# What is "good" WC/WT



## geezer (Jul 22, 2009)

A while back I went to an open practice session with some guys from other styles. Watching one of these guys demonstrate how he would approach various situations, I was struck by how differently he defined what was a _"good technique"_. Even at the same close range that we favor, what he used was very unlike WC/WT. He used indirect, complex sequences that often crashed force against force. When it was my turn to share, I would try to achieve the same objective in the simplest, most direct manner I could, borrowing my opponent's force as much as possible. The other guy did not appreciate this approach at all. To him, the WC/WT looked _too basic_. He felt that his complicated approach was way cooler and more sophisticated... or in short, "better". It would not have been possible to change his mind and still keep the practice session "friendly"... if you get my drift.

On the other hand, these concepts of _simplicity, efficiency and borrowing the force_ are pretty much shared by all the WC/WT practitioners I've met. So while there was no common theoretical base to discuss what was a "good technique" with the guy I described above, it _should_ be possible to have meaningful exchanges with other WC/WT guys.

Now _some_ of what we feel is "best" is largely a matter of lineage, instructor and personal preference, like how your lineage chooses to do the forms. Or, perhaps, how you adapt your stance. Each method has its own rationale, and we could debate "until the cows come home". And get nowhere. Especially since I don't have any cows.

On the other hand we _should_ be able to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of our techniques, _based on our common concepts_. So whether I do WC, WT, VT, or some other lineage, we should be able to break down what we do and see if we are doing the simplest, most efficient and effective move or not. If you can show me how to get from "A to B" more efficiently, I'll take _your_ technique... because that's also my definition of good Wing Chun (however you spell it). Now I'll get down off my soapbox and ask you guys, "What is your definition of _good _Wing Chun/Tsun?


----------



## yak sao (Jul 22, 2009)

I don't have any cows either, but I do have a few horses if that helps.

In my workout room I have a quote by Leomardo Da Vinci :
_"Simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication"_

I was talking about this to one of my si-dais last night. In some ways it's like WT doesn't even really exist, it's simply a physical manifestation of the principles


----------



## geezer (Jul 22, 2009)

yak sao said:


> In my workout room I have a quote by Leonardo Da Vinci :
> _"Simplicity is the ultimate form of sophistication"_



That is a very cool quote. I'm definitely going to use it.



yak sao said:


> I was talking about this to one of my si-dais last night. In some ways it's like WT doesn't even really exist, *it's simply a physical manifestation of the principles*



Well put. _That_ is the ideal objective of WT/WC as I understand it. "WT" specifically, is also a _system of training_ designed to lead us toward that objective. Other lineages train somewhat differently. IMO, whether they are "good" or "bad" can only be determined by how effectively they lead toward that same objective.


----------



## geezer (Jul 22, 2009)

Another core concept by which we measure the quality of our techniques, at least in the WT lineages, is that we should make our whole body elastic, or "springy". This is in accord with the well known motto, _"Spring forward, stay with what comes, follow the retreat, and thrust forward when the way is free"_. This saying, although translated and paraphrased in many ways, encapsulates in a few words the essence of how we strive to make our bodies move in WT/WC. 

Now I don't know if all, or even most, lineages fully share this emphasis on developing  springy, forward energy in their technique, but it is at the core of the_ WT definition_ of what is "good" and effective, and is essential to how we borrow energy from our opponent. An example would be how we use our bong sau. It is never thrown out as a block. In fact, we don't "make" a bong sau by ourselves at all. Instead, _our opponent makes our bong sau for us_. You see, bong sau only happens when our opponent strikes or presses across our bridge with heavy force, bending and rolling our arm into a bong-sau deflection. Then, when their strike slips off, our bong sau is released and _snaps forward like a bent spring,_ striking our opponent! Just like the motto quoted above. 

Ultimately, this same springy quality should be applied not only to the arms, but to the shoulders, the torso, the stance, and even the steps... until you pursue your opponent with your whole body moving forward like an uncoiling spring: Surging forward, bending and "staying" with what is thrown at you, springing back to "follow the retreat" (or withdrawn technique), and snapping forward when "the way is free".

From what I've read of Mook's posts, this concept seems to be equally important in the Tsui Sheung Tin/ Jim Fung lineage too. How about in _your_ WC?


----------



## yak sao (Jul 22, 2009)

That would be a great T shirt : "Bong sao happens".

As for the springiness, when i really started to feel it "whole body" was when I trained the Biu Tze form.
What about anyone else? when did you start to "get it"? Is there one piece to the puzzle that causes it to happen? In my case I attribute it to the Biu Tse form. Was it just coincidental and I would have gotten the same springiness regardless by working the first two forms and training chi sao and adhering to the principles?
That said, is it then attainable without having all the pieces of the puzzle?


----------



## geezer (Jul 22, 2009)

yak sao said:


> That would be a great T shirt : "Bong sao happens".
> 
> As for the springiness, when i really started to feel it "whole body" was when I trained the Biu Tze form.



In the WT system, at least, I agree that Biu Tze is a real _turning point_. If SNT builds spring in the wrists and arms, Chum Kiu works the spring/pivot in stance turning, and Biu Tze builds it into the shoulders and torso... the hardest part to learn. Watch Leung Ting's shoulders in the old videos and you can really see the total elasticity there. 

 BTW, I personally am exceptionally stiff jointed and really struggle with building this higher level flexibility and spring. But even when I can't pull it off myself, I've got training partners who enjoy using it on me! Sometimes I feel like the human substitute for a wooden dummy.


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 23, 2009)

It has to be simple and direct in my opinion , ultimately our aim is to hit the opponent in the head really hard.
We should be using practical and efficient techniques that allow us to reach that goal in the least amount of moves possible.

Anything else is just playing around with peoples arms and wasting precious time , a luxury that you won't have if you are facing the free flowing combinations of a boxer for example.

I can't pinpoint when I developed springy energy , because I consider it a work in progress. But I think I started to develop it when I finally started listening to people about not using strength , and when I put in a concerted effort to practice S.L.T form every day .

Chum Kiu and Bil Jee probably helped later on , but I feel it was mostly my overall power that improved from the practice of the latter two forms.


----------



## profesormental (Jul 23, 2009)

Greetings.

The purpose of training and practice, or better yet, of a high Level Martial Method should be to achieve Sophisticated Simplicity.

This is performing in seemingly simple fashion something which is actually highly complex. Good Wing Chun is the performance which we can witness this simplicity in action. Using the accordion principle we can break things down to the details that make up the "simple" movement, ingrain them and then get the simple movement at will.

Enjoy!

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## zepedawingchun (Jul 23, 2009)

mook jong man said:


> I can't pinpoint when I developed springy energy , because I consider it a work in progress. But I think I started to develop it when I finally started listening to people about not using strength , and when I put in a concerted effort to practice S.L.T form every day .


 
Same here as mook jong man, still a work in progress. I also can't pinpoint when the springy energy developed, it came from hours of training chi sau with sihings and students (and of course with sifu).

As stated, IMO, good WC should be simple and direct.  If your opponent is giving you a strong attack, you should yield, redirect, and then attack.  if they are giving you a weak attack, you should overpower them with your attack.  But good structure and position is the key.  And do your forms everyday.


----------



## Tensei85 (Jul 23, 2009)

As for the springy energy, generally in our lineage of Wing Chun we start the training platform based on the "Ng Long Ying Jong Faat" 5 reactional energies methods. 

Namely Ying (Shape), Cheung (Crash), Lau (Flow), Saat (Kill) & Fa (Neutralize).

These create the platform for reactionary energies that are trained throughout the SNT (SLT) form as well as our "Saam Sing Jong Chi Sau" modules. So from this point we start training the springy energy that we associate with "Lau".

As for the other Wing Chun system that I studied the Hokkien Eng Chun if I'm not mistaken start there's based on the Saam Jin Bou form which is coupled by there training of the SLT. 

In Chi Sim Weng Chun it was generally started as best I can remember in the "Fa Kuen" form level & coupled with method drilling. 

So after it was trained in Chi Sau then we would start drilling in more of a San Da format.


----------



## chisauking (Jul 23, 2009)

Good wing chun is when the practitioner has maximised the potential of one's self.

Then we come to the next question. What is wing chun?

1 clue as to when a practitioner is applying wing chun: it looks like wing chun.

Some may laugh at the above, but one would be astonish to find how many people do 'kick boxing' but thinking it's wing chun.

All in all, a good question, but one which is difficult to answer & comprehend until one is good at wing chun (back to square one: what's good wing chun?)


----------



## geezer (Jul 23, 2009)

chisauking said:


> Good wing chun is when the practitioner has maximised the potential of one's self.



Boy, that also sounds like JKD... no surprise there, eh!



chisauking said:


> Then we come to the next question. What is wing chun?
> 
> 1 clue as to when a practitioner is applying wing chun: it looks like wing chun.



Three things actually:
--it's gotta _look_ like WC/WT, 
--it's gotta _feel_ like WC/WT (think chi-sau), and above all...
--it's gotta _work_ like WC/WT!

Like you said, some guys don't even get the _first_ one right. Others never get the _feel or functionality_. I saw a videoclip over on another forum in which two guys in black karate gis (first red flag) were demonstrating "Wing Chun Chi-Sau". They were snapping their hands out very fast, using a lot of WC-like techniques. They definitely had the "look" down, _but_ they were not sticking and they were not pressing forward with their attacks. They would snap out techniques then break stick and withdraw the technique to launch another. The result may have looked impressively fast and WC-like to some, but to most of the viewers with any background, it looked like ineffectual "slap-boxing". It's stuff like that that gives us all a bad rep.

For me, "good" WC/WT doesn't even have to be all that fast... just efficient and effective. But then again, if you're fast, that's nice too!


----------



## chisauking (Jul 24, 2009)

Without an actual point of reference or 'yard stick' to gauge against, it is meaningless to say what's good wing chun.

You talk about practitioners contravining wing chun principles.....but at a very high level, one doesn't need to comply to principles all the time. So, breaking wing chun rules doesn't mean it isn't good wing chun -- it just depends on the context.

For example, lat-sau chik chung. Some practitioners don't hit when one of the hands lose contact, because they are setting their opponent up for 1 hand cover 2.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jul 24, 2009)

geezer said:


> Three things actually:
> --it's gotta _look_ like WC/WT,


 
perhaps during practice.  But if used for real, not necessarily.  Whatever happens, happens.



> --it's gotta _feel_ like WC/WT (think chi-sau), and above all...
> --it's gotta _work_ like WC/WT!


 
can these even be defined?  How it feels, and how it works, will probably depend quite a bit on what the opponent is doing.


----------



## geezer (Jul 24, 2009)

Flying Crane said:


> perhaps during practice.  But if used for real, not necessarily.  Whatever happens, happens. ...can these even be defined?  How it feels, and how it works, will probably depend quite a bit on what the opponent is doing.



Good point. I've seen several good martial artists involved in real fights. Deepending on the situation, what they did and how they looked was not at all like practice in the kwoon or dojo.
I think a lot of people have a very unrealistic expectation that is you are 'good' that you should look like Jet Li in the movies!

On the other hand, when you see technique being demonstrated in a clip on youtube, I think it's fair to judge it against the standards of whatever style it is supposed to be representing.

Finally, I really didn't expect us all to agree 100% on what makes up a good technique... boy, how boring would that be!


----------



## matsu (Jul 25, 2009)

funny i read this post yesterday and then was sorting my computer out and when thru all my saved favorites/websites and youtube stuff and re filed it.
i actually binned over half of what i had originally saved due its crap content.!
i hope this means i,m better able to see what is good wing chun now compared to what i thought it was last year!
i had a real break thru in my combination drill on weds. just one thing a different sifu said that just made sense and i had joy for the whole of the remaining session.
"looking " like good wing chun..... isnt that just pure economy of motion in action?
and i think the only way to know its good wing chun is to feel it or have it feel you in my case!
just my tuppence as a unexperienced enthusiast
matsu


----------



## qwksilver61 (Jul 25, 2009)

TingStyle


----------



## Si-Je (Jul 29, 2009)

I'd have to venture that "good" wing chun" would be techique that works for everyone. Regardless of what size and shape the opponent is or how hard or soft they come at you. 
It's an intention that manifests into true action. Action based on what you feel from the opponent, how close they are and what's open for attack.

When I first started taking WC I felt so dumb. I took so many other different arts where I really thought that if you had a good guard up you were covered for attack. First learning pak sau I realized that the guard up in front of my opponent doesn't keep them from being hit easilly by me. At least one good pop!

I'd learned so many neat, cool looking fun ways to "block" or throw a guard up thinking that helped. I'd sparred alot of other folks in these other styles and enjoyed it all very much. And this had worked out for me pretty well. I was great at blocking and jumping around! lol! 

When I started to really learn WC, it started to strip away alot of pre-concieved notions that were drilled in my head by other styles teaching. It was so simple that the first 5 concepts seemed vague and well.,,,.. TOO simple. 
In the business world they actually hire business "troubleshooters" to come in and make the business run more effeciently. Simple is not simple. Our minds by nature, want to immediately analyze and artificially "reproduce"  techniques in a sequence, that happen simply. But it rarely works out that way. lol! Yes, it was so simple that I kept trying to "complicate" it by trying to "figure it out." (and I guess I still am.) 

Good wing chun is like a philosophy that evolves and incompases the 10,000 things. You know it when you see it because you didn't see it too well. lol!


----------



## zepedawingchun (Jul 30, 2009)

Si-Je said:


> . . . . Good wing chun is like a philosophy that evolves and incompases the 10,000 things. You know it when you see it because you didn't see it too well. lol!


 
My sifu has said many times that true Wing Chun (the art once mastered and made a part of you) doesn't look like a martial art or anything at all.  You don't see the tan sau, or the pak, or whatever.  It doesn't look like you're doing a martial art, or anything regimented or purposely formed (like a hand position performing a parry to counterattack) that people recognize as a block or attack.  That it good Wing Chun.  Much like Bruce Lee stated 'be formless, shapeless, be like water.  Pour the water into a cup, it becomes the cup.  Pour the water into a teapot, it become the teapot.  Water can flow or crash. . . . .  be like water . . . . .'.


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 30, 2009)

zepedawingchun said:


> My sifu has said many times that true Wing Chun (the art once mastered and made a part of you) doesn't look like a martial art or anything at all. You don't see the tan sau, or the pak, or whatever. It doesn't look like you're doing a martial art, or anything regimented or purposely formed (like a hand position performing a parry to counterattack) that people recognize as a block or attack.


 
Thats very true , It reminds me of a story I heard about Tsui Seung Tin.
One day a Karate master from Japan walked into Sigung Tsui's school in Hong Kong and wanted to test him out .

The guy charged in with a reverse punch to Sigung's head and Sigung just calmly raised his arm. The Karate guy almost got redirected into the wall .
The Karate guy said " What was that block you just did ? , I have never seen it before.
 Sigung replied " It wasn't a block , all I did was raise my arm " .

I remember seeing the same thing with my own Sifu , the movements had become so minimal and economical that you really had to concentrate hard to see what the move was that he was actually doing.


----------



## chisauking (Jul 30, 2009)

Without being antagonistic, I would beg to differ. I feel that practitioners that can apply wing chun for real, one can see the tools of the method being applied.

In most wing chun clips, one can't see any edvidence of wing chun being used at all in either gwoh-sau or when one's opponent is being uncooperative. 

It's only those rare and gifted wing chun practitioners that can demonstrate the use of wing chun tools.

It's very easy to disprove my point. Show me a clip in which a wing chun pracitioner is clearly showing the application of a fook-sau, or jut-sau, or po-pai, or quan-sau, etc., etc, in 'real time'.


----------



## geezer (Jul 30, 2009)

chisauking said:


> ... I feel that practitioners that can apply wing chun for real, one can see the tools of the method being applied.
> 
> ...In most wing chun clips, one can't see any edvidence of wing chun being used at all in either gwoh-sau or when one's opponent is being uncooperative.
> 
> It's only those rare and gifted wing chun practitioners that can demonstrate the use of wing chun tools.



I don't know, but I suspect it also depends a lot on how skilled you are relative to your opponent. My Wing Tsun looks great, even in real time if I'm fighting my 10 year-old son! LOL But seriously, the best you are likely to see from a beginner or intermediate _in a fight_ is front-thrust kicking and chain punching, and a lot of aggression. And that's OK if it gets the job done. 

However, I believe your comments were a response to _Mook's_ story. You are asserting that a really good 'chunner should be able to fight and actually use WC/WT techniques. And, you point out that that is pretty rare. I grant you that. But if I understood _Mook_ correctly, he was talking about WC/WT at the very _highest_ level where it is so effortless and efficient that it doesn't have to look like much of anything. My first sifu could move like that. He used to say that when you really possessed WT, it could take many forms. Now _that's_ even rarer.


----------



## mook jong man (Jul 31, 2009)

Yeah you are spot on Geezer .
If I can clarify it further , we use a movement called a Dai Sau to deflect a punch to the face that is off the centreline or circular.

If a student was watching me , even if the attack was thrown very fast he would still be able to recognise that I was raising my arm up into a Dai Sau to deflect the punch.

But with my Sifu his movement was extremely minimal and to all intents and purposes looked like he was just flicking his hand up to his face to deflect the punch.

I think it is just a natural evolution of training for many years that your movements will become more economical over time , just enough to get the job done and no more.

Not only that I think because they are so highly skilled they can even cut corners with their movements and don't have to be as strict and correct as us mere mortals.

Its kind of like we're all riding around on B.M.X bikes  with training wheels on them , and their getting around on theirs with no training wheels and popping wheelies up and down the street.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 31, 2009)

I think it is just a natural evolution of training for many years that your movements will become more economical over time , just enough to get the job done and no more.



One of my Si-fu's catch phrases is "just enough"


----------



## chisauking (Jul 31, 2009)

I understand that as one gets more skillful, one's movments becomes smaller and smaller.....but not to the point where it's not discernable as to what 'tool' it is within wing chun.

Put simply, a lot of tools in wing chun are shapes, shapes that can jam, wedge, deflect, absorb, etc., etc., energy. How's it possible to form those shapes -- say, bong-sau or jum-sau -- without it being recognisable as those shapes? How's it possible to apply quan-sau and still not look like quan-sau? How can one hide the action of po-pai?

The truth is, most practitioners would be lucky to be able to demonstrate more than a handful of wing chun tools in gwoh-sau, let alone apply it in such a way that it is hidden from recognition in a real fight.

It's true that your ability to display your skills is down to your opponent's skill level, but even then, the characteristics of wing chun shoudn't be totally lost -- if you are indeed using wing chun.

You know, many people say wing chun shouldn't look like wing chun when applied for real. But then, if you ask them to break the individual tools down and show the possible application of each, they can't! For example, ask someone to demonstrate a fook-sau in sparring, they can't.......Funny thing is, they claim they are using it in sparring....only that no one can recognise it.

Mook jong man: maybe you could post a clip of your example regarding dai-sau? I'm not disputing what you are saying, but I might be able to recognise the tool being applied by your teacher.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 1, 2009)

chisauking said:


> Mook jong man: maybe you could post a clip of your example regarding dai-sau? I'm not disputing what you are saying, but I might be able to recognise the tool being applied by your teacher.


 
I think you might be taking me a little bit too literally mate , I'm talking about when my Sifu did something at full speed , to me it was just a blur.
But when he showed you slowly then you could see what it was that he was using.

But anyhow I haven't got any clips of him doing Dai Sau because he died several years ago , but I have got one of his son and a couple of other people doing it from my old school.
Most of the time in the clip you will see them defending punches to the head with the Dai Sau.
By the way the bloke in the blue shirt is my Sifu's son , who I used to teach occasionally when he was just a little fella of about 8 years old.


----------



## matsu (Aug 1, 2009)

wow great video mr mook.!
will be saving that and the others to watch again and again.

sifu has always said fighting isnt pretty so just get the job done!!
but the traditional basics as we practise in their art form will work when put to the test. and to watch him in full flow is breathtaking.
yes he cuts out movements or some of the full technique but the essence of the technique in its purest form is there cos it works.
i just hope i can get somewhere near there at some stage in my training,but i doubt it very much.

matsu


----------



## geezer (Aug 1, 2009)

_Mook_, I really enjoyed the video. Was_ 'dai sau'_ the technique with the arm extended a bit like a bong sau, with the palm down and elbow outward, used to counter a wide hooking punch? If so, we use the same technique in the WT branch, but call it _'fook-sau'_. This, of course leads to a lot of confusion since 'fook sau' or 'bridge-on arm' also refers to the the hooked-wristed position of the hand in chi-sau, also in Siu Nim Tau and so on. 

I believe this is because WT uses the term 'fook sau' to describe the concept of the hand sticking or clinging to the opponent's bridge rather than just describing a particular hand position that 'fook sau' can assume. In response to_ Chisauking's_ comments,  I think you will find that we do use 'fook sau' in this _conceptual sense_ in sparring.  Of course, in sparring and fighting, the object is not to stick, but to hit! So a sticking and controlling technique like fook sau happens only for a nanosecond in moments of contact and transition as you seek an opening to attack.


----------



## chisauking (Aug 1, 2009)

I hope no one has taken what I'd said out of context.

This topic is about what constitutes good wc\wt, so my point was to illustrate how one can see 'good' wing chun.

1) It must 'look' like wing chun and its tools.

2) One must be able to pull off those tools in real time, during gwoh-sau or fighting.

So far, very few -- if any -- has posted clips that shows wing chun practitioners applying those tools in real time. Which is why I feel  the people that can apply wing chun for real, their methods looks like wing chun, and not like something else.

As for the video clip, I show many bil-sau, some gan-sau, some jut-sau. Dai-sau sounds like leading hand in cantonese, but I didn't see any instances of this. In any case, I'd recognised all the movements used, but maybe your organisation calls it by another name.


----------



## geezer (Aug 1, 2009)

chisauking said:


> I hope no one has taken what I'd said out of context. This topic is about what constitutes good wc\wt, so my point was to illustrate how one can see 'good' wing chun.
> 
> 1) It must 'look' like wing chun and its tools.



Well, I don't think everyone will ever agree completely about what WC/WT should look like. The top sifus from some of the branches will each insist that the other's technique is complete garbage. I guess that kinda suggests a whole different meaning to your phrase, "Wing Chun and its _tools_." And having seen some of these guys, I'm glad that I don't look like any of them! LOL



chisauking said:


> 2) One must be able to pull off those tools in real time, during gwoh-sau or fighting.



This is our objective. But I agree, to really pull-off good WC/WT" in real-time is tough. That's why in the WT system the first four senior grades (equivalent to "black-belt") are called "Technicans". They know and can correctly perform their skills _technically_, but may not yet be able execute advanced skills in "real time". 

The senior grades from level 5 on up (equivalent of "master"), are  called "Practicians" since they have the skill to apply their advanced techniques freely in what you term "real time". There are only a handful of WT Practicians in the US. And, even less who fully merit this rank.  

How does it work in your lineage?


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 2, 2009)

geezer said:


> Was_ 'dai sau'_ the technique with the arm extended a bit like a bong sau, with the palm down and elbow outward, used to counter a wide hooking punch?


 
Yeah mate that was the one.


----------



## mook jong man (Aug 2, 2009)

chisauking said:


> I
> As for the video clip, I show many bil-sau, some gan-sau, some jut-sau. Dai-sau sounds like leading hand in cantonese, but I didn't see any instances of this. In any case, I'd recognised all the movements used, but maybe your organisation calls it by another name.


 
I was always told it meant raising arm or lifting arm , or words to that effect.
Anyhow as long it stops me from getting my teeth knocked out thats all I'm worried about , dentists in Oz charge an arm and a leg lol .

But it would be fantastic if one day all these terms for techniques could be standardised right across the board so we could all know what the hell we were talking about.

But that isn't going to happen when we can't even agree most of the time on what is proper Wing Chun / Wing Tsun.


----------



## matsu (Aug 2, 2009)

i beilieve we call this just laan sau- or straight arm i think forgive my terminlogy numptiness lol
matsu


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2009)

matsu said:


> i beilieve we call this just laan sau- or straight arm i think forgive my terminlogy numptiness lol
> matsu



In WT we use the term _"lan sau"_ to describe the "bar-arm" or horizontal right-angle elbow position seen in SNT as you chamber before delivering the double fak-sau strikes, or as seen in Chum Kiu performed with a turn as a double "hacking elbow". But who knows. I've been told that in Mandarin, simple term like "ma" can have half a dozen meanings, depending on tone and context. Cantonese is said to be much the same. It's all pretty confusing for us poor _gwai-lo_.


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2009)

Another thought about good 'chun. Applying force along the centerline. But the term "centerline" is sometimes defined differently in different lineages, so let me rephrase what I mean: 

Good techniques are directed through the very center of your opponent. As my current instructor describes it, you can imagine the body of your opponent as a candle with a wick running vertically up through the center. Your energy should be projected directly through the wick. The same applies for advanced techniques, including the hook in Biu Tze,  the dummy techniques, and so forth. 

It's a very basic, yet very important concept that I believe is common to all the WC/WT that I've seen. I mention it because, it is_ also_ used in some other martial arts, such as Torres (DTE) Eskrima. And if you get off center even a bit, a good martial artist can use that against you.


----------



## zepedawingchun (Aug 3, 2009)

mook jong man said:


> I was always told it meant raising arm or lifting arm , or words to that effect.
> 
> . . . But it would be fantastic if one day all these terms for techniques could be standardised right across the board so we could all know what the hell we were talking about.


 
Raising arm or lifting arm we call 'tai sau' and it is found in the second part of SNT, the last hand motion of the set (before the hands are re-chambered to begin the 3rd part).


----------



## zepedawingchun (Aug 3, 2009)

geezer said:


> In WT we use the term _"lan sau"_ to describe the "bar-arm" or horizontal right-angle elbow position seen in SNT as you chamber before delivering the double fak-sau strikes, or as seen in Chum Kiu performed with a turn as a double "hacking elbow". But who knows. I've been told that in Mandarin, simple term like "ma" can have half a dozen meanings, depending on tone and context. Cantonese is said to be much the same. It's all pretty confusing for us poor _gwai-lo_.


 
We call the bar arm, lan sau (fence up hand) also.  But what you call fak sau, we call sat sau (pronounced saht sau) which translates to throat cutting hand.


----------



## geezer (Aug 3, 2009)

zepedawingchun said:


> We call the bar arm, lan sau (fence up hand) also.  But what you call fak sau, we call sat sau (pronounced saht sau) which translates to throat cutting hand.



Interesting. We use the term "tie-sau" (tai-sau) or "lifting-arm" to describe the same technique you described. But we use the term "shat-sau" (sat-sau) also translated as "throat cutting hand" to describe our preferred application of "biu tze-sau" or the "thrusting fingers" movement in Biu Tze form. This is because, normally speaking, we do not apply this move by jabbing with the fingertips. Instead, in the WT system, we thrust forward, making contact against our opponent's throat with the outside edge of our hand, as though cutting forward with a knife... hence the term _shat-sau_. 

One of the things I've always liked about WC/WT is that we don't use a lot of fancy, poetic names for techniques. We call them according to the form they take (tan-sau, bong-sau etc.) or what they do (kau sau, shat sau, etc.). This simplicity of this approach is often lost when  we non-Chinese apply Chinese names to techniques. I personally find myself torn between a desire to respect tradition and use Cantonese terms, and with trying to stay true to the concept of simplicity that dictates that we just call things what they are.


----------



## chisauking (Aug 3, 2009)

How do we know a plasterer is good? We can see him use the tools of his trade skillfully.

How do we know a racing driver is good? We can see him drive his car skillfully.

How do we know a wing chun practitioner is good? We can see him apply wing chun 'tools' -- bong, tan, fook, po-pai, tok, fak, saht, gan, quan, etc., etc. -- in real time.

There's no question of the 'tools' being effective. The only question is whether one can apply it in combat. Whether one can use the right tool at the right time.

That, to me, is good wing chun -- the ability to use wing chun tools in combat.

Therein lies all the problem: most practitioners can't apply most wing chun tools in gwoh-sau or combat.

When I first started on my wing chun journey -- over 20-years' ago -- I couldn't fathom any use for a bong-sau or quan-sau, so I deemed it useless. Over 20-years' down the line, I've found that quan-sau is one of the best tools in the wing chun box. So, it isn't a question of whether it is good wc or not, but whether one can apply it.


----------



## geezer (Aug 3, 2009)

chisauking said:


> There's no question of the 'tools' being effective. The only question is whether one can apply it in combat. Whether one can use the right tool at the right time.
> 
> That, to me, is good wing chun -- the ability to use wing chun tools in combat... it isn't a question of whether it is good wc or not, but whether one can apply it.



To expand on this, I would give more credit to a 'chunner who has learned fewer techniques but can apply them, than to another who knows many movements but can't use them in fighting. You know, mastering a "little idea".


----------



## Domino (Aug 5, 2009)

Your sifu should be able to tell you if your technique is good or not.

I would never go off someone elses form or technique as to whether I am correct.

Last night I got to work with sigung Samuel Kwok, and yes, they will tell you if your technique is right or not


----------



## chisauking (Aug 5, 2009)

In a perfect world, your teacher (sifu) should tell you whether your techniques (tools) is good or not.

However, we don't live in a perfect world, and many teachers can't apply wing chun themselves, so how can they tell you something they don't know?


----------



## chinaboxer (Sep 30, 2009)

good wing chun is someone who "chases the opponents center"

bad wing chun is someone who "chases the opponents hands"


----------



## chisauking (Sep 30, 2009)

That's but one aspect of good wing chun. But....even wing chun rules need to be broken at times. Unless you don't pak-sau?

What a lot of people don't understand is that chasing the centre is a mind concept more than a physical constraint. Sometimes we need to chase the hand in order to control the centre.


----------



## geezer (Sep 30, 2009)

chisauking said:


> That's but one aspect of good wing chun. But....even wing chun rules need to be broken at times. Unless you don't pak-sau?
> 
> What a lot of people don't understand is that chasing the centre is a mind concept more than a physical constraint. Sometimes we need to chase the hand in order to control the centre.


 
I like the way you differentiate between overiding concept and specific technique. The technique is a means to an end, or objective. The concept defines the objective. Like the difference between tactics and strategy. 

Now as to _pak sau_... are you really chasing your opponent's hand, or running into it (on centerline) and smacking it out of the way?


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 1, 2009)

chinaboxer said:


> good wing chun is someone who "chases the opponents center"
> 
> bad wing chun is someone who "chases the opponents hands"


 
Forget the opponent's centerline, just keep yours on the opponent so you can defend and attack. Don't "chase" the opponents center, then you'll always end up in the middle where they can defend and attack the same as you... stalemate.

Get OUT of the opponents centerline, keeping yours focused on their body (whether to the side or back or front of them) The opponent's centerline means nothing to you other than you know where it is.

But, centerline theory is all about awareness and positioning of your centerline on the opponent, hopefully while directing their centerline away from you. 

But, that's what I used to think to when I first started with centerline thought.


----------



## blindsage (Oct 1, 2009)

Center and centerline are not the same.


----------



## geezer (Oct 1, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Center and centerline are not the same.


 
The way we use the terms, our _centerline_ tracks the opponent's _center_. So typically, you launch your punch out along your centerline at a target on your opponent's center. If something gets in the way, then you wedge through and hit, or move the obstruction out of the way, creating an opening. That was my reference to pak-sau.


----------



## Poor Uke (Oct 1, 2009)

geezer said:


> The way we use the terms, our _centerline_ tracks the opponent's _center_. So typically, you launch your punch out along your centerline at a target on your opponent's center. If something gets in the way, then you wedge through and hit, or move the obstruction out of the way, creating an opening. That was my reference to pak-sau.


 
Yep thats what I was taught. The attacking line is a straight line bewteen your centre line and their's - chum yung seen?? Sorry my Cantonese is appauling.


----------



## futsaowingchun (Oct 1, 2009)

geezer said:


> A while back I went to an open practice session with some guys from other styles. Watching one of these guys demonstrate how he would approach various situations, I was struck by how differently he defined what was a _"good technique"_. Even at the same close range that we favor, what he used was very unlike WC/WT. He used indirect, complex sequences that often crashed force against force. When it was my turn to share, I would try to achieve the same objective in the simplest, most direct manner I could, borrowing my opponent's force as much as possible. The other guy did not appreciate this approach at all. To him, the WC/WT looked _too basic_. He felt that his complicated approach was way cooler and more sophisticated... or in short, "better". It would not have been possible to change his mind and still keep the practice session "friendly"... if you get my drift.
> 
> On the other hand, these concepts of _simplicity, efficiency and borrowing the force_ are pretty much shared by all the WC/WT practitioners I've met. So while there was no common theoretical base to discuss what was a "good technique" with the guy I described above, it _should_ be possible to have meaningful exchanges with other WC/WT guys.
> 
> ...


 
My definition of good or efficient WC is to hit the guy as soon as possible in the simplest possible and natural way. One example would be if someone threw a right hand at face at the moment as he commits to the attack I launch a left hand that uses defense and offense in one motion. That's about as simple and effient as you can get.


----------



## blindsage (Oct 1, 2009)

geezer said:


> The way we use the terms, our _centerline_ tracks the opponent's _center_. So typically, you launch your punch out along your centerline at a target on your opponent's center. If something gets in the way, then you wedge through and hit, or move the obstruction out of the way, creating an opening. That was my reference to pak-sau.


I understand that WC/WT target's the opponent's centerline, but why assume that the centerline defines the center?  The center is the center, whether you are in front, next to, or behind.  It isn't defined by the 'front'.  If I interpret what chinaboxer said right, if you chase the opponent's center, as opposed to just their hands (or just their centerline), you will always be in control.  If you pak to get to my centerline but I turn more than you planned, are you going to try to turn me back to get to the centerline, or are you going to go through me anyway, even though my centerline is turned 45 degrees or perpendicular to you?  If you chase my center instead of strictly the centerline, you still have me.


----------



## chinaboxer (Oct 2, 2009)

blindsage said:


> I understand that WC/WT target's the opponent's centerline, but why assume that the centerline defines the center?  The center is the center, whether you are in front, next to, or behind.  It isn't defined by the 'front'.  If I interpret what chinaboxer said right, if you chase the opponent's center, as opposed to just their hands (or just their centerline), you will always be in control.  If you pak to get to my centerline but I turn more than you planned, are you going to try to turn me back to get to the centerline, or are you going to go through me anyway, even though my centerline is turned 45 degrees or perpendicular to you?  If you chase my center instead of strictly the centerline, you still have me.


yea, i agree with you, and if i am wrong, then Gary Lam and Hawkins Cheung are teaching me incorrectly, because it comes from their mouths!

a clock is a good analogy, for instance, let's say there's a big clock on the ground and your opponent stands at 12 and you stand at 6 and both are facing each other. yes, we are both facing each other's centerline, but the "center" is actually the half way point between us or the "center" of the clock.

now let's say that you move forward and by doing so, you move the entire clock forward, you have now moved your 6 position forward and now your opponent is standing on the "center" of the clock.

you have now moved the "center" to your opponents position, but you are still facing each other's "centerline", but if you move to 7-8 or 4-5 position on the clock, he is no longer facing your "centerline" but you are still facing the "center" which has become his "center" due to his position.

this is a very very crude example, i know, but hopefully you get the gist of my point. hopefully i didn't just confuse the heck out of everyone..lol..i might have just confused myself! -_o

take care and peace!


----------



## geezer (Oct 2, 2009)

chinaboxer said:


> hopefully i didn't just confuse the heck out of everyone..lol..i might have just confused myself! -_o


 
I don't know anymore.  I've definitely confused the heck out of myself already! I really think we are saying the same thing, but what is so simple to demonstrate is very difficult to convey in words... especially when we may use the same terms to mean different things. 

On the other hand Chinaboxer, I really enjoy checking out your videos... when I'm at home, at least. I'm on a break, using a computer at work and videos are blocked.


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 2, 2009)

Lost of interesting posts but all are just superficial answers to the question.

 All are focused on the the hands and what the upper body is doing. However the upper body and hands are meaningless.

 All humans 2 hands 2 legs. Be it boxer , karate, MT or what ever all have the same possibilities no more no less. A wing chun players hands can not do anything unique. Nothing you do with the hands or how you attack with the hands makes good or bad wing chun.

 What makes wing chun different and effective is the engine that powers wing chun. How does wing chun generate power? This is where good wing chun vs bad or real wing chun vs superficial wing chun ie. use of wing chun shapes and stratagies comes into play.

 Good wing chun is based on how the lower body is used. How does power move up from the ground  through the knees hips and waist. How is the spine utilized to more power though the arms? 
 It starts in the stance. How do you use the stance. How does the body link and delink? How do you take the basic stance and use it at speed?

 As for the center line why make things complicated. There are 2. Yours and your opponents. You want to attack through your opponents while protecting yours via covering,movement and angles. The best place to be is on your oppants back. You are free to attack while you are 100% safe. Everything else is just a change in the circle.


----------



## blindsage (Oct 2, 2009)

hunt1 said:


> Lost of interesting posts but all are just superficial answers to the question.
> 
> All are focused on the the hands and what the upper body is doing.


Umm, no.  You didn't really read all of the posts did you?



> As for the center line why make things complicated. There are 2. Yours and your opponents. You want to attack through your opponents while protecting yours via covering,movement and angles. The best place to be is on your oppants back. You are free to attack while you are 100% safe. Everything else is just a change in the circle.


You say you want to attack through your opponent's centerline, but the best place to be is your opponent's back?  So then how do you attack their centerline?


----------



## Poor Uke (Oct 3, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Umm, no. You didn't really read all of the posts did you?
> 
> 
> You say you want to attack through your opponent's centerline, but the best place to be is your opponent's back? So then how do you attack their centerline?


 
Eh? Confused here. There is a centre line down the back as well, you know that right?

I was taught to think of the centre line as a pole going through the centre of your opponent (head to ground) so no matter what the angle you are still presented with a centre line.


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 3, 2009)

Blindsage, Uke answered your question. If you dont like the pole analogy then think of the spine as a plane stretching from back to front through the body . All organs on the front of a corresponding point on the back. You can attack any organ from front back or any other angle.

 Please point out the posts that talk about how to use the spine and waist how to use knees and hips to bring power up and out and how to receive energy and ground it. I missed them. The only thing i saw that even touched on it was the post about Chu Seung Tin raising his arm to deflect a karate punch. Nothing at all about how he did it or the training involved or how to do it while moving at spend against a trained opponent. Talk of wing chun stratagies like attacking along the center line etc or different hand s like tan jum pak or punches etc is just superficial stuff and has little to do with making wing chun work as it was designed.


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 3, 2009)

Centerline Theory....

When you first start out your focusing on YOUR centerline and how to attack and defend from it. face on. Then you learn your opponents centerline at the same time to teach you awareness of their full ability to attack you and defend your strikes from THEIR centerline.

Now, your centerline is all you have to be worried about in the big picture. Your centerline must always be facing your opponent whether your facing your centerline on their side, or back or front.

Now, a larger person or a person that's fighting a person that is about their same size or smaller can easily and effeciently "plow" straight into the opponents centerline from the front. 

But, if the opponent is bigger or physically stronger than you this is not effecient for you anymore. to pivot or come from the side slightly to "shear" them away from YOUR centerline.
I.E. I don't want a bigger, stronger, heavier person to be knuckle to knuckle, face to face with me for too long because it's inefficient, and I'll eventually get pummelled.
So you go "outside" their centerline and "over' keeping their centerline away from yours.

That way they only have one arm or leg to attack you with before it's more difficult to respond and cancel out. And you have both. 
This is more effecient use of centerline for large people against smaller people too, but unnecessary movement for them.

You always want to go in straight. From YOUR centerline to the opponent. Doesn't matter if what your hitting is their face, front, ribs, kidney, or spine and neck. When your attacking, your centerline is squarely placed upon the part of the opponent that your striking.

Wing Chun is "linear" but it's not as limited by that as it seems. Shortest distance between my fist going from my chest to your head might not always be to your nose. Depends on where your turning or faceing. Don't let the opponent determin and limit what you do from YOUR centerline.
(and if your smaller than them, get the hell out of the way of THEIR centerline. Alot less effort for you and pain.)

Centerline basically means you don't twist and turn your center from the opponent. Who cares where their centerline is? (as long as it's not lined up with mine for too long! lol! That would be a stalemate to the point where the fastest or the strongest wins. not the smartest way to fight.)

I want you in MY centerline. I don't want to be in YOURs for very long.


----------



## blindsage (Oct 5, 2009)

Poor Uke, and hunt1- thanks for the follow up.

I'm not actually a WC/WT guy myself.  I have a little experience and know a little theory, but not extensive.  I was responding from more of my Bagua background of understanding the opponent's center, and contrasting that with what I've seen of a lot of WC/WT people I know, and responding somewhat to the way Si-Je responded to chinaboxer.

Poor Uke's analogy of the pole is exactly how I understand center.  But Si-Je this notion seems to undermine your criticism of chinaboxer's comment about chasing the center, not the hands.  I think this is where the confusion started.  

Hunt1 to answer your question, no their was not an in depth discussion of those elements, but your comment that all the discussion before that was only about hands was not correct.  See chinaboxer's first post alone.


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 6, 2009)

Very basically. You worry about where YOU centerline is more than that of the opponents. You don't really want to be "inside" the opponent's centerline for long. This does not give you an advantage or cancel out any of their attacking and defending ability.

You don't have to have your centerline lined up with their centerline to utilize centerline theory. This is basic and what you learn first. But futher on you are only concerned that your centerline is on the opponent so you can strike the opponent and deflect effeciently.


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 6, 2009)

Blindsage - I understand now. it is hard to say everything in a post.

 My point is that talk of hand tech's or strategies like attack along the center line etc. Is all just superficial and does not go to the question of what is good or bad wc/wt. 

 The question often becomes why doens't wc look like wc when you see a wc player fight/spar a boxer etc. The reason is they are not really doing wing chun they are just learning the surface motions which leads them to adopt boxing methods etc when sparring skilled opponents.

 For example wing chun is really able to be self taught if you learn good basics and follow the Kuit(fist sayings). Number one clue to real wing chun is " Wing Chun was invented by a woman." Everyone looks at this as some creation myth and misses that it is the key to understanding the whole system.

 How does a woman fight? Where is her power? Can she match a mans upper body speed and strength? The answer is no. A woman uses her lower body. A woman must use her lower body to deal with a man in any athletic activity. This the key to good wing chun starts her. Learning how to utilize the lower body ; sink, swallow, float, spit, all  come from the lower body.

 Learning how to use the lower body,how to bring the energy up through the spine is the basic ground work of good wing chun. However you will have to search long and hard for a clip on you tube that shows someone  doing this even in slow practice let alone at full speed and power. I doubt you will find many wc/wt sifu's  that can do this and this is wing chun 101

 The next basic is punch comes from the heart but I doubt you will find many wing chun sifu's that can explain this either let alone perform it.


----------



## geezer (Oct 6, 2009)

hunt1 said:


> ...Number one clue to real wing chun is " Wing Chun was invented by a woman." Everyone looks at this as some creation myth and misses that it is the key to understanding the whole system.
> 
> How does a woman fight? Where is her power? Can she match a mans upper body speed and strength? The answer is no. A woman uses her lower body. A woman must use her lower body to deal with a man in any athletic activity. This the key to good wing chun ...Learning how to use the lower body,how to bring the energy up through the spine is the basic ground work of good wing chun...



Hunt, I really have to agree with your take on the Yim Wing Chun story. Whether historically true or false is irrelevant to me. It's this lesson that matters. And as one who struggles with semi-crippled ankles, I find it a frustrating truth that good stance and steps are more important by far than fast and strong hand techniques alone!

Now, could you elaborate a bit more on the four basics: _sink, swallow, float and spit_. I've encountered these in other southern kung-fu systems, but my old Chinese WC/WT Sifu (who was a student of Yip Man) didn't discuss them.
Perhaps they are emphisized more in your lineage?


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 6, 2009)

blindsage said:


> Center and centerline are not the same.


 
That may be so. I'm just still learning. Now with a different teacher alot all at once. lol!
But, I keep my center on you but do not stay "trapped" in your centerline.

I love what you said earlier about it being a woman's art, so to speak. but one thing I do disagree. A woman is faster than an man, only at least potientially if she relaxes and doesn't use strength to "make" her faster. That's one thing we have going for us, and the lower center of gravity. yes. 

But, i've met men that can drop that center way low. With some practice easily lower than me. (and I've had a kid already! lol!) Impressive.!

But there's more to the "girl" way of fighting than all that. It's a "midset", more of a reflex response to power being over you.
"bend but don't yeild, be firm but not soft."
And when that doesn't work, move around it, or over or under it. 

Always keeping your centerline on the target.


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 7, 2009)

Geezer I will try but its not something you can do with the Leung Ting method at least I have never met or seen a tape of any LT method students able to do it. It's the reason Sergio started learning with Andreas.( Then the move to Andreas's teacher Cheng Kwong) His methods were totally ineffective against Andreas even though Andreas was relaxed and taking it easy on him.

 Yip Man did teach it but only to those that really asked about it. Yip Chun taught or used to teach the 12 energies in chi sau and Tsui Seung Tin teaches the 4  although he uses different terms.

 While some styles have 8 ,12 or 18 methods or energies all have the core 4 body methods sink float swallow spit. In SLT they are shown in the second section after the hammer palms and the double man sau to the side come to center and go down with the double Jums. this is followed by the tok sau's=float tok is the basic concept of how to float or raise up incoming hard energy when the person has a weak stance or is up in their stance. Next are the double Jut's=swallow.Incoming energy is hard and joints are locked or energy is up in shoulders. You swallow the energy by brings the energy into and down thus again uprooting and taking control of the center of gravity. Next are the bui's=spit again break incoming energy with a forward up energy. last double gum=sink . The first two are soft and guiding. the person isn't even aware whats happening until its done the second two are more sudden and energetic. These are not hard and fast rules just general idea's.

 The key and reason you don't see them in Lt or many other wing chun styles is because to perform them you must engage and use the lower body. Styles that teach and rely on connected locked waist do not engage the lower body in the proper fashion . Also it cant be done with the LT slant body posture


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 7, 2009)

Sorry one more thing i forgot to add. The motions aren't hard and fast rules. Many of the 12 have an overlap in form and function. Yip Man made a change that obsurced the 12 a bit. He separated the fist series of palms into 2 seperate down palms.( may have been someone else it the seperate palms down to the side show up consistently in Ip Man's style. Originally the down palms were one motion. Down to the side back and forward. Both hands at same time. This section of the first form gives you the 12 energies. There are 12 motions in this section. 
 These are more concepts than anything else for example tan can swallow. The double jam is showing Chit or slice but it could also be intercept . The double man sau is showing swing but could also be slice , intercept or bridge or all 4 at once depending on speed and intent. one motion can do more than one thing ie. a punch also can be a block or intercept or join etc.


----------



## Si-Je (Oct 11, 2009)

What is this "12 energies of chi sau?" I've never heard this term before, could you explain a bit more on this?

My teacher does'nt teach chi sau much or emphasizes it at all. They do a different kind of drill which honestly I'm liking much better simply because you don't "reset" to chi sau position after completing a move or striking or getting through the opponent. Even when your arms are "trapped" or your body is turned and your struck you continue the drill/practice from that position.

He rolled hands with me a bit (just rolling and feeling my forward intent and structure in chi sau) and I was really dismayed to find that my energy is too "circular" because of the very nature of the "rolling" in chi sau. It's been a long time (almost 2 years) since I've done any chi sau at all, but my basics shouldn't be that bad.

I'm discovering that what was taught me was too much of a "pellmell" bit and peices of this WC and that WT in it.  And that many core concepts where just not taught to me at all.  Yet, some I did figure out by painful trial and error and paying attention to what my female body wanted to do in a situation and following that nature. 

This teacher focuses more on immediate and spontaneous action and response than a set formula in chi sau. Which, I thought I was training this way, we were a bit I guess. But not as spontaneous as I thought, and we stopped too much between techniques to reset to chi sau position.  

p.s. the WC uppercut that old teacher used on all of us as an end all to be all in chi sau (which it always got through because he wouldn't show us how to deflect it close in) has been answered by this teacher. Much to my relief. That simple, silly uppercut has been frustrating me for a couple of years now. And the simple defense to stop chainpunching that this guy showed me just flabbergasted me. So simple. no bong sau needed. And it just collapses the chainpunching right away. Too neat!


----------



## Nabakatsu (Oct 11, 2009)

Si-Je your making em so jealous! I really do feel like a si-dai, I guess I am.. but still! roarrrr, I wish I could train a bunch of good diff sifus >.<"


----------



## geezer (Oct 11, 2009)

Speaking of what is "good" and "bad" Wing Chun, there's a difference between what is good in an _absolute sense_ and what works for each _individual._

For example, my old Chinese sifu believed that his kung-fu was the best. If you were successful in mastering it, you would be better than all the rest. 

Most other high level sifus have similar feelings. So how could you prove whose kung-fu was actually superior. Suppose, for example, that you could gather a large number of gifted ahtletes and randomly assign 100 to each Sifu. Have each group train full time for five years, and then have them all fight with no rules. The Sifu with the most number of surviving students would have the best kung-fu, right? And they'd all get rich of the film residuals.

But aside from providing a terrifically gory spectacle, would even such an extreme display actually prove anything? It still would only show what worked the best on the average with a bunch of typical athletes. But what works the best for an older man, or a young girl? Or a fat man, a smart man...or one who isn't so intellectually inclined? Ultimately, what works for you might not work so well for me. 

I don't believe there is any one superior set of concepts, structure or techniques that is universally "the best" for everyone. I could not physically master all techniques my sifu used so effectively. So his kung fu, though very good, was not a perfect fit for me. The fault is not with his kung-fu, but neither is the fault all mine. It's just the way life is. We have to adapt and adjust and find what is best for us. In other words, if I get a high rate of success doing something that is "wrong", but a lower rate of success on what is "right", I will try to do the "right" technique based on trust in my instructor and knowing that eventually the "right" way will take me further... But if after years of training, it still doesn't work _for me,_ should I keep attempting it, or use what _does_ work the best for me?


----------



## yak sao (Oct 11, 2009)

What I like about WT is the built in redundancy.

For instance, VS a roundhouse kick, the ideal thing may be to step in and shut him down before the kick ever happens. But if the terrain is bad, or you are slow to respond or have an injury that prevents an explosive entry, or any number of other things ,then the ideal "technique" is not the best one for that particular case. 
So then you have plan B, and so on, all the way down to what we refer toas the "Oh crap!" response.

Like Geezer said, some people, like LT , are very gifted, and are able to utilize the system at its best. Some of us are mere mortals and have to do what works best for us.


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 12, 2009)

I'll give you our 18 energies the 12  are in the 18. Spit,swallow,raise.sink,touch,swing,adhere,grasp,leak,press,thrust,vibrate,spiral,roll,throw,straight,join,follow.
These energies are also methods. All are trained with in chi sao.

These are many methods of chi sao. The poon sau rolling is only one type. There are chi sau methods to teach everything from bridging to grappling and throwing. The purpose of chi sao is to remove your brain from your actions by teaching you new reflexes. For example puch the wrist the elbow comes up push elbow wrist comes up. You start not being able to do it, then you recognize the energy on the wrist and you think ah bring my elbow up and then one day your elbow just comes up with no thought or recognition on your part. The reaction is now a reflex.

 Hitting is the most unimportant part of chi sao however it is what most get caught up in.

 Another reason for chi sau training is that it teaches one to be comfortable at the most uncomfortable distance.


----------



## Poor Uke (Oct 13, 2009)

hunt1 said:


> For example puch the wrist the elbow comes up push elbow wrist comes up. You start not being able to do it, then you recognize the energy on the wrist and you think ah bring my elbow up and then one day your elbow just comes up with no thought or recognition on your part. The reaction is now a reflex.


 
Just on a side note. I find nowadays that that particular reflex (bong sau) to be more of a burden as it has on a number of occasions got me into trouble by giving my opponent an easy bit of leverage...anyhoo vack to the thread


----------



## geezer (Oct 13, 2009)

Poor Uke said:


> Just on a side note. I find nowadays that that particular reflex (bong sau) to be more of a burden as it has on a number of occasions got me into trouble by giving my opponent an easy bit of leverage...anyhoo vack to the thread


 
Some folks just love bong sau, and others really love kwun-sau (simultaneous bong and tan sau with a turn) since it is a really "broad spectrum" or multi-purpose defensive move. I tend to agree with Uke though. Since these moves are _defensive_, they give your opponent a second chance. And with bong that could be a nasty grapple. For self-defense my favorite moves are directly offensive (a straight punch, kick, etc.), or at least simultaneous offense and defense (tan-da, etc.).


----------



## yak sao (Oct 13, 2009)

geezer said:


> Some folks just love bong sau, and others really love kwun-sau (simultaneous bong and tan sau with a turn) since it is a really "broad spectrum" or multi-purpose defensive move. I tend to agree with Uke though. Since these moves are _defensive_, they give your opponent a second chance. And with bong that could be a nasty grapple. For self-defense my favorite moves are directly offensive (a straight punch, kick, etc.), or at least simultaneous offense and defense (tan-da, etc.).


 


My si-fu likes to say that bong sau is half a technique; the first part being the "deforming" into the wing structure, the second half being where it springs out


----------



## geezer (Oct 13, 2009)

hunt1 said:


> I'll give you our 18 energies the 12 are in the 18. Spit,swallow,raise.sink,touch,swing,adhere,grasp,leak,press,thrust,vibrate,spiral,roll,throw,straight,join,follow.
> These energies are also methods. All are trained with in chi sao.


 
I would bet that top level martial artists in other branches of WC, and indeed in quite a few other martial arts, exploit many of these "energies" by whatever names they use. But I find so many concepts a bit overwhelming. In the Wing Chun I train, it all really boils down to one energy, "springy force". That is the ability to make your whole body move like a spring or piece of bamboo. Just this energy alone is still more than I can master!


----------



## geezer (Oct 13, 2009)

yak sao said:


> My si-fu likes to say that bong sau is half a technique; the first part being the "deforming" into the wing structure, the second half being where it springs out


 
That's the way I was taught bong-sau. Your arm meets a stronger force, is bent like a spring, and then snaps back!

The same thing happens with your body and stance. If your opponent charges you, his force turns you aside, then you spring back to hit him, when he falls back, you spring forward and follow, and hit, hit, hit!

_"Stay with what comes, follow the retreat and thrust (spring) forward when the hand is freed." _You can translate this famous kuit many ways, but for us it always boils down to "Become like a spring".


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 13, 2009)

Poor Uke I understand. There are different ways to do bong sau depending on your use of body structure. Bong can be very aggressive and works great for jamming forward. Its a key usage for short people to use against tall folks. Bong should displace as it moves forward and transforms into an attack. Then again it often comes out as an "oh Hell!" move.


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 13, 2009)

Geezer you are right they can be a bit overwhelming. I usually concentrate on the base 4 when teaching and back track on the others since they often overlap. For example working from simple rolling poon sau each method has 3 base chi sau attacks giving a base of 54 different chi sau attacks  so when teaching chi sau folks learn the methods before they ever learn the names.  Then the methods roll in when learning the other types of Chi sau that are not based on poon sau rolling.
 So after  a few years of training people can do all the methods without ever really knowing the names at all.

 No doubt you can perform many if not all of them without even knowing it.


----------



## Poor Uke (Oct 14, 2009)

hunt1 said:


> Poor Uke I understand. There are different ways to do bong sau depending on your use of body structure. Bong can be very aggressive and works great for jamming forward. Its a key usage for short people to use against tall folks. Bong should displace as it moves forward and transforms into an attack. Then again it often comes out as an "oh Hell!" move.


 
I agree with the receptive nature of bong sau, I come from an Ip Ching lineage and he's a small bloke, there's no wey in hell he's gonna block with a bong sau.

My dislike comes from potentially giving away control of your arm by lifting the elbow.


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 14, 2009)

Got it. Yip Ching and yip Chun were both teachers of mine. I understand.

 Here is a key that doesnt get explained. You shouldn't lift the elbow,spiral forward. Will make a huge difference. Of course the 'oh hell' raising up bong will still happen from time to time in a panic situation until you get the hang of spiral.


----------



## Poor Uke (Oct 14, 2009)

To be honest I have always found bong sau to be a weak techique - leaves your opponent to many openings no matter how its done.

But saying that I have floored somebody with a bong-lap-fak sau combo (fak sau straight into the Adam's apple)


----------



## hunt1 (Oct 15, 2009)

Yup bong sao overall is not a preferred thing but it does havve it's uses and can be very effective if used according to its strengths. Its very weak up and down but strong forward and back.


----------

