Yip Man's curriculum changes

[Juany118]

Which, to be honest, is a very plausible answer. OTOH, it's far less fun than watching someone get all hot-n-bothered by the mere suggestion.

Honestly, there are going to be a crap-ton of similarities because, frankly, there are only so many ways to engage and deflect an incoming attack while simultaneously attacking. Unless Chinese arms and elbows have more joints than European ones and unless the Dao, Jian, or <ahem> "Staff" somehow use alternate physics than in Europe (please let it be Star Trek physics, please, please please!), then similar attacks are going to, by necessity, result in similar defenses and similar strategies.

It wasn't particularly uncommon for Western Boxing, in particular pre-Marquess and transitional boxing styles, to be thought of as "Fencing with Fists." The Straight Left and How to cultivate It, for instance, goes on at length about the similarities to linear sword fighting and Outfighting based linear-heavy boxing.

It's still entertaining.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I have always tried to make that point. We have 2 arms and two legs and they articulate the same way. My HEMA friend who participates at Long Point and I have often said "sometimes it just comes down to biomechanics" when we talk about similarities we find in HEMA and FMA.

 

[KPM]

What I think about the possible reasons for diversions between YM and Mainland systems has been made clear numerous times throughout this thread, yet you ended up dishonestly concluding the exact opposite of what I joined this thread to say in the first place!

---No it hasn't. At times you seemed to be saying that "original" Wing Chun from generations past was developed entirely from the weapons, but somehow everyone but Ip Man departed from that. Then you ended up saying things that implied that ONLY YMVT was derived entirely from the weapons, but then denied that it was Ip Man that did the "deriving." You spent so much time arguing against what I and others were saying and not enough time clearly explaining what you actually believe.


You did this with the ill-intent to make my position look as unbelievable and indefensible as possible at a time when I was leaving on travel and could not correct it.

----What you were saying at the time WAS unbelievable and indefensible! So correct it now. I'm not the only one that is unclear as to exactly what your theory really is. Throughout this whole thread you were a bit evasive and unclear in how you stated things. I doubt anyone that has been trying to follow this long thread could repeat what your theory of Wing Chun origins really is!


I have no interest in engaging further with dishonest discussion partners like this. The answer is in the thread.

---No it isn't. You have never clearly and explicitly said how you believe YMVT came to be derived entirely from the weapons. If you are unwilling to do it now, that just implies that you can't and it is a very weak theory. Besides, given the passage of nearly a month, there may be people reading the thread now that haven't gone back and waded through past pages. They may be very interested in reading about your theory at this point. So a nice clearly stated and detailed presentation from you could be very beneficial. Aren't you even willing to make the effort?

 

[lklawson]

Again, what you're talking about is not LSDD as defined in YMVT.

LSDD is not a tactic or technique, but an nonthinking effect of how we engage the center.

No style of WB behaves or functions like this despite having some one-off techniques that accomplish, albeit in a very different way, single-time counters.

It is not the same at all.

You keep writing things like that but the fact is that Simultaneous Defense and Attack is simply not a "non thinking effect of how we engage the center" which is particularly unique to any martial art.

Look, I know you want to be special, but, frankly, it's not.

 

[lklawson]

I thought exactly the same thing. My first Martial art was almost 8 years of Olympic fencing (saber and foil) in high school and college. The first time I did a huen sau into a punch I thought "I just did a riposte?" and while you keep an upright structure the idea of using forward footwork as part of the power generation for a straight punch immediately reminded me of thrusting with a foil.

The concept of using forward footwork as part of power generation is elemental to nearly any art which includes linear attacks. The Left Lead and the Jack Dempsey style Drop-step/Falling-Step punch are very similar to a Fencing Lunge, which is very similar to, well, everything else.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

You keep writing things like that but the fact is that Simultaneous Defense and Attack is simply not a "non thinking effect of how we engage the center" which is particularly unique to any martial art.

Look, I know you want to be special, but, frankly, it's not.

I think part of his issue, in this case, has to be knowing very little about "old school" bare knuckle boxing. It was ALL about protecting the center. They punched very similar to the WC straight punch, largely because it is the most simple way to not injure your hand or wrist. Even then they usually didn't go "head hunting" like modern boxers and largely stuck to the body, using "head/face shots" as jabs to set up and "finishing" moves. Because of this they "protected" the center, keeping the elbows down, in order to guard the ribs, liver, spleen etc. At least that is my understanding, you can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Juany118]

As for the falling step punch

Next a WC example.

While the later instructor is moving faster, (because he is just teaching how to punch vs exaggerating certain aspects to better illustrate "right" vs "wrong" drop punch) you can "hear" what's happening when he does the "double punch."

The fist hits when the foot completes it's step. That means, while it may be more subtle due to the stance, and faster due to the educational purpose, for that first punch he HAS to have "dropped" due to the fact that, no matter how briefly, his legs were further apart from one another. That's a simple biomechanical rule, the further apart your feet are the "lower" you are.

 

[lklawson]

I think part of his issue, in this case, has to be knowing very little about "old school" bare knuckle boxing. It was ALL about protecting the center. They punched very similar to the WC straight punch, largely because it is the most simple way to not injure your hand or wrist. Even then they usually didn't go "head hunting" like modern boxers and largely stuck to the body, using "head/face shots" as jabs to set up and "finishing" moves. Because of this they "protected" the center, keeping the elbows down, in order to guard the ribs, liver, spleen etc. At least that is my understanding, you can correct me if I am wrong.

More or less right. The head was a target, but the punches were performed differently than modern boxing. You are right that the body was an important target as well. The solar plexus, or "The Mark," was such a significant target that very nearly every boxing manual mentions it. There were also about half a dozen or so <ahem> "Pressure Point" attacks which I've documented in old school boxing. Nothing any other martial art which has "vital point attacks" doesn't already know, but most asian martial artists are shocked to find out that Westerners knew about and used them too (maybe 19th Century English sailors swiped them from the Chinese? :rofl: ).

Heck, boxers even used various medicinal applications, sometimes called tinctures, lineaments, and salves, to treat their hands (and sometimes the body) not entirely unlike Jow. Most of the recipes are lost to time but a few still exist. The most entertaining of which is one by Bob Fitzsimmons and contains Laudanum.

Boxers engaged in fist conditioning exercises not entirely dissimilar to some forms of "Iron Fist" type exercises. Bart Doran shows the use of what he calls a "wall pad" which is easily recognizable as sort of like a Makiwara.

You might enjoy this article, though it's a few years old now:
http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/breakyourhand/breakyourhand.html

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Juany118]

More or less right. The head was a target, but the punches were performed differently than modern boxing. You are right that the body was an important target as well. The solar plexus, or "The Mark," was such a significant target that very nearly every boxing manual mentions it. There were also about half a dozen or so <ahem> "Pressure Point" attacks which I've documented in old school boxing. Nothing any other martial art which has "vital point attacks" doesn't already know, but most asian martial artists are shocked to find out that Westerners knew about and used them too (maybe 19th Century English sailors swiped them from the Chinese? :rofl: ).

Heck, boxers even used various medicinal applications, sometimes called tinctures, lineaments, and salves, to treat their hands (and sometimes the body) not entirely unlike Jow. Most of the recipes are lost to time but a few still exist. The most entertaining of which is one by Bob Fitzsimmons and contains Laudanum.

Boxers engaged in fist conditioning exercises not entirely dissimilar to some forms of "Iron Fist" type exercises. Bart Doran shows the use of what he calls a "wall pad" which is easily recognizable as sort of like a Makiwara.

You might enjoy this article, though it's a few years old now:
http://cbd.atspace.com/articles/breakyourhand/breakyourhand.html

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Thanks for the article. I would only argue that this popular belief of the palm strike that it mentions is largely the belief of those unfamiliar with how to do a proper one. There are two reasons I prefer the palm strike over a punch BUT they both depend on knowing how to do one properly and, maybe, because I am thinking a WC palm strike.

1. The WC palm strike has your hand positioned basically like it would be if you were slapping someone. A lot of self defense systems actually teach it this way now because it minimizes the "snagging" of the fingers issue. If you screw up you slap, less damage but less injury.

2. The surface area is actually smaller. Either the "heel" of the palm of the hypothenar etc. If properly conditioned simple physics kicks in, same force + smaller surface area = more psi = more trauma.

As for the pressure points I think way too many people forget the "martial" in "martial arts." Even if a warrior doesn't know why it hurts, over time the figure out what hurts. Since their job is to hurt/destroy the other guy and avoid being hurt/destroyed themselves figuring this stuff out amounts to common sense knowledge learned from practical experience. There is nothing esoteric about it, as much as some people would like to think so.

 

[LFJ]

You keep writing things like that but the fact is that Simultaneous Defense and Attack is simply not a "non thinking effect of how we engage the center" which is particularly unique to any martial art.

Look, I know you want to be special, but, frankly, it's not.

I never said simultaneous defense and attack is unique to any martial art.

The problem is you have no idea what LSDD is or how it works within YMVT.

It's little at all to do with countering, like you're talking about.

 

[Nobody Important]

Just curious......

How do you (anyone in general) perceive LSDD?

Is it, to you, defending with one arm & attacking with the other?

or,

Attacking with one arm that deflects an incoming attack on way to your target?

IMO, the latter would be a happy coincidence, occurring because your attacking arm incidentally occupies the space of an incoming attack. To consciously seek to perform this action is arm chasing. Because to perform it consciously you must focus on intercepting the attack instead of focusing on the impact area of your strike, resulting in a heavy block but weak strike. The intention of your single movement cannot be focused in two separate areas simultaneously, not like with two hands that can be in two different places.

 

[Juany118]

Just curious......

How do you (anyone in general) perceive LSDD?

Is it, to you, defending with one arm & attacking with the other?

or,

Attacking with one arm that deflects an incoming attack on way to your target?

IMO, the latter would be a happy coincidence, occurring because your attacking arm incidentally occupies the space of an incoming attack. To consciously seek to perform this action is arm chasing. Because to perform it consciously you must focus on intercepting the attack instead of focusing on the impact area of your strike, resulting in a heavy block but weak strike. The intention of your single movement cannot be focused in two separate areas simultaneously, not like with two hands that can be in two different places.

I agree with what you say with two additional points.

1. Be do believe that some WC lineages look to the second option as the "ideal.". In short your attacks should also be instinctively defenses as well. I have seen some people use rationalizations such as "we use strategy and tactics that impose our will on the opponent and essentially force him to attack the way we want him too" but these are said by people who, imo, have never been in a real fight/spar or at least never been in a real fight/spar with someone outside of their school/lineage.

2. I have always hated the term "hand chasing". Why? Because someone who, imo, uses the wrong definition for that term, will call the first option you naked hand chasing instead. They will basically say "if your attacking limb is not instinctively/incidentally defending you are hand chasing. They seem to think that using a specific technique to stop/temporarily trap = hand chasing. That isn't what I have been taught though.

To me hand chasing is when I focus (meaning applying power and intent) on the limb I am stopping/temporarily removing vs my attack. It's not the "all or nothing" idea other people seem to have.

 

[Nobody Important]

I agree with what you say with two additional points.

1. Be do believe that some WC lineages look to the second option as the "ideal.". In short your attacks should also be instinctively defenses as well. I have seen some people use rationalizations such as "we use strategy and tactics that impose our will on the opponent and essentially force him to attack the way we want him too" but these are said by people who, imo, have never been in a real fight/spar or at least never been in a real fight/spar with someone outside of their school/lineage.

2. I have always hated the term "hand chasing". Why? Because someone who, imo, uses the wrong definition for that term, will call the first option you naked hand chasing instead. They will basically say "if your attacking limb is not instinctively/incidentally defending you are hand chasing. They seem to think that using a specific technique to stop/temporarily trap = hand chasing. That isn't what I have been taught though.

To me hand chasing is when I focus (meaning applying power and intent) on the limb I am stopping/temporarily removing vs my attack. It's not the "all or nothing" idea other people seem to have.

Hello Juany,

I agree, the term "Hand Chasing" is often misunderstood IMO. In reality anytime you purposefully engage in stopping an incoming attack it's hand chasing, plain and simple, because your intention was to stop the attack. Offense can be a primary or secondary action, the same as defense can when it comes to simultaneous attack & defense. LSDD is about performing two actions simultaneously, cover (block, parry, clear, intercept) and hit. Easiest to perform with two hands but is possible with one. It's all about probability. As a concept it is not unique to Wing Chun, many styles employ this strategy because of its efficiency. Thanks for the reply and insight.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree with what you say with two additional points.

1. Be do believe that some WC lineages look to the second option as the "ideal.". In short your attacks should also be instinctively defenses as well. I have seen some people use rationalizations such as "we use strategy and tactics that impose our will on the opponent and essentially force him to attack the way we want him too" but these are said by people who, imo, have never been in a real fight/spar or at least never been in a real fight/spar with someone outside of their school/lineage.

2. I have always hated the term "hand chasing". Why? Because someone who, imo, uses the wrong definition for that term, will call the first option you naked hand chasing instead. They will basically say "if your attacking limb is not instinctively/incidentally defending you are hand chasing. They seem to think that using a specific technique to stop/temporarily trap = hand chasing. That isn't what I have been taught though.

To me hand chasing is when I focus (meaning applying power and intent) on the limb I am stopping/temporarily removing vs my attack. It's not the "all or nothing" idea other people seem to have.

I've never liked the way some folks use "hand chasing", simply because it's a clear pejorative in their usage, and a conceptual one. And once someone places movement in that category, they will miss where it is useful within the principles of their art. That type of conceptual approach tends to lead to only being willing to do whatever is considered most purely ideal within a style, which omits a lot of quite good, useful material that is just outside that ideal.

 

[KPM]

Just curious......

How do you (anyone in general) perceive LSDD?

Is it, to you, defending with one arm & attacking with the other?

or,

Attacking with one arm that deflects an incoming attack on way to your target?

IMO, the latter would be a happy coincidence, occurring because your attacking arm incidentally occupies the space of an incoming attack. To consciously seek to perform this action is arm chasing. Because to perform it consciously you must focus on intercepting the attack instead of focusing on the impact area of your strike, resulting in a heavy block but weak strike. The intention of your single movement cannot be focused in two separate areas simultaneously, not like with two hands that can be in two different places.

I agree. LSDD includes both attacking with one arm while simultaneously defending with the other as well as attacking and defending at the same time with just one arm. Using the second version is harder to pull off, and if you make it a goal to the exclusion of all else you will certainly end up "hand chasing"! So to say that the first version is NOT LSDD....well, that's just pretty narrow-minded and wrong. The second version may be an ideal, but certainly not standard practice....unless you are are training to ONLY face fellow Wing Chun guys!

"Hand chasing" has to be one of the poorest defined and most mis-used terms in Wing Chun! I like to keep it simple. To me "hand chasing" is when you focus on the defense when you could have been focusing on striking the opponent. But the caveat here is....what if you are in a self-defense situation and your goal was to use a joint-lock to subdue an attacker? Or.....in a situation defending against a knife-wielding attacker and you need to focus on controlling the weapon hand rather than hitting the guy? Another way I look at "hand chasing" is that if I use more than 3 motions to accomplish my goal then I am likely being inefficient and "hand chasing" rather than getting right to it. You see this all the time in demos......a guy throws an attack and then just freezes while the demonstrator does some kind of complicated multi-step response. I put a lot of the "Lat Sau" Chi Sau demos in this category.

Another example I have seen in TWC. Someone throws a wide loopy punch that is met with a Fak Sau, then you Cheun Sau to get to the other side, Lop Sau to bring his arm down, and then switch to a Pak Sau and punch. The better alternative being to meet that wide punch with a Biu while stepping across and into it, then transition to a Lop Sau and punch while stepping into the opponent. One is a 4 count movement, while the other is a 2 count movement. And there is even a caveat here! If the wide loopy punch is overwhelming and you are stepping back just enough to make sure it doesn't land AS you meet it with a Fak Sau, and then let its energy carry it across naturally while you are doing the Cheung Sau to set things up....then this might very well be the best way to go! So you see, its often rather hard for someone to look at what someone else is doing and declare it "hand chasing" if they don't know what the other person's intent may be or the energies involved in the exchange!!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I agree. LSDD includes both attacking with one arm while simultaneously defending with the other as well as attacking and defending at the same time with just one arm. Using the second version is harder to pull off, and if you make it a goal to the exclusion of all else you will certainly end up "hand chasing"! So to say that the first version is NOT LSDD....well, that's just pretty narrow-minded and wrong. The second version may be an ideal, but certainly not standard practice....unless you are are training to ONLY face fellow Wing Chun guys!

"Hand chasing" has to be one of the poorest defined and most mis-used terms in Wing Chun! I like to keep it simple. To me "hand chasing" is when you focus on the defense when you could have been focusing on striking the opponent. But the caveat here is....what if you are in a self-defense situation and your goal was to use a joint-lock to subdue an attacker? Or.....in a situation defending against a knife-wielding attacker and you need to focus on controlling the weapon hand rather than hitting the guy? Another way I look at "hand chasing" is that if I use more than 3 motions to accomplish my goal then I am likely being inefficient and "hand chasing" rather than getting right to it. You see this all the time in demos......a guy throws an attack and then just freezes while the demonstrator does some kind of complicated multi-step response. I put a lot of the "Lat Sau" Chi Sau demos in this category.

Another example I have seen in TWC. Someone throws a wide loopy punch that is met with a Fak Sau, then you Cheun Sau to get to the other side, Lop Sau to bring his arm down, and then switch to a Pak Sau and punch. The better alternative being to meet that wide punch with a Biu while stepping across and into it, then transition to a Lop Sau and punch while stepping into the opponent. One is a 4 count movement, while the other is a 2 count movement. And there is even a caveat here! If the wide loopy punch is overwhelming and you are stepping back just enough to make sure it doesn't land AS you meet it with a Fak Sau, and then let its energy carry it across naturally while you are doing the Cheung Sau to set things up....then this might very well be the best way to go! So you see, its often rather hard for someone to look at what someone else is doing and declare it "hand chasing" if they don't know what the other person's intent may be or the energies involved in the exchange!!

See, I like this explanation. This way, "hand chasing" is not dogmatic. It's a reference to inefficient movement, and the same movement may in one instance be "hand chasing" (because a better, more efficient option is available), yet not "hand chasing" in another instance (because it is the best available answer).

 

[Nobody Important]

See, I like this explanation. This way, "hand chasing" is not dogmatic. It's a reference to inefficient movement, and the same movement may in one instance be "hand chasing" (because a better, more efficient option is available), yet not "hand chasing" in another instance (because it is the best available answer).

Oh, how dare you, you heretic! Pick a side and defend it vehemently until your death. Lol!

You'll never be accepted as a Chunner until you choose to support something with blind zealously.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Oh, how dare you, you heretic! Pick a side and defend it vehemently until your death. Lol!

My apologies.

@KPM, you are full of crap. "Hand chasing" is an evil term, and should be expunged. Everyone who uses it doesn't understand what a hand is!

Better, NI?

 

[Nobody Important]

My apologies.

@KPM, you are full of crap. "Hand chasing" is an evil term, and should be expunged. Everyone who uses it doesn't understand what a hand is!

Better, NI?

Much better, thank you. Now come up with a creation story to create more turmoil.

 

[Juany118]

I agree. LSDD includes both attacking with one arm while simultaneously defending with the other as well as attacking and defending at the same time with just one arm. Using the second version is harder to pull off, and if you make it a goal to the exclusion of all else you will certainly end up "hand chasing"! So to say that the first version is NOT LSDD....well, that's just pretty narrow-minded and wrong. The second version may be an ideal, but certainly not standard practice....unless you are are training to ONLY face fellow Wing Chun guys!

"Hand chasing" has to be one of the poorest defined and most mis-used terms in Wing Chun! I like to keep it simple. To me "hand chasing" is when you focus on the defense when you could have been focusing on striking the opponent. But the caveat here is....what if you are in a self-defense situation and your goal was to use a joint-lock to subdue an attacker? Or.....in a situation defending against a knife-wielding attacker and you need to focus on controlling the weapon hand rather than hitting the guy? Another way I look at "hand chasing" is that if I use more than 3 motions to accomplish my goal then I am likely being inefficient and "hand chasing" rather than getting right to it. You see this all the time in demos......a guy throws an attack and then just freezes while the demonstrator does some kind of complicated multi-step response. I put a lot of the "Lat Sau" Chi Sau demos in this category.

Another example I have seen in TWC. Someone throws a wide loopy punch that is met with a Fak Sau, then you Cheun Sau to get to the other side, Lop Sau to bring his arm down, and then switch to a Pak Sau and punch. The better alternative being to meet that wide punch with a Biu while stepping across and into it, then transition to a Lop Sau and punch while stepping into the opponent. One is a 4 count movement, while the other is a 2 count movement. And there is even a caveat here! If the wide loopy punch is overwhelming and you are stepping back just enough to make sure it doesn't land AS you meet it with a Fak Sau, and then let its energy carry it across naturally while you are doing the Cheung Sau to set things up....then this might very well be the best way to go! So you see, its often rather hard for someone to look at what someone else is doing and declare it "hand chasing" if they don't know what the other person's intent may be or the energies involved in the exchange!!

What you noted about TWC is something I have spoken to my Sifu about as well as Sifu Devone. The explanation I was given was "we teach the complicated first, the simple second." The idea being that they want you to know as many variations as possible so you can work out what works best for you and have options. They sum up that last bit most often by saying "we are not teaching techniques we are teaching skills."

Btw it was funny the example you used because we were talking about that senario the other day at class the other day. Someone asked me "what is it with you and cheun sau?" I tend to use a bil sau for looping punches but I almost always use a cheun sau as my cover as I move in and jam as I am moving to the blind side. Whether I just punch or or drop the cheun into a lap... That depends on the circumstances like you spoke of, am I moving for a lock/control instead of a strike? The reason for a "3 step process in striking though for me (bil>cheun> punch) is because that other hand is coming. I just don't trust my strike to prevent the other hand from knocking me, whether by the impact of incidental interception.

 

[anerlich]

Btw it was funny the example you used because we were talking about that senario the other day at class the other day. Someone asked me "what is it with you and cheun sau?" I tend to use a bil sau for looping punches but I almost always use a cheun sau as my cover as I move in and jam as I am moving to the blind side. Whether I just punch or or drop the cheun into a lap... That depends on the circumstances like you spoke of, am I moving for a lock/control instead of a strike? The reason for a "3 step process in striking though for me (bil>cheun> punch) is because that other hand is coming. I just don't trust my strike to prevent the other hand from knocking me, whether by the impact of incidental interception.

Perfectly valid. You may find as you keep training that you can dispense with intermediate steps as your skill and confidence increase. Unless you're really under the pump, where it's all still there if you really need it.