# The five directions of Wing Chun...



## geezer (Feb 13, 2016)

This is "kinda-sorta" a response related to the _"Four energies in WC"_ thread (f_ou jum tun tou _or float, sink, swallow, spit). These energies are discussed nearly universally in TCMA, as well as in other arts with Chinese roots such as Okinawan Karate. And, according to KPM, they still play a role in some mainland WC, although they are not directly part of my WC, and according to Guy, _certainly not_ part of his PB-WSL WC.

OK, since even before that discussion started, I've been mulling over what energies we _do_ use in WC, ...or at least _my_ WC. Basically, I've been looking at the principles and concepts I've been taught and trying to relate them to this kind of thinking, partly for myself and partly to find easier ways to explain some of our material to students. Here are some ideas I've been kicking around:

In the physical world we have _three spatial dimensions_ which equals _six directions_: Left and right, up and down, forwards and backwards. Like many of you, in my WC, I was taught to focus my energy predominantly on one of these, namely the _forward_ direction. Though we love to bicker about specifics, most of us share some common concept of forward intent, forward pressure, forward "springy energy", or _Lat sau jik chung.

But what about the other energies? _When we encounter a strong opposing energy that obstructs our forward path, we have to deflect and remove it so the way is clear to strike forward. Or we can detour around the obstruction, but that may be a longer and less efficient route. So for now, lets focus on how we clear our way forward. Typically, we deflect or remove the obstruction in one of the _other _directions: left or right, up or down, ...and just barely enough to efficiently clear the striking path!

So, if our right man-sau, for example, encounters a strong incoming striking force, we "greet" or "stay-with" the strike, we sense which side of our center it's force is directed, and then "escort" it safely off-line in the direction it is already heading.  If it is veering a bit towards our _left_, a right pak-sau for the indoor area attack, or bong-sau for the outdoor attack will do the job. If the incoming force is veering _right_ of our center, a tan-sau (outdoor), or kau-sau (indoor) may work well. The specific techniques will vary. The concept of spilling the incoming force does not.

Of course we also deflect force upwards with bong-sau, tok-sau, or even more efficiently with cutting or excluding punches (which deflect and counterstrike in one motion). And we deflect downwards primarily with jum-sau, although in specific instances gaun-sau, gum sau, etc. may come into play. Or better yet, as Guy, I'm sure will note,  using a lower level cutting or excluding punch -- again giving you deflection and counterattack in a single move.

So basically, we attack straight forward and deflect oncoming attacks, moving in _five directions:_ always forwards (that's the direction of _*our *intent and energy_), ...as well as left, right, up, and down as necessary (borrowing our opponent's energy). We _don't,_ however do much with the 6th direction, namely _going backwards_. In my WC (and my Escrima) we don't much favor retreating once engaged. We may be pressed back, we may compress and absorb energy, but we don't deliberately reverse our forward intent, draw energy backwards, or retreat of our own volition. ...Oh sure, it _can_ happen. It's just not usually a good thing!

So, this is just the way I've been breaking-down movements lately. How does this sound to you guys? Do you apply these five directions?
_
_


----------



## geezer (Feb 13, 2016)

BTW, if you feel I'm unnecessarily complicating things, that's OK too. When I read what I've, at least half the time I myself come away thinking, "What a load of BS!"


----------



## Phobius (Feb 13, 2016)

Backward intent is there on the ground for some.

I believe since WC is done with forwad intent and since we can not maintain forward intent due to lack of knowledge on the ground, we are forced to incorporate backward intent while sticking with the conceps as much as possible and it all becomes an illogical mess that looks good on paper.

And yes one can move back on the ground using forward intent to get distance to opponent, but then again I am just talking about those crazy groundfighting theories that are constantly seen and laughed at by BJJ folks in other forums.

I am personally for learning groundwork from those that know it best rather than invent it from scratch. After all we all have the same base some time back in history. It is  just a matter of looking even further back in time.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 13, 2016)

geezer, feeling I understand your thoughts.
Only thing I'd add or at least put forth for thought is that for us energy is circular and encompasses all degrees in a three-dimensional sphere, Force is liner and can be one of all the degrees of the three-dimensional sphere.
The vector of the force is always toward the opponent's core (or should be)


----------



## guy b (Feb 13, 2016)

It seems like unnecessary over complication to me. Also I would say unrealistic not to step back, probably it is going to be necessary to do so in fighting sometimes. Great if it works for you though.

Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jik Chung works for me.


----------



## geezer (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> It seems like unnecessary over complication to me. Also I would say unrealistic not to step back, probably it is going to be necessary to do so in fighting sometimes. Great if it works for you though.
> 
> Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jik Chung works for me.



Yeah, you're probably right on both points. The idea is simple when demonstrated, but complicated and confusing when conveyed in words. LLHS-LSJC conveys more saying much less.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

geezer said:


> Yeah, you're probably right on both points. The idea is simple when demonstrated, but complicated and confusing when conveyed in words. LLHS-LSJC conveys more saying much less.



I think the same could be said to apply to most of the "keywords" or abstract principles shared by many Southern Chinese MA. They just don't say enough on their own to be useful and end up being a pointless abstraction resulting in over complication and opportunities for BS and argument.

If you look at something like wing chun pedia, the massive lists of sometimes contradictory and usually ill defined ideas found there are not useful to anyone really. What is useful is what is given directly to you by the teacher of the method you are following. You can immediately check this for consistency and coherence in practical terms, and you have someone to question and reject if you are not satisfied.

Personally I think the useful conceptual base of VT is pretty small, and is mostly summed up in information dense sayings like llhs, lsjc. If you start adding to it then you start to find contradiction and confusion happening which is counter productive.


----------



## wckf92 (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> If you look at something like wing chun pedia, the massive lists of sometimes contradictory and usually ill defined ideas found there are not useful to anyone really.



I agree. And some are just plain ole common sense! Kind of like this one I read somewhere: "be fast with your fist"... well....no sh1t!!!


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

Problem is not that it is complicated in writing, problem is that this is text to describe a concept already described in a short and well explained manner.

When explaining one can either say this... or you can write it like this: "Dont dance around, just punch the guy already!"


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I agree. And some are just plain ole common sense! Kind of like this one I read somewhere: "be fast with your fist"... well....no sh1t!!!



Keep in mind that these "Keywords" from various systems are used as Mnemonic devices.  They helped a student remember a basic idea or concept.  The value was in what the instructor linked to that keyword.  It might vary from lesson to lesson.  But the student would be assisted in remembering the lesson by associating it with a keyword.  "Keywords" are just that...one word.....like "spit", "swallow", "join", "intercept".....etc.   The keywords also helped a student remember not to leave out a specific dynamic from a technique, if he had been taught that technique followed a specific keyword.  Can a system do without keywords?  Of course!  Ip Man dropped them from his teaching.  They are just  device to assist with learning.

The Kuen Kuit are different from the keywords.  These are short sayings or phrases.  "Aphorisms" is a term I've seen used.  These may convey a more specific idea or concept or tactic.  Often  they were just favorite sayings of the teacher that got written down.  You might say that "keep your chin down" is a common Kuen Kuit in western boxing!    So yeah, often they are just common sense.  They are something the instructor said often while teaching, so they were assumed to be important.  And just like the keywords, they are not essential to a system.  The idea they convey can just be put into plain English and taught out-right.   But...as with the keywords...when you put special emphasis on it and make a Mnemonic device out of it people are going to remember it better and "take it to heart."


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> Keep in mind that these "Keywords" from various systems are used as Mnemonic devices.  They helped a student remember a basic idea or concept.  The value was in what the instructor linked to that keyword.  It might vary from lesson to lesson.  But the student would be assisted in remembering the lesson by associating it with a keyword.  "Keywords" are just that...one word.....like "spit", "swallow", "join", "intercept".....etc.   The keywords also helped a student remember not to leave out a specific dynamic from a technique, if he had been taught that technique followed a specific keyword.  Can a system do without keywords?  Of course!  Ip Man dropped them from his teaching.  They are just  device to assist with learning.



Many of the keywords contradict the conceptual base of the system. The problem with having all of these together is that you have no identified direction of travel. It allows the student to make of it what they will, i.e. it is not a system in traditional Chinese terms.



> And just like the keywords, they are not essential to a system



VT has a conceptual base that is essential to the system. It is expressed as succinctly as possible, and without contradiction, in the traditional verses taught within the system.


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

Many of the keywords contradict the conceptual base of the system.

---The system as you see it.   Other versions of Wing Chun don't see them as so contradictory.  And besides, as I pointed out...keywords are single words...single ideas or concepts.  Sometimes they apply to a technique or action and sometimes they don't.  They are only contradictory if you apply them in a contradictory way. 


The problem with having all of these together is that you have no identified direction of travel. It allows the student to make of it what they will, i.e. it is not a system in traditional Chinese terms.

---I'm sorry.  The statement above doesn't even make sense.



VT has a conceptual base that is essential to the system. It is expressed as succinctly as possible, and without contradiction, in the traditional verses taught within the system.

---And one could teach a student that conceptual base without resorting to the Kuen Kuit.  The Kuen Kuit are just a Mnemonic device.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> The system as you see it.   Other versions of Wing Chun don't see them as so contradictory.  And besides, as I pointed out...keywords are single words...single ideas or concepts.  Sometimes they apply to a technique or action and sometimes they don't.  They are only contradictory if you apply them in a contradictory way.



Swallow spit is blatantly contradictory to the basic VT conceptual base. I don't know if Mainland wing chun lacks this conceptual base. If it does then fine.



> I'm sorry.



Chinese TCMA systems are based on a coherent and non contradictory conceptual base. Contradiction or non coherence means the system is either broken or never functioned as a system.



> And one could teach a student that conceptual base without resorting to the Kuen Kuit



That would be both pointless and risky. Pointless as Geezer soon discovered on this thread when he tried to do so. He wrote several paragraphs trying to substitute for LLHS, LSJC. Why bother?

Risky in that the understanding of modern re-interpreters is very often much less than the originators of any system. Many times you end up with a gap filled mess, as we can see in some modern reinterpretations of traditional TCMA.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 14, 2016)

geezer said:


> This is "kinda-sorta" a response related to the _"Four energies in WC"_ thread (f_ou jum tun tou _or float, sink, swallow, spit). These energies are discussed nearly universally in TCMA, as well as in other arts with Chinese roots such as Okinawan Karate. And, according to KPM, they still play a role in some mainland WC, although they are not directly part of my WC, and according to Guy, _certainly not_ part of his PB-WSL WC.
> 
> OK, since even before that discussion started, I've been mulling over what energies we _do_ use in WC, ...or at least _my_ WC. Basically, I've been looking at the principles and concepts I've been taught and trying to relate them to this kind of thinking, partly for myself and partly to find easier ways to explain some of our material to students. Here are some ideas I've been kicking around:
> 
> ...



Question for clarification purposes from an old Taijiquan guy. In taiji we have the 13 postures, 5 of those are directional. 

9. Advancing Steps - Jin
10. Retreating Steps - Tui
11. Stepping to the Left Side  - Ku
12. Stepping to the Right Side - Pan
13. Settling at the Center - Ding

Is this similar to what you are talking about?


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

Swallow spit is blatantly contradictory to the basic VT conceptual base. I don't know if Mainland wing chun lacks this conceptual base. If it does then fine.

---Then you shouldn't be generalizing to all Wing Chun!   Your statement may be true for WSLVT.  But not for everyone.  How many times does that have to be pointed out?



Chinese TCMA systems are based on a coherent and non contradictory conceptual base. Contradiction or non coherence means the system is either broken or never functioned as a system.

---Since, as has been pointed out on other threads, the use of keywords is common through-out TCMA, I guess you don't think very highly of Chinese Martial arts in general. 


That would be both pointless and risky. Pointless as Geezer soon discovered on this thread when he tried to do so. He wrote several paragraphs trying to substitute for LLHS, LSJC. Why bother?

----But how long does it take for someone to grasp the meaning of  LLHS, LSJC???  Just tell some student the phrase and they will have no idea what you are talking about.  It takes some explanation, fairly in-depth, and likely more than once for someone to grasp what is meant.  So what Steve wrote might well be very appropriate for someone who didn't already understand what LLHS, LSJC means.   Again, its just a Mnemonic device....a short-cut.  You could make up a different phrase and attach the same meaning to it and it would work just the same.  Nothing magical about it.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 14, 2016)

That is why we train, no forum warrioir will ever learn fighting by reading. The key is that what we train is easy to grasp. 

Geezer tried to explain something he easily learn by feeling but it is like explaining taste or touch via words.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> Then you shouldn't be generalizing to all Wing Chun!   Your statement may be true for WSLVT.  But not for everyone.  How many times does that have to be pointed out?



This is an opportunity for you to explain how Mainland wing chun differs wrt this apparent contradiction. Running away from the argument is not convincing.



> Since, as has been pointed out on other threads, the use of keywords is common through-out TCMA, I guess you don't think very highly of Chinese Martial arts in general.



The Chinese MA I have experienced do not provide big lists of keywords without guidance or interpretation. Hakka arts for example are very specific about what they mean. In fact they are based upon sink rise swallow spit from the beginning, tactically and conceptually. This is spelled out, not left to interpretation. My interest in terms of Mainland wing chun is in understanding how these ideas are integrated, if at all.



> But how long does it take for someone to grasp the meaning of  LLHS, LSJC???  Just tell some student the phrase and they will have no idea what you are talking about.  It takes some explanation, fairly in-depth, and likely more than once for someone to grasp what is meant.



I would say it takes a few hours to explain both verbally and physically. It is both simple and profound, that is its genius.



> So what Steve wrote might well be very appropriate for someone who didn't already understand what LLHS, LSJC means.   Again, its just a Mnemonic device....a short-cut.  You could make up a different phrase and attach the same meaning to it and it would work just the same.  Nothing magical about it.



Make up a different phrase containing the same idea then please


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 14, 2016)

I dont see how LLHS/LSJC is the end all be all. 

Can someone explain to me how it is all you need , because thats what alot of people here are implying.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 14, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I dont see how LLHS/LSJC is the end all be all.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how it is all you need , because thats what alot of people here are implying.



It is not the entire conceptual base of VT, but is very important. It is all you need to substitute for Geezer's OP


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> I dont see how LLHS/LSJC is the end all be all.
> 
> Can someone explain to me how it is all you need , because thats what alot of people here are implying.


 
Ah Sean!  That is because you are not a "True Believer"!!!!


----------



## KPM (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b said:


> . Running away from the argument is not convincing.



I'm not running away from anything.  I'm avoiding another pointless argument with someone who really isn't interested in friendly discussion at all, but just wants to fight.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

KPM said:


> I'm not running away from anything.  I'm avoiding another pointless argument with someone who really isn't interested in friendly discussion at all, but just wants to fight.



I am interested in meaningful discussion. What you are doing constitutes obfuscation and avoidance. That is ok with me, but it isn't convincing.


----------



## dudewingchun (Feb 14, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It is not the entire conceptual base of VT, but is very important. It is all you need to substitute for Geezer's OP



My bad I just realised I didnt even read the main post properly. In this case from what I understand of it , it does apply in the situation geezer is talking about.


----------



## guy b (Feb 14, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> My bad I just realised I didnt even read the main post properly. In this case from what I understand of it , it does apply in the situation geezer is talking about.



No worries


----------



## KPM (Feb 15, 2016)

---Like I said on the other thread, I've probably been over-reacting.  So I'll give this one another shot as well.


This is an opportunity for you to explain how Mainland wing chun differs wrt this apparent contradiction.

---Well, first you'll have to explain what contradiction you see.  That hasn't been very clear to me.  


The Chinese MA I have experienced do not provide big lists of keywords without guidance or interpretation.

---I agree.  I never said otherwise.   I pointed out that these keywords are Mnemonic devices.  Obviously they would need explanation as to what they are supposed to help you remember!!



I would say it takes a few hours to explain both verbally and physically. It is both simple and profound, that is its genius.

---So, like I said, you can't just tell someone the Kuen Kuit and expect them to understand what it is talking about.


Make up a different phrase containing the same idea then please.

---I don't speak Chinese.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 15, 2016)

[QUOTE="KPM, post: 1747355, member: 32524]Well, first you'll have to explain what contradiction you see.  That hasn't been very clear to me.[/QUOTE]

Ok great, thanks for making the effort. The contradiction in VT terms is really between the swallow spit sequence as employed in other Chinese MA and as I understand it, and the central VT concepts which link neutralisation to striking rather than having them separate, which stress cutting into an attack and making opportunities, rather than receiving force then doing something about it, and which focus upon pressuring and eating the space of the opponent, rather than luring and leading them as swallow sink principles do.

These are not compatible principles. I am keen to understand how mainland wing chun accommodates them? Are they used in a different way in Mainland WC compared to how they are used in white crane, SPM, Bak mei etc, etc, ect. If so what is the difference?

Or is the conceptual base of Mainland WC different to that of YM wing chun? Does it lack LLHS, LSJC? Does it lack Lin Siu Dai Da? How does it differ?


----------



## geezer (Feb 15, 2016)

guy b. said:


> ....These are not compatible principles. I am keen to understand how mainland wing chun accommodates them? Are they used in a different way in Mainland WC compared to how they are used in white crane, SPM, Bak mei etc, etc, ect. If so what is the difference?
> ...is the conceptual base of Mainland WC different to that of YM wing chun? Does it lack LLHS, LSJC? Does it lack Lin Siu Dai Da? How does it differ?



Guy, please do not ask KPM these questions. You know that you will probably not be satisfied by his response and you will say so. He will get annoyed and say something provocative back.... Things will inevitably escalate. The rest of us will go and get popcorn and sit back and watch... but it will end up being a big waste of time.


Honestly, tell me if you think I'm wrong.


----------



## KPM (Feb 15, 2016)

the central VT concepts which link neutralisation to striking rather than having them separate,

---I'm not sure what you mean by this.

 which stress cutting into an attack and making opportunities, rather than receiving force then doing something about it, and which focus upon pressuring and eating the space of the opponent, rather than luring and leading them as swallow sink principles do.

---I've already pointed out that in Pin Sun at least, there is both.  There is a time to go straight up the middle and "eat space", and there is a time to angle off, evade and set the opponent up.  Both options are included.  The deeper pivots sometimes used are what give Pin Sun the "side body" name.  These are used to get completely off the line and evade or "suck in" the incoming force.  This can off-balance the opponent, trap his arm, or at the very least put him in a vulnerable position.  Any of this makes a counter-attack that much easier.  Or...when the situation dictates Pin Sun will also go in very direct.  I think, being an older version of the system, maybe it hasn't become as "specialized" (or maybe a more polite word would be "refined") as Ip Man Wing Chun. 

---And from what I've seen of SPM, they certainly have aspects that drive straight up the center very directly.  They don't always "swallow" to lead into an attack or a response. 



These are not compatible principles. I am keen to understand how mainland wing chun accommodates them?

---In Pin Sun each has its place.  Both are simply tactics.  Why limit yourself to just one tactic?  In a military setting a good tactician knows when to put on the pressure and drive straight in, and when to be evasive and go around.  Just common sense.



 Are they used in a different way in Mainland WC compared to how they are used in white crane, SPM, Bak mei etc, etc, ect. If so what is the difference?

----I haven't studied White Crane or the Hakka arts in any great detail, so I couldn't speak to that.   


Or is the conceptual base of Mainland WC different to that of YM wing chun? Does it lack LLHS, LSJC? Does it lack Lin Siu Dai Da? How does it differ?

---Pin Sun certainly has Lin Siu Dai Da, but not the LLHS, LSJC in that format.  The concept...yes.   Just not that precise Kuen Kuit that I have seen.  It would be interesting to know whether Sum Nung WCK uses that same Kuen Kuit.  I suspect that it does.  Not sure how far back it goes.  Could be it is part of Pin Sun and it came from Leung Jan.  Maybe my teachers just didn't choose to use that particular Kuen Kuit.  Or it may be a relatively recent "add on."


----------



## Eric_H (Feb 16, 2016)

There are 10 directions, four front, four corner and up and down, but that's more general MA talk than just specific to Wing Chun.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> the central VT concepts which link neutralisation to striking rather than having them separate,
> 
> ---I'm not sure what you mean by this.



Lin siu dai da. Does Mainland wing chun stress this concept? It is crucial in YM VT



> I've already pointed out that in Pin Sun at least, there is both.  There is a time to go straight up the middle and "eat space", and there is a time to angle off, evade and set the opponent up.  Both options are included.  The deeper pivots sometimes used are what give Pin Sun the "side body" name.  These are used to get completely off the line and evade or "suck in" the incoming force.  This can off-balance the opponent, trap his arm, or at the very least put him in a vulnerable position.  Any of this makes a counter-attack that much easier.  Or...when the situation dictates Pin Sun will also go in very direct.  I think, being an older version of the system, maybe it hasn't become as "specialized" (or maybe a more polite word would be "refined") as Ip Man Wing Chun.



How does Mainland wing chun differentiate between usage of these different and contradictory concepts? Is there some guiding idea?



> And from what I've seen of SPM, they certainly have aspects that drive straight up the center very directly.  They don't always "swallow" to lead into an attack or a response.



SPM is almost exclusively a reactive system. It wishes to set traps and to lure in the attack. This is how it works. In my opinion it has much better tools than wing chun for doing this, but I still don't like it as a strategy. It is risky to give the initiative. 



> In Pin Sun each has its place.  Both are simply tactics.  Why limit yourself to just one tactic?  In a military setting a good tactician knows when to put on the pressure and drive straight in, and when to be evasive and go around.  Just common sense.



I don't think VT works very well as a baiting style of martial art- it lacks the tools of other systems. I think it is optimised to work in a certain way, as are most Chinese systems. Is Mainland wing chun not optimised in this way?



> I haven't studied White Crane or the Hakka arts in any great detail, so I couldn't speak to that.



The strategy of these systems is luring in, putting in a disadvantageous position, then finishing. I think it probably worked quit well in past times. I don't think it works as well today with changes in the way people fight. What is the general strategy of Mainland wing chun?



> Pin Sun certainly has Lin Siu Dai Da, but not the LLHS, LSJC in that format.  The concept...yes.   Just not that precise Kuen Kuit that I have seen.  It would be interesting to know whether Sum Nung WCK uses that same Kuen Kuit.  I suspect that it does.  Not sure how far back it goes.  Could be it is part of Pin Sun and it came from Leung Jan.  Maybe my teachers just didn't choose to use that particular Kuen Kuit.  Or it may be a relatively recent "add on."



If your Mainland wing chun lacks LLHS, LSJC then that explains a few things about how you approach the system. What central idea do you have in Mainland systems if not this one?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't think VT works very well as a baiting style of martial art- it lacks the tools of other systems.


In your opinion, what are the common bating strategies used in the CMA striking system?


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2016)

Lin siu dai da. Does Mainland wing chun stress this concept? It is crucial in YM VT

 ---Yes.  As I noted previously.  I think this is a key concept in all Wing Chun. 


How does Mainland wing chun differentiate between usage of these different and contradictory concepts? Is there some guiding idea?

---Like I said, the situation dictates.  It is only contradictory if you are trying to apply it in a contradictory way.  If there is any guiding idea, I guess it would be to do what it takes to get the job done!



SPM is almost exclusively a reactive system. It wishes to set traps and to lure in the attack. This is how it works. In my opinion it has much better tools than wing chun for doing this, but I still don't like it as a strategy. It is risky to give the initiative.

---SPM does not ever attack directly?



I don't think VT works very well as a baiting style of martial art- it lacks the tools of other systems. I think it is optimised to work in a certain way, as are most Chinese systems. Is Mainland wing chun not optimised in this way?

---I read "optimized" as the same as "specialized."   As I have noted, Pin Sun tends to be a bit more "open-ended" and less "specialized" than Ip Man Wing Chun.  And I wouldn't say that Pin Sun uses much if any actual "baiting."   Its more a matter of not meeting force with force.  With the opponent is putting up a strong resistance Pin Sun will absorb, redirect, or evade rather than try and "blast through."  You seem to be still be thinking of "spit" and "swallow" in terms of the way they are used in SPM, not the way they are used in Wing Chun, which I have described already.



The strategy of these systems is luring in, putting in a disadvantageous position, then finishing. I think it probably worked quit well in past times. I don't think it works as well today with changes in the way people fight. What is the general strategy of Mainland wing chun?

---The general strategy would be to survive the exchange!   That might mean driving straight in, that might mean evading and looking for an opening, that might mean defending against a weapon, or that might mean running away! 


If your Mainland wing chun lacks LLHS, LSJC then that explains a few things about how you approach the system. What central idea do you have in Mainland systems if not this one?

---I didn't say it lacked it.  I just said I hadn't seen that exact Kuen Kuit used.   And why does there have to be a "central idea"?  This seems to be a very reductionist  "western" way of thinking.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> Lin siu dai da. Does Mainland wing chun stress this concept? It is crucial in YM VT
> 
> ---Yes.  As I noted previously.  I think this is a key concept in all Wing Chun.



Does Liu Sin Dai Da not contradict swallow spit?



> Like I said, the situation dictates.  It is only contradictory if you are trying to apply it in a contradictory way.  If there is any guiding idea, I guess it would be to do what it takes to get the job done!



So you maintain contradictory ideas but you apply them separately, more like a toolbox approach than a systematic conceptual approach? I have not heard of a Southern Chinese System operating in this way before. Interesting.



> SPM does not ever attack directly?



Not really, provided the opponent is a living moving human being. It is a reactive style, like most of those systems including White Crane. This is built into everything it does from the ground up.



> I read "optimized" as the same as "specialized."   As I have noted, Pin Sun tends to be a bit more "open-ended" and less "specialized" than Ip Man Wing Chun.  And I wouldn't say that Pin Sun uses much if any actual "baiting."   Its more a matter of not meeting force with force.  With the opponent is putting up a strong resistance Pin Sun will absorb, redirect, or evade rather than try and "blast through."  You seem to be still be thinking of "spit" and "swallow" in terms of the way they are used in SPM, not the way they are used in Wing Chun, which I have described already.



So Mainland wing chun is not like the other Sothern Chinese Sanchin based systems, and not like YM VT either? It seems more like a type of MMA or Jeet Kune Do the way you describe it, and less like a traditional Chinese System?



> The general strategy would be to survive the exchange!   That might mean driving straight in, that might mean evading and looking for an opening, that might mean defending against a weapon, or that might mean running away!



Again sounds quite unlike the other traditional systems in approach. It sounds quite "modern" even?



> I didn't say it lacked it.  I just said I hadn't seen that exact Kuen Kuit used.   And why does there have to be a "central idea"?  This seems to be a very reductionist  "western" way of thinking.



I would say that systematisation and conceptualisation is quite a Chinese approach to fighting. Chinese MA start with ideas and build out. Over conceptualisation can be a weak point.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> In your opinion, what are the common bating strategies used in the CMA striking system?



Something like SPM will attempt to draw the opponent in, showing a false attack line that collapses causing over commitment. They have excellent elusive covering that tends to draw punches as well, while stepping to set up strong counter positions. Stepping and pivoting off line is very good. They are always advancing and are often closer than you think due to body lean, bowed back, arm position. It is a deceptive approach suited to 1 punch finishes and not extended sparring type fights.

They tend to focus on hitting places like the blood vessels of the neck, temple, eye socket, ears, wind pipe, solar plexus, heart, floating ribs or the liver using force multiplier hand shapes. It is a good style, if that sort of thing is what you are interested in. I think it is better than wing chun at doing this. It is kind of the anti wing chun, the opposite strategy. Such an approach often entails grappling and they have some simple but effective methods at this as well.


----------



## geezer (Feb 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Something like SPM will attempt to draw the opponent in, showing a false attack line that collapses causing over commitment. ....Such an approach often entails grappling and they have some simple but effective methods at this as well.



Guy, does _your_ PB-WSL-VT employ grappling? I know some WSL lineage sifus like Wang Zhi Peng incorporate a lot of grappling into their fighting.


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2016)

Does Liu Sin Dai Da not contradict swallow spit?

---No.  If I use the idea of "swallow" with a Pin Sun "Lung Na" technique that grabs onto the opponent's arm as he punches using a double Lop Sau and a pivot that effectively yanks him off his feet  and flings him face down onto the ground....is that not defending and attacking at the same time?



So you maintain contradictory ideas but you apply them separately, more like a toolbox approach than a systematic conceptual approach? I have not heard of a Southern Chinese System operating in this way before. Interesting.

---Just what "Southern Chinese Systems" are you talking about?  Most CMAs use keywords and Kuen Kuit.  What "systematic conceptual approach" are you seeing?  Because that is not a traditional Chinese way of thinking.  What "systematic conceptual approach" are you seeing in CMAs like White Crane, Hung Ga, or Choy Li Fut, or Tai Chi?



So Mainland wing chun is not like the other Sothern Chinese Sanchin based systems, and not like YM VT either? It seems more like a type of MMA or Jeet Kune Do the way you describe it, and less like a traditional Chinese System?

---Again, I think you have rather inaccurate impression of what traditional Chinese systems are like.  They may have a unifying body mechanic and concepts that they adhere to, but by and large they don't have this one central guiding theme around which everything is built as you seem to think.


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2016)

I asked:
SPM does not ever attack directly?

Guy Answered:
Not really, provided the opponent is a living moving human being. It is a reactive style, like most of those systems including White Crane. This is built into everything it does from the ground up.

---This seems pretty direct to me.  I see very little "swallow" in this clip:






---This one seems pretty direct as well:


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

geezer said:


> Guy, does _your_ PB-WSL-VT employ grappling? I know some WSL lineage sifus like Wang Zhi Peng incorporate a lot of grappling into their fighting.



No grappling, it is a striking system.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> I asked:
> SPM does not ever attack directly?
> 
> Guy Answered:
> ...



These clips = total ********, sorry but that is the case. YouTube clips should come with a viewer discretion warning or something.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 16, 2016)

KPM said:


> Does Liu Sin Dai Da not contradict swallow spit?
> 
> ---No.  If I use the idea of "swallow" with a Pin Sun "Lung Na" technique that grabs onto the opponent's arm as he punches using a double Lop Sau and a pivot that effectively yanks him off his feet  and flings him face down onto the ground....is that not defending and attacking at the same time?



It is not linking striking with neutralisation of the opponent. It is grappling. LSDD is about linking striking and neutralisation.



> Just what "Southern Chinese Systems" are you talking about?  Most CMAs use keywords and Kuen Kuit.  What "systematic conceptual approach" are you seeing?  Because that is not a traditional Chinese way of thinking.  What "systematic conceptual approach" are you seeing in CMAs like White Crane, Hung Ga, or Choy Li Fut, or Tai Chi?



Never experienced CLF. I know a few things about it but don't think I am qualified to comment. Same with Tai Chi.

All Southern Chinese systems I have experienced have a strong conceptual base, just like VT. This is one good way to tell the real from the fake.

HG has a definite conceptual training approach based upon based upon cultivation of the whole body and the associated neural pathways in expression of full body force, with progressive shortening of force pathways once developed. It is very much based upon the deployment of devastating force. In use it has a definite focus on pre-emptive striking and devastating finishing, mostly revolving around smashing the head and neck.

White crane has a define conceptual approach based upon receiving force and leading the opponent into space or traps while eating space with the aim of finishing from a decisive and overwhelming position in as few blows as possible. It uses a lot of grappling approaches and force multiplier hand shapes to this end. Development of whole body force with as little movement as possible is trained from the start via sanchin.



> Again, I think you have rather inaccurate impression of what traditional Chinese systems are like.  They may have a unifying body mechanic and concepts that they adhere to, but by and large they don't have this one central guiding theme around which everything is built as you seem to think.



The real Chinese MA systems I have experienced were all conceptually based. The ones that were incomplete or nonsense were not. This is all I can say, given what I have experienced. I don't claim that it must necessarily be this way, just that it appears to be the norm for me.


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> These clips = total ********, sorry but that is the case. YouTube clips should come with a viewer discretion warning or something.



Well, most of the clips I previewed that showed two-man exchanges were of this same nature.  So what are we to think?


----------



## KPM (Feb 16, 2016)

It is not linking striking with neutralisation of the opponent. It is grappling. LSDD is about linking striking and neutralisation.

---No.  I believe the Kuen Kuit is referring to simultaneous attack and defense.  This can come in many forms.  In my example there was a strike.  The opponent struck the ground.  But Ok, how about a sudden Lop Sau that yanks the opponent forward into a knee strike?  That's neutralizing and striking with a "swallow" concept as well. 




All Southern Chinese systems I have experienced have a strong conceptual base, just like VT. This is one good way to tell the real from the fake.

---Ok.  What Southern Chinese systems have you experienced and what are their central conceptual base around which they are structured?


HG has a definite conceptual training approach based upon based upon cultivation of the whole body and the associated neural pathways in expression of full body force, with progressive shortening of force pathways once developed. It is very much based upon the deployment of devastating force. In use it has a definite focus on pre-emptive striking and devastating finishing, mostly revolving around smashing the head and neck.

---That sounds pretty general, pretty vague, and could describe a lot of martial arts.  How is this a central conceptual base?  Being strong and hitting someone in the head hardly seems very sophisticated or conceptual to me.  How does this make Hung Ga any different than say....Choy Li Fut?



White crane has a define conceptual approach based upon receiving force and leading the opponent into space or traps while eating space with the aim of finishing from a decisive and overwhelming position in as few blows as possible. It uses a lot of grappling approaches and force multiplier hand shapes to this end. Development of whole body force with as little movement as possible is trained from the start via sanchin.

---Again, that doesn't sound very unique.  It doesn't sound that much different than what you described for SPM.  Sounds rather like Tai Chi as well.


----------



## geezer (Feb 16, 2016)

guy b. said:


> No grappling, it is a striking system.



....So I guess that the grappling and throwing that Wang Zhi Peng uses is drawn from Shai Chiao and employed in sparring as an addition or alternative to his WSL-VT striking? Anyway,  he sure seems to make it work, even starting from a poon-sau platform.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> ....So I guess that the grappling and throwing that Wang Zhi Peng uses is drawn from Shai Chiao and employed in sparring as an addition or alternative to his WSL-VT striking? Anyway,  he sure seems to make it work, even starting from a poon-sau platform.



They teach it as two separate systems and make clear to students what is and isn't WSLVT.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> Well, most of the clips I previewed that showed two-man exchanges were of this same nature.  So what are we to think?



My advice would be to think that there aren't many clips of actual SPM, Bak Mei or Lung Ying on youtube. Finding crappy examples of made up kung fu is pointless. The Evo's Basics series I pointed out before covers some genuine SPM.


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> My advice would be to think that there aren't many clips of actual SPM, Bak Mei or Lung Ying on youtube. Finding crappy examples of made up kung fu is pointless. The Evo's Basics series I pointed out before covers some genuine SPM.


 
Master Gin Foon Mark.  This all seems pretty direct to me:


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> Master Gin Foon Mark.  This all seems pretty direct to me:



While it is a bit of silly demo with a person not actually trying to hit Mark, you have posted a clip that shows SPM 'receive, shake, strike' concepts repeatedly, in response to every action by the opponent. In YM VT this would be hand chasing and would completely lack LLHS LSJC concepts. Mark is always receiving, then off-balancing, then responding. Does your wing chun function in this way?


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> I believe the Kuen Kuit is referring to simultaneous attack and defense.  This can come in many forms.  In my example there was a strike.  The opponent struck the ground.  But Ok, how about a sudden Lop Sau that yanks the opponent forward into a knee strike?  That's neutralizing and striking with a "swallow" concept as well.



Grabbing as a first action is not VT because it is not in accordance with LLHS, LSJC. I would also say that grabbing first in order to knee is not simultaneous attack and defence because first grab then knee.

You are saying that it is ok to grab as a first action in your mainland wing chun?



> Ok.  What Southern Chinese systems have you experienced and what are their central conceptual base around which they are structured?



Personally I have experienced SPM and VT. I have talked to and trained with others who have experienced other Systems.



> That sounds pretty general, pretty vague, and could describe a lot of martial arts.  How is this a central conceptual base?  Being strong and hitting someone in the head hardly seems very sophisticated or conceptual to me.  How does this make Hung Ga any different than say....Choy Li Fut?



I don't know enough about CLF to comment. HG has a strong bias towards pre-emptive striking and setups. In this respect it differs from systems like SPM which prefer to receive first. It also has a strong conceptual bias towards eating space, chasing centre of mass, and not stopping. In this way it is rather like VT.



> Again, that doesn't sound very unique.  It doesn't sound that much different than what you described for SPM.  Sounds rather like Tai Chi as well.



SPM, Bak Mei, Lung Ying and to an extent White Crane are conceptually very similar. They are all unlike VT. I don't know enough about Tai Chi to comment on that.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> Master Gin Foon Mark.  This all seems pretty direct to me:



Why continue to post random clips of SPM? I thought we were discussing wing chun and the differences between Mainland and YM version?


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> ....So I guess that the grappling and throwing that Wang Zhi Peng uses is drawn from Shai Chiao and employed in sparring as an addition or alternative to his WSL-VT striking? Anyway,  he sure seems to make it work, even starting from a poon-sau platform.



Yes, it is obviously SJ/Judo based. Certainly not VT.


----------



## Phobius (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Yes, it is obviously SJ/Judo based. Certainly not VT.


 I kind of like it, very circular movements. Quite interesting how he incorporates circular movements to a very linear art and concept.

Cant say more without actually meeting him or someone taught to his liking.


----------



## Jens (Feb 17, 2016)




----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> While it is a bit of silly demo with a person not actually trying to hit Mark, you have posted a clip that shows SPM 'receive, shake, strike' concepts repeatedly, in response to every action by the opponent. In YM VT this would be hand chasing and would completely lack LLHS LSJC concepts. Mark is always receiving, then off-balancing, then responding. Does your wing chun function in this way?


 
I see a lot of "parry and hit."  Does your Wing Chun not do this?   This seems pretty direct to me.  He isn't doing any kind of elaborate "swallowing" to set up a return "spit".  He's just doing parry and hit.   My Wing Chun certainly functions this way at times.  Your's doesn't?  You can't always make the pre-emptive strike.  You can't always be the one launching the attack.  Sometimes, many times, you have to defend first.  When doing so you aren't always in range to parry and strike simultaneously.  Sometimes you have to parry as you close with the strike.  That is what I see Master Mark doing.  This is still attacking directly after a simple parry.


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

Grabbing as a first action is not VT

---Again, maybe not YOUR Wing Chun!  You have this bad habit of trying to generalize WSLVT to all Wing Chun.  WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged! 


You are saying that it is ok to grab as a first action in your mainland wing chun?

---Absolutely!   If someone is thrusting a knife at me, the first thing I am going to do is get out of the way and grab the arm to establish positive control.   If someone is punching at me and there is a reason NOT to use a maximum response, I may Bong and flow right into a double Lop Sau to toss them away without hurting them.  My Wing Chun has options other than punching someone out!



Personally I have experienced SPM and VT. I have talked to and trained with others who have experienced other Systems.

---And what was the "central concept" of those other systems?



I don't know enough about CLF to comment. HG has a strong bias towards pre-emptive striking and setups. In this respect it differs from systems like SPM which prefer to receive first.

---So it makes it different from SPM.  That doesn't necessarily make it unique.  That makes it very similar to a lot of Shaolin-derived systems.  Its hardly a "central concept."



SPM, Bak Mei, Lung Ying and to an extent White Crane are conceptually very similar. They are all unlike VT. I don't know enough about Tai Chi to comment on that.

---What is the "central concept" of White Crane?   What is the "central concept" of Bak Mei that makes is different from SPM?


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Why continue to post random clips of SPM? I thought we were discussing wing chun and the differences between Mainland and YM version?


 
You also mentioned the differences between WCK and SPM.  You said that SPM has no direct attacks, which seemed unlikely to me.  So I checked and found things that looked pretty direct to me.   But likely it is a matter of emphasis.  It seems  a more accurate statement would be that WCK puts an emphasis on moving into the opponent with a strike and then reacting to his response, while SPM puts an emphasis on waiting for or drawing in the opponent's strike and then reacting to that.   But Wing Chun also reacts to opponent's strikes and SPM will also attacks directly.  Is that fair?

I guess my objection is to saying that any martial arts system has a "central concept" that it has to adhere to.  There are always exceptions to the rules.  There are always variations and differing situations that have to be accounted for.  So I think that the more closely a system adheres to a single "central concept", the more "specialized", "streamlined", or even "one-dimensional" it has become.  Some systems may adhere to a main concept more than others.  Some systems may use multiple concepts to guide them, depending on what they are dealing with.  It appears this likely applies to the various flavors of Wing Chun as well!


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> You also mentioned the differences between WCK and SPM.  You said that SPM has no direct attacks, which seemed unlikely to me.  So I checked and found things that looked pretty direct to me.   But likely it is a matter of emphasis.



The MGF clip you found is, in terms of being representative of the System, a bit like 'Science of infighting' from WSL..

There really isn't anything direct in what MGF is doing, it is all bread and butter absorb unbalance strike stuff. The circling hands are a common way of doing this in SPM, as are the drawing cover hands. In terms of how this looks compared to its use in fighting, well as I said it is a bit like Science of Infighting. People see a lot of things in that which are missing from VT, and apparently it is the same with Mark's film. As someone who has done a fair bit of SPM I would say that I am a better info source than random youtube clips, just as I would say you are a better info source than random clips for Mainland Wing Chun info, which is what I am really interested in understanding.



> It seems  a more accurate statement would be that WCK puts an emphasis on moving into the opponent with a strike and then reacting to his response, while SPM puts an emphasis on waiting for or drawing in the opponent's strike and then reacting to that.  But Wing Chun also reacts to opponent's strikes and SPM will also attacks directly.  Is that fair?



SPM is based upon reacting and leading. It is a style that lures and baits.  It really isn't about attacking directly. It has a particular conceptual base to this end. If you start storming in with fists flying then you are doing something wrong in SPM. You are playing your weakest card.

VT is not about reacting and chasing hands, it is a style that imposes pressure and eats up space, forcing mistakes and creating open attack lines. It has a particular conceptual base to this end. If you start reacting to what the opponent gives you in VT and forget to chase centre and apply pressure then you are doing something wrong - chasing hands, your weakest card.



> I guess my objection is to saying that any martial arts system has a "central concept" that it has to adhere to.  There are always exceptions to the rules.  There are always variations and differing situations that have to be accounted for.  So I think that the more closely a system adheres to a single "central concept", the more "specialized", "streamlined", or even "one-dimensional" it has become.



Both VT and SPM are extremely conceptually optimised systems. I think you lose what makes them good if you try to use them in ways they were not designed for.



> Some systems may adhere to a main concept more than others.  Some systems may use multiple concepts to guide them, depending on what they are dealing with.  It appears this likely applies to the various flavors of Wing Chun as well!



This may be the case. Can you tell me how you think Mainland wing chun fits into this picture?


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

KPM said:


> Again, maybe not YOUR Wing Chun! You have this bad habit of trying to generalize WSLVT to all Wing Chun. WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged!



Please, I said VT, not wing chun. I would be very happy for you to provide specific information on how your wing chun differs in comparison (no simple conceptual base?). Don't feel that I am judging you, we are talking about different systems it seems.



KPM said:


> Absolutely! If someone is thrusting a knife at me, the first thing I am going to do is get out of the way and grab the arm to establish positive control. If someone is punching at me and there is a reason NOT to use a maximum response, I may Bong and flow right into a double Lop Sau to toss them away without hurting them. My Wing Chun has options other than punching someone out!



Ok, so Mainland wing chun is more like a mixed striking grappling system and it is up to the individual how to use the various concepts and techniques which it contains, as and when?



KPM said:


> So it makes it different from SPM. That doesn't necessarily make it unique. That makes it very similar to a lot of Shaolin-derived systems. Its hardly a "central concept."



It is a central concept in that it determines how a HG practitioner views fighting, what their main strategic goals are likely to be, and how they will try to reach those goals. I am not sure what this line of questioning about other systems is supposed to achieve. I have experiences 2 conceptually based Chinese systems and have talked to people from other systems who claimed a similar conceptual base. If you have experienced differently then that is ok and equally valid. It isn't a popularity contest.



KPM said:


> What is the "central concept" of White Crane? What is the "central concept" of Bak Mei that makes is different from SPM?



SPM, Bak Mei and Lung Ying are all the same system, "Hakka kuen" if you like. There is no difference other than time and some fake origin legends. Crane is a bit different to these others but has some very similar approaches and training methodologies. It is obviously related, although I do not know the history of it.


----------



## wtxs (Feb 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> ....So I guess that the grappling and throwing that Wang Zhi Peng uses is drawn from Shai Chiao and employed in sparring as an addition or alternative to his WSL-VT striking? Anyway,  he sure seems to make it work, even starting from a poon-sau platform.



It had to be add on, because he does not have pure WSL VT.  What he's doing violate the most basic concept ... too many moves to get the job done, just go straight down the middle and take the guys head off with one move.


----------



## geezer (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Please, I said VT, not wing chun.



For the record, _your_ "VT" is probably quite different from _my_ "VT". Many branches of YP VT use the term "VT". It's probably best that we each qualify our comments accordingly.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> For the record, _your_ "VT" is probably quite different from _my_ "VT". Many branches of YP VT use the term "VT". It's probably best that we each qualify our comments accordingly.



I don't think KPM uses VT does he? No offence was intended anyway. Of course I meant the VT that I practice.

Isn't yours WT?


----------



## Phobius (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't think KPM uses VT does he? No offence was intended anyway. Of course I meant the VT that I practice.
> 
> Isn't yours WT?



Yea I think it is or at least was, but I do recall someone else other than WSL VT calling it VT. Could be wrong though. Anyways I think this misconception may have started when LFJ was an integral part of discussions because he called it WSL VT for his style and VT for all others I believe. Now everyone just gets confused but then again we are good at being confused, we spend too much time feeling in our joint style.


----------



## geezer (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't think KPM uses VT does he? No offence was intended anyway. Of course I meant the VT that I practice.
> 
> Isn't yours WT?


 Yes, my training was in WT (mostly) but now I'm with another group that uses GM Yip's "VT" spelling.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

geezer said:


> Yes, my training was in WT (mostly) but now I'm with another group that uses GM Yip's "VT" spelling.



Ok, are you happy if I refer to it as WSL VT then?


----------



## geezer (Feb 17, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Ok, are you happy if I refer to it as WSL VT then?


Oh yes! Indeed, I am almost ecstatic!


----------



## guy b. (Feb 17, 2016)

So let me get this straight, a lot of the offence I have caused thus far has been down to using not-specific-enough terminology for the particular VT group I belong to? People are offended because I don't look like I am celebrating the difference enough in terms of wording it in the least offensive possible way? If that is the case then I don't know what else to say apart from lol

Of course I will abide by this forum convention from now on and identify myself as specifically as possible lest someone think I am talking about them rather than me (although of course I don't know them or anything about them). Lol!


----------



## KPM (Feb 17, 2016)

Please, I said VT, not wing chun.

---Ah!  So all this time when you have written "VT" you were referring specifically to "WSLVT"???   My apologies!  Because that was not at all clear!  WSL is not the only Wing Chun person who used the "Ving Tsun" spelling.  I just assumed that "VT" was your preferred way to refer to "WC."   My recommendation is that in the future you use the 3 extra key strokes to write "WSLVT" to avoid any future confusion.


 I would be very happy for you to provide specific information on how your wing chun differs in comparison (no simple conceptual base?). Don't feel that I am judging you, we are talking about different systems it seems.

---No, Pin Sun does not have one over-riding single guiding concept.  It does make use of that same concept, it just doesn't make it a central focus.  Like I have said, I think it tends to be a bit more "open-ended" and multi-dimensional. Tactics can shift according to the situation.  There is a Kum Na component, and obviously Kum Na would not adhere very closely to that Kuen Kuit or even LSDD.  But of course, Pin Sun is still very much identifiable as Wing Chun. 



Ok, so Mainland wing chun is more like a mixed striking grappling system and it is up to the individual how to use the various concepts and techniques which it contains, as and when?

---Not like MMA where things tend to be a random mix.  But yes, I guess you could say it is more "application based" and "technique based" than WSLVT.  But there are guiding concepts and keywords.  Just not one over-riding central concept that dictates how everything is done.  And probably most people wouldn't say it is a "grappling" system to the same extent as something like Jiu Jitsu or Hapkido.  The Kum Na portion is a minor part only. 



It is a central concept in that it determines how a HG practitioner views fighting, what their main strategic goals are likely to be, and how they will try to reach those goals.

---Ok.  That's fair enough.  More of a guiding tactic.  I'd say that the "guiding tactic" of Pin Sun would be to get in close and neutralize the opponent....primarily by striking, but as noted before a joint-lock or something similar is also used.  And by close I mean typically closer than arm's length....close enough to use elbow strikes.  This is why angling and using the "swallow" concept is important.  At that close range you have to be able to move that way to stay close.  So it is kind of like standing grappling with strikes.  "Swallow" helps keep the opponent that close.


SPM, Bak Mei and Lung Ying are all the same system, "Hakka kuen" if you like. There is no difference other than time and some fake origin legends. Crane is a bit different to these others but has some very similar approaches and training methodologies. It is obviously related, although I do not know the history of it.

---Got it.  It would be interesting to figure how White Crane is related to the Hakka Kuen, since the come from such different sources.  Hard to know who trained and traded with ideas with who back then!


----------



## LFJ (Feb 17, 2016)

I once made a suggestion on here that didn't go through, for some reason. 
(I guess, people here prefer confusion, because arguments.) 

That is, from German language forums where they use something like _ing_un when quite obviously referring to Wing Chun in general. 

They will fill in the blanks and use abbreviations when otherwise talking about a specific lineage and/or what can be assumed to refer to their own. There's never any ambiguity or confusion this way.


----------



## geezer (Feb 17, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I once made a suggestion on here that didn't go through, for some reason.
> (I guess, people here prefer confusion, because arguments.)
> 
> That is, from German language forums where they use something like _ing_un when quite obviously referring to Wing Chun in general.
> ...



IMO, using _"_ing _un"_ only seems to add to the confusion and frankly just looks odd. I'll stick with using "WC" or "Wing Chun" for the system broadly speaking, and when talking about a specific branch I'll identify it. Others can do whatever they wish.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 17, 2016)

Add to the confusion? It's quite obviously saying "Wing Chun in general" or "insert any lineage spelling". 

If I say "Wing Chun" or "WC", KPM might still say "_maybe in your WC, but not in mine_"...


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Add to the confusion? It's quite obviously saying "Wing Chun in general" or "insert any lineage spelling".
> 
> If I say "Wing Chun" or "WC", KPM might still say "_maybe in your WC, but not in mine_"...



What's so hard about typing "WSLVT" when that's what you are referring to?   I will type PSWC many times when I am referring to my Wing Chun.


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Add to the confusion? It's quite obviously saying "Wing Chun in general" or "insert any lineage spelling".
> 
> If I say "Wing Chun" or "WC", KPM might still say "_maybe in your WC, but not in mine_"...



You can always say WSL VT ...or just say _my_ lineage, if you prefer. As far as "--ing  --un" goes, not only does it look odd, it also calls attention to the notorious factionalism and bickering between lineages, and I've seen it used by other groups in a negative way regarding WC in general. So it's not a term I'd embrace.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 18, 2016)

Oh for crying out loud...you're all wrong...its 詠春 

Frankly, to me, it is all..."What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet." 

Other than that it is yǒng chūn to me.... but then I don't speak Cantonese and I tend towards Mandarin.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 18, 2016)

It works just fine on other forums. 

Seems you guys here will always nitpick some reason to argue.


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

LFJ... another thought. In North America, Wing Chun or "WC" is already widely accepted as the generic term. In Europe, due to the greater influence of British English, "WC" has another meaning altogether!   And most alternative spellings (Wing Tsun,Ving Tsun, Weng Chun, etc.) refer to very specific groups and not the system in general. So for lack of another term, they are _stuck _using "_ing _un". _We_ are not.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 18, 2016)

Frankly gentleman, it all comes down to what was used to translate 詠春...... Pinyin, Wade-Giles, or Yale...... and it all ends up the same place...here 詠春

Correspondence of Wade-Giles to Pinyin
Yale romanization of Cantonese
Yale romanization of Mandarin


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

LFJ said:


> It works just fine on other forums.
> 
> Seems you guys here will always nitpick some reason to argue.


Compared to what I've seen on other forums, the WC community here gets along quite well ...with the possible exception of you and Guy. If you folks aren't enjoying our forum, why not move along?


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> Frankly gentleman, it all comes down to what was used to translate 詠春...... Pinyin, Wade-Giles, or Yale...... and it all ends up the same place...here 詠春
> 
> Correspondence of Wade-Giles to Pinyin
> Yale romanization of Cantonese
> Yale romanization of Mandarin



Well, actually there _are_ two slightly different characters used by different lineages:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 18, 2016)

詠春 = Wing Chun = Yong Chun (Mandarin)
永春 = Yong Chun = Wing Chun

its likely a lineage thing

Kind of like my friend who does Taijiquan as do I, but his lineage is;

Chen Wangting - Chen Changxing - Chen Fake - Chen Zhaokui - Chen Zhenglei - My Friend
Chen Wangting - Chen Changxing - Chen Dengke - Chen Zhaopi - Chen Zhenglei - My Friend

Mine is

Chen Wangting - Chen Changxing - Yang Luchan - Yang Jianhou - Yang Chengfu - Tung Ying Chieh - My sifu - me
Chen Wangting - Chen Youpen - Chen Qingping - Wu Yuxiang - Li Yiyu - Hao Weizhang - Li Xingyuan - Tung Ying Chieh - My sifu - me

All still taijiquan or Tai Chi Chuan

My Taijiquan Sifu pronouces the romanization of 形意拳 (Xíng Yì Quán); as yingyichun I pronounce it more like ShingYeechuan. He is a Southerner and my pronunciations are northern. But it is still the same style.

To me this WC VT wing chun weng chun argument is simply an argument over a Chinese dialectic pronunciation of the english translation...not that there are not differences, like wiht Chen Taiji and yang taiji...but it is not worth arguing about the spelling (or pronunciation)  differences between Taijiquan and Tai Chi Chuan. Or Xingyiquan, yingyeechun or Hsing I Ch'üan.

There, I've said my piece.....and now I will discontinue this Taijiquan guys interloping in the Wing Chun section...for now


----------



## KPM (Feb 18, 2016)

Xue Sheng said:


> 詠春 = Wing Chun = Yong Chun (Mandarin)
> 永春 = Yong Chun = Wing Chun




Sure.  Different characters that are pronounced the exact same way.  So the convention has widely become to render the "beautiful" character as "Wing" and the "eternal" character as "Weng."  That is widely accepted in the community.


----------



## guy b. (Feb 18, 2016)

geezer said:


> Compared to what I've seen on other forums, the WC community here gets along quite well ...with the possible exception of you and Guy. If you folks aren't enjoying our forum, why not move along?



That's a bit unfriendly. I am happy to go with the approved terminology


----------



## geezer (Feb 18, 2016)

guy b. said:


> That's a bit unfriendly. I am happy to go with the approved terminology



Sorry. I'm normally a pretty friendly sort. And usually you and I manage to agree or disagree respectfully. Feel free to disregard what I said above.


----------



## LFJ (Feb 19, 2016)

KPM said:


> Sure.  Different characters that are pronounced the exact same way.  So the convention has widely become to render the "beautiful" character as "Wing" and the "eternal" character as "Weng."  That is widely accepted in the community.



That character doesn't mean beautiful at all. Where did that idea come from?

詠 is ideogram (言 speech radical) plus phonetic compound (永).

It means to sing, or to describe or express emotion through poetic verse, or can refer to poetic verse itself.


----------

