100% _ing _un!

[dungeonworks]

Forward energy/intent, if we were to chi sao, I should be putting up enough physical force for you to feel resistance, but not enough for you to spring off of my energy. Now if you were to suddenly drop your hands, my forward intent would shoot my hands out towards you.

I apologize if I am not eloquent enough to describe what I am thinking, for it has been a long, hot day and I have been cooling off with some inebriating beverages.........:ultracool
And thank you Mr Mook, I believe what I am referring to is forward intent.
Aloha!

That is how we intend to apply forward energy as well and work chain punching drills on focus mitts where the mitt holder deceptively moves back. It's so easy for guys like myself to get heavy on the lead leg or lean towards the target.

 

[mook jong man]

Could you please elaborate this?

She visited our academy and I got her to check my Sil Lum Tao form and then we did some Chi Sau sparring where I got absolutely mauled.

I then asked her much actual force you put into your forward force , we had a raised stage from where instructors would conduct the warm ups , form etc for the class.

She layed down on the stage propped up on one elbow and said you use about this much force , the same amount of strength you use when you are leaning your elbow on a table or benchtop.

Another instructor told me about the same amount of force you would use to press your forefinger into someones chest.

But as far as I'm concerned if your using the minimum amount of effort to maintain your angles against your opponents force , using just enough to equalise and not let them collapse , your musculature is still staying relatively soft and relaxed , and your hands fly forward when there is no counterforce.
Then you are doing well and on the right track in my opinion

 

[geezer]

not re-chambering before every strike and just striking from the position we are in has to be one of the key concepts in my book. Directly tied to this is short range force which I don't think any other art emphasizes to the extent that wing chun does.

Well I've been down with a nasty fever for the last week, and have been reduced to lurking on this thread. And, fascinating as the topic is, the different branches of our our art will never agree beyond a fairly rudimentary level even on such a broad topic as "the concepts". And, as others have said, some of the concepts we hold so dear are well known and widely used by other styles as well.

Now regarding the quote above, I have noticed the same emphasis on "not re-chambering... and just striking from the position we are in" in the Latosa Escrima System. Also forward pressure/intent, economy of motion and repeated linear, or more accurately, "elliptical" forward hitting with an energy a little bit like chain-punching. ...And then there's a whole lot of stuff that's quite different from WC/WT/VT.

On the whole, I find myself pretty much agreeing with what "Mook's" been saying, but I still think that "Dantien" summed it up in one word: Efficiency. But that really needs to be qualified. In other words, what do we really mean? Efficency usually means achieving your objective while expending the absolute minimum. But the minimum of what? ...of energy? ...of time? ...of distance?

In WC/VT/WT I think we generally mean all of the above. And if the objective is to "neutralize a threat" or "defeat an opponent", we typically mean to do so standing up and using empty handed, percussive methods such as punches, kicks, elbows and so on. And we don't mind repeating them. At least this is the assumption most of us begin with. It's important to consider these underlying assumptions before we start slinging around grand terms like "efficiency". On the other hand, considered in this more specific context, there is no "concept" more fundamental to what we do. All our movements and energies are tied back to the attempt to achieve the most beautifully "efficient" solution possible to each situation we are presented with.

On another note, if you change your "objective" even a bit, what is "efficient" changes a great deal. Then add a few other factors, such as reliability and dependability. What if the most perfect and "efficient" solution is not as reliable in the chaos of actual combat as it is in the kwoon? This brings up the concept of "efficacy" or "practicality. If pure efficiency takes decades to master before it is at all efficacious outside of the kwoon, is it really practical? This is an area where we 'chunners catch a lot of flack, and some of it rightly so. Just my 2 cents.

 

[LoneSamurai]

i pretty much have to agree with chinaboxer in many things his says and thinks, i have praticed Krav maga and wing chun for 15 years now, both of them complement each other quite well, and the concepts of wing chun help the lesser eficiency of Krav in its postures and techniques. Ive been doing bjj for the last 4 years and im really impressed how little force you have to use to subdue or counter bigger people, my sensei weighs about 120 kg and im barely 78kgs and i can wrestled with ease and we go all out, thats what Jin meant about WC and BJJ having the same concepts or principles.


Aussie-Chilean Martial Artist.
" Power comes from where you stand "

 

[geezer]

Aussie-Chilean Martial Artist.
" Power comes from where you stand "

Aussie-Chilean? Thats a new one. Welcome aboard! What kinda 'chun do you do?

 

[LoneSamurai]

Aussie-Chilean? Thats a new one. Welcome aboard! What kinda 'chun do you do?

hehe,thanks yeah im chilean-Australian, i do Yip Man´s chun and Krav/Bjj.

 

[BloodMoney]

The mechanics of the two systems are different and the ways of using leverage are different there maybe attributes that overlap , but don't kid yourself that you are doing Wing Chun on the ground.

You are doing Wing Chun when you are standing up and in your stance and your arms are in the correct angles , when you are on the ground you are using Bjj.
There is nothing wrong with training in both , but realise you are changing gears when going from one to the other.

Agreed. I study both, love both, but they are different. Does this mean I cant use my experience from Chun to help my BJJ? Or my BJJ to help takedown defense when im using Chun? Of course not. In fact I had a Chun instructor (who got me hooked on BJJ) say "Chun doesnt help your BJJ at all". Then we rolled, and he used Bong Sau/immovable elbow to counter a straight arm bar from side control. I looked at him and said "you just used Chun then" he laughed and kinda looked humbled and said "yeah okay maybe theres a bit"...

The two can (and do) work very well together, and there is some similarity. But generally they are quite different.

 

[geezer]

hehe,thanks yeah im chilean-Australian, i do Yip Man´s chun and Krav/Bjj.

WC and Krav/BJJ... then you know what I mean about balancing pure, theoretical efficiency with street/self defense efficacy, or reliability and practicality. Some WC techniques are so refined and efficient that there isn't much of a margin for error. From what little I've seen of Krav, there is less concern for pure efficiency and a whole lot of emphasis on what will get the job done. It's kind of like comparing a highly refined sports car (WC) to my old 4 x 4 pick-up (arts like Krav). On a really rough road, you probably want the pick-up. And to be fair, even within WC, you have a range of options, some more like the sports car, others more like the truck.

 

[mook jong man]

Agreed. I study both, love both, but they are different. Does this mean I cant use my experience from Chun to help my BJJ? Or my BJJ to help takedown defense when im using Chun? Of course not. In fact I had a Chun instructor (who got me hooked on BJJ) say "Chun doesnt help your BJJ at all". Then we rolled, and he used Bong Sau/immovable elbow to counter a straight arm bar from side control. I looked at him and said "you just used Chun then" he laughed and kinda looked humbled and said "yeah okay maybe theres a bit"...

The two can (and do) work very well together, and there is some similarity. But generally they are quite different.

I imagine Wing Chun's hand speed and fluidity would help quite a bit in fending off attempts to grab your gi or your wrists.

 

[LoneSamurai]

WC and Krav/BJJ... then you know what I mean about balancing pure, theoretical efficiency with street/self defense efficacy, or reliability and practicality. Some WC techniques are so refined and efficient that there isn't much of a margin for error. From what little I've seen of Krav, there is less concern for pure efficiency and a whole lot of emphasis on what will get the job done. It's kind of like comparing a highly refined sports car (WC) to my old 4 x 4 pick-up (arts like Krav). On a really rough road, you probably want the pick-up. And to be fair, even within WC, you have a range of options, some more like the sports car, others more like the truck.

Yes extactly, unfortunatly ive had a few street fights, and wing chuns structure and principles have really helped me be more efficient in movement, force, speed, etc, You really have to be careful where and when you move because in a street fight there is no room for mistakes or simpathy.

Kravs similar, the intention is intercept and finish quickly but with brutal movments WC is more sophisticated and/or elegant, much more focused, thats why i like the combination of both of them.

Aussie-Chilean Martial Artist

Martial Arts isnt Self defence its self recognition

 

[mook jong man]

Yes extactly, unfortunatly ive had a few street fights, and wing chuns structure and principles have really helped me be more efficient in movement, force, speed, etc, You really have to be careful where and when you move because in a street fight there is no room for mistakes or simpathy.

Kravs similar, the intention is intercept and finish quickly but with brutal movments WC is more sophisticated and/or elegant, much more focused, thats why i like the combination of both of them.

Aussie-Chilean Martial Artist

Martial Arts isnt Self defence its self recognition

You made me remember something from a long time ago , one of our senior instructors said to us " Wing Chun is an elegant art , try and look elegant when you do it "

 

[MacPedro]

Hi People,
Sorry for re-animating this old thread but I’m quite fascinated by this idea. Could the next couple of posts get the Noob bashing out of the way and try to stay on topic in the interests of education and love, no one’s on trial here it’s just a discussion J

I’m not professing knowledge on any of this and in case my grammar lets me down please treat the tone of my whole post as questioning.

I was always meditating (while I did whatever it is that can’t possibly be called Siu Lim Tao because i’ve not had a teacher) on the statement “Attack the centre”.
Is “Attack the centre” too general to be classed as a concept. It conveys forward intent and perhaps energy also. Like SLT I believe that much of the elements in WC teach us different things ‘at the same time’. It certainly relates to centreline theory but it isn’t a fixed point in time and space and it’s much more likely for a teacher to say to an aspiring and time deficient anti-Manchurian rebel. This is simple isn’t it, thus ticking one of the WC boxes.

You have to believe the weak can overcome the strong. This is a bit Chun.

There’s another concept completely aside from WC called ‘E-prime’ which is almost the same as the English language but the word “is” is not used. I think some of the old Wing Chun knowledge has been twisted in some way due to translation and we interpret what were originally supposed to be verbs as nouns. This is perhaps robbing us of some of their nature. A dimension of their meaning we now are without.

Elaboration of this would come from someone with as much understanding of Chinese languages and English as Sifu David Peterson. I read Sun Tsu and found the work to be too nebulous. I know there is a lot of wisdom in 'the art of war' but I am too slow/impatient/western to be able to figure it out. Musashi on the other hand, while passing on a lot of the same knowledge was a much easier read for me. I believe it may be due to my inability to identify with the context in which it is written. Like the Star Trek Next Generation Episode ‘Darmok’.

If we can perhaps work through the Kuen Kuit in detail I believe we may get an answer to what Jin was asking. We all have ‘our’ interpretation of what they mean.
http://www.wcarchive.com/articles/maxims-kuen-kuit.htm

These phrases were so important to Ip Man that he had Moy Yat manufacture expensive stone chops. Or have I picked that up completely wrong. Did Ip Man have the money to throw around like that. Or did he not want money? Was this a whim or do they hold significant importance. Either way I see a lot of signatures here that have taken them to heart.

We could have an individual post on each one of these Maxims. In finding out how they are interpreted by the most experienced here an answer would be forthcoming surely.
"Eternal Spring" I like this as a concept relating to the arm angle, keeping in reserve to bloom/boing up into some ones chin once occupying the inner gate.

"Siu Lim Tau mainly trains internal power" All martial arts are great for confidence. To truely give 100% requires the banishment of fear. Fear causes a tension and the release of all manner of panic enducing chemicals which is counter productive to combat unless experienced. One way to avert this freeze/fight/flight response is to meditate out. A kind of self hypnosis which doesn't interfere with the training. Sartori, the void, the zone etc
"It is important to remain nuetral" Ip Man 2 Donnie yen/Ip Man.

The punch is like a kosh, a totally "elastic collision" all of the kinetic energy transferred.

Apologies the long post, not a simple question and a simpleton trying to answer.

Pedro

 

[zepedawingchun]

. . . . .If we can perhaps work through the Kuen Kuit in detail I believe we may get an answer to what Jin was asking. We all have ‘our’ interpretation of what they mean.
http://www.wcarchive.com/articles/maxims-kuen-kuit.htm

These phrases were so important to Ip Man that he had Moy Yat manufacture expensive stone chops. Or have I picked that up completely wrong. Did Ip Man have the money to throw around like that. Or did he not want money? Was this a whim or do they hold significant importance. Either way I see a lot of signatures here that have taken them to heart.

My first sifu was a disciple of Moy Yat Sifu. It is my understanding that Moy Yat was not so much a fighter, but the school scribe. He trained as the others, but was responsible for history and documetation within the Yip Man school. The Kuen Kuits were something he took upon himself to do, so that the maxims would not be lost. They were told to him by Yip Man and he felt they were important. And Moy Yat was somewhat of an artist too. So it must have seemed natural for him to create such pieces, for history's sake. Of course, Benny Meng Sifu may know more about this since he had them in his posession at one time. Not sure who owns them now since I heard Moy Yat requested they be returned before he died. Anyone know?

As for the maxims, I think they speak for themselves. Any student of Wing Chun with some time under their belt should understand them with relative ease. And MacPedro, that may be your problem. Since you haven't studied Wing Chun with a sifu, you have not been enlightened into their meaning and use. Some of them are pretty straight forward and some of them takes some time training to understand.

 

[zepedawingchun]

Is “Attack the centre” too general to be classed as a concept. It conveys forward intent and perhaps energy also. Like SLT I believe that much of the elements in WC teach us different things ‘at the same time’. It certainly relates to centreline theory but it isn’t a fixed point in time and space and it’s much more likely for a teacher to say to an aspiring and time deficient anti-Manchurian rebel. This is simple isn’t it, thus ticking one of the WC boxes.

Yes, attacking the center is a concept. Attack the center does not only apply to just the centerline, but also with use to the central line. Central line is when you are not face to face, in say a diagonal stance, or sideways to your opponent, or from the side, or behind, just something that is not face to face straight on. You create a straight line from your chin to theirs, and that is the central line. And you follow that line for attack for it is now the center.

We could have an individual post on each one of these Maxims. In finding out how they are interpreted by the most experienced here an answer would be forthcoming surely.

I think that would just bring up a lot of debate and bickering between the members on the forum. But, you are more than welcome to start it. List the maxims which you feel need to be addressed and see.

"Eternal Spring" I like this as a concept relating to the arm angle, keeping in reserve to bloom/boing up into some ones chin once occupying the inner gate.

Eternal Spring (Eternal Springtime) is not a concept, but a name, a meaning. Using or maintaining springy energy throughout can be classified as a concept. Always allowing your hands, arms, legs, whole body to be like a spring always under tension, waiting to be released is how we should be (springy energy).

. . . To truely give 100% requires the banishment of fear. Fear causes a tension and the release of all manner of panic enducing chemicals which is counter productive to combat unless experienced. One way to avert this freeze/fight/flight response is to meditate out. A kind of self hypnosis which doesn't interfere with the training. . . . . ..

I'm not sure about mediating fear out, but constant practice makes one confident in their abilities and skills. Once you are confident in your abilities, it is much easier to take tension out (fear) and relax to perform at one's best , be it in training or in combat.

 

[WC_lun]

I believe a lot of the differences in the Wing Chun community comes from perspective. We share many of the same concepts and training drills. However the importance of certain concepts and how they are applied change from teacher to teacher, lineage to lineage. This struck me heavily when watching a TV program on Wing Chun. The lineage was from Yip Man. The instructor was telling the student to step into the center of his opponent. I unerstand why he was saying this, it was to upset the attackers balance and make him move into recovery mode. Something we can all appreciate. However, for me this was something almost alien to my training, even though we are both Wing Chun people. For us, stepping into a persons center like he was is very dangerous. Collapsing knees, kicks, or a good grappler would make that type of thing not advisable. As a side note I train with ranked grapplers, so that is always a consideration. It wasn't that the instructor's method was wrong, particularly for him and his students, but that the experiences are different so certain things get focused on diferently.

There are things that as Wing Chun people we can all agree on. I think it would be better to focus on these commonalities than focus on the diffrences. Once the things we share can be noted and appreciated, then those things that are different can be appreciated. Then we all progress further.

 

[wtxs]

There are things that as Wing Chun people we can all agree on. I think it would be better to focus on these commonalities than focus on the diffrences. Once the things we share can be noted and appreciated, then those things that are different can be appreciated. Then we all progress further.

... what he saz. I vote to make this an WC motto.

 

[Punchy]

[

There are things that as Wing Chun people we can all agree on. I think it would be better to focus on these commonalities than focus on the diffrences. Once the things we share can be noted and appreciated, then those things that are different can be appreciated. Then we all progress further.

[/QUOTE]

Excellent idea for a thread....I'll do that right now

 

[chain punch]

Yes, attacking the center is a concept. Attack the center does not only apply to just the centerline, but also with use to the central line. Central line is when you are not face to face, in say a diagonal stance, or sideways to your opponent, or from the side, or behind, just something that is not face to face straight on. You create a straight line from your chin to theirs, and that is the central line. And you follow that line for attack for it is now the center.


I think that would just bring up a lot of debate and bickering between the members on the forum. But, you are more than welcome to start it. List the maxims which you feel need to be addressed and see.


I'm not sure about mediating fear out, but constant practice makes one confident in their abilities and skills. Once you are confident in your abilities, it is much easier to take tension out (fear) and relax to perform at one's best , be it in training or in combat.

I agree about meditating away fear. It is my hope that fear is present in your training and must be an integral part of your training. If we are to be training in wing chun, we must distinguish between what we are doing and be clear. Are we studying a martial art, self defence or match fighting. Each are very different and must not be confused as another. If you get comfortable with your skills it is time to get your biggest training partner glove up, headguard on an attack you in the style of the Saturday night masters. With tons of speed and aggression, especially verbal as this will get those adrenal glands working.

You need to learn how to work with fear. Not all of the time as this is going to be counter productive. We use it in our class as a tool of self development. It is also very humbling to realise the 'art' crumbles into chaos and survival. So be honest in your training.

In addition, you could look to apply one or two maxims under pressure and develop training that way.

How many of our teachers have had to test their art and themselves in the horror that is violence? And are we reaping the benefits of their experience through our study of wing chun?