Wing Chun Sparring

Problem might be that this mentality works in eastern culture but for western culture with impatience and the eagerness to climb that ladder as quickly as possible. Perhaps we do require a different way to learn the aggressive nature of WC. Maybe we are influenced too much by having a different view or even understanding of martial art. Watching UFC, knowing boxing. Not having the patience to not look ahead while learning our first form...

You might be right about eastern culture ... traditional eastern culture anyway.

But, I don't see the point in stringing the learning process out any longer than is necessary. if by "climbing the ladder" you are talking about status, sihinghood, sifuhood, sigunghood, etc. I would agree with you. If you are talking about climbing the ladder of technical proficiency, I strongly disagree.

As for impatience ... Jiu Jitsu has taught me WAY more about patience and humility than Wing Chun ever did. All of this stuff is HARD to get good at and takes a LONG time. Impatience won't get you far in any martial art.

There is a structure to a good curriculum, and the order in which things are taught is important, though perhaps not as vitally important as some make out.

I also believe the traditions of TCMA are of value. But boxing, Muay Thai, Jiu Jitsu, all have their own traditions, some of which might be more visible, strange and restricting to a exotic to the country of the art's origin than others.

But skill is skill, aggression is aggression, ruthlessness is ruthlessness. The ways to attain these do not change significantly IMO because one art is a TCMA and another is not.
 
Last edited:
In reference to Biu Jee, what exactly constitutes an emergency situation? Are the forms taught in the wrong order as far as application goes?

Is it when you are in a compromised position and "standard" Wing Chun techniques are not applicable?

Is it when "standard" Wing Chun techniques cannot be used because it will lead to a compromised position that doesn't conform to Wing Chun mechanics?

Is it when you are placed in a technique that cannot be countered with "standard" Wing Chun techniques?

If you answer yes to any of these, does it mean that 1. "Standard" Wing Chun positions are not always applicable 2. "Standard" Wing Chun mechanics are not always applicable 3. "Standard" Wing Chun techniques are not always applicable?

If so, how can "standard" be considered appropriate as a baseline?

Shouldn't we consider starting from a base of neutral position, large gross movement, natural reaction & strength development before refinement to adducted position, small fine movement, instinctual movement and force generation? Instead of the other way around and calling it the "standard" methodology? Especially when the track record is so dismal when it comes to practical use.

We are constantly trying to refine what we do. Why make it harder by trying to refine something that, by other standards is already considered refined. IMO it defeats the purpose. Wing Chun all to often attempts to improve an already created sphere, when everyone else starts with a block that they transform over time into a sphere.

You don't build a house from the roof down.
 
Last edited:
In reference to Biu Jee, what exactly constitutes an emergency situation?

The $64 question! I always thought it meant "you f***ed up somewhere and had to get back to safety", but am interested to hear other answers.

Are the forms taught in the wrong order as far as application goes?

I don't think so personally. They go from the one with fewest moving parts to the most complex IMO.

OTOH....

Jiu Jitsu IMO is best taught incorporating worst case scenarios early, and you frequently find yourself there as a white belt in rolling and have to deal with it. Not quite sure how you incorporate that approach into WC pedagogy , but I think it's a question worthy of consideration.

Also in Jiu Jitsu, indulge me a little further, you have the fundamental techniques and positions and others that were originally developed when the opponent took steps to stop the fundamentals. For example, the basic open guard has at least one foot on the hip for good distance management. People started standing up and hiding their hips with their elbows on the thighs - de la Riva guard was developed to allow you to control such opponents if you can't get a foot on the hip. X guard developed from people standing up to nullify the butterfly guard. Both have gone on and developed in multiple directions, but that's how their origin was explained to me. Where does the line get crossed from a guard being "standard" or "mainstream", to being an "emergency" technique only useful in specific situations? And can what was once an "emergency" technique be developed to the point where it has a use in more than its "emergency" niche?
 
Last edited:
I don't think so personally. They go from the one with fewest moving parts to the most
That's kind of my point though. Siu Lim Tau is static with relatively small movements. Force generation is difficult because there is no movement or any real incorporation of the waist. Numerous esoteric bridge movements, some moving slowly & focusing on breath work. IMO it's an ideal to work towards. An ending place introduced early on, but to be deviated from & later return to.

If we look at San Chin of White Crane & Karate, it is a developmental form, much like Siu Lim Tau. Difference is that a completely different set of basics are introduced alongside it. These basic movements become more advanced and refined as the curriculum advances, until eventually the gap between San Chin and these techniques is closed. Hence them saying, San Chin is the beginning & end.

So while it is introduced early it isn't really stressed until later on as progression in more rudimentary skills are made. Both San Chin & Siu Lim Tau are simple but profound.

There are nuances in these sets that are not appropriate beginner material IMO, beyond a basic sampling or introduction. The progression of Wing Chun of Siu Lim Tau, Chum Kiu to Biu Jee is small movement, bigger movement, biggest movement. It contradicts the theory of the art as one of minimal movement and energy use. Why would it degrade as you advance?
 
That's kind of my point though.

I know, and I agree. FWIW, my instructor teaches an SLT form which uses a front stance rather a neutral stance with stepping to augment the strikes which might go some way to address the issues you rasie with power generation.

I agree with the rest of what you say, I think, but I am of the strong view that your learning in MA is cyclical in nature. You keep coming back to the same stuff but with deeper understanding and a wider set of viewpoints. Everything has deeper and subtler levels that can go on forever, but as life is finite, you have to prioritize.

I emphasised the qigong/flow facet of SLT as part of my argument that it is not taught first to instill aggression from the get go but for simplicity, somewhere back up there.
 
I know, and I agree. FWIW, my instructor teaches an SLT form which uses a front stance rather a neutral stance with stepping to augment the strikes which might go some way to address the issues you rasie with power generation.

I agree with the rest of what you say, I think, but I am of the strong view that your learning in MA is cyclical in nature. You keep coming back to the same stuff but with deeper understanding and a wider set of viewpoints. Everything has deeper and subtler levels that can go on forever, but as life is finite, you have to prioritize.

I emphasised the qigong/flow facet of SLT as part of my argument that it is not taught first to instill aggression from the get go but for simplicity, somewhere back up there.
I'm inclined to agree and really don't have any contention with your assessment.
 
Will the moves in Bil Jee handle every possible emergency situation in an unarmed altercation? Are there other moves not in the Bil Jee form that might work in emergency situations and follow "Wing Chun principles", whatever that means? Or are these other moves not Wing Chun?

I'm sure the answer is "yes" to all of the above! But again, the point was that the Biu Gee form does not determine your basic core mechanics....SLT and CK determine that. They are the foundation of training. Biu Gee is the more advanced level. To say that someone is not ready to fight/spar without knowing Biu Gee (as Juany seems to be saying) is somewhat misguided. I was talking to Guru Stevan Plinck once and he commented that he could teach someone to fight with only 2 of the 18 Serak Jurus. Yet you have to know the entire Wing Chun system to do the same?
 
The $64 question! I always thought it meant "you f***ed up somewhere and had to get back to safety", but am interested to hear other answers.

The way I was taught is that ALL the forms are simply teaching you letters of the WC alphabet. Drills teach basic, small, short "words" or vocab. Use the letters as you see fit, with the goal being to use them within the WC principles and guidelines.
So, when an adversary attacks you, create the shortest WC word you can as your response. If your response contains letters from SLT, BJ, and pole...who cares...so long as the bad guy is headed to the emergency room and you are not.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk
 
[In reference to Biu Jee, what exactly constitutes an emergency situation? Are the forms taught in the wrong order as far as application goes?

---I was taught that SLT and CK teach you the core mechanics, the way Wing Chun moves. They provide you with the concepts and principles that guide your Wing Chun. Once you have those down well, then Biu Gee teaches you how to break those rules and principles as necessary. That doesn't mean you change your core mechanics. That means you learn how to deviate from your core mechanics when necessary. And that "when necessary" is when something happens unexpectedly that catches you in a bad position, or when your opponent is pretty good and is able to put you in a bad position! That's why the Biu Gee form is often referred to as "emergency" techniques or "recovery" techniques. Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion!



Shouldn't we consider starting from a base of neutral position, large gross movement, natural reaction & strength development before refinement to adducted position, small fine movement, instinctual movement and force generation? Instead of the other way around and calling it the "standard" methodology? Especially when the track record is so dismal when it comes to practical use.

---Maybe so! But that is not the way the system was designed! The system was designed to start training a student in the core mechanics of Wing Chun right away. Starting with training you basic structure and stance in the SLT form, and then learning how to "put wheels" on the stance and move around without losing structure in the CK form.



We are constantly trying to refine what we do. Why make it harder by trying to refine something that, by other standards is already considered refined. IMO it defeats the purpose. Wing Chun all to often attempts to improve an already created sphere, when everyone else starts with a block that they transform over time into a sphere.

---Like I've said before, I consider core mechanics, the basic way you move as a "gross motor skill." You take a student whose "block" is just his everyday body mechanics of walking around and working and teach him to start forming that "block" into Wing Chun mechanics. It would be the same if the student starting studying something like western boxing.
 
And keep in mind now that there is such a thing as terrible sparring as well. People that can not handle the speed when sparring and instead of slowing down rather throw all concepts out the window and just go at it with arms swinging. Same you see when people do chain punching when sparring without even having a way to hit.

I can do punches like a boxer and a punch looking very similar but adhering to biomechanics known from WC. Reason of course being that both have same centerline theory for jab and cross while having same stance as we learn in SLT, at least the core of it.

The first part of your quote makes me think of all the "wing chun vs. some kicking style" you can find on Youtube, where you see a wing chun practitioner reaching down with their hands to block kicks instead of using their legs or crowding the kicker before they can pull the technique off.

The second part reminds me of a guy named Alan Orr who showed how you can do a boxing hook punch but then drop your elbow and make it like WC. Not sure what anyone here thinks of him, but I think he has some interesting points.
 
I cant really buy SLT as being put up front as a "fighting form". It is basic movements and combinations with little or no footwork (at least in many schools) done one side at a time. IMO it is also the most meditative of the three empty hand forms, and many people sell it as Wing Chun's answer to Qigong, which is probably fine if you've done no other Qigong or breathwork. Its primary purpose in my view is to develop basic posture and structure. Other training methods do that too, of course.

I was always told the dummy movements are closer to actual fighting. Not sure I agree 100%, but that's what I was always told.

SLT contains all of the main hand and arm movements that you will use to attack and defend. It also teaches, the key concepts of forward intent, the gates, how attack and defense should be along the center line and how we must be able to use both left and right hands equally. It is far more than just Qigong, it is literally the core of WC. No SLT you quite literally don't have WC. The thing is people all to often forget "if you can't do it slow, you can't do it fast". I think this is certainly more related to what we call "internal" martial arts in terms of learning to fight, but it is what it is.

I was questionable of this at one point as well but I just refer back to what the first person giving this description to me said... "that's not me saying it, Wong Shun Leung said it."

The dummy doesn't teach you to fight so much in my understanding, the dummy, it is simply a tool that helps you to build timing, balance, structure etc. when training on your own. The balance and steucture one is often overlooked because it isn't always obvious that Newton's law of equal opposite reaction is at play, so when you strike what amounts to an immovable object, the energy comes back on you and you have to maintain balance and structure.
 
Last edited:
I was taught that SLT and CK teach you the core mechanics, the way Wing Chun moves. They provide you with the concepts and principles that guide your Wing Chun. Once you have those down well, then Biu Gee teaches you how to break those rules and principles as necessary. That doesn't mean you change your core mechanics. That means you learn how to deviate from your core mechanics when necessary. And that "when necessary" is when something happens unexpectedly that catches you in a bad position, or when your opponent is pretty good and is able to put you in a bad position! That's why the Biu Gee form is often referred to as "emergency" techniques or "recovery" techniques. Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion!

---Maybe so! But that is not the way the system was designed! The system was designed to start training a student in the core mechanics of Wing Chun right away. Starting with training you basic structure and stance in the SLT form, and then learning how to "put wheels" on the stance and move around without losing structure in the CK form.

---Like I've said before, I consider core mechanics, the basic way you move as a "gross motor skill." You take a student whose "block" is just his everyday body mechanics of walking around and working and teach him to start forming that "block" into Wing Chun mechanics. It would be the same if the student starting studying something like western boxing.

You're not fully comprehending what I'm saying, because you're stuck on the presumption of being taught core mechanics in Wing Chun. Let me try again.

You're "core mechanics" existed long before learning Wing Chun. We learn to sit up, crawl, stand , walk & run. Over time we refine these actions to where we perform them with ultimate efficiency. We start with a big block & refine to a sphere, metaphorically. This is our true core mechanics, further refined through new movements, all that start big or as as step included that is built upon and refined to ideal efficiency. You seem to comprehend this with your last statement, but contradict it with regards to Wing Chun.

Now I understand what you are saying about SLT & CK, but you're missing my point. BJ - CK - SNT is a natural progression. It's taking something considered clumsey & improper to something refined & proper. SNT is the IDEAL, it is the end goal. It is not a core mechanic, it is the refinement of core mechanic.

You say "Maybe so! But that is not the way the system was designed!". Says who? The system was actually a set of loose techniques prior to forms. Those loose techniques sought to refine existing movement not teach new ways of movement, only to say at the advanced level when compromised Wing Chun core mechanics will not work, so feel free to revert to what you were doing before to correct yourself. Once corrected go back to your Wing Chun core mechanics.

It's not logical. SNT is the epitome of Wing Chun. Yet, there is often no path to it, as it is taught first. It's teaching someone to run without all the steps required to get there. The proverbial "Sink or Swim" method of teaching. If the art is about maximization of potential, why is the focus on something already maximized? Only later to digress to learn movements & theory considered to violate the ideal.

Do you not see issue with that? I don't see it as efficient to undermine what is considered proper. To constantly violate the rules when you cannot work within them. Shouldn't the goal be to strive to work within the rules because you are naturally outside them?

You're core mechanics are learned early in life and constantly refined, they are often performed subconsciously. I get what you are saying about SNT & CK, structure & wheels. I'm not really contending that theory. My contention is your view on BJ.

You say "Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion". This is a damning testament to the effectiveness of what is taught in SNT & CK. If BJ is "advanced" there should be no issue in using it all the time. If it isn't considered advanced and is actually an example of what not to do & how to regain proper WC mechanics, why isn't it taught first? Shouldn't we be constantly striving to regain or maintain? Just like when we were learning to stand & walk?
 
My view of biu jee is that it is not for life saving techniques, you just become more free and supple and learn some more techniques.

Structure is the most important for sparring imo otherwise you just get blown away everytime you try to parry a powerful technique. Trying to make explosive movements is harder when you are standing completely still, if you are slightly swaying,bobbing it is easier to explode and move..
 
My view of biu jee is that it is not for life saving techniques, you just become more free and supple and learn some more techniques.

Structure is the most important for sparring imo otherwise you just get blown away everytime you try to parry a powerful technique. Trying to make explosive movements is harder when you are standing completely still, if you are slightly swaying,bobbing it is easier to explode and move..
Exactly, so why wouldn't you learn movement (BJ & CK) prior to learning maximized potential (SNT). It isn't necessary for one to learn SNT to learn "proper" WC structure. Fighting is about movement. To be introduced to it by being required to stand still is contradictory. Not to mention it makes it harder to refine potential because you are being restrained from the start. See my earlier post regarding San Chin for clarification.
 
Exactly, so why wouldn't you learn movement (BJ & CK) prior to learning maximized potential (SNT). It isn't necessary for one to learn SNT to learn "proper" WC structure. Fighting is about movement. To be introduced to it by being required to stand still is contradictory. Not to mention it makes it harder to refine potential because you are being restrained from the start. See my earlier post regarding San Chin for clarification.

Thing is all the hand and arm movements are in SLT, so there are elements you need first that are there. I think the problem is an East/west divide. SLT and CK basically demonstrate the WC philosophy...forward forward forward, attack, attack attack. WC wouldn't be the first CMA that uses forms in the beginning that are about teaching the mind as much as the body, in essence forcing you to accept the ideal from the beginning.

It is counter to modern training methods but it is appropriate, imo, if you look at it in the historical context.
 
Thing is all the hand and arm movements are in SLT, so there are elements you need first that are there. I think the problem is an East/west divide. SLT and CK basically demonstrate the WC philosophy...forward forward forward, attack, attack attack. WC wouldn't be the first CMA that uses forms in the beginning that are about teaching the mind as much as the body, in essence forcing you to accept the ideal from the beginning.

It is counter to modern training methods but it is appropriate, imo, if you look at it in the historical context.
All the arm & hand movements are also in Biu Jee. Many systems of WC have San Sik that are taught first. Beginning movements can be taught in a loose manner without being bound by the confines of a form. Forms are a collection of technique & theory to be extrapolated. It's true, most CMAs use forms to teach beginning movement & theory. However, all have Jiben taught first and the forms have movement. WC is the only CMA that I am aware of that teaches you to stand still when learning the art, which is contradictory to what is later taught. Minimal movement to big movement. All others are teach big movement to refined. You don't see this methodology as part of the problem with WC today?

For an art that touts simplicity, the methodology is overly complex. Shouldn't we seek a more favorable method of transmission? Shouldn't the idea be function first, form second? Especially for those who do not believe that WC is an art that refines & elevates a more gross motor skill based method?
 
Last edited:
All the arm & hand movements are also in Biu Jee. Many systems of WC have San Sik that are taught first. Beginning movements can be taught in a loose manner without being bound by the confines of a form. Forms are a collection of technique & theory to be extrapolated. It's true, most CMAs use forms to teach beginning movement & theory. However, all have Jiben taught first and the forms have movement. WC is the only CMA that I am aware of that teaches you to stand still when learning the art, which is contradictory to what is later taught. Minimal movement to big movement. All others are teach big movement to refined. You don't see this methodology as part of the problem with WC today?

For an art that touts simplicity, the methodology is overly complex. Shouldn't we seek a more favorable method of transmission? Shouldn't the idea be function first, form second? Especially for those who do not believe that WC is an art that refines & elevates a more gross motor skill based method?

Well they all aren't in the BJ of my Lineage. Also at least as taught to me WC is about efficiency and directness in combat. Efficient and simple aren't synonyms.

WC is also an art designed in a time where you either had the dedication, got it, or you didn't on both counts. If you didn't the master didn't care if the door hit your *** on the way out.

I think you only see half the issue. As we both acknowledge many of the techniques aren't gross motor skills, they are fine motor skills. To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo. So you do the art static in the form, then move on to drills with partners where you move and can more readily see when your tan or bong fails (as an example.) Once you can do these properly with consistency THEN you add movement to the forms. Because the student knows the correct hand and arms positions almost subconsciously and so integrating the footwork doesn't create a divided attention issue.

I often use Field Sobriety Testing as an example because they are all about divided attention. Keeping one foot off the ground while also counting. Walking a straight line while having to make sure your heel touches your toes, you arms remain fixed at your sides and again counting. Sober people have issues with these tests sometimes. Now make the task more complex.

Now does the art take more study, more dedication than some other arts? Sure it does. It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts. Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective.

The initial "hump" may APPEAR steeper than even some other CMAs but even then once over that hump it is actually, in my experience easier and faster to progress. I never even noticed the issue you mentioned. It felt natural and logical to me. Down right scientific actually and I think this may be why Wong Shun Leung, and other refer to WC as a science and not an art.

Step 1. You learn the hand and arm movements. These are how you will attack and defend
Step 2. Learn to integrate them into "successful" movement.
Step 3. Learn to integrate them into "oh crap" movement.

This to me is actually a more logical curriculum than any other system I have practiced tbh. BUT it is different, and especially in a world where people want to see results right out of the gate, it won't work for everyone, but it fits my, admittedly, analytical mindset.
 
Last edited:
Well they all aren't in the BJ of my Lineage. Also at least as taught to me WC is about efficiency and directness in combat. How it is used in practice and a curriculum of teaching can often be two VERY different things. Also efficient and simple aren't synonyms.

WC is an art designed in a time where you either had the dedication, got it, or you didn't on both counts. If you didn't the master didn't care if the door hit your *** on the way out.

I think you only see half the issue. As we both acknowledge many of the techniques aren't gross motor skills, they are fine motor skills. To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo. So you do the art static in the form, then move on to drills with partners where you move and can more readily see when your tan or bong fails (as an example.) Once you can do these properly with consistency THEN you add movement to the forms. Because the student knows the correct hand and arms positions almost subconsciously and so integrating the footwork doesnt create a divided attention issue.

I often use Field Sobriety Testing as an example because they are all about divided attention. Keeping one foot off the ground while also counting. Walking a straight line while having to make sure your heel touches your toes, you arms remain fixed at your sides and again counting. Sober people have issues with these tests sometimes. Now make the task more complex.

Now does the art take more study, more dedication than some other arts? Sure it does. It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts. Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective.

The initial "hump" is yes, steeper than even some other CMAs but once over that hump it is actually, in my experience easier and faster to progress. I never even noticed the issue you mentioned. It felt natural and logical to me.
The movements are there. You say "How it is used in practice and a curriculum of teaching can often be two VERY different things". I say why? It's contradictory to the theory of the art, simple, direct, efficient to practice a movement in one manner & apply in another.

Arts are no different today, you get back what you put in. My argument is to train smarter not harder as a means of compensation.

You stated "To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo". I disagree, many of the techniques in WC are used in many arts, both north & south, who perform the actions while moving when learning them. Through practice they are perfected. They are not perfected first then practiced.

"It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?

When these other arts are pressure tested, aside from Tai Chi, they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. We need to understand why. I have voiced my opinion as to why, but am countered with the same old rhetoric that doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

You said "Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective". Many have, yet, as the topic of this thread discusses, why do they then resort to "Sloppy Kickboxing"? Especially if the method of instruction is superior? My response all along, and I have been consistent, is that it isn't. Many have agreed with my assessment, or at least agreed that they were worth considering, only to later retract by spouting the same old rhetoric that the methodological approach is superior, without actually countering any point I've made.

How is the current manner in which WC is taught, superior to the manner in which nearly all other CMAs are taught? When the majority of evidence suggests otherwise. Ex. WC straight punch taught from goat stance vs. Boxing straight right taught from fighting stance.

How is WC supposed to be a simple streamlined art that is supposed to take little time to learn, when it is proven that quicker results can be had with other methods? Ex. WC basics taught in SLT while in goat stance vs. Boxing basics. Which one are you going to be able to use right away? Both can later be refined via structure and delivery.

Is maintaining WC structure so important that people will sacrifice practical utility in order to prove effectiveness of a particular technique or method? Simply because one can show the effectiveness of a technique doesn't mean they can apply it with that same effectiveness in real time, especially if it wasn't learned with that mentality from the beginning.

Many that are successful with WC are so because it is not the first art they were trained in. Which was my point that WC is not an art for beginners and is truly an art of refinement. An art that elevates beyond "Sloppy Kickboxing", but IMO requires a firm foundation to chip and mold into something better.

The legends state that WC was developed to counter traditional Siu Lam methods. It was never mentioned how this was to be accomplished. By looking at the various lineages we can see everyone has a different approach. Which leads me to believe that "How" wasn't necessarily passed on or perhaps forgotten, as WC evolved. Training in Ku Lao is a clue as it harkens back to how the art appeared when it was first concueved.
 
The second part reminds me of a guy named Alan Orr who showed how you can do a boxing hook punch but then drop your elbow and make it like WC.

It reminds me of myself when I tell students if you do a bil jee elbow strike and open the arm slightly and contact with the fist, you aren't 1000 miles from a boxing hook punch.
 
SLT contains all of the main hand and arm movements that you will use to attack and defend. It also teaches, the key concepts of forward intent, the gates, how attack and defense should be along the center line and how we must be able to use both left and right hands equally. It is far more than just Qigong, it is literally the core of WC. No SLT you quite literally don't have WC. The thing is people all to often forget "if you can't do it slow, you can't do it fast". I think this is certainly more related to what we call "internal" martial arts in terms of learning to fight, but it is what it is.

I didn't say it was just qigong. Some people say it can be used for qigong. I was taking issue with the assertion that it is taught first to instill aggression.

"People all too often forget" - really? Who exactly? I usually do the SLT pretty damn slow myself. I prefer the maxim "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast", but ... whatever.

All the forms are integral parts of WC. Well, maybe not Koo Loo (sp?). I never said otherwise.

I'm not sure about "forward intent", though. I think you need chi sao, contact, to develop that.

Does anyone not practice or teach basic stepping and punching at the same time they are teaching SLT? I get introductory lesson peeps to step and punch mitts on day one because IMO this gives them the idea of integrating the entire body behind a punch. And, yes, forward intent.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top