Anyone recognize this?

[Juany118]

Yes. This is the Traditional Wing Chun Chum Kiu.

Was just going to say is that CK from the stuff you said you got from Sifu Keith

 

[Nobody Important]

When someone speaks of what inspired a movement, I tend to read it as referring to why they originally did the movement instinctively, rather than a cerebral inspiration. In other words, not "that's an interesting motion - I'll bet it would work as a throw", but an "oh ****, do something!" (and out comes a habitual motion). So, a fisherman who was trying to throw down an attacker (or opponent in competition) might instinctively reach for that net-casting motion, because his muscles know how to do it. Then, that motion works, so he teaches it to someone else.

Of course, some probably were cerebral inspirations, but I consider them less likely, so less common.

Certainly true, people will instinctively use movements that they perform on a daily basis, because they are ingrained. This is often how utilitarian movements, as in the original topic of this discussion, come about. Over time this association may be forgotten, added to, or completely altered, but the premise is none-the-less plausible.

 

[Juany118]

Do I get a prize now? Maybe an all expenses paid vacation to someplace exotic, like Jersey? Lol!

I really like the utilitarian concept. I have a small set of San Sik called Lin Wan Kou Da that follows the same concept. Empty hand, pole & knives, no variation in movement & rich in concept. Throws, locks, chokes strikes & weapons. All basic movement but diverse in application & theory. It was what I taught (altered to suit CQC tactics and weapons) to various infantry & special operation units when I was a contractor for the Army.

If this was indeed something William Cheung created, it took a great deal of knowledge & insight to create to make cohesive. Thanks for sharing.

It's how things "mesh" in TWC that I really like. I think that might even be why Sigung Cheung made "advanced" SLT. There is actually, imo, a more obvious progression/connection between each of the forms than other lineages that claim a connection to YM. Now by obvious I mean just that, obvious, because of course there is a connection in the other Lineages and additions like "advanced" SLT fill in what someone with a more analytical mindset may see as a "gap."

That said, the "Wooden Dummy" form, as an example, is its own form in TWC, however one of the things I am taught at least is that I should not tie myself to that form. The Mook Jong is there to "stand in" if I do not have a partner, to free form, as well. As such I should be able to connect anything to it. So whether by intent or chance it makes sense to me that the CK form should also work on the dummy. I would like to imagine Sigung Cheung as he adapted YM CK to his CK saying "hey can I make this work on the Mook?" I hope to have the chance to ask him that one day actually.

 

[Nobody Important]

It's how things "mesh" in TWC that I really like. I think that might even be why Sigung Cheung made "advanced" SLT. There is actually, imo, a more obvious progression/connection between each of the forms than other lineages that claim a connection to YM. Now by obvious I mean just that, obvious, because of course there is a connection in the other Lineages and additions like "advanced" SLT fill in what someone with a more analytical mindset may see as a "gap."

While I can't say this is true of YCWWC, we do have cohesion, at least IMO. Much like Taiwanese Hung Kuen, Yuen Chai Wan Wing Chun diverged to incorporate and express the 5 Animals individually. I never learned this method, but have seen it, a Vietnamese student of mine learned this variant prior to studying with me. It has it's own cohesion and works well for how it was designed. For me it's too complex, too difficult to change back and forth from one type of method and energy to another. YCWWC is very similar to Yuen Kay San Wing Chun, if anything, even simpler, but contains elements throughout not commonly found in YMWC, and used to different purposes. Not better, just different and overlap with form and concept (for both weapon & hand) is prevalent, just not to the degree of William Cheung's version.

 

[KPM]

Was just going to say is that CK from the stuff you said you got from Sifu Keith

Yes and no. I trained with Sifu John Clayton in a series of private lessons many years ago. Looking at Sifu Mazza's stuff, or GM Cheung's vids, etc. just helps point out refinements in the movement and uses. Since I didn't learn in the typical classroom setting from Sifu Clayton, Sifu Mazza's material has been useful for filling in some of the curriculum gaps I might have missed.....like training drills, footwork drills, etc. Since I was already a seasoned Wing Chun guy and not a beginner, Sifu Clayton took me through the forms, the footwork, and essential fighting strategies.

 

[Eric_H]

FWIW, Hung Fa Yi already has weapons dummy forms - Don't need to invent any new ones. That said, I think you should constantly be deconstructing and evaluating all forms from both a weapons and empty hand perspective. It's valuable, to me at least, to know what things translate and what things don't.

 

[Dylan9d]

Like Aikido people on the Wing Chun forum.

LFJ full of his WSL crap again......

Everytime he writes a message about WC on a forum both WSL and YM will roll over in their graves may they RIP.

 

[LFJ]

But doing CK pattern with knives isn't necessarily wrong... provided it is performed with proper blade presentation.

You have to change a lot for it to make sense with the knives.

For example, there is multiple x-ing of the arms in various ways in CK, and doing that with knives will cut your own hands off. So, you change that and it changes the concept entirely. You're then left with just the rough pattern, which is the least important thing about the form.

Pointless.

Plus, you still have mismatching footwork which is the correct direction for empty hand but wrong direction for knives. If that's not fixed, then it just shows a complete misunderstanding of the empty hand and knife fighting methods.

If we're talking about TWC's CK, then it's even more of a mess since Cheung says some stepping in the form is forward, but the secret application is backward. So, for the sake of keeping secrets, you train the wrong footwork thousands of times for what you actually want to do.

Then you want to apply the same backward thinking directly to the knives?

That's the problem with modifying forms you never learned properly in the first place.

 

[LFJ]

---I assure you that I "forced" nothing! It is very natural!

Actions had to be altered to be arranged around the dummy, stubbornly attached to a pattern.

If you want to perform the actions of CK on the dummy, the dummy form already does that anyway.

Doing the whole CK form on the dummy is just pointless attachment to pattern.

 

[geezer]

Actions had to be altered to be arranged around the dummy, stubbornly attached to a pattern.

If you want to perform the actions of CK on the dummy, the dummy form already does that anyway.

Doing the whole CK form on the dummy is just pointless attachment to pattern.

LFJ, it is unfortunate that your previous exchanges with many forum members have lead them to dismiss you out of hand, even when you make good points (as you do here).

 

[anerlich]

If we're talking about TWC's CK, then it's even more of a mess since Cheung says some stepping in the form is forward, but the secret application is backward. So, for the sake of keeping secrets, you train the wrong footwork thousands of times for what you actually want to do.

Yeah, sure. And WSL once said Leung Bik was actually a Martian. Where do you get this sh*t from?

 

[KPM]

LFJ, it is unfortunate that your previous exchanges with many forum members have lead them to dismiss you out of hand, even when you make good points (as you do here).

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part. LFJ is just miffed because he has gone on and on about how WSLVT is so conceptually based and not about applications, etc, etc. Yet it turns out that his forms are not conceptual enough and therefore flexible enough to be practiced in various ways.

After a student has learned the TWC Chum Kiu form well....and before they have even thought about beginning to learn the dummy form....you can tell the student "ok, now here is how you can do the CK form on the dummy!" And a light goes off in their head when they realize that they also know a dummy form without having to learn a whole new sequence! They immediately have something valuable to practice that also reinforces their empty hand Chum Kiu so that they know it that much better! This isn't a "pointless attachment to pattern", this is an efficient use of training!!!

So saying "Doing the whole CK form on the dummy is just pointless attachment to pattern" is not a good point at all!.

In fact, it is revealing of someone that doesn't have an understanding of how movements can have multiple uses and that movements based on concepts are readily adaptable in a wide range of environments. It also sounds like someone with "sour grapes" because he realizes that his system (which he thought was the greatest thing in the world) ends up not being as "coherent" as he has made it out to be here on this forum!!!

 

[KPM]

Yeah, sure. And WSL once said Leung Bik was actually a Martian. Where do you get this sh*t from?

Actually, I am pretty sure that it was David Petersen in a seminar that said some of the stepping in Chum Kiu was forward in the form for convenience, but to the rear in actual use! But, of course, we all now know (thanks to Guy and LFJ) that David Petersen never learned the "real" WSLVT!!!!

 

[KPM]

For example, there is multiple x-ing of the arms in various ways in CK, and doing that with knives will cut your own hands off. So, you change that and it changes the concept entirely. You're then left with just the rough pattern, which is the least important thing about the form.

----I'll say it again, since you either missed it before or you are just plain dense. What you wrote may be true of the WSLVT Chum Kiu, but it is not true of the TWC Chum Kiu. Do you know the TWC Chum Kiu????


Pointless.

---Again, maybe pointless for you and your Chum Kiu. And that is your loss! But you continuing to criticize and speak negatively about someone else and their Chum Kiu is pretty pointless!!!!


Plus, you still have mismatching footwork which is the correct direction for empty hand but wrong direction for knives. If that's not fixed, then it just shows a complete misunderstanding of the empty hand and knife fighting methods.

----Do you know TWC empty hand and knife fighting methods??? If not, how can you say such things with so much confidence? Like I said before, it sounds like you need to limit your opinions to what you know.....WSLVT.



That's the problem with modifying forms you never learned properly in the first place.

---No. You are displaying the exact problem of trying to comment with some kind of authority and usefulness on forms that you have never learned at all!!!!

---I shared 3 videos of myself just to show a training method I use to members of the forum. I shared why I do things that way and why I think it is useful. You have been nothing but critical and judgmental. And you don't even know TWC!!! And when have you EVER posted a video of yourself to contribute to this forum????

 

[KPM]

double post

 

[Juany118]

"

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part. LFJ is just miffed because he has gone on and on about how WSLVT is so conceptually based and not about applications, etc, etc. Yet it turns out that his forms are not conceptual enough and therefore flexible enough to be practiced in various ways.

After a student has learned the TWC Chum Kiu form well....and before they have even thought about beginning to learn the dummy form....you can tell the student "ok, now here is how you can do the CK form on the dummy!" And a light goes off in their head when they realize that they also know a dummy form without having to learn a whole new sequence! They immediately have something valuable to practice that also reinforces their empty hand Chum Kiu so that they know it that much better! This isn't a "pointless attachment to pattern", this is an efficient use of training!!!

So saying "Doing the whole CK form on the dummy is just pointless attachment to pattern" is not a good point at all!.

In fact, it is revealing of someone that doesn't have an understanding of how movements can have multiple uses and that movements based on concepts are readily adaptable in a wide range of environments. It also sounds like someone with "sour grapes" because he realizes that his system (which he thought was the greatest thing in the world) ends up not being as "coherent" as he has made it out to be here on this forum!!!

I actually wanted to say something similar to the last point. If a system is truly coherent not only should each form smoothly flow into the next, you should be able to blend them with a little thought/practice. Some may say it's pointless to do CK on the dummy but is it pointless to increase your understanding of the art by using CK on the dummy? I do not think so.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

"

I actually wanted to say something similar to the last point. If a system is truly coherent not only should each form smoothly flow into the next, you should be able to blend them with a little thought/practice. Some may say it's pointless to do CK on the dummy but is it pointless to increase your understanding of the art by using CK on the dummy? I do not think so.

Agreed. Without knowing the forms (not necessary for the discussion at hand), I can say that attempting to do a form in a different context is useful. If the form works easily in that context, you learn one thing. If it does not, you dig deeper to figure out why, and you've learned several other things. Either way, the exercise was useful.

 

[LFJ]

Where do you get this sh*t from?

Here's one example, at :57

 

[LFJ]

LFJ is just miffed because he has gone on and on about how WSLVT is so conceptually based and not about applications, etc, etc. Yet it turns out that his forms are not conceptual enough and therefore flexible enough to be practiced in various ways.

That you can alter your form to be done around a dummy or with knives in your hands doesn't make it conceptual.

In fact, it is revealing of someone that doesn't have an understanding of how movements can have multiple uses and that movements based on concepts are readily adaptable in a wide range of environments.

YMVT forms, being concept-based, aren't collections of movements with multiple applications.

You seem to think conceptual = having multiple applications. That's just application-based thinking multiplied.

It also sounds like someone with "sour grapes" because he realizes that his system (which he thought was the greatest thing in the world) ends up not being as "coherent" as he has made it out to be here on this forum!!!

Shaving square pegs to fit in round holes doesn't make your system more coherent.

It means you were either missing pieces or lost the instruction manual.

For example, there is multiple x-ing of the arms in various ways in CK, and doing that with knives will cut your own hands off. So, you change that and it changes the concept entirely. You're then left with just the rough pattern, which is the least important thing about the form.

----I'll say it again, since you either missed it before or you are just plain dense. What you wrote may be true of the WSLVT Chum Kiu, but it is not true of the TWC Chum Kiu. Do you know the TWC Chum Kiu????

We can see exactly this in the videos you provided.

The actions are not unaltered between the empty hand and knife versions.

 

[KPM]

Here's one example, at :57

Geez! Perfect example of LFJ not understanding the "conceptual context" of a motion! That low Bong can be done stepping forward as in the form, with a T step as Sifu Redmond shows in his video, and with a "pivot step."