Juany118
Senior Master
Was just going to say is that CK from the stuff you said you got from Sifu KeithYes. This is the Traditional Wing Chun Chum Kiu.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was just going to say is that CK from the stuff you said you got from Sifu KeithYes. This is the Traditional Wing Chun Chum Kiu.
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.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.
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.
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.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."
Was just going to say is that CK from the stuff you said you got from Sifu Keith
Like Aikido people on the Wing Chun forum.
But doing CK pattern with knives isn't necessarily wrong... provided it is performed with proper blade presentation.
---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.
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.
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).
Yeah, sure. And WSL once said Leung Bik was actually a Martian. Where do you get this sh*t from?
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.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!!!
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."
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.
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.
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!!!
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????
Here's one example, at :57