What is "good" WC/WT

[chisauking]

Without being antagonistic, I would beg to differ. I feel that practitioners that can apply wing chun for real, one can see the tools of the method being applied.

In most wing chun clips, one can't see any edvidence of wing chun being used at all in either gwoh-sau or when one's opponent is being uncooperative.

It's only those rare and gifted wing chun practitioners that can demonstrate the use of wing chun tools.

It's very easy to disprove my point. Show me a clip in which a wing chun pracitioner is clearly showing the application of a fook-sau, or jut-sau, or po-pai, or quan-sau, etc., etc, in 'real time'.

 

[geezer]

... I feel that practitioners that can apply wing chun for real, one can see the tools of the method being applied.

...In most wing chun clips, one can't see any edvidence of wing chun being used at all in either gwoh-sau or when one's opponent is being uncooperative.

It's only those rare and gifted wing chun practitioners that can demonstrate the use of wing chun tools.

I don't know, but I suspect it also depends a lot on how skilled you are relative to your opponent. My Wing Tsun looks great, even in real time if I'm fighting my 10 year-old son! LOL But seriously, the best you are likely to see from a beginner or intermediate in a fight is front-thrust kicking and chain punching, and a lot of aggression. And that's OK if it gets the job done.

However, I believe your comments were a response to Mook's story. You are asserting that a really good 'chunner should be able to fight and actually use WC/WT techniques. And, you point out that that is pretty rare. I grant you that. But if I understood Mook correctly, he was talking about WC/WT at the very highest level where it is so effortless and efficient that it doesn't have to look like much of anything. My first sifu could move like that. He used to say that when you really possessed WT, it could take many forms. Now that's even rarer.

 

[mook jong man]

Yeah you are spot on Geezer .
If I can clarify it further , we use a movement called a Dai Sau to deflect a punch to the face that is off the centreline or circular.

If a student was watching me , even if the attack was thrown very fast he would still be able to recognise that I was raising my arm up into a Dai Sau to deflect the punch.

But with my Sifu his movement was extremely minimal and to all intents and purposes looked like he was just flicking his hand up to his face to deflect the punch.

I think it is just a natural evolution of training for many years that your movements will become more economical over time , just enough to get the job done and no more.

Not only that I think because they are so highly skilled they can even cut corners with their movements and don't have to be as strict and correct as us mere mortals.

Its kind of like we're all riding around on B.M.X bikes with training wheels on them , and their getting around on theirs with no training wheels and popping wheelies up and down the street.

 

[Punchy]

I think it is just a natural evolution of training for many years that your movements will become more economical over time , just enough to get the job done and no more.



One of my Si-fu's catch phrases is "just enough"

 

[chisauking]

I understand that as one gets more skillful, one's movments becomes smaller and smaller.....but not to the point where it's not discernable as to what 'tool' it is within wing chun.

Put simply, a lot of tools in wing chun are shapes, shapes that can jam, wedge, deflect, absorb, etc., etc., energy. How's it possible to form those shapes -- say, bong-sau or jum-sau -- without it being recognisable as those shapes? How's it possible to apply quan-sau and still not look like quan-sau? How can one hide the action of po-pai?

The truth is, most practitioners would be lucky to be able to demonstrate more than a handful of wing chun tools in gwoh-sau, let alone apply it in such a way that it is hidden from recognition in a real fight.

It's true that your ability to display your skills is down to your opponent's skill level, but even then, the characteristics of wing chun shoudn't be totally lost -- if you are indeed using wing chun.

You know, many people say wing chun shouldn't look like wing chun when applied for real. But then, if you ask them to break the individual tools down and show the possible application of each, they can't! For example, ask someone to demonstrate a fook-sau in sparring, they can't.......Funny thing is, they claim they are using it in sparring....only that no one can recognise it.

Mook jong man: maybe you could post a clip of your example regarding dai-sau? I'm not disputing what you are saying, but I might be able to recognise the tool being applied by your teacher.

 

[mook jong man]

Mook jong man: maybe you could post a clip of your example regarding dai-sau? I'm not disputing what you are saying, but I might be able to recognise the tool being applied by your teacher.

I think you might be taking me a little bit too literally mate , I'm talking about when my Sifu did something at full speed , to me it was just a blur.
But when he showed you slowly then you could see what it was that he was using.

But anyhow I haven't got any clips of him doing Dai Sau because he died several years ago , but I have got one of his son and a couple of other people doing it from my old school.
Most of the time in the clip you will see them defending punches to the head with the Dai Sau.
By the way the bloke in the blue shirt is my Sifu's son , who I used to teach occasionally when he was just a little fella of about 8 years old.

 

[matsu]

wow great video mr mook.!
will be saving that and the others to watch again and again.

sifu has always said fighting isnt pretty so just get the job done!!
but the traditional basics as we practise in their art form will work when put to the test. and to watch him in full flow is breathtaking.
yes he cuts out movements or some of the full technique but the essence of the technique in its purest form is there cos it works.
i just hope i can get somewhere near there at some stage in my training,but i doubt it very much.

matsu

 

[geezer]

Mook, I really enjoyed the video. Was 'dai sau' the technique with the arm extended a bit like a bong sau, with the palm down and elbow outward, used to counter a wide hooking punch? If so, we use the same technique in the WT branch, but call it 'fook-sau'. This, of course leads to a lot of confusion since 'fook sau' or 'bridge-on arm' also refers to the the hooked-wristed position of the hand in chi-sau, also in Siu Nim Tau and so on.

I believe this is because WT uses the term 'fook sau' to describe the concept of the hand sticking or clinging to the opponent's bridge rather than just describing a particular hand position that 'fook sau' can assume. In response to Chisauking's comments, I think you will find that we do use 'fook sau' in this conceptual sense in sparring. Of course, in sparring and fighting, the object is not to stick, but to hit! So a sticking and controlling technique like fook sau happens only for a nanosecond in moments of contact and transition as you seek an opening to attack.

 

[chisauking]

I hope no one has taken what I'd said out of context.

This topic is about what constitutes good wc\wt, so my point was to illustrate how one can see 'good' wing chun.

1) It must 'look' like wing chun and its tools.

2) One must be able to pull off those tools in real time, during gwoh-sau or fighting.

So far, very few -- if any -- has posted clips that shows wing chun practitioners applying those tools in real time. Which is why I feel the people that can apply wing chun for real, their methods looks like wing chun, and not like something else.

As for the video clip, I show many bil-sau, some gan-sau, some jut-sau. Dai-sau sounds like leading hand in cantonese, but I didn't see any instances of this. In any case, I'd recognised all the movements used, but maybe your organisation calls it by another name.

 

[geezer]

I hope no one has taken what I'd said out of context. This topic is about what constitutes good wc\wt, so my point was to illustrate how one can see 'good' wing chun.

1) It must 'look' like wing chun and its tools.

Well, I don't think everyone will ever agree completely about what WC/WT should look like. The top sifus from some of the branches will each insist that the other's technique is complete garbage. I guess that kinda suggests a whole different meaning to your phrase, "Wing Chun and its tools." And having seen some of these guys, I'm glad that I don't look like any of them! LOL

2) One must be able to pull off those tools in real time, during gwoh-sau or fighting.

This is our objective. But I agree, to really pull-off good WC/WT" in real-time is tough. That's why in the WT system the first four senior grades (equivalent to "black-belt") are called "Technicans". They know and can correctly perform their skills technically, but may not yet be able execute advanced skills in "real time".

The senior grades from level 5 on up (equivalent of "master"), are called "Practicians" since they have the skill to apply their advanced techniques freely in what you term "real time". There are only a handful of WT Practicians in the US. And, even less who fully merit this rank.

How does it work in your lineage?

 

[mook jong man]

Was 'dai sau' the technique with the arm extended a bit like a bong sau, with the palm down and elbow outward, used to counter a wide hooking punch?

Yeah mate that was the one.

 

[mook jong man]

I
As for the video clip, I show many bil-sau, some gan-sau, some jut-sau. Dai-sau sounds like leading hand in cantonese, but I didn't see any instances of this. In any case, I'd recognised all the movements used, but maybe your organisation calls it by another name.

I was always told it meant raising arm or lifting arm , or words to that effect.
Anyhow as long it stops me from getting my teeth knocked out thats all I'm worried about , dentists in Oz charge an arm and a leg lol .

But it would be fantastic if one day all these terms for techniques could be standardised right across the board so we could all know what the hell we were talking about.

But that isn't going to happen when we can't even agree most of the time on what is proper Wing Chun / Wing Tsun.

 

[matsu]

i beilieve we call this just laan sau- or straight arm i think forgive my terminlogy numptiness lol
matsu

 

[geezer]

i beilieve we call this just laan sau- or straight arm i think forgive my terminlogy numptiness lol
matsu

In WT we use the term "lan sau" to describe the "bar-arm" or horizontal right-angle elbow position seen in SNT as you chamber before delivering the double fak-sau strikes, or as seen in Chum Kiu performed with a turn as a double "hacking elbow". But who knows. I've been told that in Mandarin, simple term like "ma" can have half a dozen meanings, depending on tone and context. Cantonese is said to be much the same. It's all pretty confusing for us poor gwai-lo.

 

[geezer]

Another thought about good 'chun. Applying force along the centerline. But the term "centerline" is sometimes defined differently in different lineages, so let me rephrase what I mean:

Good techniques are directed through the very center of your opponent. As my current instructor describes it, you can imagine the body of your opponent as a candle with a wick running vertically up through the center. Your energy should be projected directly through the wick. The same applies for advanced techniques, including the hook in Biu Tze, the dummy techniques, and so forth.

It's a very basic, yet very important concept that I believe is common to all the WC/WT that I've seen. I mention it because, it is also used in some other martial arts, such as Torres (DTE) Eskrima. And if you get off center even a bit, a good martial artist can use that against you.

 

[zepedawingchun]

I was always told it meant raising arm or lifting arm , or words to that effect.

. . . But it would be fantastic if one day all these terms for techniques could be standardised right across the board so we could all know what the hell we were talking about.

Raising arm or lifting arm we call 'tai sau' and it is found in the second part of SNT, the last hand motion of the set (before the hands are re-chambered to begin the 3rd part).

 

[zepedawingchun]

In WT we use the term "lan sau" to describe the "bar-arm" or horizontal right-angle elbow position seen in SNT as you chamber before delivering the double fak-sau strikes, or as seen in Chum Kiu performed with a turn as a double "hacking elbow". But who knows. I've been told that in Mandarin, simple term like "ma" can have half a dozen meanings, depending on tone and context. Cantonese is said to be much the same. It's all pretty confusing for us poor gwai-lo.

We call the bar arm, lan sau (fence up hand) also. But what you call fak sau, we call sat sau (pronounced saht sau) which translates to throat cutting hand.

 

[geezer]

We call the bar arm, lan sau (fence up hand) also. But what you call fak sau, we call sat sau (pronounced saht sau) which translates to throat cutting hand.

Interesting. We use the term "tie-sau" (tai-sau) or "lifting-arm" to describe the same technique you described. But we use the term "shat-sau" (sat-sau) also translated as "throat cutting hand" to describe our preferred application of "biu tze-sau" or the "thrusting fingers" movement in Biu Tze form. This is because, normally speaking, we do not apply this move by jabbing with the fingertips. Instead, in the WT system, we thrust forward, making contact against our opponent's throat with the outside edge of our hand, as though cutting forward with a knife... hence the term shat-sau.

One of the things I've always liked about WC/WT is that we don't use a lot of fancy, poetic names for techniques. We call them according to the form they take (tan-sau, bong-sau etc.) or what they do (kau sau, shat sau, etc.). This simplicity of this approach is often lost when we non-Chinese apply Chinese names to techniques. I personally find myself torn between a desire to respect tradition and use Cantonese terms, and with trying to stay true to the concept of simplicity that dictates that we just call things what they are.

 

[chisauking]

How do we know a plasterer is good? We can see him use the tools of his trade skillfully.

How do we know a racing driver is good? We can see him drive his car skillfully.

How do we know a wing chun practitioner is good? We can see him apply wing chun 'tools' -- bong, tan, fook, po-pai, tok, fak, saht, gan, quan, etc., etc. -- in real time.

There's no question of the 'tools' being effective. The only question is whether one can apply it in combat. Whether one can use the right tool at the right time.

That, to me, is good wing chun -- the ability to use wing chun tools in combat.

Therein lies all the problem: most practitioners can't apply most wing chun tools in gwoh-sau or combat.

When I first started on my wing chun journey -- over 20-years' ago -- I couldn't fathom any use for a bong-sau or quan-sau, so I deemed it useless. Over 20-years' down the line, I've found that quan-sau is one of the best tools in the wing chun box. So, it isn't a question of whether it is good wc or not, but whether one can apply it.

 

[geezer]

There's no question of the 'tools' being effective. The only question is whether one can apply it in combat. Whether one can use the right tool at the right time.

That, to me, is good wing chun -- the ability to use wing chun tools in combat... it isn't a question of whether it is good wc or not, but whether one can apply it.

To expand on this, I would give more credit to a 'chunner who has learned fewer techniques but can apply them, than to another who knows many movements but can't use them in fighting. You know, mastering a "little idea".