Eddie Chong's Sil Lim Tao

[geezer]

...every OTHER MA forum has a ton of thread that involve WC lineage or sifu bashing.

There, fixed that!

 

[Marnetmar]

I don't know anything about Eddie Chong and his style, and yeah, that high wu sao sure looks goofy. But I wouldn't say that to his face until I touched his hands

Tbh I think he added a few things in/left a few things out so that people wouldn't try to learn Wing Chun just from watching a DVD. I train with one of his students and we don't put our wu sau that high and from what I understand Eddie was pretty particular about keeping your hands at least a fist's distance from your body, which you don't see in this video.

 

[Vajramusti]

Sifu Eddie Chong's Wing Chun Hammer Strike - YouTube

 

[ST1Doppelganger]

There, fixed that!

LMAO Geezer now only if you could fix the political issue so easily?

Only if the WC community could all just along LOL but there's much worst political nonsense between other styles.

 

[zuti car]

LMAO Geezer now only if you could fix the political issue so easily?

Only if the WC community could all just along LOL but there's much worst political nonsense between other styles.

Why , politics is a good thing, like a filter , every time when someone says something like my style/lineage is better than others or my way of doing things is the only correct , that is a clear sign I should avoid that person

 

[Argus]

Well put.

Looking at the SLT of another lineage and criticizing the movements and angles can be a fools game (sorry, Argus ;-), especially when dealing with a practitioner who might have very deep and broad experience. At various times I have found myself thinking that the movements of a martial artist looked really bogus, only to eat my words when I actually touched hands with him.

The real special sauce of SLT isn't even the external elements of angles and such, but rather in the internal elements of tension, intention and the like.
These things are much harder to see and judge in person, let alone from a youtube video.

I don't know anything about Eddie Chong and his style, and yeah, that high wu sao sure looks goofy. But I wouldn't say that to his face until I touched his hands

Well, I partially agree.

Everyone's Wing Chun is different for sure. But I also feel that we can come to a pragmatic understanding of the art. It is, after all, based on certain concepts, principles, and physical structures. I've never bought the "just because a lineage does it's form this way means it's right" argument.

Far too many learn the forms without ever understanding them, I feel. I routinely cross reference the following student's forms and pick over them in minute details: Ip Man, Ip Ching, Wong Shun Leung, Tsui Shung Tin, Moy Yat. You'll learn a lot if you do this. If you watch their forms, you can discern their take on Wing Chun. Watch them do Chi-sau, and you'll notice the differences you noted in the forms come out.

Take my lineage, for example. One thing that tends to strike me about Ip Ching's forms is that he tends to be much more extended. You can see this in his forms as well as his Chisau. He has very good fa-jing, places greater emphasis on yiu-ma, and is overall more extended in many of his motions. This is reflected in his chisau, where you'll find a lot of lap-sau and fak-sau actions due to his extended nature. And this is reflected in his students as well -- in my teacher, and in myself, because that's how I was taught.

Now, by contrast, go look at WSL practicing his forms. His movements tend to be tighter, more compact, more square, and more structurally sound. Watch them practicing their Chisau, and you'll find the same thing: they tend to move their whole body in when they attack - to the point that they're reaching their opponent with a bent arm, and have very good control. You'll also see very good lat-sau-jik-chung. Their chisau tends to be simpler, more straight forward, and more geared towards combative application. Overall, they don't seem as soft as Ip Ching guys, though. Of course, this depends entirely on the instructor as well -- Gary Lam, for example, also has a Tai Chi background, and tends to have a softer and more varied approach.

I frequently questioned my instructor on why we do things as we do in our forms. I also frequently look at forms of other lineages, and listen to lectures given on them by Ip Ching, Wong Shun Leung, Tsui Shong Tin, Moy Yat, and the like. This is because I want a deep and broad understanding of the forms -- I don't just want one interpretation of them, because I believe that everyone's understanding is a little bit incomplete. Even among Ip Man's original students, each one carried away a bit of a different understanding, and each one missed out on certain knowledge -- things that they just picked up, but never really questioned or examined until later in life. And each one refined their Wing Chun, or innovated, in different ways, and with different approaches. There's almost always an angle to it, though -- no matter how good, individuals tend to emphasize certain things that "suit them" more than others, and this leads in a wide variety of approaches in Wing Chun. This does, however, mean that every teacher's WC tends to be a bit slanted, and a bit "incomplete." It's almost as if each teacher, and each lineage, has certain pieces of the puzzle that some others miss; yet they themselves also miss some pieces. That's why I seek a broader understanding. And, it's also why I think that forms are not always correct: a lot of teachers change their forms to suit their limited interpretation of a movement or concept. As we know, concepts in Wing Chun can be broadly applied, and sometimes, people take too specific an interpretation on something, and change it to suit that specific context without considering the whole picture. And sometimes, they never understood it, or just misinterpreted it from the get-go. Even the most experienced of us have some holes in our knowledge -- some things we just "picked up" but never fully understood.

So, I'll continue to be very discerning of forms. Being discerning, or even critical, doesn't mean that you can't keep an open mind, though. I just tend to keep my doubts until given a suitable explanation. But to be honest, most of the time I question someone on a wonky movement in a wonky form, I get a wonky answer that seems to miss the point and/or overlook the big picture.

 

[LFJ]

If you watch their forms, you can discern their take on Wing Chun.

I would not be so presumptuous! Not everyone's approach is so application oriented, like Chong's video here where it's all direct application, although many are indeed.

WSL's forms, and especially the SNT, are entirely abstract. Nothing in his SNT is even functional without CK. What could one possibly discern about his take on Ving Tsun from watching his forms without prior knowledge? Absolutely nothing.

 

[Vajramusti]

Actually a lot.

 

[LFJ]

Actually a lot.

An example? Without knowledge of the abstract, one will look at each action he performs and interpret it either literally or in another way incorrectly.

The last three actions before the final punches, Chong shows them as a wrist grab escape. It has nothing to do with that in WSL's approach. I've seen a certain well-known student of his offer three alternative interpretations and not a single one of them hit on the abstract and primary function. So I wonder what one outside of the lineage could discern by merely viewing the form...

 

[Vajramusti]

I was not commenting on Chong. I don't follow WSL though I have met him and briefly done chi sao with him twice.
WSL's slt tells me a lot about his structure which showed up in chi sao. No sense in arguing perception.

 

[LFJ]

Well, sure, SNT introduces basic structure. That's common to all lineages. But the statement was made that one can discern various masters' "take on Wing Chun" by viewing their forms. That's a much broader statement than just an obvious observation of structure. WSL's forms are entirely abstract, so I don't see how one can discern his take on Ving Tsun by viewing his forms.

 

[Vajramusti]

Its ok to have different views and we do have different views.
I see lots of differences in "basic" structure among lineages.
Out of respect for Ip Man's best students, I will not compare them here.

 

[LFJ]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this "take on Wing Chun". To me, that seems to mean their overall method; their strategy and tactics for free fighting. I don't think one can discern such things from viewing the forms and even chi-sau in the WSLVT lineage, since the forms are abstract and the chi-sau redundant in free fighting. Other lineages' forms contain literal applications and their chi-sau is a fighting method using sticking concepts.

 

[KPM]

Wow LFJ! 5 posts in this forum and you've already found something to argue about! Welcome......I think???

 

[Vajramusti]

So it goes!

 

[LFJ]

I'm just taking part in the discussion on this discussion forum, not "arguing". Read something that jumped out to me and decided to comment. Do we all just agree to agree with each other over here? I admit I haven't read the forum rules.

 

[Argus]

Maybe I'm reading too much into this "take on Wing Chun". To me, that seems to mean their overall method; their strategy and tactics for free fighting. I don't think one can discern such things from viewing the forms and even chi-sau in the WSLVT lineage, since the forms are abstract and the chi-sau redundant in free fighting. Other lineages' forms contain literal applications and their chi-sau is a fighting method using sticking concepts.

For someone who is ignorant of Wing Chun in the first place, sure. But as a Wing Chun practitioner, there's a lot that can be discerned from someone's forms and chisau. You get a sense of that person's "values," for lack of a better word. The concepts and principles practiced in forms and chisau, be they abstract or not, relate the practitioner's values and philosophy. If they don't, you'd better reevaluate your training.

Of course SLT and CK are abstract. But they tell us a lot about a practitioner. When I look at WSL's forms, I see Wing Chun's concepts being adhered to more closely than perhaps any other lineage. There's a lot of information, both specific, and conceptual contained within the forms, and WSL's interpretations and refinements are very pragmatic and adherent to the system.

In my opinion, WSL's strength was focusing on those "abstract" principles, and actually ingraining and applying them in a pragmatic and uncompromising manner. His refinements to the forms reflect that perfectly.

As for Chisau... Sure, chisau isn't fighting. Again, it's abstract. But just by looking at someone's chisau, you can get a sense of someone's values and skills. A lot of people like to chase hands, for example. Others like to train lots of complicated sequences for chisau. WSL practitioners tend to do neither; they're very direct, very simple, very efficient, and apply the principle of lat-sau-jik-chung very well. You can see this clear as day in their chisau, and I'd say it says a lot about their take on Wing Chun.

 

[Kwan Sau]

WSL's forms are entirely abstract

Care to share an example so we can discuss/compare/contrast?

 

[Argus]

Care to share an example so we can discuss/compare/contrast?

They're no more abstract than any other lineage. I don't really get LFJ's point here.

I've also seen David Peterson's seminars on the forms, which go very indepth. By and large, WSL's interpretation of the forms is not so different from most other Ip Man lineages. He does have a deeper and broader understanding of the forms where many of his contemporaries sometimes take a more superficial interpretation, and he did add his own refinements from place to place, but they serve the same purpose and are understood in more or less the same way as most other lineages -- or, at least mine, anyway.

 

[Kwan Sau]

They're no more abstract than any other lineage. I don't really get LFJ's point here..

I hear ya, but was hoping lfj might care to offer an example for discussion sake.
For example, I'm sure wsl has a punch in his forms...what is lfj's take on the abstract-ness of a punch?