# Small Circle



## wingchun100 (May 11, 2017)

I just wanted to state an observation here on two very different approaches to Wing Chun.

Originally I trained in the Ip Ching lineage. The teacher there had us do the techniques in fairly large motions. He said, "Over time, your Wing Chun will get smaller and smaller."

Now I train in the Leung Sheung lineage, and man...what a difference. It is all small motions right off the bat. Sifu says, "When you can do small circle, everything else comes easily."

I can see how both approaches can be useful, depending on the kind of students who enter the school. Some people might attend a school that favors the "small circle" approach and think to themselves, "These motions are so wimpy. I don't see how I can defend myself!" Then they quit. For someone with that mindset, you would benefit from starting them off with bigger motions and training them to get smaller over time.

As for me, I believe in tackling the most difficult challenge first because it proves to me if I can conquer it, then I can most likely conquer anything.


----------



## geezer (May 11, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Originally I trained in the Ip Ching lineage. The teacher there had us do the techniques in fairly large motions. He said, "Over time, your Wing Chun will get smaller and smaller."
> 
> Now I train in the Leung Sheung lineage, and man...what a difference. It is all small motions right off the bat.



Can you give us a specific example of a technique, or maybe reference a video clip so we can see what you mean?


----------



## wingchun100 (May 11, 2017)

geezer said:


> Can you give us a specific example of a technique, or maybe reference a video clip so we can see what you mean?


 
I will try to upload a video of myself performing the two variations later on tonight.

I am not aware of any videos you could see already online because I have attempted many times to search "Leung Sheung wing chun" and other variations of that search. The results that come up don't really look anything like what I am learning.


----------



## Headhunter (May 11, 2017)

Don't know much about wing chun but I just don't see why you'd teach something to a beginner one way and expect them to change it when they get higher up that just causes bad habits and makes it harder to change as it's part of the muscle memory


----------



## geezer (May 11, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Don't know much about wing chun but I just don't see why you'd teach something to a beginner one way and expect them to change it when they get higher up that just causes bad habits and makes it harder to change as it's part of the muscle memory



Argument for teaching big movements first -- _Big, exaggerated  movements are easier to do and understand. Once you get the structure, energy and flow down, you gradually trim the movements down more and more to make them more economical and efficient._

Argument for teaching tight, efficient movements from the start --_ Big movements are impractical, and since under extreme stress (as in a fight) your movements will tend to get bigger and sloppier anyway. So you might as well try to  curb that tendency by training small, efficient movements from the start._

It just boils down to different teaching methods. Depending on the individual, I suppose either method could work. In my branch of VT/WT, we train with efficient movements from the beginning. On the other hand, many movements are executed with increasing efficiency as you progress, for example the way the front punch is delivered in _Siu Nim Tau,_ _Chum Kiu_ and _Biu Tze_ respectively. On the other hand, as you shrink the movement, the margin of error decreases. So unless you are quite proficient, you may be risking more by executing a _Biu Tze_ attack or counterattack.


----------



## drop bear (May 11, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Don't know much about wing chun but I just don't see why you'd teach something to a beginner one way and expect them to change it when they get higher up that just causes bad habits and makes it harder to change as it's part of the muscle memory



The idea is that learning one way teaches a good basic habit that while not important to the technique is important to the process of learning.

We have lots of those.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 11, 2017)

geezer said:


> Argument for teaching big movements first -- _Big, exaggerated  movements are easier to do and understand. Once you get the structure, energy and flow down, you gradually trim the movements down more and more to make them more economical and efficient._
> 
> Argument for teaching tight, efficient movements from the start --_ Big movements are impractical, and since under extreme stress (as in a fight) your movements will tend to get bigger and sloppier anyway. So you might as well try to  curb that tendency by training small, efficient movements from the start._
> 
> It just boils down to different teaching methods. Depending on the individual, I suppose either method could work. In my branch of VT/WT, we train with efficient movements from the beginning. On the other hand, many movements are executed with increasing efficiency as you progress, for example the way the front punch is delivered in _Siu Nim Tau,_ _Chum Kiu_ and _Biu Tze_ respectively. On the other hand, as you shrink the movement, the margin of error decreases. So unless you are quite proficient, you may be risking more by executing a _Biu Tze_ attack or counterattack.



For better or worse, here are some examples. This is the first video I have ever shared of myself on here, so… Please be gentle.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## DanT (May 11, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> For better or worse, here are some examples. This is the first video I have ever shared of myself on here, so… Please be gentle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was thinking about the Lan Sao becoming a smaller movement in CK as well.


----------



## anerlich (May 12, 2017)

TWC has both.

A very good instructor from another style told me he prefers to do his forms with larger movements as under stress you tend to tighten up and make everything smaller. YMMV.


----------



## wckf92 (May 12, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> For better or worse, here are some examples. This is the first video I have ever shared of myself on here, so… Please be gentle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow...that first example has an almost kenpo look to it! (placing hand by ear first, then turning)


----------



## wingchun100 (May 12, 2017)

geezer said:


> Can you give us a specific example of a technique, or maybe reference a video clip so we can see what you mean?


 
I got your back, my friend. Video posted!


----------



## wingchun100 (May 12, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Wow...that first example has an almost kenpo look to it! (placing hand by ear first, then turning)


 
My thoughts exactly.

I can see arguments for teaching both ways. @geezer pointed out quite a few good reasons. Everything in life has its pros and cons, you know?


----------



## VPT (May 12, 2017)

From what I've been reading by prominent martial arts writers and what is my personal opinion, I think a small movement is very much less adaptive to any given trajectory and vector of attack than a larger range of motion. Of course, knowing nothing about Wing Chun, I can't tell if the bigger movements contain any purposeful details in themselves and what is the meaning of every individual movement.

Your Cantonese pronunciation, though.  Leung Sheung is pronounced with the sound of "uh-uh". Think of his name being written "L*uh*ng Sh*uh*ng". Or if you prefer the name in Mandarin, Liang Xiang is like "Lee-young Shee-young".

Leonard Skinner - Lynyrd Skynyrd


----------



## geezer (May 12, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> I got your back, my friend. Video posted!



Thanks for putting that up to see. What we do is more like the Leung Sheung CK set you demonstrated ...not surprising since my old sifu began his training under Leung Sheung. Some of our movements are a little larger - the three "pak sau" sequence for example. In our current curriculum, other movement sequences start bigger and then tighten up as you move up in rank or experience For example, this happens with the movement turning from lan sau to bong-wu-sau.

I believe this idea of starting bigger and then trimming down may reflect my current instructor's experience training WT in Europe where they have a lot of big schools and have systematized their curriculum accordingly.. When we trained together with our old sifu in small, semi-private groups here in the US, we did the tighter, final version right from the start.


----------



## DanT (May 12, 2017)

geezer said:


> Big movements are impractical, and since under extreme stress (as in a fight) your movements will tend to get bigger and sloppier anyway. So you might as well try to curb that tendency by training small, efficient movements from the start.


Certain styles emphasize big movements such as Northern Shaolin. The movements are extremely powerful and are very practical (hook punches, forearm swings and round kicks). Being caught by a powerful swinging technique will crush most people.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 12, 2017)

DanT said:


> Certain styles emphasize big movements such as Northern Shaolin. The movements are extremely powerful and are very practical (hook punches, forearm swings and round kicks). Being caught by a powerful swinging technique will crush most people.


 
I agree, but those techniques can also be harder to land due to telegraphing.


----------



## DanT (May 12, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> I agree, but those techniques can also be harder to land due to telegraphing.


Oftentimes the movements are delivered from angles that are harder to see, such as I start my windmill punch from behind me so you don't see it until it's literally right above your head, and big looping crescent kicks are delivered with no body movement, so they're hard to see coming.


----------



## anerlich (May 15, 2017)

Good Choy Li Fut guys can also throw huge and powerful windmill punches that are hard to see coming, despite the hugeness, because of that trajectory.

Axe kicks also seem huge movements and are really obvious to an outside observer, but a good flexible kicker can score with them because the trajectory goes outside the opponent's field of vision. Plus they can be disguised as low leg kicks, which then ghost past your attempted shin block and reappear as the axe smacking you on a downward angle to the temple. Ouch.

You decry such techniques and styles at your peril.


----------



## LFJ (May 15, 2017)

VPT said:


> Your Cantonese pronunciation, though.  Leung Sheung is pronounced with the sound of "uh-uh". Think of his name being written "L*uh*ng Sh*uh*ng".



 Lemme help you guys out if you care to say his name right...

The <eu> diphthong in Cantonese is not one that exists in English.

It starts like the <e> in "bed" and flows into the <u> in "lung".

So, his surname Leung is pronounced as if you were to say the English word "lung" with the <e> from "bed" before the <u>.

It's the same sound in his given name, Seung.

"Sheung" is a nonstandard romanization. There is no <sh> as in English in Cantonese. 
It's an <s> as in "song". (Hence, _shifu_ in Mandarin becomes _sifu_ in Cantonese.)

梁相 Leung Seung. Click on the button in the box on the right that says [Speak (need HTML5 support)] to hear them pronounced together.

They rhyme, but with different tones. Hear the <eu> is not "uh", and the <s> is not <sh>.


----------



## VPT (May 15, 2017)

I actually _know _Cantonese pronunciation.  "Leung Seung" is Yale romanization; I personally prefer Jyutping, which would write it "Loeng Soeng". 

"Uh-huh" is pretty much the closest English language can get to pronouncing what is written in International Phonetic Alphabet as [œ]. To be perfectly phonetically accurate, Leung Seung writes /lœːŋ4 sœːŋ1/ in IPA with Jyutping tone numbers added.

But since most of us don't read IPA, after all, you have to come up with something simple, like "Say it like you would say 'uh-huh'", and then just not necessarily bother about the s/sh since it does not make grammatical difference. The erroneous romanization of "sheung" has already stuck anyway  

Geez, I hate when people write all like "Bil Gee", when I always write and think of "Biu Ji/ Biu Zi"... Chum Kiu is not _quite_ as bad (It's Cham Kiu).


Luckily Cantonese is not Mandarin, after all, with all the 9+ affricates and fricatives. Takes you ages to learn to hear them right. And why do I prefer Jyutping over Yale? Because English is not my first language.


----------



## KPM (May 15, 2017)

I've always wondered why William Cheung, who is a HK native, spelled his Wing Chun terms differently from everyone else.  He writes Bil Jee, Chum Kil, Larp Sao, etc instead of Biu Jee, Chum Kiu, or Lop Sao.  Is HK dialect a bit different from standard Cantonese that would lead him to do this?


----------



## LFJ (May 15, 2017)

VPT said:


> "Uh-huh" is pretty much the closest English language can get...
> 
> ...and then *just not necessarily bother about the s/sh* since it does not make grammatical difference.



But "uh-huh" is still the wrong sound, as is <sh>.

If you're going to bother correcting someone's pronunciation, why not bother about getting it correct?


----------



## LFJ (May 15, 2017)

KPM said:


> I've always wondered why William Cheung, who is a HK native, spelled his Wing Chun terms differently from everyone else.  He writes Bil Jee, Chum Kil, Larp Sao, etc instead of Biu Jee, Chum Kiu, or Lop Sao.  Is HK dialect a bit different from standard Cantonese that would lead him to do this?



There are standard romanizations like Jyutping and Yale. I always use the latter, more logical to me.

His spellings don't appear to be of a standard system, but if you read them as an Australian would, you'd get close to correct pronunciation.

For example, Larp pronounced by an American would have a hard R, which would be wrong, but an Australian would pronounce it as an American would pronounce Lop, with an <ah> sound.

So, both end up being correct if read by the right people.

Same with Bil and Biu, I think. Seems they'd kind of round that L out into more of a W, making the Biu sound from reading Bil in their accent, and not like a guy named Bill as an American would read it.

I don't know, but I'd guess an Aussie helped him spell out the words he was saying when he started teaching there.


----------



## VPT (May 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> But "uh-huh" is still the wrong sound, as is <sh>.
> 
> If you're going to bother correcting someone's pronunciation, why not bother about getting it correct?



I mean...really? Your instruction is just as wrong as mine then. Cantonese does not have a single diphthong, yet you instructed as /eu/, which Cantonese frankly just does not have.  Instead, they say /œ/, which is a single vowel.

I have to admit that there is variation within English on how people say even rudimentary things like "uh-huh". For some it might be close to /'œh hœh/, while some might actually go for /'ah hah/ type of pronunciation.

But Cantonese speakers definitely DON'T go /leuŋ seuŋ/, that's just plain wrong.


----------



## LFJ (May 15, 2017)

VPT said:


> Cantonese does not have a single diphthong,



It does. Suggest you learn some Cantonese first.



> yet you instructed as /eu/, which Cantonese frankly just does not have.  Instead, they say /œ/, which is a single vowel.



/eu/ = Yale
/œ/ = IPA

You are confused.



> I have to admit that there is variation within English on how people say even rudimentary things like "uh-huh". For some it might be close to /'œh hœh/,



Never heard anyone pronounce it like that in all my life, not even a cartoon character.



> But Cantonese speakers definitely DON'T go /leuŋ seuŋ/, that's just plain wrong.



You are combining Yale and IPA. You are confused.


----------



## geezer (May 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> It does. Suggest you learn some Cantonese first.
> /eu/ = Yale
> /œ/ = IPA
> 
> You are confused. You are combining Yale and IPA. You are confused.



Hey LFJ, don't be condescending. Maybe he does know some Cantonese, but just doesn't have any knowledge of linguistics as you obviously have. That may be why he confuses the International Phonetic Alphabet translation with Yale.

Personally, I'm glad we have someone like you on board who really does know this stuff. A zillion years ago I earned a degree in Social Anthropology and had a bit of linguistics training. Just enough to know how ignorant I am. Most folks don't have even that (Dunning Kruger again?). And if they do speak a second language, they think that alone makes them an authority.

You are coming at this at a much higher level. But give the guy a break. At least he seems to know some Cantonese. When I try to pronounce Cantonese terms, native speakers look at me with a mix of confusion and pity!


----------



## wingchun100 (May 15, 2017)

geezer said:


> Hey LFJ, don't be condescending. Maybe he does know some Cantonese, but just doesn't have any knowledge of linguistics as you obviously have. That may be why he confuses the International Phonetic Alphabet translation with Yale.
> 
> Personally, I'm glad we have someone like you on board who really does know this stuff. A zillion years ago I earned a degree in Social Anthropology and had a bit of linguistics training. Just enough to know how ignorant I am. Most folks don't have even that (Dunning Kruger again?). And if they do speak a second language, they think that alone makes them an authority.
> 
> You are coming at this at a much higher level. But give the guy a break. At least he seems to know some Cantonese. When I try to pronounce Cantonese terms, native speakers look at me with a mix of confusion and pity!


 
Let him have his fun. If being condescending to those who mispronounce a language they do not speak is what he needs to feel superior, then who are we to judge or stop him? Besides, I'm not concerned about the comments on my pronounciation. The focus is supposed to be on the different approaches between the lineages. That's all I'm paying attention to. I mean, MT gave us the ignore button for a reason.


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 15, 2017)

Rènzhēn dì (Seriously)....

Pronunciations is an issue now.... give me a break..and yes, Leung Sheung was more a Mandarin pronunciation..... big deal...

Cantonese has to many words anyways


----------



## LFJ (May 15, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Let him have his fun. If being condescending to those who mispronounce a language they do not speak is what he needs to feel superior, then who are we to judge or stop him? Besides, I'm not concerned about the comments on my pronounciation.



Hang on, pal, I was not being condescending toward you for your mispronunciation or anything! 

I made a post to help you, if interested, because the guy who _did_ call out your mispronunciation just gave you further errors to take on.

In any case, if you or others want to know how to pronounce the name of the guy whose Wing Chun lineage you study, the audio has been provided. 

Spell it or explain it however you want, just try to say it how you hear it, if you care to. If not, never mind.


----------



## LFJ (May 15, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> Rènzhēn dì (Seriously)....
> 
> Pronunciations is an issue now.... give me a break..and yes, Leung Sheung was more a Mandarin pronunciation..... big deal...



No... but whatever. This is not a language forum, and not everyone seems to care, anyway. 

Unfortunately, though, because I think language is often essential to understanding the finer shades within TCMAs.

It really opens a new world of understanding to know directly what the creators of styles said in their own languages. Especially since Chinese is very expressive in ways that don't translate well to other languages.

Lots of misunderstanding has come from getting the wrong idea of some terminology, or by simply not receiving it. I've seen this happen in many TCMAs besides Wing Chun. People will totally misinterpret some actions in a form, when the old poems associated with the form tell you exactly what it's for!


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No... but whatever. This is not a language forum, and not everyone seems to care, anyway.
> 
> Unfortunately, though, because I think language is often essential to understanding the finer shades within TCMAs.
> 
> It really opens a new world of understanding to know directly what the creators of styles said in their own languages. Especially since Chinese is very expressive in ways that don't translate well to other languages.



agreed....but I still say Cantonese has to many words 



LFJ said:


> Lots of misunderstanding has come from getting the wrong idea of some terminology, or by simply not receiving it. I've seen this happen in many TCMAs besides Wing Chun. People will totally misinterpret some actions in a form, when the old poems associated with the form tell you exactly what it's for!



Yup, see Shen (as in Xīnshén 心神)..... translated to spirit...and then watch the misconceptions run on and on and on..... I cannot speak for Cantonese since I don't speak it, but I assume it Is the same since we are still talking China. What many do not understand is the Chinese have categories of things where we (in the USA anyway) have things we put in categories. Cow, bull, water buffalo are all related. To the Chinese they are all just different types of cows. Same with Shen.


----------



## mograph (May 15, 2017)

What were you guys talking about again?


----------



## Xue Sheng (May 15, 2017)

mograph said:


> What were you guys talking about again?



Nothing to see here, just off topic side discussions....just move along....

My apologies for contributing to the thread derailment


----------



## wckf92 (May 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> People will totally misinterpret some actions in a form, when the old poems associated with the form tell you exactly what it's for!



Can you explain this a bit further please? And if possible include an example? Thx!


----------



## Buka (May 15, 2017)

Being a native Bostonian, it starts like this.....

Three Wing Chun guys walk into a bah.


----------



## geezer (May 15, 2017)

Buka said:


> Being a native Bostonian, it starts like this.....
> ...Three Wing Chun guys walk into a bah.



I know that one!  --A Wing Chun guy walks into a bar...

...and says "Ouch!!!".


----------



## geezer (May 15, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Lots of misunderstanding has come from getting the wrong idea of some terminology, or by simply not receiving it. I've seen this happen in many TCMAs besides Wing Chun. People will totally misinterpret some actions in a form, when the old poems associated with the form tell you exactly what it's for!



On the other hand, many prominent  WC/VT practitioners are Cantonese speakers ....

....and they still disagree about almost everything.


----------



## JPinAZ (May 15, 2017)

Back to the subject of the OP, it's somewhat hard to comment on the different methods between the two lineages as demonstrated without knowing intended applications and principle/concept behind the application (if any exist beyond 'do the technique like this'). I can see reasons for doing it both ways. The first where you circle back before the line, that cold be to receive energy on the bridge while clearing the line and also raising to have leverage before going to laan.
Again, all depends on applications and the theory being demonstrated.

As for the small arm breaks (you call tok sau) in the second LS form, I can't see much application for that given there doesn't appear to be much leverage generated to break much of anything. But then, without knowing the application, it's hard to comment at all.


----------



## wingerjim (May 15, 2017)

geezer said:


> I know that one!  --A Wing Chun guy walks into a bar...
> 
> ...and says "Ouch!!!".


No it goes like this....So no sh!t I was in a bar when..........


----------



## wingerjim (May 15, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> For better or worse, here are some examples. This is the first video I have ever shared of myself on here, so… Please be gentle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting. Looks to me like the difference between an early Ip Man student and a later Ip Man student. Obviously Leung Sheung learned well before Ip Ching so it would be normal for two students who learned about 25 years apart to do things differently because Ip Man was know for evolving himself over time.


----------



## VPT (May 15, 2017)

Well actually, I am somewhat well versed in linguistics as well. I speak two Asian languages (Mandarin and Vietnamese) and study Cantonese on a casual level because Sinitic loanwords and stop finals, obviously. Duh.

And yes, I did make a silly mistake with saying Cantonese has no diphthongs (where did that even come about? Of course it has. I use words with it all the time: bui gim, cung ceoi, soeng zoeng and so on). Anyway, in my opinion you were being rather hostile, I recommend maybe having a beer or two to relax and chill out? It is also not acting _in bona fide _to to make belittling assumptions of the person you are talking with as you seem to have done.

Just for clarity, I will get back to the issue, but I don't really feel any need to get back to it anymore afterwards: 


LFJ said:


> The <eu> diphthong in Cantonese is not one that exists in English.
> 
> It starts like the <e> in "bed" and flows into the <u> in "lung".
> 
> So, his surname Leung is pronounced as if you were to say the English word "lung" with the <e> from "bed" before the <u>.



Both me and LFJ obviously know by now that in Yale romanization of Cantonese "eu" represents the sound of /œ/. Now, in the message quoted above he clearly says that there exists a *diphthong /eu/* in Cantonese (while there does not), which *glides from /e/ to /u/*, and gives instructions to pronunciation accordingly: */e/ before /u/*. I interpret that being an instruction to how to say a diphthong such as, say, "leuka" (/'leukɑ/, meaning "chin" in my native Finnish) instead of a monophthong such as /œ/ (e.g. /'lœ:ŋ/, "Leung/Loeng"). 

Here anyone can review the Yale romanization and the corresponding IPA sounds, to settle the argument: Yale romanization of Cantonese - Wikipedia I rest my case here and let the normal states of affair continue. Bring in the circles again!

Here's also the most vowel-to-consonants-ratio you must have ever seen in a word: HÄÄYÖAIE (/'hæ:ʔyø̯ʔɑije/)


----------



## LFJ (May 16, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Can you explain this a bit further please? And if possible include an example? Thx!



Well, for example, in a northern style I know, there's a double low palm action in a form that the poem literally says is supposed to push the waist while headbutting.

It would be used as an escape from a clinch type hold, to prevent knees and collapse the hips while hitting center and forcing the opponent back, followed by an action to break free from the arms.

But many people just do it standing upright as a double low palm strike, which does nothing and would be dangerous outside of close range, grappling context.

Problem is most people have never seen the old poem associated with the form. It is not passed on in many lineages, so the practical applications get lost by those who just practice the form, and the form is allowed to degenerate without guidance from the poem telling you what something is, and therefore how it should be performed and used.

Unfortunately, lots of kung fu in China has been reduced to dance because of this. You often have to go to remote villages where the forms originated to find people who still know the old poems.



geezer said:


> On the other hand, many prominent  WC/VT practitioners are Cantonese speakers ....
> 
> ....and they still disagree about almost everything.



In the case of Wing Chun, the problem is that much of the terminology is either ambiguous or borrowed from other southern styles and reinterpreted for Wing Chun, and this requires oral transmission of theory along with the terminology, because it's just not written down like older styles. 

Just having the actions and corresponding terms doesn't help much if no explanation was received. Easy for native speakers to come up with numerous contradictory interpretations of the same things due to the abstract nature of the system and often ambiguity of new or repurposed terminology.


----------



## LFJ (May 16, 2017)

VPT said:


> Now, in the message quoted above he clearly says that there exists a *diphthong /eu/* in Cantonese (while there does not), which *glides from /e/ to /u/*, and gives instructions to pronunciation accordingly: */e/ before /u/*. I interpret that being an instruction to how to say a diphthong such as, say, "leuka" (/'leukɑ/, meaning "chin" in my native Finnish) instead of a monophthong such as /œ/ (e.g. /'lœ:ŋ/, "Leung/Loeng").



The audio was provided. My explanation matches the sound that is natively produced.

As a casual learner, feel free to say it however you think is correct.


----------



## anerlich (May 16, 2017)

geezer said:


> Hey LFJ, don't be condescending.



Does he have a second gear?


----------



## wckf92 (May 16, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Well, for example, in a northern style I know, there's a double low palm action in a form that the poem literally says is supposed to push the waist while headbutting.
> 
> It would be used as an escape from a clinch type hold, to prevent knees and collapse the hips while hitting center and forcing the opponent back, followed by an action to break free from the arms.
> 
> ...



Thank you.
So, are you saying that wc/wt/vt forms originally came with corresponding poems? Are you referring to the kuen kuit? Or something else?
Do these still exist?


----------



## LFJ (May 16, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Thank you.
> So, are you saying that wc/wt/vt forms originally came with corresponding poems? Are you referring to the kuen kuit? Or something else?
> Do these still exist?



No, and that's part of the problem. Other older styles have writings that make things clear.
WC invents or repurposes terminology and _kyun-kyut_ from other styles, without written records.
Without the meanings clearly written down, it's anyone's guess and "everyone is correct".

Other TCMA styles have names for each individual action in their forms, but these names can sometimes be ambiguous or have their meanings encoded in poetic terms. But what they also have are associated poems that sing a song of the entire form and decode the poetic terms.

So like, "straddle the tiger" (跨虎 _kua hu_) may be the name of a posture in a form. People think it just refers to the stance, but poems reveal that it's code for "guard the hip" (护胯 _hu kua_) and has to do with the whole action; step, arms, facing. The different characters are homophones and reversed in order to encode the meaning.

Or like, "tiger holds head" (虎抱头 _hu bao tou_) which people think is some sort of headlock, but it's code for "protect the head" (保护头 _baohu tou_), which is a method of shielding with the arms around the head to deflect punches with the forearms and elbows. Again with the homophones and mixed order.

So, you can see how without the decoder, people are left with pretty names that they don't know the meanings of, and come up with all sorts of ideas based on incomplete information, and the practical applications get lost. Same thing happens in WC, but the real meanings of things are passed down orally, or not...


----------



## wckf92 (May 16, 2017)

LFJ said:


> No, and that's part of the problem. Other older styles have writings that make things clear.
> WC invents or repurposes terminology and _kyun-kyut_ from other styles, without written records.
> Without the meanings clearly written down, it's anyone's guess and "everyone is correct".
> 
> ...



I see. Wow. Interesting for sure. So, is this maybe the reason why, in a thread from months ago, we were all reading/discussing how WSL's pole form (and I guess YM's) was encapsulated within an older kung fu styles pole form? So to understand more about that example, we would need to learn more of that older kung fu styles poems (if they even exist) to "maybe" decode VT's pole methods and meanings?

I guess what I'm asking is: did WSL get passed some oral poems from YM? And, if so, did he write them down or did he pass them down orally to his students to ensure clearer understandings of the forms? I've never heard of this, just the kyun-kyut that some families have.
And TBH, some of the kyun-kyut are simply shallow and obvious and one wonders why they were ever created. i.e. "be fast with your fist"... well no sh1t! haha. As opposed to what?...


----------



## LFJ (May 16, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> So to understand more about that example, we would need to learn more of that older kung fu styles poems (if they even exist) to "maybe" decode VT's pole methods and meanings?



Well, the LDBG section was also embedded into a separate form from an outside source, so that particular _Hung-kyun_ system is kind of irrelevant. The LDBG just leads back to legendary figures. But the thing about that LDBG is that it is distinctly primitive compared to the rest. It's just basic spear methods, which in turn is just ancient Chinese warfare. It's really very simple. There's not much to it. It's basic stuff included in most spear methods of China.



> did WSL get passed some oral poems from YM? And, if so, did he write them down or did he pass them down orally to his students to ensure clearer understandings of the forms?



There are no poems for VT like other styles to my knowledge. The poems I'm talking about are much longer and more detailed than the _kyun-kyut_. It's a proper song of praise and description of the styles' strategy and tactics. I have read similar things in other lineages, but their origins are dubious.

What we have in WSLVT are a few short and common maxims, and of course the common terminology, the _sau_'s, but these can be easily misinterpreted if not instructed by someone who knows the meanings as they relate to fighting strategy and not what you're doing stuck to each other's arms in _chi-sau_.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 16, 2017)

JPinAZ said:


> Back to the subject of the OP, it's somewhat hard to comment on the different methods between the two lineages as demonstrated without knowing intended applications and principle/concept behind the application (if any exist beyond 'do the technique like this'). I can see reasons for doing it both ways. The first where you circle back before the line, that cold be to receive energy on the bridge while clearing the line and also raising to have leverage before going to laan.
> Again, all depends on applications and the theory being demonstrated.
> 
> As for the small arm breaks (you call tok sau) in the second LS form, I can't see much application for that given there doesn't appear to be much leverage generated to break much of anything. But then, without knowing the application, it's hard to comment at all.


 
I know what you mean about there being a reason beyond, "This is how we do it," And that being the end of the discussion. That is why I am always questioning. I have asked my LS Lineage teacher about EVERYTHING I can think of, mainly because LS is so different from Ip Ching lineage. He says, "There is a reason for everything. The most important thing is you understand the purpose behind each move."

So if I ask him why we do techniquie A in section B of the form, and he says "it's an arm break," he will actually show me how it is applied. And it works.

Well, what I mean by that is I SEE how it could work. I don't mean he actually breaks my arm!


----------



## wingchun100 (May 16, 2017)

wingerjim said:


> Thank you for posting. Looks to me like the difference between an early Ip Man student and a later Ip Man student. Obviously Leung Sheung learned well before Ip Ching so it would be normal for two students who learned about 25 years apart to do things differently because Ip Man was know for evolving himself over time.


 
Right, but...why wouldn't you pass on the new way of doing things to your old students? I know I would, especially if the student was my son!


----------



## wingerjim (May 19, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Right, but...why wouldn't you pass on the new way of doing things to your old students? I know I would, especially if the student was my son!


In some rare cases there are falling outs, in other cases the student may not like the new way, in other cases people are simply resistant to change. I know my teacher's teacher has shown new ways and we simply don't adopt them, while other we do. Just the way evolution of a martial art works.


----------



## JP3 (May 21, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> As for me, I believe in tackling the most difficult challenge first because it proves to me if I can conquer it, then I can most likely conquer anything.


From my Tomiki stuff, my instructor had a way of teaching kata. He deliberately selected the hardest possible variation of the technique to be the one to perform for kata demonstration.  His theory was that, "If you can learn that version, the other ones will be easy."

So far, 20 years into it... it's proving true.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 21, 2017)

JP3 said:


> From my Tomiki stuff, my instructor had a way of teaching kata. He deliberately selected the hardest possible variation of the technique to be the one to perform for kata demonstration.  His theory was that, "If you can learn that version, the other ones will be easy."
> 
> So far, 20 years into it... it's proving true.



I would have to agree with him too.


----------

