information and lots of misunderstanding has led to the current mess we see in mainstream WC.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First I find it funny you use the quote you initially denied existed until I posted it.  Remember you said initially "all WSL said about YM's teaching was..." And then I produced this.





LFJ said:


> You really think in all these years I'd never seen that interview until you came along a couple months ago?
> 
> Here I am quoting the exact lines from the same interview back in Dec. 2015. You weren't even a member here. And I can probably find earlier ones too.
> wing chun history is not important



@Juany118  lol

Here's another one from Nov. 2014, two years ago, and a full year and a half before you even showed up.
Regarding diverse approaches to WC...

And I even bolded the same lines I did in my post just above!

I've been consistently saying the same thing for years, and you guys still come on here and misquote WSL.

It's frustrating as hell how dishonest you guys can be to push your false narratives.

If you won't open your eyes, fine, but I will keep correcting you every time you lie, for the benefit of all who may read these posts.


----------



## Juany118

My eyes are open.  First let me note that I find it humorous that originally, when I didn't produce that quote you actually called me a liar and produced another quote claiming that it was the only quote WSL ever stated on the matter.  

That out of the way here is the thing, I use logic.  All WSL ever said is that he teaches what he learned from YM.  He never says that he didn't further refine things, perhaps removing things that he saw as superfluous.  So in having a pure striking art, so long as that is part of what YM stated, the comment would be perfectly valid.   You then look at what all of the other first generation students of YM have taught.  All of them teach a WC/VT/WT that has chin na.  These same students also add something else that is part of "traditional" Chinese martial arts teaching. If you were not learning in the military or in a religious order Martial Arts training was for the wealthy.  These teachers would teach to the strengths and weaknesses of their students (I have produced quotes to that effect as well from other students.)  

So logic dictates only one thing.  

1.  If all other YM lineages have Chin Na, and only one lacks it, then it is illogical to say that only the one first generation student teaching without Chin Na is teaching YM VT.  Especially in light of the fact that this person never claimed that he had secret teachings from YM.  By extension we have any number of possibilities as to why there is a divergence.
------A. The one (WSL) further refined YM VT to his preference/strengths.  He went there with a back ground in boxing and was already known as a competitive fighter.  So striking was "in his blood" so to speak.  We see his ability to refine a martial art in that he helped PB adapt VT to his amputation when other teachers basically laughed at him and told him to give up.
------B.  As other students noted the fact that YM would also teach to his student's strengths, with WSL he may well have focused on the striking aspect with him because of the obvious strength in striking he had when he walked in the door.
------C. combination of A and B

Now if you could produce some statement by WSL where he actually says that he is the only one teaching true YM VT, you would have a leg to stand on.  Some might say it is hyperbole, but without such a statement the only thing that you can use to justify such a claim is dogma and as Master Keith Mazza said today at his seminar, "don't get trapped in dogma.  There are many ways to get to the end game."  Sadly I forgot to show him the video in too much of a hurry to try and get ahead of the post Eagles game traffic that was between me and home), but the next time I see him I will show it and get the question regarding the oddities in the TWC SLT video.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First let me note that I find it humorous that originally, when I didn't produce that quote you actually called me a liar and produced another quote claiming that it was the only quote WSL ever stated on the matter.



That's because of your reading comprehension disability.

I was replying to this post in which you said;

"_WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method._"

This is saying WSL altered the system, which is false, and he never said that, which means you lied.

This is why I responded in this post with the quote of WSL saying;

Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
"_Ever since I have been teaching, I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man. *The only way by which I differ is that *after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee._"

You then said you were only talking about teaching methods differing, and not the system, which obviously contradicts what you said about the system being made more logical/step by step.

I then addressed this in this post saying;

"_Their personalities and teaching styles differed which impacted learning and resulted in not many receiving the full system from YM, while more received it from WSL._

_This has been our argument the whole time,... ...You are apparently agreeing with it then._"

This is where you stopped responding.

And now you're back starting the whole thing over with your original lie once again. 



> All WSL ever said is that he teaches what he learned from YM.  He never says that he didn't further refine things, perhaps removing things that he saw as superfluous.



There you go lying again to rewrite your version of history!

What part of "*the only way by which I differ*" do you not understand?



> So logic dictates only one thing.



I know you have your theory and think it is logical, but that does not make it true.

The truth is as WSL stated;

"_Hence, he [Yip Man] would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. *This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners*. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have *got the wrong meaning which they now pass on*._"
Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat

"_*Someone who is looking at Wing Chun and hasn't trained the full system, or hasn't really gone for enough time with a teacher*, probably won't know enough footwork. They won't understand the mobility involved in Wing Chun – the angles of attack, the advance and retreat. They won't understand the full use of kicks in all situations. Therefore they *will want to add something else that they think is better, for the sake of not knowing*. _"
Wong Shun Leung en Barry Lee - VingTsunRotterdam

The truth is not many people received the full system in detail from YM. Lots of misunderstanding and gap-filling from other TCMAs has led to the various contradictory systems taught as mainstream WC from YM today. 

Look at the _taan-sau_ shape without explanation, and you'll likely think it's a "spreading" block. 

Look at _chi-sau_ practice and call it "sticking hands" without explanation, and you'll think it's for sticking to and controlling an opponent's arms. 

Look at the turning with folded arms in _Cham-kiu _without explanation, and you may think there's a lock and throw in there somewhere.

People come up with all kinds of applications and gap-fills from other styles, including _kam-na_, for not knowing...

Those people who made things up had to use the "taught to students' strengths" cover which validates anything they do.



> Now if you could produce some statement by WSL where he actually says that he is the only one teaching true YM VT, you would have a leg to stand on.



He wouldn't have to! He let his hands do the talking. _Gong-sau Wong_! And his system compared to alternatives speaks for itself too.

Only people like your lineage head William Cheung have to say only they got a secret "traditional" version behind closed doors.


----------



## KPM

More appropriate highlights as follows:

"_Ever since I have been teaching,* I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man*_._ *The only way by which I differ is that *after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee._"


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> That's because of your reading comprehension disability.
> 
> I was replying to this post in which you said;
> 
> "_WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method._"
> 
> This is saying WSL altered the system, which is false, and he never said that, which means you lied.
> 
> This is why I responded in this post with the quote of WSL saying;
> 
> Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
> "_Ever since I have been teaching, I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man. *The only way by which I differ is that *after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee._"
> 
> You then said you were only talking about teaching methods differing, and not the system, which obviously contradicts what you said about the system being made more logical/step by step.
> 
> I then addressed this in this post saying;
> 
> "_Their personalities and teaching styles differed which impacted learning and resulted in not many receiving the full system from YM, while more received it from WSL._
> 
> _This has been our argument the whole time,... ...You are apparently agreeing with it then._"
> 
> This is where you stopped responding.
> 
> And now you're back starting the whole thing over with your original lie once again.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go lying again to rewrite your version of history!
> 
> What part of "*the only way by which I differ*" do you not understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I know you have your theory and think it is logical, but that does not make it true.
> 
> The truth is as WSL stated;
> 
> "_Hence, he [Yip Man] would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. *This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners*. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have *got the wrong meaning which they now pass on*._"
> Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
> 
> "_*Someone who is looking at Wing Chun and hasn't trained the full system, or hasn't really gone for enough time with a teacher*, probably won't know enough footwork. They won't understand the mobility involved in Wing Chun – the angles of attack, the advance and retreat. They won't understand the full use of kicks in all situations. Therefore they *will want to add something else that they think is better, for the sake of not knowing*. _"
> Wong Shun Leung en Barry Lee - VingTsunRotterdam
> 
> The truth is not many people received the full system in detail from YM. Lots of misunderstanding and gap-filling from other TCMAs has led to the various contradictory systems taught as mainstream WC from YM today.
> 
> Look at the _taan-sau_ shape without explanation, and you'll likely think it's a "spreading" block.
> 
> Look at _chi-sau_ practice and call it "sticking hands" without explanation, and you'll think it's for sticking to and controlling an opponent's arms.
> 
> Look at the turning with folded arms in _Cham-kiu _without explanation, and you may think there's a lock and throw in there somewhere.
> 
> People come up with all kinds of applications and gap-fills from other styles, including _kam-na_, for not knowing...
> 
> Those people who made things up had to use the "taught to students' strengths" cover which validates anything they do.
> 
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have to! He let his hands do the talking. _Gong-sau Wong_! And his system compared to alternatives speaks for itself too.
> 
> Only people like your lineage head William Cheung have to say only they got a secret "traditional" version behind closed doors.



Good post spelling it out


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> More appropriate highlights as follows:
> 
> "_Ever since I have been teaching,* I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man*_._ *The only way by which I differ is that *after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee._"



Yes, sequence of teaching. Nothing was changed to become more "step by step", and WSL never said he made such a change, as was falsely claimed.

You can't say WSL learned the system sequence from YM, then "refined things, perhaps removing things that he saw as superfluous", but still taught the same sequence.

That would mean {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...} and {3,5,6,7,9...} are the same sequence. They are not, and now the latter is broken.

The only difference in their teaching, according to WSL, is that YM often didn't give much detailed information, and WSL did. That, and introducing the BJ form before finishing the dummy sections containing BJ ideas, which is inconsequential since it's basically the same elements.

The material and sequence in which it is introduced, from YM to WSL, and from WSL to many others, is fully intact and unchanged.


----------



## Mattattack

I have been training Wing Chun for almost two years now, and conversations like these seem rampant.  I find it distressing.  It is such a compact system (small number of techniques around shared core principles), but there is so much more vitriol over who is right and wrong.

This convo started with a comparative demonstration and has gotten mired in the weeds, and I think it is emblematic of what happens in many WC discussions, on- and off-line.  I want to address this issue in general rather than attacking or critiquing any one person's post in particular.

The *only *point I really want to make here is that I fear that we deny YM his humanity when we buy into the idea that he taught a perfect system perfectly and that deviating from that is extreme heresy.  Why is it such a problem to believe that he taught different people according to their strengths?  Isn't it possible that WSL, or YM, or even Leung Jan said and did contradictory things now and then?

The idea that any system is perfect and was taught perfectly from master to disciple in a perfect line running back to its perfect immaculate conception story (Bodhidharma at Shaolin or Ng Mui or whoever watching animals fight) doesn't jive with humanity.

*Yip Man wasn't perfect *(there I said it, _come after me internet!_).  I think he's_ much more interesting_ if we think of him as an imperfect man balancing his body of knowledge against how best to get it across to a variety of students with a variety of temperaments and strengths.  That's the struggle and the wonder of teaching (which I say as a college professor and as a martial arts instructor).

Me, my teachers, and my teachers teachers are just people
We are all liars, whether we know it or not.
We are all telling truth, whether we follow it or not
Too much dogmatism breeds division
It gets in the way of personal growth and a centered life

I do sincerely apologize for this post.  The statements above have been welling up inside of me for a while, and that is not just from this forum.  So much talk out there on YM WC is more divisive than inclusive, and I like I said it distresses me.

That's my spiel, take it or decimate it (I'm anticipating the latter).  It's prolly the last time I'm going to post on a WC thread.


----------



## Transk53

Mattattack said:


> I have been training Wing Chun for almost two years now, and conversations like these seem rampant.  I find it distressing.  It is such a compact system (small number of techniques around shared core principles), but there is so much more vitriol over who is right and wrong.
> 
> This convo started with a comparative demonstration and has gotten mired in the weeds, and I think it is emblematic of what happens in many WC discussions, on- and off-line.  I want to address this issue in general rather than attacking or critiquing any one person's post in particular.
> 
> The *only *point I really want to make here is that I fear that we deny YM his humanity when we buy into the idea that he taught a perfect system perfectly and that deviating from that is extreme heresy.  Why is it such a problem to believe that he taught different people according to their strengths?  Isn't it possible that WSL, or YM, or even Leung Jan said and did contradictory things now and then?
> 
> The idea that any system is perfect and was taught perfectly from master to disciple in a perfect line running back to its perfect immaculate conception story (Bodhidharma at Shaolin or Ng Mui or whoever watching animals fight) doesn't jive with humanity.
> 
> *Yip Man wasn't perfect *(there I said it, _come after me internet!_).  I think he's_ much more interesting_ if we think of him as an imperfect man balancing his body of knowledge against how best to get it across to a variety of students with a variety of temperaments and strengths.  That's the struggle and the wonder of teaching (which I say as a college professor and as a martial arts instructor).
> 
> Me, my teachers, and my teachers teachers are just people
> We are all liars, whether we know it or not.
> We are all telling truth, whether we follow it or not
> Too much dogmatism breeds division
> It gets in the way of personal growth and a centered life
> 
> I do sincerely apologize for this post.  The statements above have been welling up inside of me for a while, and that is not just from this forum.  So much talk out there on YM WC is more divisive than inclusive, and I like I said it distresses me.
> 
> That's my spiel, take it or decimate it (I'm anticipating the latter).  It's prolly the last time I'm going to post on a WC thread.



To me it is just two members who can't eccept that Wing Chun is not Wing Chun, unless it is WSLVT, and all other branches are broken. Nothing to apologise for IMHO


----------



## Mattattack

Yeah, it just seems like one example in a bigger phenomenon. .  WC is not WC unless it is ______ WC.  I'm sure there's an interesting algebraic equation for that. I just don't want anyone to think I'm attacking _his or her _WC


----------



## Transk53

Mattattack said:


> Yeah, it just seems like one example in a bigger phenomenon. .  WC is not WC unless it is ______ WC.  I'm sure there's an interesting algebraic equation for that. I just don't want anyone to think I'm attacking _his or her _WC



Nor would you be. Fanatism is what it is.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Nor would you be. Fanatism is what it is.



Yeah.  Yesterday during certain parts of the seminar I attended Master Keith kept talking about Dogma.  He said (in short) don't fall into dogma but also don't replace what you already know with "theory".  If you come up with an idea tell him.  It actually happened a couple times during the seminar.  He basically either said "oh yeah that works too" because he knows it does, it just isn't his preference.  No one came up with ideas that were just "theory" but he made it clear he was open to people coming forward and demonstrating something so that it could be determined if it was only theory but practical.  This video I think explains it well.  The Josh is a world champion chess player and a practicing martial artist.  Go to 25:00 for the relevant bit.


----------



## Eric_H

Man, with threads like this, no wonder MMA has eaten WC's lunch.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: discussions like this make me so glad I'm no longer in the YM branch of WC. From the outside, it looks like a bunch of people fighting over something that in the grand scheme of fighting arts is rather mediocre. 

This discussion also reminds me of something I told a younger friend of mine once. He's a hothead who likes to get into fights and arguments with people for no reason. Once when we were walking down market street he was about to get into it with a homeless dude who was screaming crazy stuff at pretty much everything and nothing. I managed to pull him out of it and imparted this advice - "Don't fight a crazy dude who has sh*t his pants. Best case, you win, he's still crazy and you've got his sh*t on you." In the last few years, I've found discussing WC with people online to be much the same proposition.


----------



## Juany118

Eric_H said:


> Man, with threads like this, no wonder MMA has eaten WC's lunch.
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again: discussions like this make me so glad I'm no longer in the YM branch of WC. From the outside, it looks like a bunch of people fighting over something that in the grand scheme of fighting arts is rather mediocre.
> 
> This discussion also reminds me of something I told a younger friend of mine once. He's a hothead who likes to get into fights and arguments with people for no reason. Once when we were walking down market street he was about to get into it with a homeless dude who was screaming crazy stuff at pretty much everything and nothing. I managed to pull him out of it and imparted this advice - "Don't fight a crazy dude who has sh*t his pants. Best case, you win, he's still crazy and you've got his sh*t on you." In the last few years, I've found discussing WC with people online to be much the same proposition.



Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people.  The rest of us actually like discussing ideas and learning from each other.  That is what promotes evolution, which is a key component to maintaining relevancy.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people



I would be incredibly happy if you stopped talking about WSL VT. I could then ignore whatever you were talking about.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people.  The rest of us actually like discussing ideas and learning from each other.  That is what promotes evolution, which is a key component to maintaining relevancy.



What's the old expression?......"one bad apple can spoil the whole bushel"??   Ok, maybe it takes more than one.  But it was certainly a group of only 4 or so people that lead to the more or less "death" of that "other" Wing Chun forum.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I would be incredibly happy if you stopped talking about WSL VT. I could then ignore whatever you were talking about.



If your intent is to ignore anything that doesn't have to do with WSLVT, then why are you in a general Wing Chun forum and not a WSLVT-specific forum?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> If your intent is to ignore anything that doesn't have to do with WSLVT, then why are you in a general Wing Chun forum and not a WSLVT-specific forum?



I think it is important to give a true representation of WSL VT whenever it is mentioned. It is useful to anyone interested in the system to provide info.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> I think it is important to give a true representation of WSL VT whenever it is mentioned. It is useful to anyone interested in the system to provide info.



But the problem is the rest of us discuss the differences and similarities of our lineages.  The only time you and another jump in to discuss WSL-VT is to say "this is right, what you guys are studying true wing chun."  It would only be about clarification IF other people had started speaking with authority on WSL-VT in the particular conversation.  You interject it regardless of the context of the conversation... Replace the word "scottish" in the following video and it's pretty much how you come across...


----------



## Cephalopod

Juany118 said:


> Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people.



But that's not precisely true, is it?

We all know it takes two parties to have an argument. Sure, there are those who post some rather obstinate sounding statements...but there are also those who play along, baiting and being baited by such posters.

Here are some principles that are central to wing chun as I know it.

When faced with an unstoppable force, move your center and let the force go by.

If you succeed in bypassing said force, don't go chasing after it, keep your center facing the source.

Think about it people! If you want to maximize the benefit of these ideas, they should not only apply when fists are flying but also in how you deal with others.

To me, the 'source' in the case of a forum is the original post. Unstoppable forces are arguments that cannot be "won".

So what do you think, good people? Maybe when we post we could keep one eye on the thread topic and show our respect to the efforts of the OP by trying to stay on topic.

And doing so, we'll be practicing good posting WC/VT/WT


----------



## Nobody Important

I would like to see the post get back on track. Are there any other non- Yip Man lineages besides myself & KPM? I would like to see how other lesser known branches approach Wing Chun. Especially comparisons of form and what the differences mean to them.

Hung Fa Yi, Pao Fa Lien, Chi Sim, Cho Gar etc? Feel free to weigh in with what you believe sets you apart.


----------



## Juany118

Cephalopod said:


> But that's not precisely true, is it?
> 
> We all know it takes two parties to have an argument. Sure, there are those who post some rather obstinate sounding statements...but there are also those who play along, baiting and being baited by such posters.
> 
> Here are some principles that are central to wing chun as I know it.
> 
> When faced with an unstoppable force, move your center and let the force go by.
> 
> If you succeed in bypassing said force, don't go chasing after it, keep your center facing the source.
> 
> Think about it people! If you want to maximize the benefit of these ideas, they should not only apply when fists are flying but also in how you deal with others.
> 
> To me, the 'source' in the case of a forum is the original post. Unstoppable forces are arguments that cannot be "won".
> 
> So what do you think, good people? Maybe when we post we could keep one eye on the thread topic and show our respect to the efforts of the OP by trying to stay on topic.
> 
> And doing so, we'll be practicing good posting WC/VT/WT



Call me crazy but I see a difference.  The type of argument you are referring to would be, as an example, if I was to say "no GM William Cheung says he teaches true YM WC, WSL doesn't." That isn't what is happening here though.  Two people repeatedly jump into threads where WSL-VT hasn't even been mentioned.  They then go on to talk about how superior it is to all other Lineages and how it is the only true and coherent successor to YM.  The rest of us just call them on them on the inflammatory and unsupported nature of such a claim.

If they were to simply say "well we do this bit differently" or "I tried other forms and WSL VT was more streamlined in this manner compared to the other lineage I studied and so it fit me better" there would likely be no argument at all, simply an exchange of ideas.

Think of it like a town hall meeting.  People are exchanging ideas and then the fanatic stands up and starts telling everyone how they are all wrong and how they are innately superior to anyone who believes differently.  It takes a community engaged in constructive discourse and turns everything sideways.


----------



## Cephalopod

Here's a starting point



Mattattack said:


> It looks like the circles in the HFY are a lot bigger



I noticed this as well in the HFY form. Notably, the elbows travel quite far from the centerline of the body.

In most WC/VT/WT that I'm familiar with, SLT is used to ingrain a very disciplined tracking of the elbow, keeping it inside of a certain imaginary framework in front of the body. This is done to protect the center of the body as well as for power development.

What is the thinking of protecting the center in HFY?


----------



## Cephalopod

Juany118 said:


> Call me crazy but I see a difference.  The type of argument you are referring to would be, as an example, if I was to say "no GM William Cheung says he teaches true YM WC, WSL doesn't." That isn't what is happening here though.  Two people repeatedly jump into threads where WSL-VT hasn't even been mentioned.  They then go on to talk about how superior it is to all other Lineages and how it is the only true and coherent successor to YM.  The rest of us just call them on them on the inflammatory and unsupported nature of such a claim.
> 
> If they were to simply say "well we do this bit differently" or "I tried other forms and WSL VT was more streamlined in this manner compared to the other lineage I studied and so it fit me better" there would likely be no argument at all, simply an exchange of ideas.
> 
> Think of it like a town hall meeting.  People are exchanging ideas and then the fanatic stands up and starts telling everyone how they are all wrong and how they are innately superior to anyone who believes differently.  It takes a community engaged in constructive discourse and turns everything sideways.


I hear what you are saying and I echo your frustration with certain behaviors. And I did not mean to imply that all parties are _equally_ to blame for disrupting the conversation. I'm PC but I'm not _that_ PC. 

But the confrontational approach has not been bearing any fruit. So I'm  suggesting a different path:
Rather than getting caught up in a pointless back and forth, ignore the offending posts and populate the thread with productive, on topic discourse instead.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> Yeah.  Yesterday during certain parts of the seminar I attended Master Keith kept talking about Dogma.  He said (in short) don't fall into dogma but also don't replace what you already know with "theory".  If you come up with an idea tell him.  It actually happened a couple times during the seminar.  He basically either said "oh yeah that works too" because he knows it does, it just isn't his preference.  No one came up with ideas that were just "theory" but he made it clear he was open to people coming forward and demonstrating something so that it could be determined if it was only theory but practical.  This video I think explains it well.  The Josh is a world champion chess player and a practicing martial artist.  Go to 25:00 for the relevant bit.



Yes very interesting, especially about the false construct. Although to fully understand the context of that, I am going to watch it in full in the later morning. Tell you what though, no surprise to me that a World Chamoion chess player is a martial artist. Thanks for posting this Juany1118


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> I think it is important to give a true representation of WSL VT whenever it is mentioned. It is useful to anyone interested in the system to provide info.



Okay so perhaps you would care to video yourself showing the whole community what WSLVT is all about. You're rhetoric is getting very very boring, yet you have yet to offer anything of substance. A video of PB just don't cut it. And sure PB would be horrified that you are actually not spreading any message with you're posts, just nerdism. Just my logical take Guy B!


----------



## Transk53

Cephalopod said:


> But that's not precisely true, is it?
> 
> We all know it takes two parties to have an argument. Sure, there are those who post some rather obstinate sounding statements...but there are also those who play along, baiting and being baited by such posters.
> 
> Here are some principles that are central to wing chun as I know it.
> 
> When faced with an unstoppable force, move your center and let the force go by.
> 
> If you succeed in bypassing said force, don't go chasing after it, keep your center facing the source.
> 
> Think about it people! If you want to maximize the benefit of these ideas, they should not only apply when fists are flying but also in how you deal with others.
> 
> To me, the 'source' in the case of a forum is the original post. Unstoppable forces are arguments that cannot be "won".
> 
> So what do you think, good people? Maybe when we post we could keep one eye on the thread topic and show our respect to the efforts of the OP by trying to stay on topic.
> 
> And doing so, we'll be practicing good posting WC/VT/WT



Yes agree with you, and yes I am no Wing Chun expert, but all I see is Guy B constantly trying to debase any other members viewpoints. What his motive is I don't know, but it is getting to the point that even I feel compelled to be a Troll hunter. I don't have the Wing Chun knowledge base to do that per se, but still, there comes a point when condescending behaviour from a minor, just gets too much!


----------



## Cephalopod

Transk53 said:


> ... there comes a point when condescending behaviour from a minor, just gets too much!


Really?
C'mon, let's try a little harder! 

The high road is awesome. Nice view. Lots of sun. The air smells sweet and fresh.


----------



## Transk53

Cephalopod said:


> Really?
> C'mon, let's try a little harder!
> 
> The high road is awesome. Nice view. Lots of sun. The air smells sweet and fresh.



Yes it certainly is, fresh air, fresh ideas to learn and evolve. Yes it is all good. Personally I prefer a good old English woodland. Lots of history intertwined with the here and now


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> I would like to see the post get back on track. Are there any other non- Yip Man lineages besides myself & KPM? I would like to see how other lesser known branches approach Wing Chun. Especially comparisons of form and what the differences mean to them.
> 
> Hung Fa Yi, Pao Fa Lien, Chi Sim, Cho Gar etc? Feel free to weigh in with what you believe sets you apart.



Ok, back to the OP....Siu Lim Tao comparison.....     In Pin Sun Wing Chun one of our short  sets is still called "Siu Lim Tao."  Most everyone would recognize it.   It is the Pak Sau to Tan/Tun Sau to vertical palm strike, then repeat with the other hand.  Cycle through as many times as desired.  It is practiced the exact same way on the dummy.  The initial 2 man practice is simply to put it into the Pak Da drill....one person doing continuous punches while the other does repeated Pak Sau...then add Pak to Tan/Tun alternating hands.  But then there is also a 2 man drill specifically for this set.  The partner throws palm edge strikes towards the throat and the Pak to Tan/Tun motion is done on the inside.   Later the same set is done with the Butterfly knives......Pak to Tun to snap cut down the middle.  From the Tun the blade rolls to the outside and then forward to the cut.  So in addition to teaching two basic defensive motions just like the empty hand set, it teaches the rolling action on the outside that is so important to fast and powerful close-range strikes with the blades.  

Really though, the whole first level of training in Pin Sun is considered the equivalent of most people's Siu Nim Tao form.  This material is said to be what Leung Jan retained from his original SNT form when he broke it down into San Siks to make it easier to absorb quickly.   There is also a short set that is essentially the Bong to Tan to palm edge strike that others are familiar with from their SNT form.  It also has a dummy version, 2 man training, and a version with the Butterfly knives.


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> I think it is important to give a true representation of WSL VT whenever it is mentioned. It is useful to anyone interested in the system to provide info.



Yes, but you are yet to do this. Perhaps create a thread?


----------



## Juany118

Cephalopod said:


> Here's a starting point
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed this as well in the HFY form. Notably, the elbows travel quite far from the centerline of the body.
> 
> In most WC/VT/WT that I'm familiar with, SLT is used to ingrain a very disciplined tracking of the elbow, keeping it inside of a certain imaginary framework in front of the body. This is done to protect the center of the body as well as for power development.
> 
> What is the thinking of protecting the center in HFY?



I wonder if the reason is this.  As I understand it YM refined and simplified WC.  So perhaps the issue is to address issues the "tight" nature of YM WC can have issues with?  As an example, in an older thread a person was talking about issues they were having dealing with knife defense (in training.)  A few of us who also study FMA gave some suggestions that "widened" this a bit via description and video examples.  They weren't alien to WC, such as same angles of foot work, only widened a bit to address the fact a knife was involved.  The same could be said for arm movements.  The SLT of the HFY is clearly more complicated.  In that particular bit of the SLT that you are referencing it seems to be related to the _huen sau_.  So, while I do not know that particular style of WC, perhaps it is trying to "program" the idea that there will be times that a WC practitioner has to address someone who is armed with a weapon of some sort which naturally requires a "wider" motion to avoid getting clipped?

Just a thought.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Yes it certainly is, fresh air, fresh ideas to learn and evolve. Yes it is all good. Personally I prefer a good old English woodland. Lots of history intertwined with the here and now




This kinda makes me laugh, in an un-martial art related moment. Among my many hobbies is Tudor, Elizabethan and Cavalier era costuming and I literally just put most of my garb and weapons away for the season has ended unless the wife and I make a trip out west (meaning from the East coast to the South West) this winter to visit family and friends.  Might even drop into the school of @geezer to bother him since it is near there lol.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Yes, but you are yet to do this. Perhaps create a thread?




This is my thing.  When a general exchange of ideas, spit balling for lack of a better term begins, coming in with a "this is right that is wrong" with no further reasoning than "because <person X> said so.." inevitably creates a derail.  Now people can agree to disagree but it needs to be based on clearly articulated reasons.  As an example @KPM and I disagreed on a thread regarding when does WC stop being WC.  To me WC is about sticking to the foundational principles (maintaining structure, center line theory etc).  That means, to me, you can have someone fighting who may not look like they are doing WC on video even if that combatant "feels" those principles in action.  KPM disagreed, no worries on my part.  
The moral of the story, context and delivery are as important as your personally perceived intent.


----------



## anerlich

Cephalopod said:


> Hey!
> I have a very particular question about the vid, especially for anyone familiar with HFY:
> 
> At 3:23 the HFY guy (in the center) forms a bong sau and then lifts it straight up into, well, a high bong sau.
> 
> A lifting movement with the elbow pronated like this would just annihilate my shoulder if it was against any kind of resistance.
> 
> Any idea what is being trained?



I don't know the application of this movement, not being an HFY practitioner, but I have suffered two separated A/C joints.

One was a surfing accident, the other resulting from a beautifully performed spider guard sweep which landed me at high speed right on the point of my shoulder.

I've been working high bon saos for 27 years, both before and after both injuries. With no adverse effects whatsoever.

There's a wrestling position called the inverted collar tie which I use extensively in Jiu Jitsu guard retention that basically takes a substantial proportion of your opponent's weight on the arm in a similar position. Been using it for years with two formerly jacked shoulders with  great success and zero shoulder damage.

A lot of people tell me that my lineage's version of YGKYM is dangerous and will lead to severe knee problems. Again I had a meniscus op due to a grappling injury and my other medial knee ligament had a level 2 tear from tumbling on a beach, but I've had no knee issues from WC and none of my training buds have either.

In my experience, WC instructors statements about anatomy and proper structure from a purely mechanical point of view suffer significantly from the Dunning-Kreuger effect.


----------



## anerlich

Josh Waitzkin was a world Taiji push hands champion and is a BJJ black belt under Marcelo Garcia.

I think he is fortunate, or perhaps sensible, to have given Wing Chun a wide berth and avoiding the related Sargasso Sea of pointless arguments.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I wonder if the reason is this.  As I understand it YM refined and simplified WC.  So perhaps the issue is to address issues the "tight" nature of YM WC can have issues with?  As an example, in an older thread a person was talking about issues they were having dealing with knife defense (in training.)  A few of us who also study FMA gave some suggestions that "widened" this a bit via description and video examples.  They weren't alien to WC, such as same angles of foot work, only widened a bit to address the fact a knife was involved.  The same could be said for arm movements.  The SLT of the HFY is clearly more complicated.  In that particular bit of the SLT that you are referencing it seems to be related to the _huen sau_.  So, while I do not know that particular style of WC, perhaps it is trying to "program" the idea that there will be times that a WC practitioner has to address someone who is armed with a weapon of some sort which naturally requires a "wider" motion to avoid getting clipped?
> 
> Just a thought.



Good thought!   In the SNT form of CSL Wing Chun there is something very similar.   A "tight" version of the Huen Sau from the wrist and a "wider" version of the Huen Sau that comes from the elbow.  Just guessing....but I would think that Robert Chu picked up the "tight" version from his studies of Ip Man and Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun and the "wide" version from his studies of TWC.  He saw value in both and so he does both.


----------



## LFJ

Mattattack said:


> The *only *point I really want to make here is that I fear that we deny YM his humanity when we buy into the idea that he taught a perfect system perfectly and that deviating from that is extreme heresy.  Why is it such a problem to believe that he taught different people according to their strengths?



The only people who make YM out to be perfect are those who view him as an idealized fantasy figure who could never have felt some students not worth his time or not cared to insure information was distributed evenly.

The answer to your question is that the facts don't warrant such a belief.

We can get a pretty good idea of YM's temperament and teaching style from multiple student testimonies. 

We can then look at the histories of various YM students, their time spent with YM, and their fighting experience or lack thereof.

Then we can analyze their teachings for system coherence and functionality, compare similarities and differences, and reference this all back to the above data points concerning experience.

Doing this, it becomes quite clear why some lineage systems are the way they are.

The "taught to the strengths of each student" theory relies on assumption and Wishful Thinking.

When we get deep into technical analysis, this is where people tend to reach dead ends and exit the discussion.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people.  The rest of us actually like discussing ideas and learning from each other.





Juany118 said:


> But the problem is the rest of us discuss the differences and similarities of our lineages.  The only time you and another jump in to discuss WSL-VT is to say "this is right, what you guys are studying true wing chun."





Juany118 said:


> Two people repeatedly jump into threads where WSL-VT hasn't even been mentioned.



Your lying seems compulsive.

I was discussing how the ideas of "Ying Bong" and "Hok Bong" could be reconciled with the "chase center, don't chase hand" principle in this thread.

I then gave KPM detail on how our _bong_ + punch work in WSLVT when_ he asked _for it.

I didn't even start talking about WSLVT vs other lineages until _you_ came on lying about WSL being on record as saying something he never said in Post #193.

If you could refrain from doing this, we wouldn't have to keep correcting you.


----------



## KPM

Post #2 of this very thread, made by Guy B:

*There are many large problems with the Moy Yat (Yip Man) version as performed here. The HFY looks like a completely different system not focused on the same things. TWC looks like it might be a highly corrupted form of YM- if so then hard to see how it wouldn't be broken beyond repair.*


----------



## LFJ

All valid observations from the point of view of YMVT open to discussion. 

You guys predictably chose to make it another lineage war, rather than enter technical discussion. Geezer may have been the only one to try.


----------



## Mattattack

I looked at another HFY SLT/SNT video and it lists the techniques used in that section.  It doesn't look quite as extreme as the video in the OP.

Check it out around 4:13


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> All valid observations from the point of view of YMVT open to discussion.
> 
> You guys predictably chose to make it another lineage war, rather than enter technical discussion. Geezer may have been the only one to try.



LFJ is correct KPM. For "you" as a group it is always about the grievance, the taking of offence. It creates these interminable threads that lead nowhere. Instead of complaining about the use of language, maybe try to engage in technical discussion. Then maybe we will get somewhere mutually beneficial?


----------



## Mattattack

There is a technical discussion going on _right now_.  Let's get in on that instead of trying to get in a last shot.  I'm addressing that to all.  So, any ideas on what looks like this high bong sao in HFY SNT?


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Good thought!   In the SNT form of CSL Wing Chun there is something very similar.   A "tight" version of the Huen Sau from the wrist and a "wider" version of the Huen Sau that comes from the elbow.  Just guessing....but I would think that Robert Chu picked up the "tight" version from his studies of Ip Man and Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun and the "wide" version from his studies of TWC.  He saw value in both and so he does both.



TWC actually has both a tight and a wide one as well.  In short it is important to see it simply as circling hand.  If your opponent is unarmed you are "tight", not loosing contact.  If armed however, especially with a knife, that will get you cut.  I didn't actually know the history of Chu your briefly hit on there that involved TWC otherwise I would have gone straight there.


----------



## Cephalopod

Juany118 said:


> ...perhaps the issue is to address issues the "tight" nature of YM WC can have issues with?


Um...I had issues parsing this.  



Juany118 said:


> ...perhaps it is trying to "program" the idea that there will be times that a WC practitioner has to address someone who is armed with a weapon of some sort which naturally requires a "wider" motion to avoid getting clipped?



Interesting thought!
I know what you mean about avoiding slashes to the insides of the arms. We try to achieve this by pivoting and using gan sau ideas to lift the elbow and upper arm away from the blade. Inasmuch as possible, the elbows stay within a forward framework. I'd still rather take the blade to the arm than to the gut.

At 1:17,  when his elbow moves outward, it appears more like an outside blocking move than evading. And then the big heun sau might be his way to recover the center position?

I guess we really need a HFY practitioner to weigh in at this point.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> The only people who make YM out to be perfect are those who view him as an idealized fantasy figure who could never have felt some students not worth his time or not cared to insure information was distributed evenly.
> 
> The answer to your question is that the facts don't warrant such a belief.
> 
> We can get a pretty good idea of YM's temperament and teaching style from multiple student testimonies.
> 
> We can then look at the histories of various YM students, their time spent with YM, and their fighting experience or lack thereof.
> 
> Then we can analyze their teachings for system coherence and functionality, compare similarities and differences, and reference this all back to the above data points concerning experience.
> 
> Doing this, it becomes quite clear why some lineage systems are the way they are.
> 
> *The "taught to the strengths of each student" theory relies on assumption and Wishful Thinking.*
> 
> When we get deep into technical analysis, this is where people tend to reach dead ends and exit the discussion.



Not really. Everybody has different strengths and weaknesses, although perhaps similar. We would all be robots otherwise. Or just plain ignorant.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> This is my thing.  When a general exchange of ideas, spit balling for lack of a better term begins, coming in with a "this is right that is wrong" with no further reasoning than "because <person X> said so.." inevitably creates a derail.  Now people can agree to disagree but it needs to be based on clearly articulated reasons.  As an example @KPM and I disagreed on a thread regarding when does WC stop being WC.  To me WC is about sticking to the foundational principles (maintaining structure, center line theory etc).  That means, to me, you can have someone fighting who may not look like they are doing WC on video even if that combatant "feels" those principles in action.  KPM disagreed, no worries on my part.
> The moral of the story, context and delivery are as important as your personally perceived intent.



Yes I agree. Foundation structures are something that I have intimate knowledge of when having to alter structure, which is no easy thing with disabilities. Well it is, and it isn't. Principles are fine, but they always shift. Doesn't mean to say that they are that much different. Perceived intent though, which is ruled by doctrine, can be a sticky wicket. Both of you though, have valued input, the odd differeng view is not a problem


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> LFJ is correct KPM. For "you" as a group it is always about the grievance, the taking of offence. It creates these interminable threads that lead nowhere. Instead of complaining about the use of language, maybe try to engage in technical discussion. Then maybe we will get somewhere mutually beneficial?



You must have forgotten how I invited you to start a technical discussion detailing the differences you see in WSLVT and all other VT, all in one place to trigger good discussion....at least 3 times!.... and you declined to do so each time.   For "you", you cannot seem to figure out how to post in a tactful manner that is not offensive to the majority of people reading along.  The post I quoted above is a perfect example of that.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You must have forgotten how I invited you to start a technical discussion detailing the differences you see in WSLVT and all other VT, all in one place to trigger good discussion....at least 3 times!.... and you declined to do so each time.   For "you", you cannot seem to figure out how to post in a tactful manner that is not offensive to the majority of people reading along.  The post I quoted above is a perfect example of that.



You can have a technical discussion any time and on any thread. All that it requires is people willing to participate. It doesn't require great fanfare and a special thread of its own. If you would like to discuss something then just ask.


----------



## guy b

Here is a thread that might become a technical discussion if either Joy or Danny respond to elaborate about what they mean. Feel free to add your own critiques, perspectives, comments or anything else. I would love to discuss VT rather than respond to the usual forum antics of people like Transk or Drop Bear who are trolling and don't have the faintest clue about VT. 

link


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> Here is a thread that might become a technical discussion if either Joy or Danny respond to elaborate about what they mean. Feel free to add your own critiques, perspectives, comments or anything else. I would love to discuss VT rather than respond to the usual forum antics of people like Transk or Drop Bear who are trolling and don't have the faintest clue about VT.
> 
> link



Never said I did. For the record, myself and bear are not trolling, just pointing out obvious flaws in you're in posting. At least I am, not presuming to speak for bear here. But yet again, the post above just highlights how you spit you're dummy out when others do not subscribe to the universe of Guy B. A little sad really


----------



## Mattattack

Sigh


----------



## Juany118

Mattattack said:


> Sigh


It's like a ship in a hurricane, get the ship righted and then a rogue wave hits amidships.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You must have forgotten how I invited you to start a technical discussion detailing the differences you see in WSLVT and all other VT, all in one place to trigger good discussion....at least 3 times!.... and you declined to do so each time.



And you must have forgotten how I invited you and Juany to enter such a technical discussion... at least 4 times!... and you declined to do so each time.

You and Juany seem to have some strong cases of Amnesia.

Again, if you would like, we can start from the very beginning of the system, from the opening actions of SNT:

Juany made the claim that the TWC, Yip1, and Yip2 lineages all share the same conceptual thread that runs through WSLVT. So, let's talk about that by looking at the questions from this post:

I didn't answer my own questions first because I want to hear your honest, uninfluenced response. Not because I'm setting some sort of trap like you accused me of. Juany is the one who made this claim, so he should be able to explain it.



			
				LFJ said:
			
		

> And what thread is that?
> 
> For example, how does the crossing arm action at the opening of the forms inform these lineages of the overall fighting strategy or relate to say, _daan-chi-sau_? How about the three "shaving" hand actions before the punches at the end of SNT?
> 
> In these lineages, and others, these actions are given various possible applications, rather than containing information on general strategy and tactics. If they have the same thread, you should be able to explain what this information is that ties them all together in sequence.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> And you must have forgotten how I invited you and Juany to enter such a technical discussion... at least 4 times!... and you declined to do so each time.
> 
> .



You threw out a challenge.  You said...."what is your understanding of XX from WSLVT" without ever providing your own viewpoint.  This was clearly a challenge so you could come back and say "oh, obviously you don't understand WSLVT at all!"   Hardly the same thing as inviting someone to engage in a polite technical discussion.

What you and Guy don't seem to get ...... is that people that are regulars here are now very reluctant to try and engage in any kind of technical discussion with you two because they know from experience that it will go down hill quickly due to your attitude.

So why don't you two move along to a WSLVT-specific forum, since that is all you are really interested in?

Now, as Mattattack has suggested....can we get back to some real discussion in line with the OP?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You threw out a challenge.  You said...."what is your understanding of XX from WSLVT" without ever providing your own viewpoint.  This was clearly a challenge so you could come back and say "oh, obviously you don't understand WSLVT at all!"   Hardly the same thing as inviting someone to engage in a polite technical discussion.



Wrong. Juany said TWC, Yip1, and Yip2 share the same conceptual thread as WSLVT. Explaining this for us should not be challenging.

I'm not asking for someone who doesn't know WSLVT to explain WSLVT to me.

He can explain the thread from the point of view of TWC, Yip1, and Yip2 lineages so we can compare.

If you both want to dodge, that's fine, but don't come back and say you want technical discussions and we won't engage.



> Now, as Mattattack has suggested....can we get back to some real discussion in line with the OP?



My questions are also about SNT.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> why don't you two move along to a WSLVT-specific forum



Forum posts have been very useful in helping me to correct some errors over the years, and it would be nice to return the favour if possible.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> What you and Guy don't seem to get ...... is that people that are regulars here are now very reluctant to try and engage in any kind of technical discussion with you two because they know from experience that it will go down hill quickly due to your attitude.



If you are reluctant to engage then just don't engage.

There is a good technical discussion on the teaching clip thread right now if you would like to join in.


----------



## Mattattack

Then please join.  Everyone.  These histrionics are boring and off-putting.

I train Yip Man style Wing Chun, which looks very pared down compared to the other two examples in the video.  I am interested to learn about how the movements in the other two styles presented approach Wing Chun principles.


----------



## Mattattack

Juany118 said:


> TWC actually has both a tight and a wide one as well.  In short it is important to see it simply as circling hand.  If your opponent is unarmed you are "tight", not loosing contact.  If armed however, especially with a knife, that will get you cut.



I alternate between liking and struggling with how "tight" YM WC feels at times (please note I said _feels _and not _is_, purely subjective).  This is pretty intriguing: dealing with hands?  Stay tight.  Dealing with a weapon? Wider control is necessary?



Cephalopod said:


> I know what you mean about avoiding slashes to the insides of the arms. We try to achieve this by pivoting and using gan sau ideas to lift the elbow and upper arm away from the blade. Inasmuch as possible, the elbows stay within a forward framework. I'd still rather take the blade to the arm than to the gut.



I get that!  I've read something similar about Xingyiquan: the hands stay in front to protect the core while pressing forward.



Juany118 said:


> It's like a ship in a hurricane, get the ship righted and then a rogue wave hits amidships.



Let's hope another 20,000-Leagues-Under-the-Sea-esque monster doesn't grip the ship again


----------



## Juany118

Mattattack said:


> I alternate between liking and struggling with how "tight" YM WC feels at times (please note I said _feels _and not _is_, purely subjective).  This is pretty intriguing: dealing with hands?  Stay tight.  Dealing with a weapon? Wider control is necessary?



On the last question yes.  A knife obviously adds reach but it also allows for more angles of attack.  You can simply pivot the wrist and a knife that was thrusting is now pointed up or down and slashing.  Because of this it is pretty important to widen foot work and when attempting to take control of the knife wielding limb avoid the radius the knife can pivot through.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## paitingman

Can anyone from different lineages represented here shed some light on their spelling of SLT. translation of SLT. And if you translate as little idea what that little idea is or may mean AND how that is reflected in some of the technical aspects of the form?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

paitingman said:


> Can anyone from different lineages represented here shed some light on their spelling of SLT. translation of SLT. And if you translate as little idea what that little idea is or may mean AND how that is reflected in some of the technical aspects of the form?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In TWC it is Sil Lim Tao.  It does mean "little idea" or "little imagination" and that has numerous meanings.  First we often do it slowly, especially the 8 set.  The idea for this is to clear your mind of the outside world in a meditative way (breathing is also an important component) "switch mental gears" into training mode.  Next it is also, for lack of a better term, the "alphabet" of WC, that the words and sentences are later built upon.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> And you must have forgotten how I invited you and Juany to enter such a technical discussion... at least 4 times!... and you declined to do so each time.
> 
> You and Juany seem to have some strong cases of Amnesia.
> 
> Again, if you would like, we can start from the very beginning of the system, from the opening actions of SNT:
> 
> Juany made the claim that the TWC, Yip1, and Yip2 lineages all share the same conceptual thread that runs through WSLVT. So, let's talk about that by looking at the questions from this post:
> 
> I didn't answer my own questions first because I want to hear your honest, uninfluenced response. Not because I'm setting some sort of trap like you accused me of. Juany is the one who made this claim, so he should be able to explain it.


And I did join the other one so I am confused.  Simply because I'm not taking the bait you tend to like laying out to create a real (or imagined) "ah ha" moments doesn't mean I am not participating.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> In TWC it is Sil Lim Tao.  It does mean "little idea" or "little imagination" and that has numerous meanings.  First we often do it slowly, especially the 8 set.  The idea for this is to clear your mind of the outside world in a meditative way (breathing is also an important component) "switch mental gears" into training mode.  Next it is also, for lack of a better term, the "alphabet" of WC, that the words and sentences are later built upon.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Are you saying that the little idea in TWC is to enter a meditative mental state, breathe in a particular way, perform slowly, and learn the ABC of wing chun? 

Is there no particular idea?


----------



## Cephalopod

paitingman said:


> ... And if you translate as little idea what that little idea is or may mean AND how that is reflected in some of the technical aspects of the form?



Great question!!
I hope various practitioners from different lineages will weigh in.

One interpretation of the 'little idea' that I like is: "all energy/force comes from the center."

I try to always keep this idea in my head while being hyper-aware of the tracking of my elbow and the tension (or lack thereof) of various muscle groups while training SLT.


----------



## Cephalopod

Juany118 said:


> ... it is also, for lack of a better term, the "alphabet" of WC, that the words and sentences are later built upon.



I like to think of SLT as an exercise book in which I do my homework. When a structure/concept isn't working for me in chi-sau/gor-sau/sparring (maybe I get locked up or collapsed), I go back to my exercise book to study the structure/concept. I try to determine if my position or maybe my tension is errant. And then I use my exercise book to practice the corrected habit again and again. And again.


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> Are you saying that the little idea in TWC is to enter a meditative mental state, breathe in a particular way, perform slowly, and learn the ABC of wing chun?
> 
> Is there no particular idea?



I really hope I'm wrong, what you ask seems like baiting for another round of keyboard face off, how about provide what the meaning SLT and relationship to the technical aspects of the form from your lineage as requested by Paitingman instead.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Are you saying that the little idea in TWC is to enter a meditative mental state, breathe in a particular way, perform slowly, and learn the ABC of wing chun?
> 
> Is there no particular idea?



Part of the reason is to clear the mind, breathing is part of it. Sometimes you will do it slow, other times fast (though the 8 set is always a little bit slower than the rest of the form).

To quote YM

" In Sil Lim Tao [Little Idea], the ideas of daily matters, such as money, work, hate, love, etc.... decrease to as little as possible, or even none, [so that the practitioner may] concentrate only upon practicing."

The use of the term alphabet is a metaphor and not to be taken literally.   This means you learn how to have the proper forward intent, structure, economy of motion, centerline etc.  This is the foundation, or alphabet.


----------



## guy b

I am not interested in arguing this with anyone, just interesting to understand what others take it to mean


----------



## Mattattack

There are many ideas within the little idea form.  We can express them differently and isolate them or focus on the whole and let the parts flow together


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Part of the reason is to clear the mind, breathing is part of it. Sometimes you will do it slow, other times fast (though the 8 set is always a little bit slower than the rest of the form).



What is the whole of the little idea in your wing chun, ie all these parts together? Can you condense it into a short sentence?


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> I am not interested in arguing this with anyone, just interesting to understand what others take it to mean



That's great and my apology, would be interested in your take on this subject.


----------



## guy b

Mattattack said:


> There are many ideas within the little idea form.  We can express them differently and isolate them or focus on the whole and let the parts flow together



What would you say that the main idea is?


----------



## Mattattack

In all honesty I don't think I'm far enough to be able to say what the one main idea is, if there is one.  For me, and this is subjective, it depends on what I'm working on at the time: flow, relaxation, body structure, etc.  I work on taking it apart and isolating segments then putting them back together as a whole


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> What is the whole of the little idea in your wing chun, ie all these parts together? Can you condense it into a short sentence?



I tried that already, calling it the foundation/alphabet and using the quote from YM.  My only other option is to go into detail which would be longer than a single sentence.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I tried that already, calling it the foundation/alphabet and using the quote from YM.  My only other option is to go into detail which would be longer than a single sentence.



ok, so to quote your earlier post:



Juany118 said:


> The use of the term alphabet is a metaphor and not to be taken literally. This means you learn how to have the proper forward intent, structure, economy of motion, centerline etc. This is the foundation, or alphabet.



That seems like quite a lot of ideas..a "big idea" maybe? 

Just want to confirm that there isn't a succinct single idea that TWC focuses on, something you could summarise in a few words, and that the focus is on quite a few different things? Would be an interesting take on it.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> ok, so to quote your earlier post:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems like quite a lot of ideas..a "big idea" maybe?
> 
> Just want to confirm that there isn't a succinct single idea that TWC focuses on, something you could summarise in a few words, and that the focus is on quite a few different things? Would be an interesting take on it.



The size of the idea is relative.  Let me, as an example use what the Serbian branch of PB's school says is the purpose...



> The 1st form or ‘The Little Idea’ is the foundation of the Ving Tsun system *teaching the basic stance and hand positions, correct structure the development of energy and how to release it.*
> 
> Here *you will learn to use and control the energy of your opponent* through basic self defence techniques, which are taught from this form as well as hand drills such as the Lap Sau Drill, Dan Chi Sau and Chi Sau.
> 
> *It introduces the scientific theories such as human dynamics, physics, Gate and Centreline theory.*
> 
> Siu Lim Tao is a form that is easy to learn but not quite so easy to play well. One must keep several things in mind in order to achieve a high caliber of Siu Lim Tao. Of course, the most important requirement is to know all the movements in the proper sequence. The movements are in themselves simple ones, but it is essential that they are performed frequently, in a relaxed manner.* A relaxed mind and body is the key to perfecting them.* One in fact must not play Siu Lim Tao unless one is in the mood for it; you do not force yourself to play it. Regimentation is not the way; frequent practice must arise from desire. Another vital consideration is the attitude with which Siu Nim Tao is approached, namely, trust and faith in the form. One needs to have complete confidence in the wisdom of the movements without any intention of modifying them.
> 
> Although it is difficult for a student to judge whether Siu Lim Tao is being played properly, there are basic checks for determining if the positioning is correct. For example, there is a direct relationship between a correct tan sau and bong sau; if one hand positioning is correct and if it is changed to the other, then both hand positions will be correct. Therefore, one technique serves as a check for another. Another important check is the distance of the elbow from the body. In certain techniques such as a tan sau and fuk sau, the elbow should be a fist and one half from the body, or the technique will be (chuk kiu) short and jammed.



Siu Lim Tao

So essentially what I was saying, so basically you were looking to be argumentative again.


----------



## Eric_H

> What is the thinking of protecting the center in HFY?



We don't put our elbows on the centerline if that's what you're suggesting? I'm unclear of what you are asking about.



> At 1:17, when his elbow moves outward, it appears more like an outside blocking move than evading. And then the big heun sau might be his way to recover the center position?



I assume you're talking about the video with Sifu Allen Kong. You are correct, it's just a Huen Sao that closes back to center with Wu Sao.


----------



## Eric_H

FWIW, we tend to view the translation of "the little idea" to mean "focus." The ability to focus on what things mater in terms of time/space/energy and how that translates to body leverage.


----------



## Cephalopod

Eric_H said:


> We don't put our elbows on the centerline if that's what you're suggesting? I'm unclear of what you are asking about.


Fair question. I'll try to clarify.

In the wing chun I practice, the elbows are generally kept inside an imaginary framework in front of the body. One of the many reasons for this is to protect the inside path to the center of my body.

For example, someone grabs the inside of my right arm and pulls away from me and to my right. My only concern with his left hand (the one that's grabbing) is that it will suddenly release and slug me in the face.
If I let him pull my arm way to the right of my center I will have a hard time stopping that punch, if its fast and powerful. But through training SLT, my right elbow will stay near my center in fuk-sau even if my torso is forced to rotate to the right. Now simply by making a small rotation of the body back to the left, the incoming punch will be deflected by my fuk.

Just an example, of course, but I wanted to illustrate what I meant by protecting the center with disciplined elbow positioning.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> ...That seems like quite a lot of ideas..a "big idea" maybe?
> 
> _*Just want to confirm that there isn't a succinct single idea that TWC focuses on*_, something you could summarise in a few words, and that the focus is on quite a few different things? Would be an interesting take on it.



Yep, _Juany._ To paraphrase, Guy's saying that_ your WC_ _'s SNT_ doesn't have a "little idea" at all. Clearly _his_ WSL-PB-VT SNT form does. But don't hold your breath waiting for him to share. That's not how he plays the game!


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> So essentially what I was saying, so basically you were looking to be argumentative again.



That is exactly how I see it as well.   Another instance of a "challenging" type of posting.  In this thread Guy has asked several pointed questions about what other people see as the main point of their SNT form without ever stating what WSLVT sees as the main point of the SNT form.   Rather than saying "WSLVT views the purpose of the SNT form as ......  How do you guys see your form?"   But I really don't think he realizes that he is being antagonistic.  I've noted before, he really doesn't seem to have any measure of personal insight in how he comes across.  I thought he was making an effort to do better before, but then he went right back to his old ways on these recent threads.  I think it really is time he goes and finds a WSLVT-specific forum.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> That is exactly how I see it as well.   Another instance of a "challenging" type of posting.  In this thread Guy has asked several pointed questions about what other people see as the main point of their SNT form without ever stating what WSLVT sees as the main point of the SNT form.   Rather than saying "WSLVT views the purpose of the SNT form as ......  How do you guys see your form?"   But I really don't think he realizes that he is being antagonistic.  I've noted before, he really doesn't seem to have any measure of personal insight in how he comes across.  I thought he was making an effort to do better before, but then he went right back to his old ways on these recent threads.  I think it really is time he goes and finds a WSLVT-specific forum.





geezer said:


> Yep, _Juany._ To paraphrase, Guy's saying that_ your WC_ _'s SNT_ doesn't have a "little idea" at all. Clearly _his_ WSL-PB-VT SNT form does. But don't hold your breath waiting for him to share. That's not how he plays the game!



What makes this one even more obvious is that WSLVT does break it down the way I was explaining it, the quote I noted comes from a WSL via PB VT website.  The idea of SLT is the same for every form of WC/VT I have even passing knowledge of.  Some don't go in for the "clearing the mind" and breathing bit from the YM quote I used earlier but the foundational aspect is the same.


----------



## Mattattack

It doesnt matter. If you think he is trolling then stop feeding him. You are taking the bait.

If you really are interested in a technical discussion and think he is not,  ignore him and join us.

Either way,  stop.  No one wins


----------



## Mattattack

Eric_H said:


> We don't put our elbows on the centerline if that's what you're suggesting? I'm unclear of what you are asking about.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you're talking about the video with Sifu Allen Kong. You are correct, it's just a Huen Sao that closes back to center with Wu Sao.





Eric_H said:


> We don't put our elbows on the centerline if that's what you're suggesting? I'm unclear of what you are asking about.
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you're talking about the video with Sifu Allen Kong. You are correct, it's just a Huen Sao that closes back to center with Wu Sao.



Does that huen Sao perform a clearing action?


----------



## Juany118

Mattattack said:


> It doesnt matter. If you think he is trolling then stop feeding him. You are taking the bait.
> 
> If you really are interested in a technical discussion and think he is not,  ignore him and join us.
> 
> Either way,  stop.  No one wins


I am only feeding the troll, at least from my perspective, if I do not answer him with things I can properly source. The reason I felt my last response was relevant in this context is that he uses "I study WSLVT via PB and you don't" as a rote response and yet I already had the WSLVT via PB link prepared if he went "trolly." I think it was important, at this juncture, to point to the fact his claim contradicts what his own system publishes.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Simply because I'm not taking the bait you tend to like laying out to create a real (or imagined) "ah ha" moments doesn't mean I am not participating.



I don't see how you think it is somehow baiting to ask you to explain _your own claim_.



Juany118 said:


> What makes this one even more obvious is that WSLVT does break it down the way I was explaining it, the quote I noted comes from a WSL via PB VT website.



Just because it's a PBVT website doesn't mean it's WSL's own words.

But regardless, that wasn't a break down at all, only a very general description.



> The idea of SLT is the same for every form of WC/VT I have even passing knowledge of.



This is making that same claim again, but you are only sharing general descriptions of the form which are bound to be similar.

"Stand like this. Relax. Breathe. Go slowly. Learn the ABCs."

That doesn't really say much, does it? Unless that's all there is to it, and there are no further intricacies to be explored.

So, I'm left to believe that the opening crossed arms actions of the form as you know it don't introduce any specific information on the overall strategy of the WC you've seen/done.

And that the same little idea of these actions doesn't also directly relate for example to the last three "shaving" arm actions, or to _daan-chi-sau_ practice and the whole rest of the system through to free-fighting.

So, there is no single conceptual thread (little idea) like this running through the entire system as you know it, starting from the very opening actions of the first form. 

Is that correct?

I was interested in this claim you made of several other lineages sharing the same conceptual thread as WSLVT, because this is something I've not seen in any other lineage. 

It's the bit that makes it such a coherent system, rather than just a collection of shapes and application ideas that can be put together in fighting.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> The reason I felt my last response was relevant in this context is that he uses "I study WSLVT via PB and you don't" as a rote response and yet I already had the WSLVT via PB link prepared if he went "trolly." I think it was important, at this juncture, to point to the fact his claim contradicts what his own system publishes.



In this thread I am only curious to know what the "little idea" is in other types of wing chun. I rarely talk about other wing chun because I don't know how it works and so can only really ask questions. 

I fully accept that not all wing chun is the same as WSL VT. Since this is the case then hard to see why it would be important to google for information from the website of a PB student, or from Yip Man? From the WSL VT point of view the part you quoted from the Serbian site is describing various general characteristics of the set, not defining the "little idea". Same with the other googled info. 

What is just general description in WSL VT may however be the whole of the little idea in TWC wing chun, and if so that is ok with me. Who am I to tell you about the system that you train and which I have not trained?

I only respond to suggest that people give WSL VT a try when they are trying to tell me what it is, they are not correct, and my explanations to the contrary have failed to make any impression.In that sort of situation there isn't much more I can do.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> What makes this one even more obvious is that WSLVT does break it down the way I was explaining it, the quote I noted comes from a WSL via PB VT website.  The idea of SLT is the same for every form of WC/VT I have even passing knowledge of.  Some don't go in for the "clearing the mind" and breathing bit from the YM quote I used earlier but the foundational aspect is the same.



The quote from the website isn't discussing the little idea


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Yep, _Juany._ To paraphrase, Guy's saying that_ your WC_ _'s SNT_ doesn't have a "little idea" at all. Clearly _his_ WSL-PB-VT SNT form does. But don't hold your breath waiting for him to share. That's not how he plays the game!



A good way to learn about other wing chun is to ask questions.

I am trying to be more open to other ideas and since your wing chun probably differs from WSL VT I don't see any potential conflict here. There would be nothing for me to argue about.


----------



## Nobody Important

In Yuen family Wing Chun we call it Siu Lim Tau Kuen (Little Training Head Fist) & not Siu Nim Tau Kuen (Little Idea Fist). While having an approximate similar meaning, I don't believe it as esoteric/ambiguous as the term Siu Nim Tau. Though I would venture to say that my interpretations my be quite liberal to some.

If I'm not mistaken HFY uses both terms to different ends.

What does the "Little Idea" represent/mean to you?


----------



## anerlich

I agonise over what "SLT" means almost as much as much as I wonder why Eddie Bravo called the footlock he got on Royler Gracie "The Vaporiser", or why he called the Electric Chair the Electric Chair.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I don't see how you think it is somehow baiting to ask you to explain _your own claim_.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it's a PBVT website doesn't mean it's WSL's own words.
> 
> But regardless, that wasn't a break down at all, only a very general description.
> 
> 
> 
> This is making that same claim again, but you are only sharing general descriptions of the form which are bound to be similar.
> 
> "Stand like this. Relax. Breathe. Go slowly. Learn the ABCs."
> 
> That doesn't really say much, does it? Unless that's all there is to it, and there are no further intricacies to be explored.
> 
> So, I'm left to believe that the opening crossed arms actions of the form as you know it don't introduce any specific information on the overall strategy of the WC you've seen/done.
> 
> And that the same little idea of these actions doesn't also directly relate for example to the last three "shaving" arm actions, or to _daan-chi-sau_ practice and the whole rest of the system through to free-fighting.
> 
> So, there is no single conceptual thread (little idea) like this running through the entire system as you know it, starting from the very opening actions of the first form.
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> I was interested in this claim you made of several other lineages sharing the same conceptual thread as WSLVT, because this is something I've not seen in any other lineage.
> 
> It's the bit that makes it such a coherent system, rather than just a collection of shapes and application ideas that can be put together in fighting.



This is a perfect example of the "gotcha" approach that Guy and LFJ are so fond of using.   Don't provide info on your own system immediately.  Instead ask pointed questions to draw other people out into describing their understanding so that then you can come back and say......"that doesn't really  say much"....."actions of the form as you know it don't introduce any specific information"...."there is no single conceptual thread"......with the obvious implication of....."as their is in the far superior WSLVT that we practice!"


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> This is a perfect example of the "gotcha" approach that Guy and LFJ are so fond of using.   Don't provide info on your own system immediately.  Instead ask pointed questions to draw other people out into describing their understanding so that then you can come back and say......"that doesn't really  say much"....."actions of the form as you know it don't introduce any specific information"...."there is no single conceptual thread"......with the obvious implication of....."as their is in the far superior WSLVT that we practice!"



That may be your inferiority complex speaking?

There's nothing baiting, challenging, or "gotcha" about asking someone to elaborate on _their own claim_.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> That may be your inferiority complex speaking?
> 
> There's nothing baiting, challenging, or "gotcha" about asking someone to elaborate on _their own claim_.



You are not paying attention.  Guy strung along several pointed questions to draw out Juany about the "little idea" behind his SNT without ever volunteering to provide the "little idea" behind WSLVT's SNT.  You both have done things like that repeatedly in the past.  Then you come back with criticism and a comparison to WSLVT to say that the other person's Wing Chun is somehow "broken."

I've said this already, but you obviously weren't paying attention.   If you are here truly in the spirit of sharing and learning about what others do the typical approach would be to write:

"In WSLVT we understand the central idea or "little idea" behind the SNT form to be..........  Do you guys have a similar understanding of SNT?  Does your SNT form have central theme or idea?" 

That is a friendly and non-challenging way to exchange information.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You are not paying attention.  Guy strung along several pointed questions to draw out Juany about the "little idea" behind his SNT without ever volunteering to provide the "little idea" behind WSLVT's SNT.  You both have done things like that repeatedly in the past.  Then you come back with criticism and a comparison to WSLVT to say that the other person's Wing Chun is somehow "broken."
> 
> I've said this already, but you obviously weren't paying attention.   If you are here truly in the spirit of sharing and learning about what others do the typical approach would be to write:
> 
> "In WSLVT we understand the central idea or "little idea" behind the SNT form to be..........  Do you guys have a similar understanding of SNT?  Does your SNT form have central theme or idea?"
> 
> That is a friendly and non-challenging way to exchange information.



I don't see how Juany describing his own wc, which is by all accounts not the same as wsl vt, could be described as some kind of trap? I don't know how twc works and would be completely reliant on juany for any info.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If you are here truly in the spirit of sharing and learning about what others do the typical approach would be to write:
> 
> "In WSLVT we understand the central idea or "little idea" behind the SNT form to be..........  Do you guys have a similar understanding of SNT?  Does your SNT form have central theme or idea?"



This is not how the conversation started.

If Juany is unwilling to elaborate on his own claims, then he shouldn't be making them.

I've been sharing quite a bit of information on the system I train on the "good teaching clip" thread.

Once again, I seem to be one of the only people on this forum willing to give up such detailed information on what I train.

And you're still going to come at me with complaints like this?

If you are unwilling to share, fine. You can't accuse me of not sharing, though.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Another load of BS.   Plenty of people have "given up" detailed information on their systems.   I've told you already.....the regulars here have you and Guy figured out.  Everyone is reluctant to engage in any kind of technical discussion with either of you because it always goes down hill very quickly with your "holier than thou" attitude.   Don't you get that?   Its time both of you find a WSLVT-specific forum and let the rest of us continue to muddle through with our "broken" versions of Wing Chun.  You have Callen and Lobo66 here to represent WSLVT, and they do so very well.  They actually have a sense of "tact" and manners and are able to play well with others.  That's something you and Guy seem incapable of....except maybe for very short periods.

Sorry for the diversion Mattattack.  But this kind of thing has been going on so long from these two that its time we all stop tolerating it.


----------



## LFJ

So, if you're unwilling to share, just don't reply, but also don't make claims about WSL or WSLVT then refuse to elaborate, like Juany.

You can't run others out of the forum just because you don't appreciate their point of view or posting style.

Maybe you should start your own forum and moderate it yourself. You won't have to ban me because I won't even register.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> The quote from the website isn't discussing the little idea



It describes SLT, that is what is asked here, that is what I answered.  I am not playing a semantics game with you so you can have your gotcha moment.


----------



## LFJ

Juany's statement: TWC, Yip1, and Yip2 lineage systems all share the same conceptual thread as WSLVT.

Question for clarification: What thread is that? How do the opening actions of SNT relate to DCS in those lineages, for example?

Juany's response: I'm not gonna take your bait so you can have your gotcha moment.

WTF?  You are the one who made the initial statement! Why is it a challenge to explain yourself?

If the actions don't relate in those lineages, that's fine. You don't have to try to explain anything further. No one's gonna getcha! Just retract the false statement then.


----------



## wingchun100

JowGaWolf said:


> Good timing.  I was thinking earlier how I wanted to find a video that shows the differences, now I don't have to look.
> 
> Quick question. DoesWing Chun have any forms that show more movement with footwork or are most of the forms stationary like this one?


 
Every other form has movement. SLT is the only one that does not.


----------



## Vajramusti

Jowga------------wing chun is full of  motion.The slt first develops good body structure.


----------



## Vajramusti

[QUOTE="KPM, 

Sorry for the diversion Mattattack.  But this kind of thing has been going on so long from these two that its time we all stop tolerating it.[/QUOTE]-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suggest just ignoring them.


----------



## Vajramusti

Mattattack said:


> Does that huen Sao perform a clearing action?


Yes-but there is more to it, including control


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> It describes SLT, that is what is asked here, that is what I answered.  I am not playing a semantics game with you so you can have your gotcha moment.



That's not true Juany. You were responding to Paitingman who asked about what 'little idea' means in your wing Chun. Since you chose to respond I can't see what the problem with elaborating would be, or what possible reason you think it could be some kind of gotcha trap. If I complain about what you have said from the perspective of wsl vt (I won't) you can just state truthfully that they are different systems. How could it possibly hurt you?

The only possible reason I can think of for your failure to reply is that you don't know what the little idea is in twc. If so then why not ask your teacher and post it here? I would be interested to know. 

LFJ is also correct that you made an earlier claim about a common thread running through wsl vt and twc. I wasn't bothering with this because I think obvious you only said earlier because we were arguing and not a serous comment


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^ Geezlouizze!   Isn't it pretty obvious?  You still seem to be trolling to me.  

At its simplest level, the "little idea" behind the SNT form is to train the beginning student in the "ABC's" as Juany said.  This refers to the basics of the system.  The beginning student is learning the position for a Tan Sau, a Bong Sau, a Punch, etc.  They are learning to assume a stable structure with the stance.  They are learning to use smooth relaxed motion by going slow.   SNT is the "foundational" form.  THIS is the common thread and one of the "little ideas" running through everyone's SNT, including WSLVT.   Unless you think that the WSLVT isn't teaching basic technique and position??  And Juany never said that this the "one and only" little idea in the form.


----------



## guy b

It appears that Juany has only posted things he found on google, paraphrasing YM in his first reply to Paitingman for example. 

As people have said before things like training abc's is a description of what the form consists of rather than the thinking behind it. If this is the "common thread" running through all wc then ok fine, but also fairly pointless to say given its obviousness.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> At its simplest level, the "little idea" behind the SNT form is to train the beginning student in the "ABC's" as Juany said.  This refers to the basics of the system.  The beginning student is learning the position for a Tan Sau, a Bong Sau, a Punch, etc.  They are learning to assume a stable structure with the stance.  They are learning to use smooth relaxed motion by going slow.   SNT is the "foundational" form.  THIS is the common thread and one of the "little ideas" running through everyone's SNT, including WSLVT.



The claim made was of the same "_conceptual thread_ running through the _entire system_" being shared between several lineages.

The rest of the system isn't ABCs in slow motion, and the basic shapes are not the thinking behind it.

What I see mostly in other lineages is as in the following video from Joy's lineage (HKM > AF >). The opening actions of the SNT form are concrete technique applications. Specific applications differ between lineages.

Never minding the impracticality of what is shown, the actions don't contain conceptual information on general fighting strategy and don't connect directly to DCS through any conceptual thread.

Instead, they introduce complete beginners to complex double arm actions like _kwan-sau_ right at the very start of the system before even looking at the basic punch. That's an illogical progression and quite a "big idea".


----------



## Transk53

Sifu Brian Tufts posts some very good stuff.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> It appears that Juany has only posted things he found on google, paraphrasing YM in his first reply to Paitingman for example.
> 
> As people have said before things like training abc's is a description of what the form consists of rather than the thinking behind it. If this is the "common thread" running through all wc then ok fine, but also fairly pointless to say given its obviousness.


No I posted words of YM.  Next I explained the basics briefly.  You called BS and then to basically prove my point that you were trolling posted a link to a WSLPB-VT site that corroborated what I had previously said.  Then you shifted gears.  If you are going to argue your point fine but try to avoid being disingenuous.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I posted a link to a WSLPB-VT site that corroborated what I had previously said


 
That link didn't corroborate what you said. You were answering Paitingman's question about the little idea of SNT here:



paitingman said:


> Can anyone from different lineages represented here shed some light on their spelling of SLT. translation of SLT. And if you translate as little idea what that little idea is or may mean AND how that is reflected in some of the technical aspects of the form?



Your answer was this, again specifically about the "little idea" of SNT and paraphrasing YM:



Juany118 said:


> In TWC it is Sil Lim Tao.  It does mean "little idea" or "little imagination" and that has numerous meanings.  First we often do it slowly, especially the 8 set.  The idea for this is to clear your mind of the outside world in a meditative way (breathing is also an important component) "switch mental gears" into training mode.  Next it is also, for lack of a better term, the "alphabet" of WC, that the words and sentences are later built upon.



When asked to explain you first posted the full YM quote you previously paraphrased, then you googled some info from a branch of WSL VT here:



			
				Juany118 said:
			
		

> Let me, as an example use what the Serbian branch of PB's school says is the purpose...
> 
> "The 1st form or ‘The Little Idea’ is the foundation of the Ving Tsun system *teaching the basic stance and hand positions, correct structure the development of energy and how to release it.*
> 
> Here *you will learn to use and control the energy of your opponent* through basic self defence techniques, which are taught from this form as well as hand drills such as the Lap Sau Drill, Dan Chi Sau and Chi Sau.
> 
> *It introduces the scientific theories such as human dynamics, physics, Gate and Centreline theory.*
> 
> Siu Lim Tao is a form that is easy to learn but not quite so easy to play well. One must keep several things in mind in order to achieve a high caliber of Siu Lim Tao. Of course, the most important requirement is to know all the movements in the proper sequence. The movements are in themselves simple ones, but it is essential that they are performed frequently, in a relaxed manner.* A relaxed mind and body is the key to perfecting them.* One in fact must not play Siu Lim Tao unless one is in the mood for it; you do not force yourself to play it. Regimentation is not the way; frequent practice must arise from desire. Another vital consideration is the attitude with which Siu Nim Tao is approached, namely, trust and faith in the form. One needs to have complete confidence in the wisdom of the movements without any intention of modifying them"



The website from which you posted the link was not talking about the "little idea" of SNT. It was talking about general characteristics of the form. This has been pointed out to you several times but you are pretending you didn't see it.

Look, I know that you don't know what it means in twc, and in terms of WSL VT it isn't on the internet. There isn't any shame in this. Maybe best to wait until you can ask your instructor and then report back from the twc perspective? That would be useful for you and everyone else.


----------



## Mattattack

Nobody Important said:


> In Yuen family Wing Chun we call it Siu Lim Tau Kuen (Little Training Head Fist) & not Siu Nim Tau Kuen (Little Idea Fist). While having an approximate similar meaning, I don't believe it as esoteric/ambiguous as the term Siu Nim Tau. Though I would venture to say that my interpretations my be quite liberal to some.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken HFY uses both terms to different ends.
> 
> What does the "Little Idea" represent/mean to you?



I never found Siu Nim Tau to be esoteric, or at least as compared to trying to wrap one's head around the Five Elements Theory in Xingyi, for example.  I know you said they were approximate in meaning, but in what ways would you say the interpretation of it as Siu Lim Tau Kuen (Little Training Head Fist) is different in Yuen family Wing Chun?  I'm interested to know.



wingchun100 said:


> Every other form has movement. SLT is the only one that does not.



Yeah.  The way my teacher explains it is that SNT/SLT teaches a good deal of the structure, and the next form--Chum Kiu, "Seeking the Bridge"--teaches one how to keep and use that structure while moving.



Vajramusti said:


> Yes-but there is more to it, including control



It kind of reminds me of the circular control motion in Wansu kata, used to control in different ways.  Not saying they are the same, but I liken the Huen Sao in YM WC more to tight swimming motions similar to those used in Jujitsu.  The HFY looks different and i'm intrigued by the  possibilities with it.


----------



## Eric_H

Mattattack said:


> Does that huen Sao perform a clearing action?



It's about how you transition from the inside to outside of a bridge, or stabilize on the inside as well as the technique of leet sao in addition to huen. It can be used as a clear, but that's not the intended focus in training. 



Nobody Important said:


> In Yuen family Wing Chun we call it Siu Lim Tau Kuen (Little Training Head Fist) & not Siu Nim Tau Kuen (Little Idea Fist). While having an approximate similar meaning, I don't believe it as esoteric/ambiguous as the term Siu Nim Tau. Though I would venture to say that my interpretations my be quite liberal to some.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken HFY uses both terms to different ends.



Yes, we use Siu Nim Tao (The Little Idea) as part of the formal curriculum and Siu Lein Tao (Little drilling) as specific drilling sets around a concept.


----------



## Nobody Important

Mattattack said:


> I never found Siu Nim Tau to be esoteric, or at least as compared to trying to wrap one's head around the Five Elements Theory in Xingyi, for example.  I know you said they were approximate in meaning, but in what ways would you say the interpretation of it as Siu Lim Tau Kuen (Little Training Head Fist) is different in Yuen family Wing Chun?  I'm interested to know


The terms themselves.

Siu Nim Tau (Little Imagination/Idea) - It leads one to contemplate "what is the idea" or to "use imagination". It is philosophical.

Siu Lim Tau (Little Training Head/First) - This term is less ambiguous IMO, it talks directly of "First/Begining Training". It is not philosophical.

This is my view on it anyway. If I we're to approach the term Siu Lim Tau philosophically, I would approximate training ideas. But the concept of "imagination/idea" is already imbedded in the art, in all Yuen family forms, no need to single out one form. 

In Yuen family we treat all forms as one symbiotic entity, not separate pieces. Our legends state that originally the art was San Sik, then one form, then broken up. We still retain a lot of San Sik and often perform the 3 fist sets as one. In Yuen family the forms are treated as different approaches to the same idea and not as separate concepts. That to us is the "Little Imagination/Idea".


----------



## Eric_H

Cephalopod said:


> Fair question. I'll try to clarify.
> 
> In the wing chun I practice, the elbows are generally kept inside an imaginary framework in front of the body. One of the many reasons for this is to protect the inside path to the center of my body.
> 
> For example, someone grabs the inside of my right arm and pulls away from me and to my right. My only concern with his left hand (the one that's grabbing) is that it will suddenly release and slug me in the face.
> If I let him pull my arm way to the right of my center I will have a hard time stopping that punch, if its fast and powerful. But through training SLT, my right elbow will stay near my center in fuk-sau even if my torso is forced to rotate to the right. Now simply by making a small rotation of the body back to the left, the incoming punch will be deflected by my fuk.
> 
> Just an example, of course, but I wanted to illustrate what I meant by protecting the center with disciplined elbow positioning.



I'm 100% sure, I'm not following your description accurately, but if you're talking about someone opening your bridge with an inside lop and punching at your head, I can speak to that. You might notice we use a taan (high tone, different word than spread taan) which looks like a fook up high and outside the shoulder, as well as in the opening of our second section our side gum sao is wider and in front of the body as opposed to straight down and at the sides. We have a 5-lined framework for how to gauge width, and when your parts are too far out. We'll let someone take us to those borderlines, but not further. When someone punches from that inside position, we typically defeat it vertically and front-to-back (sagittally i think is the term?) while closing the gate. 

It's actually one of our beginner kiu sao drills to have someone put a spreading taan outside the shoulder with the elbow pointed in, and then have someone touch that bridge and try and smack them in the face. Being able to recover that space is very important.


----------



## Cephalopod

Eric_H said:


> I'm 100% sure, I'm not following your description accurately...


No, no...you got it! 



Eric_H said:


> When someone punches from that inside position, we typically defeat it vertically and front-to-back (sagittally i think is the term?) while closing the gate.


You mean a jut sau?




Eric_H said:


> It's actually one of our beginner kiu sao drills to have someone put a spreading taan outside the shoulder with the elbow pointed in, and then have someone touch that bridge and try and smack them in the face. Being able to recover that space is very important.


If, when trying to smack the face, the attacker chooses a vector just to the side of the face that jams the punch against the bridge, does it become difficult for the recipient to recover center without guiding said punch into his face?
I just ask because that's a problem I run into if my elbow gets opened (driven to the side of center) too much.


----------



## Cephalopod

Mattattack said:


> It kind of reminds me of the circular control motion in Wansu kata, used to control in different ways.


Cool! This vid actually illustrates some elbow ideas that I relate to.

If a strike is not obstucted by the opponent and doesn't require full power (like the teachers throat jab) then letting the elbow leave the center is fine.

But when the arm has to deal with opposing forces, like when the teacher goes for the arm wrap, he brings his elbow to his center (his sagittal plane - thanks Eric ) and leaves it there while the rotating of his body delivers the torque he needs. Powerful.


----------



## Juany118

Mattattack said:


> I never found Siu Nim Tau to be esoteric, or at least as compared to trying to wrap one's head around the Five Elements Theory in Xingyi, for example.  I know you said they were approximate in meaning, but in what ways would you say the interpretation of it as Siu Lim Tau Kuen (Little Training Head Fist) is different in Yuen family Wing Chun?  I'm interested to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  The way my teacher explains it is that SNT/SLT teaches a good deal of the structure, and the next form--Chum Kiu, "Seeking the Bridge"--teaches one how to keep and use that structure while moving.
> 
> 
> 
> It kind of reminds me of the circular control motion in Wansu kata, used to control in different ways.  Not saying they are the same, but I liken the Huen Sao in YM WC more to tight swimming motions similar to those used in Jujitsu.  The HFY looks different and i'm intrigued by the  possibilities with it.




There was one thing I really liked about the video.  Now my personal preference is to go into a lock (which I can then use to hyperextension joints/yes I have had to do that in real application) from a grab like that, the video does one thing that I see other people do wrong, imo.  Often I see people move to clear/control such an action in the opposite direction.  You should always (again just my opinion) move the opponent so that his free hand is being moved away from you, otherwise you open yourself up for the other hand to clock you one.


----------



## Nobody Important

Mattattack said:


>



In Yuen family Wing Chun our basic training is in the form of San Sik, 8 Techniques Separate Hitting, Continuous Capture & Strike and the 12 Separate Techniques. These San Sik are progressive and introduce concepts later reinforced by the forms.

In the 12 Separate Techniques, which is composed of 4 sections containing 3 techniques + variations, there is a section known as Blind Man Wiping the Walls. One of the techniques derived from this concept is a variation of Butterfly Palms known as Tiger Traps Bird, it is the same as the application in the video above.


----------



## anerlich

wingchun100 said:


> Every other form has movement. SLT is the only one that does not.



Some lineages have versions of SLT that include footwork. But  the statement above is true for a significant majority.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> You should always (again just my opinion) move the opponent so that his free hand is being moved away from you, otherwise you open yourself up for the other hand to clock you one.



Move the opponent's free hand away from you ... if possible. Otherwise, move yourself away from the free hand. Or both.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Siu Nim Tau (Little Imagination/Idea) - It leads one to contemplate "what is the idea" or to "use imagination". It is philosophical.



Unless of course it refers to a simple and straight forward idea. There is only any need to contemplate or use imagination if one doesn't know the thinking behind the form.


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> Unless of course it refers to a simple and straight forward idea. There is only any need to contemplate or use imagination if one doesn't know the thinking behind the form.



Right. The word means thought; idea; intention.
词语“念头”的解释 汉典 zdic.net

It means what specifically one has in mind, the exact meaning being the actions that is important to know. 

It has nothing to do with using imagination or contemplating what the idea is, unless you haven't been taught what it is and are left to make something up on your own.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Unless of course it refers to a simple and straight forward idea. There is only any need to contemplate or use imagination if one doesn't know the thinking behind the form.



Maybe I missed it, but have you guys yet explained the "little idea" or "thinking" from the WSLVT SNT form?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Right. The word means thought; idea; intention.
> 词语“念头”的解释 汉典 zdic.net
> 
> It means what specifically one has in mind, the exact meaning being the actions that is important to know.
> 
> It has nothing to do with using imagination or contemplating what the idea is, unless you haven't been taught what it is and are left to make something up on your own.


Nim Tau (Nian Tou) literally means thought, idea or intention. So little thought/idea/intention, not a stretch to refer to it as contemplation. It's actually somewhat ambiguous and has been interpreted several ways, I didn't make it up just going by what several Chinese teachers have told me. Besides I don't use the Siu Nim Tau term I use Siu Lim Tau. From my understanding Yip Man is the one who changed the name, as he did with the second form. From Sinking Bridges to Seeking Bridges.

I'm not judging, but it seems to me that your interpretation doesn't allow for concept adaptability when you refer to "the exact meaning being the actions that is important to know." Seems like linear thinking to me, but I could be wrong.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> it seems to me that your interpretation doesn't allow for concept adaptability when you refer to "the exact meaning being the actions that is important to know." Seems like linear thinking to me, but I could be wrong.



The thinking behind the movements, the "little idea" is the important part of the form in WSL VT. It isn't an invitation to stand there meditating or to make up your own ideas. Without knowing what this thinking is then hard to say how adaptable it might be. 

Thinking of the form as a set of techniques to be applied is an example of personal ideas encroaching when the basic thinking is missing.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Maybe I missed it, but have you guys yet explained the "little idea" or "thinking" from the WSLVT SNT form?



I was busy trying to get Juany to tell us, since he seemed to know where to find it on google and seemed sure that he understood a common thread running through the different wing chun systems including WSL VT

You see KPM, it is all about the way you approach it. I know how you approach it, and it seems Juany is taking a similar route. Can you put ego aside, or not? Is it more important to pretend you know (and so never learn) than to admit you don't and at least start to learn?

If not interested in WSL VT then not important, just ignore. But it seems you are interested for some reason?


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^ You are so full of BS that it isn't even funny anymore.  This is really getting kind of old.   So I will point out....once again....that a "friendly" discussion is all about sharing information freely.  You have quizzed Juany multiple times to get him to share what he knows....and yet you have never bothered to share your perspective from WSLVT, despite being asked several times.   You continue to "bait" people into stating something you can go after rather than just sharing your own perspective up front.   "I was busy trying to get Juany to tell us........"   Why weren't you busy sharing your own perspective???   And it certainly is all in the way you approach it! I agree with you there!  But your approach is not good!!!    You aren't the grand authority on WSLVT put here to enlighten all of us "mere mortals" about how wonderful WSLVT is and how "broken" everyone else's Wing Chun is.   You are certainly the one that needs to put ego aside and simply start sharing info on an even field....if that is what YOU are truly interested in!   Otherwise, stop this "chinese master" BS of trying to "teach" us all the error of our ways! 

I will point out that this is a thread specifically about sharing views on the SNT form, and you just made post #326 and yet the "view" of WSLVT's SNT has not yet been shared.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You have quizzed Juany multiple times to get him to share what he knows....and yet you have never bothered to share your perspective from WSLVT, despite being asked several times



That's because he claimed to know about a common thread running through different wing chun systems. I didn't make him claim that. And also because he answered Paitingman's question on this thread about the "little idea", but then googled when asked what he meant. Again I didn't make him do that.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You are certainly the one that needs to put ego aside



I have learned a lot from many WSL VT posters on the old WSL forum, on Kungfu Magazine forums, and also on this forum. There are more experienced people posting and lurking here right now and when they provide explanation of something I am confused about it certainly helps me to understand better. I don't tend to argue a lot with them when they are being helpful in this way because that would be stupid. I have argued in the past and again that was stupid but I am glad to say I made myself put ego aside and actually read and think about what they were saying. Reading on forums was a big part of what made me leave my old teacher for example, which required me to discard a lot of past "experience" and start again in a new approach. 

Another good martial arts experience which helped me to overcome ego was beginning BJJ after doing a lot of judo. Judo gave some advantages which helped in some respects, but on the ground it is not BJJ. In order to learn BJJ and not get hurt I had to leave my ego to one side and accept that I was going to get beaten a lot before I would improve my ground skills. This was very helpful in making me see that life is too short to cling on to things for the sake of appearance. 



KPM said:


> simply start sharing info



It is mostly one way traffic and pointless argument with you KPM. For example your extended quest to expose wrongness on the question of tan da. I can't think of any exchange where I have come away with useful information. There aren't many people I can say that about.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> the "view" of WSLVT's SNT has not yet been shared.



Nobody's view SNT has been shared, unless this is all there is (I hope not). So far it is all surface, no meat.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> The thinking behind the movements, the "little idea" is the important part of the form in WSL VT. It isn't an invitation to stand there meditating or to make up your own ideas. Without knowing what this thinking is then hard to say how adaptable it might be.
> 
> Thinking of the form as a set of techniques to be applied is an example of personal ideas encroaching when the basic thinking is missing.


I get that. Personally, the way I was taught is that the movements in the forms are simply dead shapes until concept is applied. Shapes will take on a variety of concepts depending how they are utilized and/or interpreted. Some concepts work better than others but no shape is limited to just one concept only. In Yuen family Wing Chun limiting a shape by defining it to a singular thing inhibits it from being able to bridge, strike or lock when the situation demands. Adaptation and understanding of fluid transition is necessary.

The " Little Idea" is understanding that a simple shape is not limited but adaptable, that concept is not bound by form. I suppose in a way this requires "imagination" but I prefer to think of it as contemplative analysis.

"Listening" and "Understanding" are integral aspect of Yuen family Wing Chun. These aspects determine what concept is applied to a shape based upon intention or reaction. As I stated earlier, this "Little Idea" is not limited to our first form, but embedded within all the forms. Our Siu Lim Tau (Little First/Head/Beginning Training) is simply a measured reinforcement/refinement of our basics and not a specific introduction to  the "Little Idea".

Yuen family adheres to "What you learn today, you use today" mentality. Simplicity and practicality come first, construction of ideas second. Refinement comes from applied use & the "Little Idea" comes from understanding how things can be modified, adapted or changed based upon "Listening" and "Understanding". This approach is also why some aspects of Biu Jee are taught in the beginning.

I hope that clarifies my understanding of SNT/SLT as it applies to Yuen family Wing Chun.

How is it viewed/explained in WSLVT?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Nim Tau (Nian Tou) literally means thought, idea or intention. So little thought/idea/intention, not a stretch to refer to it as contemplation.



I think it is a stretch to go from one "little idea" to "contemplation" which is "thoughtful", thought-full, full of thoughts, many thoughts, not just one little one.



> It's actually somewhat ambiguous and has been interpreted several ways,



The idea I have is abstract, but not ambiguous. It is interpreted many ways by people who never received the thinking.



> I'm not judging, but it seems to me that your interpretation doesn't allow for concept adaptability when you refer to "the exact meaning being the actions that is important to know." Seems like linear thinking to me, but I could be wrong.



The actions of SNT and other parts of the system are not applications, in WSLVT, so there is no "concept adaptability" as in "how many ways can I apply this shape in fighting?"



Nobody Important said:


> The " Little Idea" is understanding that a simple shape is not limited but adaptable, that concept is not bound by form. I suppose in a way this requires "imagination" but I prefer to think of it as contemplative analysis.
> 
> "Listening" and "Understanding" are integral aspect of Yuen family Wing Chun. These aspects determine what concept is applied to a shape based upon intention or reaction.



Sounds like more than one idea, thought, or intention then.

If the intention can change, it's not the same little intention.

If the "little idea" is about unlimited adaptability, then it sounds like a rather "big idea" or unlimited ideas. Why is it called the little idea?

In YMVT, the "little idea" is about the general strategy. This information is imbedded into every part of the system and is not obvious. It requires accurate transmission from a teacher who knows the full system well.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I think it is a stretch to go from one "little idea" to "contemplation" which is "thoughtful", thought-full, full of thoughts, many thoughts, not just one little one.


Little, by no means, translates as single. A little thought can be about an expanding concept.



LFJ said:


> The idea I have is abstract, but not ambiguous. It is interpreted many ways by people who never received the thinking.


 Ambiguous is having a double meaning, abstract is an idea that has no concrete representation. Both are fitting descriptions and IMO actually linked.



LFJ said:


> The actions of SNT and other parts of the system are not applications, in WSLVT, so there is no "concept adaptability" as in "how many ways can I apply this shape in fighting?"


 In Yuen family the action/shapes are not applications in and of themselves they require concept to be applied. Again the shapes don't have a singular purpose or use, so yes in Yuen family they can be applied multiple ways (like Lego's) because they are simply an idea/notion. Since you don't have grappling in WSLVT this concept will be foreign to you and contradictory to your methodology..



LFJ said:


> Sounds like more than one idea, thought, or intention then. If the intention can change, it's not the same little intention.
> If the "little idea" is about unlimited adaptability, then it sounds like a rather "big idea" or unlimited ideas. Why is it called the little idea? In YMVT, the "little idea" is about the general strategy. This information is imbedded into every part of the system and is not obvious. It requires accurate transmission from a teacher who knows the full system well.


 Our intention is change. Our Little Idea is "Listening" and "Understanding". In CMA the designations of Siu & Dai are minor & major, primary & secondary if you like, not the literal small & big. In Yuen family, the Little Idea is literally the primary idea/approach, which is adaptation/change. Again the little idea is not our form, it's a foundational construct.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> In CMA the designations of Siu & Dai are minor & major, primary & secondary if you like, not the literal small & big.



Yes, other CMAs often use _Siu_ and _Daai _to name mother-son forms or complimentary subsystems.

Is there a _Daai _idea, form or subsystem to your WC? If not, it doesn't really make sense to have minor without major, or primary without secondary, _Siu_ without _Daai_.

Also, you said you don't even use the term _nim-tau _(idea), and that it may have been changed to this by YM? But then you talk about the "little idea" in your system.

So, I'm a bit confused as to why you have an interpretation of it. Is this something you came up with yourself or has your system borrowed and reinterpreted the terminology from YM?

As an aside, the third character, _tau_, is a suffix for nouns. It doesn't carry the literal meaning of "head" or figurative meaning of "first" in this case. As an adjective, it would need to come before the noun it's describing.

In _nim-tau_ (idea) and _lin-tau _(training) it acts just as a suffix. So, _Siu-lin-tau_, as you use would mean "little training (set)". It would make sense to have a _Siu_ with or without a _Daai _if that is all it means, not so much if it means minor or primary without a _Daai_.

For us, there is no _Daai _because VT is just this one "little idea", a simple approach to fighting.


----------



## JPinAZ

KPM said:


> Cool!  Well done!  And directed by the forum's own Jonathan Sandberg (JP in AZ)!



Haha, thanks 
I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'll see if I can answer any comments regarding the clip or HFY that Eric_H hasn't already touched on



gpseymour said:


> I wish they had put the lineage name above or below each video, to make it easier to keep up with which style is which. Probably more useful to those of us not familiar with the different styles.



Good catch! While their names & lineages each are presenting are listed in the beginning, there was nothing that said which was in which position in the clip (but it seems most did figure it out).
I also feel the timing got a bit disjointed in the 3rd section. So maybe if I ever got around to a rework, if I don't have the lineage names at the bottom thru the entire clip, showing which is which in the opening of the first section (or prior to) would help.



Marnetmar said:


> I get the feeling this video was designed to make Moy Yat/Yip Man guys look bad and make HFY look good while piquing people's interest at its apparent similarity to TWC. At least choose a good example of each one if you're going to do a video like this.



Being involved in the origination of this comparison, I'll only say there was no 'intent' behind the clip other than  presenting the 3 distinct lineages side by side in any easier manner for others to compare/contrast.  I think it's a pretty cool idea to break down SNT from the 3 lines section-by-section side-by-side to see similarities and also what makes each distinct/unique. But I assure you, there was no hidden or nefarious motive/agenda beyond that.

And, as Eric_H said in Post #128, all 3 presenters in the clip come from very respectable and well-known family trees in each line with many years experience in each (talking over 10 years for each). If you're not happy with what's shown, feel free to make your own clip or suggest where something is incorrect.
Otherwise, hopefully this puts the subject to rest.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Nobody's view SNT has been shared, unless this is all there is (I hope not). So far it is all surface, no meat.



And yet you still haven't even provided the equivalent level of "surface" for WSLVT!


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I
> 
> It is mostly one way traffic and pointless argument with you KPM. For example your extended quest to expose wrongness on the question of tan da. I can't think of any exchange where I have come away with useful information. There aren't many people I can say that about.



Another big line of BS!  You haven't come away with useful information simply because you aren't interested in anything that isn't WSLVT.   Every argument or discussion ends up being pointless with you because you are incapable of seeing another viewpoint.  You guys were so adamant that there was no Tan Da in WSLVT dispite plenty of evidence to the contrary.  When that was pointed out, you had all kinds of excuses...."WSL only did that in seminars because people expected it......" etc.   I was simply showing that neither of you are the consummate experts that you seem to think you are.  You just made a nice and humble post above, but we've seen that before and it didn't last.  Therefore I have come to doubt your sincerity.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> And yet you still haven't even provided the equivalent level of "surface" for WSLVT!



People have googled the surface understanding. What more is there to say?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Another big line of BS!  You haven't come away with useful information simply because you aren't interested in anything that isn't WSLVT.   Every argument or discussion ends up being pointless with you because you are incapable of seeing another viewpoint.  You guys were so adamant that there was no Tan Da in WSLVT dispite plenty of evidence to the contrary.  When that was pointed out, you had all kinds of excuses...."WSL only did that in seminars because people expected it......" etc.   I was simply showing that neither of you are the consummate experts that you seem to think you are.  You just made a nice and humble post above, but we've seen that before and it didn't last.  Therefore I have come to doubt your sincerity.




On the contrary I am very interested in several other YM derived systems. Unfortunately the people involved in those are not willing to talk about them. 

I am not all that interested from a technical point of view in completely different systems like yours which share a similar name, but I am interested in a historical and general info kind of way.

Tan da is not used as you have tried to show in wsl vt. I have no idea why you are interested in lecturing someone else about the system they practice and which you don't. You share a lot with juany in this respect. He's a funny guy

If you think my humble post is nice then please read again and try to understand. It wasn't intended to grovel and make you feel good, but instead to help you learn something you need to learn.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> People have googled the surface understanding. What more is there to say?




Thank you for your openness and willingness to share!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Thank you for your openness and willingness to share!



What do want me say about it that google can't provide? We don't have a secret handshake or cool uniforms. No secret history, extra moves, online learning. Just boring old snt.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You guys were so adamant that there was no Tan Da in WSLVT dispite plenty of evidence to the contrary.  When that was pointed out, you had all kinds of excuses...."WSL only did that in seminars because people expected it......" etc.   I was simply showing that neither of you are the consummate experts that you seem to think you are.



And you are still wrong and clinging to your misunderstanding of what WSL taught.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> What do want me say about it that google can't provide? We don't have a secret handshake or cool uniforms. No secret history, extra moves, online learning. Just boring old snt.




So.  You are now on post #341 and have never bother to share your perspective of the "central theme" or "central idea" running through your SNT form, despite being asked now multiple times.   You trivialize it all with your comments above.  Other's have shared openly about their understanding of SNT, but not you.   And you don't see a problem with that?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Other's have shared openly about their understanding of SNT, but not you.   And you don't see a problem with that?



Nobody has shared any detail of snt. Juany googled some info which he then ran away from explaining despite earlier claims.

 Nobody important talked about a completely different system not related to VT. Apparently in that system the main idea behind a similar form is that you apply lots of different ideas, none of which was discussed. 

I guess in that kind of vein we could say that the main idea in snt is that there is an idea that is important.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Little, by no means, translates as single. A little thought can be about an expanding concept.
> 
> Ambiguous is having a double meaning, abstract is an idea that has no concrete representation. Both are fitting descriptions and IMO actually linked.
> 
> In Yuen family the action/shapes are not applications in and of themselves they require concept to be applied. Again the shapes don't have a singular purpose or use, so yes in Yuen family they can be applied multiple ways (like Lego's) because they are simply an idea/notion. Since you don't have grappling in WSLVT this concept will be foreign to you and contradictory to your methodology..
> 
> Our intention is change. Our Little Idea is "Listening" and "Understanding". In CMA the designations of Siu & Dai are minor & major, primary & secondary if you like, not the literal small & big. In Yuen family, the Little Idea is literally the primary idea/approach, which is adaptation/change. Again the little idea is not our form, it's a foundational construct.



On your first point I often use this example, "how long is a piece of string from one fixed point to another." I will simplify the debate for the purposes of the metaphor but Google it, the complicated answers will blow your mind.

You can lay it out flat and put a tape measure next to it and get a measurement.  You fold it back on itself and glue it and hand to me. 

I then get a different measurement.  I then fuse the ends with it in the shape of a mobius loop and hand it to @KPM .

KPM will be unable to measure it and in essence be able to say the string that was 2 feet long for you, 1 foot long for me has infinite length to him.  

In short it's the same piece of string but a seemingly simple question or idea can become almost infinitely complex, not because it is by its very nature, the state of the object never changes, but because of the perceptions of the viewer and how deep into the rabbit hole they want to go.


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> Nobody has shared any detail of snt. Juany googled some info which he then ran away from explaining despite earlier claims.
> 
> Nobody important talked about a completely different system not related to VT. Apparently in that system the main idea behind a similar form is that you apply lots of different ideas, none of which was discussed.
> 
> _*I guess in that kind of vein we could say that the main idea in snt is that there is an idea that is important*_.



Still waiting for you or LFJ to _*elaborate*_ what this one idea of your VT SLT represent ... likely there is a better chance of snow in hell?  

Judging by the reluctance we had encountered so far, either it's a secret you're forbidden to reveal ... or you just have no clue.

Your likely retort is to for me to present my meaning of SLT, why should I bother when your one idea is the end of all.


----------



## LFJ

I already stated;
_
In YMVT, the "little idea" is about the general strategy. This information is imbedded into every part of the system and is not obvious. It requires accurate transmission from a teacher who knows the full system well._

I don't offer online training programs, so if you want a full tutorial of the system from me, you will have to travel.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I already stated;
> _
> In YMVT, the "little idea" is about the general strategy. This information is imbedded into every part of the system and is not obvious. It requires accurate transmission from a teacher who knows the full system well._
> 
> I don't offer online training programs, so if you want a full tutorial of the system from me, you will have to travel.



Typical!     Complain and complain about people not wanting to take part in a technical discussion with you, and then you make a comment like this!  Geez!


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Yes, other CMAs often use _Siu_ and _Daai _to name mother-son forms or complimentary subsystems.
> 
> Is there a _Daai _idea, form or subsystem to your WC? If not, it doesn't really make sense to have minor without major, or primary without secondary, _Siu_ without _Daai_.


Actually, yes, we have both Siu & Dai concencepts.



LFJ said:


> Also, you said you don't even use the term _nim-tau _(idea), and that it may have been changed to this by YM? But then you talk about the "little idea" in your system.
> 
> So, I'm a bit confused as to why you have an interpretation of it. Is this something you came up with yourself or has your system borrowed and reinterpreted the terminology from YM?


 Borrowed for the sake of explaining. The " Little Idea" concept in our system is actually called "Threading the Shuttle". Threading has big & small aspects that run through everything, linking them.



LFJ said:


> As an aside, the third character, _tau_, is a suffix for nouns. It doesn't carry the literal meaning of "head" or figurative meaning of "first" in this case. As an adjective, it would need to come before the noun it's describing.
> 
> In _nim-tau_ (idea) and _lin-tau _(training) it acts just as a suffix. So, _Siu-lin-tau_, as you use would mean "little training (set)". It would make sense to have a _Siu_ with or without a _Daai _if that is all it means, not so much if it means minor or primary without a _Daai_.
> 
> For us, there is no _Daai _because VT is just this one "little idea", a simple approach to fighting.


Thank you for clarifying that, seems I did hear that before, but my Chinese isn't very good. We have Little Training & Big Training, though honestly I'm not fond of the Big Training.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> On your first point I often use this example, "how long is a piece of string from one fixed point to another." I will simplify the debate for the purposes of the metaphor but Google it, the complicated answers will blow your mind.
> 
> You can lay it out flat and put a tape measure next to it and get a measurement.  You fold it back on itself and glue it and hand to me.
> 
> I then get a different measurement.  I then fuse the ends with it in the shape of a mobius loop and hand it to @KPM .
> 
> KPM will be unable to measure it and in essence be able to say the string that was 2 feet long for you, 1 foot long for me has infinite length to him.
> 
> In short it's the same piece of string but a seemingly simple question or idea can become almost infinitely complex, not because it is by its very nature, the state of the object never changes, but because of the perceptions of the viewer and how deep into the rabbit hole they want to go.


Good analogy, some will fail to comprehend.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Nobody important talked about a completely different system not related to VT. Apparently in that system the main idea behind a similar form is that you apply lots of different ideas, none of which was discussed.


The main idea behind our Siu Lim Tau set is "Primary Training" for a lack of a better wording. An expanding concept of adaptation is present in all forms. The purpose of our Siu Lim Tau is refining & reinforcing basic San Sik learned prior. It is also where we start introducing conceptual thought.

The Yuan family Wing Chun method is learned entirely through San Sik and supported by the forms. The forms are simply repositories of theory, meant to be dissected and are not literal.


----------



## Nobody Important

I feel I have been more than forthcoming with information and have tried to explain things in terms people can at least identify with, even if it isn't used correctly. I have provided depth, it would be appreciated if others would provide some detail into their interpretations as well.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I already stated;
> _
> In YMVT, the "little idea" is about the general strategy. This information is imbedded into every part of the system and is not obvious. It requires accurate transmission from a teacher who knows the full system well._
> 
> I don't offer online training programs, so if you want a full tutorial of the system from me, you will have to travel.


To your understanding, what is this general strategy?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I feel I have been more than forthcoming with information and have tried to explain things in terms people can at least identify with, even if it isn't used correctly. I have provided depth, it would be appreciated if others would provide some detail into their interpretations as well.





Nobody Important said:


> The main idea behind our Siu Lim Tau set is "Primary Training" for a lack of a better wording. An expanding concept of adaptation is present in all forms. The purpose of our Siu Lim Tau is refining & reinforcing basic San Sik learned prior. It is also where we start introducing conceptual thought.
> 
> The Yuan family Wing Chun method is learned entirely through San Sik and supported by the forms. The forms are simply repositories of theory, meant to be dissected and are not literal.



As someone with no experience of your system, you haven't helped me in terms of understanding what you do. You have described how the system is structured, but not the ideas behind. As I said before, this is something like saying "the little idea is thinking which is important to the system, and which is required for SNT not just to be a load of empty shapes." Doesn't really help you to learn what it is.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> As someone with no experience of your system, you haven't helped me in terms of understanding what you do. You have described how the system is structured, but not the ideas behind. As I said before, this is something like saying "the little idea is thinking which is important to the system, and which is explored in SNT." Doesn't really help you to learn what it is.


There is a lot of information. I don't wish to write a book to explain


guy b said:


> As someone with no experience of your system, you haven't helped me in terms of understanding what you do. You have described how the system is structured, but not the ideas behind. As I said before, this is something like saying "the little idea is thinking which is important to the system, and which is required for SNT not just to be a load of empty shapes." Doesn't really help you to learn what it is.



The SNT/SLT is just a form, it is an abstract collection of shapes that are yet to be defined. I don't want to write a book on it, nor do I offer online instruction. If you want specifics, ask. There is a ton of information in Yuen family Wing Chun, without specific questions I generalize to present a whole. I have clearly explained our concept of SLT, so I'm not sure want you are looking for specifically. Are you looking at ideas like centerline, structure, gates, motherline, force generation, jin patterns etc. The art isn't any different than yours, per say, other than how theory, methodology and strategy is approached.

Aside from a liberal interpretation of these things I would surmise that Yip Man & Yuen Chai Wan Wing Chun have way more in common than not. All movement/shapes are in themselves useless until an "Idea" is put to it and tested. Concept/Theory dictates how a shape is used most effectively, transition is key. Think of it as a clock face, in example 12 is Tan Sau as the shape moves it adapts, by the time it reaches 3 it may be Pak Sau and by the time it transitions to 6 it is Gum Sau. In a cross pattern, if Jung Bong Sau is top as it transitions down it becomes Lan Sau and when it goes right it is Dai Bong Sau and going left it becomes Pi Jou. Hard to explain without demonstrating in person. The ability of a simple shape to adapt is an important concept in Yuen family Wing Chun. Threading the Shuttle/Needle or Weaving is a central theme that speaks to fluid transition and adaptation. There is much more than just this, but without the ability to transform shape Yuen family Wing Chun is useless.

Our basic strategy (abbreviated) is Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return. There is a great deal of depth to this that I don't want to spend hours typing up. So if you or anyone else has questions on specifics please make them brief and to a relative point. My time is limited.

Now could you please elaborate (with some specifics) a bit on what you understand to be the "Little Idea" / General Strategy of WSLPBVT as presented in SNT?


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> The main idea behind our Siu Lim Tau set is "Primary Training" for a lack of a better wording. An expanding concept of adaptation is present in all forms. The purpose of our Siu Lim Tau is refining & reinforcing basic San Sik learned prior. It is also where we start introducing conceptual thought.
> 
> The Yuan family Wing Chun method is learned entirely through San Sik and supported by the forms. The forms are simply repositories of theory, meant to be dissected and are not literal.



In TWC we see this as feeding into each other, a cycle so to speak.  Perform the form, in san sik (we just call them drills at my school) experience the potential applications.  In doing this you better understand and thus perform the form and then better understand and perform the drill.  Each feeds upon the other in a holistic manner.


----------



## geezer

Here's a few rambling thoughts from the perspective of the YM-VT I train. _Our _Siu Nim Tau (Little Idea Form) in fact teaches many things -- stance, structure, proper positioning of the torso and limbs, especially regarding centerline and elbow positioning... essentially all the seeds for success in the system.

....So collectively _some_ would say that SNT is the DNA, or the little seed from which the entire system is developed. I do not disagree, but this is not what I understand to be the core meaning of SNT.

Another way of looking at it is to say that the very name of SNT is equally descriptive and prescriptive, or a motto, meaning that the student should seek simplicity and directness rather than grandiose ambitions, avoiding flowery hands or elaborate and flamboyant movements. Just as the form is seemingly simple and a unassuming, so the student should maintain his focus on simplicity, getting this "little thing" right. Again, I do not dispute the value of this advice, but to me, this still misses the essence of SNT.

So what is this essence? Well, when I look at what is behind every position, movement, and energy trained in SNT, they all really express one idea. _Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung._ That is the "little idea" I see in SNT, and it is the essence of my strategy in my VT.

Now maybe I study_ broken_ VT, and maybe I've missed the point. But at least I've done my best to share my perspective, as far as can be done briefly in words alone.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Here's a few rambling thoughts from the perspective of the YM-VT I train. _Our _Siu Nim Tau (Little Idea Form) in fact teaches many things -- stance, structure, proper positioning of the torso and limbs, especially regarding centerline and elbow positioning... essentially all the seeds for success in the system.
> 
> ....So collectively _some_ would say that SNT is the DNA, or the little seed from which the entire system is developed. I do not disagree, but this is not what I understand to be the core meaning of SNT.



Mine is the same but I use a different term.  I remember once asking "why do only the later forms have movement because fighting has movement?" The answer I received I noted earlier, in part when I used the term alphabet.  I was told "SLT is the alphabet.  You need to know the letters before you can write the words that make up language."

Personally I thought this was indeed a "little idea".  I don't picture kids watching a Sesame Street skit sponsored by the letter "Q" as dealing with a "big idea" but maybe mine is "broken" too.  If it is, I don't want it fixed because I can testify that it has let me deal with situations in such a way that it has kept me from being a YouTube sensation.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I don't want to write a book on it, nor do I offer online instruction.



Likewise.



> Our basic strategy (abbreviated) is Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return.



From a YMVT viewpoint, 

Position = ours in relation to attack lines
Bridge = attack line, not arm contact
Control = of space, not arms
Hit = yes
Return = go home after finishing?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Likewise.
> 
> 
> 
> From a YMVT viewpoint,
> 
> Position = ours in relation to attack lines
> Bridge = attack line, not arm contact
> Control = of space, not arms
> Hit = yes
> Return = go home after finishing?



You do realize that NB was just parroting you, right?   And yet he still posted far more depth of understanding for his lineage's SNT form that you have for WSLVT.  So has Geezer, using only a very brief post.....not a "book"!!!     It seems that there are some things you are willing to share and explain.....like a drill that is part of just about every single WSLVT demo video ever posted on youtube....and some things you are not.   So maybe you two shouldn't be pressing everyone else to share information that you yourself are unwilling to share!   A discussion forum is supposed to be an exchange.  Not a soapbox for someone to point out how great their lineage is and how "broken" everyone else's lineage is!   We don't need you here to "educate the masses" on the wonders of WSLVT, as Guy seems to think.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Return = go home after finishing?



Lol, I suppose you could, but it's a reference to repeating the process or returning to a point in the process of the strategy.

What you listed is only part of our process, there are layers involved, but for sake of simplicity what you wrote is accurate for Yuen family Wing Chun as well.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You do realize that NB was just parroting you, right?   And yet he still posted far more depth of understanding for his lineage's SNT form that you have for WSLVT.  So has Geezer, using only a very brief post.....not a "book"!!!     It seems that there are some things you are willing to share and explain.....like a drill that is part of just about every single WSLVT demo video ever posted on youtube....and some things you are not.



I seem to remember elaboration on the VT strategy being shared, and then hearing you and Juany arrogantly tell us that we are wrong about our own system of which neither of you have any experience.

I could agree with Geezer that the idea is LLHS, LSJC, but just repeating the maxim says nothing of depth. I know we do not share the same definition or application of it.



> So maybe you two shouldn't be pressing everyone else to share information that you yourself are unwilling to share!A discussion forum is supposed to be an exchange.  Not a soapbox for someone to point out how great their lineage is and how "broken" everyone else's lineage is!   We don't need you here to "educate the masses" on the wonders of WSLVT, as Guy seems to think.



You have not posted anything of substance probably this whole year. All you have been doing for months is stalking me and guy b from topic to topic and giving lectures. This is very strange behavior for a middle-aged man.

If you aren't going to engage, why don't you just sit out like Joy? I'm not going to listen to you. I don't care about your feelings. Sorry, not sorry.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Return = go home after finishing?


----------



## KPM

*I seem to remember elaboration on the VT strategy being shared, and then hearing you and Juany arrogantly tell us that we are wrong about our own system of which neither of you have any experience.*

----I don't remember ever "arrogantly telling you you were wrong about your strategy."  Please post a link to that comment.

*
I could agree with Geezer that the idea is LLHS, LSJC, but just repeating the maxim says nothing of depth. I know we do not share the same definition or application of it.*

---He has still provided more information than you have!



*You have not posted anything of substance probably this whole year. All you have been doing for months is stalking me and guy b from topic to topic and giving lectures. This is very strange behavior for a middle-aged man.*

---I've posted plenty.  Just because you aren't interested in anything other than WSLVT and weren't paying attention.....that is your problem!


*If you aren't going to engage, why don't you just sit out like Joy? I'm not going to listen to you. I don't care about your feelings. Sorry, not sorry.*

----If you can make your mission to preach the gospel of WSLVT to all of us lesser mortals and point out how "broken" everyone else's Wing Chun is, I can make it my mission to point out how uneven your sharing is and how arrogant and condescending your posting style is.     If you don't like me calling you on your BS, then you can go elsewhere.  Clean up your act and I won't have anything to say!


----------



## Nobody Important

Are the various branches of Wing Chun so drastically different from one another as to be considered unrelated systems, or is it simply varying degrees understanding? I have a tendency to believe that semantics, terminology, preferred usage and ethnocentrism play a big part in the divisiveness, rhetoric and miscommunication. But I'm Nobody Important, so what the hell do I know.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----I don't remember ever "arrogantly telling you you were wrong about your strategy."  Please post a link to that comment.



Several pages on the thread "Improbability of the Refinement Theory".

There was a quote from WSL about VT strategy which you decided to continually misinterpret instead of accepting the explanation of it from those who know the system. 

You actually argued against our explanations, assuming you know better what WSL meant.

This is implicitly saying our understanding of our own system's strategy is wrong, and it is arrogant, given your complete lack of experience with it.



> ---I've posted plenty.



How many months/years ago was your last post sharing detailed information on what you do?

Have you ever posted anything about your system comparable to the depth of what I've been writing in the "good teaching clip" thread?



> If you don't like me calling you on your BS, then you can go elsewhere.



You don't own the forum, and I don't care what you post. You are just needlessly cluttering every topic. 

If you don't like my BS, stop reading it. Please put me on ignore. Thanks.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Are the various branches of Wing Chun so drastically different from one another as to be considered unrelated systems, or is it simply varying degrees understanding?



YM and Mainland lineages may share common ancestors from way back when, but they have greatly diverged and produced different types of fighters now.

Various YM lineages differ for varying degrees of understanding. We know most never completed the system, because only 4 ever even learned the knife form from YM.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> There is a lot of information. I don't wish to write a book to explain



So there isn't a little idea?



> The SNT/SLT is just a form, it is an abstract collection of shapes that are yet to be defined. I don't want to write a book on it, nor do I offer online instruction.



I don't offer online instruction either, but that seems to be what you and others are asking for?



> I have clearly explained our concept of SLT, so I'm not sure want you are looking for specifically. Are you looking at ideas like centerline, structure, gates, motherline, force generation, jin patterns etc.



Nope, I'm looking for the basic thing that makes VT what it is.



> The art isn't any different than yours, per say, other than how theory, methodology and strategy is approached.





> Aside from a liberal interpretation of these things I would surmise that Yip Man & Yuen Chai Wan Wing Chun have way more in common than not.



If the description above is your explantion of the little idea, then the YCW wing chun system appears to be in no way related to YM VT. It sounds much more in line with other Southern Chinese systems.



> All movement/shapes are in themselves useless until an "Idea" is put to it and tested.



What's the idea?



> Think of it as a clock face, in example 12 is Tan Sau as the shape moves it adapts, by the time it reaches 3 it may be Pak Sau and by the time it transitions to 6 it is Gum Sau. In a cross pattern, if Jung Bong Sau is top as it transitions down it becomes Lan Sau and when it goes right it is Dai Bong Sau and going left it becomes Pi Jou. Hard to explain without demonstrating in person. The ability of a simple shape to adapt is an important concept in Yuen family Wing Chun. Threading the Shuttle/Needle or Weaving is a central theme that speaks to fluid transition and adaptation. There is much more than just this, but without the ability to transform shape Yuen family Wing Chun is useless.



Sorry, none of this means anything to me. You will need to be more straight forward



> Our basic strategy (abbreviated) is Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return. There is a great deal of depth to this that I don't want to spend hours typing up



Sounds a lot more similar to something like SPM than to YM VT. VT is different



> Now could you please elaborate (with some specifics) a bit on what you understand to be the "Little Idea" / General Strategy of WSLPBVT as presented in SNT?



The general strategy of VM VT is described here

What is being trained in SNT is the little idea. Nobody has provided equivalent info


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> YM and Mainland lineages may share common ancestors from way back when, but they have greatly diverged and produced different types of fighters now.
> 
> Various YM lineages differ for varying degrees of understanding. We know most never completed the system, because only 4 ever even learned the knife form from YM.


I don't disagree with that, but would surmise that this diverengence amongst fighting approach is based largely on preference (which has led to variation) and not to the actual art itself. Evolving & devolving are legitimate factors. I would guess that if the core is still present, pertinent elements could be brought back.

As for your second response, many mainland branches are infected with the same illness. It's unfortunate, as there are some very skilled & knowledgeable individuals who practice these branches of Wing Chun that I would consinder on the fringes of orthodoxy. Others, well, it is what it is. I can't dismiss a branch as not being Wing Chun simply because of poor representatives, especially when I know good ones exist, no matter how sparse.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You do realize that NB was just parroting you, right?   And yet he still posted far more depth of understanding for his lineage's SNT form that you have for WSLVT.



You could only think this from the point of view of not understanding YM VT. If what Nobody Important posted is a good representation of his system, then it doesn't have a little idea per se, isn't related to YM VT, and I don't see that there is anything to discuss really.



> So has Geezer, using only a very brief post



Geezer has been very generous as he usually is. I don't agree with his understanding of the form. LFJ has posted very useful info about the WSL VT system on the teaching clip thread if you are interested. 



> We don't need you here to "educate the masses" on the wonders of WSLVT, as Guy seems to think.



It isn't for you KPM. If you don't want it then simply stop replying to threads. Your behavour is stalkerish


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I don't disagree with that, but would surmise that this diverengence amongst fighting approach is based largely on preference (which has led to variation) and not to the actual art itself.



But the systems themselves and what they are teaching have apparently changed quite a bit. The YMVT strategy is specific and developed at each step of the system with the end goal in mind. It would be counterproductive to prefer fighting a different way than what you are training for in the system, especially if it is by methods that contradict the strategy, like sticking and locking. We train specifically to avoid those things.



> As for your second response, many mainland branches are infected with the same illness. It's unfortunate, as there are some very skilled & knowledgeable individuals who practice these branches of Wing Chun that I would consinder on the fringes of orthodoxy. Others, well, it is what it is. I can't dismiss a branch as not being Wing Chun simply because of poor representatives, especially when I know good ones exist, no matter how sparse.



I am not closed to the idea of other YM lineages being very good. It's just that most I've seen are not.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Various YM lineages differ for varying degrees of understanding. We know most never completed the system, *because only 4 ever even learned the knife form *from YM.



I've heard this too. So, does this mean that YM's last / final curriculum component was/is the knives?


----------



## Nobody Important

_*Guy B.*

------So there isn't a little idea?
_
I've explained what the "Little Idea" is in YWC. The "Idea" isn't strategy, it's concept. The two, though symbiotically linked, are not the same thing.
_

---------Nope, I'm looking for the basic thing that makes VT what it is.
_
I don't know what makes VT what it is, hence me asking you. I do YWC, and have explained what makes it YWC. I feel you don't comprehend YWC because you continuously try to inject your idealization of what Wing Chun is as an overlay. It won't work because of how YWC is broken down, very different than WSLPBVT I'm sure.
_

--------If the description above is your explantion of the little idea, then the YCW wing chun system appears to be in no way related to YM VT. It sounds much more in line with other Southern Chinese systems.
_
See above.
_

--------What is the idea?

_What indeed, I'm not going to explain it again. Reread my previous posts .
_

-------Sorry, none of this means anything to me. You will need to be more straight forward_

If you want lessons just ask, and put forth the effort to come see me. I'm not in the business of offering online instruction. I've done my best to simplify and explain the concept, without hands on it's difficult to understand.


-_--------Sounds a lot more similar to something like SPM than to YM VT. VT is different_

I wouldn't know I've never studied SPM, neither has my Sifu, but just because, and I don't mean this as degrading, it is beyond your comprehension level doesn't mean that it isn't Wing Chun.


_------The general strategy of VM VT is described here:The VT strategy is all about the application of pressure (loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chun)- space pressure, time pressure, distance pressure. We intercept and cut into the attack, disrupting the opponent. We apply forward pressure, cutting the way and eating up space. We force mistakes from the opponent in this way, i.e. they show us how to hit them (kiu loi kiu seung) which we do using the whole body as one, and if not then we create openings by other means (mor kiu ji jou kiu). At all times we pressure the centre rather than chase hands. By linking neutraliation and striking (lin siu dai da) we defend automatically as we attack, which increases the time and space pressure on the opponent, making us appear faster than we really are._

Though some of these elements are present within the "Little Idea" of YWC they are a by product, strategy is not our "Little Idea". What you have described is tactical approach/strategy/methodology and contains the same elements as found in the Yuen Family strategy of Position, Bridge, Control, Hit, Return. These are simply tag lines that represent our strategic approach which is separate from what the "Little Idea" represents. The "Little Idea" in YWC is the concept of adaptation/morphology, I've already explained it at length. You are confusing what we call strategy with what you call the "Little Idea", which to YWC is conceptual and different than strategy. Our Siu Lim Tau is for reinforcement and refinement of elements related to our strategy and concepts, because it is viewed as a repository and not as the main transmission of instruction.


_-------What is being trained in SNT is the little idea. Nobody has provided equivalent info_

I have provided plenty of information concerning YWC concept of "Little Idea". I think perhaps what you are looking for is explanation of strategy. If so, that has also been touched on. I simply haven't gone into depth with it. You've already elaborated on what your strategy is and I'll confirm that ours is the same, it is simply sectioned and cataloged under the divisions of Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return. It's broken up for ease of learning.

I hope that clarifies things for you, if not sorry, it's hard to describe an abstraction.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> But the systems themselves and what they are teaching have apparently changed quite a bit. The YMVT strategy is specific and developed at each step of the system with the end goal in mind. It would be counterproductive to prefer fighting a different way than what you are training for in the system, especially if it is by methods that contradict the strategy, like sticking and locking. We train specifically to avoid those things.


I'm not denying that at all, I was simply saying that there are still overlapping elements of commonality. It takes a cohesive interjection of strategic concept to effectively alter an overall approach or addendum to what currently exists. Assuming one wished to pursue that route. Nothing wrong with differing approaches to Wing Chun, IMO, but understandably the strategy, concepts and application have to be cohesive and unified. If not, I would agree that the method is "broken".


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> I've heard this too. So, does this mean that YM's last / final curriculum component was/is the knives?



Yes. It's important not to start knives too soon, because the strategy and tactics may interfere with development of the core.

But they are also a necessary component in understanding VT in full, since knife concepts are introduced/related to parts of earlier forms and drills, and are analogous to _Biu-ji_ strategy. Understanding knives broadens strategy and awareness of danger and improves things like mobility to a great extent.

I think not only did no more than 4 people ever get to the knives (form at least) in YM's system, but many didn't even reach the BJ form, because this is where we see the largest divergence between lineages beginning. Some ideas of what the form teaches are waaay out there.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> Yes. It's important not to start knives too soon, because the strategy and tactics may interfere with development of the core.
> 
> But they are also a necessary component in understanding VT in full, since knife concepts are introduced/related to parts of earlier forms and drills, and are analogous to _Biu-ji_ strategy. Understanding knives broadens strategy and awareness of danger and improves things like mobility to a great extent.
> 
> I think not only did no more than 4 people ever get to the knives (form at least) in YM's system, but many didn't even reach the BJ form, because this is where we see the largest divergence between lineages beginning. Some ideas of what the form teaches are waaay out there.



Huh. Interesting. 
Agree completely on the broadening of mobility bit! 
So I'm assuming WSL was one of the four(?)...
I've never read or heard that the knives are linked to Biu Ji...interesting.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Huh. Interesting.
> Agree completely on the broadening of mobility bit!
> So I'm assuming WSL was one of the four(?)...
> I've never read or heard that the knives are linked to Biu Ji...interesting.



Yes, obviously WSL received the full system. 

Some who don't understand _Biu-ji_ strategy or knives try to make the knives a simple extension of the core empty-hand strategy, which is suicide. 

You can't just go in and attack when your opponent is armed with blades too. Unlike a spent punch, a knife can still slice you on the way back, or at any time.

With knives, the opponent's wrists become targets as we evade, before we can safely enter and attack the core. That's why mobility is improved greatly by VT knife training, for the awareness of danger of bladed weapons. It is not core VT strategy.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> You could only think this from the point of view of not understanding YM VT. If what Nobody Important posted is a good representation of his system, then it doesn't have a little idea per se, isn't related to YM VT, and I don't see that there is anything to discuss really.
> 
> 
> 
> Geezer has been very generous as he usually is. I don't agree with his understanding of the form. LFJ has posted very useful info about the WSL VT system on the teaching clip thread if you are interested.
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't for you KPM. If you don't want it then simply stop replying to threads. Your behavour is stalkerish




Post #370 on this thread about comparing SNT between lineages and you still haven't explained the "little idea" in WSLVT's SNT in any depth at all.


----------



## Nobody Important

_GUY B SAID: ↑
You could only think this from the point of view of not understanding YM VT. If what Nobody Important posted is a good representation of his system, then it doesn't have a little idea per se, isn't related to YM VT, and I don't see that there is anything to discuss really_.

I'll admit to not being an authority on Yuen family Wing Chun. I think to do so would be arrogant. Each of our understanding of what the "Little Idea" represents is different. But this by no means doesn't mean it is non-existent in YWC. It is just different to yours.


----------



## LFJ

I'm not familiar with YCW WC. Is this your SLT form?

Also, I don't see any similarities to YMVT in the use of this style, at all. It looks unrelated.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I'm not familiar with YCW WC. Is this your SLT form?
> 
> Also, I don't see any similarities to YMVT in the use of this style, at all. It looks unrelated.


No, there are several branches from Yuen Chai Wan. Mine is from his early years, shortly after he stopped teaching Yiu Choi. My material isn't much different than YKS or Yiu Choi WC. Unfortunately during Chai Wan's later years in Vietnam, much changed, both North & South. There are wild deviations because of added Chi Kung, 5 Animal Kung Fu & other material used to fill gaps. I believe my Dai Sigung was a student of Ng Chung So & Yuen Chai Wan, though I would have to double check.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> No, there are several branches from Yuen Chai Wan. Mine is from his early years, shortly after he stopped teaching Yiu Choi. My material isn't much different than YKS or Yiu Choi WC. Unfortunately during Chai Wan's later years in Vietnam, much changed, both North & South. There are wild deviations because of added Chi Kung, 5 Animal Kung Fu & other material used to fill gaps. I believe my Dai Sigung was a student of Ng Chung So & Yuen Chai Wan, though I would have to double check.



This one?






or this one?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> This one?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or this one?


Pattern most similar with the YKS video but not as soft, performed more in manner of the Yiu Choi video.


----------



## Eric_H

Cephalopod said:


> You mean a jut sau?



Nah, usually just with the wu, our wu sao goes a bit higher than typical YM version, and for what we're talking about we'd use the inside of the bridge to control. I've not seen anyone else do that outside HFY, usually people use the outside of the wu.



> If, when trying to smack the face, the attacker chooses a vector just to the side of the face that jams the punch against the bridge, does it become difficult for the recipient to recover center without guiding said punch into his face?
> I just ask because that's a problem I run into if my elbow gets opened (driven to the side of center) too much.



So again, trying to make sure I get you, he throws a punch but instead of it going for your face it goes over your shoulder so the act of sweeping it in is what would make it get your face? If that's what you're describing - we also cover this in step 2 of that same beginner's drill I mentioned earlier. This type of attack requires extra vertical leverage (driving the bridge up) and a footwork adjustment using Leung Yi Ma (knee raising to yin line) to counteract. From a flat stance like YGKYM, it's very hard to counter unless you feel the angle in the earliest part of the punch and can get ahead of it.


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> What is being trained in SNT is the little idea. Nobody has provided equivalent info



I feel your frustration.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> My material isn't much different than YKS or Yiu Choi WC.



But they look quite different? 



Nobody Important said:


> Pattern most similar with the YKS video but not as soft, performed more in manner of the Yiu Choi video.



Do you have video? Assuming not, what is the thinking behind the movements, e.g. in the first section of YKS which you say is closer to yours?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> But they look quite different?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have video? Assuming not, what is the thinking behind the movements, e.g. in the first section of YKS which you say is closer to yours?


The only section that is drastically different between the two is the second section. Everything in the forms is standard fare for mainland WC. Yes I do have video, not real keen on posting it.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> What you have described is tactical approach/strategy/methodology and contains the same elements as found in the Yuen Family strategy of Position, Bridge, Control, Hit, Return.



What do each of these these elements represent in strategic terms?



Nobody Important said:


> You are confusing what we call strategy with what you call the "Little Idea", which to YWC is conceptual and different than strategy.



The strategic description provided is not the little idea of SNT.



Nobody Important said:


> I have provided plenty of information concerning YWC concept of "Little Idea".



Ok, well in a similar way the little idea is an idea which is important to the functioning of the system. 



Nobody Important said:


> I think perhaps what you are looking for is explanation of strategy. If so, that has also been touched on.



No, little idea not a description of strategy, although it has strategic elements and implications. System strategy as already described.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> The only section that is drastically different between the two is the second section. Everything in the forms is standard fare for mainland WC. Yes I do have video, not real keen on posting it.



Why not? It would make this discussion easier. Plenty of WSL VT video is available.


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> Why not? It would make this discussion easier. Plenty of WSL VT video is available.



Why not supply one of you're of own? I would really like to see your take on this. From a outsiders point of view of course


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> What do each of these these elements represent in strategic terms?
> 
> 
> 
> The strategic description provided is not the little idea of SNT.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, well in a similar way the little idea is an idea which is important to the functioning of the system.
> 
> 
> 
> No, little idea not a description of strategy, although it has strategic elements and implications. System strategy as already described.


No offense but this a quick trip down the rabbit hole, previous statements now being retracted and all.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> No offense but this a quick trip down the rabbit hole, previous statements now being retracted and all.



No idea what you mean. No statements being retracted. I don't mind if you don't want to answer, up to you


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> No idea what you mean. No statements being retracted. I don't mind if you don't want to answer, up to you




You have been asking plenty of questions without sharing yourself.  So why should he??  You just made post #392 on this thread and STILL haven't shared about your own understanding of SNT and what the "little idea" actually is!!!


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> No idea what you mean. No statements being retracted. I don't mind if you don't want to answer, up to you



Both you and LFJ have stated that the "Little idea" of your system is the general strategy. 

The general strategy was then elaborated, and I mentioned that it was similar to YCW WC strategy, ours is just structured different, but still not our "Little Idea"

You now have stated that the " Little Idea" is not a description of the strategy after I stated that you we're confusing my description of concept for strategy. I said they are two very separate yet linked things.

So is your "Little Idea" the general strategy or not?

Again the "Little Idea" of YCW WC is the concept of adaptation as based on "Listening" & "Understanding". Reread my previous posts for elaboration.

What is your "Little Idea" if not the general strategy? No more games, just a descriptive answer with some "meat" otherwise I'm done trying to converse with you. I've been more than tolerant & forthcoming.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Both you and LFJ have stated that the "Little idea" of your system is the general strategy.
> 
> The general strategy was then elaborated, and I mentioned that it was similar to YCW WC strategy, ours is just structured different, but still not our "Little Idea"
> 
> You now have stated that the " Little Idea" is not a description of the strategy after I stated that you we're confusing my description of concept for strategy. I said they are two very separate yet linked things.
> 
> So is your "Little Idea" the general strategy or not?
> 
> Again the "Little Idea" of YCW WC is the concept of adaptation as based on "Listening" & "Understanding". Reread my previous posts for elaboration.
> 
> What is your "Little Idea" if not the general strategy? No more games, just a descriptive answer with some "meat" otherwise I'm done trying to converse with you. I've been more than tolerant & forthcoming.



And this is largely my frustration.  Typically they are so vague that you can't pin down a thing BUT on the odd occassion they get into specifics and there is a response, the goal post gets moved because the idea they hold to so tightly, that there is a difference so fundamental that their WC/VT is different, falls apart.

I only knew WSLVT for a brief time (relative to other arts I have studied) so my main frame of reference is TWC.  That said since joint this forum I have come to the following conclusion.  WC/VT/WT is like the English language.

There are differences in how it is spoken across the United States.  Add in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.  Heck the youth of the Arab Emirates actually speak English better than Arabic.  In all these places accent and slang create differences yet they can all communicate with each other because fundamentally the language is still "English".

The same imo applies to Wing Chun and to argue otherwise is really akin to arguing the difference between color and colour or the pronunciation of laboratory.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> And this is largely my frustration.  Typically they are so vague that you can't pin down a thing BUT on the odd occassion they get into specifics and there is a response, the goal post gets moved because the idea they hold to so tightly, that there is a difference so fundamental that their WC/VT is different, falls apart.
> 
> I only knew WSLVT for a brief time (relative to other arts I have studied) so my main frame of reference is TWC.  That said since joint this forum I have come to the following conclusion.  WC/VT/WT is like the English language.
> 
> There are differences in how it is spoken across the United States.  Add in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.  Heck the youth of the Arab Emirates actually speak English better than Arabic.  In all these places accent and slang create differences yet they can all communicate with each other because fundamentally the language is still "English".
> 
> The same imo applies to Wing Chun and to argue otherwise is really akin to arguing the difference between color and colour or the pronunciation of laboratory.


There is no argument. I'm right & you're wrong, it is correctly pronounced laboratory! LMAO


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> There are differences in how it is spoken across the United States.  Add in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.  Heck the youth of the Arab Emirates actually speak English better than Arabic.  In all these places accent and slang create differences yet they can all communicate with each other because fundamentally the language is still "English".



Australia, mofo. Your GM Cheung's place of residence. He and I laugh condescendingly at your casual hemispherism.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Are the various branches of Wing Chun so drastically different from one another as to be considered unrelated systems, or is it simply varying degrees understanding?



Apparently they are so drastically different as to be unrelated in practical terms


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Both you and LFJ have stated that the "Little idea" of your system is the general strategy



I don't believe I have stated this. LFJ mentioned that the little idea is about the strategy. This is true; but it is not "the strategy". Strategy has been discussed in detail already. Little idea is also about (has a bearing on) other things. It is a simple idea with quite profound consequences and requirements for the system. 

So we have given detailed strategic information, and you have not (no idea what you mean by position, bridge, control and so on). We have not revealed the thinking behind SNT and the system, but then neither have you, since you have not talked about the ideas which make your "shapes" work. It may well be that this represents a different part of your system, but this is the bit that we need to talk about if you want detail of what the little idea is in YM VT. And I don't mean vague conceptual waffle like sink, rise swallow spit, leak, intercept, etc, etc. I mean specifics. 

Looking at the YKS and the YC SNT, I can see large problems from the point of view of YM's little idea. Obviously they have arisen from the same historical source and drifted apart. Hard to imagine what you would replace the little idea with in terms of what these sets are showing. The system would need to be turned on its head, completely eviscerated, and then re-stuffed with different guts for this to be functional; and then it wouldn't function in the same way as YM VT. Not saying they don't work, but hard to see how you can claim they would function on the same strategic basis as YM VT?



> The general strategy was then elaborated, and I mentioned that it was similar to YCW WC strategy, ours is just structured different, but still not our "Little Idea"



No detail provided, you just said it was the same as YM VT strategy



> You now have stated that the " Little Idea" is not a description of the strategy after I stated that you we're confusing my description of concept for strategy



The strategy is described seperately and has been elaborated upon. The little idea influences and has consequences for strategy but is not the strategy



> So is your "Little Idea" the general strategy or not?



No, the strategy is freely available



> Again the "Little Idea" of YCW WC is the concept of adaptation as based on "Listening" & "Understanding". Reread my previous posts for elaboration



This could mean almost anything. It isn't specific enough to be useful in describing your system. 



> What is your "Little Idea" if not the general strategy? No more games, just a descriptive answer with some "meat" otherwise I'm done trying to converse with you. I've been more than tolerant & forthcoming.



In life as in VT you get what you put in. Happy to provide as much meat as you do.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> I don't believe I have stated this. LFJ mentioned that the little idea is about the strategy. This is true; but it is not "the strategy". Strategy has been discussed in detail already. Little idea is also about (has a bearing on) other things. It is a simple idea with quite profound consequences and requirements for the system.
> 
> So we have given detailed strategic information, and you have not (no idea what you mean by position, bridge, control and so on). We have not revealed the thinking behind SNT and the system, but then neither have you, since you have not talked about the ideas which make your "shapes" work. It may well be that this represents a different part of your system, but this is the bit that we need to talk about if you want detail of what the little idea is in YM VT. And I don't mean vague conceptual waffle like sink, rise swallow spit, leak, intercept, etc, etc. I mean specifics.
> 
> Looking at the YKS and the YC SNT, I can see large problems from the point of view of YM's little idea. Obviously they have arisen from the same historical source and drifted apart. Hard to imagine what you would replace the little idea with in terms of what these sets are showing. The system would need to be turned on its head, completely eviscerated, and then re-stuffed with different guts for this to be functional; and then it wouldn't function in the same way as YM VT. Not saying they don't work, but hard to see how you can claim they would function on the same strategic basis as YM VT?
> 
> 
> 
> No detail provided, you just said it was the same as YM VT strategy
> 
> 
> 
> The strategy is described seperately and has been elaborated upon. The little idea influences and has consequences for strategy but is not the strategy
> 
> 
> 
> No, the strategy is freely available
> 
> 
> 
> This could mean almost anything. It isn't specific enough to be useful in describing your system.
> 
> 
> 
> In life as in VT you get what you put in. Happy to provide as much meat as you do.



You are full of bs. I have provided in detail what the "Little Idea" of YCW WC is, you aren't able to comprehend and are now whining. 

You are now retracting your statements. Why is that? Because you don't actually know what it is. You thought you could bs me with your strategy bit until I called you out on it.

You sir are a troll who doesn't know a damn thing about WC other than what you can Google. You can take your weak attempts at a gotcha moment and shove them.

You have lost all credibility with me.

What little you do know of WC has been at the expense of internet trolling. The fact that you constantly argue points based on visual difference and application is a dead give away. You have absolutely no comprehension of WC concept or theory. 

The least someone like you could do is extend the courtesy to others here by calling them Sifu, they after all are responsible for what little information you do possess.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ He lost all credibility with me long ago!


----------



## KPM

Guy is now on post #399 and still hasn't shared what the WSLVT "little idea" behind SNT is.  Instead, complains about someone else not providing him enough specific answers to his probing questions.   And let me just say...right here and now....that if the moderators now go after NB for using a "bad word" and are saying nothing to Guy and LFJ about constantly stirring up trouble here with the way they post.....this will be a huge and glaring problem with the way things are moderated here!   Hopefully that doesn't happen, but the moderation here is not at all transparent.  Just sayin........


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Guy is now on post #399 and still hasn't shared what the WSLVT "little idea" behind SNT is.  Instead, complains about someone else not providing him enough specific answers to his probing questions.   And let me just say...right here and now....that if the moderators now go after NB for using a "bad word" and are saying nothing to Guy and LFJ about constantly stirring up trouble here with the way they post.....this will be a huge and glaring problem with the way things are moderated here!   Hopefully that doesn't happen, but the moderation here is not at all transparent.  Just sayin........


I toned it down.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> You are now retracting your statements. Why is that?



Please quote me, otherwise I can only assume you are lying. 



Nobody Important said:


> You thought you could bs me with your strategy bit until I called you out on it.



I haven't "bs'd you with my strategy bit", and you haven't "called me out". All you appear to be doing is running away when required to provide like for like info in order to get what you are after. This is getting to be quite a familiar routine.

The VT strategy was already provided on another thread. I hope that it helps you put the pieces together in a more coherent order. The little idea has a profound influence on the whole of the system including strategy, but obviously it isn't just the strategy or there wouldn't have been any need for the discussion on this thread, given that the strategy was openly posted some time before.



Nobody Important said:


> You sir are a troll who doesn't know a damn thing about WC other than what you can Google. You can take your weak attempts at a gotcha moment and shove them.
> 
> You have lost all credibility with me.
> 
> What little you do know of WC has been at the expense of internet trolling. The fact that you constantly argue points based on visual difference and application is a dead give away. You have absolutely no comprehension of WC concept or theory



Gaining credibility with you is a low priority for me. I am sorry that you can't see the obvious problems in those clips and I understand why you might be frustrated. But don't blame the messenger. Your system apparently doesn't contain the little idea of YM VT and, if functional, is clearly a different system. I'm ok with that. 



> The least someone like you could do is extend the courtesy to others here by calling them Sifu, they after all are responsible for what little information you do possess.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Guy is now on post #399 and still hasn't shared what the WSLVT "little idea" behind SNT is.



If your wing chun related system doesn't have the important thinking then that is a shame. If it does then you haven't provided it, so I don't see what possible complaint anyone could have.

I am quite surprised that nobody is aware of the fundamental info that makes the system work.


----------



## KPM

* I can only assume you are lying. *

----Of course you would!  

* All you appear to be doing is running away when required to provide like for like info in order to get what you are after. This is getting to be quite a familiar routine.*

---Oh my God!  The irony is killing me!  


* The little idea has a profound influence on the whole of the system including strategy, *

---And are you ever going to actually tell us  what this "little idea" is, now that you are at post #404?



*Gaining credibility with you is a low priority for me*. 

---Yeah, well, at this point I don't think you have any credibility with ANYONE here!  At least not anyone that has actually been paying attention lately.     It really is time for you to go.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Please quote me, otherwise I can only assume you are lying.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't "bs'd you with my strategy bit", and you haven't "called me out". All you appear to be doing is running away when required to provide like for like info in order to get what you are after. This is getting to be quite a familiar routine.
> 
> The VT strategy was already provided on another thread. I hope that it helps you put the pieces together in a more coherent order. The little idea has a profound influence on the whole of the system including strategy, but obviously it isn't just the strategy or there wouldn't have been any need for the discussion on this thread, given that the strategy was openly posted some time before.
> 
> 
> 
> Gaining credibility with you is a low priority for me. I am sorry that you can't see the obvious problems in those clips and I understand why you might be frustrated. But don't blame the messenger. Your system apparently doesn't contain the little idea of YM VT and, if functional, is clearly a different system. I'm ok with that.


Spare me your rhetoric troll. You're not fooling anyone with your double talk, attempts to entrap, flippant remarks, parroting or table turning in an attempt extract information you lack. You've been trolling the internet for years pretending to be a martial artist and arguing with others to boost your low self esteem. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to any discussion other than divisiveness. You are nothing but an insignificant internet tough guy trying to exert an authority you don't possess. Go sell your bs somewhere else clown.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> If your wing chun related system doesn't have the important thinking then that is a shame. If it does then you haven't provided it, so I don't see what possible complaint anyone could have.
> 
> I am quite surprised that nobody is aware of the fundamental info that makes the system work.


Sorry I'm not gonna explain it to you again. I'm not the idiot whisperer.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Spare me your rhetoric troll. You're not fooling anyone with your double talk, attempts to entrap, flippant remarks, parroting or table turning in an attempt extract information you lack. You've been trolling the internet for years pretending to be a martial artist and arguing with others to boost your low self esteem. You have absolutely nothing to contribute to any discussion other than divisiveness. You are nothing but an insignificant internet tough guy trying to exert an authority you don't possess. Go sell your bs somewhere else clown.



What a strange reaction, given that the only specific information that has been posted about the system has come from the WSL VT practitioners here. I can see why you might be frustrated, but really your lack of access to the YM VT system it isn't anything to do with me. 

Please, if you don't want to speak to me, just don't respond. I am not posting for your benefit at the end of the day.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Sorry I'm not gonna explain it to you again. I'm not the idiot whisperer.



What you described wasn't the little idea. It was instead the kind of pseudo intellectual but ultimately meaningless gap filling that many of those involved in the mainland systems resort to because, simply put, the info has been lost. 

Given that the YKS and YC system SNT forms which were posted clearly lack the litte idea thinking, and given that your understanding of the system is very widely different from the understanding in YM VT, I don't find myself wishing for any further explanation, and I can see why you might find continued discussion to be increasingly embarrassing. 

In this case your angry bluster is understandable and I am sorry that your ego is a problem in terms of your ability to learn, but ultimately it isn't anything to do with me or any responsibility of mine to provide you with what you are looking for.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> What you described wasn't the little idea. It was instead the kind of pseudo intellectual but ultimately meaningless gap filling that many of those involved in the mainland systems resort to because, simply put, the info has been lost.
> 
> Given that the YKS and YC system SNT forms which were posted clearly lack the litte idea thinking, and given that your understanding of the system is very widely different from the understanding in YM VT, I don't find myself wishing for any further explanation, and I can see why you might find continued discussion to be increasingly embarrassing.
> 
> In this case your angry bluster is understandable and I am sorry that your ego is a problem in terms of your ability to learn, but ultimately it isn't anything to do with me or any responsibility of mine to provide you with what you are looking for.


Keep telling yourself that kiddo, maybe you'll actually come to believe it. I'm done feeding you troll, go find dinner elsewhere and take your imagined superior methods with you. We're through.


----------



## KPM

*What a strange reaction, given that the only specific information that has been posted about the system has come from the WSL VT practitioners here. I can see why you might be frustrated, but really your lack of access to the YM VT system it isn't anything to do with me*.

---Oh the irony is literally dripping from this one!  Is he actually reading the same forum that the rest of us are reading????


----------



## KPM

*What you described wasn't the little idea. *

---And you are now at post #410 and STILL haven't described it at all!


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> We're through.



Personally when I don't want to respond to someone I just don't. No need to declare it for the umpteenth time.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> * I can only assume you are lying. *
> 
> ----Of course you would!




It mustn't feel very satisfying to have to resort to dishonest arguing tactics


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> It mustn't feel very satisfying to have to resort to dishonest arguing tactics




Post #415.  Need I say more??


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> You've already elaborated on what your strategy is and I'll confirm that ours is the same, it is simply sectioned and cataloged under the divisions of Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return.



Since you mentioned using something like a crab guard in your WC, it brings me back to how vastly different our strategies must be.

It's still unclear what sort of manifestations these vague tag lines would have in action, but you wouldn't be able to employ our strategy from the crab guard in boxing. So, our strategies cannot be the same, except in the very broadest of terms.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Since you mentioned using something like a crab guard in your WC, it brings me back to how vastly different our strategies must be.
> 
> It's still unclear what sort of manifestations these vague tag lines would have in action, but you wouldn't be able to employ our strategy from the crab guard in boxing. So, our strategies cannot be the same, except in the very broadest of terms.


If you say so, the EWBIHB isn't our only guard there are others. 

I get it, you have an abnormal compulsion to project yourself as someone in possession of a superior method. Just like a handful of others that have come and gone. It would be nice one day if someone would come along and actually prove it. Until then I won't hold my breath.

Meanwhile I'll continue doing what I do and you can continue to practice forum Kung Fu. You know, because it is highly effective in the real world.

Tootles.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Since you mentioned using something like a crab guard in your WC, it brings me back to how vastly different our strategies must be.
> 
> It's still unclear what sort of manifestations these vague tag lines would have in action, but you wouldn't be able to employ our strategy from the crab guard in boxing. So, our strategies cannot be the same, except in the very broadest of terms.



Post #417.   Are you or Robin every going to actually answer the question in this thread that has been asked of you multiple times?   Are you going to tell us what the "little idea" of the WSLVT SNT form is or not?  Others have shared and contributed.   Why aren't you?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I get it, you have an abnormal compulsion to project yourself as someone in possession of a superior method.



I'm not sure why you think so, unless, inferiority complex?

I didn't say my strategy is superior to yours, only that it is impossible from the guard you described. So, we must be very different.

Given that I don't know how your method works, it could be better, for all I know. Don't be too hard on yourself.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I'm not sure why you think so, unless, inferiority complex?
> 
> I didn't say my strategy is superior to yours, only that it is impossible from the guard you described. So, we must be very different.
> 
> Given that I don't know how your method works, it could be better, for all I know. Don't be too hard on yourself.


Lol, no complex. Just pointing out not to judge what you don't understand. The strategy you provided earlier had most of the elements of mine. As I stated before the tag lines are simply headings in which the strategic formula is categorized. It's just broken up for ease of learning. Also we have several guard positions, all work within the context of the strategy and are applicable to other strategies (in part) as well. No the strategy isn't exactly like yours because we also employ Kum Na & Sut Gow, so some aspects are different, otherwise it wouldn't be cohesive. It probably wouldn't work well with how your system is designed, though some parts would be familiar and vice versa. By no means is it superior to anything, it is specific to YCW WC only.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Lol, no complex. Just pointing out not to judge what you don't understand.



Not sure how you are perceiving judgement in my post without a complex of some sort, or trying to be offended.



> The strategy you provided earlier had most of the elements of mine.



Any description of strategy will be rather broad without understanding tactics. It doesn't really give one an idea of how it would manifest in reality, or the specific tactics used to achieve it.

We cut into the opponent's attacks and cut off their escape routes while pressuring in with simultaneous attack and defense actions.

This may sound broad and relatable to you, but it is impossible from the crab guard. Mayweather makes the guard work, but his strategy is obviously very different from VT. It's more defensive. Cover then counter. As you described in the other thread.

That's not to say better or worse. Just very different.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Not sure how you are perceiving judgement in my post without a complex of some sort, or trying to be offended.
> 
> 
> 
> Any description of strategy will be rather broad without understanding tactics. It doesn't really give one an idea of how it would manifest in reality, or the specific tactics used to achieve it.
> 
> We cut into the opponent's attacks and cut off their escape routes while pressuring in with simultaneous attack and defense actions.
> 
> This may sound broad and relatable to you, but it is impossible from the crab guard. Mayweather makes the guard work, but his strategy is obviously very different from VT. It's more defensive. Cover then counter. As you described in the other thread.
> 
> That's not to say better or worse. Just very different.


You're judging the strategy by the EWBIHB guard only, as stated other guards are used. Differing situations call for appropriate approaches, various guards allow for this. Offensive & defensive strategy are required. Not all situations can be approached in the manner you described because of grappling and throwing methods used by the opponent. Also for YCW WC pressuring with simultaneous attack and defense is just as relatable to a slanting bridge & strike as it is to "Crane Seizes Fox" (throw) or "Eagle Claws the Ground" (choke). It's all in the approach. Our strategy is developed with a broader situational scope in mind.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> You're judging the strategy by the EWBIHB guard only, as stated other guards are used.



I made no qualitative judgement whatsoever, and I don't know your strategy or what other guards you use.

I'm simply stating that our strategy can't be employed from a crab guard.



> Not all situations can be approached in the manner you described because of grappling and throwing methods used by the opponent.



I, and others, have used the VT strategy with success against people trying to close in to grapple and throw.



> Also for YCW WC pressuring with simultaneous attack and defense is just as relatable to a slanting bridge & strike as it is to "Crane Seizes Fox" (throw) or "Eagle Claws the Ground" (choke).



What is a slanting bridge?


----------



## dudewingchun

Can't you guys just make videos demonstrating these things?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I made no qualitative judgement whatsoever, and I don't know your strategy or what other guards you use.
> 
> I'm simply stating that our strategy can't be employed from a crab guard.
> 
> 
> 
> I, and others, have used the VT strategy with success against people trying to close in to grapple and throw.
> 
> 
> 
> What is a slanting bridge?



I use "crab guard" because I am comfortable with it and its versatile, but its not the only guard I use. Nor do I limit myself to the strategy employed by it. Versatility through the ability to adapt is fundamental to YCW WC. Offense and defense are necessary apart from the simultaneous offense and defense strategy. It may be the most employed and the one to strive for but realistically the opponent may be more skillful and a new strategic approach is necessary to adapt and overcome. 

Crab guard is irrelevant, you must have some form of cover and counter in your system, don't you? No matter how good you may be, eventually your structure will get broken or strategy negated, and the opponent will get in putting you on defense.

A good wrestler will get in, you can't always punch your way out, MMA has proved it time and time again. Wing Chun does have strategy specific to dealing with some basic wrestling counters. It obviously isn't as detailed or comprehensive as BJJ but, none the less, useful enough to help re-establish. I've no doubt you have specific tactics within the strategy to deal with those that get in.

Slanting Bridge is a side body Tan Sau with simultaneous punch.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> you must have some form of cover and counter in your system, don't you?



Cover then counter as a basic strategy? No.



> No matter how good you may be, eventually your structure will get broken or strategy negated, and the opponent will get in putting you on defense.



We have methods of recovery that don't involve just covering up.



> Wing Chun does have strategy specific to dealing with some basic wrestling counters. It obviously isn't as detailed or comprehensive as BJJ but, none the less, useful enough to help re-establish.



BJJ is not very detailed or comprehension in standup defense.



> Slanting Bridge is a side body Tan Sau with simultaneous punch.



What part of that does "bridge" refer to?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Cover then counter as a basic strategy? No.
> 
> 
> 
> We have methods of recovery that don't involve just covering up.
> 
> 
> 
> BJJ is not very detailed or comprehension in standup defense.
> 
> 
> 
> What part of that does "bridge" refer to?


There will be times in a real fight when cover & counter is necessary. In YCW WC it is covered within the strategy.

Covering done properly is used to lure, exploit and open when other means aren't possible. Not just withstand a beating.

Because their strategy depends on taking you down not keeping you upright. Learning to counter take downs and getting back up are necessary in YCW WC.

Generically, the forearm, but in YCW WC the term bridge can also refer to other things like proximity to a line of attack, amongst other things.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> There will be times in a real fight when cover & counter is necessary. In YCW WC it is covered within the strategy.
> 
> Covering done properly is used to lure, exploit and open when other means aren't possible. Not just withstand a beating.



Cover then counter is not part of the core VT strategy.



> Generically, the forearm, but in YCW WC the term bridge can also refer to other things like proximity to a line of attack, amongst other things.



What specifically does it refer to in your _taan-da_ example?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Cover then counter is not part of the core VT strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> What specifically does it refer to in your _taan-da_ example?


Is it part of the strategy at all?

Its a temporary connection to the opponent used to facilitate an application.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Is it part of the strategy at all?



There are cover ideas in _Biu-ji, _but that is outside the VT strategy when you are in terrible position to begin with or things have failed badly, and the idea is to recover to VT strategy or at least cut losses and survive.



> Its a temporary connection to the opponent used to facilitate an application.



That's what I was wondering, because I said "bridge" in our terminology is an attack line, not arm contact, and you said yours is the same. But this sounds like bridge = arm contact.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> There are cover ideas in _Biu-ji, _but that is outside the VT strategy when you are in terrible position to begin with or things have failed badly, and the idea is to recover to VT strategy or at least cut losses and survive.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I was wondering, because I said "bridge" in our terminology is an attack line, not arm contact, and you said yours is the same. But this sounds like bridge = arm contact.



Yes, cover is always used to regain when things have failed. You do not go into conflict using full cover in YCW WC. The EWBIHB guard has many permutations that allows for simultaneous attack and defense, not unlike the crab guard of boxing, it can be used offensively. You are correct that it is most often used defensively. I like it because it lends itself well to grappling, which I like to do. Your method doesn't employ grappling as part of your strategy so this guard wouldn't be for you.

Like I said earlier bridge can be used to describe proximity to position of attack, but it is also used to describe physical contact. So bridge in YCW WC is both physical & metaphysical. To avoid confusion, generically I describe any physical contact with the opponent as bridge (hand, forearm, shin etc) & distance from opponent & angle relative to line of attack as the inside line, though in reality it is a representational bridge.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> The EWBIHB guard has many permutations that allows for simultaneous attack and defense, not unlike the crab guard of boxing, it can be used offensively. You are correct that it is most often used defensively.



Okay. My point, though, was to say our methods of simultaneous attack and defense are functions of a single arm (_lin-siu-daai-da _principle) and two such arms working in rotation. Not possible from a crab guard.



> Like I said earlier bridge can be used to describe proximity to position of attack, but it is also used to describe physical contact. So bridge in YCW WC is both physical & metaphysical. To avoid confusion, generically I describe any physical contact with the opponent as bridge (hand, forearm, shin etc) & distance from opponent & angle relative to line of attack as the inside line, though in reality it is a representational bridge.



How is this definition of "bridge" (distance & angle) not "position"?

How is the other definition of "bridge" (temporary connection to the opponent used to facilitate an application) not "control"?

Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return.

There seems to be some blur between your first three concepts.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Okay. My point, though, was to say our methods of simultaneous attack and defense are functions of a single arm (_lin-siu-daai-da _principle) and two such arms working in rotation. Not possible from a crab guard.
> 
> 
> 
> How is this definition of "bridge" (distance & angle) not "position"?
> 
> How is the other definition of "bridge" (temporary connection to the opponent used to facilitate an application) not "control"?
> 
> Position, Bridge, Control, Hit and Return.
> 
> There seems to be some blur between your first three concepts.


The labeling is generic not literal. I'll try to explain in simplest terms.

Inside each section are specific tactics, concepts etc. Things can get confusing, especially when concepts are abstract. To minimize this the strategic formula was labled as Position, Bridge, Control, Hit, Return as a way of helping students understand that they always need to maintain a superior Position through Bridging the opponent to Control them via a Hit/Lock/Throw. Return/Repeat as necessary.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> they always need to maintain a superior Position through Bridging the opponent to Control them via a Hit/Lock/Throw. Return/Repeat as necessary.



Based on your non-singular definition of Bridge, it could be indistinguishable from Position or Control, the latter of which is now equivalent to Hit as well?

You're right. Things can get confusing when concepts are abstract, maybe too abstract.

I'll repeat my definitions again to compare;

Position = ours in relation to attack lines
Bridge = attack lines
Control = of space to take or open attack lines
Hit = via the attack lines
Return = to take or open next attack lines

VT fighting is basically "_Cham-kiu_", seeking the attack lines.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> What part of that does "bridge" refer to?



He is doing it again NI.  He knows perfectly well what you mean by "bridge" because this has been the subject of another contentious thread in the past.  He is leading you on for another "gotcha" kind of moment, as his is typical pattern.


----------



## KPM

And I will point out LFJ is now up to post #435 in this thread that was about comparing SNT forms across lineages.  He and Guy have mentioned there being a "little idea" at the core of the WSLVT SNT form, but haven't yet really shared with anyone what that "little idea" actually is....even after asking probing questions of others to get them to share about their own system.  Instead, LFJ posted to take the thread in a completely different direction and distract everyone from this point.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> He is doing it again NI.  He knows perfectly well what you mean by "bridge" because this has been the subject of another contentious thread in the past.  He is leading you on for another "gotcha" kind of moment, as his is typical pattern.



Oh, plug it, would ya?

I don't know NI's system, and as we found out, he has more than one definition of Bridge, and it's not the same as yours. Wouldn't have know that without asking, would we?



KPM said:


> And I will point out LFJ is now up to post #435 in this thread



And I will point out that KPM is now up to post 1,963 on this forum, and the number of those sharing any depth of information can be counted on one hand.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> BJJ is not very detailed or comprehension in standup defense.



Really? It still managed OK in the early UFCs and Pride against some of the self-proclaimed baddest standup fighters on the planet.


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> Really? It still managed OK in the early UFCs and Pride against some of the self-proclaimed baddest standup fighters on the planet.



That was not a qualitative judgement, mind you.


----------



## KPM

*Oh, plug it, would ya?*

---So does that mean you have no intention of sharing information about WSLVT's SNT form?  Why is that?


*I don't know NI's system, and as we found out, he has more than one definition of Bridge, and it's not the same as yours. Wouldn't have know that without asking, would we?*

---I agree with everything NI has said about the "bridge" so far, and it is in line with how I explained it in the thread I mentioned above.  But you have a short memory.



*And I will point out that KPM is now up to post 1,963 on this forum, and the number of those sharing any depth of information can be counted on one hand.*

---Again, you have a short memory.  I have shared plenty in this forum, far more than you.  If anyone doubts that they need only check our respective profile pages.


----------



## LFJ

How many months or years ago was your last detail-rich and informative post on your system?


----------



## KPM

I made a detailed post in the Lop Da thread explaining how Pin Sun Wing Chun views and performs this drill.  But you probably missed that.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> That was not a qualitative judgement, mind you.



So, it was quantitative? No idea what you are on about.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I made a detailed post in the Lop Da thread explaining how Pin Sun Wing Chun views and performs this drill.  But you probably missed that.



So, about a month and a half ago. 

And how many dozens of posts since then have been just whining about something?


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> So, it was quantitative? No idea what you are on about.



Well, yeah. Meaning not pertaining to the quality of the material, but to the degree of comprehensiveness.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> So, about a month and a half ago.
> 
> And how many dozens of posts since then have been just whining about something?



And how many multiple dozens of posts of yours have been dodging questions, posing questions to others, and generally avoiding sharing information on an equal basis?  How many times have you avoided answering direct questions posed to you?  How many times have you made a cryptic post with a comment about "think about this" or "I'll let you sit on this one" rather than just sharing information? How many people have you managed to tick off with the way you post and the attitude you take here???


----------



## LFJ

The information you were looking for was given to you. You even replied to it but didn't have the brainpower to recognize it because you were preoccupied with arguing.



KPM said:


> How many people have you managed to tick off with the way you post and the attitude you take here???



By the way, once again, NI and I were having a fine conversation until you came along whining again. Same thing happened on the last thread with Juany.


----------



## wtxs

KPM said:


> And I will point out LFJ is now up to post #435 in this thread that was about comparing SNT forms across lineages.  He and Guy have mentioned there being a "little idea" at the core of the WSLVT SNT form, but haven't yet really shared with anyone what that "little idea" actually is....even after asking probing questions of others to get them to share about their own system.  _*Instead, LFJ posted to take the thread in a completely different direction and distract everyone from this point.*_



That is deflection, and they say they don't have or use that concept in their VT for fighting ... maybe they have it only for keyboard battles.


----------



## lansao

JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to see the Wing Chun forms with the foot movement beyond the pivot. I usually see the forms where someone is just standing still in one spot. Don't worry I'm not one of those guys that believes there's only one correct way to do Wing Chun.
> 
> Thanks for the videos.  I didn't see them until after I typed this message


Hey JowGaWolf,

Here is a quick video of our footwork exercise. It's freshly uploaded so the link may need a moment to "process" before it works:






~ Alan, Wing Chun Student


----------



## Wingchunese

Only read the Op.

Why would you compare Yip man to William Cheung's " traditional made up wing chun"  and suspect Hung Fa Yi? 

Wouldn't it have been better to see Yip man --> Yuen Kay San--> Yiu Choi?


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> Are you saying that the little idea in TWC is to enter a meditative mental state, breathe in a particular way, perform slowly, and learn the ABC of wing chun?
> 
> Is there no particular idea?


I'm late to this thread and catching up. That said, this seems like a good spot to share my interpretation of "little idea" as it relates back to mathematical and musical expression. The Sil Lum Tao, aside from structural benefits, offers a dictionary of simplified movements that are abstracted from application, and for good reason.

When practicing the piano, you'll find yourself working on very minute (and not very musical) technique. The substance of that technique varies from artist to artist, period to period, but the idea of simplifying and abstracting those movements into small (little) patterns (ideas) is fundamental to stacking and stringing them together in play.

When studying pure math, you'll find yourself proving identities that have already been proven and practicing applying (often in very clever ways) very small (little) units of truth (ideas) called axioms. 

I find the Sil Lum Tao to be a very necessary abstraction in effectively establishing a set of assumptions/unit structures that can be stacked and strung together to problem solve. Where there have been contests have been in the validity of individual hand positions, approaches to executing them, etc. That said, there has been very little debate about the benefit of abstracting the concept of combat into separate layers that can be practiced individually (and consequently improved when in concert).

I see the phrase "little idea" to be a fairly transparent description of the form as a concise, tightly factored prime representation, of the unit structures of the art.

Hope this is helpful.

~ Alan


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> I'm late to this thread and catching up. That said, this seems like a good spot to share my interpretation of "little idea" as it relates back to mathematical and musical expression. The Sil Lum Tao, aside from structural benefits, offers a dictionary of simplified movements that are abstracted from application, and for good reason.
> 
> When practicing the piano, you'll find yourself working on very minute (and not very musical) technique. The substance of that technique varies from artist to artist, period to period, but the idea of simplifying and abstracting those movements into small (little) patterns (ideas) is fundamental to stacking and stringing them together in play.
> 
> When studying pure math, you'll find yourself proving identities that have already been proven and practicing applying (often in very clever ways) very small (little) units of truth (ideas) called axioms.
> 
> I find the Sil Lum Tao to be a very necessary abstraction in effectively establishing a set of assumptions/unit structures that can be stacked and strung together to problem solve. Where there have been contests have been in the validity of individual hand positions, approaches to executing them, etc. That said, there has been very little debate about the benefit of abstracting the concept of combat into separate layers that can be practiced individually (and consequently improved when in concert).
> 
> I see the phrase "little idea" to be a fairly transparent description of the form as a concise, tightly factored prime representation, of the unit structures of the art.
> 
> Hope this is helpful.
> 
> ~ Alan



I don't mean to be rude, but it is not actually helpful in the slightest since you don't give any detail about the assumptions, unit structures, and concepts of combat that you mention. This would be the important bit.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I don't mean to be rude, but it is not actually helpful in the slightest since you don't give any detail about the assumptions, unit structures, and concepts of combat that you mention. This would be the important bit.



You've completely refused to give any details about WSLVT SNT's "little idea" after being asked multiple times.  So probably better not to point fingers at others!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You've completely refused to give any details about WSLVT SNT's "little idea" after being asked multiple times.  So probably better not to point fingers at others!



Didn't you notice it?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Didn't you notice it?



No.  Please point it out where you went into detail.


----------



## guy b

It is discussed in detail on Lobo's thread


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> It is discussed in detail on Lobo's thread



Then please transpose it here in your own words where it is most appropriate since you have been asked that question multiple times on this thread.  THAT is being honest!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Then please transpose it here in your own words where it is most appropriate since you have been asked that question multiple times on this thread.  THAT is being honest!



SNT is all about training the elbow.


----------



## KPM

Wow!  Such detail!     Again, don't go pointing fingers at others for something you are guilty of yourself!


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> I don't mean to be rude, but it is not actually helpful in the slightest since you don't give any detail about the assumptions, unit structures, and concepts of combat that you mention. This would be the important bit.



No rudeness detected and no worries. Happy to share more direct thoughts overtime if you're interested but fear it expands very quickly into detailed instruction from the 16 or so root hand positions we include.

~ Alan


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> SNT is all about training the elbow.



Good point and definitely one benefit. Conditioning the elbow toward the center or in support of complementary positions (lan, bong, fut) is how I interpret your note. Would you agree with that?

That said, I would attribute the elbow conditioning or really any conditioning resulting from the form to the proper execution of the hand positions themselves as opposed to the general concept of factoring the art to a base representation.

That it is so tightly factored and it's portability was very important in supporting one of its original requirements that it be learned quickly. Very easy form to pick up/memorize. Not so easy to perfect but you start somewhere and, like in calculus, let your delta x approach zero as the integral takes shape.

"Layers donkey, layers." ~ Shrek

~ Alan

Disclaimer: not calling anyone a donkey here.


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> Conditioning the elbow toward the center or in support of complementary positions (lan, bong, fut) is how I interpret your note. Would you agree with that?



Hmm, not really. in WSL VT the whole of SNT is really about the elbow; defining elbow positions and limits of movement, introducing elbow recovery, introducing tan and jum elbow ideas for protection while striking.


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> Hmm, not really. in WSL VT the whole of SNT is really about the elbow; defining elbow positions and limits of movement, introducing elbow recovery, introducing tan and jum elbow ideas for protection while striking.



Great points and thank you for sharing!


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> I would attribute the elbow conditioning .... to the proper execution of the hand positions themselves



If you focus on hand position, nothing happens at the elbow. 

If you focus on elbow position, something happens at the hand.

The hand in all its many shapes is irrelevant. It's the elbow that matters.

It has an enormous impact in terms of strategy and tactics, but it's a subtle idea.


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> Happy to share more direct thoughts overtime if you're interested but fear it expands very quickly into detailed instruction from the 16 or so root hand positions we include.



How does it work with these 16 root hand positions?


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> If you focus on hand position, nothing happens at the elbow.
> 
> If you focus on elbow position, something happens at the hand.
> 
> The hand in all its many shapes is irrelevant. It's the elbow that matters.
> 
> It has an enormous impact in terms of strategy and tactics, but it's a subtle idea.



Totally agree with your first bullet. That said, I'm not sure I would go so far as to say the hand shapes themselves are irrelevant for safety as well as optimization reasons.

Guy b, to help answer I've posted a quick video of me running through the form as I've studied it.






~ Alan


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> Totally agree with your first bullet. That said, I'm not sure I would go so far as to say the hand shapes themselves are irrelevant for safety as well as optimization reasons.
> 
> Guy b, to help answer I've posted a quick video of me running through the form as I've studied it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~ Alan



Thanks for that. So what's the idea behind what you are doing? What do you mean by your 16 root hand positions, and what are the assumptions, unit structures, and concepts of combat that you mentioned?

The way you do the form is not very similar to the way I do it so would imagine that the thinking behind it is probably different


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> Thanks for that. So what's the idea behind what you are doing? What do you mean by your 16 root hand positions, and what are the assumptions, unit structures, and concepts of combat that you mentioned?
> 
> The way you do the form is not very similar to the way I do it so would imagine that the thinking behind it is probably different


I think the thinking behind it is different, but not better. Just the way we study, and something that works for me. There are some key differences, including the fut sao section (tan, fut, tan, heun, pak, heun, chamber), and the altitude of some of our hand positions. Our chamber is kept low and to the side but not resting on our sides and our front-facing stance is fairly moderate. We side step with a 50/50 weight distribution and our hand positions are designed to reflect that. I count roughly 16 hand positions (unit structures) that we incorporate (not including variants of each like low bong or the four juts, 6 paks, etc.), they are:

bil
bong
fook
fut
gum
heun
jut
lan
lop
pak
tan
tie
tut
wu
fist
palm
They each have evolving stories of their own in terms of application and usefulness in concert with and in transition from each other. Some example benefits:

Bil has great stopping power for perpendicular or radial striking, great for bridging and "reverse-insertion," eye striking, positional transitions (and more, don't want to limit).
Bong is useful for deflecting linear strikes, low bong for low strikes, knife defense, yielding support from linear positions (tan, fist, fook, wu, lop, pak, etc.), trap enforcement/wedging (and more, don't want to limit).
Fook is useful in knife defense, redirection, low strike defense, yielding from bong sao (and more, don't want to limit).

I call these unit structures but structure is kind of a misnomer because structure feels static. They are really more like structured unit movements, maybe I'll use that moving forward. Bong isn't a position, it's a structured movement. Tan isn't a structure, it's a structured movement.

In terms of concepts of combat, I like to draw analogies to music theory for students. When you watch a cellist, or jazz sax player, playing a piece of music, his/her movements and flow are seemingly unified. That said, no matter how beautiful or smooth the shape, we can always draw lines and ask what's to the left or right of it. Those lines are similar to basis in linear algebra, or dimensions. In music, there is the dimension of timing/rhythm, the dimension of individual pitch selection, of pitch combinations, of timbre/quality, of accents, of meter (different from rhythm). Treating hand positions as pitches the analogies hold pretty well but the dimensions (of combat but also of study) I'm familiar with are:

Contact sensitivity training
Range training
Balance/structural training
Unit movement combinations
Theoretical study
Eye placement training
Power/force application training
Application micro-study (like practicing musical sequences one measure at a time)
Application rehearsal (getting comfortable completing application sequences)
Random study/improvisation training (how balanced is your relevance/randomness ratio in response to application?)
Full contact sparring
Hope that helps shed some light on my thinking.

~ Alan


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> I think the thinking behind it is different, but not better. Just the way we study, and something that works for me. There are some key differences, including the fut sao section (tan, fut, tan, heun, pak, heun, chamber), and the altitude of some of our hand positions. Our chamber is kept low and to the side but not resting on our sides and our front-facing stance is fairly moderate. We side step with a 50/50 weight distribution and our hand positions are designed to reflect that. I count roughly 16 hand positions (unit structures) that we incorporate (not including variants of each like low bong or the four juts, 6 paks, etc.), they are:
> 
> bil
> bong
> fook
> fut
> gum
> heun
> jut
> lan
> lop
> pak
> tan
> tie
> tut
> wu
> fist
> palm
> They each have evolving stories of their own in terms of application and usefulness in concert with and in transition from each other. Some example benefits:
> 
> Bil has great stopping power for perpendicular or radial striking, great for bridging and "reverse-insertion," eye striking, positional transitions (and more, don't want to limit).
> Bong is useful for deflecting linear strikes, low bong for low strikes, knife defense, yielding support from linear positions (tan, fist, fook, wu, lop, pak, etc.), trap enforcement/wedging (and more, don't want to limit).
> Fook is useful in knife defense, redirection, low strike defense, yielding from bong sao (and more, don't want to limit).
> 
> I call these unit structures but structure is kind of a misnomer because structure feels static. They are really more like structured unit movements, maybe I'll use that moving forward. Bong isn't a position, it's a structured movement. Tan isn't a structure, it's a structured movement.
> 
> In terms of concepts of combat, I like to draw analogies to music theory for students. When you watch a cellist, or jazz sax player, playing a piece of music, his/her movements and flow are seemingly unified. That said, no matter how beautiful or smooth the shape, we can always draw lines and ask what's to the left or right of it. Those lines are similar to basis in linear algebra, or dimensions. In music, there is the dimension of timing/rhythm, the dimension of individual pitch selection, of pitch combinations, of timbre/quality, of accents, of meter (different from rhythm). Treating hand positions as pitches the analogies hold pretty well but the dimensions (of combat but also of study) I'm familiar with are:
> 
> Contact sensitivity training
> Range training
> Balance/structural training
> Unit movement combinations
> Theoretical study
> Eye placement training
> Power/force application training
> Application micro-study (like practicing musical sequences one measure at a time)
> Application rehearsal (getting comfortable completing application sequences)
> Random study/improvisation training (how balanced is your relevance/randomness ratio in response to application?)
> Full contact sparring
> Hope that helps shed some light on my thinking.
> 
> ~ Alan


 
Hi, I am not a musician so I guess those analogies don't mean that much to me. 

From what I can gather you are saying your system is application based and you tie applications to hand positions?

I don't really understand what you are trying to say regarding ideas behind your SNT form.


----------



## lansao

I think you can say we tie applications to hand positions but don't limit applications. The musical analogy helped me in practice and also to own the form as it relates to me. The understanding took me some time, I had a habit of looking past what was right in front of my nose a lot of the time. That said, the practice is fairly straight forward and explicit in the meantime and once the theory is internalized everything comes together very nicely and consistently when applied to variable combat scenarios. The same can be said for other variants I'm sure, I just prefer the way this one fits for me.

Thanks for the back and forth. Gave me an opportunity to express my thoughts on the art in the way I haven't in a while.

~ Alan


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> I think you can say we tie applications to hand positions but don't limit applications. The musical analogy helped me in practice and also to own the form as it relates to me. The understanding took me some time, I had a habit of looking past what was right in front of my nose a lot of the time. That said, the practice is fairly straight forward and explicit in the meantime and once the theory is internalized everything comes together very nicely and consistently when applied to variable combat scenarios. The same can be said for other variants I'm sure, I just prefer the way this one fits for me.
> 
> Thanks for the back and forth. Gave me an opportunity to express my thoughts on the art in the way I haven't in a while.
> 
> ~ Alan



I'm sorry that I couldn't understand what you were trying to say


----------



## geezer

_Lansao_ -- this discussion is already _heading in a bad direction_ ...only you haven't been on this forum long enough to see that yet. Still, good on ya for sharing. Here's hoping I'm wrong about this!


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> _Lansao_ -- this discussion is already _heading in a bad direction_ ...only you haven't been on this forum long enough to see that yet. Still, good on ya for sharing. Here's hoping I'm wrong about this!



You are wrong on this. I don't understand what lansao is trying to say, so not much to say back


----------



## Transk53

lansao said:


> I think you can say we tie applications to hand positions but don't limit applications. The musical analogy helped me in practice and also to own the form as it relates to me. The understanding took me some time, I had a habit of looking past what was right in front of my nose a lot of the time. That said, the practice is fairly straight forward and explicit in the meantime and once the theory is internalized everything comes together very nicely and consistently when applied to variable combat scenarios. The same can be said for other variants I'm sure, I just prefer the way this one fits for me.
> 
> Thanks for the back and forth. Gave me an opportunity to express my thoughts on the art in the way I haven't in a while.
> 
> ~ Alan



Yes as I always say, music is everywhere


----------



## lansao

Thanks geezer. I think all is cool here and the conversation is healthy. I'll admit I'm exercising some of my more dispassionate attributes but guy shared more detail in the process and I learned something through the exchange.

We hug after sparring and smile throughout it.

~ Alan


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> You are wrong on this. I don't understand what lansao is trying to say, so not much to say back



I believe you. But I'll be interested to see what you say when you get more information.


----------



## geezer

lansao said:


> Thanks geezer. I think all is cool here and the conversation is healthy. I'll admit I'm exercising some of my more dispassionate attributes but guy shared more detail in the process and I learned something through the exchange.
> 
> We hug after sparring and smile throughout it.
> 
> ~ Alan



Hmmm. It ain't over yet. Let the conversation run on for a while and then see if you feel like hugging!


----------



## anerlich

There's lots of hugging in Jiu Jitsu, but it has little to do with affection.


----------



## lansao

geezer said:


> Hmmm. It ain't over yet. Let the conversation run on for a while and then see if you feel like hugging!


I'll get the popcorn ready.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> Totally agree with your first bullet. That said, I'm not sure I would go so far as to say the hand shapes themselves are irrelevant for safety as well as optimization reasons.



Hand positions are irrelevant to me in that they are a consequence of what happens at the elbow. The elbow is the important part and where the focus should be.

What I see in your video is the elbow behaving the same roughly at the shoulder line regardless of hand shape/position/action (obviously not counting _bong_, _laan_,_ gam_ and the like).

Basically what I'm saying is that changes in hand position aren't reflected in elbow position, which means that your actions and hand positions are being led by the wrist/ formed by the hand, not the elbow.


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> Hand positions are irrelevant to me in that they are a consequence of what happens at the elbow. The elbow is the important part and where the focus should be.
> 
> What I see in your video is the elbow behaving the same roughly at the shoulder line regardless of hand shape/position/action (obviously not counting _bong_, _laan_,_ gam_ and the like).
> 
> Basically what I'm saying is that changes in hand position aren't reflected in elbow position, which means that your actions and hand positions are being led by the wrist/ formed by the hand, not the elbow.



Interesting perspective and thanks for sharing.


----------



## Danny T

I agree with hand position being unimportant. Elbow is most important as to being the driver. Wrist position is also important.


----------



## lansao

Some more thoughts for the team. With respect, I agree that the elbow is important. In addition to driving force, it is also strategically important to protect as once it's compromised, you're balance and control are put in a position of recovery.

That said, good hands are still important. They're important for the student's protection during chi sao (consistent structure helps avoid finger jamming) and on the dummy. Thumb placement (being tucked back) is also important in order to avoid being jammed when applying pak sao (thumb gets out of the way of incoming fist/strike). From an optimization perspective, having good tight hands helps sharpen/tighten other work by elevating trust in your fingers protection and allowing for nuanced movements to be executed with additional confidence.

I think this conversation is focused on where we place our focus in the Sil Lum Tao. From that perspective, I apologize if the following generalization is too broad. I believe too much focus on any one point or few points of the body can be troublesome. Where focus is placed is a very deep discussion that takes us from focusing on individual parts of the body, to focusing on broader collections, to focusing on the entire self in concert, to focusing on the partner, and finally to neither the self or the opponent, but to the relationship.

Hope that is detail helps explain where we come from. In short, it's all important.

~ Alan


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> What I see in your video is the elbow behaving the same roughly at the shoulder line regardless of hand shape/position/action (obviously not counting _bong_, _laan_,_ gam_ and the like).



I think I'm understanding this observation now and yes! This consistency is a very important attribute of how we practice. Reducing movement while maintaining structure and slight almost suggestive levels of force. The usefulness of this approach becomes more evident when footwork is applied. With out footwork it can seem pretty odd!

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

Some of the problems often seen in leading with the wrist/hand are that it creates redundant two-arm defenses, like _taan-da_, and arm-chasing which in turn can lead to crossing one's own center or in other ways compromising one's own position. These problems are greatly reduced or eliminated by leading with the elbows.


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> Some more thoughts for the team. With respect, I agree that the elbow is important. In addition to driving force, it is also strategically important to protect as once it's compromised, you're balance and control are put in a position of recovery.
> 
> That said, good hands are still important. They're important for the student's protection during chi sao



How are the elbows used in your system? Can you give some examples?

Didn't realise you were a teacher with students.


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> How are the elbows used in your system? Can you give some examples?
> 
> Didn't realise you were a teacher with students.



Was a student teacher but not Sifu, Sihing. Happy to share more, maybe a video chat (google hangouts or Skype chat etc) makes sense? Not sure if that's against rules for the forum. I'll double check, otherwise I'll share a videos discussing the three layers or rings of protection and yielding.

~ Alan


----------



## geezer

@LFJ --I'm not sure exactly what _leading with the wrist_ means, or how that leads to tan-da or crossing center. I'd welcome clarification here.

As far as proper elbow position and energy, ...yes I _do_ see that as essential, and how it allows a sort of dual functioning of simultaneous offense and defense with the same arm. IMO _that_ is good VT.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> @LFJ --I'm not sure exactly what _leading with the wrist_ means, or how that leads to tan-da or crossing center. I'd welcome clarification here.
> 
> As far as proper elbow position and energy, ...yes I _do_ see that as essential, and how it allows a sort of dual functioning of simultaneous offense and defense with the same arm. IMO _that_ is good VT.



I mean having your mind at the hand, rather than back at the elbow. Of course, in fighting it should be a non-thinking habit, but if you don't train this way from the beginning (SNT), then such a habit won't be developed.

If your mind is at the hands, you will need one to defend while the other strikes, or defend then strike with the same hand in two beats, because there is no elbow idea. 

If at the elbow, the same arm can perform both functions of _taan-da_. Like pole fighting, the shaft displaces obstructions, the tip is for striking.

As far as crossing center, if your mind is at the hand this can happen easily. Take _jam-sau_ for example, at high speed, high stress, if you react to a feint with the hand it's quite easy to overshoot, crossing the line or dropping the hand, losing counterstrike alignment and opening your center.

If instead you are leading with the elbow, there is a built-in safety from this. Your elbow can't physically cross your own center, and your "gun" will still be aimed at the target. So, whether you react to a feint or not, you're still in good position to attack/defend.

This is in part why we place so much emphasis on the elbow. The built-in, non-thinking defense is almost foolproof. We can maintain our clear striking zone without having to think about how and when to block with which hand.

Many don't train with this idea. In _daan-chi-sau_ practice, many first block down or back with _jat-sau_ or _jam-sau _at the wrist, and then punch. Many ideas while the one little idea is missing.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> As far as proper elbow position and energy, ...yes I _do_ see that as essential, and how it allows a sort of dual functioning of simultaneous offense and defense with the same arm. IMO _that_ is good VT.



Great! Have you tried adapting your wedging guard based on these discussions?


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> Was a student teacher but not Sifu, Sihing



You have grading in your wing chun?



> Happy to share more, maybe a video chat (google hangouts or Skype chat etc) makes sense? Not sure if that's against rules for the forum. I'll double check, otherwise I'll share a videos discussing the three layers or rings of protection and yielding



I haven't heard of the three rings of protection and yielding so would be interested to learn more. Did you say this is a William Chung derived wing chun?


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> You have grading in your wing chun?
> Yes, level tests from 1 to 15. Level 9 is when one can allow students to call them Sifu, I'm a level 4. From 10 through 15 you transition from Sifu to Master and finally Senior Master. That said, the levels are primarily focused on providing a track to understanding the system.
> 
> I haven't heard of the three rings of protection and yielding so would be interested to learn more. Did you say this is a William Chung derived wing chun?


I can share more about the concepts for sure. I'll put some notes into a video this afternoon to better explain. My Sifu John Wahnish studied with Philip Holder who completed training with William Cheung, then completed Moy Yat's before, before branching out, adapting both systems and starting the North American Wing Chun association back in the 80s. Since then, Sifu and Sigung have incorporated components of other arts, where useful, applying Wing Chun principles and encouraging their inclusion into the art.

~ Alan


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> I think I'm understanding this observation now and yes! This consistency is a very important attribute of how we practice. Reducing movement while maintaining structure and slight almost suggestive levels of force. The usefulness of this approach becomes more evident when footwork is applied. With out footwork it can seem pretty odd!
> 
> ~ Alan



Hi Alan, I think LFJ is saying that there is no elbow emphasis evident in your clip, i.e. It is wrist led


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> Hi Alan, I think LFJ is saying that there is no elbow emphasis evident in your clip, i.e. It is wrist led



LFJ and guy, wondering if we're talking about the same things but from different angles. Can you share examples of elbow emphasis?


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> LFJ and guy, wondering if we're talking about the same things but from different angles. Can you share examples of elbow emphasis?



Try this thread


----------



## LFJ

Or try my last post just above.


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> I mean having your mind at the hand, rather than back at the elbow. Of course, in fighting it should be a non-thinking habit, but if you don't train this way from the beginning (SNT), then such a habit won't be developed.
> 
> If your mind is at the hands, you will need one to defend while the other strikes, or defend then strike with the same hand in two beats, because there is no elbow idea.
> 
> If at the elbow, the same arm can perform both functions of _taan-da_. Like pole fighting, the shaft displaces obstructions, the tip is for striking.
> 
> As far as crossing center, if your mind is at the hand this can happen easily. Take _jam-sau_ for example, at high speed, high stress, if you react to a feint with the hand it's quite easy to overshoot, crossing the line or dropping the hand, losing counterstrike alignment and opening your center.
> 
> If instead you are leading with the elbow, there is a built-in safety from this. Your elbow can't physically cross your own center, and your "gun" will still be aimed at the target. So, whether you react to a feint or not, you're still in good position to attack/defend.
> 
> This is in part why we place so much emphasis on the elbow. The built-in, non-thinking defense is almost foolproof. We can maintain our clear striking zone without having to think about how and when to block with which hand.
> 
> Many don't train with this idea. In _daan-chi-sau_ practice, many first block down or back with _jat-sau_ or _jam-sau _at the wrist, and then punch. Many ideas while the one little idea is missing.



Just seeing this and great detail. In agreement with this and thanks for sharing. I still find good hands to be important for safety and fine tuning but see where you're coming from in terms of focus.

~ Alan


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> I haven't heard of the three rings of protection and yielding so would be interested to learn more. Did you say this is a William Chung derived wing chun?



Here's a quick video with rings of protection and some yielding. Comments on haircut welcome. Also, the whining in the background is my dog, Sam. Also a guest appearance on the TV stand by Violet, my daughter's favorite stuffed animal.






~ Alan


----------



## Gerry Seymour

lansao said:


> Here's a quick video with rings of protection and some yielding. Comments on haircut welcome. Also, the whining in the background is my dog, Sam. Also a guest appearance on the TV stand by Violet, my daughter's favorite stuffed animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~ Alan


Thanks for the video - I'm enjoying learning a bit about the world of WC. Violet's focus is uncanny.


----------



## lansao

gpseymour said:


> Thanks for the video - I'm enjoying learning a bit about the world of WC. Violet's focus is uncanny.


She is unwavering, almost unhuman. Truly an icon.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> Just seeing this and great detail. In agreement with this and thanks for sharing. I still find good hands to be important for safety and fine tuning but see where you're coming from in terms of focus.



You said to avoid finger jamming by having a tight hand which also gives you confidence in use.

From your last video, this appears to be because you intend to use all these shapes in applications. Sounds as if your Wing Chun is very technique-based.

I don't do that. For me, _taan-sau_ for instance is a training device to develop a punch. In _chi-sau_ the hand should be relaxed and the fingers can be allowed to curl naturally, or even hold a relaxed fist, because the focus is on the elbow, not the hand. If your hand is too rigid it will tighten up the forearm and stiffen all your actions.

In free fighting, we're not throwing out _taan-sau_ shapes or latching onto arms with _fuk-sau_ shapes. These are just tools in the process of training the elbows for punches with built-in defensive capabilities.

If you are applying them directly in fighting as techniques, I can't see that you agree with me on the elbow focus at all.


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> You said to avoid finger jamming by having a tight hand which also gives you confidence in use.
> 
> From your last video, this appears to be because you intend to use all these shapes in applications. Sounds as if your Wing Chun is very technique-based.
> 
> I don't do that. For me, _taan-sau_ for instance is a training device to develop a punch. In _chi-sau_ the hand should be relaxed and the fingers can be allowed to curl naturally, or even hold a relaxed fist, because the focus is on the elbow, not the hand. If your hand is too rigid it will tighten up the forearm and stiffen all your actions.
> 
> In free fighting, we're not throwing out _taan-sau_ shapes or latching onto arms with _fuk-sau_ shapes. These are just tools in the process of training the elbows for punches with built-in defensive capabilities.
> 
> If you are applying them directly in fighting as techniques, I can't see that you agree with me on the elbow focus at all.



Apologies for the confusion. It looks like this may just be a point of departure. Best wishes with your training.


----------



## Juany118

lansao said:


> Apologies for the confusion. It looks like this may just be a point of departure. Best wishes with your training.



Well, here is a question Ianson.  I study "simple" TWC (if I remember correctly yours appears to be a combination of TWC with something else.)  

First, the "tight hand" as I practice it isn't as if I am holding the fist so it's shaking.  It is really just about being VERY careful that you form the fist correctly.  If you do this is it naturally "tight" without "forcing" the issue and the forearm is still relaxed and we still easily maintain focus on the elbow. (The elbow focus in my experience is pretty much universal in YM WC lineages.)

Second, while clearly we train the punch, eventually the "basic" striking is done more with a palm strikes and specific strikes with _biu sau_.  There are a few reasons for this.  

1. The palm is naturally less prone to a prolonged injury than a punch (think a boxers fracture or abrasions from striking the bony structure of the face).
2. Physics.  If you strike with the correct portion of the palm there is less surface area being used to strike.  If you have the same amount of force striking a smaller area the resulting damage is increased as pressure = force/surface area.  Whether you use the heel of the palm or the side, you have a smaller surface hence more pressure/damage.
3. You can flow from a _tan_, _bong_ etc. in a way that, for me at least, feels more natural as you simply maintain your forward energy and reorient the wrist.  Additionally, if you are in a circumstance where flowing into a _biu_ is appropriate.

Again none of this is to say I don't punch, I do, its just that eventually palm striking becomes more common.


----------



## lansao

Juany118 said:


> Well, here is a question Ianson.  I study "simple" TWC (if I remember correctly yours appears to be a combination of TWC with something else.)
> 
> First, the "tight hand" as I practice it isn't as if I am holding the fist so it's shaking.  It is really just about being VERY careful that you form the fist correctly.  If you do this is it naturally "tight" without "forcing" the issue and the forearm is still relaxed and we still easily maintain focus on the elbow. (The elbow focus in my experience is pretty much universal in YM WC lineages.)
> 
> Second, while clearly we train the punch, eventually the "basic" striking is done more with a palm strikes and specific strikes with _biu sau_.  There are a few reasons for this.
> 
> 1. The palm is naturally less prone to a prolonged injury than a punch (think a boxers fracture or abrasions from striking the bony structure of the face).
> 2. Physics.  If you strike with the correct portion of the palm there is less surface area being used to strike.  If you have the same amount of force striking a smaller area the resulting damage is increased as pressure = force/surface area.  Whether you use the heel of the palm or the side, you have a smaller surface hence more pressure/damage.
> 3. You can flow from a _tan_, _bong_ etc. in a way that, for me at least, feels more natural as you simply maintain your forward energy and reorient the wrist.  Additionally, if you are in a circumstance where flowing into a _biu_ is appropriate.
> 
> Again none of this is to say I don't punch, I do, its just that eventually palm striking becomes more common.



Hey Juany, good points. One clarification (and it's my fault after re-reading!), when I use the word "tight" here I mean clean/well formed/concise/"hey, that's tight" hands as opposed to literally tight or tense.

~ Alan


----------



## Juany118

lansao said:


> Hey Juany, good points. One clarification (and it's my fault after re-reading!), when I use the word "tight" here I mean clean/well formed/concise/"hey, that's tight" hands as opposed to literally tight or tense.
> 
> ~ Alan


I thought that was what you meant, just wanted to clarify.  Some parts of the human body, fist included, can create a "tight" fit without "force."

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> (The elbow focus in my experience is pretty much universal in YM WC lineages.)



Hmm, I've been looking, but I've found elbow focus to be one of the main things missing from many YM lineages. 

Here I'm not talking about just driving force from the hip/elbow, but the tactical element of using the elbows within the fighting strategy.

In TWC for example, you appear to keep distance as you zone to the blindside, requiring more techniques to be done out at the wrist and hand to control the opponent's arm while you strike with the other hand. No use of elbow. Out of range and moving in the wrong direction to be able to.


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> Here's a quick video with rings of protection and some yielding. Comments on haircut welcome. Also, the whining in the background is my dog, Sam. Also a guest appearance on the TV stand by Violet, my daughter's favorite stuffed animal.



How are these ideas used?


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> How are these ideas used?



The three rings help define our "guard." If the first ring is compromised, it yields to the second. If the second ring is compromised, it yields to the third.

A good example of yielding is bong to tan. Let's say my bong is exposing my elbow or I'm feeling forward pressure at my elbow, instead of fighting it we practice yielding to tan sao. In the opposite direction if my tan sao is feeling pressure at the wrist or forearm, I yield to bong sao. The yield is made possible by subtle footwork/stepping off (but near) the line of force.

~ Alan


----------



## tomatokilla

This whole string just blew my mind.  Thanks to everyone.  I'm with PiedmontChun, I'll just stick to what I know of my system, that'll keep me engaged for the next 40 x years


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Hmm, I've been looking, but I've found elbow focus to be one of the main things missing from many YM lineages.
> 
> Here I'm not talking about just driving force from the hip/elbow, but the tactical element of using the elbows within the fighting strategy.
> 
> In TWC for example, you appear to keep distance as you zone to the blindside, requiring more techniques to be done out at the wrist and hand to control the opponent's arm while you strike with the other hand. No use of elbow. Out of range and moving in the wrong direction to be able to.



Most of the drills you see online are also trying to show what you may do to bridge (and are often redundant, simply to illustrate options) that is the problem with online videos.

The best way to illustrate where I want to be on the blindside is roughly at elbow reach tbh.  That is what we want to control in practice.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Most of the drills you see online are also trying to show what you may do to bridge (and are often redundant, simply to illustrate options) that is the problem with online videos.



Okay? Not sure what that has to do with anything here. I'm talking about TWC in use.



> The best way to illustrate where I want to be on the blindside is roughly at elbow reach tbh.  That is what we want to control in practice.



That's exactly what I mean.

Does TWC not zone to the blindside doing hand techniques to control the opponent's arm, ideally at the elbow, and striking with the other hand?

That's what I mean by maintaining distance, because as I said, it's out of range and moving in the wrong direction to be able to use the elbows tactically in _lin-siu-daai-da_.

Not saying your method won't work for everyone, but in order to use the elbow as I've described, you must enter along your line of force. From a tactical angle, this will cut the opponent off causing them to be turned as we move forward.

The TWC range and direction of movement won't allow it. To end up on the blindside, you must use lateral footwork to circle out and use hands to control their arm so you can hit them. This leaves a lot of space to allow them recovery options since their body is unaffected by it, leading to more sidestepping and more hand techniques to stop their arms.

Maybe you and others can get it to work for you, but that's not my point and I don't care to argue that. I'm just saying the use of elbows as a tactical element in fighting is not something I see in other lineages. So, it doesn't appear to be "universal" in YM lineages, as you say.


----------



## KPM

*Not saying your method won't work for everyone, but in order to use the elbow as I've described, you must enter along your line of force. From a tactical angle, this will cut the opponent off causing them to be turned as we move forward.*

---This is seen in CSL Wing Chun as well.  It is the difference between moving around the opponent, and making the opponent move around you!  Robert Chu says "a shift is a gift!"  If your opponent pivots or shifts you simply use it to continue to turn him away from you as you move into his center.

* I'm just saying the use of elbows as a tactical element in fighting is not something I see in other lineages. So, it doesn't appear to be "universal" in YM lineages, as you say.*

---I tend to agree.  Most YM lineages do make use of the "elbow inward" and blocking/attacking at the same time as part of a "cutting" punch.  That part is relatively "universal."  But they don't make it such a central tenet or tactic as what you have described for WSLVT.


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> The three rings help define our "guard." If the first ring is compromised, it yields to the second. If the second ring is compromised, it yields to the third.



Can you describe how this guard would function in terms of this scenario?



> A good example of yielding is bong to tan. Let's say my bong is exposing my elbow or I'm feeling forward pressure at my elbow, instead of fighting it we practice yielding to tan sao. In the opposite direction if my tan sao is feeling pressure at the wrist or forearm, I yield to bong sao. The yield is made possible by subtle footwork/stepping off (but near) the line of force.



What is the purpose of this yielding, is it defensive?


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Okay? Not sure what that has to do with anything here. I'm talking about TWC in use.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I mean.
> 
> Does TWC not zone to the blindside doing hand techniques to control the opponent's arm, ideally at the elbow, and striking with the other hand?
> 
> That's what I mean by maintaining distance, because as I said, it's out of range and moving in the wrong direction to be able to use the elbows tactically in _lin-siu-daai-da_.
> 
> Not saying your method won't work for everyone, but in order to use the elbow as I've described, you must enter along your line of force. From a tactical angle, this will cut the opponent off causing them to be turned as we move forward.
> 
> The TWC range and direction of movement won't allow it. To end up on the blindside, you must use lateral footwork to circle out and use hands to control their arm so you can hit them. This leaves a lot of space to allow them recovery options since their body is unaffected by it, leading to more sidestepping and more hand techniques to stop their arms.
> 
> Maybe you and others can get it to work for you, but that's not my point and I don't care to argue that. I'm just saying the use of elbows as a tactical element in fighting is not something I see in other lineages. So, it doesn't appear to be "universal" in YM lineages, as you say.



Well my main point is the goal is to get in close.  You don't have to circle, yes you move at an angle BUT you go in towards him because you basically want to jam him up, getting in close and taking his balance, it's not simply a manner of controlling his hands to get there.    If you end up doing a hand control it's because they caught you unaware.  This video is about as good as I have found to illustrate the concept.






Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Well my main point is the goal is to get in close.  You don't have to circle, yes you move at an angle BUT you go in towards him because you basically want to jam him up, getting in close and taking his balance, it's not simply a manner of controlling his hands to get there.    If you end up doing a hand control it's because they caught you unaware.  This video is about as good as I have found to illustrate the concept.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



This is exactly what LFJ is describing above


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> *Not saying your method won't work for everyone, but in order to use the elbow as I've described, you must enter along your line of force. From a tactical angle, this will cut the opponent off causing them to be turned as we move forward.*
> 
> ---This is seen in CSL Wing Chun as well.  It is the difference between moving around the opponent, and making the opponent move around you!  Robert Chu says "a shift is a gift!"  If your opponent pivots or shifts you simply use it to continue to turn him away from you as you move into his center.
> 
> * I'm just saying the use of elbows as a tactical element in fighting is not something I see in other lineages. So, it doesn't appear to be "universal" in YM lineages, as you say.*
> 
> ---I tend to agree.  Most YM lineages do make use of the "elbow inward" and blocking/attacking at the same time as part of a "cutting" punch.  That part is relatively "universal."  But they don't make it such a central tenet or tactic as what you have described for WSLVT.



Hi KPM, do you have any clips of this cutting punch from the CSL system?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Hi KPM, do you have any clips of this cutting punch from the CSL system?



It is not unique to the CSL system.  This is the part I was pointing out that is fairly "universal" to most Wing Chun lineages from what I have seen.  I don't have a video.  I'm referring to the punch that can cut inward across the opponent's punch from above to "exclude" it from the attacking line as you do your own punch.  I think you would likely say it is punching with a "jum" elbow.


----------



## lansao

KPM said:


> It is not unique to the CSL system.  This is the part I was pointing out that is fairly "universal" to most Wing Chun lineages from what I have seen.  I don't have a video.  I'm referring to the punch that can cut inward across the opponent's punch from above to "exclude" it from the attacking line as you do your own punch.  I think you would likely say it is punching with a "jum" elbow.



We call it the capping punch.

~ Alan


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> It is not unique to the CSL system.  This is the part I was pointing out that is fairly "universal" to most Wing Chun lineages from what I have seen.  I don't have a video.  I'm referring to the punch that can cut inward across the opponent's punch from above to "exclude" it from the attacking line as you do your own punch.  I think you would likely say it is punching with a "jum" elbow.


Called an outer gate punch when atop opponents arm and inner gate punch when under in YCW WC.


----------



## wtxs

lansao said:


> I'll get the popcorn ready.
> 
> ~ Alan



Heyyy, that was MY line ... you may use it as long as I get to have my beer.


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> Can you describe how this guard would function in terms of this scenario?
> 
> I can offer a few solutions to the scenario but will do it in a video. The short answer is our rear wu does have a second line of defense with its elbow but our feet play a big role in solving. We don't block, we don't wedge (some radial strikes and a few corner cases excluded), we deflect and yield.
> 
> What is the purpose of this yielding, is it defensive?



Yielding is defensive but it is also offensive in the sense that it helps prevent us from getting jammed up and enables striking. A good example of yielding is the bull fighter who steps off the line of force of the bull. If I'm feeling a lot of pressure on my bong elbow (or downward weight from my chi sao partner's heavy fook sao) I'll yield to that force in a way that's advantageous to me. Assuming my opponent is bigger, stronger, and has more energy than me, I want to avoid getting caught up in a force against force scenario. This approach addresses those concerns in a way that works for me and that I appreciate.

Our arms behave like antennae picking up signals and vanishing from our opponents contact (minimizing tells where possible) while maintaining good structure and posture. When we feel pressure, we don't push back but reposition and yield to the force while preferably cutting across and incorporating simultaneous striking. There's a lot more on this, feel like I'm not doing it justice.

~ Alan


----------



## wtxs

lansao said:


> Yielding is defensive but it is also offensive in the sense that it helps prevent us from getting jammed up and enables striking. A good example of yielding is the bull fighter who steps off the line of force of the bull. If I'm feeling a lot of pressure on my bong elbow (or downward weight from my chi sao partner's heavy fook sao) I'll yield to that force in a way that's advantageous to me. Assuming my opponent is bigger, stronger, and has more energy than me, I want to avoid getting caught up in a force against force scenario. This approach addresses those concerns in a way that works for me and that I appreciate.
> 
> Our arms behave like antennae picking up signals and vanishing from our opponents contact (minimizing tells where possible) while maintaining good structure and posture. When we feel pressure, we don't push back but reposition and yield to the force while preferably cutting across and incorporating simultaneous striking. There's a lot more on this, feel like I'm not doing it justice.
> 
> ~ Alan



You are right .. receiving/intercept, redirecting and simultaneous counter attacking are the finer points as such will never be realize with words.


----------



## lansao

wtxs said:


> You are right .. receiving/intercept, redirecting and simultaneous counter attacking are the finer points as such will never be realize with words.


It's kind of a feel thing.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> This is exactly what LFJ is describing above



Here is what he said...


LFJ said:


> Here I'm not talking about just driving force from the hip/elbow, but the tactical element of using the elbows within the fighting strategy.
> 
> In TWC for example, you appear to keep distance as you zone to the blindside...



Clearly Sifu Keith is not keeping his distance.  If you look at this feet and not his upper body you see he goes in, only on an angle but he is "in there".



LFJ said:


> Does TWC not zone to the blindside doing hand techniques to control the opponent's arm, ideally at the elbow, and striking with the other hand?



That is one possibility, such as when he demonstrates the _chun sau_ however very often, as he describes verbally, a _bong_ can be used as well.  In either case you aren't really "controlling" the arm, you are simply displacing it, and thus the opponents structure and balance because of where you are striking and you are very much striking, if it is there.  If it isn't there then the _bong_ or _chun_ easily spirals into a strike.



> That's what I mean by maintaining distance, because as I said, it's out of range and moving in the wrong direction to be able to use the elbows tactically in _lin-siu-daai-da_.



If you watch his body positioning he is moving forward, admittedly on an angle, BUT it is not only forward movement that is closing the gap. again look at the distance of his feet to the opponent, not the upper body.  If you do that you see the upper body has more distance because Sifu Keith has maintained proper structure and balance but he is demonstrating that the point of the entry is to displace the balance of the opponent, thus creating a vulnerable opponent who can not effectively counter attack you (the important bit is 1:00-1:40, look at the feet position.  When he does so, if you focus on Sifu Keith his energy is going directly at the opponent because ultimately he has only added a small side step to his forward movement.  Essentially he went from a front stance to a side neutral stance via forward motion. he is moving forward in such a way that upon impact with the opponent he is in a "side neutral" forward facing stance and his energy is traveling towards the opponent.

My main point here is to simply emphasize that he is indeed closing the gap, heck it is vital to close that gap because of you don't do so you will have to keep dealing with your opponent being able to effectively punch you and put you in a position where if/when that other hand is coming it requires him to either punch across the body or rotate his stance, which will be difficult due to the fact he is now very much off balance because of your force of entry.



> Not saying your method won't work for everyone, but in order to use the elbow as I've described, you must enter along your line of force. From a tactical angle, this will cut the opponent off causing them to be turned as we move forward.



I will agree with this, sorta, you can't do exactly what you have described but it does not mean that there is no tactical use of the elbow or that the line of force is so significantly altered. 



> The TWC range and direction of movement won't allow it. To end up on the blindside, you must use lateral footwork to circle out and use hands to control their arm so you can hit them. This leaves a lot of space to allow them recovery options since their body is unaffected by it, leading to more sidestepping and more hand techniques to stop their arms.



Again you aren't circling out, you are stepping into your opponent, simply on a SLIGHT angle.  Whether with the _bong_ or the _chun_ you are moving forward with force and he was indeed effected by the maneuver because you have taken his balance away from him. Now if your position is optimal you can actually have the _bong_, _chun_, whatever, spiral/flow into a strike, and yes attack with the other limb as well.  If it isn't optimal then you have that ready to address the other limb because even if off balance it will be coming.  The only way he will be able to "recover" is (again look at the distance between the feet) you permit him to essentially retreat to get his legs firmly under him to reestablish structure.  That isn't going to happen because you keep moving in working him.  It isn't really a matter of one or the other, its a matter of where are you after your entry, that is shown largely in 2:00-2:40.

in either case however the elbows are being used tactically.  In on case focused on punching/striking, in the other focused on either disturbing the structure/balance, or striking if the situation warrants it after the initial entry, while getting yourself out of the "kill box."

Now for my now standard disclaimer...  this is not to say one method is better than the others, works for one person and not another etc.  It is only to demonstrate that while the elbows may be serving a different tactical purpose, a tactical purpose still exists.


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> Hmm, I've been looking, but I've found elbow focus to be one of the main things missing from many YM lineages.
> 
> Here I'm not talking about just driving force from the hip/elbow, but the tactical element of using the elbows within the fighting strategy.
> 
> In TWC for example, you appear to keep distance as you zone to the blindside, requiring more techniques to be done out at the wrist and hand to control the opponent's arm while you strike with the other hand. No use of elbow. Out of range and moving in the wrong direction to be able to.



In the TWC I do, I'm perfectly capable of using elbow force while moving to the blind side ... or not. If I'm using garn, bil, bon, tseun or the cutting/capping/intercepting punch on the opponent's guard/attack, I can't really apply force with anything BUT the elbow. I'm definitely all about moving/turning the opponent rather than moving myself around him. 

I would only yield/retreat if I got jammed up somehow. You can't just yield, you have to use some force to redirect. No force, no effect on the opponent.

Some videos I've seen do have the defender sort of dance around the punch without really trying to affect the opponent's structure, but that is definitely not MY intent.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> In the TWC I do, I'm perfectly capable of using elbow force while moving to the blind side ... or not. If I'm using garn, bil, bon, tseun or the cutting/capping/intercepting punch on the opponent's guard/attack, I can't really apply force with anything BUT the elbow. I'm definitely all about moving/turning the opponent rather than moving myself around him.
> 
> I would only yield/retreat if I got jammed up somehow. You can't just yield, you have to use some force to redirect. No force, no effect on the opponent.
> 
> Some videos I've seen do have the defender sort of dance around the punch without really trying to affect the opponent's structure, but that is definitely not MY intent.




I forgot to add something in my long response that you brought to mind, though of course feel free to correct me if you feel I am "off" here.  If I am stepping to the blind side myself it is usually just for one of two reasons.

1. I am responding to an initial and sudden attack.
2. I need to do so in order to recover proper position/control of the fight that I have some how lost.

Regardless though the mere fact that I may move to the blind side on my own, vs finding/maintaining the blind side via disrupting the structure of the opponent, doesn't mean that the elbow is not the A. Focus of force or B. tactically employed.


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> Can you describe how this guard would function in terms of this scenario?



Hey guy, sharing that video (had to put kid to bed first which also explains the lack of talking!). Forgive any sloppiness, my blades went dull as a result of my onset dad-bod! I'm happy to report I'm back to my regular cardio but sad to report it will take me a few months to undo the damage!

I think I read the scenario alright in terms of the lead hand (what it called man sao) being compromised and rear hand being left alone to protect against an incoming attack. The most important note here is the footwork stepping off the line of force as it truly serves as our first line of defense. Small note, I try to highlight this up front but I use the right edge of the fireplace as a placeholder for my center and central lines.

In the first example I share one of an infinite number of potential follow-ups from the arm being pushed down. The arm doing the pushing, the amount of force, and other factors need to be taken into consideration but here's one way to defend against one way to push the arm down. 

In the second, I focus on being pulled to my right. Depending on the nature of the push/pull it could go to other positions (like an inside bong sao) in order to maintain contact. I roll my hands after the initial defense to indicate follow up takes place from here.

In the third, it's a little tricky to see, but I tut sao off the fut sao which helps scrape the lopping hand off my arm and allows me to recapture. 

In the fourth example, I quan and at one point I chamber my left arm holding up a rear arm tan sao which helps to deflect the incoming opponents right strike (this is just to demonstrate that the tan sao itself is helpful in deflection but it takes a little imagination to see the oncoming right arm). Quan sao is useful there too making arm-break follow-ups a little more accessible. The yielding movement here is really performed by the bong sao where when feeling the force on my hand towards my center the tan sao yeilds to bong sao.






Hope this helps contribute to the discussion. That said, out of respect for the original intent of the thread should this be moved to another? The original discussion was focused on differences in the Sil Lum Tao between lineages.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I'm referring to the punch that can cut inward across the opponent's punch from above to "exclude" it from the attacking line as you do your own punch.



If it's what CSL calls a "whipping punch", that's not something I do. 

That requires taking more of a round line that drops the elbow in at the last moment to straighten out and cut into the opponent's arm from the outside. It's a pretty deliberate technique to be used when you see the opportunity.

The elbow ideas I employ are more of an automatic thing that should be built into all of our straight-line attacks. It's not a specific technique.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> If you look at this feet and not his upper body you see he goes in, only on an angle but he is "in there".



If the angle is off to the side, then you aren't angling into them, by definition.



> again look at the distance of his feet to the opponent, not the upper body.  If you do that you see the upper body has more distance because Sifu Keith has maintained proper structure and balance...



"The upper body has more distance". 

That's exactly what I said. It's maintaining distance while the footwork angles off from the incoming line of force and his own target. 

From my perspective, the feet are maintaining distance too. At no point does he direct a line of force from his body as a unit into the target. He's always staying out and sidestepping, in a side-neutral stance as you said, while doing techniques with the hands at the guy's arm.

The video shows exactly what I was saying. And my point being that this makes the elbow ideas in_ lin-siu-daai-da_ impossible.



> you can't do exactly what you have described but it does not mean that there is no tactical use of the elbow or that the line of force is so significantly altered.



It is significantly altered enough to where the tactical use of the elbow in _lin-siu-daai-da_ is impossible.



> Now if your position is optimal you can actually have the _bong_, _chun_, whatever, spiral/flow into a strike, and yes attack with the other limb as well.



Yup, just like I said. Because you are maintaining distance and angling off, you have to use many hand techniques because the elbow use in _lin-siu-daai-da_ is impossible with this approach given the range and direction of movement.


----------



## LFJ

anerlich said:


> In the TWC I do, I'm perfectly capable of using elbow force while moving to the blind side ... or not. If I'm using garn, bil, bon, tseun or the cutting/capping/intercepting punch on the opponent's guard/attack, I can't really apply force with anything BUT the elbow.



Elbow force is exactly what I said I was _not_ talking about.


----------



## guy b

lansao said:


> Hey guy, sharing that video (had to put kid to bed first which also explains the lack of talking!). Forgive any sloppiness, my blades went dull as a result of my onset dad-bod! I'm happy to report I'm back to my regular cardio but sad to report it will take me a few months to undo the damage!
> 
> I think I read the scenario alright in terms of the lead hand (what it called man sao) being compromised and rear hand being left alone to protect against an incoming attack. The most important note here is the footwork stepping off the line of force as it truly serves as our first line of defense. Small note, I try to highlight this up front but I use the right edge of the fireplace as a placeholder for my center and central lines.
> 
> In the first example I share one of an infinite number of potential follow-ups from the arm being pushed down. The arm doing the pushing, the amount of force, and other factors need to be taken into consideration but here's one way to defend against one way to push the arm down.
> 
> In the second, I focus on being pulled to my right. Depending on the nature of the push/pull it could go to other positions (like an inside bong sao) in order to maintain contact. I roll my hands after the initial defense to indicate follow up takes place from here.
> 
> In the third, it's a little tricky to see, but I tut sao off the fut sao which helps scrape the lopping hand off my arm and allows me to recapture.
> 
> In the fourth example, I quan and at one point I chamber my left arm holding up a rear arm tan sao which helps to deflect the incoming opponents right strike (this is just to demonstrate that the tan sao itself is helpful in deflection but it takes a little imagination to see the oncoming right arm). Quan sao is useful there too making arm-break follow-ups a little more accessible. The yielding movement here is really performed by the bong sao where when feeling the force on my hand towards my center the tan sao yeilds to bong sao.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this helps contribute to the discussion. That said, out of respect for the original intent of the thread should this be moved to another? The original discussion was focused on differences in the Sil Lum Tao between lineages.
> 
> ~ Alan



With respect, I don't think angling off to the side is going to be fast enough with an incoming right hand. The original thread was talking about a situation where your lead hand slapped down and a right hand incoming.


----------



## KPM

*If it's what CSL calls a "whipping punch", that's not something I do.*

----No, not the "whipping punch."

*That requires taking more of a round line that drops the elbow in at the last moment to straighten out and cut into the opponent's arm from the outside. It's a pretty deliberate technique to be used when you see the opportunity.*

---Agreed.

*The elbow ideas I employ are more of an automatic thing that should be built into all of our straight-line attacks. It's not a specific technique.*

---Understood.


----------



## LFJ

@KPM 

Are you talking about the "excluding" and "including" type of things I just posted in the Cutting Punch thread? If so, see my comments there.


----------



## guy b

What is the cutting punch then KPM? Can you show an example?


----------



## lansao

guy b said:


> With respect, I don't think angling off to the side is going to be fast enough with an incoming right hand. The original thread was talking about a situation where your lead hand slapped down and a right hand incoming.


That's fair, it was hard for me to trust it at first. After practicing for a year or so and optimizing eye placement, tightening distance traveled, energy committed, etc. I can say from experience it is more than fast enough and worth experimenting with before disqualifying.

~ Alan


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> If the angle is off to the side, then you aren't angling into them, by definition.
> 
> 
> 
> "The upper body has more distance".
> 
> That's exactly what I said. It's maintaining distance while the footwork angles off from the incoming line of force and his own target.
> 
> From my perspective, the feet are maintaining distance too. At no point does he direct a line of force from his body as a unit into the target. He's always staying out and sidestepping, in a side-neutral stance as you said, while doing techniques with the hands at the guy's arm.
> 
> The video shows exactly what I was saying. And my point being that this makes the elbow ideas in_ lin-siu-daai-da_ impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> It is significantly altered enough to where the tactical use of the elbow in _lin-siu-daai-da_ is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, just like I said. Because you are maintaining distance and angling off, you have to use many hand techniques because the elbow use in _lin-siu-daai-da_ is impossible with this approach given the range and direction of movement.



First, if you get closer towards a person you have closed the distance.

Second you aren't maintaining distance.  What you have done is disrupted the structure and balance of the opponent.  The same thing can happen with any striking.  The disruption of the opponent's structure is key to every WC/VT centerline theory I have either experienced or been told in speaking with others.  If as a consequence of this the opponent ends up leaning away you haven't "maintained distance" the opponent has simply lost his balance.

As for the last, once he has finished his entry he certainly takes a full on stance, the point of the topic of the video however is simply to explain how you enter so he focuses his demonstration on the entry and jamming him up.  You see him go "full on" post entry most obviously at about the 2:00 mark.

I totally understand that this is a different philosophy vs WSLPB-VT but the idea that A. We maintain distance B. And that we are, in essence, constantly dancing around the opponent and C. As you said previously, the elbows are not tactically used, are simply mis-characterizations

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

@guy b @lansao 

The original scenario also limited footwork so as to highlight the issue with the center guard.

Imagine being in a place like in this video, or starting at 4:44. There's not much room for footwork at all, particularly lateral footwork to compensate for the failing center guard.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> First, if you get closer towards a person you have closed the distance.
> 
> Second you aren't maintaining distance.



From your perspective, if that's what you call it. Compared to what I do, it is maintaining distance.



> As for the last, once he has finished his entry he certainly takes a full on stance, the point of the topic of the video however is simply to explain how you enter so he focuses his demonstration on the entry and jamming him up.  You see him go "full on" post entry most obviously at about the 2:00 mark.



That's where it becomes most obvious that he's maintaining distance.

At 2:31, he literally steps _backward _away from the opponent and toward the camera!



> I totally understand that this is a different philosophy vs WSLPB-VT but the idea that A. We maintain distance B. And that we are, in essence, constantly dancing around the opponent and C. As you said previously, the elbows are not tactically used, are simply mis-characterizations



A. He stepped backward away from the opponent.
B. He continually sidesteps to get further around the opponent.
C. The elbows are indeed not used in _lin-siu-daai-da_ at all.


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> @guy b @lansao
> 
> The original scenario also limited footwork so as to highlight the issue with the center guard.
> 
> Imagine being in a place like in this video, or starting at 4:44. There's not much room for footwork at all, particularly lateral footwork to compensate for the failing center guard.


That cage in particular has more than enough room but in tighter spaces our t-step also proves useful. That said, it's hard to debate these finer points on a forum. If we were in class and studying this scenario, we would break it down and moment by moment analyze movements applying our Wing Chun principles and feeling it work. Then we would practice it. I'm confident there are many solutions to each of these scenarios, and I'll throw out there that an elbow may be one of them.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> That cage in particular has more than enough room but in tighter spaces our t-step also proves useful. That said, it's hard to debate these finer points on a forum. If we were in class and studying this scenario, we would break it down and moment by moment analyze movements applying our Wing Chun principles and feeling it work. Then we would practice it. I'm confident there are many solutions to each of these scenarios, and I'll throw out there that an elbow may be one of them.
> 
> ~ Alan



The point was to highlight the problem with the center guard itself so as to fix it, not just put a band-aid on it by running away or resorting to other emergency techniques.


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> The point was to highlight the problem with the center guard itself so as to fix it, not just put a band-aid on it by running away or resorting to other emergency techniques.


I think words are failing us here and that's ok. When you have time, a brief demonstration video might be helpful (shadowing is ok).

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

@Juany118



LFJ said:


> At 2:31, he literally steps _backward _away from the opponent and toward the camera!



To further clarify this for you, from the position at 2:30, consider advancing with the right leg while doing that _jat-da_. This will cut right into him, eating space, while you orient your entire structure behind your line of force _into him_. This will disrupt his balance and facing, hindering his ability to reface and counter effectively while you attack straight forward on this angle with body mass behind your strikes.

What your guy is doing is stepping his left foot out, followed by his right foot back. This is moving himself away from/ around the opponent. It is leaving a ton of space free and taking body mass away from the direction of his line of force. 

As he continues sidestepping while maintaining distance he's worried about the guy being able to reface and punch with his other arm, precisely because he's allowing that space in the first place. That's why he has to continue stepping circles around him and doing stuff with his hands. He's not eating space and disabling the opponent effectively.


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> I think words are failing us here and that's ok. When you have time, a brief demonstration video might be helpful (shadowing is ok).
> 
> ~ Alan



I think it was pretty well covered in that thread, but I don't expect you to read through it.

Maybe try this post.


----------



## wckf92

@LFJ
If you watch TWC folks doing their wooden dummy form...you see the same kind of thing...circling around vs cutting in WRT footwork. At least that's what I've seen. I'm not certain if this is what you are referring to, but, if this guy in the video is a master under that lineage then I bet his dummy footwork matches what he is displaying in the posted vid.


----------



## LFJ

@wckf92

He's a grandmaster apparently, and this is his dummy form:






Seriously though, all the TWC forms teach the same type of stepping and maintaining distance. It's part of their strategy. Quite obvious.


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> @LFJ
> If you watch TWC folks doing their wooden dummy form...you see the same kind of thing...circling around vs cutting in WRT footwork. At least that's what I've seen. I'm not certain if this is what you are referring to, but, if this guy in the video is a master under that lineage then I bet his dummy footwork matches what he is displaying in the posted vid.



The man in the video is Master Keith Mazza.  He is a closed door student of GM William Cheung and is the official NA Liaison of the World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association.

I am wondering something here though, maybe we have an issue with semantics/perspective?  I see what Sifu Keith is doing as moving in a straight line (though admittedly on an angle) because of the footwork involved and the fact distance is being closed.  Is the reason some are saying "circling" around because instead of immediately "cutting in" he is "flanking"?  If so perhaps I am being a touch pedantic when it comes to terminology.


----------



## wckf92

Juany118 said:


> The man in the video is Master Keith Mazza.  He is a closed door student of GM William Cheung and is the official NA Liaison of the World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association.
> 
> I am wondering something here though, maybe we have an issue with semantics/perspective?  I see what Sifu Keith is doing as moving in a straight line (though admittedly on an angle) because of the footwork involved and the fact distance is being closed.  Is the reason some are saying "circling" around because instead of immediately "cutting in" he is "flanking"?  If so perhaps I am being a touch pedantic when it comes to terminology.



Hi juany. thx for the info on the dude. 
As for the semantics...don't know/can't say. TBH I kinda see LFJ's point on this. 

When I see TWC practitioners use footwork, it always seem they circle around their opponent...keeping their centers exposed, groin is exposed due to the open nature of their legs as they stutter-step around to what you call blind side. 
If it works for you then rock on bro...


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I am wondering something here though, maybe we have an issue with semantics/perspective?  I see what Sifu Keith is doing as moving in a straight line (though admittedly on an angle) because of the footwork involved and the fact distance is being closed.  Is the reason some are saying "circling" around because instead of immediately "cutting in" he is "flanking"?  If so perhaps I am being a touch pedantic when it comes to terminology.



Not semantics, I think. TWC angles off from the incoming line of force. Then to continue on the blindside, you sidestep again and keep angling. If it goes on too long you won't end up on the other side of the room, but back where you started!

If that's not circling because you're taking straight-line steps each time, maybe call it hexadecagoning? In any case, it is around the opponent while maintaining distance/ leaving space requiring more handwork against the arm.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> He is a closed door student of GM William Cheung



By the way, I wonder where this term "closed door student" came from. Do they just mean they attended private classes?

In Chinese, _guanmen dizi_ (关门弟子) means literally the disciple who closes the door, and refers to the last disciple of a master, so they figuratively "close the door" as they are the last to enter. It's a verb, not an adjective like "closed door" and doesn't mean anything super special.

I think "closed door disciple" is a misunderstanding of the Chinese term that Westerners have taken to sound cool, like a privileged student who gets all the best secrets behind closed doors. But then again, that was basically Cheung's claim of his relationship with YM, wasn't it?


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> Hi juany. thx for the info on the dude.
> As for the semantics...don't know/can't say. TBH I kinda see LFJ's point on this.
> 
> When I see TWC practitioners use footwork, it always seem they circle around their opponent...keeping their centers exposed, groin is exposed due to the open nature of their legs as they stutter-step around to what you call blind side.
> If it works for you then rock on bro...



The thing is though that is largely only done on entry, and if done properly you aren't inviting a kick to "happy time".  As a matter of fact in my school we purposefully will take shots at "happy time" if our training partner has poor position to ram the point home.  stutter stepping is also, basically, a mistake often made by people who are being flat footed, or dragging their feet.  

Once you "get there" your goal is to essentially use your attacks to maintain the flank position.  You can see that a few times here in a real fight, not "drill"/demo.  The one with the pony tail is Sifu Jerry Devone.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> By the way, I wonder where this term "closed door student" came from. Do they just mean they attended private classes?
> 
> In Chinese, _guanmen dizi_ (关门弟子) means literally the disciple who closes the door, and refers to the last disciple of a master, so they figuratively "close the door" as they are the last to enter. It's a verb, not an adjective like "closed door" and doesn't mean anything super special.
> 
> I think "closed door disciple" is a misunderstanding of the Chinese term that Westerners have taken to sound cool, like a privileged student who gets all the best secrets behind closed doors. But then again, that was basically Cheung's claim of his relationship with YM, wasn't it?



Yes, he was the first private student of GM Cheung.  In this particular case though it is confirmed by GM Cheung and he actually regularly visits Sifu Mazza's school.

As for the moving to blind side.  As I said, that is something you do initially OR to recover position if your attacks and counters don't allow you to maintain position.  If you are constantly zoning to a flank throughout an entire fight you are either doing something wrong or your opponent is simply better than you are in some way. In so far as what it's called I refer to it as flanking.  An analogy for what is done is actually on the battle field.  When possible you wish to attack the enemy flank as they can not bring their full firepower to bear against you.  The way you maintain that flank position and not allow the enemy to adjust their line is by properly coordinating your firepower.  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> I think it was pretty well covered in that thread, but I don't expect you to read through it.
> 
> Maybe try this post.


I understood the thread. The wedge in the thread is equilateral, ours is not


Juany118 said:


> The thing is though that is largely only done on entry, and if done properly you aren't inviting a kick to "happy time".  As a matter of fact in my school we purposefully will take shots at "happy time" if our training partner has poor position to ram the point home.  stutter stepping is also, basically, a mistake often made by people who are being flat footed, or dragging their feet.
> 
> Once you "get there" your goal is to essentially use your attacks to maintain the flank position.  You can see that a few times here in a real fight, not "drill"/demo.  The one with the pony tail is Sifu Jerry Devone.


Here is a good reference on the radial positioning area that helps explain where/why we cut in.

Wing Chun Kung Fu Radial Positioning Area

Here are the other concepts:

Wing Chun Kung Fu Concepts and Prinicples

~ Alan


----------



## anerlich

LFJ said:


> Elbow force is exactly what I said I was _not_ talking about.



In that case, I'm not talking about what you're not talking about.

I can be as obtuse as you!


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> What is the cutting punch then KPM? Can you show an example?




Imagine you are doing the Pak Da drill......one person throwing continuous alternating punches while the other does continuous alternating Pak Sau.  Then at some point rather than a Pak Sau, you do your own punch that crosses the same spot you would have contacted with the Pak Sau so that it functions to take their punch off of the line in the same way....... while you are hitting.  So your forearm is "cutting" across the line or "excluding" their punch from the line.  It is still a straight punch, not a whipping punch.  

Another way to think about it would be to picture deflecting their straight punch with a Jum Sau and adding forward motion that turns into a punch at pretty much the same time.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Imagine you are doing the Pak Da drill......one person throwing continuous alternating punches while the other does continuous alternating Pak Sau.  Then at some point rather than a Pak Sau, you do your own punch that crosses the same spot you would have contacted with the Pak Sau so that it functions to take their punch off of the line in the same way....... while you are hitting.  So your forearm is "cutting" across the line or "excluding" their punch from the line.  It is still a straight punch, not a whipping punch.
> 
> Another way to think about it would be to picture deflecting their straight punch with a Jum Sau and adding forward motion that turns into a punch at pretty much the same time.



Do you have a clip to show?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Do you have a clip to show?



No.  You don't understand what I am describing above?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Do you have a clip to show?


Really, you need a video? It's WC 101.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Really, you need a video? It's WC 101.


Pretty much and if, due to their incoming force, your strike also gets stopped, open you fist and you see a _tan_, if we are talking about the same thing that is.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> No.  You don't understand what I am describing above?



I understand the description but would need to see how you do or could mean a number of things


----------



## lansao

Quick video for the team showing the capping punch as I learned it. Bonus reverse capping punch too. Treat the right side of the fireplace as my opponent's line of force/central line.






P.S. The very end is me thinking I woke up the baby. Hence the expression of pure primal fear looking up.

~ Alan


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

All punching power should come from the body and not just come from the shoulder. This is why when a boxer looks at a WC clip, he won't believe that "shoulder only punch" can generate enough knock down power.

In this clip, you can see

- body movement,
- waist rotation, and
- legs spring.






In this clip, you don't see much body movement at all. I do think Ip Men's WC system training method has some issues. It makes beginners to forget about the body and only think about arm.

The issue is after you have developed this bad habit (only think about arm movement and not think about body movement), it's very difficult to remove it later on.

To keep it simple in the beginning training stage may be a good idea. But the important concept (such as body push/pull arm) should be addressed during SLT training stage.

The day that you can punch without using your arm, you will understand "power generation" better. Should you start this during SLT training? I think you should.


----------



## lansao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All punching power should come from the body and not just come from the shoulder. This is why when a boxer looks at a WC clip, he won't believe that "shoulder only punch" can generate enough knock down power.
> 
> In this clip, you can see body movement and waist rotation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this clip, you don't see much body movement at all. I do think Ip Men's WC system training method has some issues. It makes beginners to forget about the body and only think about arm.
> 
> The issue is after you have developed this bad habit (only think about arm movement and not think about body movement), it's very difficult to remove it later on.
> 
> To keep it simple in the beginning training stage may be a good idea. But the important concept (such as body push/pull arm) should be addressed during SLT training stage.


Adding hip rotation, ball/heal weight distribution, a supported extension and good timing as important to generating knockout power. It's kind of akward at first like a golf swing.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> Do you have a clip to show?



He does have a clip. Must have forgotten.

It's at 3:15 here from his _paak-sau_ drill. What he calls the "excluding punch".

As with the video I posted on the Cutting Punch thread, there is no elbow idea here. It's wrist-led and cutting diagonally across the line with the forearm. Same as his "_paak-sau_ touch & go" being wrist-led, as most lineages do _jam-sau_ from the wrist.


----------



## lansao

lansao said:


> Quick video for the team showing the capping punch as I learned it. Bonus reverse capping punch too. Treat the right side of the fireplace as my opponent's line of force/central line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. The very end is me thinking I woke up the baby. Hence the expression of pure primal fear looking up.
> 
> ~ Alan





LFJ said:


> He does have a clip. Must have forgotten.
> 
> It's at 3:15 here from his _paak-sau_ drill. What he calls the "excluding punch".
> 
> As with the video I posted on the Cutting Punch thread, there is no elbow idea here. It's wrist-led and cutting diagonally across the line with the forearm. Same as his "_paak-sau_ touch & go" being wrist-led, as most lineages do _jam-sau_ from the wrist.


Quick point of differentiation between what we call the "capping punch" and what's shown at 3:15 here as the "excluding punch." The capping punch just drives right through and the forearm of the punch itself serves as the deflective surface. There's no intermediary pak sao before the punch, the punch is the deflection and the strike.

~ Alan


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> All punching power should come from the body and not just come from the shoulder. This is why when a boxer looks at a WC clip, he won't believe that "shoulder only punch" can generate enough knock down power.
> 
> In this clip, you can see
> 
> - body movement,
> - waist rotation, and
> - legs spring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this clip, you don't see much body movement at all. I do think Ip Men's WC system training method has some issues. It makes beginners to forget about the body and only think about arm.
> 
> The issue is after you have developed this bad habit (only think about arm movement and not think about body movement), it's very difficult to remove it later on.
> 
> To keep it simple in the beginning training stage may be a good idea. But the important concept (such as body push/pull arm) should be addressed during SLT training stage.
> 
> The day that you can punch without using your arm, you will understand "power generation" better. Should you start this during SLT training? I think you should.



Just a two things.  

1.  SLT is not showing how to "throw a punch in anger." It is about teaching the basic Alphabet upon which everything in built upon.  You expand upon that in the drills etc.

2. Physics.  There is some hip action in a punch in WC just not as much.  Why?  Force equals mass*velocity.  There are two ways via punching to achieve this.  1. "Throwing" your weight behind a punch and 2. "Keeping" your weight behind the punch.  To illustrate...






So it is there.  Simply because someone doesn't like a curriculum means little to the end result.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> Quick video for the team showing the capping punch as I learned it. Bonus reverse capping punch too. Treat the right side of the fireplace as my opponent's line of force/central line.



You are stepping away from the incoming line of force then, as I've been saying TWC does. 

This keeps space between you and the opponent and moves your body in the opposite direction of your own line of force, meaning use of wrist and not elbow.



lansao said:


> Quick point of differentiation between what we call the "capping punch" and what's shown at 3:15 here as the "excluding punch." The capping punch just drives right through and the forearm of the punch itself serves as the deflective surface. There's no intermediary pak sao before the punch, the punch is the deflection and the strike.



Same as the excluding punch. It's not the "_paak-sau_ touch & go" bit, I think. He only shows a few of the excluding punches.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Once you "get there" your goal is to essentially use your attacks to maintain the flank position.  You can see that a few times here in a real fight, not "drill"/demo.  The one with the pony tail is Sifu Jerry Devone.



I didn't see any flanking in that fight. He was pretty much playing straight line right in front of the guy the whole time. If he was trying to flank, it didn't work. He won because the other guy didn't know what he was doing.


----------



## Juany118

Nvm


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> You are stepping away from the incoming line of force then, as I've been saying TWC does.
> 
> This keeps space between you and the opponent and moves your body in the opposite direction of your own line of force, meaning use of wrist and not elbow.


We step slightly off the line of force then intercept/punch the opponent's incoming head driving through it with our hip rotation preferably targeting their temple while gearing up to strike with our rear hand to the bridge of their nose or directly into their eye socket constantly coming in and jamming their elbow into their center setting their missing tripod leaving them feeling helpless and violated while stepping through their knee and sending the back of their heads hurling to the floor only to stomp on their faces before we walk away... or something like that 

Are we still talking about the Sil Lum Tao here? Feels like we're covering a lot of ground!

~ Alan


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> 2. "Keeping" your weight behind the punch.


My concern is the "power generation" should be the most important part of the beginner's training,

If you  "Keeping" your weight behind the punch, your body should follow after your punch as:

- elbow chase hand,
- shoulder chase elbow,
- body chase shoulder,
- leg chase body.

The most important CMA principle that

- hand coordinate with foot,
- elbow coordinate with knee,
- shoulder coordinate with hip

is completely missing in the Ip Men's SLT training.


----------



## lansao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My concern is the "power generation" should be the most important part of the beginner's training,
> 
> If you  "Keeping" your weight behind the punch, your body should follow after your punch as:
> 
> - elbow chase hand,
> - shoulder chase elbow,
> - body chase shoulder,
> - leg chase body.
> 
> The most important CMA principle that
> 
> - hand coordinate with foot,
> - elbow coordinate with knee,
> - shoulder coordinate with hip
> 
> is completely missing in the SLT training.


One note here is that Sil Lum Tao doesn't train proper punch mechanics, it's the first and one of the open hand forms. We studied healthy punching power in separate lessons.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Nvm



Saw it. 



lansao said:


> We step slightly off the line of force then intercept/punch the opponent's incoming head driving through it with our hip rotation preferably targeting their temple while gearing up to strike with our rear hand to the bridge of their nose or directly into their eye socket constantly coming in and jamming their elbow into their center setting their missing tripod leaving them feeling helpless and violated while stepping through their knee and sending the back of their heads hurling to the floor only to stomp on their faces before we walk away... or something like that
> 
> Are we still talking about the Sil Lum Tao here? Feels like we're covering a lot of ground!
> 
> ~ Alan



Whoa... okay... I think you just described a murder.

Yes, we're still talking about SNT, because it's all about the elbow, though this seems to be missing from most lineages.


----------



## Juany118

lansao said:


> One note here is that Sil Lum Tao doesn't train proper punch mechanics, it's the first and one of the open hand forms. We studied healthy punching power in separate lessons.
> 
> ~ Alan


To clarify however your WC is a combination of at least 2 Lineages correct?  Only want to clarify because people here can paint with a broad brush.  Ergo if your WC shares elements with TWC or WSL or whatever, unless you clarify people will be myopic and focus on one source.  It sucks but welcome to our forums. 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> Saw it.
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa... okay... I think you just described a murder.
> 
> Yes, we're still talking about SNT, because it's all about the elbow, though this seems to be missing from most lineages.


Ah, yeah. It was a bit of an exaggeration lol. We talk about the elbow a lot. It depends on our range and it's introduced from an open hand standpoint in the Bil Gee. We practice defending punches with elbows, defending elbows with elbows, and striking at a diagonal. It's just seems to be treated as a recovery tactic more than anything else. One thing my Sifu says is "if you're in range to give an elbow, you're in range to eat an elbow" which I think emphasizes a need to recover from it. Different strokes I guess.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> To clarify however your WC is a combination of at least 2 Lineages correct?  Only want to clarify because people here can paint with a broad brush.  Ergo if your WC shares elements with TWC or WSL or whatever, unless you clarify people will be myopic and focus on one source.  It sucks but welcome to our forums.



I commented on an element that is clearly part of the TWC method. It has been shown in the Mazza video you posted. Not sure why you are wanting to distance yourself from it now.


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> Ah, yeah. It was a bit of an exaggeration lol. We talk about the elbow a lot. It depends on our range and it's introduced from an open hand standpoint in the Bil Gee. We practice defending punches with elbows, defending elbows with elbows, and striking at a diagonal. It's just seems to be treated as a recovery tactic more than anything else. One thing my Sifu says is "if you're in range to give an elbow, you're in range to eat an elbow" which I think emphasizes a need to recover from it. Different strokes I guess.
> 
> ~ Alan



You're talking about elbow strikes? You have elbow strikes in SNT?


----------



## lansao

Juany118 said:


> To clarify however your WC is a combination of at least 2 Lineages correct?  Only want to clarify because people here can paint with a broad brush.  Ergo if your WC shares elements with TWC or WSL or whatever, unless you clarify people will be myopic and focus on one source.  It sucks but welcome to our forums.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


The Wing Chun I learned from my Sifu John Wahnish comes from my Sigung Philip Holder who, after graduating with honors under WIlliam Cheung graduated from Moy Yat before branching out and starting the North American Wing Chun Association (I believe in the 80's). Since then they have adapted and encouraged its continual development with input from BJJ, Krav Maga, boxing, and other arts. Wherever there is a movement that follows Wing Chun principles, that movement is Wing Chun.

You can watch a UFC fight and say "that was good Wing Chun" when the fighter acts in a way that is in accordance with Wing Chun principles of economy of energy, economy of movement, not fighting force against force, protecting the center line, etc. Then you can rewind and ask how we might tweak that to make it optimal for practice by further applying Wing Chun principles.

~ Alan


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> You're talking about elbow strikes? You have elbow strikes in SNT?


We have them in the form we study. The start of the Bil Gee incorporates elbow striking. They're diagonal and the elbow ends at the central line to avoid giving the opponent our... elbow. Our 8th set of the dummy also includes elbow deflection with a bridge to lan sao. There's a particular hook punch defense where while fading under the hook we consider sending an elbow to the hip of the opponent (because it's just right there).

It's not included in our Sil Lum Tao but it is in other open hand forms, the dummy, and in many of our drills. No limits.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> It's not included in our Sil Lum Tao but it is in other open hand forms, the dummy, and in many of our drills. No limits.



Okay. We were talking about elbow ideas in SNT on this thread, and not elbow strikes.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

lansao said:


> One note here is that Sil Lum Tao doesn't train proper punch mechanics, it's the first and one of the open hand forms. We studied healthy punching power in separate lessons.
> 
> ~ Alan


I try to look at CMA in general. Many CMA systems (such as long fist, prey mantis, Zimen, ...) don't emphasize on "power generation" during the beginner stage. Many CMA systems (such as Baji, Chen Taiji, XYLH, ...) emphasize on "power generation" during beginner stage.

A prey mantis guy went to cross train the Baji system. He told his prey mantis brothers that his Baji teacher had helped him to open his eyes. His comment made his prey mantis teacher mad big time. Later on he combined "Baji power generation" and "prey mantis speed generation" and created his own system "Baiji prey mantis".

I always like to look at a CMA system and detect when the "power generation" will be introduced to the students.


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> Okay. We were talking about elbow ideas in SNT on this thread, and not elbow strikes.


Quick correction: "The start of the Bil Gee incorporates elbow striking." should read "elbow deflection and/or striking."

Separate thought, I think I've demonstrated a fair amount of patience with you LFJ. Throughout our conversation, you've seemed combative and defensive. I've shared openly and in fairly great detail even providing video demonstrations to support statements. I'm asking you now, as a fellow martial artist, to understand I'm not coming from a place of criticism of your lineage when replying to you. I do, however, feel like there is an undertone of criticism coming from you and unfortunately, it's not possible to prove an empirical truth with theory.

I disagree with your interpretation of the "little idea" being "all about" or solely focused on the elbows. I think it's limited and naive. I think the use of elbows as a defense mechanism bipasses a perfectly valid line of defense. I think use of the elbow increases risk of having that elbow captured. I think walking straight into a person who's twice your weight is a dumb thing to do. I think the wrists are useful devices and so are the finger tips.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

lansao said:


> I do, however, feel like there is an undertone of criticism coming from you



All I've been saying is that the elbow focus as a tactical element in fighting is not universal in YM lineages.

That none of your explanations or videos have shown an elbow focus is not a criticism. As I said, I'm not arguing whether or not your stuff works for you. Just saying there is no elbow idea present.



> I disagree with your interpretation of the "little idea" being "all about" or solely focused on the elbows. I think it's limited and naive. I think the use of elbows as a defense mechanism bipasses a perfectly valid line of defense. I think use of the elbow increases risk of having that elbow captured. I think walking straight into a person who's twice your weight is a dumb thing to do. I think the wrists are useful devices and so are the finger tips.



Not sure what you're talking about. Are you still on about elbow strikes?

I'm talking about _lin-siu-daai-da_ which is a core VT principle. It doesn't entail elbow strikes or walking straight into people.


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My concern is the "power generation" should be the most important part of the beginner's training,
> 
> If you  "Keeping" your weight behind the punch, your body should follow after your punch as:
> 
> - elbow chase hand,
> - shoulder chase elbow,
> - body chase shoulder,
> - leg chase body.
> 
> The most important CMA principle that
> 
> - hand coordinate with foot,
> - elbow coordinate with knee,
> - shoulder coordinate with hip
> 
> is completely missing in the Ip Men's SLT training.


I am simply using a point of physics when I speak of the punch.  If you watch a boxer for a "power" punch they, in essence, "throw" their weight behind a punch with not simply hip but also waist movement.  WC tries to make this more direct by having the punch from the center and supported by body structure so you are not throwing you weight behind it, rather keeping the weight behind it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I commented on an element that is clearly part of the TWC method. It has been shown in the Mazza video you posted. Not sure why you are wanting to distance yourself from it now.


Not really, you said "stepping away".  TWC doesn't step away.  If we are "reacting" we deflect and step into the opponent but to their blind side to open.  We NEVER intend or think to step away from the opponent.  Deflect, move in (while flanking) while attacking.  Stepping away doesn't happen, you always move in.  If you do not see on the video the clear fact that Sifu Mazza has to move in to "jam" well I don't only what to say.  The fact he doesnt move in up the middle doesn't matter.  If you are 4 feet from an opponent and end up 2 feet from an opponent, if you are to the flank or up the middle, you have moved in, not away.  I really don't get your insistence regarding maintaining distance or moving away because the video speaks for itself, it doesn't happen period.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## lansao

LFJ said:


> All I've been saying is that the elbow focus as a tactical element in fighting is not universal in YM lineages.
> 
> That none of your explanations or videos have shown an elbow focus is not a criticism. As I said, I'm not arguing whether or not your stuff works for you. Just saying there is no elbow idea present.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you're talking about. Are you still on about elbow strikes?
> 
> I'm talking about _lin-siu-daai-da_ which is a core VT principle. It doesn't entail elbow strikes or walking straight into people.



Apologies for the misunderstanding and overreaction.

~ Alan


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Not really, you said "stepping away".  TWC doesn't step away.  If we are "reacting" we deflect and step into the opponent but to their blind side to open.  We NEVER intend or think to step away from the opponent.  Deflect, move in (while flanking) while attacking.  Stepping away doesn't happen, you always move in.  If you do not not see on the video the clear fact that Sifu Mazza has to move in to "jam" well I don't only what to say.  The fact he doesnt move in up the model doesn't matter.  If you are 4 feet from an opponent and end up 2 feet from an opponent if you are to the flank or up the middle you have moved in, not away.  I really don't get your insurance regarding maintaining distance or moving away because the video speaks for itself, it doesn't happen.



This was the video you posted.

At 2:31, his left foot steps out, _away_ from the opponent, and the right foot follows, stepping back, _away_ from the opponent.


----------



## lansao

lansao said:


> Apologies for the misunderstanding and overreaction.
> 
> ~ Alan



Simultaneous defense and striking is a core aspect of our variant too.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> This was the video you posted.
> 
> At 5:31, his left foot steps out, _away_ from the opponent, and the right foot follows, stepping back, _away_ from the opponent.


Since the video is only 2:31 long and you are giving a 5 + time hack you have me saying "what the heck is he talking about?!?" 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## dudewingchun

Chu sau lei focuses on the elbow not the wrist. I guess you could say like 80/20 elbow/wrist if that makes sense. Cutting punch is pretty much jum sao with a punch, lead from the elbow with the CSL structure behind it. 

These situations you are talking about are unrealistic. That video shows a guy throwing a jab and a 1-2 staying in the same spot...


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Since the video is only 2:31 long and you are giving a 5 + time hack you have me saying "what the heck is he talking about?!?"



I meant 2:31. Don't know why I hit 5.


----------



## LFJ

LFJ said:


> This was the video you posted.
> 
> At 2:31, his left foot steps out, _away_ from the opponent, and the right foot follows, stepping back, _away_ from the opponent.



In addition to 2:31, it is also obvious at 1:56 that he is stepping backward toward the camera, _away_ from the opponent.

The _gaang-sau_ when he does this is also spinning the opponent back around, adding momentum to their left punch while he's striking to the body. He will be knocked out.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> In addition to 2:31, it is also obvious at 1:56 that he is stepping backward toward the camera, _away_ from the opponent.
> 
> The _gaang-sau_ when he does this is also spinning the opponent back around, adding momentum to their left punch while he's striking to the body. He will be knocked out.


So your point is that after 2 minutes + of moving in, the last 20 seconds where he is laughing because (as is everyone else) over an inside joke among friends (and any true school is a school of friends) is emblematic of a system?  Focus on the last 10+ seconds and ignore the prior 150 seconds?  Really?


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> So your point is that after 2 minutes + of moving in, the last 20 seconds where he is laughing because (as is everyone else) over an inside joke among friends (and any true school is a school of friends) is emblematic of a system?  Focus on the last 10+ seconds and ignore the prior 150 seconds?  Really?



No. That is the part you told me to focus on.



Juany118 said:


> (the important bit is 1:00-1:40, look at the feet position.





Juany118 said:


> its a matter of where are you after your entry, that is shown largely in 2:00-2:40.



You repeatedly said there is no stepping away. He repeatedly steps away.


----------



## dudewingchun

He will get knocked out by the second punch if they actually use footwork and don't purposely cross themselves over. A lot of people might just put there head down take one his shots and throw an overhand with all the power they can in the heat of the moment in a street fight, just don't see anything in that video working in real life. Your opponent can adjust their position too you know, move there hips, step back, bait you into stepping forward into a strike or grapple if you get too close.


----------



## Juany118

lansao said:


> The Wing Chun I learned from my Sifu John Wahnish comes from my Sigung Philip Holder who, after graduating with honors under WIlliam Cheung graduated from Moy Yat before branching out and starting the North American Wing Chun Association (I believe in the 80's). Since then they have adapted and encouraged its continual development with input from BJJ, Krav Maga, boxing, and other arts. Wherever there is a movement that follows Wing Chun principles, that movement is Wing Chun.
> 
> You can watch a UFC fight and say "that was good Wing Chun" when the fighter acts in a way that is in accordance with Wing Chun principles of economy of energy, economy of movement, not fighting force against force, protecting the center line, etc. Then you can rewind and ask how we might tweak that to make it optimal for practice by further applying Wing Chun principles.
> 
> ~ Alan


Just a caution.  I agree with your last paragraph but some here (really only two or three) would call you a heretic for saying such a thing as I have discovered.

The only reason I mentioned what I did is that there are two, yes just two, who will take "shots" based on lineage differences and so I wanted to make sure I (and those who study "simple" TWC took) our own shots vs Lineages that may combine TWC with another.


----------



## LFJ

@Juany118 

There has been no shot taking. What is in the videos you show just doesn't match what you say about them.

It's not a shot take to make this observation.

Instead of realizing and acknowledging it, you have chosen to take offense where none has been given.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> @Juany118
> 
> There has been no shot taking. What is in the videos you show just doesn't match what you say about them.
> 
> It's not a shot take to make this observation.
> 
> Instead of realizing and acknowledging it, you have chosen to take offense where none has been given.



I would agree. Don't see what there is to be offended about here. TWC works in a different way to WSL VT is all I am concluding from this discussion.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> He does have a clip. Must have forgotten.
> 
> It's at 3:15 here from his _paak-sau_ drill. What he calls the "excluding punch".
> 
> As with the video I posted on the Cutting Punch thread, there is no elbow idea here. It's wrist-led and cutting diagonally across the line with the forearm. Same as his "_paak-sau_ touch & go" being wrist-led, as most lineages do _jam-sau_ from the wrist.




Thanks, yes agree.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> No.  You don't understand what I am describing above?





Nobody Important said:


> Really, you need a video? It's WC 101.



The clip from LFJ shows why a clip was required.


----------



## Juany118

dudewingchun said:


> He will get knocked out by the second punch if they actually use footwork and don't purposely cross themselves over. A lot of people might just put there head down take one his shots and throw an overhand with all the power they can in the heat of the moment in a street fight, just don't see anything in that video working in real life. Your opponent can adjust their position irl, move there hips, step back, bait you into stepping forward into a strike or grapple if you get too close.


That is missing the point, if I understand you correctly (and this is coming from in a school, it's 19+ years dealing with "knuckleheads" in a crime ridden city as a LEO).  You need to look at what that whole video shows (also audio) because he isn't just showing footwork, but "hand" work.  He isn't just stepping off to an angle but also engaging the opponent.

All I can say is that when fighting with honest to goodness "bad guys" that works, not better than others but it works in a real fight.  What is a _chun_other than a variation of a boxing cover?  I could go on but it seems off when people who haven't thrown a punch in anger make judgements on any art or lineage in terms of effectiveness.

We all obviously love WC.  We all study it.  To say one is better or worse, that one works and a other doesn't is horse crap.  Years ago I studied WSLVT for a bit.  I have now studied TWC for a longer time.  I will NEVER say WSLVT philosophy does or doesn't work because I never had to used it in anger. I have used TWC philosophy in anger, as did my Sifu in LE operations.  It worked.  That is what matters in MAs right?

Heck I even remember someone now trying to attack one lineage here saying earlier, in this thread, that they weren't interested in a "which is better" conversation, yet here we are.

So how about a new WC forum rule.  No one says "that won't work irl fights" unless they can say it landed them on their butt?


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> he isn't just showing footwork, but "hand" work.  He isn't just stepping off to an angle but also engaging the arms.



Isn't that exactly what I was saying about TWC?

You angle off and keep distance requiring engaging the arms with the hand, hence no elbow _lin-siu-daai-da_ idea being present. So, it's not very universal as you claimed, since your lineage doesn't even do it.



> It worked.  That is what matters in MAs right?



As I said at the beginning of the discussion, I wasn't arguing whether or not your stuff works for you. If you can get it to work, great. But that's beside the point.

Also, at least for VT, we prefer to increase %s. As WSL always said, if there is a simpler, more direct and efficient method, he wants to know it.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> So how about a new WC forum rule.



A better rule:

Acknowledge valid points and move on. If a point is not valid, address it honestly. Don't start playing victim when inconsistencies have been observed.

If you want your feelings protected, start your own forum and only allow people who always agree with you to join.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> The clip from LFJ shows why a clip was required.


Maybe I missing something that was stated earlier, but I don't see in the video what he described in the post that LFJ used for reference. It could have been applied, but wasn't. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he was describing something a bit different, though I'll let KPM clarify that.

In YCW WC we call the movement in question Outer Gate Punch when above the incoming arm & Inner Gate Punch when below it. The punch "rides" the opponents arm to it's target. It's a wedge that moves the incoming arm off it's line of attack as we punch. Lin Siu Dai Da in one punch. Elbow position plays a large part in directing the forward pressure of the forearm.

We have a saying: Beginning students block, intermediate students attack after blocking & advanced students attack. Our gate punching is offense & defense in one punch. It is no different than the regular punch, just the idea of how it can be used is different. There is no up or down motion prior to it's use, pressure is forward & to center, using footwork to angle will remove you from line of their attack but isn't necessary for it's application.

I believe KPM was referring to the same thing, I could be wrong. If so I apologize for the misunderstanding.


----------



## LFJ

@Nobody Important 

So, you're not talking about the "excluding punch" then? Again, that's why a clip was necessary. You guys could all be talking about something different.

I don't do any "riding" on the opponent's arm, and it's not just a one-off technique, but a concept that is always present in any sort of continuous straight-line attack regardless of position or what is or isn't on the line.


----------



## dudewingchun

Juany118 said:


> That is missing the point, if I understand you correctly (and this is coming from in a school, it's 19+ years dealing with "knuckleheads" in a crime ridden city as a LEO).  You need to look at what that whole video shows (also audio) because he isn't just showing footwork, but "hand" work.  He isn't just stepping off to an angle but also engaging the opponent.
> 
> All I can say is that when fighting with honest to goodness "bad guys" that works, not better than others but it works in a real fight.  What is a _chun_other than a variation of a boxing cover?  *I could go on but it seems off when people who haven't thrown a punch in anger make judgements on any art or lineage in terms of effectiveness.*
> 
> We all obviously love WC.  We all study it.  To say one is better or worse, that one works and a other doesn't is horse crap.  Years ago I studied WSLVT for a bit.  I have now studied TWC for a longer time.  I will NEVER say WSLVT philosophy does or doesn't work because I never had to used it in anger. I have used TWC philosophy in anger, as did my Sifu in LE operations.  It worked.  That is what matters in MAs right?
> 
> Heck I even remember someone now trying to attack one lineage here saying earlier, in this thread, that they weren't interested in a "which is better" conversation, yet here we are.
> 
> So how about a new WC forum rule.  No one says "that won't work irl fights" unless they can say it landed them on their butt?



Why are you assuming i have never thrown a punch in anger, if thats what you meant? I said that because I have been in fights and have experience all my training going out the window and going full force grab there collar with one arm and throw wild hooks with the other with my head down. Its got a broken rythym, it is too fast to " feel pressure on my bong sao then switch to biu"


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> You angle off and keep distance requiring engaging the arms with the hand, hence no elbow _lin-siu-daai-da_ idea being present. So, it's not very universal as you claimed, since your lineage doesn't even do it.



The funny thing about this forum is how difficult it is to get people to take ownership of what they actually said, even on the same thread a few pages before. So TWC doesn't use lsdd elbow ideas like WSL VT. That's ok isn't it? If you do TWC and believe in it, why would you even care if it isn't the same as WSL VT?

It's so pointless to deflect, change direction or topic, take offence rather than simply acknowledging


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Maybe I missing something that was stated earlier, but I don't see in the video what he described in the post that LFJ used for reference. It could have been applied, but wasn't. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he was describing something a bit different, though I'll let KPM clarify that.
> 
> In YCW WC we call the movement in question Outer Gate Punch when above the incoming arm & Inner Gate Punch when below it. The punch "rides" the opponents arm to it's target. It's a wedge that moves the incoming arm off it's line of attack as we punch. Lin Siu Dai Da in one punch. Elbow position plays a large part in directing the forward pressure of the forearm.
> 
> We have a saying: Beginning students block, intermediate students attack after blocking & advanced students attack. Our gate punching is offense & defense in one punch. It is no different than the regular punch, just the idea of how it can be used is different. There is no up or down motion prior to it's use, pressure is forward & to center, using footwork to angle will remove you from line of their attack but isn't necessary for it's application.
> 
> I believe KPM was referring to the same thing, I could be wrong. If so I apologize for the misunderstanding.



Hang on, you've gone from this:



			
				Nobody Important said:
			
		

> Really, you need a video? It's WC 101



To this:



			
				Nobody Important said:
			
		

> Maybe I missing something that was stated earlier, but I don't see in the video what he described in the post that LFJ used for reference. It could have been applied, but wasn't. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he was describing something a bit different, though I'll let KPM clarify that.
> 
> I believe KPM was referring to the same thing, I could be wrong. If so I apologize for the misunderstanding



If it is wing chun 101, and surprising that I would need a video, why so coy all of a sudden?

Apologies if you are being sincere, but it appears to be more of the same deflection, lack of ownership and so on. What's to hide? I don't understand.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> @Nobody Important
> 
> So, you're not talking about the "excluding punch" then? Again, that's why a clip was necessary. You guys could all be talking about something different.
> 
> I don't do any "riding" on the opponent's arm, and it's not just a one-off technique, but a concept that is always present in any sort of continuous straight-line attack regardless of position or what is or isn't on the line.


No I don't believe I am, but I'll let others clarify as I don't want to speak for them.

The term "ride" was an analogy, I simply meant that the punch follows up the opponents arm as the natural wedge created pushes him arm inward. If the point of intercept/connection is made at his wrist, as the wedge continues forward, your punch will follow his arm to his head. 

I agree it is a principle present in every straight line attack. From my understanding it is use of the triangle theory. You attack the side of their triangle (as this is the weakest point) to destroy it's base.A constant wedge created with forward pressure, like how a log splitter works.


----------



## LFJ

@Nobody Important

Okay. I'm not into wedging and pushing up arms either.

What you describe sounds pretty much like the excluding and including punches. I've explained why I don't like them in the Cutting Punch thread, which isn't gaining much traction among cutting punchers.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Hang on, you've gone from this:
> 
> 
> 
> To this:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is wing chun 101, and surprising that I would need a video, why so coy all of a sudden?
> 
> Apologies if you are being sincere, but it appears to be more of the same deflection, lack of ownership and so on. What's to hide? I don't understand.


How so?

Not being coy at all. When I spoke of Outer & Inner Gate punching, others agreed it was the same thing. It's simply using the straight punch as a block & strike in one united motion. Not block then strike, just a punch that intercepts an incoming attack on the way to your target.

It's basic WC stuff. I don't see how anyone, who learned the straight punch, never learned how to apply it in this manner. It's Lin Siu Dai Da in a singular punch.


----------



## Juany118

dudewingchun said:


> Why are you assuming i have never thrown a punch in anger, if thats what you meant? I said that because I have been in fights and have experience all my training going out the window and going full force grab there collar with one arm and throw wild hooks with the other with my head down. Its got a broken rythym, it is too fast to " feel pressure on my bong sao then switch to biu"



What does the last part have to do with what I said, or the video illustrated?  Just saying.  Nothing that I said here or in the video is about any of this switch from this to that nonsense when you enter a real fight.  

That really confused the crap out of me because the video I linked had jack all to do with what you are talking about going from feeling pressure to switch from this to that.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> @Nobody Important
> 
> Okay. I'm not into wedging and pushing up arms either.
> 
> What you describe sounds pretty much like the excluding and including punches. I've explained why I don't like them in the Cutting Punch thread, which isn't gaining much traction among cutting punchers.


I never said anything about pushing the arm. You're making it out to be an overly complicated action. It's just the straight punch, nothing special added. It is simply using the punch in the Lin Siu Dai Da manner. One motion that blocks and strikes in a singular punch. I can't explain it any simpler than that.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> When I spoke of Outer & Inner Gate punching, others agreed it was the same thing. It's simply using the straight punch as a block & strike in one united motion. Not block then strike, just a punch that intercepts an incoming attack on the way to your target.
> 
> It's basic WC stuff. I don't see how anyone, who learned the straight punch, never learned how to apply it in this manner. It's Lin Siu Dai Da in a singular punch.



When these kinds of punches were brought up here it was in response to elbow ideas not being universal in YM lineages.

When I've looked at examples of such punches, from YM and non-YM lineages, I've still seen no elbow idea present. They are wrist-led and cutting from an outside angle, or lifting from the inside.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I never said anything about *pushing the arm*.





Nobody Important said:


> the punch follows up the opponents arm as the natural wedge created *pushes him arm* inward.



I'm having a hard time seeing how pushing his arm is not pushing his arm.


----------



## Nobody Important

Nobody Important said:


> I never said anything about pushing the arm. You're making it out to be an overly complicated action. It's just the straight punch, nothing special added. It is simply using the punch in the Lin Siu Dai Da manner. One motion that blocks and strikes in a singular punch. I can't explain it any simpler than that.





LFJ said:


> When these kinds of punches were brought up here it was in response to elbow ideas not being universal in YM lineages.
> 
> When I've looked at examples of such punches, from YM and non-YM lineages, I've still seen no elbow idea present. They are wrist-led and cutting from an outside angle, or lifting from the inside.


I'm not familiar with these cutting punches, inclusion/exclusion punches. In YCW WC we only have one straight punch. We only label them inner/outer gate based on contact made with the upper or underside of opponents forearm when we punch. It is not a deliberate thing, we do not seek forearm contact. 

If the straight punch is thrown properly it can naturally clear the path to it's target. Timing is key to success. Personally I'm am not a big fan of this method as a strategy, it should occur naturally. Focusing on trying to make it happen intentionally will only get you hit.

Having proper elbow position allows the wedge to naturally develop as you strike to your center.

In the videos I've seen of PB, he uses outer & inner gate punching to a great degree, and does it very we'll. I've no doubt this is in large due to his inability to grab with the missing hand, he has no choice but to focus on the elbow.

No offense is meant by this, but those with two working wrists will undoubtedly draw focus at times to them. I will not speak for other branches as to whether or not their SNT is based upon movement of the elbow & if it is right it wrong. Personally I think the elbow is only part of the picture.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> In the videos I've seen of PB, he uses outer & inner gate punching to a great degree, and does it very we'll. I've no doubt this is in large due to his inability to grab with the missing hand, he has no choice but to focus on the elbow.



Has nothing to do with inability to grab and he didn't invent VT.

Why do you think he would teach students with two hands a handicapped version of VT?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I'm not familiar with these cutting punches, inclusion/exclusion punches.



Join the Cutting Punch thread and see if anything looks familiar.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I'm having a hard time seeing how pushing his arm is not pushing his arm.


Dude why do you feel the need to be such a literal a55 all the time?

How else would you like me to explain how forward pressure on the outside of someone's forearm moves their arm? If I'm punching him in his face, and his arm is in my line of attack it will be pushed inwards. This by no means says that I am focusing on pushing his arm, my focus is on punching him in the face. His arm getting pushed inward is due to the kinesiology of how the arm moves.


----------



## dudewingchun

Juany118 said:


> What does the last part have to do with what I said, or the video illustrated?  Just saying.  Nothing that I said here or in the video is about any of this switch from this to that nonsense when you enter a real fight.
> 
> That really confused the crap out of me because the video I linked had jack all to do with what you are talking about going from feeling pressure to switch from this to that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Dw prob misunderstood what you said.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> How else would you like me to explain how forward pressure on the outside of someone's forearm moves their arm? If I'm punching him in his face, and his arm is in my line of attack it will be pushed inwards. This by no means says that I am focusing on pushing his arm, my focus is on punching him in the face. His arm getting pushed inward is due to the kinesiology of how the arm moves.



If you say push the arm, I think push the arm. Why blame me? 

What you describe sounds exactly like what is shown in the videos on the Cutting Punch thread. Not sure why everyone is avoiding that one...


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Has nothing to do with inability to grab and he didn't invent VT.
> 
> Why do you think he would teach students with two hands a handicapped version of VT?



If it's fair to say that anyone who learned WC in a manner not consistent with WSLPB VT and are believed "broken", because that's what they learned. Then it's only fair to state that what he teaches is "handicapped" because that's what he learned.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> If you say push the arm, I think push the arm. Why blame me?
> 
> What you describe sounds exactly like what is shown in the videos on the Cutting Punch thread. Not sure why everyone is avoiding that one...


In description, yes. In application as to that video, no. He is chasing the arm and has at times a flared elbow, better off to block then attack if that's how they are going to approach it.

The elbow should be as it is when you throw a straight punch. And never focus on the incoming arm to apply a gate punch. The punch goes to it's target not the arm. The redirection of their punch from their line of attack is a byproduct of the gate punch. It is a secondary action, the primary action is the punch.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> If it's fair to say that anyone who learned WC in a manner not consistent with WSLPB VT and are believed "broken", because that's what they learned. Then it's only fair to state that what he teaches is "handicapped" because that's what he learned.



Systems are broken when they are inconsistent/incoherent, not when they are different to WSL VT


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> He is chasing the arm and has at times a flared elbow, better off to block then attack if that's how they are going to approach it.



This is KPM's excluding punch you are talking about?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Not being coy at all. When I spoke of Outer & Inner Gate punching, others agreed it was the same thing. It's simply using the straight punch as a block & strike in one united motion. Not block then strike, just a punch that intercepts an incoming attack on the way to your target.
> 
> It's basic WC stuff. I don't see how anyone, who learned the straight punch, never learned how to apply it in this manner. It's Lin Siu Dai Da in a singular punch.



Then why so unsure about what KPM is doing in his video clip with the excluding punch?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> This is KPM's excluding punch you are talking about?


No I am talking about the video LFJ posted in the Cutting Punch thread.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> No I am talking about the video LFJ posted in the Cutting Punch thread.



What about the punch in KPM's clip?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Then why so unsure about what KPM is doing in his video clip with the excluding punch?


I'm not unsure. I said I'll let him clarify. It was the descriptions I was unsure of. I'm only speaking to my gate punches.

This entire conversation seems very colluded. Why isn't it being discussed in the Cutting Punch thread? I suspect there would be less confusion. Until a couple of minutes ago, I didn't even know there was a thread for this topic. Perhaps you all should take your conversation there.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> What about the punch in KPM's clip?


I didn't see what I would refer to as gate punching there. There we're elements of it, but it wasn't applied in the manner I would consider a true gate punch. That being said, I also don't want to speak for KPM. He knows more about what he is doing than I do. I'll only speak to YCW WC.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> The elbow should be as it is when you throw a straight punch. And never focus on the incoming arm to apply a gate punch. The punch goes to it's target not the arm. The redirection of their punch from their line of attack is a byproduct of the gate punch. It is a secondary action, the primary action is the punch.



Is the difference between the two (inside and outside gate punch) just the angle at which you throw the punch then, relative to the incoming punch, or are you doing something else to wedge them out one way or the other?



Nobody Important said:


> This entire conversation seems very colluded. Why isn't it being discussed in the Cutting Punch thread?



We're discussing elbow, which is what SNT is all about, though the idea is missing in other lineages I've observed.


----------



## wckf92

Kung Fu Wang said:


> My concern is the "power generation" should be the most important part of the beginner's training,
> 
> 
> is completely missing in the Ip Men's SLT training.



Dude...if you're concerned about it, then go invent "kung fu wangs wing chun" and do what you want. 
But to say it is missing in YM's WC is a gross misunderstanding and lack of comprehensive knowledge of WC.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Is the difference between the two (inside and outside gate punch) just the angle at which you throw the punch then, relative to the incoming punch, or are you doing something else to wedge them out one way or the other?
> 
> 
> 
> We're discussing elbow, which is what SNT is all about, though the idea is missing in other lineages I've observed.


No the difference is your punch in relation to the opponents forearm being above or below yours. A gate punch should not be deliberate IMO, it should occur as a byproduct. To deliberately try and stop/divert his punch by punching would be arm chasing. A gate punch is a punch that, as a secondary action,  intercepts their arm. You do not aim for their arm, you aim for your target. It's not a technique I would count on. Best to let it naturally occur.

This conversation really belongs in the other thread, despite it's tenuous links to SNT. Is that not why the other thread was created? Specifically for this topic.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> No the difference is your punch in relation to the opponents forearm being above or below yours. A gate punch should not be deliberate IMO, it should occur as a byproduct. To deliberately try and stop/divert his punch by punching would be arm chasing. A gate punch is a punch that, as a secondary action,  intercepts their arm. You do not aim for their arm, you aim for your target. It's not a technique I would count on. Best to let it naturally occur.
> 
> This conversation really belongs in the other thread, despite it's tenuous links to SNT. Is that not why the other thread was created? Specifically for this topic.



Does footage of this gate punch exist on the internet?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> No the difference is your punch in relation to the opponents forearm being above or below yours.



But it's the same regardless? Meaning no elbow concepts.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> But it's the same regardless? Meaning no elbow concepts.



If you say so


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Does footage of this gate punch exist on the internet?


Maybe


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> He does have a clip. Must have forgotten.
> 
> It's at 3:15 here from his _paak-sau_ drill. What he calls the "excluding punch".
> 
> As with the video I posted on the Cutting Punch thread, there is no elbow idea here. It's wrist-led and cutting diagonally across the line with the forearm. Same as his "_paak-sau_ touch & go" being wrist-led, as most lineages do _jam-sau_ from the wrist.




Ah!  Thanks!  I had forgotten I had covered it on that clip!   But no, you are wrong.  Watch it again at 3:19.  Look at the elbow.  There is a difference between "touch & go" and the "excluding punch".   As I wrote before, the excluding punch is much more like a Jum Sau that goes forward.  The elbow is down and in and driving the motion.  It is not "wrist-led" because the wrist is already past the point of contact.  There most certainly is an "elbow idea" here.  You think you can "see" an idea so easily on a video clip????


----------



## KPM

lansao said:


> Quick point of differentiation between what we call the "capping punch" and what's shown at 3:15 here as the "excluding punch." The capping punch just drives right through and the forearm of the punch itself serves as the deflective surface. There's no intermediary pak sao before the punch, the punch is the deflection and the strike.
> 
> ~ Alan



Sorry Alan.  But you misinterpreted what I was doing.  Watch the clip again.  The whole clip.  The excluding or cutting punch does not have a Pak Sao before the punch.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Ah!  Thanks!  I had forgotten I had covered it on that clip!   But no, you are wrong.  Watch it again at 3:19.  Look at the elbow.  There is a difference between "touch & go" and the "excluding punch".   As I wrote before, the excluding punch is much more like a Jum Sau that goes forward.  The elbow is down and in and driving the motion.  It is not "wrist-led" because the wrist is already past the point of contact.  There most certainly is an "elbow idea" here.  You think you can "see" an idea so easily on a video clip????



Can see what the elbow is doing in a clip


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> The elbow is down and in and driving the motion.  It is not "wrist-led" because the wrist is already past the point of contact.



Wasn't talking about elbow force. It's wrist-led in that it is cutting with the forearm from an outside angle and the elbow is following wrist.



> There most certainly is an "elbow idea" here.  You think you can "see" an idea so easily on a video clip????



Yes. I can see that it's not in your action.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Our gate punching is offense & defense in one punch. It is no different than the regular punch, just the idea of how it can be used is different. There is no up or down motion prior to it's use, pressure is forward & to center, using footwork to angle will remove you from line of their attack but isn't necessary for it's application.
> 
> I believe KPM was referring to the same thing, I could be wrong. If so I apologize for the misunderstanding.



Yep!  Exactly!


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Can see what the elbow is doing in a clip



Ok.  Then you should see at 3:19 that my elbow is down and in and driving the punch....not the wrist.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Ok.  Then you should see at 3:19 that my elbow is down and in and driving the punch....not the wrist.



Rear wheels can drive a car, but the front wheels steer it.

Your punch is wrist-led as you shift your weight from one side of your triangle to the other and send a straight punch down that line following the wrist.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> He does have a clip. Must have forgotten.
> 
> It's at 3:15 here from his _paak-sau_ drill. What he calls the "excluding punch".
> 
> As with the video I posted on the Cutting Punch thread, there is no elbow idea here. It's wrist-led and cutting diagonally across the line with the forearm. Same as his "_paak-sau_ touch & go" being wrist-led, as most lineages do _jam-sau_ from the wrist.


I stand corrected, at 3:17 KPM does the outer gate punch. It's not how I would do it but it is the concept. I would not intentionally try to do it this way as I feel that the focus is being placed on intercepting the arm as compared to striking the opponent. I would rather it happen spontaneously. None the less that is it and it is elbow driven.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Wasn't talking about elbow force. It's wrist-led in that it is cutting with the forearm from an outside angle and the elbow is following wrist.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I can see that it's not in your action.



So please explain to me how you throw a punch without the wrist being in front and the elbow following it????   What are you "not" seeing in my video at 3:19?  My elbow is down and in and driving the punch forward so that the partner's punch is deflected by my forearm as my punch goes towards him.   How would you do it?


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Maybe



Can you post an example?


----------



## LFJ

I thought it was universal WC101? 

Instead of driving with the elbow and steering with the wrist, we do both from the elbow. 

Have a look at SNT. If the little idea is not there, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Can you post an example?


Could you understand my description of the gate punch?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> I thought it was universal WC101?
> 
> Instead of driving with the elbow and steering with the wrist, we do both from the elbow.
> 
> Have a look at SNT. If the little idea is not there, I don't know what to tell you.


Is that because PB is missing a wrist?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Is that because PB is missing a wrist?



It's because that's what YM taught.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Could you understand my description of the gate punch?



Not really. Your confusion over KPM's clip hasn't helped make it any clearer. Visuals don't lie


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> So please explain to me how you throw a punch without the wrist being in front and the elbow following it????   What are you "not" seeing in my video at 3:19?  My elbow is down and in and driving the punch forward so that the partner's punch is deflected by my forearm as my punch goes towards him.   How would you do it?



Punch with the elbow, below elbow is irrelevant


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> It's because that's what YM taught.


I don't see how you describe it as valid. If you want to get technical the movement starts in the shoulder, is aligned by the elbow and directed by the wrist. The three points create a triangle. The pressure of all 3 joints is forward. Shoulder in socket, elbow down and wrist on center line. The fist is held vertical to allow proper alignment of radius & ulna to support impact.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Is that because PB is missing a wrist?



It is YM VT. I understand you do a different system so would not be a big deal if they differ


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I don't see how you describe it as valid. If you want to get technical the movement starts in the shoulder, is aligned by the elbow and directed by the wrist. The three points create a triangle. The pressure of all 3 joints is forward. Shoulder in socket, elbow down and wrist on center line. The fist is held vertical to allow proper alignment of radius & ulna to support impact.



YKS and YC SNT forms posted show elbow rising


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I don't see how you describe it as valid. If you want to get technical the movement starts in the shoulder, is aligned by the elbow and directed by the wrist. The three points create a triangle. The pressure of all 3 joints is forward. Shoulder in socket, elbow down and wrist on center line. The fist is held vertical to allow proper alignment of radius & ulna to support impact.



Okay. Is your gate punch as in the photo on the Cutting Punch thread?

Again, don't know why that thread is being avoided. Didn't you ask the conversation to be moved there?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Not really. Your confusion over KPM's clip hasn't helped make it any clearer. Visuals don't lie


What confusion I simply didn't see it first time around. Please post your example of elbow punching so we can all see how it is properly done.


----------



## lansao

KPM said:


> Sorry Alan.  But you misinterpreted what I was doing.  Watch the clip again.  The whole clip.  The excluding or cutting punch does not have a Pak Sao before the punch.



Got it and good to know. Thought it might have been a difference but seeing it right at the 3:15 mark.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Okay. Is your gate punch as in the photo on the Cutting Punch thread?
> 
> Again, don't know why that thread is being avoided. Didn't you ask the conversation to be moved there?


Instead of being vague and to avoid any further confusion, why don't you post a video of yourself doing it correctly?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Instead of being vague and to avoid any further confusion, why don't you post a video of yourself doing it correctly?



Did you say you've seen many clips of "gate punches" by PB?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Did you say you've seen many clips of "gate punches" by PB?


Yup


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Yup



Okay, so, observe.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> YKS and YC SNT forms posted show elbow rising


When you throw a punch correctly the elbow will not be in the same place as it's starting point.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Okay, so, observe.


You and Guy are the ones who are disagreeing with the consensus. The burden of proof falls to you to validate your claims.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> You and Guy are the ones who are disagreeing with the consensus. The burden of proof falls to you to validate your claims.



Many videos of PB show it being done correctly as per WSL VT. 

I don't need a clip of you, just something showing your gate punch


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> You and Guy are the ones who are disagreeing with the consensus. The burden of proof falls to you to validate your claims.



We didn't make the original claim that the elbow idea from SNT is universal in YM lineages.

So far, people have demonstrated that it is not.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Many videos of PB show it being done correctly as per WSL VT.
> 
> I don't need a clip of you, just something showing your gate punch


I've already stated that I've seen PB do it. If I provide it for you how will I know you're not just blowing smoke. Post a clip of PB doing it, or better yet yourself then I will confirm or not.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> We didn't make the original claim that the elbow idea from SNT is universal in YM lineages.
> 
> So far, people have demonstrated that it is not.



Correct.

For TWC we see that the idea is not universal. Shouldn't be a problem because TWC claims to be different, doesn't it?

No idea why those from non YM systems would even care if they are different, if indeed they are, which is proving impossible to find out.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> We didn't make the original claim that the elbow idea from SNT is universal in YM lineages.
> 
> So far, people have demonstrated that it is not.


Then what's the argument?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Then what's the argument?



Seems some of you want to claim you have everything in WSLVT plus more, for some reason.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Seems some of you want to claim you have everything in WSLVT plus more, for some reason.


I've never claimed any such thing. Perhaps you are coming to realize that WSL VT really isn't as different as you once believed.


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> I've never claimed any such thing. Perhaps you are coming to realize that WSL VT really isn't as different as you once believed.



No. It has been further confirmed by this conversation.

Again, the difference should not be a problem to you since you train an unrelated system. You are only missing these ideas if they were meant to be in your system and were somehow lost. That concerns folks who train YMVT. You train something else, so...? Don't worry about it.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I've never claimed any such thing. Perhaps you are coming to realize that WSL VT really isn't as different as you once believed.



Seems very different so far, from what I have seen. Given that KPM's punch is one of your gate punches then your system appears to lack elbow ideas. 

For something that is WC 101, gaining this small and probably to you irrelevant bit of info has been incredibly difficult. 

You give the impression that having everything is a matter of pride. Why not just be content with your system as it is? After all since YKS senior to YM, maybe YM had it all wrong from your point of view.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> When you throw a punch correctly the elbow will not be in the same place as it's starting point.



Will it rise?


----------



## guy b

So given information in this thread, what are the most likely explanations for YM VT being different?

The first explanation would be that YM created these differences himself. The second would be that this information was lost from other older systems over time.

Any opinions?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Also, at least for VT, we prefer to increase %s.


Do you really not see that this kind of statement is most readily interpreted as "I'm not sure if anyone else likes to protect their butts from getting beaten up, but we do, which is why we do this thing." I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but if you weren't trying to say, "If you don't do this, you're not getting the same % advantage we do", then you missed.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Do you really not see that this kind of statement is most readily interpreted as "I'm not sure if anyone else likes to protect their butts from getting beaten up, but we do, which is why we do this thing." I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but if you weren't trying to say, "If you don't do this, you're not getting the same % advantage we do", then you missed.



That was said in response to the "if it works, that's all that matters" attitude.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Punch with the elbow, below elbow is irrelevant



And I was punching with the elbow when I did the "excluding punch" in that clip.  That's how it works.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Many videos of PB show it being done correctly as per WSL VT.



Ok.  So please pick one that you think is a good example of what you've been talking about and post it here so we can all be sure we understand what you've been saying and how it differs from what we have been saying.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> We didn't make the original claim that the elbow idea from SNT is universal in YM lineages.
> 
> So far, people have demonstrated that it is not.



I actually agreed with you that the elbow idea isn't so central in most Wing Chun as you have described for WSLVT.  I simply pointed out that at least one area where most other versions of Wing Chun do have the same idea of the elbow as the driver is when doing the "excluding" or "cutting" punch.  And you have responded by doing your best to prove even that one little tidbit is wrong, to the point of denying what I was doing and what I described in my video example.  Same old song, different thread.


----------



## KPM

Forum doing wanking things.  Deleted.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> So given information in this thread, what are the most likely explanations for YM VT being different?
> 
> The first explanation would be that YM created these differences himself. The second would be that this information was lost from other older systems over time.
> 
> Any opinions?



Why are you asking this?  This has been belaboured and beaten to death on other threads and you know very well that it is a point of contention that you will argue about until doomsday.  So why are you bringing it up again?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Why are you asking this?  This has been belaboured and beaten to death on other threads and you know very well that it is a point of contention that you will argue about until doomsday.  So why are you bringing it up again?



I am happy to believe that YM created YM VT, or received the method from somewhere else.

Previously these discussions have been focused within YM VT (looking at the various different interpretations). It is interesting to consider why YM method differs from mainland. 

Maybe some mainland people have theories on this?


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^ So you are happy with believing that Ip Man created YMVT, but absolutely adamant that WSL did not change or adapt WSLVT in any way????


----------



## guy b

Well you know how the Leung Bic story goes..

WSL always claimed to teach the system of YM

YM claimed to teach something different. Who can say where it came from now?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> That was said in response to the "if it works, that's all that matters" attitude.


But if something actually works, then it is, in fact, improving their percentage. If it's not doing that, it probably doesn't work. Now, they may not choose the absolutely highest percentage technique at a given point, but there's usually a reason for that compromise - it sets up something else that's useful (or used differently) in their style.

Not always the case, but IMO, that's usually what the difference in approach between styles (and even arts) boils down to. My approach to NGA, for instance, focuses on some different principles than mainline focuses on. My choices set up some advantages that I like. Their choices set up a different set of advantages, that they like better.

I was speaking more to the likely way the tone would be interpreted. I get the feeling that you are really trying to have a meaningful discussion, but the perceived tone sometimes gets in the way.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I actually agreed with you that the elbow idea isn't so central in most Wing Chun as you have described for WSLVT.  I simply pointed out that at least one area where most other versions of Wing Chun do have the same idea of the elbow as the driver is when doing the "excluding" or "cutting" punch.  And you have responded by doing your best to prove even that one little tidbit is wrong, to the point of denying what I was doing and what I described in my video example.  Same old song, different thread.



You guys were the only ones ever talking about the "elbow as the driver". I've repeatedly stated that elbow force is not the idea. Although, that's about the extent of the elbow focus in other WC.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> But if something actually works, then it is, in fact, improving their percentage. If it's not doing that, it probably doesn't work.



Something that works 10% of the time works some times. If you keep doing something with a 10% success rate, though, it is not improving percentages no matter how much you do it. Changes have to be made. 

Some people are content with their percentages if something has worked once before. I'm always looking to improve mine, even if 100% isn't actually attainable.



> I get the feeling that you are really trying to have a meaningful discussion, but the perceived tone sometimes gets in the way.



Then change your perception? Juany wanted to play victim just because I made an observation on some inconsistencies, saying I was taking shots on his lineage. That couldn't have been perceived from my posts without him choosing to take offense rather than be honest, acknowledge a valid point, and move on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Something that works 10% of the time works some times. If you keep doing something with a 10% success rate, though, it is not improving percentages no matter how much you do it. Changes have to be made.
> 
> Some people are content with their percentages if something has worked once before. I'm always looking to improve mine, even if 100% isn't actually attainable.
> 
> 
> 
> Then change your perception? Juany wanted to play victim just because I made an observation on some inconsistencies, saying I was taking shots on his lineage. That couldn't have been perceived from my posts without him choosing to take offense rather than be honest, acknowledge a valid point, and move on.


I'm trying to be helpful and point out how your wording may foster reactions. What you do with that (including deciding it's not worthwhile) is entirely up to you.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Seems very different so far, from what I have seen. Given that KPM's punch is one of your gate punches then your system appears to lack elbow ideas.
> 
> For something that is WC 101, gaining this small and probably to you irrelevant bit of info has been incredibly difficult.
> 
> You give the impression that having everything is a matter of pride. Why not just be content with your system as it is? After all since YKS senior to YM, maybe YM had it all wrong from your point of view.


I'm just fine with what I have. Gate punch is simple & basic, sorry you never learned it. Please continue to go on pretending you contain some mysterious elbow mechanics in your branch. All this mud slinging because you refuse to provide a video of yourself showing us how to do it properly.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Well you know how the Leung Bic story goes..
> 
> WSL always claimed to teach the system of YM
> 
> YM claimed to teach something different. Who can say where it came from now?


Thats the story people tell when they make things up. I didn't didn't do it, I learned it from so and so. Pretty popular thing to do in TCMA.


----------



## Nobody Important

I like how the script got flipped, deflected and changed, typical. All because they we're asked to provide video of themselves showing the correct manner in which to perform the technique in question. 

Take your BS over to your thread, where this topic should be being discussed.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Thats the story people tell when they make things up. I didn't didn't do it, I learned it from so and so. Pretty popular thing to do in TCMA.



Lol, exactly. I was sparing KPM another round of that argument


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I like how the script got flipped, deflected and changed, typical. All because they we're asked to provide video of themselves showing the correct manner in which to perform the technique in question.
> 
> Take your BS over to your thread, where this topic should be being discussed.





Nobody Important said:


> I'm just fine with what I have. Gate punch is simple & basic, sorry you never learned it. Please continue to go on pretending you contain some mysterious elbow mechanics in your branch. All this mud slinging because you refuse to provide a video of yourself showing us how to do it properly.



Gate punch appears to lack basic elbow ideas.

You didn't need to join the conversation and reveal this issue, it was your decision. But useful to know more about your system.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Gate punch is simple & basic, sorry you never learned it.



So simple it took you about 5 pages to come to any decision about what it entails?

Sounds like I dodged a bullet with that simple and basic stuff


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Gate punch appears to lack basic elbow ideas.
> 
> You didn't need to join the conversation and reveal this issue, it was your decision. But useful to know more about your system.


Spare me your rhetoric, it doesn't lack elbow ideas. It lacks YOUR elbow ideas, big difference.

It's my thread, it's been derailed. My thread was hijacked because the thread on Cutting Punch wasn't gaining any headway. So the discussion was dragged over here under the guise of SNT.

If you're so eager to prove your point, post a video clearly detailing this "cutting punch" concept and explain how it is so vastly different from a WSL VT approach.

You have no issues ridiculing others for videos they post, please extend the courtesy by posting your own if you are so confident in your knowledge. At the very least you could offer a detailed description.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> So simple it took you about 5 pages to come to any decision about what it entails?
> 
> Sounds like I dodged a bullet with that simple and basic stuff


I explained it clearly several times. I can't help it you have difficulty in reading comprehension. I , at least took the time to explain, why have you yet to provide a description or explanation?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> it doesn't lack elbow ideas. It lacks YOUR elbow ideas, big difference.



It lacks YMVT ideas. We were discussing this claim of the basic elbow focus being "universal in YM lineages". 

You train something else. So, I don't know why you're even joining the discussion with your thing and getting upset about it when we say it lacks the YMVT ideas.



> It's my thread, it's been derailed. My thread was hijacked because the thread on Cutting Punch wasn't gaining any headway. So the discussion was dragged over here under the guise of SNT.



The discussion on the elbow was started right here and is intimately related to SNT in YMVT. 

That thread was made to isolate it. You asked us to take the discussion there, but you are continuing it here instead, and now crying about it?


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> It lacks YMVT ideas. We were discussing this claim of the basic elbow focus being "universal in YM lineages".
> 
> You train something else. So, I don't know why you're even joining the discussion with your thing and getting upset about it when we say it lacks the YMVT ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion on the elbow was started right here and is intimately related to SNT in YMVT.
> 
> That thread was made to isolate it. You asked us to take the discussion there, but you are continuing it here instead, and now crying about it?


Lol, please, I'm crying about nothing. I'm only continuing the conversation because I'm being asked questions. Perhaps if you don't want others joining in be more specific about the topic. When I entered this conversation it was concerning cutting/exclusion/gate punching not specifically about WSL VT/YM VT elbow ideas. 

Does your WC include this method in question? If so please provide example how it is different. If you don't, then I don't see the need to argue with others about it.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Lol, exactly. I was sparing KPM another round of that argument



You do realize he was referring to WSL???


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Perhaps if you don't want others joining in be more specific about the topic. When I entered this conversation it was concerning cutting/exclusion/gate punching not specifically about WSL VT/YM VT elbow ideas.



It's not my fault if you didn't read from the start of the conversation. We did restate the original claim several times.



> Does your WC include this method in question? If so please provide example how it is different. If you don't, then I don't see the need to argue with others about it.



The elbow ideas can be part of a punch, but are not a specific technique per se. The technique of "excluding" punches was presented as an example of YMVT elbow ideas existing in other systems, but there's no such elbow idea in it.


----------



## KPM

It seems we are still waiting for either you or Guy to post a video of PB (since you always refuse to post any videos of yourselves) showing this punch and explaining what is so unique about it in WSLVT.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> It's not my fault if you didn't read from the start of the conversation. We did restate the original claim several times.
> 
> 
> 
> The elbow ideas can be part of a punch, but are not a specific technique per se. The technique of "excluding" punches was presented as an example of YMVT elbow ideas existing in other systems, but there's no such elbow idea in it.


It's not my fault you assumed I was comparing Gate Punching to concepts present or not in YMWC. You either have it or don't. If you don't, no big deal. If you do have something similar please post it. I've already stated I've seen it present in PB videos. Whether intentional or simply coincidental and spontaneous I don't know. But it has yet to be verified by you or Guy as existing, if so I would like to know how the elbow is used differently. Because in YCW WC it's just a plain old straight punch.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> showing this punch and explaining what is so unique about it in WSLVT.



What punch?



Nobody Important said:


> It's not my fault you assumed I was comparing Gate Punching to concepts present or not in YMWC.



Next time don't join the discussion if you don't even know what it's about. It's a waste of everyone's time.



> I've already stated I've seen it present in PB videos. Whether intentional or simply coincidental and spontaneous I don't know. But it has yet to be verified by you or Guy as existing.



I don't know what "gate punch" you're talking about. Post the video and let's have a look.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> What punch?
> 
> 
> 
> Next time don't join the discussion if you don't even know what it's about. It's a waste of everyone's time.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what "gate punch" you're talking about. Post the video and let's have a look.


Typical, you need a tissue, a hug or both?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You do realize he was referring to WSL???



Doesn't matter if he was referring to YM or WSL. The same probability argument that you hate applies


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> It's not my fault if you didn't read from the start of the conversation. We did restate the original claim several times.



It's getting to be a bit of a habit for Nobody to barge into a conversation, get the wrong end of the stick, then get offended and storm off again. Oh well, at least it wasn't 12 pages this time


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> It seems we are still waiting for either you or Guy to post a video of PB (since you always refuse to post any videos of yourselves) showing this punch and explaining what is so unique about it in WSLVT.



Suggest you check the internet, there are quite a few clips of PB around


----------



## guy b

edit


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> It's getting to be a bit of a habit for Nobody to barge into a conversation, get the wrong end of the stick, then get offended and storm off again. Oh well, at least it wasn't 12 pages this time


It's beginning to become a bit of a habit for you two to start a conversation on one subject (leaving an escape plan for when it goes south on you) then flip the subject. Never providing any details, yet pointing out where others fail according to your belief. You also have a hard time staying on point, you'd rather deflect or attempt to insert a back door or simply go to the old stand by "This conversation doesn't deal with mainland WC" when things don't go your way. 

The reason we have page after page is because you two ask questions in a manner as if you don't understand in an attempt to spring some stupid "gotcha" moment. Neither of you has addressed the question as it applies to your lineage, yet another habit of yours, the unwillingness to provide example/description for clarification. 

Everyone else here attempts to post without an agenda. Why is it everytime you two post that there has to be an ulterior motive?


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Suggest you check the internet, there are quite a few clips of PB around


Then why haven't you posted one containing the technique in question?


----------



## wtxs

lansao said:


> Quick correction: "The start of the Bil Gee incorporates elbow striking." should read "elbow deflection and/or striking."
> 
> Separate thought, I think I've demonstrated a fair amount of patience with you LFJ. Throughout our conversation, you've seemed combative and defensive. I've shared openly and in fairly great detail even providing video demonstrations to support statements. I'm asking you now, as a fellow martial artist, to understand I'm not coming from a place of criticism of your lineage when replying to you. I do, however, feel like there is an undertone of criticism coming from you and unfortunately, it's not possible to prove an empirical truth with theory.
> 
> I disagree with your interpretation of the "little idea" being "all about" or solely focused on the elbows. I think it's limited and naive. I think the use of elbows as a defense mechanism bipasses a perfectly valid line of defense. I think use of the elbow increases risk of having that elbow captured. I think walking straight into a person who's twice your weight is a dumb thing to do. I think the wrists are useful devices and so are the finger tips.
> 
> ~ Alan



Perhaps now you understand of what Geezer is talking about.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> It's beginning to become a bit of a habit for you two to start a conversation on one subject (leaving an escape plan for when it goes south on you) then flip the subject. Never providing any details, yet pointing out where others fail according to your belief. You also have a hard time staying on point, you'd rather deflect or attempt to insert a back door or simply go to the old stand by "This conversation doesn't deal with mainland WC" when things don't go your way.
> 
> The reason we have page after page is because you two ask questions in a manner as if you don't understand in an attempt to spring some stupid "gotcha" moment. Neither of you has addressed the question as it applies to your lineage, yet another habit of yours, the unwillingness to provide example/description for clarification.
> 
> Everyone else here attempts to post without an agenda. Why is it everytime you two post that there has to be an ulterior motive?



It's doesn't even end their though, they will raise criticisms that exist only because of the training environment.  Some lineages, in my experience, use more actual combat simulations in training and others rely more on the "principle based" drills.  If you are using a combat simulation drill and are simulating actual entry into a fight with a partner you have 2 options. 

1. perhaps have to take a short release step so you can still get full power and extension on your punch without potentially leveling your training partner.
2. completely level your training partner.

The release step you may do in number 1 to preserve your partner isn't what you would do irl and you will soon spar in order to complete the programming of what you would do irl.  #1 is simply an interim step in transitioning from learning principles to actually developing skills that can be applied irl.  They either ignore this intentionally to create a gotcha moment OR they simply can't conceive of the idea in the first place because they can't think outside the box of their training regime.  I don't know which one it is though.  Then to make matters even funnier they will basically go on their "gotcha" parade BUT at some point when you start raising concerns on the rare occasion they provide details they will say "I am not here to debate one lineage vs another."


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Suggest you check the internet, there are quite a few clips of PB around



So, once again, you are refusing a simple request?  That's not exactly the way to carry on a "friendly discussion."


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> .
> 
> The reason we have page after page is because you two ask questions in a manner as if you don't understand in an attempt to spring some stupid "gotcha" moment. Neither of you has addressed the question as it applies to your lineage, yet another habit of yours, the unwillingness to provide example/description for clarification.
> 
> Everyone else here attempts to post without an agenda. Why is it everytime you two post that there has to be an ulterior motive?




THIS!  Exactly!  Time and time again the pattern repeats itself.  You guys did so well on Lobo's thread, and then turn around and return to your old ways here.  Guy B. asked for clarification on what I was talking about.  LFJ helped me remember that I did indeed have it on video.  But Guy and LFJ say "no that's not what we do."  When requested to provide a comparison video of PB showing what they do, the request is refused.  They repeated asked for video to clarify what we were talking about, but then won't provide video to clarify what they are talking about!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> What punch?
> 
> 
> 
> .




The "cutting" or "excluding" punch!  Geez!  Aren't you paying attention!!!????


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Then why haven't you posted one containing the technique in question?



My suspicion is because, as I said in an earlier thread, much of their argument is a kin to the communication issues a person from the bayou of Louisianan, Edinburgh Scotland, South Philly and Queensland Australia can have.  They are all speaking English, and if they wrote it down for people to see it would look largely the same except for things like color and colour, or "lift" vs "elevator" etc.

That said since they went back on their shot taking tour I don't think it makes any sense for me to remain non-critical at this point.  One of the many reasons I landed at my current school was because TWC does train to use what you and KPM have been discussing here BUT it also teaches moving to the blind side/flank.  Look at any real fight, in the ring or on the street.  If the combatants have the time you will see them circle each other before they move in.  Why do they do that?  They could just stand there the way fencers do waiting for the right time to strike.  They do that for a specific reason, to try and avoid the "fatal funnel." 

Look at it like a LEO or soldier clearing a house where there is an armed subject.  You are wearing body armor, maybe even full tactical kit with helmet and all, so why go all the way into a room if you can just check it from the doorway?  Because simply countering gunfire with the armor and your own gunfire is asking for trouble. So you pie the corner outside the room, then dump in towards the corners you can not see from the hallway.  You get out of that fatal funnel and engage the target. 

You can train all of the techniques that equate to simultaneous attack and defense with a single limb for hours everyday but at some point those counter strikes aren't going to force your opponent to turn, so THEY essentially move you out of the funnel by moving the funnel itself. That counter strike that was supposed to deflect an incoming punch is going to have a punch go around, through, over or under it etc. because if they launched their's first, or are strong enough, have more reach etc your going to connect too late.  Maybe the opponent isn't even really going to try and strike you but simply use them to set you up for a take down?

In any event you will at some point find yourself in that fatal funnel, where all four of their limbs can go to work on you as easily as yours can on him and all the counters in the world wont move it.  In that case, if you have not also trained to properly move yourself out of it, you will find yourself in a BAD place.  That is the difference between a real fight in a dynamic environment where the fighting methods of the opponent is an uncertain and people fighting in a school where everyone is following the exact same principles and as such it always plays to the script.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Then why haven't you posted one containing the technique in question?



Because I have things to do that are more important than searching the internet for footage, like my job, or talking to my family? When I have time, if you are still unable to google one of the many video clips containing PB, then I will supply you with one, free of charge. Good luck

I feel you might succeed given the frequency of PB vids and the relative frequency of punching in those clips

Of course this is not the case for gate punches, cutting punches and excluding punches, all of which (despite being WC 101) are exceedingly difficult to pin down


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> So, once again, you are refusing a simple request?  That's not exactly the way to carry on a "friendly discussion."



Please see reply to NI above. You can do it KPM! Good luck


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> I've never claimed any such thing. Perhaps you are coming to realize that WSL VT really isn't as different as you once believed.



Lol, direct contradiction much?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Please see reply to NI above. You can do it KPM! Good luck



Never, ever again ask me to provide video for you or anyone else.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Never, ever again ask me to provide video for you or anyone else.



You don't provide video, that's the point.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Because I have things to do that are more important than searching the internet for footage, like my job, or talking to my family? When I have time, if you are still unable to google one of the many video clips containing PB, then I will supply you with one, free of charge. Good luck
> 
> I feel you might succeed given the frequency of PB vids and the relative frequency of punching in those clips
> 
> Of course this is not the case for gate punches, cutting punches and excluding punches, all of which (despite being WC 101) are exceedingly difficult to pin down


So, if they randomly open any given video of PB, they will quickly find exactly that technique, and it will be obviously that technique, not some similar technique?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Correct.
> 
> For TWC we see that the idea is not universal. Shouldn't be a problem because TWC claims to be different, doesn't it?
> 
> No idea why those from non YM systems would even care if they are different, if indeed they are, which is proving impossible to find out.



This is some twisted logic.  Things can be different without being different in a global sense.  Simply because TWC allows for you to move yourself to the blind side doesn't mean that the elbow is not used in a tactical manner beyond simply being the focus of forwarding energy.  The problem is you NEED this to not be the case otherwise your premise is wrong.  In essence you are told "we do something very similar to what you describe BUT we also do this thing which is different" but by putting your hands over your ears and saying "lalalalala I can't hear you" all you hear is "...we....do this thing which is different" and so you have your "gotcha" moment

Next you ignore the point that YM didn't study YM WC, he refined from other another Lineage(s) so even those who do not study YM WC directly have something to contribute because we are at a minimum cousins and whether you want to acknowledge it or not there are similarities between all of them, along side the differences because in the end they are Wing Chun


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Because I have things to do that are more important than searching the internet for footage, like my job, or talking to my family? When I have time, if you are still unable to google one of the many video clips containing PB, then I will supply you with one, free of charge. Good luck
> 
> I feel you might succeed given the frequency of PB vids and the relative frequency of punching in those clips
> 
> Of course this is not the case for gate punches, cutting punches and excluding punches, all of which (despite being WC 101) are exceedingly difficult to pin down


Whatever, you just refuse to do so. I explained it clearly, as have others. For the last time it is just a punch that utilizes the Lin Siu Dai Da principle. If you can't comprehend that I don't know what else to tell you.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Lol, direct contradiction much?


Please show me the quote where I say that YCW WC contains everything that WSL VT does. I could care less if my WC is same or different. You seem to be the one fixated on pointing out differences. You remind me of Hendrix Santos, always making claims, putting others down & never proving anything.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> You don't provide video, that's the point.


Nice deflection. When have you ever posted video of yourself? Not once on this forum or on the Kung Fu Magazine forum. Yet you have no problems criiticizing someone else. Pretty hypocritical IMO. It's easy to post videos of your idols and speak for them. How about you man up and do as you always ask others to do?


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Whatever, you just refuse to do so. I explained it clearly, as have others. For the last time it is just a punch that utilizes the Lin Siu Dai Da principle. If you can't comprehend that I don't know what else to tell you.



So based on the exchanges here let me see if I understand the argument from his perspective.  
1. Focus only on the portions of statements that can used to say "different" and/or broken.
2. Demand evidence, including video from others, so they can use similar out of context cherry picking, to agains be able to say "different and/or broken."
3. Say they have better things to do than return the favor they demanded of others.


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> So, if they randomly open any given video of PB, they will quickly find exactly that technique, and it will be obviously that technique, not some similar technique?


He's hoping someone will point it out for him because he admittedly doesn't know.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> He's hoping someone will point it out for him because he admittedly doesn't know.



Tbh this is an issue with anyone who gets trapped in dogma too much.  Think of the person who learned all they know about their faith simply by going to Church every Sunday vs the person who used critical thinking in the study of theology.  They can say the prayers accurately and precisely without any thought.  However ask them to describe the detailed structure of a specific prayer or its place in the evolution of your faith and they couldn't tell  you.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> You don't provide video, that's the point.



You are so full of BS.  My video is on this very thread.  Where is your video?????


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> It's easy to post videos of your idols and speak for them. How about you man up and do as you always ask others to do?




That will never happen and we all know it!


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> He's hoping someone will point it out for him because he admittedly doesn't know.



Robin is waiting for Batman to step in and answer things for him.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> You are so full of BS.  My video is on this very thread.  Where is your video?????


yeah when I saw that response I was like "is he really that out of options"


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> LFJ helped me remember that I did indeed have it on video.  But Guy and LFJ say "no that's not what we do."  When requested to provide a comparison video of PB showing what they do, the request is refused.



I wasn't talking about any specific technique. You came on with the "excluding punch".



KPM said:


> The "cutting" or "excluding" punch!  Geez!  Aren't you paying attention!!!????



If you're talking about what you do in your video, I don't do that.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> So, if they randomly open any given video of PB, they will quickly find exactly that technique, and it will be obviously that technique, not some similar technique?



I don't know what technique they're talking about. I was only ever discussing the elbow idea in SNT, which is not a technique per se. KPM brought up a punch technique, and all I'm saying is that I don't see any elbow idea in it.

Nobody Important says he has seen PB do a "gate punch". I'm not even sure what that is. If he could just post the PB video we could have a look and continue the discussion smoothly.

From his description, it sounds like a straight punch but with the body coming in on an angle. But then he says it is performed the same from inside or outside gate. If you look at the first clip on the Cutting Punch thread, you will see them having to change the way the punch is done to deal with the arm from either side. If it doesn't change, it won't wedge the guy's arm out. So, if NI's punch is the same, he'll have to show video, photo, or something of it to make it clear.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> From his description, it sounds like a straight punch but with the body coming in on an angle. But then he says it is performed the same from inside or outside gate. If you look at the first clip on the Cutting Punch thread, you will see them having to change the way the punch is done to deal with the arm from either side. If it doesn't change, it won't wedge the guy's arm out.


You just described it. For the tenth time it's just a straight punch, elbow does not flare, body rotation allows for the angle that creates the wedge, strike is to center. It uses the concept of Lin Siu Dai Da via the punch itself. If it is above their forearm it is outer gate, below it is inner gate. Its the same concept as in the videos you presented. You asked if it was my gate punch I said no, because, they are:
1. Chasing the arm
2. Flaring elbows
3. Not rotating
Gate punching in YCW WC is not deliberate in the sense that you actively try to make it happen. There is no focus on attacking the arm to simultaneously punch the opponent, it is simply punch, if it happens it happens because of proper form and structure.

I find it hard to believe that you post pictures from a book written by Bruce Lee, who learned mostly from Wong Sheung Leung and claim not to know this basic punching method. Since it is a method employed by various Wing Chun branches, both Yip Man and Non-Yip Man, its logical to to assume this isn't a made up Bruce Lee thing. So that leaves the questions, did Bruce Lee learn it from Yip Man or Wong Sheung Leung? If from Yip Man why didn't Wong Sheung Leung learn it? If he learned it from Wong Sheung Leung why was Bruce the only one to learn it. Or is it more likely you simply call it by a different name?


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> You just described it. For the tenth time it's just a straight punch, elbow does not flare, body rotation allows for the angle that creates the wedge, strike is to center. It uses the concept of Lin Siu Dai Da via the punch itself. If it is above their forearm it is outer gate, below it is inner gate. Its the same concept as in the videos you presented. You asked if it was my gate punch I said no, because, they are:
> 1. Chasing the arm
> 2. Flaring elbows
> 3. Not rotating
> Gate punching in YCW WC is not deliberate in the sense that you actively try to make it happen. There is no focus on attacking the arm to simultaneously punch the opponent, it is simply punch, if it happens it happens because of proper form and structure.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that you post pictures from a book written by Bruce Lee, who learned mostly from Wong Sheung Leung and claim not to know this basic punching method. Since it is a method employed by various Wing Chun branches, both Yip Man and Non-Yip Man, its logical to to assume this isn't a made up Bruce Lee thing. So that leaves the questions, did Bruce Lee learn it from Yip Man or Wong Sheung Leung? If from Yip Man why didn't Wong Sheung Leung learn it? If he learned it from Wong Sheung Leung why was Bruce the only one to learn it. Or is it more likely you simply call it by a different name?


You beat me to the punch (pun intended) and I will end it there because anything else is redundant.  

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

Since you have finally come to the Cutting Punch thread, why don't we keep it over there in one neat place then...


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I wasn't talking about any specific technique. You came on with the "excluding punch".
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about what you do in your video, I don't do that.



You are as full of BS as Guy!   The "cutting" or "excluding" punch absolutely was part of this conversation and is pretty clearly what I was talking about.   And then as a response to one of my comments about it, you ask "what punch?"     Just as NI said....shifting the conversation around to suit yourselves.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You are as full of BS as Guy!   The "cutting" or "excluding" punch absolutely was part of this conversation and is pretty clearly what I was talking about.   And then as a response to one of my comments about it, you ask "what punch?"     Just as NI said....shifting the conversation around to suit yourselves.



You brought up the punch as an example of elbow use, but it doesn't show YMVT elbow. 

I don't punch like that, so I don't know what you want from me.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You brought up the punch as an example of elbow use, but it doesn't show YMVT elbow.
> 
> I don't punch like that, so I don't know what you want from me.



You don't punch like what?  What punch?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You don't punch like what?  What punch?



Excluding or whipping.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Excluding or whipping.



Oh!  So you were following what I was talking about?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> So, if they randomly open any given video of PB, they will quickly find exactly that technique, and it will be obviously that technique, not some similar technique?



I have no idea what technique they are looking for. Happy to post a clip of PB when I have time though


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> yeah when I saw that response I was like "is he really that out of options"



KPM wants me to post a clip of PB doing a gate punch, apparently. I don't know what this is. I can post a clip of PB where he is punching though when I get home tonight


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> KPM wants me to post a clip of PB doing a gate punch, apparently. I don't know what this is. I can post a clip of PB where he is punching though when I get home tonight



Nobody Important is the one who said he's seen PB doing a gate punch. If he could just post the video himself, since he knows what he's looking for, that'd save everyone a lot of time.

For some reason, he won't even post a visual of his own gate punch so we know WTF he's talking about, and won't confirm other videos.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Nobody Important is the one who said he's seen PB doing a gate punch. If he could just post the video himself, since he knows what he's looking for, that'd save everyone a lot of time.
> 
> For some reason, he won't even post a visual of his own gate punch so we know WTF he's talking about, and won't confirm other videos.



Assume this is because it is important for him to claim that he has the same elbow ideas as YM VT, but doesn't yet know what those are. 

I would have thought that quite safe to reveal ignorance with the fake ID, but guess pride is hard to swallow when it is such a habit


----------



## KPM

Stop playing your stupid little games.  We all are growing pretty tired of it.


----------



## wtxs

LFJ said:


> You brought up the punch as an example of elbow use, but it doesn't show YMVT elbow.
> 
> I don't punch like that, so I don't know what you want from me.



A video of you or Guy showing how you execute the VT punch and how VT elbow idea applies ... an early Christmas present to all of us if you will.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Stop playing your stupid little games.  We all are growing pretty tired of it.



You only get what you give KPM. You appear to have mellowed out a bit, but your friend is on a mission and is frequently dishonest. If that is happening then obviously need to be careful.


----------



## JPinAZ

One of the most embarrassing WC threads ever. It's KFO all over again.


----------



## wtxs

JPinAZ said:


> One of the most embarrassing WC threads ever. It's KFO all over again.



Remember the song " welcome to my nightmare" by Alice Cooper?  KFO is having sweeter and calmer dreams now ...


----------



## Juany118

wtxs said:


> Remember the song " welcome to my nightmare" by Alice Cooper?  KFO is having sweeter and calmer dreams now ...



Obviously before my time so I have to ask... KFO?


----------



## wtxs

Juany118 said:


> Obviously before my time so I have to ask... KFO?



KFO = Kung Fu Magazine Forum


----------



## anerlich

Before that, there was the Wing Chun Mailing list. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.


----------



## anerlich

My money is on this thread being locked pending staff review next. And that would not be a bad thing.


----------



## geezer

anerlich said:


> My money is on this thread being locked pending staff review next. And that would not be a bad thing.



...or locked for endless and totally pointless bickering. If in fact they do that.


----------



## wtxs

anerlich said:


> Before that, there was the Wing Chun Mailing list. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.



Guess I'll retract what I've said about Geezer ... the title of "Older Than Dirt" is yours.


----------



## Eric_H

anerlich said:


> Before that, there was the Wing Chun Mailing list. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth.



Was that before or after the yahoo groups? It gets hazy when I think back that far.


----------



## anerlich

I wasn't in the yahoo groups. I joined the WCML in about 1993/4 and it was already well established. Marty Goldberg, Rene Richie and some others were the moderators.


----------



## nikthegreek_3

It depends on whether you know what you try to develop. In no one can say that everyone else is mistaken - as soon as they follow the Wing Chun principles and know what they are doing. Siu lim tao DOES NOT teach applications, but concepts!
This is a deep explanation of Siu Lim Tao - proving that it has to do with concepts. (Best analysis in Youtube up to now as far as i have seen).


----------



## Callen

nikthegreek_3 said:


> This is a deep explanation of Siu Lim Tao - proving that it has to do with concepts. (Best analysis in Youtube up to now as far as i have seen).


Thanks for sharing.

It seems like the information was picked up from several different WSLVT sources, as opposed to coming from WSL himself. Is this your video?


----------



## nikthegreek_3

Callen said:


> Thanks for sharing.
> 
> It seems like the information was picked up from several different WSLVT sources, as opposed to coming from WSL himself. Is this your video?


Exactly: 3 lineages of WSL crosschecked, so as to end up in what WSL was teaching.


----------



## Callen

nikthegreek_3 said:


> Exactly: 3 lineages of WSL crosschecked, so as to end up in what WSL was teaching.


Well not exactly what WSL was teaching, but you're on the right track!

I can certainly spot a few different WSLVT interpretations. Fung Hao, for example isn't used a lot in WSLVT, and wasn't really taught that much by WSL, so I'm guessing that you picked that up from Sifu Gary Lam. I would be interested to hear more about who your WSLVT influences are, and who you personally trained with.

Most of the first generation WSLVT practitioners spoke Cantonese; but as WSL's popularity increased, non-native speakers eventually became students as well. Those that were fortunate enough to have first-hand experiences with him either learned by speaking Cantonese or they had an interpreter. In my opinion, a lot of what WSL was teaching has been lost in translation over the years.

To add to your explanation of the wrist movement @19:00 in the video, WSL actually described it as simply covering from a low position to a high position as quickly as possible. He is recorded in Cantonese saying that the idea is about replacing the hands, much like what the last section of SNT teaches us in WSLVT as well. The concept is not to use the wrist to hit, it is to simply get your hand back up to recover from a low position. If you were to hit something when going back up, it would only be an incoming attacking hand. WSL never taught that section as a hit with the wrist to any part of the body.

Good video overall, keep it up!


----------



## nikthegreek_3

Callen said:


> Well not exactly what WSL was teaching, but you're on the right track!
> 
> I can certainly spot a few different WSLVT interpretations. Fung Hao, for example isn't used a lot in WSLVT, and wasn't really taught that much by WSL, so I'm guessing that you picked that up from Sifu Gary Lam. I would be interested to hear more about who your WSLVT influences are, and who you personally trained with.
> 
> Most of the first generation WSLVT practitioners spoke Cantonese; but as WSL's popularity increased, non-native speakers eventually became students as well. Those that were fortunate enough to have first-hand experiences with him either learned by speaking Cantonese or they had an interpreter. In my opinion, a lot of what WSL was teaching has been lost in translation over the years.
> 
> To add to your explanation of the wrist movement @19:00 in the video, WSL actually described it as simply covering from a low position to a high position as quickly as possible. He is recorded in Cantonese saying that the idea is about replacing the hands, much like what the last section of SNT teaches us in WSLVT as well. The concept is not to use the wrist to hit, it is to simply get your hand back up to recover from a low position. If you were to hit something when going back up, it would only be an incoming attacking hand. WSL never taught that section as a hit with the wrist to any part of the body.
> 
> Good video overall, keep it up!



What you say is definitely very useful and thank you. In the video it is not me, but one who teached me for quite long. I have heard some of what you say, also from him. His lineages were Nino Bernardo, Gary Lam (you are correct) and Ph. Beyer. About the wrist, yes i heard the same from him (maybe the 2 lineages said the same) but the third lineage gave also this option - so he said also this option. You seem to have also quite deep knowledge.


----------

