Examples of force against force? You've got to be kidding! Avoiding crashing force against force is at the core of ...my.... WC/VT. I've encountered this in at least three lineages. This is the essence of what the WC origin myth is all about. Ideally, if an old woman (Ng Mui) or young girl (Yim Wing Chun) couldn't make it work ... it isn't Wing Chun. Please don't tell me that this concept is foreign to you!
Sei Ging....the "Four Energies" and Wing Chun
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
Examples of force against force? You've got to be kidding! Avoiding crashing force against force is at the core of ...my.... WC/VT. I've encountered this in at least three lineages. This is the essence of what the WC origin myth is all about. Ideally, if an old woman (Ng Mui) or young girl (Yim Wing Chun) couldn't make it work ... it isn't Wing Chun. Please don't tell me that this concept is foreign to you!
I mean show me the concept you are talking about-
Is it loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung? I don't think it is, but I could be wrong I guess.
Is it lin siu dai da? Doesn't seem to be, to me at least
Is it jeu ying bat jeu sau? Again I can't see how that would be the case.
Where is this idea and how do you interpret it in terms of other wing chun concepts and your wing chun strategy?
This is key to everything. You don't use brute force to crash through your opponent's defenses. You just stay with what comes, follow the retreat and thrust forward when the hand is free (my old Chinese sifu's translation). Do that and you aren't crashing force, right?
I think this is saying intercept and impose yourself upon the advancing opponent, attack the attack, do not collapse or retreat. Apply constant forward pressure in following the opponent, eat space and close options, cause them to make mistakes and be ready to capitalise on those. When an opportunity presents, attack with full commitment.
I don't see any prohibition against clashing with the opponent. In fact I think that in fighting with VT a certain amount of clashing is very likely. It is being able to control those attacking lines while cutting into the opponent that makes for effective VT, not avoidance of conflict or force meeting force, in my opinion. Force meeting force effectively is beneficial.
I think this is saying intercept and impose yourself upon the advancing opponent, attack the attack, do not collapse or retreat. Apply constant forward pressure in following the opponent, eat space and close options, cause them to make mistakes and be ready to capitalise on those. When an opportunity presents, attack with full commitment.
---That may very well have been Wong Shun Leung's interpretation of the Kuen Kuit. But that is not how everyone sees it. Again, the Wing Chun world is much bigger than WLSVT! I will say again......WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged.
---That may very well have been Wong Shun Leung's interpretation of the Kuen Kuit. But that is not how everyone sees it. Again, the Wing Chun world is much bigger than WLSVT! I will say again......WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged.
If you look to any of the systems which are based on these concepts, you find a detailed and non contradictory conceptual base coupled with a strategic approach which is fully consistent and in fact based upon these ideas.
---You seem to have a hard time accepting that Wong Shun Leung developed a logical and consistent conceptual base you are seeing that runs through his system, and tailored his understanding of everything else to match it and build upon it. I think he was quite ingenious myself. But that is why you look at other Wing Chun and can't understand what they are doing. Other versions of Wing Chun (especially the older mainland versions) are a bit more "open" in their concepts and use and allow for more options than WSLVT. What we have been talking about on this thread is a perfect example. You don't see the four energies fitting in with your WSLVT at all. And maybe they don't! But that doesn't mean they aren't part of Wing Chun, because WSLVT has been somewhat "streamlined" for what WSL wanted it to do. As a result it is rather one-dimensional. And there is nothing wrong with that. But again....WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged. WSLVT is a somewhat "specialized" version of Wing Chun. And again, that is not a criticism. There is nothing wrong with that. But failing to see that leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and poor judgment of what other's are doing in their Wing Chun....which has been quite evident on this forum.
---You seem to have a hard time accepting that Wong Shun Leung developed a logical and consistent conceptual base you are seeing that runs through his system, and tailored his understanding of everything else to match it and build upon it. I think he was quite ingenious myself. But that is why you look at other Wing Chun and can't understand what they are doing. Other versions of Wing Chun (especially the older mainland versions) are a bit more "open" in their concepts and use and allow for more options than WSLVT. What we have been talking about on this thread is a perfect example. You don't see the four energies fitting in with your WSLVT at all. And maybe they don't! But that doesn't mean they aren't part of Wing Chun, because WSLVT has been somewhat "streamlined" for what WSL wanted it to do. As a result it is rather one-dimensional. And there is nothing wrong with that. But again....WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged. WSLVT is a somewhat "specialized" version of Wing Chun. And again, that is not a criticism. There is nothing wrong with that. But failing to see that leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and poor judgment of what other's are doing in their Wing Chun....which has been quite evident on this forum.
[QUOTE="KPM, post: 1746623, member: 32524"---That may very well have been Wong Shun Leung's interpretation of the Kuen Kuit. But that is not how everyone sees it. Again, the Wing Chun world is much bigger than WLSVT! I will say again......WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged.[/QUOTE]
I am aware that you feel this way.
The question is about the contradiction between concepts that tun tou brings to wing chun. If we find contradiction in our understanding of the concepts then doesn't it highlight either a problem with our understanding, or a system that is internally inconsistent (i.e. broken)?
If tun tou is indeed an integral part of the system then why is the whole system not arranged in a way that is consistent with the basic idea? It is a very fundamental one in other systems that use it. What you wrote about Mainland wing chun appears more tagged on than fundamental.
I am aware that you feel this way.
The question is about the contradiction between concepts that tun tou brings to wing chun. If we find contradiction in our understanding of the concepts then doesn't it highlight either a problem with our understanding, or a system that is internally inconsistent (i.e. broken)?
If tun tou is indeed an integral part of the system then why is the whole system not arranged in a way that is consistent with the basic idea? It is a very fundamental one in other systems that use it. What you wrote about Mainland wing chun appears more tagged on than fundamental.
If tun tou is indeed an integral part of the system then why is the whole system not arranged in a way that is consistent with the basic idea? It is a very fundamental one in other systems that use it. What you wrote about Mainland wing chun appears more tagged on than fundamental
----I am aware that you feel this way. That doesn't mean that you are right. I'm just going by the evidence. It is there, whether you agree with it or not.
----I am aware that you feel this way. That doesn't mean that you are right. I'm just going by the evidence. It is there, whether you agree with it or not.
I'm not arguing whether it is there or not; you say it is and so I believe you.
The question is about the contradiction that it introduces and about the degree to which it is integrated, especially in comparison to other systems with this basic idea.
If we find contradiction in our understanding of the concepts then doesn't it highlight either a problem with our understanding, or a system that is internally inconsistent (i.e. broken)?
If we find a lack of integration then doesn't that indicate a recent addition and/or an introduction that wasn't understood and/or knowledge that has been lost?
I've already pointed out that you are basing your idea of "contradiction of concepts" on your understanding of WSLVT. Again....WSLVT is not the standard by which all other Wing Chun is judged. The "four energies" do not contradict anything in these older mainland versions of Wing Chun.
Danny T
Senior Master
We say:
"Receive what comes,
Follow what goes,
Thrust Forward when the hand is Free"
To intercept is to meet and receive. What I've been taught it is more like shaking hands with someone.
We do not pit force against force or strength against strength but rather utilize wing chun's understanding of angles and sensitivity to force for overcome it. We meet and defuse by redirecting the force through pivoting. The pivoting also moves the center of gravity and core out of the path of the force. In this way it is possible to disperse and return a force.
"Receive what comes,
Follow what goes,
Thrust Forward when the hand is Free"
To intercept is to meet and receive. What I've been taught it is more like shaking hands with someone.
We do not pit force against force or strength against strength but rather utilize wing chun's understanding of angles and sensitivity to force for overcome it. We meet and defuse by redirecting the force through pivoting. The pivoting also moves the center of gravity and core out of the path of the force. In this way it is possible to disperse and return a force.
Guy, you posited that contradictory concepts may indicate something recently added on. It may just as well be something very old that hasn't been weeded out. Either way, consistency is generally good in a system. But I've never seen KPMs WC. Without actually working with him, I'd feel like an idiot if I passed judgement on what he does.
I've already determined in past conversations with you that it doesn't matter what I say. Whatever I would write would not be good for you and wouldn't convince you of anything. So why would I bother?
I did say that it could also represent knowledge that has been lost. It could also represent an understanding that is maintained in secrecy. There are several options.
In terms of "passing judgement" all I can say is that from the perspective of YM wing chun it looks like tun tou contradicts some core wing chun concepts at quite a fundamental level. It also looks this way to me as someone who has learned these ideas through SPM; a system very much based upon them.
If this is not the case then I would welcome the opportunity to learn why I am wrong. Perhaps Mainland wing chun is not based around the same concepts as YM wing chun? If this was the case then it would truly be a different system rather than a variation. I guess it is for KPM or someone else from Mainland wing chun to explain if they want to.
I can't speak from the perspective of Mainland wing chun because I don't know much about it, beyond comparing to YM wing chun. I don't know the conceptual basis of mainland wing chun or how it justifies the things it does. Nobody in Mainland wing chun should feel threatened by or angry about questions from someone without the information they take for granted. Personally I would welcome the opportunity.
If you really feel this way then why post a thread in reply to my thread about tun tou? Why post on my threads at all?
I think that you don't really feel this way. I believe you are probably just upset from previous arguments.
Please allow me to apologise again for any offence I have caused. I would welcome the opportunity to work together to make this forum a better place again.
In terms of "passing judgement" all I can say is that from the perspective of YM wing chun it looks like tun tou contradicts some core wing chun concepts at quite a fundamental level.
---You mean WSLVT?
If this is not the case then I would welcome the opportunity to learn why I am wrong.
---I don't believe you and I'm sure others don't as well. Because our experience with you here in the forum has not shown that.
Nobody in Mainland wing chun should feel threatened by or angry about questions from someone without the information they take for granted. Personally I would welcome the opportunity.
---But you didn't really start by asking questions. You started out by making broad assumptions and stating them as fact on the other thread. Its how you approach things. Remember past discussions about using "tact"?
---You mean WSLVT?
If this is not the case then I would welcome the opportunity to learn why I am wrong.
---I don't believe you and I'm sure others don't as well. Because our experience with you here in the forum has not shown that.
Nobody in Mainland wing chun should feel threatened by or angry about questions from someone without the information they take for granted. Personally I would welcome the opportunity.
---But you didn't really start by asking questions. You started out by making broad assumptions and stating them as fact on the other thread. Its how you approach things. Remember past discussions about using "tact"?
Because you were so wrong about what you were saying I felt the need to speak up for the benefit of others on the forum. So you wouldn't mislead them. I could care less what you think anymore.
All of the YM wing chun that I have experienced me to believe what I do. I have not seen Mainland wing chun, apart from my experience with Alan Orr's
It's a shame you feel that way. I am sure most people would just like a return to a more pleasant atmosphere
I have only spoken from the perspective of things I have experienced. There is no need to make every thread about your personal grievances KPM. I am happy to help clear the air if I can. Please PM me if you wish to continue so that we don't clog up the forum with stuff that nobody wants to read.
