Leung Jan and the 3 forms

[hunschuld]

Thought I would share a bit of information preserved in writing from Lo Kwai about the creation of the 3 forms. Not saying this is true its just an overview from the notes passed down in the family.



It should be noted Wing Chun did not just spring up out of nowhere but was based on combining martial knowledge and a specific way to fight.

The goal was to restructure the information from his two teachers Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai in a more systematic method. Working with WWB The general goal of the 3 forms was as follows.

SLT- Wing Chun is to be a close body art where you connect with the opponent’s body and drive through to finish. So form is to teach basic body structure and usage, teaches the first Ging, Snake ging or vertical power generation ,basic hands ,breathing and center line principals.



Chum Kui. 2nd ging Crane ging or Horizontal energy. Introduction to active movement ie basic footwork idea’s. Searching for the bridge. Create the bridge. Cross the bridge. How to close with the opponent, establish an attacking centerline. How to use your body to control the attacking centerline and basic kicking. How to angle Into. throwing and trips. How to reset if your body is broken.



Bui Jee, Not emergency form of techniques to whip out if you are losing a fight. Emergency in that you learn to recover center if you lose center, how to establish a new centerline favorable for you. How to combine the ging’s how to use vertical and horizontal energy at the same time. How to change levels. How to break your own centerline, dropping and kneeling. Swallowing, folding, covering, running elbows, sweeping throws and driving throws.

Wing Chun stays close, body to body. Biu Jee teaches you how to do this if opponent is dominating the center. You do not go force to force but after bridge is crossed you do not back away and break the bridge Biu Jee is to stay close while not opposing on the center.



This is meant to be an overview of the organization of the 3 forms as Lo Kwai wrote about them only and not in depth analysis of each. Others may have totally different teachings.

To be really short SLT= Snake ging Chum Kui = Crane ging Biu Jee = snake ging/crane ging as one

 

[Jens]

Chum Kui. 2nd ging Crane ging or Horizontal energy. Introduction to active movement ie basic footwork idea’s. Searching for the bridge. Create the bridge. Cross the bridge. How to close with the opponent, establish an attacking centerline. How to use your body to control the attacking centerline and basic kicking. How to angle Into. throwing and trips. How to reset if your body is brok

Great post, thanks for sharing. What are the differences between: um “Searching for the bridge”. “Create the bridge”. “Cross the bridge”? Can you give sn example of each one?

 

[hunschuld]

Also sink the bridge.

So Search = you face opponent with no contact. Either he comes to you and you intercept which leads to creating the bridge or you go to him where you are trying to search for an advantageous way to make contact and create a bridge the favors you. get the outside angle or change level things like that.. Once contact is made you Create. You have to maintain contact. You have to prevent him from breaking contact if he backs away. Then you cross the bridge you are trying to get close. here you also are trying to get control of his center of balance although that could come earlier. After this you sink or destroy the bridge. the goal is to drive through the opponent and put them on the ground. This is where you sweep,trip throw although punch,elbow or kick may do this as well. There are also preventative or defense opposite to these steps. For example after you cross the bridge they get control of your center of balance or they get a body lock or attempt to throw you. You then have to do the opposite side of things although going back to search range is only when you are very outclassed.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Also sink the bridge.

Is "sink the bridge" necessary?

After you have

- search the bridge,
- create the bridge,
- cross the bridge,

If you punch

- land on your opponent's face and knock him down, whether you sink (destroy) that bridge or no won't make any difference.
- doesn't land, and your opponent is still standing, you may want to use that bridge again, you don't want to sink (destroy) that bridge.

Even if you have knocked your opponent down, your bridge can help you in ground game, you want to keep it as much as you can.

 

[hunschuld]

Just talking traditional wing chun. There is no ground game in any traditional wing chun. Of course you can use wing chun principals on the ground however rolling or wrestling on the ground was never taught or developed in wing chun. Nothing wrong with doing it. It is a smart thing to do.

Granted you do not need sink however from a teaching pov I have found breaking things down into separate parts to be a good way for students to understand and blend the information contained in chum kui. This is also how Leung Jan passed things on to Lo Kwai.

If I punch and knock out that is destroying or sinking the bridge. However usually getting a one shot knockout against a trained opponent does not happen.

The goal is to close the gap ,control the body and drive through the opponent. A finish with a throw that bounces the back of the head off the ground or a throw that injures or breaks a limb is also a good ending.

If none of those results occur then the bridge is intact and I either remain very tight,crossed bridge ,or room may be made back to creating bridge distance or perhaps I need to go back and reset however we never want to break contact once contact is made.

We do not view sinking as a reset or intermediate step. So the bridge is only ended when the opponent goes down or when I am outmatched and need to reset.

of course much of this depends on footwork, speed and balance. Which is why Chum Kui begins the study of footwork.

 

[dudewingchun]

Nice breakdown, thanks Hunschuld.

Does the wooden dummy form combine all these elements?

 

[Jens]

Also sink the bridge.

So Search = you face opponent with no contact. Either he comes to you and you intercept which leads to creating the bridge or you go to him where you are trying to search for an advantageous way to make contact and create a bridge the favors you. get the outside angle or change level things like that.. Once contact is made you Create. You have to maintain contact. You have to prevent him from breaking contact if he backs away. Then you cross the bridge you are trying to get close. here you also are trying to get control of his center of balance although that could come earlier. After this you sink or destroy the bridge. the goal is to drive through the opponent and put them on the ground. This is where you sweep,trip throw although punch,elbow or kick may do this as well. There are also preventative or defense opposite to these steps. For example after you cross the bridge they get control of your center of balance or they get a body lock or attempt to throw you. You then have to do the opposite side of things although going back to search range is only when you are very outclassed.

Are there specific tactics/strategies taught within Lo Kwai's wing chun to close with the opponent as in the concept of Mun sao in Yip Man WCK?

So "Searching for the bridge" (you face opponent with no contact) in Lo Kwai's wing chun is the same concept as Doi Ying or Chui Ying in Yip Man wing Chun?

 

[hunschuld]

Nice breakdown, thanks Hunschuld.

Does the wooden dummy form combine all these elements?

Yes, there are several more sections in our dummy compared to Yip Mans dummy. They do cover these elements including level shifting and breaking and re establishing contact also a greater variety of footwork.

 

[hunschuld]

Are there specific tactics/strategies taught within Lo Kwai's wing chun to close with the opponent as in the concept of Mun sao in Yip Man WCK?

So "Searching for the bridge" (you face opponent with no contact) in Lo Kwai's wing chun is the same concept as Doi Ying or Chui Ying in Yip Man wing Chun?

So there are strategies taught but core is covering ,fast lite footwork and angling. Yes Mun Sao is one.

Everyone has the same limits,2 hands,2 legs so we all can do the same things. However when comparing to Yip Man Wing Chun you need to be more specific about which version . Depending on which student and when he learned and if he was an early fighter or paid a lot for private lessons you get a variety of interpretations for example the only Yip Man student that I have seen that seems to emphasize covering the way we do is Duncan Leung however I am sure others do.

 

[Jens]

So there are strategies taught but core is covering , for example the only Yip Man student that I have seen that seems to emphasize covering the way we do is Duncan Leung

What are the core principles or strategies of covering within Lo Kwan’s wing chun?

 

[wckf92]

So there are strategies taught but core is covering ,fast lite footwork and angling. Yes Mun Sao is one.

....the only Yip Man student that I have seen that seems to emphasize covering the way we do is Duncan Leung however I am sure others do.

Agreed!

 

[hunschuld]

What are the core principles or strategies of covering within Lo Kwan’s wing chun?

You don't ask easy stuff do you.

Several things , timing and stealing timing. Example I am 63 no way I can move with a 23yr so to get close I will have to steal timing unless he just rushes into me. 5 lines of attack/defense and 3 levels low,mid,high so 30 possibilities 15 offense 15 defense. Each has 6 footwork options 3 offense 3 defense. Movement is based off of opponent lead arm or leg. Not as complicated as it sounds. 1= up the center 2 and 3 inside the lead arm but angle is away from center 4 and 5 outside lead arm angling in to center. If lead leg and arm are different follow the leg..

Each line leaves you open to certain attacks and also closes off parts of your body to certain attacks. So you are covering the open areas . Going up the center is the hardest and leads to force vs force so footwork and level changing is stressed for your cover.

This gives me speed. I do not really care what my opponent does after I determine the line. I am covering my vulnerable areas and closing,stealing their balance and jamming them up. Now I have the timing and they have to respond to me.

This is why foot work is fast not step and drag. step and drag is only for one instance of close range distance. Foot work is to change from offense to defense and back again. also is how you close distance and steal timing.

Hope this helps. There is a lot of nuance involved. You could write a very large book about all the possibilities and how and when different WC techniques fit in and then not everyone uses the same thing

 

[Jens]

timing and stealing timing. Example I am 63 no way I can move with a 23yr so to get close I will have to steal timing unless he just rushes into me.

I’ve found the fencing tactics within JKD to be of the best ways of “stealing timing”I’ve always found tactics of stealing timing to be a fascinating subject within all advance combative arts. Can you please elaborate on some approaches you use to apply “stealing timing”?

 

[hunschuld]

I’ve found the fencing tactics within JKD to be of the best ways of “stealing timing”I’ve always found tactics of stealing timing to be a fascinating subject within all advance combative arts. Can you please elaborate on some approaches you use to apply “stealing timing”?

First is springing footwork. We spend a great deal of time on training the 7th bow just behind the ball of the foot. This also where the K1 point is located.This is where you get the spring to jump . Runners always stay up never letting their heal hit the ground. this is another example of activating the 7th, or first if you count bottom up,bow.. You can move first. he starts to move his hands up you spring in to attack, you follow a limb retraction. you close and cover the incoming attack. You can draw a limb in via a gum, jum ,lop etc. You attack the attack. We don't fake attacks but you don't have to attack the body. Springing kick to a lead leg is great.

For everything you have to learn your effective range and get an idea about his. Good kickers have a long range. grapplers may use a punch /kick as a cover to shoot for a takedown. Springing in and attacking the attack can mess with their plans. You also have level changing. The pole and knives teach a lot of methods. If you can do something with a weapon you can do it with your hands. The reverse is not always true.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The pole and knives teach a lot of methods. If you can do something with a weapon you can do it with your hands. The reverse is not always true.

The WC pole training use much lower stance than the WC open hand training.

What do you think the reason is?

 

[JowGaWolf]

The WC pole training use much lower stance than the WC open hand training.

What do you think the reason is?

What's up with that toothpick? Not sure you can call that a pole. lol.

This is a proper training tool. Folks don't cheat yourself on the strength training.

Now for the answer of why the lower stance being used.
1. Proper mechanics. There's no way you can maintain a healthy structure with a pole like that while in a high stance. The weight of it force and movement would tear up the back.

2. Stance and footwork training. Stances and footwork are within good fighting stance range. This keeps the practitioner from having sloppy off-balance footwork. The footwork there is the same footwork used when striking with the hands.

3. Fighting with long pole is awesome if you can pull it off

Take note of the shifts in stance width / height

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Now for the answer of why the lower stance being used.
1. Proper mechanics. There's no way you can maintain a healthy structure with a pole like that while in a high stance.

If open hand training is to prepare for the weapon training, should WC open hand training also include low/wide stances training?

 

[Flying Crane]

The techniques found in this form are common to many styles, the form itself may simply be a variant to what is found in many styles. We have a very similar form in Tibetan crane. As a common set, it is likely that the wing Chun version was adopted from another source and was never modified onto the wing Chun foundation. Likely it was because it works very well as it is, any may not work well on the wing Chun base.

This is actually modified spear. The form can be done with a spear and makes the most sense if the spear head has a long slashing edge as well as a sharp point. There is a lot of ripping, tearing, and cutting that goes with the thrusting. Doing this set with an appropriate spear head increases the difficulty and make you work harder. It is worth it, very valuable as a spear set.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

it is likely that the wing Chun version was adopted from another source and was never modified onto the wing Chun foundation. Likely it was because it works very well as it is, any may not work well on the wing Chun base.

That's how I feel too. It's like the moment that you start to train the WC "6 and 1/2 point pole form", the moment that you start to train a completely different MA system.

During the ancient time, nobody fought open hand in battlefield. The open hand training is just a beginner level training that help you to reach to the advance level weapon training. IMO, the advance level weapon training foundation should be built during the beginning level open hand training.

 

[Flying Crane]

That's how I feel too. It's like the moment that you start to train the WC "6 and 1/2 point pole form", the moment that you start to train a completely different MA system.

During the ancient time, nobody fought open hand in battlefield. The open hand training is just a beginner level training that help you to reach to the advance level weapon training. IMO, the advance level weapon training foundation should be built during the beginning level open hand training.

I tend to agree. However, I suspect a lot of weapons forms were borrowed around from one system to another so there are probably many inconsistencies found within that context.

Weapons proficiency was definitely more useful for the military, and even a peasant who needed to defend himself from bandits would likely have a staff or club or knife or hatchet, so even there, the weapon would have been the automatic go-to. Empty-hand was less emphasized.

I suppose a lot of these empty-hand methods developed later and became prominent after the archaic weapons became largely obsolete, and may have developed their methodology disconnected from the established weapons methods. So if they included weapons, that material came from the older sources and may be inconsistent with a newer empty-hand method. Perhaps the older empty-hand methods developed consistent with weapons use because the weapons were still prominent. Tibetan crane supposedly was first developed in the 14th century. Perhaps that is why I see the weapons methods to blend virtually seamlessly with the empty-hand.