# Ho Kam Ming wing chun



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

Some people here on the forum study HKM/Augustine Fong wing chun. This is not a wing chun I have seen before. Can anyone explain what differentiates this wing chun from others (particularly WSL VT), and describe what is particularly good about it please? Any video showing what you mean would be useful.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 1, 2016)

I can't and wouldn't claim to speak for HKM (or any lineage) but I will share this: I recently met a HKM practitioner...and he had a solid understanding of WC, a good solid horse, properly aligned and pressured elbows, crisp forms and footwork, etc. It was a good encounter for sure and gave me a respect for him and his HKM lineage.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Some people here on the forum study HKM/Augustine Fong wing chun. This is not a wing chun I have seen before. Can anyone explain what differentiates this wing chun from others (particularly WSL VT), and describe what is particularly good about it please? Any video showing what you mean would be useful.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I respect WSL.There are good and bad and name droppers in all "lineages".I have been  doing Augustine Fong's version of wing chun since 1976. All my  shortcomings are mine. I have gone to Ho Kam ming seminars-
have visited with him and taken private lessons with him in Canada. I have met WSL in California and Texas and have rolled with him. I have rolled with Ho kam Ming, WSL, TST, Victor Kan, Hawkins Cheung and  my sifu and quite a few people from other lineages. I prefer what I do- why else would I do it?

Ho Kam Ming was as close to IP Man as anyone-but I try not to put down others who learned from IM.
What is characteristic of good HKM wing chun -IMO? You name it-foot work, handwork, precision, timing, control, power ,integrated structure, square bodied balancing,adjustment and more- the whole enchilada. I have some excellent sihings and sisters including Danny Chan. Van Iotti . Carinna, Brian Tufts and others.

Ip Man used to visit Ho Kam Ming's school in Macao and corrected folks there including my sifu.
Ho Kam Ming has had some good students including Augustine Fong, Luis Ming Fai (Macao and HK)
and Kiet Pham(Toronto). Sigung's oldest son and several of his wing chun brothers teach in Macao.
HKM is 90 years old and is basically retired.
.
There are several people who drop HKM's name but they really have not been consistent HKm students- just visitors. Many folks don't know- Hawkins Cheung used to hang around HKM's Macao school.
There was acontest to celebrate the formation of Hong Kong Martial arts association. Tang asked IP Man for fighters- IM directed him to HKM who provided the fighters and they all won. When Thai fighters first came to HK it wasa disaster for wc- but HKM sent fighters in the return engagement and the results were different.
 .
HKM is 90 years old and is basically retired.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 1, 2016)

Haven't studied HKM but have had the pleasure to have a couple of their practitioners train with us for a few sessions. Neither trained with HKM but were within the lineage. First one was a 30 something lady who told us she had been training for about 2 years. She was in our area for 2 weeks and came in to play. Stance & structure was excellent, her chi sao was very good. The second was a gentleman who if I remember correctly have been training for about 5 years. Solid structure, sensitivity was very good, movement smooth, relaxed, yet powerful. Their applications of the drills were a bit different and we all learned from each other. The most significant thing I found was neither were accustom to being hit but other than that what they had was good.


----------



## KPM (Jan 1, 2016)

Thanks Joy!   Please tell us....does HKM lineage teach that the empty hands are derived from the Pole?  Does HKM lineage teach that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow?  Does HKM lineage teach that looking at things from the forms as "applications" is wrong?   Does HKM lineage teach that the Chum Kiu and Biu Gee forms are completely separate?  Does HKM lineage teach that the knives are completely different than the empty hands? 

I met HKM only once.  I met Hawkins Cheung at the same seminar.  It was a long time ago and is all a "swirl" in my head now, since I was so in awe of who was there!


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> Thanks Joy!   Please tell us....does HKM lineage teach that the empty hands are derived from the Pole?  Does HKM lineage teach that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow?  Does HKM lineage teach that looking at things from the forms as "applications" is wrong?   Does HKM lineage teach that the Chum Kiu and Biu Gee forms are completely separate?  Does HKM lineage teach that the knives are completely different than the empty hands?



Why would you try to carry argument from one place to another?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I respect WSL.There are good and bad and name droppers in all "lineages".I have been  doing Augustine Fong's version of wing chun since 1976. All my  shortcomings are mine. I have gone to Ho Kam ming seminars-
> have visited with him and taken private lessons with him in Canada. I have met WSL in California and Texas and have rolled with him. I have rolled with Ho kam Ming, WSL, TST, Victor Kan, Hawkins Cheung and  my sifu and quite a few people from other lineages. I prefer what I do- why else would I do it?
> 
> ...



Thanks for your answer. Would you mind answering a few more questions please?

Can you explain the teaching progression in HKM wing chun and what each stage is aimed at developing? 

What do you feel are the main reasons for doing the different drills, e.g. dan chi sau, poon sau, chi sau, lap sau

What is intended to be developed by the various equipment you use, e.g. dummy, weapons

What is the main fighting strategy in HKM wing chun?

Is there anything that you feel is unique to HKM wing chun?

Do you have any good representative footage of HKM wing chun?


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Why would you try to carry argument from one place to another?


-----------------------------------------
I am not commenting on your or KPM \' comments. Enough for now


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Thanks for your answer. Would you mind answering a few more questions please?
> 
> Can you explain the teaching progression in HKM wing chun and what each stage is aimed at developing?
> 
> ...


-------------------------------------------------------------------
No one speaks for Masters Ho and Fong but they themselves. Fong sifu has a website-google- Fong wing chun federation- it has a section on curriculum and also a dictionary of terms.Luis Ming Fai and Kiet Pham have websites of their own. I have an old site at www.tempewingchun.com
Brian Tufts has some videos of wing chun  motions and mok jong and biu gee on the net.
you can google those.


----------



## KPM (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Why would you try to carry argument from one place to another?



Who's arguing?  I'm truly interested.  I have great respect for Master Ho.  I do believe that he is one of the people that Ip Man "gave a sh1t about" and one of the people that spent a lot of quality time with  Ip Man.  So if these are things that Master Ho teaches, I truly want to know!


----------



## geezer (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Some people here on the forum study HKM/Augustine Fong wing chun. This is not a wing chun I have seen before. Can anyone explain what differentiates this wing chun from others (particularly WSL VT), and describe what is particularly good about it please? Any video showing what you mean would be useful.





guy b. said:


> Thanks for your answer. Would you mind answering a few more questions please?
> 
> Can you explain the teaching progression in HKM wing chun and what each stage is aimed at developing?
> 
> ...



Holy moly! A few questions there Guy. Considering how much effort it would take to for Joy adequately address all that, maybe it would be better just to pay for some lessons.


----------



## geezer (Jan 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> Who's arguing?  I'm truly interested.  I have great respect for Master Ho.  I do believe that he is one of the people that Ip Man "gave a sh1t about" and one of the people that spent a lot of quality time with  Ip Man.  So if these are things that Master Ho teaches, I truly want to know!



IMO a fair question, but I can see why Guy spotted it as baiting him into an argument. Honestly folks, sometimes it's best to note your differences and then give it a rest. Another thread just got locked. lets not see that become regular a practice around here!

KPM, might I suggest a PM to Joy on this topic to let people cool off a bit?


----------



## Phobius (Jan 1, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> No one speaks for Masters Ho and Fong but they themselves. Fong sifu has a website-google- Fong wing chun federation- it has a section on curriculum and also a dictionary of terms.Luis Ming Fai and Kiet Pham have websites of their own. I have an old site at www.tempewingchun.com
> Brian Tufts has some videos of wing chun  motions and mok jong and biu gee on the net.
> you can google those.



Actually HKM peaks my interest now as well.

I do have one question for you. Whether or not you wish to answer is up to you.

Do you have a favorite video in mind (that you might want to link to me here or privately) that in your view best depicts HKM WC? Not speaking about some "sparring to prove its Worth" but more of a depiction of the essence whether it is a drill, documentary, images, whatnot, of HKM lineage. Just interested to have as a base for researching it further.

Would visit a club but given the crazy distance across seas to closest club would render that a big No for quite some time.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> No one speaks for Masters Ho and Fong but they themselves. Fong sifu has a website-google- Fong wing chun federation- it has a section on curriculum and also a dictionary of terms.Luis Ming Fai and Kiet Pham have websites of their own. I have an old site at www.tempewingchun.com
> Brian Tufts has some videos of wing chun  motions and mok jong and biu gee on the net.
> you can google those.



Ok thanks, will have a look.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

geezer said:


> Holy moly! A few questions there Guy. Considering how much effort it would take to for Joy adequately address all that, maybe it would be better just to pay for some lessons.



Those should be one or two word answers I would have thought. No more than a sentence. Should take about 2-5 minutes total?


----------



## geezer (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Those should be one or two word answers I would have thought. No more than a sentence. Should take about 2-5 minutes total?



OK you're on. Why not take "about 2-5 minutes total" and answer those same six questions with regard to the WSL VT that you practice?


----------



## LFJ (Jan 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Why would you try to carry argument from one place to another?



What did I say in that other thread? Part of his M.O..

Now, regarding HKM WC, it appears _jam-sau_ has also suffered the same fate in their lineage. It has completely disappeared.

The dichotomy between _taan_ elbow and _jam_ elbow is largely what the system makes use of for development of elbow behaviors in free fighting. As most of us know, _gaang-sau_ was added to SNT following one of WSL's fights where _jam-sau_ had failed and YM deciding that it should be introduced sooner than the dummy or _Biu-ji_ form. However, while WSL kept the important _jam-sau_ section, his contemporaries replaced it with the new _gaang-sau_ section.

As a result, _jam-sau_ seems to have disappeared entirely from their thinking, and this means that _taan-sau_ no longer has an opposing _jam-sau _to work with, which has led to various application ideas for the _taan-sau_ shape which have nothing to do with the original function in training. Their focus has shifted away from the elbow, forward to the wrist, and the wrist is now used as they stick, feel, and redirect with one hand and strike with the other. This fundamentally changes the way the system works, removing simultaneous attack and defense functions in a single limb, fully castrating the "cut the way" strategy, and ultimately resulting in a far less efficient method.

This is a major difference between WSL's VT and that of his contemporaries, and it seems HKM lineage is no exception.

Two videos below show Lui Ming Fai demonstrating _daan-chi-sau_, and we can see how his elbow pops out while his wrist drops to the level of the navel to redirect the incoming strike. In WSLVT, the _jam_ elbow comes in and forward to a punching position with hip connection and without dropping the wrist, then punches. It's broken up first to teach the elbow. Later, it turns into a single action. _Taan_ and _jam_ elbows are further developed in _pun-sau_ too, but this should be the first stage of their interaction... and yet it's missing.
Right side:




Left side:





In the last video, we can see how not only in their SNT form is the _jam-sau_ section missing, but throughout the form there is no _jam_ elbow at all. A result of this is then seen in their _seung-ma_ / _teui-ma_ drill where they are not using the _jam_ elbow because their focus is on their wrists. This means they aren't making the proper angle and their footwork is wrong, just moving back in a straight line.





With no _jam-sau_, the entire system falls apart! Nothing fits together in coherent stages for development. Lonely _taan-sau_, left to imagination, gets treated as a fighting technique. And the entire strategy is lost and replaced with sticky wrists.

This is one simple way to know if a system is broken in a YM lineage. Check if they are missing _jam-sau_ from the very beginning! If so, it pretty well guarantees they are going to have sticky wrists and fight with _taan-sau_.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 2, 2016)

geezer said:


> OK you're on. Why not take "about 2-5 minutes total" and answer those same six questions with regard to the WSL VT that you practice?



Because this thread is about Ho Kam Ming wing chun and most people (including yourself) are telling me you have heard enough about WSL VT?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 2, 2016)

LFJ said:


> What did I say in that other thread? Part of his M.O.



I hope not



> Now, regarding HKM WC, it appears _jam-sau_ has also suffered the same fate in their lineage. It has completely disappeared.
> 
> The dichotomy between _taan_ elbow and _jam_ elbow is largely what the system makes use of for development of elbow behaviors in free fighting. As most of us know, _gaang-sau_ was added to SNT following one of WSL's fights where _jam-sau_ had failed and YM deciding that it should be introduced sooner than the dummy or _Biu-ji_ form. However, while WSL kept the important _jam-sau_ section, his contemporaries replaced it with the new _gaang-sau_ section.
> 
> As a result, _jam-sau_ seems to have disappeared entirely from their thinking, and this means that _taan-sau_ no longer has an opposing _jam-sau _to work with, which has led to various application ideas for the _taan-sau_ shape which have nothing to do with the original function in training. Their focus has shifted away from the elbow, forward to the wrist, and the wrist is now used as they stick, feel, and redirect with one hand and strike with the other. This fundamentally changes the way the system works, removing simultaneous attack and defense functions in a single limb, fully castrating the "cut the way" strategy, and ultimately resulting in a far less efficient method.



Hmm, it does appear that jam sau is missing from these clips. Does anyone have any other clips of HKM line SNT or Dan Chi?

In terms of WSL VT missing jam sau would be as you describe above and the system would fail to function properly if at all. It is possible that HKM doesn't have the jam sau for a particular reason though, and that the system maintains coherence without it. If so then it would be great if someone from that line would explain how this works?



> In the last video, we can see how not only in their SNT form is the _jam-sau_ section missing, but throughout the form there is no _jam_ elbow at all. A result of this is then seen in their _seung-ma_ / _teui-ma_ drill where they are not using the _jam_ elbow because their focus is on their wrists. This means they aren't making the proper angle and their footwork is wrong, just moving back in a straight line.



In terms of WSL VT I agree with this analysis. Again perhaps HKM wing chun works in a different way?


----------



## Phobius (Jan 2, 2016)

LFJ said:


> What did I say in that other thread? Part of his M.O..
> 
> Now, regarding HKM WC, it appears _jam-sau_ has also suffered the same fate in their lineage. It has completely disappeared.



Thanks for descriptive post about what you consider to be strength in WSLVT and what you seek for in all arts.

Now as for the meaning of your comments. There are some differences introduced by WSL in Dan Chi Sao such as larger distance and higher aim compared to what I see with your videos that you linked. To be honest the differences between the two seem so great to me that neither could be considered the same drills.

I like the changes WSL did to Dan Chi Sao, as mentioned by David Peterson,





As for jam sao I agree it is removed from SLT from all but WSLVT, YM decided this. WSL brought it back to his own lineage if I dont missunderstand history completely. The problem I see with some teachers (not lineage specific) is that they think it better to start out slow by first doing SLT before moving on to the next form. By the time the student gets to touch the dummy and footwork he has already become too stiff in his ways. This is my opinion only.

But do not be so quick to judge. We cant know that jam sao is removed from these lineages by watching YouTube.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 2, 2016)

Phobius said:


> There are some differences introduced by WSL in Dan Chi Sao such as larger distance and higher aim compared to what I see with your videos that you linked.



I'm quite sure the only change he made was extending the distance. The other points were just bits of instruction on how the drill should have always been done. Aiming low with the vertical palm strike would have always been a mistake.



> To be honest the differences between the two seem so great to me that neither could be considered the same drills.



I agree, but I also think the same thing about the entire systems! As I said, without _jam-sau_ the whole system falls apart. Now, maybe others have picked up the pieces and made something else from it and have their reasoning, but it no longer effectively functions in the same way. A completely different type of fighter is developed.



> As for jam sao I agree it is removed from SLT from all but WSLVT, YM decided this. WSL brought it back to his own lineage if I dont missunderstand history completely.



I think what happened was that YM suggested using the _gaang-sau_ instead of the _jam-sau_ in the fight situation WSL found himself in, but WSL hadn't learned it yet because it was in the dummy and BJ form. So, YM decided to bring it into SNT to be learned earlier. Others took it upon themselves to replace the _jam-sau_ which had failed, with the "new" technique YM said would have worked, apparently for lack of foresight. They would have to not have understood the system yet and looked at it as just a collection of techniques. So they completely switched one for another based on someone else's fighting experience and not understanding YM's response. Taking _jam-sau_ out would kill the entire system from SNT onward. It is absolutely essential at every stage.



> The problem I see with some teachers (not lineage specific) is that they think it better to start out slow by first doing SLT before moving on to the next form. By the time the student gets to touch the dummy and footwork he has already become too stiff in his ways. This is my opinion only.



Are you saying that too much time is spent on SNT before moving on? I agree. It shouldn't take 1 year or more.



> But do not be so quick to judge. We cant know that jam sao is removed from these lineages by watching YouTube.



If the section is missing from their SNT, they drop the wrist in DCS, and move directly backward connected at the wrists in SM/TM drills, then it has been removed. They may have another action which they call _jam-sau_ and use it differently, but the _jam_ elbow opposite of _taan_ elbow is gone.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 2, 2016)

LFJ said:


> What did I say in that other thread? Part of his M.O..
> 
> Now, regarding HKM WC, it appears _jam-sau_ has also suffered the same fate in their lineage. It has completely disappeared.
> 
> ...



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry. You obviously dont know HKM wing chun and are generalizing subjectively. Jam sao is very alive and well in Ho Kam Ming wing chun.
But dont let me stop you from your orations,


----------



## LFJ (Jan 2, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry. You obviously dont know HKM wing chun and are generalizing subjectively. Jam sao is very alive and well in Ho Kam Ming wing chun.
> But dont let me stop you from your orations,



As I said in my last post, what you call _jam-sau_ is probably something quite different, where you are supposed to drop your wrist and ride the opponent's arm back to nullify it, as Lui Ming Fai did. If I'm wrong, do you mind explaining how it's supposed to work in HKM WC? At any rate, it does appear to be absent in the SNT that was presented.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 2, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry. You obviously dont know HKM wing chun and are generalizing subjectively. Jam sao is very alive and well in Ho Kam Ming wing chun.
> But dont let me stop you from your orations,



Please can you elaborate a bit about the HKM system and how it functions? Obviously it is different to WSL VT but this doesn't mean it doesn't work. However in order to understand it someone that knows about it will need to describe it, since it is not available to many people on this forum. 

I can see why responses from LFJ might be a bit annoying, but surely they should be easily answered in terms of the HKM system?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 2, 2016)

LFJ said:


> As I said in my last post, what you call _jam-sau_ is probably something quite different, where you are supposed to drop your wrist and ride the opponent's arm back to nullify it, as Lui Ming Fai did. If I'm wrong, do you mind explaining how it's supposed to work in HKM WC? At any rate, it does appear to be absent in the SNT that was presented.



I guess it would be taught at a later point in the system in HKM wing chun? Hearing how this works from a HKM person would be useful in understanding it.


----------



## geezer (Jan 2, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry. You obviously dont know HKM wing chun and are generalizing subjectively. Jam sao is very alive and well in Ho Kam Ming wing chun.
> But dont let me stop you from your orations,



I have to agree with Joy completely here. 

I've only had the briefest exposure to the HKW - Augustine Fong lineage through some people in the Phoenix area, but I can affirm that they use  _jum sau_ quite effectively, although differently than what I practice. I train WC deriving from the LT branch, and we use a elbow heavy _jum sau_ in SNY and Dan Chi, Poon sau, Lat Sau drills, sparring and so on. It is a _core_ technique. For Guy and LFJ to go on and on in this back and forth conversation about how nobody but WSL has _jum sau _in their SNT, etc. is like watching the blind leading the blind.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I guess it would be taught at a later point in the system in HKM wing chun? Hearing how this works from a HKM person would be useful in understanding it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
You can do your version of wsl wing chun, I donr  but I dont care to criticize it. I dont know  LFJ, I doubt that he had sustained teaching by WSL. He does not know HKM wing chun for sure,,,,takes things.out of context in videos.

FYI- HKM started in wing chun a little later than WSL but he was consitent and regular and he did more chi sao with Ip Man than anyone. Of course he knew the jam sao and its uses well. Now, in chi sao including dan chi sao-proper timing and elbow adjustments and structure are important. For controlling strike from fok you can do several things.
You can jam. or jut .but jut creates an easier path to  target.

I was busy teaching and I am not a slave of  a chit chat site.


----------



## geezer (Jan 2, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ...I am not a slave of  a chit chat site.



Best comment I've read in a long time!


----------



## Phobius (Jan 2, 2016)

Besides, videos show basic dan chi sao drill, those are done with jut sao. LFJ must be confusing jut and jam.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 2, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Are you saying that too much time is spent on SNT before moving on? I agree. It shouldn't take 1 year or more.



Yes, that is my opinion. Not about starting with SNT but rather that some teachers think it best to keep a student doing it for far too long before moving on. After all the true understanding of the idea comes first later when other forms are more clear.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 2, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
> You can do your version of wsl wing chun, I donr  but I dont care to criticize it. I dont know  LFJ, I doubt that he had sustained teaching by WSL. He does not know HKM wing chun for sure,,,,takes things.out of context in videos.
> 
> FYI- HKM started in wing chun a little later than WSL but he was consitent and regular and he did more chi sao with Ip Man than anyone. Of course he knew the jam sao and its uses well. Now, in chi sao including dan chi sao-proper timing and elbow adjustments and structure are important. For controlling strike from fok you can do several things.
> ...



Please conider further explaining you wing chun. I have no desire to attack you, merely interested to understand it


----------



## guy b. (Jan 2, 2016)

geezer said:


> Best comment I've read in a long time!



Aren't you some kind of moderator here? If so why so biased?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 2, 2016)

In the Jiu Wan lineage we have jam sao and in don chi sao one can jam or one can jut.


----------



## Eric_H (Jan 2, 2016)

> As I said, without _jam-sau_ the whole system falls apart



That's one magical technique.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 2, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> That's one magical technique.


It's Wing Chun - They are All Magical!!


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 2, 2016)

Danny T said:


> In the Jiu Wan lineage we have jam sao and in don chi sao one can jam or one can jut.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Understandable!


----------



## geezer (Jan 2, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Aren't you some kind of moderator here? If so why so biased?



I may be a "mentor"_ ...but I'm not a slave of this chit-chat site! _


----------



## geezer (Jan 2, 2016)

I find it sounds _ ...narrow minded_ to describe other lineages approaches in terms of "right" and "wrong" as LFJ did in post #17. In the WC I trained, we also did dan-chi differently than what is shown in those clips, and we always use a jum sau, not a jut sau. Our method is directed at training very specific attributes. The method shown in those videos (and that I've experienced crossing bridges with a student of the HKM - A.Fong lineage) seems to train different attributes.

"Different" does not equal "wrong" in my judgement. Now of course, each of us chooses what we train based on our estimation of what we think works the best for us (among other things). But that doesn't make everyone else wrong!

_Now check this out:_ A young girl performing  the Leung Ting lineage SNT from the early 80's. Jum sau is present in two sections. Notice the double _jum-sau_ after the double _lan-sau _movement at 1:18, and then the single jum-sau movement after the tan-sau at 1:39 and on the other side at 1:49.






Now a look at Lt's WT version of dan-chi: You will notice that the basic dan-chi beginning at 12:52 is a very linear exercise that does not move up and down to the degree that you see in the examples previously posted by LFJ of the HKM lineage.






BTW, like LFJ, LT was also quick to judge other WC branches as _wrong_ (see the guys in the "I'm Wrong" T-shirts in the clip at around 13:48?). He was also fond of the words _stupid_ and _idiotic_ to describe other branches. Is it any wonder that he is so beloved in the WC community? A shame, because he did have a very interesting perspective on WC, one that I feel has importance. Unfortunately, many people find it hard to look beyond his personality and business practices to see these contributions.


----------



## KPM (Jan 2, 2016)

Good points Steve.  And just to remind people of a little "history".....Leung Ting claims to be the last "closed door" student of Ip Man before Ip Man died.  As far as who Ip Man may have "given a sh1t about"....Leung Ting has photos of Ip Man training him on the dummy, photos of Ip Man attending his wedding, photos of Ip Man attending a demonstration put on by Leung Ting's students, and many other photos. In fact, many of the photos of Ip Man that have circulating about were likely from Leung Ting's collection.  The 8mm footage of Ip Man going through the forms not long before his death I believe are from Leung Ting's collection.  Just a little historical footnote.  Carry on.  ;-)


----------



## LFJ (Jan 2, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> FYI- HKM started in wing chun a little later than WSL but he was consitent and regular and he did more chi sao with Ip Man than anyone. Of course he knew the jam sao and its uses well.



Not sure how you're going to substantiate that claim, but whatever... 
What are the uses of _jam-sau_ in this lineage then?



> Now, in chi sao including dan chi sao-proper timing and elbow adjustments and structure are important. For controlling strike from fok you can do several things.
> You can jam. or jut .but jut creates an easier path to  target.



So, in DCS you're trying to control their strike? 

For us, we're not thinking about opponents yet. We are just using each other's arms to develop our own elbow behavior. It's an abstract drill, coming from SNT, preparing for _pun-sau_ and other drills to systematically develop this idea.
_
Jat _is not an opening action to me, and _jat_ and then punch is two steps. Not an easier path to target than _jam_, which to me describes the elbow of a direct punch. The idea is to be able to maintain striking while protecting ourselves with the elbow. It is the most efficient way.



Danny T said:


> In the Jiu Wan lineage we have jam sao and in don chi sao one can jam or one can jut.



How is your _jam-sau_ done and what is it supposed to accomplish? Why _jat _in DCS?


----------



## LFJ (Jan 3, 2016)

@geezer

As I have observed in other lineages, what they call _jam-sau_ is an action whereby the forearm is used to sink down on the opponent's arm as a block. Rather than the elbow coming in and forward, it is the distal end of the forearm that does the job. Often the wrist drops low (as in LT's SNT after _laan-sau_) because the mind is more in the distal than proximal end of the forearm.

It has nothing to do with punching. Even when they have something they call _jam-sau_, it is the idea of _jam_ elbow for punch training that is missing in other lineages. This means each stage of development that should be using this idea, instead has it replaced with techniques like _jat-sau_, and on the opposite end, _taan-sau_ gets treated as a fighting technique as well. This is because the interaction between _taan_ and _jam_ elbows is missing! As a result, the entire system loses its coherence and becomes about techniques.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> How is your _jam-sau_ done and what is it supposed to accomplish? Why _jat _in DCS?


Jam intercepts and cuts his vector while maintain the line or as it continues forward into a strike. Jut redirects the opponents arm downward and away from his body causing a change in his center of gravity as it opens the line to his middle gate. In DCS it is also used to help teach the attacker to release the tension in his arm as it is been redirected so it can't be used against him. One cuts across the vector the other causes the body to come forward two different affects.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Jam intercepts and cuts his vector while maintain the line or as it continues forward into a strike. Jut redirects the opponents arm downward and away from his body causing a change in his center of gravity as it opens the line to his middle gate. In DCS it is also used to help teach the attacker to release the tension in his arm as it is been redirected so it can't be used against him. One cuts across the vector the other causes the body to come forward two different affects.



Danny T, I don't understand why you would jut the palm in dan chi? Can you explain what this is training?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

geezer said:


> I find it sounds _ ...narrow minded_ to describe other lineages approaches in terms of "right" and "wrong" as LFJ did in post #17. In the WC I trained, we also did dan-chi differently than what is shown in those clips, and we always use a jum sau, not a jut sau. Our method is directed at training very specific attributes. The method shown in those videos (and that I've experienced crossing bridges with a student of the HKM - A.Fong lineage) seems to train different attributes.



It would be great if everyone could get over whatever annoyance they feel about WSL people telling them what is right and wrong. Obviously any such talk is entirely _from the perspective of WSL VT!_ Which is the only perspective you have when you practice WSL VT.

The particular WSL VT people that caused you problems on the KFM forum are not here at the moment. I would like it if you would treat me as me rather than as an extension of K Gledhill or G Handbury. I am me, not them.

It would be so much more productive if, instead of perceiving every WSL VT idea presented as a direct attack, people could instead use it as an opportunity to talk about what they do differently and why. This is the discussion that is worth having and that is interesting. If we avoid doing this then why bother to have a wing chun forum at all?

I don't understand why Danny T juts in dan chi sau, so I have asked him. I don't bear him any ill will for his jut in dan chi sau but I would like to understand his reason for doing it, what it is aimed at training, what he thinks of jam vs jut, and so on.

I only wish that others would respond in a similar way to such questions. Please do not feel defensive, questioning is motivated by curiosity not a desire to attack. Obviously everyone here is training a version of wing chun that they feel is the best available to them at the present time. LFJ has presented a pretty clear picture of why WSL VT uses a jam not a jut. It isn't secret knowledge and it isn't aimed at making anyone else look stupid. It just is what it is. If you do it differently or the same then please, at least consider talking about it and the thinking behind it. Otherwise why are we here?



> "Different" does not equal "wrong" in my judgement. Now of course, each of us chooses what we train based on our estimation of what we think works the best for us (among other things). But that doesn't make everyone else wrong!



Different can of course be wrong from our own perspective. But it is only from our own perspective. If you are happy doing whatever you are doing then what's the problem if I think it is wrong? Why be so terrified of disagreement? Why would you care if LFJ sounds a bit narrow minded to you (sounds like narrow minded = being sure you are right)- I'm sure pretty much all of us are sure we are right or we would be in the process of changing to something else! it's just a forum for exploring ideas. Please help us explore them.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Understandable!



As I understand it you are the only HKM person here. Please consider discussing the deail of your wing chun, perhaps in relation to the jam/jut question, or perhaps in another way. Not participating doesn't accomplish anything for you, me or anyone else that is here on this forum. I bear you no ill will and I am only motivated by a desire to understand HKM wing chun, which is a line I have not had the chance to experience before.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> LFJ has presented a pretty clear picture of why WSL VT uses a jam not a jut.



To further explain why a _jat-sau_ should not be used in DCS;

_Taan_ and _fuk_ are neutral elbows, pre-striking positions. Nothing has happened yet. If you _jat _the attack, your elbow will be coming back from the "fixed position" as you drop your wrist. This is creating an idea of waiting, feeling, and blocking rather than attacking the attack, and would be hand chasing.

Instead, _jam_ elbow comes in and then forward to punch. Later this becomes one smooth punching action with the principle of _lin-siu-daai-da_, defending with the elbow as we strike– not bringing the elbow back first. This also doesn't rely on pre-contact to work. We must always keep the free-fighting end goal in mind, and not get stuck with sticking ideas. DCS teaches elbow control, not sticking.

Using _jat_ from _fuk-sau_ in DCS would be premature. _Jat-sau_ comes in later as a means to clear the line and continue an interrupted attack. That is, we punch, it gets interrupted, we _jat_ from the elbow down and back to open the line for continued attack. In SNT, we first extend a double _taan_ in order to _jat_ back from an extended and interrupted position. It would be better to _jat_ the _bong-sau _that has interrupted our punch so that we may continue, rather than to _jat_ an opening attack from a neutral position.

For these reasons, using _jat_ from _fuk-sau_ in DCS would be violating multiple VT principles and creating bad habits at an early stage in development.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 3, 2016)

geezer said:


> I may be a "mentor"_ ...but I'm not a slave of this chit-chat site! _





LFJ said:


> @geezer
> 
> As I have observed in other lineages, what they call _jam-sau_ is an action whereby the forearm is used to sink down on the opponent's arm as a block. Rather than the elbow coming in and forward, it is the distal end of the forearm that does the job. Often the wrist drops low (as in LT's SNT after _laan-sau_) because the mind is more in the distal than proximal end of the forearm.
> 
> It has nothing to do with punching. Even when they have something they call _jam-sau_, it is the idea of _jam_ elbow for punch training that is missing in other lineages. This means each stage of development that should be using this idea, instead has it replaced with techniques like _jat-sau_, and on the opposite end, _taan-sau_ gets treated as a fighting technique as well. This is because the interaction between _taan_ and _jam_ elbows is missing! As a result, the entire system loses its coherence and becomes about techniques.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The elbow plays a crucial role in my jam

BTW-Master Ho is  my sigung.Master Fong is my sifu.


----------



## KPM (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It would be great if everyone could get over whatever annoyance they feel about WSL people telling them what is right and wrong. Obviously any such talk is entirely _from the perspective of WSL VT!_ Which is the only perspective you have when you practice WSL VT.
> 
> The particular WSL VT people that caused you problems on the KFM forum are not here at the moment. I would like it if you would treat me as me rather than as an extension of K Gledhill or G Handbury. I am me, not them.
> 
> ...



There is an interesting concept called "tact."   Please look it up.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Danny T, I don't understand why you would jut the palm in dan chi? Can you explain what this is training?


Jut the palm?
Jut the pressure... And as I stated already; "Jut redirects the opponents arm downward and away from his body causing a change in his center of gravity as it opens the line to his middle gate."
In Jut the elbow doesn't come back, elbow maintains as the wrist drops If the attacker doesn't let go of the tension in his arm on the punch his body will be drawn forward and off balance as well as clearing the line. His body is trapped through his arm. In the chi sao game if he releases the tension the arm is simply redirected with no loss of body positioning and can respond to the following punch attack by the forward screwing action of the bong or tan depending on the pressure presented by the punch.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

Please see response below


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Jut the palm?
> Jut the pressure... And as I stated already; "Jut redirects the opponents arm downward and away from his body causing a change in his center of gravity as it opens the line to his middle gate."
> In Jut the elbow doesn't come back, elbow maintains as the wrist drops If the attacker doesn't let go of the tension in his arm on the punch his body will be drawn forward and off balance as well as clearing the line. His body is trapped through his arm. In the chi sao game if he releases the tension the arm is simply redirected with no loss of body positioning and can respond to the following punch attack by the forward screwing action of the bong or tan depending on the pressure presented by the punch.



Ok, what are you aiming to develop with the dan chi sau drill when you jut?

How would you use jut when not drilling? I would tend to use when my arm encounters an obstacle in attack. Jut then clears the way allowing continuance of attack. From what you say it sounds as if you tend to use it as a block?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The elbow plays a crucial role in my jam
> 
> BTW-Master Ho is  my sigung.Master Fong is my sifu.



Can you elaborate on this please?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

KPM said:


> There is an interesting concept called "tact."   Please look it up.



If you are still angry and feeling sensitive then this post is particularly directed towards you.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 3, 2016)

Danny T said:


> In Jut the elbow doesn't come back, elbow maintains as the wrist drops



The question is why _jat_ in response to an opening attack from a neutral position? Are you assuming pre-contact in such a position? If you try to _jat_ like this to an opening action and miss? Your wrist drops and leaves a gap for you to be hit. This is why we learn elbow control; because it has natural limits and can't overshoot or cross center like the hand can. That's a problem with actions led by the wrist.



> In the chi sao game if he releases the tension the arm is simply redirected with no loss of body positioning and can respond to the following punch attack



And if that happens in free fighting, you've dropped your wrist out of a punch-ready position taking your arm momentarily out of commission just as much as the opponent's arm while not having accomplished anything. Should have been attacking.

If we use the _jam_ elbow to strike forward, we don't lose position. The punch either lands or it gets interrupted, but we have ways to handle that. That's where _jat_ may come in, after the strike has already been extended and interrupted. We are able to respond immediately without thought to sustain our flow of attack because we were attacking to start with, not trying to control arms as an opening response. Attack attack attack!


----------



## Danny T (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Ok, what are you aiming to develop with the dan chi sau drill when you jut?
> 
> How would you use jut when not drilling? I would tend to use when my arm encounters an obstacle in attack. Jut then clears the way allowing continuance of attack. From what you say it sounds as if you tend to use it as a block?


In DCS it is a response to the opponent's movement Jut intercepts the movement and yes clears the way through the displacement of the opponent's arm (redirected as previously stated above) as well as bringing the opponent into to my attack. It is a multi-affect counter-attacking move and like most all actions, is mostly offensive.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> The question is why _jat_ in response to an opening attack from a neutral position? Are you assuming pre-contact in such a position? If you try to _jat_ like this to an opening action and miss? Your wrist drops and leaves a gap for you to be hit. This is why we learn elbow control; because it has natural limits and can't overshoot or cross center like the hand can. That's a problem with actions led by the wrist.


I was answering your question in #40 that was; “Why _jat _in DCS?” 
Where is the opening attack in DCS? Is the opening a jut or a jam or is the opponent attacking or both? And in DSC we are in contact. It seems from your questions you doing DCS differently from what we do? Or, maybe you are attempt to lead through the questions to something?



LFJ said:


> And if that happens in free fighting, you've dropped your wrist out of a punch-ready position taking your arm momentarily out of commission just as much as the opponent's arm while not having accomplished anything. Should have been attacking.
> 
> If we use the _jam_ elbow to strike forward, we don't lose position. The punch either lands or it gets interrupted, but we have ways to handle that. That's where _jat_ may come in, after the strike has already been extended and interrupted. We are able to respond immediately without thought to sustain our flow of attack because we were attacking to start with, not trying to control arms as an opening response. Attack attack attack!


Ok. 
Why are you assuming we don't? Why are you assuming we lead off attempting to snap a jut on an attackers punch? Where are you getting these assumptions?


----------



## KPM (Jan 3, 2016)

guy b. said:


> If you are still angry and feeling sensitive then this post is particularly directed towards you.



I'm not the whining, demanding that people respond to my questions, or acting clueless when he discovers that people don't want to actually discuss things with you.  ;-)


----------



## LFJ (Jan 3, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Where is the opening attack in DCS?



_Fuk-sau_ and _taan-sau_ are neutral positions in DCS. The vertical palm strike is the opening attack. Your response to the opening attack from a neutral position is to drop your wrist on it, rather than to attack back. 



> Why are you assuming we lead off attempting to snap a jut on an attackers punch? Where are you getting these assumptions?



How does your DCS relate to free fighting then? You are assuming pre-contact from a neutral position in free fighting? I don't understand what exactly you're trying to develop by doing _jat-sau _from this position. I don't see the reason to _jat_. Why not attack directly?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> _Fuk-sau_ and _taan-sau_ are neutral positions in DCS. The vertical palm strike is the opening attack. Your response to the opening attack from a neutral position is to drop your wrist on it, rather than to attack back.


Interesting. 
Can you not attack from your Fuk? Can't jut cut his bong motion? 




LFJ said:


> How does your DCS relate to free fighting then? You are assuming pre-contact from a neutral position in free fighting? I don't understand what exactly you're trying to develop by doing _jat-sau _from this position. I don't see the reason to _jat_. Why not attack directly?


No.
What happens in free fighting you attack, he attacks and he has a better and stronger position? You just continue your attack anyway? 

Contact happens because of intercepting or because of the attack. 
Sometimes you simple miss the timing on the attack and can only defend. We don't want that to happen but it does. There is the theory, the plan, and the reality. We train both in DCS and SCS. We train attack, defensive attacking, counter-attacking. Never just attack with disregard for what if. The what if is programmed through the drills and chi sao practice. The other person is not going to just attempt to defend or stand there taking your attack, they will be attacking also. But you know that so all your training is simply to attack, attack, attack at all cost? No I'm certain you also train and practice the skills to break off an attack or to adjust your positioning and then continue to attack or even god forbid yield due to the other having or being in superior position. Either way Jam is a good move as well is Jut, play with it. If you don't like it or don't feel it is for you - Ok. It's all good.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

KPM said:


> I'm not the whining, demanding that people respond to my questions, or acting clueless when he discovers that people don't want to actually discuss things with you.  ;-)



edited; pointless.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 3, 2016)

LFJ said:


> @geezer
> 
> As I have observed in other lineages, what they call _jam-sau_ is an action whereby the forearm is used to sink down on the opponent's arm as a block. Rather than the elbow coming in and forward, it is the distal end of the forearm that does the job. Often the wrist drops low (as in LT's SNT after _laan-sau_) because the mind is more in the distal than proximal end of the forearm.
> 
> It has nothing to do with punching. Even when they have something they call _jam-sau_, it is the idea of _jam_ elbow for punch training that is missing in other lineages. This means each stage of development that should be using this idea, instead has it replaced with techniques like _jat-sau_, and on the opposite end, _taan-sau_ gets treated as a fighting technique as well. This is because the interaction between _taan_ and _jam_ elbows is missing! As a result, the entire system loses its coherence and becomes about techniques.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 3, 2016)

I can jut sao or jam sao against an incoming strike in dahn chi sao.
More often I use the jut. And I can strike from jut.

The timing and structural dynamics learned in dahn chi sao can be applied and used in real fighting if one knows what they are doing and understand incoming forces. openings, timing and control of ones actions.

Dahn chi sao is not fighting-it is for development of key attributes. The distinction between development and application helps understand many things in the martial arts and even in boxing.
The peanut speed bag helps develop some attributes. Applying the lessons learned is different.

As folks get further down the line from good sifus-they can get dogmatic. Seems to be the case with a couple of folks here. Gets boring.


----------



## yak sao (Jan 3, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> As folks get further down the line from good sifus-they can get dogmatic. Seems to be the case with a couple of folks here. Gets boring.



I agree. This forum has spiraled downward in recent months.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 3, 2016)

I'd also add in response to the remarks about something not being in a form.
Form is the reference material. Especially true of SLT. Just because something isn't in form doesn't mean it isn't in the system or the training. In wing chun as I learned it just because something is in one form but not in another doesn't mean it isn't applicable within the understanding nor relate or enhance other aspects of the system. All are interrelated Drills that develop attributes are drills not fighting. I've said it several times in other threads; F-D-A, Forms - Drills - Applications and the applications may not look like the form or the drills.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> I can jut sao or jam sao against an incoming strike in dahn chi sao.
> More often I use the jut. And I can strike from jut.



So when you jut in dan chi are you training to jut and deflect as a first reaction to pressure from contact? 



> The timing and structural dynamics learned in dahn chi sao can be applied and used in real fighting if one knows what they are doing and understand incoming forces. openings, timing and control of ones actions.



I don't think I do understand. Can you be more specific please? Which forces do you apply in dan chi sau?



> Dahn chi sao is not fighting-it is for development of key attributes.



This is useful; which attributes are you developing in dan chi sau?



> The distinction between development and application helps understand many things in the martial arts and even in boxing.
> The peanut speed bag helps develop some attributes. Applying the lessons learned is different.



I agree. The first step is understanding what the lessons are! If different lines of wing chun are to understand each other then a discussion of what these differences are is essential. 



> As folks get further down the line from good sifus-they can get dogmatic. Seems to be the case with a couple of folks here. Gets boring.



I think that varies from person to person, nothing really to do with how close to a particular teacher a person is. All teachers had teachers and teachers teachers.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 3, 2016)

yak sao said:


> I agree. This forum has spiraled downward in recent months.



Then participate in order to improve it


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Jan 3, 2016)

Hi there,

There's HKM video that perked my interest and curiosity. Maybe Vajramusti can help, but I totally get and respect what he have been saying in terms of responding to the hundreds of questions people have. 

Anyway, in this youtube clip, there are people training in a room doing SNT etc. All appear to be Chinese. HKM is sitting down and there is a lady sitting in front of him. She appears to holding a tan sau out. He is holding her tan sau from the under side of her forearm as I remember. They appear to be just holding this position for a long time. I wonder what they are doing. It looks like internal training of some kind which I am highly interested in.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Jan 3, 2016)

Oh found it! Here it is:


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 3, 2016)

He is directing the steady motion of the elbow along the right path- among other things


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Interesting.
> Can you not attack from your Fuk? Can't jut cut his bong motion?



That's what I'm saying you should do. Yet you are instead using a defensive action, i.e. not a strike, responding by dropping your wrist on the opening attack from the partner. This seems to be because you don't have the same _jam_ elbow idea for punching to attack the attack. Even when you _jam_, from your description it sounds as if you are still thinking block to gain position, then strike. It's two steps against the opponent's one strike. At least my VT is not designed to work like that. The _lin-siu-daai-da_ principle means we defend with the elbow while striking in one action. The most efficient way = VT thinking.



> What happens in free fighting you attack, he attacks and he has a better and stronger position? You just continue your attack anyway?



Yes, by means of a helping action like _jat_, _paak_, or _bong_ depending on what happened. I find many people will use these helping actions prematurely, as an opening response, or even looking to attack an arm to create an entry when they should just be punching. This is because they lack the _taan_ and _jam_ elbow ideas for striking which allow us to defend the central line with the elbow as we strike; _lin-siu-daai-da_ principle with a single arm. Missing from the thinking of many.

What I'm saying is, _jat-sau_ is used from an extended position where it is okay to sharply jerk slightly down and back from the elbow because it puts us in a next-hit position to sustain attack. The punches at the end of SNT have an element of _jat_ to them on the recycle as the line is cleared for the following punch.

To _jat_ from a neutral position would mean either the elbow comes back from the "fixed position", or as you do it, you are forced to keep your elbow in place and drop the wrist. This not only lacks jolting power by not using the elbow, but also ruins the hit-ready position by dropping the wrist too low and creating a gap. A problem with wrist-led actions is that there is no natural limit and it is easy to overshoot or cross center in high stress situations, whereas the elbow doesn't have such risks due to natural limits. That's why we focus so much on the elbow; to reduce chances of error and to remove the necessity to think at high speeds.

DCS is _taan_ elbow vs _jam_ elbow; strike vs strike. We learn elbow to center and strike. Comes from pole fighting methods. But many don't have this idea, and instead block then punch (2 moves) in response to the partner's palm (1 move). Inefficient, not VT thinking.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> The timing and structural dynamics learned in dahn chi sao can be applied and used in real fighting if one knows what they are doing and understand incoming forces. openings, timing and control of ones actions.
> 
> Dahn chi sao is not fighting-it is for development of key attributes. The distinction between development and application helps understand many things in the martial arts and even in boxing.



What key attributes are you developing by doing _jat-sau_ in particular in DCS? It sounds as if you are training timing, control, etc. as it pertains specifically to _jat-sau_ as a technique against an incoming strike, as a controlling action.

For us, we are training something abstract and related to the core strategy of the system; i.e. elbow control for _lin-siu-daai-da_ capabilities in a single arm. Not a block, not a stick and control technique.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)

Danny T said:


> I'd also add in response to the remarks about something not being in a form.
> Form is the reference material. Especially true of SLT. Just because something isn't in form doesn't mean it isn't in the system or the training.



The point is not whether it's in a form or not. It's that if the idea of the _jam_ elbow is missing from SNT, it pretty well guarantees it's missing in DCS, SCS, and the entire fighting strategy of the system. That's even if there is a _jam-sau_ action but with a different interpretation, as long as it's missing the elbow idea of _lin-siu-daai-da_.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 4, 2016)

All this over jam sau


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> All this over jam sau



Yeah, the thread has drifted from HKM to Jam/DCS.  We should have a "thread drifting off topic" button! This jam vs jut topic would have made for a great separate thread.
IMO and IME, the issue being discussed has a little to do with semantics, a little to do with kool-aid, and a lot to do with how each of us / WC lineages view DCS and its meaning and underlying fundamentals being trained.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 4, 2016)

The thread has deteriorated to just noise and is a waste of time- mine anyway.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That's what I'm saying you should do. Yet you are instead using a defensive action, i.e. not a strike, responding by dropping your wrist on the opening attack from the partner. This seems to be because you don't have the same _jam_ elbow idea for punching to attack the attack. Even when you _jam_, from your description it sounds as if you are still thinking block to gain position, then strike. It's two steps against the opponent's one strike. At least my VT is not designed to work like that. The _lin-siu-daai-da_ principle means we defend with the elbow while striking in one action. The most efficient way = VT thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is an excellent post outlining the way that WSL VT works. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

It would be great if others could similarly explain the core concepts in their wing chun


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> All this over jam sau



Is jam sau not importantant in CSL wing chun?


----------



## Danny T (Jan 4, 2016)

Jam and jut, as been stated a couple of times, the way we use them can be used offensively, defensively, or in combination. It can be a dual purpose or single use in concert with opposite arm. If others don't it's all good. As far as I am concerned it works and that is a good thing.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> The thread has deteriorated to just noise and is a waste of time- mine anyway.



LFJ is the only person on this thread who has bothered to post specifics of the system he practices, which happens to be WSL VT. 

If you find what he is saying to be just noise then why not post specifics of the HKM/Augustine Fong wing chun and steer the thread in a direction which you find to be information dense and not a waste of time? Just complaining about it seems a bit pointless, especially when the thread was made to discuss the HKM system which most of us have no knowledge of, beyond available youtube clips.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> The thread has deteriorated to just noise and is a waste of time- mine anyway.



Right, I would think it'd be more a waste of time to only give short, vague responses and then post to say your fingers are stuck in your ears now.

Why not address the issues I've raised and taken the time to give my perspective on? Unless you don't disagree with my points, explain how your method works.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 4, 2016)

For me, LFJ's and Guy's posts about Jut / Jam / Pole etc have helped me to understand where they (WSLVT) are coming from. So for that, their explanations and ideas, whether different or not from my own, are appreciated. Would love to see a WSLVT Pole form video if anyone has one.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Would love to see a WSLVT Pole form video if anyone has one.



Posted in "Pole both sides?" thread.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Posted in "Pole both sides?" thread.



Thanks dude


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Jam and jut, as been stated a couple of times, the way we use them can be used offensively, defensively, or in combination. It can be a dual purpose or single use in concert with opposite arm. If others don't it's all good. As far as I am concerned it works and that is a good thing.



Thanks for taking the time to explain how your wing chun works. With the jut in dan chi it obviously works differently to WSL VT, but you have explained why and how you do it and the logic makes sense to me.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Right, I would think it'd be more a waste of time to only give short, vague responses and then post to say your fingers are stuck in your ears now.
> 
> Why not address the issues I've raised and taken the time to give my perspective on? Unless you don't disagree with my points, explain how your method works.



Indeed, why not? I have seen people withdraw completely from forum posting before due to arguments, being sick of repeating, personality clashes and so on. But I have never seen someone remain but be unwilling to post anything beyond what appear to be qute opaque or very general statements.

Personally I don't feel I have learned much about HKM wing chun from this thread, which is a real shame given that Joy has very long experience in this type of wing chun and must have a lot of information to share.


----------



## geezer (Jan 4, 2016)

guy b. said:


> ...It would be great if others could similarly explain the core concepts in their wing chun



IMO it would take too much time to put into words what and why we do dan chi the way we do. Even if I tried, somebody from another lineage would probably misunderstand me. On the other hand it is very easy to _demonstrate_ the differences in person. Still I'll give it a go if I must.

In brief, our dan chi focuses on developing springy energy extending forward along centerline, and sensitivity to any wavering of our opponent's springy energy or deviation from centerline which we can exploit. We do train for _lin siu di daa _(simultaneous deflect and attack) but of more importance to us is springy energy and learning to let the opponent's attack compress our arm (springy energy) causing our elbow to sink and make our defense ...in short _borrowing his force_. This is also key to greater efficiency and avoids clashing force.

As for the wrist dropping or arm lowering in the jum sau... this is not a jut-like motion, nor is it withdrawing force. To the contrary, we strive to maintain gentle, springy, forward pressure at all times, but we learn to allow our opponent's strong palm strike to stick and compress our jum sau forcing it down and back like a cam deflecting his attack with his own power. To the observer, it may look like the jum is dropping and withdrawing, but in fact there is always forward pressure and intent.

This dan chi has a very different feeling and training objective than dan chi using a downward jut, or  using a forceful, forward wedging jum. Both those solutions may be functional, but train different attributes.

Finally, to take a broader view, I should say that LFJ has a point when he says that WSL VT is, to a degree, a _different_ system. Similarly, my old sifu claimed his "WT" was a _different_ system. HKM WC is also a distinct system, etc. But LFJ is mistaken when he asserts that all other branches are _necessarily _lacking in consistency, coherency, and are not integrated systems because they do not use the same techniques WSL VT uses. That's like saying an Audi isn't a functional car because it doesn't use Mercedes parts. Each is still integrated and functional.


----------



## geezer (Jan 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Right, I would think it'd be more a waste of time to only give short, vague responses and then post to say your fingers are stuck in your ears now.



Fortune cookie say: Better to have your fingers stuck in your ears than to have your head stuck up your... 

OK, really _sorry_ about that. Just having fun.  ...I mean really, let's not get toooo serious around here guys!


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> The point is not whether it's in a form or not. It's that if the idea of the _jam_ elbow is missing from SNT, it pretty well guarantees it's missing in DCS, SCS, and the entire fighting strategy of the system. That's even if there is a _jam-sau_ action but with a different interpretation, as long as it's missing the elbow idea of _lin-siu-daai-da_.


----------------------------------------- 
Both jam and jut are in the slt that I do. BTW I dont speak for my sifu or sigung..They do that in their own teaching.
I dont pull back my elbows either in jam of jut. The elbows SINK in slightly different directions because the jam and jut uses
different sides of the kiu.. Dahn chi sau cycle uses 3 functions- neutral, defense and  attack.
In a real situation an alert person  can use the opponent's motion to quickly show him how to close a line or open one.
One can strike in combined attack.defense with jam or jut.In some circumstances the jut elbow has a better path to the target.

Of course showing is better than talk.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 4, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Is jam sau not importantant in CSL wing chun?



It is. Both jam and gan are present in siu nim tao


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> It is. Both jam and gan are present in siu nim tao



Don't you find it important if jam or jut in dan chi?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------
> Both jam and jut are in the slt that I do. BTW I dont speak for my sifu or sigung..They do that in their own teaching.
> I dont pull back my elbows either in jam of jut. The elbows SINK in slightly different directions because the jam and jut uses
> different sides of the kiu.. Dahn chi sau cycle uses 3 functions- neutral, defense and  attack.
> ...



Talk is very useful when showing isn't possible. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. 

I have seen jut done with no elbow before and seems like the most common way of doing it, although I think elbow involvement is better. Can you describe how you strike with your jut?

Also can you describe the jam elbow that you use and its function?


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 4, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Don't you find it important if jam or jut in dan chi?



Well the depth of my chi sao knowledge comes from my old teacher. And we just did jum in dan chi sao. Im not 100% sure about CSL theory about Dan Chi sao.. Iv only just finished siu nim tao and just started chi sao stuff in CSL. We jum with 80% elbow 20% wrist power im pretty sure.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 4, 2016)

geezer said:


> IMO it would take too much time to put into words what and why we do dan chi the way we do. Even if I tried, somebody from another lineage would probably misunderstand me. On the other hand it is very easy to _demonstrate_ the differences in person. Still I'll give it a go if I must.
> 
> In brief, our dan chi focuses on developing springy energy extending forward along centerline, and sensitivity to any wavering of our opponent's springy energy or deviation from centerline which we can exploit. We do train for _lin siu di daa _(simultaneous deflect and attack) but of more importance to us is springy energy and learning to let the opponent's attack compress our arm (springy energy) causing our elbow to sink and make our defense ...in short _borrowing his force_. This is also key to greater efficiency and avoids clashing force.



So if I am correct you are using dan chi to train contact reflexes which are determined by the motion of your attacker, in this case to block his attack with springy energy?



> As for the wrist dropping or arm lowering in the jum sau... this is not a jut-like motion, nor is it withdrawing force. To the contrary, we strive to maintain gentle, springy, forward pressure at all times, but we learn to allow our opponent's strong palm strike to stick and compress our jum sau forcing it down and back like a cam deflecting his attack with his own power. To the observer, it may look like the jum is dropping and withdrawing, but in fact there is always forward pressure and intent.
> 
> This dan chi has a very different feeling and training objective than dan chi using a downward jut, or  using a forceful, forward wedging jum. Both those solutions may be functional, but train different attributes.



Thanks very much for description



> Finally, to take a broader view, I should say that LFJ has a point when he says that WSL VT is, to a degree, a _different_ system. Similarly, my old sifu claimed his "WT" was a _different_ system. HKM WC is also a distinct system, etc. But LFJ is mistaken when he asserts that all other branches are _necessarily _lacking in consistency, coherency, and are not integrated systems because they do not use the same techniques WSL VT uses. That's like saying an Audi isn't a functional car because it doesn't use Mercedes parts. Each is still integrated and functional.



I think the main reason for any misunderstanding is that many versions of wing chun are extremely secretive about what they do and why. WSL VT is generally quite open in this respect. For this reason WSL VT people write a lot of descriptive stuff. When they don't get replies then I guess it is easy to assume that consistency or coherence is lacking. This may be untrue but is understandable. Discussion aids understanding.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> One can strike in combined attack.defense with jam or jut.In some circumstances the jut elbow has a better path to the target.



You mean with the aid of a second hand? If so, although it's simultaneous attack and defense, it is still two hands against one. Something we try to avoid as an opening response/ first action. 

For us, _jam_ elbow trains the punch. It is a direct path to the target and would be a first action. If your _jam-sau_ doesn't work like this, then I would say what is in your SNT is not _jam-sau_ as I know it. 
_
Jat_ sharply jerks slightly down and back from an extended position to open the line for a simultaneous strike from the other arm. That would be a secondary action; say if the first punch was interrupted, then _jat_ and punch to continue the flow of attack. It's a helping action, so we don't do it as a first response in DCS.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Right, I would think it'd be more a waste of time to only give short, vague responses and then post to say your fingers are stuck in your ears now.
> 
> Why not address the issues I've raised and taken the time to give my perspective on? Unless you don't disagree with my points, explain how your method works.





LFJ said:


> You mean with the aid of a second hand? If so, although it's simultaneous attack and defense, it is still two hands against one. Something we try to avoid as an opening response/ first action.
> 
> For us, _jam_ elbow trains the punch. It is a direct path to the target and would be a first action. If your _jam-sau_ doesn't work like this, then I would say what is in your SNT is not _jam-sau_ as I know it.
> _
> Jat_ sharply jerks slightly down and back from an extended position to open the line for a simultaneous strike from the other arm. That would be a secondary action; say if the first punch was interrupted, then _jat_ and punch to continue the flow of attack. It's a helping action, so we don't do it as a first response in DCS.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For us? Are you speaking for WSL?If so I am glad that I don't do your version of wing chun We have different paths- ok by me.Jut sao can be done with one hand or accompany another hand. But I don't think that WSL was a dogmatic as you make him out to be


----------



## Danny T (Jan 4, 2016)

LFJ said:


> _Jat_ sharply jerks slightly down and back from an extended position to open the line for a simultaneous strike from the other arm.


From my training the wrist is simply abducted. There is no back movement and the elbow is either maintained or pressed forward by the structure of the body. Intent is forward.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 4, 2016)

> For us? Are you speaking for WSL?If so I am glad that I don't do your version of wing chun We have different paths- ok by me.Jut sao can be done with one hand or accompany another hand. But I don't think that WSL was a dogmatic as you make him out to be



Would WSL be an "us"? I'm making it clear that I'm speaking from a perspective of WSLVT, obviously, as opposed to HKMWC or another lineage.

Can you be clear and point out where you think I'm making WSL out to be "dogmatic"? I get the feeling you're just being snide as a defense mechanism, because you haven't actually addressed how the concerns I've raised would be wrong or misplaced. Your attitude suggests to me you don't have much of anything in response.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 5, 2016)

geezer said:


> In brief, our dan chi focuses on developing springy energy extending forward along centerline, and sensitivity to any wavering of our opponent's springy energy or deviation from centerline which we can exploit.



Then we differ greatly right from setup. At the DCS stage, a beginner has not yet learned to control their own actions against outside pressure. So it would be much too early to start trying to control an opponent. In our DCS, there is no force exchange yet, nor are there opponents. We only use each other's arms for reference to learn elbow control for displacement coming to and from center; expansion (_taan_), contraction (_jam_), and rotation (_bong_), then recovery to neutral elbows and restart.

Once elbow control is understood and running fine in DCS, then _pun-sau_ is commenced and we begin to exchange forces between opposing elbows, _taan_ vs _jam_, punch vs punch to understand line of force. Then follows _lat-sau-jik-chung_ drills, stepping and angling, etc.. All still in mutual development, helping each other check and make the right lines. To this point it's all about development for the individual.

Before one has been through the stages to systematically develop coordination, elbow control, understanding of lines, force exchange, etc., I don't see how or why one would be trying to borrow an opponent's force and looking to exploit them, already being confrontational in DCS.



> But LFJ is mistaken when he asserts that all other branches are _necessarily _lacking in consistency, coherency, and are not integrated systems because they do not use the same techniques WSL VT uses. That's like saying an Audi isn't a functional car because it doesn't use Mercedes parts. Each is still integrated and functional.



It's not so much about techniques. The _jam_ elbow I'm talking about contains a ton of information about the entire fighting strategy of the system. If that goes missing, then there is no longer a coherent step by step development. Instead, you jump straight to trying to exploit each other at the beginner stage of DCS. In my view, that's like trying to spin off in a shell of a Mercedes without even having the drivetrain assembled yet. Takes a lot of imagination!


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 5, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Would WSL be an "us"? I'm making it clear that I'm speaking from a perspective of WSLVT, obviously, as opposed to HKMWC or another lineage.
> 
> Can you be clear and point out where you think I'm making WSL out to be "dogmatic"? I get the feeling you're just being snide as a defense mechanism, because you haven't actually addressed how the concerns I've raised would be wrong or misplaced. Your attitude suggests to me you don't have much of anything in response.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 5, 2016)

I don't think WSL was dogmatic-you are in some of your posts You don't have to agree with me- but your dogmatism gets in the way of understanding what I sad.You can do whatever you want-.
In dahn chi sao -jut  from fuk can be very fluid.  Dan chi sao trains one hand at a time... but it leads to two handed chi sane can use one or two hands depending on context.
Snide? Defense mechanisms? my attitude? don't have much of anything..?
You can make all these personal inferences from posts on jam and jut? Amazing!!


----------



## guy b. (Jan 5, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> I don't think WSL was dogmatic-you are in some of your posts You don't have to agree with me- but your dogmatism gets in the way of understanding what I sad.



I don't feel that I am dogmatic having done several types of wing chun and several different systems, both traditional and modern but I have to say that I have trouble understanding what you are saying as well. I get that you don't mean it to be this way, but many of your posts come across as being very general. If you could be more specific then that would be incredibly useful. Even if the details seem obvious to you, maybe they aren't to us?



> In dahn chi sao -jut  from fuk can be very fluid.  Dan chi sao trains one hand at a time... but it leads to two handed chi sane can use one or two hands depending on context.



Jut as a first action can be a jut with one hand while simultaneously striking with the other, or a jut with one hand followed by something else with either hand. In the first case as LFJ said you are simultaneously attacking and defending but using 2 hands against a one handed attack. Is it not more simple to punch with jam elbow and cut the attack? In the second case you are blocking then countering, a 2 step process. Can you explain why the jut first action? When would you choose to use it particularly?


----------



## geezer (Jan 5, 2016)

LFJ said:


> *Then we differ greatly right from setup.*
> 
> 
> ...Before one has been through the stages to systematically develop coordination, elbow control, understanding of lines, force exchange, etc., I don't see how or why one would be trying to borrow an opponent's force and looking to exploit them, already *being confrontational* in DCS.



You say we differ greatly. That is correct. The rest of your post shows a deep misunderstanding of what I attempted to convey and of how we train.

My intent was to be brief. I'm sorry if I was unclear as a result. Honestly, it's quite difficult to address topics such as chi-sau verbally, and probably why more senior and wiser individuals like Joy are reluctant to post much at all.

Yes, we differ greatly right from the beginning. As my old sifu used to say, we are a different system stemming from a common source.

As for the second assertions about trying to _exploit_ your partner ("opponent") and being _confrontational, _that is _not_ what we do. In our system, _Dan Chi is  a cooperative training exercise_ that is not competitive. It is not about _controlling_ an opponent as you say. It is about learning how to receive and dissolve the energies your partner feeds you. And it is not easy. In our system dan chi is an intermediate drill practiced after students have been prepared with other paired drills such as our basic "lat sau" curriculum.


----------



## geezer (Jan 5, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't feel that I am dogmatic having done several types of wing chun and several different systems, both traditional and modern but I have to say that I have trouble understanding what you are saying as well....



_Guy_, you seem to sincere and genuinely curious about comparing different approaches ...which is why I tried to answer some of your questions in a previous post. Then LFJ comes along completely misunderstanding my comments and making some critical and incorrect assertions. The fact is that even if both parties are open minded and sincerely interested, words alone are insufficient to communicate much about chi-sau. Your _hands_ have to talk and listen as well.

Without crossing bridges there is little I can share with you.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 5, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Guy_, you seem to sincere and genuinely curious about comparing different approaches ...which is why I tried to answer some of your questions in a previous post. Then LFJ comes along completely misunderstanding my comments and making some critical and incorrect assertions. The fact is that even if both parties are open minded and sincerely interested, words alone are insufficient to communicate much about chi-sau. Your _hands_ have to talk and listen as well.
> 
> Without crossing bridges there is little I can share with you.



Please don't be discouraged. I fell that I have learned a fair bit about your approach from the detailed post you kindly took the time to write. I don't mind if you do things differently to WSL VT standard approach.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 5, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't feel that I am dogmatic having done several types of wing chun and several different systems, both traditional and modern but I have to say that I have trouble understanding what you are saying as well. I get that you don't mean it to be this way, but many of your posts come across as being very general. If you could be more specific then that would be incredibly useful. Even if the details seem obvious to you, maybe they aren't to us?
> 
> 
> 
> Jut as a first action can be a jut with one hand while simultaneously striking with the other, or a jut with one hand followed by something else with either hand. In the first case as LFJ said you are simultaneously attacking and defending but using 2 hands against a one handed attack. Is it not more simple to punch with jam elbow and cut the attack? In the second case you are blocking then countering, a 2 step process. Can you explain why the jut first action? When would you choose to use it particularly?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy- wing  chun is best compared in person and I have done so with numerous persons in diverse lineages including WSL and WSL himself. Sticky hands are drills that develop wing chun skills-first with one hand then with another. In single chisao you  seem to use jam and I use jut. That is the essential difference.I can use jam in many interactions including chi sao and self defense. But in basic single sticky, I prefer jut. 
What is so unclear about that?


----------



## guy b. (Jan 5, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Guy- wing  chun is best compared in person and I have done so with numerous persons in diverse lineages including WSL and WSL himself. Sticky hands are drills that develop wing chun skills-first with one hand then with another. In single chisao you  seem to use jam and I use jut. That is the essential difference.I can use jam in many interactions including chi sao and self defense. But in basic single sticky, I prefer jut.
> What is so unclear about that?



It's clear that you do do it, I just don't understand why, sorry! I'm happy to leave it at that if you don't wish to say more about it.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 6, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> I don't think WSL was dogmatic-you are in some of your posts You don't have to agree with me- but your dogmatism gets in the way of understanding what I sad.



A dogmatic person isn't open to criticism. I've taken the time to explain my perspective on things– very detailedly I might add. I've described how and why I do certain things, and I've explained how and why not to do other things.

You haven't addressed why my criticisms on your method might be wrong or misplaced. You also haven't critiqued my points on what I do. I'm open to hearing it. Only Danny has been willing to do that, although I've defended my method, describing how it actually works.

I am willing to take an honest look at criticism, and if it's valid, I'll adjust my thinking. To the exact opposite, you give only very vague and short responses saying "_I do this move. It works. I can do it in many ways._" which really amounts to saying nothing at all. Then you post to say all of this is just noise and a waste of your time, and call me dogmatic.

Over the years, seeing you post on two different forums, I've seen a trend in the way you post. Very occasionally, you'll post something insightful– which is a shame because you have many years of experience. But more often than not you post short, vague statements to seem as if you have something of depth. Yet you never go into much detail, which makes me think you either don't have much detail to speak of, or you want to be secretive for some reason while acting like an expert. In that case, I don't know why you post on forums. 

It is especially pointless to come on with your nose in the air saying you've been busy teaching or training and don't have time for "chit-chat sites", as if no one else trains like you do because we spend maybe 20 minutes talking on a forum.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> Honestly, it's quite difficult to address topics such as chi-sau verbally, and probably why more senior and wiser individuals like Joy are reluctant to post much at all.



I don't see why that should be the case at all. The verbal transmission is extremely important to ensure the correct thinking has been passed on. Many never receive it. I've actually learned the most about VT when sat around a dinner table, then I apply that thinking to training. It's what leads training in the right direction.

I think you should be able to clearly explain how and why you do things, as well as how and why you shouldn't do things another way. VT should be simple. If you can't explain it in plain language, something is wrong.



> As for the second assertions about trying to _exploit_ your partner ("opponent") and being _confrontational, _that is _not_ what we do. In our system, _Dan Chi is  a cooperative training exercise_ that is not competitive. It is not about _controlling_ an opponent as you say. It is about learning how to receive and dissolve the energies your partner feeds you.



Exploiting deviation in your partner's springy energy was your phrasing. In any case, it seems a confrontational mindset to me because you are learning to deal with a partner's ("opponent's", another person's) energy, whereas what I do is all about developing the individual's understanding of things like elbow control and alignment. We only borrow each other's arms to train on, but things are in reference to our own structures and the center. Errors will appear at the center, like crossing with the wrist as a result of improper use of the elbow, or in the effect placed on the partner's arm which should be ballistically displaced, not blocked or absorbed into the joints... or stuck to and followed.



> In our system dan chi is an intermediate drill practiced after students have been prepared with other paired drills such as our basic "lat sau" curriculum.



So a beginner learns mobile two-handed drills, before doing a stationary single-handed coordination drill? Everything you say, from my perspective, seems out of order... topsy turvy, upside down, inside out, and back to front.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I don't see why that should be the case at all. The verbal transmission is extremely important to ensure the correct thinking has been passed on. Many never receive it. I've actually learned the most about VT when sat around a dinner table, then I apply that thinking to training. It's what leads training in the right direction.
> 
> I think you should be able to clearly explain how and why you do things, as well as how and why you shouldn't do things another way. VT should be simple. If you can't explain it in plain language, something is wrong.



I find this to be a frustrating position that many people revert to when faced with a written or verbal argument about how their system works. I agree that it should be simple to explain why and how you do whatever it is that you do. I don't understand at all why people sometimes appear to get cagey when asked specific technical questions like these. Isn't it fun to talk about your wing chun?

You should be able to boil your thoughts down to a few key ideas. I thought this was happening on the pads work thread with KPM and his control before striking idea, but he now wants to dissociate himself from what he said. It is as if people are afraid to believe in something.

I would agree that most of the actual learning comes from discussion; the hard part is trying to make your body do what you understand to be the right idea!


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Very occasionally, you'll post something insightful– which is a shame because you have many years of experience. But more often than not you post short, vague statements to seem as if you have something of depth. Yet you never go into much detail, which makes me think you either don't have much detail to speak of, or you want to be secretive for some reason while acting like an expert. In that case, I don't know why you post on forums.



I would reluctantly agree with this assessment, although I guess he could just be busy and only have time to read and make short posts?


----------



## KPM (Jan 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I
> 
> You should be able to boil your thoughts down to a few key ideas. I thought this was happening on the pads work thread with KPM and his control before striking idea, but he now wants to dissociate himself from what he said. It is as if people are afraid to believe in something.
> !


 
And, you are full of sh1t!  Pardon my French.  ;-)  I am not "dissociating" myself from anything other than trying to discuss anything in any detail with you.  The "dogmatic" comment from Joy was directed primarily at you, from what I could tell.  When its clear that someone is not even trying to understand what you are saying, or when you start to get the impression that someone is asking repeated questions and saying they don't understand in an attempt to get you to post something you can latch onto and say how wrong it is...well, people tend to stop talking to you.  Its really pretty simple.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 6, 2016)

Also to talk about DCS, you can not talk about jam or jut with the person doing it. Someone has to talk with your training partner. Whatever technique you feel like using is based on how your training partner acts and "attacks".

For me, I am still not at the level where my skill is easily transferable from feeling to words. I know how it feels in my body, but for some reason I cannot at least in English find the proper words to describe it in any more than a generic manner that would sort of describe any DCS training no matter how you do it in most cases.

Where I train we don´t have DCS as a very frequent training method, we left it behind us quite a while ago and primarily just bring it back every now and then to center our mind and sense of touch to the present once more. Will it take a larger part of my time in the future? Perhaps, some day it might be found to hold more value to us but for now we are trying not to root ourselves and as such other drills has become more prominent. It always changes however in order for us to learn the entire system and focus on the things we deem working. The rest we keep researching and studying to find out why it does not or whether it should simply be one of those unused things.

One thing we keep doing now is to get more familiar with the unknown, not repeatable patterns.

Systems need to evolve by the way, stagnation means that people become ill fitted to deal with new situations. Just as a new rule in MMA would change the focus of techniques, the change of the world and general view on fighting will need to alter the martial art you practise.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> And, you are full of sh1t!  Pardon my French.  ;-)  I am not "dissociating" myself from anything other than trying to discuss anything in any detail with you.  The "dogmatic" comment from Joy was directed primarily at you, from what I could tell.  When its clear that someone is not even trying to understand what you are saying, or when you start to get the impression that someone is asking repeated questions and saying they don't understand in an attempt to get you to post something you can latch onto and say how wrong it is...well, people tend to stop talking to you.  Its really pretty simple.



Lol you argue against everything I say, even when I am quoting something you said or something that can be proven simply by checking some pics of google images or videos on youtube. You seem like quite a frustrated guy overall. I hope you can relax a bit.


----------



## KPM (Jan 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Lol you argue against everything I say, even when I am quoting something you said or something that can be proven simply by checking some pics of google images or videos on youtube. You seem like quite a frustrated guy overall. I hope you can relax a bit.


 
And when you are a condescending prick, people are even LESS likely to want to discuss anything with you.  ;-)


----------



## Danny T (Jan 6, 2016)

And resorting to name calling or using derogative terms certainly does not further or enhance discussion.


----------



## geezer (Jan 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> And when you are a condescending prick, people are even LESS likely to want to discuss anything with you.  ;-)



_Keith_, take a deep slow breath. Count slowly as you exhale. Go to your special place. Yes, re--la-a-a-axe. The  annoying little people cannot bother you here....  .

@_LFJ and Guy_-- I actually agree that a person should be able to communicate useful ideas about WC verbally, but only provided that:

a. Both parties share _sufficient  knowledge in common_, and...
b. Both parties are _interested and open _to what the other has to say.

My old sifu, for example, had very limited time _physically_ training with GM Yip Man at the end of his training in WC, having already learned the basic system form others. However, after his physical training ended he continued to spend a lot of time meeting and discussing WC with GM Yip over tea, lunch, or dinner. He once told us, that reflecting back, these were some of the most valuable learning sessions he ever had.

I believe this was possible only because both of the conditions mentioned above were met. And in addition, the two were physically present so GM Yip could use body language and gestures at any moment to illustrate and clarify his remarks.

In my discussions with you guys I find that neither of these conditions are met. First of all, we practice different branches of WC and do not share the same basic knowledge and assumptions about WC.

Secondly, I don't feel that either of you, and especially LFJ, are very open to different approaches to WC. Although you may ask questions, they often seem more rhetorical in nature, as though your minds are already made up. You both have some pretty strong opinions. That's OK, but it doesn't really help in encouraging _productive_ dialogue.

And finally, exchanging remarks on a forum is a long way form having a deep conversation over tea, with your own sifu and hing-dai (kung-fu brothers).

In short, I am reluctantly finding myself in the same frustrating place as KPM and Joy, where I feel that it is pretty much a waste of time to continue this discussion. Perhaps we should let it go and not wait until an admin. has to lock this thread too.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 6, 2016)

Guys the most important aspect of this form at least for me, is that it is a respectful 'discussion' forum. One must be open to the ideas and thoughts of others to have a discussion. We all have our points of view. When one gets to the point of having to prove their opinions then discussion turns to argument. Make your point and let others make their point. Ask for clarification if you don't understand but be aware your lack of understanding may well lie with you. Just because your experience is one thing doesn't mean others are wrong and we are to disrespect it or them. Their opinion is just different. Maybe we should embrace the differences play with them with the goal of understanding them. We may learn something along the way.


----------



## geezer (Jan 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> And, you are full of sh1t!  Pardon my French.  ;-)



Er ...I believe that expression is closer to old Anglo-Saxon than French or other Latin based languages, and this forum (though this may seem rather ethnically biased) _discourages the use of Old-English expletives._ _Stick to French_, ...or Latin, Greek etc. and you'll be better received.

Merde! Your friend and counselor on all things fecal.


----------



## KPM (Jan 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Keith_, take a deep slow breath. Count slowly as you exhale. Go to your special place. Yes, re--la-a-a-axe. The  annoying little people cannot bother you here....  .
> 
> .


 
Ommmm Mani Padme Hummmmm.......Ommmmm Mani Padme Hummmm.....Ommmm Mani Padme Hummmm.........


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Ommmm Mani Padme Hummmmm.......Ommmmm Mani Padme Hummmm.....Ommmm Mani Padme Hummmm.........


------------------------------------------------------------------
The jewel is indeed in the center of the lotus.
But in the symbolism  the roots of the padme are in xxxx
That is it's beauty.
We really should move on.  And who am I to
destroy a stereotype/characterization of me  that LFJ
 says he has developed
by reading my posts in two sites over time.I choose to forget all the
ad hominem labels that he used.

On a serious note, verbal discussions of skills in ordinary
language  can indeed be misleading. More so with ad hominem
labels being applied. 

FWIW-I have friends and discussions and interactions with people who have learned
from a wide array of lineages.

I think that in ordinary language, I am quite clear  about single sticky hand
 by reasonable standards of communication.

1.  Single Sticky hand is a very important tool for developing the right contacts'
and controls in the major 3 contact points of the bridge

2 Jut does it on the thumb side of the bridge. With the rotation of the controlled elbow
the jut can both close and open a line. One can use jam or wu after fuk... but in
my  experience jut has higher percentage effectiveness in teaching developmental lessons.

Doing jut and attacking with the other hand is a different context  and not directly
 relevant to single sticky hand training.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 7, 2016)

geezer said:


> I don't feel that either of you, and especially LFJ, are very open to different approaches to WC. Although you may ask questions, they often seem more rhetorical in nature, as though your minds are already made up.



Well, it only helps to make up my mind when I don't get any negative/constructive criticism on the method I describe, and when people don't, for whatever reason, defend their methods against the points I've raised with any amount of detail.

The last time I received some criticism in person was when a guy told me my _chi-sau_ was not as "fun" as some others, but he could see how mine could lead to more functional skills. I'll take that. Fun is subjective anyway. I have fun, but I care more that what I do will actually work when I need it to.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 7, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> And who am I to
> destroy a stereotype/characterization of me  that LFJ
> says he has developed
> by reading my posts in two sites over time.I choose to forget all the
> ad hominem labels that he used.



I suggest you look up that term "ad hominem" before using it again. It means to attack the person and not their argument. Have I done that? I put quite a bit of effort into describing why I don't agree with your method and what I would do differently and why. My "character assessment" on you was a separate deduction based on your posting style, not an ad hominem.

You, on the other hand, never addressed my points or gave anything but a vague non-response before calling me dogmatic. Ignoring my argument, refusing to address constructive criticism even/especially if it was wrong or misplaced, and calling me dogmatic... That's ironically both ad hominem and dogmatic on your part.

I don't know what kind of picture you're trying to paint here, but it seems to be coming out as an ugly self-portrait, innit?!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I think you should be able to clearly explain how and why you do things, as well as how and why you shouldn't do things another way. VT should be simple. If you can't explain it in plain language, something is wrong.





guy b. said:


> I find this to be a frustrating position that many people revert to when faced with a written or verbal argument about how their system works. I agree that it should be simple to explain why and how you do whatever it is that you do.



Hmm. I'm a reasonably articulate guy, but there's lots of stuff in my arts that I can communicate easily with in-person hands-on demonstration that would be very difficult to explain clearly just with words on a page. Even with someone who has a similar background to me, there are limitations to what I can get across strictly verbally. If someone doesn't have the same background, it gets even harder.

I'm not a chunner, so maybe you WC/WT/VT guys have worked out a way to infallibly convey all these nuances of movement to someone who doesn't share your assumptions using just your words. Available evidence suggests otherwise though.


----------



## geezer (Jan 7, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Hmm. I'm a reasonably articulate guy, but there's lots of stuff in my arts that I can communicate easily with in-person hands-on demonstration that would be very difficult to explain clearly just with words on a page. Even with someone who has a similar background to me, there are limitations to what I can get across strictly verbally. If someone doesn't have the same background, it gets even harder.
> 
> I'm not a chunner, so maybe you WC/WT/VT guys have worked out a way to infallibly convey all these nuances of movement to someone who doesn't share your assumptions using just your words. Available evidence suggests otherwise though.



You are exactly right, Tony. One thing BJJ and 'Chun have in common is tactile-training exercises. You have to learn how to deal with energies actually given and received in practice. Verbal descriptions, even when supplemented by videoclips are at best a supplement to in-person training.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 7, 2016)

geezer said:


> You are exactly right, Tony. One thing BJJ and 'Chun have in common is tactile-training exercises. You have to learn how to deal with energies actually given and received in practice. Verbal descriptions, even when supplemented by videoclips are at best a supplement to in-person training.



Of course verbal communication is a supplement to in-person training. It isn't training, it is verbal communication of ideas.

As someone currently training in bjj and wing chun I cannot relate to this viewpoint in the slightest.

It is simple to talk in terms of bjj about pressure, off-balancing, finding base, the various standard positions, guard, half guard, passing guard, regaining guard, sweeping from guard, top position, side control, taking back, attacking the arm, attacking the neck, stringing movements together in various ways, and discussing the reasons for doing so.

It doesn't really matter if your audience understands or not initially, you can clarify through more discussion. It is the act of even trying that is often missing here. Not always, just often. It seems like a cop out to say that you can't find the words. Mostly it looks more like avoiding the question when it happens.


----------



## geezer (Jan 7, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It doesn't really matter if your audience understands or not initially, you can clarify through more discussion. It is the act of even trying that is often missing here. Not always, just often. It seems like a cop out to say that you can't find the words. Mostly it looks more like avoiding the question when it happens.



_Dudewingchun _post 103 on the thread on _Padwork in WC_ was the latest person to state that it was too hard to put even basic "body mechanics" into words. In post 104, you encouraged him to have a try anyway. If he does, I hope it meets your approval. 

I personally don't feel it's worth the effort. Every time I've tried, I spend a lot of time only to have certain people completely misinterpret and dismiss my point. Others, who have more of an understanding of my lineage, or who just have an open mind, get my point without such laborious description. Maybe it's me, maybe not. Whatever the reason, I'm done for now.  If you or LFJ are genuinely interested in what other lineages have to offer, I'm sure there is _somebody_ out there who will try to explain what they do in excruciatingly fine detail. And then I'm sure LFJ will dismiss what they say just as quickly. 

And you guys still claim to  wonder why an old pro like Joy doesn't waste his time with this stuff!


----------



## Phobius (Jan 8, 2016)

Key to any good discussion, both parties must be interested in understanding the other. Problem on a forum is that most often one party or both just want to read what is there and argue back, missing the necessity of making sure everything is firstly well understood by confirmation.


----------



## KPM (Jan 8, 2016)

geezer said:


> _Dudewingchun _post 103 on the thread on _Padwork in WC_ was the latest person to state that it was too hard to put even basic "body mechanics" into words. In post 104, you encouraged him to have a try anyway. If he does, I hope it meets your approval.
> 
> I personally don't feel it's worth the effort. Every time I've tried, I spend a lot of time only to have certain people completely misinterpret and dismiss my point. Others, who have more of an understanding of my lineage, or who just have an open mind, get my point without such laborious description. Maybe it's me, maybe not. Whatever the reason, I'm done for now.  If you or LFJ are genuinely interested in what other lineages have to offer, I'm sure there is _somebody_ out there who will try to explain what they do in excruciatingly fine detail. And then I'm sure LFJ will dismiss what they say just as quickly.
> 
> And you guys still claim to  wonder why an old pro like Joy doesn't waste his time with this stuff!


 
Amen brother!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It is simple to talk in terms of bjj about pressure, off-balancing, finding base, the various standard positions, guard, half guard, passing guard, regaining guard, sweeping from guard, top position, side control, taking back, attacking the arm, attacking the neck, stringing movements together in various ways, and discussing the reasons for doing so.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if your audience understands or not initially, you can clarify through more discussion. It is the act of even trying that is often missing here. Not always, just often. It seems like a cop out to say that you can't find the words. Mostly it looks more like avoiding the question when it happens.



I can certainly talk about all that stuff in general. I can even communicate some specifics about particular techniques, especially if the person I'm talking to has a similar background.

What I can't do with any kind of reliability is communicate verbally why I prefer variation A of a technique where I apply pressure at _this_ precise angle instead of variation B of that same technique where I apply pressure at _that_ precise angle or explain the exact circumstances where I would use one versus the other. That sort of thing is easy to demonstrate in person, not so easy with words on the page.

If you are able to do this, then good for you! You've got me and every other BJJ instructor I know beat.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 9, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I can certainly talk about all that stuff in general. I can even communicate some specifics about particular techniques, especially if the person I'm talking to has a similar background.
> 
> What I can't do with any kind of reliability is communicate verbally why I prefer variation A of a technique where I apply pressure at _this_ precise angle instead of variation B of that same technique where I apply pressure at _that_ precise angle or explain the exact circumstances where I would use one versus the other. That sort of thing is easy to demonstrate in person, not so easy with words on the page.
> 
> If you are able to do this, then good for you! You've got me and every other BJJ instructor I know beat.



You can't describe why you prefer one variation of a position over another in terms of the position based theory of bjj? And you don't know any bjj teachers that can do this? 

Again I find a bit hard to believe. 

I would describe why (for example) I like one half guard approach over another in terms of where it leads, likelihood of success with it, options from it if it fails, how it integrates with other options that I favour, how I works with my strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 9, 2016)

Up through my intermediate training I could select and explain what I felt my prefer actions could be/would be.
At the point I am in my journey I really have no preferred. My responds are based upon what is given. I can explain generally what I may do at any one point but as soon as the opponent moves that all may well change. I would have to describe a lot of different variables. I am willing to bet that if you discuss with most any high level practitioner/instructor that even when demonstrating an action or combination once and upon repeating if the assistant does something slightly different the instructor ends up doing something other than what was supposed to be shown. It isn't because they have a preferred but because they don't have one and because they simple respond to what was provided. Difficult to describe it all; for me any way.
Let's take a Right punch from an opponent for example... Describe how you handle it... What is your preferred action and the options from that if it fails.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 9, 2016)

Danny T said:


> Up through my intermediate training I could select and explain what I felt my prefer actions could be/would be.
> At the point I am in my journey I really have no preferred. My responds are based upon what is given. I can explain generally what I may do at any one point but as soon as the opponent moves that all may well change. I would have to describe a lot of different variables. I am willing to bet that if you discuss with most any high level practitioner/instructor that even when demonstrating an action or combination once and upon repeating if the assistant does something slightly different the instructor ends up doing something other than what was supposed to be shown. It isn't because they have a preferred but because they don't have one and because they simple respond to what was provided. Difficult to describe it all; for me any way.



I don't mean describing in terms of if he does A then do B. That is application style thinking and can never work. What I mean is talking about a specific approach to combat that you take, why you take, and the ability to discuss reasons for specific parts of that approach. I think most people take a specific approach and try to make that work against the opposition,rather than just reacting to what happens. 

For example in bjj I find a top game suits by body best. If I find myself on the bottom then I like to try and take the back. I use different approaches that allow me a good chance of being able to do this, often involving half guard. I avoid triangle chokes, complex guards like spider or de la riva, and certain other things because they do not suit me and the way I grapple. I love to attack the neck and so I try to work on ways that maximise my chances of ending up in this kind of position. 



> Let's take a Right punch from an opponent for example... Describe how you handle it... What is your preferred action and the options from that if it fails.



My approach is the general approach of WSL VT: maximise the chances of being able to attack the attack (I guess 'jeet' for those who like Chinese terms) with my own attack through movement, hand and body positioning. Once attacking eat space and do not stop attacking. Use helping actions to remove obstructions and keep punching. It is not a reactive strategy, it is one that needs to be imposed upon the opponent and which relies on taking the initiative. Elbow and punching lines covering while attacking gives confidence and allows strong attack without fear or thought about what the opponent is doing.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 9, 2016)

guy b. said:


> My approach is the general approach of WSL VT: maximise the chances of being able to attack the attack (I guess 'jeet' for those who like Chinese terms) with my own attack through movement, hand and body positioning. Once attacking eat space and do not stop attacking. Use helping actions to remove obstructions and keep punching. It is not a reactive strategy, it is one that needs to be imposed upon the opponent and which relies on taking the initiative. Elbow and punching lines covering while attacking gives confidence and allows strong attack without fear or thought about what the opponent is doing.



I think you just described Wing chun.


----------



## geezer (Jan 9, 2016)

guy b. said:


> ...Once attacking eat space and do not stop attacking. Use helping actions to remove obstructions and keep punching. *It is not a reactive strategy*, it is one that needs to be imposed upon the opponent and which relies on taking the initiative.


I agree with Phobius. This is good advice for all WC ...heck for combat in general, regardless of "style". 

One point of clarification though. As you state above the ideal is to take the offensive and force the opponent into a _reactive _strategy. Unfortunately, the other guy is (or should be) trying to do the same thing. So it isn't always possible to impose your strategy on your opponent. Sometimes we are put on the defensive and need to _react _appropriately to regain a dominant or offensive position. "Turning defeat into victory" was one phrase my old sifu used. That's why we train an _interactive_ strategy through drills like chi sau. 
.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 9, 2016)

geezer said:


> This is good advice for all WC ...heck for combat in general, regardless of "style".
> 
> One point of clarification though. As you state above the ideal is to take the offensive and force the opponent into a _reactive _strategy. Unfortunately, the other guy is (or should be) trying to do the same thing. So it isn't always possible to impose your strategy on your opponent. Sometimes we are put on the defensive and need to *react appropriately to regain a dominant or offensive position. "Turning defeat into victory"* was one phrase my old sifu used. That's why we train an _interactive_ strategy through drills like chi sau.
> .



This is an awesome post IMO and is one of the reasons why all of us see so many differences in method/strategy/"application" etc in our individual lineages or personal interpretations of WC/WT/VT.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 9, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I think you just described Wing chun.



And most all forms of combat.


----------



## KPM (Jan 9, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I think you just described Wing chun.



I agree with Phobius!  But I would also like to point out that this is rather a "one dimensional" version of Wing Chun.  Some Wing Chun does include an element of Chin Na.  So, as to the question of reacting to a punch....what if that punch is coming from your drunk uncle Ed at your New Year's eve party when he says he wants to "test your Kung Fu!"???  Are you going to smash dear ole uncle Ed in the nose with your punch and keep blasting until he is down and out on the ground?  Can you parry and evade without just reflexively punching away?  Can you deflect and guide uncle Ed into a nose dive into the couch cushions?  Can you deflect and put uncle Ed in a joint lock so he is convinced your Kung Fu is good without hurting him?  The mindset that Wing Chun "is all about the punch!" is limited thinking IMHO.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I think you just described Wing chun.



I'm glad you agree



KPM said:


> I agree with Phobius!



Good



> But I would also like to point out that this is rather a "one dimensional" version of Wing Chun.



Lol, so actually you don't agree



> Some Wing Chun does include an element of Chin Na.  So, as to the question of reacting to a punch....what if that punch is coming from your drunk uncle Ed at your New Year's eve party when he says he wants to "test your Kung Fu!"???  Are you going to smash dear ole uncle Ed in the nose with your punch and keep blasting until he is down and out on the ground?  Can you parry and evade without just reflexively punching away?  Can you deflect and guide uncle Ed into a nose dive into the couch cushions?  Can you deflect and put uncle Ed in a joint lock so he is convinced your Kung Fu is good without hurting him?  The mindset that Wing Chun "is all about the punch!" is limited thinking IMHO.



Wing chun is what it is. I would suggest not smashing your uncle if he throws a drunken punch at you.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 10, 2016)

guy b. Please, this last post was just a flaming attempt.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> guy b. Please, this last post was just a flaming attempt.



The post before was the trolling post. I just didn't bother to sugar coat my reply. 

Personally I don't think it is worth training an ineffective version of VT just for the eventuality of a family member throwing a punch. It's also not worth saying you agree before going on to disagree strongly. It's just a waste of typing and reading time.

I am genuinely happy that so many people are training a form of wing chun that closely resembles my description of WSL VT. It means that we can safely discuss things in more detail without fear of misunderstanding and hurt feelings.


----------



## KPM (Jan 10, 2016)

Let's see, any reasonable person would recognize the following:

Phobius noted that the description of a reaction to a punch being to "attack in response with a punch or your own" describes all Wing Chun.  I agreed with that.  Because that is a pretty core concept in Wing Chun.  But I noted that it is also rather one dimensional.  Because it IS rather one dimensional if that is your only response.  I pointed out that some Wing Chun includes a Chin Na element that allows for more responses that just punching back.  That was not a trolling post, and there is no contradiction with anything I said.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 10, 2016)

KPM said:


> Let's see, any reasonable person would recognize the following:
> 
> Phobius noted that the description of a reaction to a punch being to "attack in response with a punch or your own" describes all Wing Chun.  I agreed with that.  Because that is a pretty core concept in Wing Chun.  But I noted that it is also rather one dimensional.  Because it IS rather one dimensional if that is your only response.  I pointed out that some Wing Chun includes a Chin Na element that allows for more responses that just punching back.  That was not a trolling post, and there is no contradiction with anything I said.


------------------------------------------------------------------
Reacting with a punch is ok-specially if you have the line- but wing chun is full of options to fit the occasion


----------



## yak sao (Jan 10, 2016)

We should always use the simplest solution...many times that is simply to punch.
But circumstances aren't always so simple and a punch to the nose may not be the best option even if it is the simplest.
It's a good idea to have some high percentage chin na to fall back on.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 10, 2016)

yak sao said:


> We should always use the simplest solution...many times that is simply to punch.
> But circumstances aren't always so simple and a punch to the nose may not be the best option even if it is the simplest.
> It's a good idea to have some high percentage chin na to fall back on.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At very very close quarters if you are bear hugged from any direction you may need other options besides a punch- and wing chun has options.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 10, 2016)

yak sao said:


> We should always use the simplest solution...many times that is simply to *punch*.



I'd agree, but I'd replace 'punch' with 'strike'.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 10, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I'd agree, but I'd replace 'punch' with 'strike'.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ip Ching's little paperback bio of Ip Man he tells the story of a northern mantis master who came to Fatshan
and issued a challenge to any southern stylist, specially a wing chun stylist.Locals came to Ip Man for help
and he accepted the challenge. A big room became the chosen site for the challenge and  was jam packed with tables and chairs and the combatants were up on a stage.
Ip Man had his back to the audience. The northerner attacked with a mantis phoenix eye. Ip Man did a lop sao
combination. The mantis guy went flying from the stage and landed on one of the tables.
Since the encounter was short and the audience paid for the admission, Ip Man put on a show based on the wc forms.

An ex student of mine who teaches yoga in the valley had a girlfriend from Hong Kong.Her father took private lessons with Ip Man . During one of the lessons several karatekas- friends of the family expressed doubts about the effectiveness of wing chun. Ip Man asked them to attack him with full force and they did.Ip Man threw them all over the place and lop motions played a big role.

There is more to Ip Man wing chun besides the punch.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 10, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In Ip Ching's little paperback bio of Ip Man he tells the story of a northern mantis master who came to Fatshan
> and issued a challenge to any southern stylist, specially a wing chun stylist.Locals came to Ip Man for help
> and he accepted the challenge. A big room became the chosen site for the challenge and  was jam packed with tables and chairs and the combatants were up on a stage.
> ...



Cool stories Vajramusti. Thx.


----------



## Danny T (Jan 10, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> There is more to Ip Man wing chun besides the punch.


The stories are interesting but...
..."There is more to Ip Man wing chun besides the punch"...

Oh it can't be, please tell me it isn't so. There is more besides the punch. Oh the Consternation!!


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 11, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I can't and wouldn't claim to speak for HKM (or any lineage) but I will share this: I recently met a HKM practitioner...and he had a solid understanding of WC, a good solid horse, properly aligned and pressured elbows, crisp forms and footwork, etc. It was a good encounter for sure and gave me a respect for him and his HKM lineage.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ip Man sitting with Ho Kam ming at HKM's school in Macau


----------



## geezer (Jan 11, 2016)

Pictures? Check out this one... the next generation:







...And the next:





And here's that young man on the right with his Si-Gung:






Yep, it's very own "Vajramusti", Sifu Joy -- FYI one of several Martial Talk WC guys who really knows his stuff.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 11, 2016)

geezer said:


> Pictures? Check out this one... the next generation:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a real low man on that totem pole.


----------



## dudewingchun (Jan 11, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In Ip Ching's little paperback bio of Ip Man he tells the story of a northern mantis master who came to Fatshan
> and issued a challenge to any southern stylist, specially a wing chun stylist.Locals came to Ip Man for help
> and he accepted the challenge. A big room became the chosen site for the challenge and  was jam packed with tables and chairs and the combatants were up on a stage.
> ...



Was that Ip man Portrait Of a Kung Fu Master ? I had that book but somehow lost it when moving houses. Damn wish I could find it was a good little read. Wish it was a bit longer though. Had some good stories which were supposed to represent martial morality if I remember correctly. I remember one about Ip man been very interested in watching fires.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 11, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Was that Ip man Portrait Of a Kung Fu Master ? I had that book but somehow lost it when moving houses. Damn wish I could find it was a good little read. Wish it was a bit longer though. Had some good stories which were supposed to represent martial morality if I remember correctly. I remember one about Ip man been very interested in watching fires.


-------------------------
yes


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Jan 12, 2016)

To add to the discussion about Yip Man's apparent arsenal .....

I recently took some tuition from a 70-year-old man who had trained with Chu Shong Tin from the age of 13. He met Yip Man as a young man many times. He said Yip Man's kick was "terrible". And he meant that like extremely powerful.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Jan 12, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I am a real low man on that totem pole.



Only someone good would say that!


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 12, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> To add to the discussion about Yip Man's apparent arsenal .....
> 
> I recently took some tuition from a 70-year-old man who had trained with Chu Shong Tin from the age of 13. He met Yip Man as a young man many times. He said Yip Man's kick was "terrible". And he meant that like extremely powerful.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good comment. Ip Man's kicks were indeed powerful. quick and deceptive...according to thoese who had the privilege of working out with him 0ne to one- according to sigung


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

ttt


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> ttt



???


----------



## lsanczyk (Sep 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I think you should be able to clearly explain how and why you do things, as well as how and why you shouldn't do things another way. VT should be simple. If you can't explain it in plain language, something is wrong.


Excellent discussion!

I studied under Moy Yat and Ip Chun linages:
- In Moy Yat WC, Jut Sao has 2 versions.
- In Ip Chun WC, Jam Sao has 2 versions.
- The technique Lui Ming Fai used in the DCS video posted by LFJ, with the elbow out of the center and the hand looking as a Wu Sao, is coincidently the 2nd version of Jut Sao for Moy Yat, and the 2nd version of Jam Sao for Ip Chun.

In this short video DCS is realized with the 1st version of Jam Sao, and the problems that LFJ described are elaborated:


----------

