The five directions of Wing Chun...

[geezer]

This is "kinda-sorta" a response related to the "Four energies in WC" thread (fou jum tun tou or float, sink, swallow, spit). These energies are discussed nearly universally in TCMA, as well as in other arts with Chinese roots such as Okinawan Karate. And, according to KPM, they still play a role in some mainland WC, although they are not directly part of my WC, and according to Guy, certainly not part of his PB-WSL WC.

OK, since even before that discussion started, I've been mulling over what energies we do use in WC, ...or at least my WC. Basically, I've been looking at the principles and concepts I've been taught and trying to relate them to this kind of thinking, partly for myself and partly to find easier ways to explain some of our material to students. Here are some ideas I've been kicking around:

In the physical world we have three spatial dimensions which equals six directions: Left and right, up and down, forwards and backwards. Like many of you, in my WC, I was taught to focus my energy predominantly on one of these, namely the forward direction. Though we love to bicker about specifics, most of us share some common concept of forward intent, forward pressure, forward "springy energy", or Lat sau jik chung.

But what about the other energies? When we encounter a strong opposing energy that obstructs our forward path, we have to deflect and remove it so the way is clear to strike forward. Or we can detour around the obstruction, but that may be a longer and less efficient route. So for now, lets focus on how we clear our way forward. Typically, we deflect or remove the obstruction in one of the other directions: left or right, up or down, ...and just barely enough to efficiently clear the striking path!

So, if our right man-sau, for example, encounters a strong incoming striking force, we "greet" or "stay-with" the strike, we sense which side of our center it's force is directed, and then "escort" it safely off-line in the direction it is already heading. If it is veering a bit towards our left, a right pak-sau for the indoor area attack, or bong-sau for the outdoor attack will do the job. If the incoming force is veering right of our center, a tan-sau (outdoor), or kau-sau (indoor) may work well. The specific techniques will vary. The concept of spilling the incoming force does not.

Of course we also deflect force upwards with bong-sau, tok-sau, or even more efficiently with cutting or excluding punches (which deflect and counterstrike in one motion). And we deflect downwards primarily with jum-sau, although in specific instances gaun-sau, gum sau, etc. may come into play. Or better yet, as Guy, I'm sure will note, using a lower level cutting or excluding punch -- again giving you deflection and counterattack in a single move.

So basically, we attack straight forward and deflect oncoming attacks, moving in five directions: always forwards (that's the direction of our intent and energy), ...as well as left, right, up, and down as necessary (borrowing our opponent's energy). We don't, however do much with the 6th direction, namely going backwards. In my WC (and my Escrima) we don't much favor retreating once engaged. We may be pressed back, we may compress and absorb energy, but we don't deliberately reverse our forward intent, draw energy backwards, or retreat of our own volition. ...Oh sure, it can happen. It's just not usually a good thing!

So, this is just the way I've been breaking-down movements lately. How does this sound to you guys? Do you apply these five directions?

 

[geezer]

BTW, if you feel I'm unnecessarily complicating things, that's OK too. When I read what I've, at least half the time I myself come away thinking, "What a load of BS!"

 

[Phobius]

Backward intent is there on the ground for some.

I believe since WC is done with forwad intent and since we can not maintain forward intent due to lack of knowledge on the ground, we are forced to incorporate backward intent while sticking with the conceps as much as possible and it all becomes an illogical mess that looks good on paper.

And yes one can move back on the ground using forward intent to get distance to opponent, but then again I am just talking about those crazy groundfighting theories that are constantly seen and laughed at by BJJ folks in other forums.

I am personally for learning groundwork from those that know it best rather than invent it from scratch. After all we all have the same base some time back in history. It is just a matter of looking even further back in time.

 

[Danny T]

geezer, feeling I understand your thoughts.
Only thing I'd add or at least put forth for thought is that for us energy is circular and encompasses all degrees in a three-dimensional sphere, Force is liner and can be one of all the degrees of the three-dimensional sphere.
The vector of the force is always toward the opponent's core (or should be)

 

[guy b]

It seems like unnecessary over complication to me. Also I would say unrealistic not to step back, probably it is going to be necessary to do so in fighting sometimes. Great if it works for you though.

Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jik Chung works for me.

 

[geezer]

It seems like unnecessary over complication to me. Also I would say unrealistic not to step back, probably it is going to be necessary to do so in fighting sometimes. Great if it works for you though.

Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau Jik Chung works for me.

Yeah, you're probably right on both points. The idea is simple when demonstrated, but complicated and confusing when conveyed in words. LLHS-LSJC conveys more saying much less.

 

[guy b]

Yeah, you're probably right on both points. The idea is simple when demonstrated, but complicated and confusing when conveyed in words. LLHS-LSJC conveys more saying much less.

I think the same could be said to apply to most of the "keywords" or abstract principles shared by many Southern Chinese MA. They just don't say enough on their own to be useful and end up being a pointless abstraction resulting in over complication and opportunities for BS and argument.

If you look at something like wing chun pedia, the massive lists of sometimes contradictory and usually ill defined ideas found there are not useful to anyone really. What is useful is what is given directly to you by the teacher of the method you are following. You can immediately check this for consistency and coherence in practical terms, and you have someone to question and reject if you are not satisfied.

Personally I think the useful conceptual base of VT is pretty small, and is mostly summed up in information dense sayings like llhs, lsjc. If you start adding to it then you start to find contradiction and confusion happening which is counter productive.

 

[wckf92]

If you look at something like wing chun pedia, the massive lists of sometimes contradictory and usually ill defined ideas found there are not useful to anyone really.

I agree. And some are just plain ole common sense! Kind of like this one I read somewhere: "be fast with your fist"... well....no sh1t!!!

 

[Phobius]

Problem is not that it is complicated in writing, problem is that this is text to describe a concept already described in a short and well explained manner.

When explaining one can either say this... or you can write it like this: "Dont dance around, just punch the guy already!"

 

[KPM]

I agree. And some are just plain ole common sense! Kind of like this one I read somewhere: "be fast with your fist"... well....no sh1t!!!

Keep in mind that these "Keywords" from various systems are used as Mnemonic devices. They helped a student remember a basic idea or concept. The value was in what the instructor linked to that keyword. It might vary from lesson to lesson. But the student would be assisted in remembering the lesson by associating it with a keyword. "Keywords" are just that...one word.....like "spit", "swallow", "join", "intercept".....etc. The keywords also helped a student remember not to leave out a specific dynamic from a technique, if he had been taught that technique followed a specific keyword. Can a system do without keywords? Of course! Ip Man dropped them from his teaching. They are just device to assist with learning.

The Kuen Kuit are different from the keywords. These are short sayings or phrases. "Aphorisms" is a term I've seen used. These may convey a more specific idea or concept or tactic. Often they were just favorite sayings of the teacher that got written down. You might say that "keep your chin down" is a common Kuen Kuit in western boxing! So yeah, often they are just common sense. They are something the instructor said often while teaching, so they were assumed to be important. And just like the keywords, they are not essential to a system. The idea they convey can just be put into plain English and taught out-right. But...as with the keywords...when you put special emphasis on it and make a Mnemonic device out of it people are going to remember it better and "take it to heart."

 

[guy b]

Keep in mind that these "Keywords" from various systems are used as Mnemonic devices. They helped a student remember a basic idea or concept. The value was in what the instructor linked to that keyword. It might vary from lesson to lesson. But the student would be assisted in remembering the lesson by associating it with a keyword. "Keywords" are just that...one word.....like "spit", "swallow", "join", "intercept".....etc. The keywords also helped a student remember not to leave out a specific dynamic from a technique, if he had been taught that technique followed a specific keyword. Can a system do without keywords? Of course! Ip Man dropped them from his teaching. They are just device to assist with learning.

Many of the keywords contradict the conceptual base of the system. The problem with having all of these together is that you have no identified direction of travel. It allows the student to make of it what they will, i.e. it is not a system in traditional Chinese terms.

And just like the keywords, they are not essential to a system

VT has a conceptual base that is essential to the system. It is expressed as succinctly as possible, and without contradiction, in the traditional verses taught within the system.

 

[KPM]

Many of the keywords contradict the conceptual base of the system.

---The system as you see it. Other versions of Wing Chun don't see them as so contradictory. And besides, as I pointed out...keywords are single words...single ideas or concepts. Sometimes they apply to a technique or action and sometimes they don't. They are only contradictory if you apply them in a contradictory way.


The problem with having all of these together is that you have no identified direction of travel. It allows the student to make of it what they will, i.e. it is not a system in traditional Chinese terms.

---I'm sorry. The statement above doesn't even make sense.



VT has a conceptual base that is essential to the system. It is expressed as succinctly as possible, and without contradiction, in the traditional verses taught within the system.

---And one could teach a student that conceptual base without resorting to the Kuen Kuit. The Kuen Kuit are just a Mnemonic device.

 

[guy b]

The system as you see it. Other versions of Wing Chun don't see them as so contradictory. And besides, as I pointed out...keywords are single words...single ideas or concepts. Sometimes they apply to a technique or action and sometimes they don't. They are only contradictory if you apply them in a contradictory way.

Swallow spit is blatantly contradictory to the basic VT conceptual base. I don't know if Mainland wing chun lacks this conceptual base. If it does then fine.

I'm sorry.

Chinese TCMA systems are based on a coherent and non contradictory conceptual base. Contradiction or non coherence means the system is either broken or never functioned as a system.

And one could teach a student that conceptual base without resorting to the Kuen Kuit

That would be both pointless and risky. Pointless as Geezer soon discovered on this thread when he tried to do so. He wrote several paragraphs trying to substitute for LLHS, LSJC. Why bother?

Risky in that the understanding of modern re-interpreters is very often much less than the originators of any system. Many times you end up with a gap filled mess, as we can see in some modern reinterpretations of traditional TCMA.

 

[Xue Sheng]

This is "kinda-sorta" a response related to the "Four energies in WC" thread (fou jum tun tou or float, sink, swallow, spit). These energies are discussed nearly universally in TCMA, as well as in other arts with Chinese roots such as Okinawan Karate. And, according to KPM, they still play a role in some mainland WC, although they are not directly part of my WC, and according to Guy, certainly not part of his PB-WSL WC.

OK, since even before that discussion started, I've been mulling over what energies we do use in WC, ...or at least my WC. Basically, I've been looking at the principles and concepts I've been taught and trying to relate them to this kind of thinking, partly for myself and partly to find easier ways to explain some of our material to students. Here are some ideas I've been kicking around:

In the physical world we have three spatial dimensions which equals six directions: Left and right, up and down, forwards and backwards. Like many of you, in my WC, I was taught to focus my energy predominantly on one of these, namely the forward direction. Though we love to bicker about specifics, most of us share some common concept of forward intent, forward pressure, forward "springy energy", or Lat sau jik chung.

But what about the other energies? When we encounter a strong opposing energy that obstructs our forward path, we have to deflect and remove it so the way is clear to strike forward. Or we can detour around the obstruction, but that may be a longer and less efficient route. So for now, lets focus on how we clear our way forward. Typically, we deflect or remove the obstruction in one of the other directions: left or right, up or down, ...and just barely enough to efficiently clear the striking path!

So, if our right man-sau, for example, encounters a strong incoming striking force, we "greet" or "stay-with" the strike, we sense which side of our center it's force is directed, and then "escort" it safely off-line in the direction it is already heading. If it is veering a bit towards our left, a right pak-sau for the indoor area attack, or bong-sau for the outdoor attack will do the job. If the incoming force is veering right of our center, a tan-sau (outdoor), or kau-sau (indoor) may work well. The specific techniques will vary. The concept of spilling the incoming force does not.

Of course we also deflect force upwards with bong-sau, tok-sau, or even more efficiently with cutting or excluding punches (which deflect and counterstrike in one motion). And we deflect downwards primarily with jum-sau, although in specific instances gaun-sau, gum sau, etc. may come into play. Or better yet, as Guy, I'm sure will note, using a lower level cutting or excluding punch -- again giving you deflection and counterattack in a single move.

So basically, we attack straight forward and deflect oncoming attacks, moving in five directions: always forwards (that's the direction of our intent and energy), ...as well as left, right, up, and down as necessary (borrowing our opponent's energy). We don't, however do much with the 6th direction, namely going backwards. In my WC (and my Escrima) we don't much favor retreating once engaged. We may be pressed back, we may compress and absorb energy, but we don't deliberately reverse our forward intent, draw energy backwards, or retreat of our own volition. ...Oh sure, it can happen. It's just not usually a good thing!

So, this is just the way I've been breaking-down movements lately. How does this sound to you guys? Do you apply these five directions?

Question for clarification purposes from an old Taijiquan guy. In taiji we have the 13 postures, 5 of those are directional.

9. Advancing Steps - Jin
10. Retreating Steps - Tui
11. Stepping to the Left Side - Ku
12. Stepping to the Right Side - Pan
13. Settling at the Center - Ding

Is this similar to what you are talking about?

 

[KPM]

Swallow spit is blatantly contradictory to the basic VT conceptual base. I don't know if Mainland wing chun lacks this conceptual base. If it does then fine.

---Then you shouldn't be generalizing to all Wing Chun! Your statement may be true for WSLVT. But not for everyone. How many times does that have to be pointed out?



Chinese TCMA systems are based on a coherent and non contradictory conceptual base. Contradiction or non coherence means the system is either broken or never functioned as a system.

---Since, as has been pointed out on other threads, the use of keywords is common through-out TCMA, I guess you don't think very highly of Chinese Martial arts in general.


That would be both pointless and risky. Pointless as Geezer soon discovered on this thread when he tried to do so. He wrote several paragraphs trying to substitute for LLHS, LSJC. Why bother?

----But how long does it take for someone to grasp the meaning of LLHS, LSJC??? Just tell some student the phrase and they will have no idea what you are talking about. It takes some explanation, fairly in-depth, and likely more than once for someone to grasp what is meant. So what Steve wrote might well be very appropriate for someone who didn't already understand what LLHS, LSJC means. Again, its just a Mnemonic device....a short-cut. You could make up a different phrase and attach the same meaning to it and it would work just the same. Nothing magical about it.

 

[Phobius]

That is why we train, no forum warrioir will ever learn fighting by reading. The key is that what we train is easy to grasp.

Geezer tried to explain something he easily learn by feeling but it is like explaining taste or touch via words.

 

[guy b]

Then you shouldn't be generalizing to all Wing Chun! Your statement may be true for WSLVT. But not for everyone. How many times does that have to be pointed out?

This is an opportunity for you to explain how Mainland wing chun differs wrt this apparent contradiction. Running away from the argument is not convincing.

Since, as has been pointed out on other threads, the use of keywords is common through-out TCMA, I guess you don't think very highly of Chinese Martial arts in general.

The Chinese MA I have experienced do not provide big lists of keywords without guidance or interpretation. Hakka arts for example are very specific about what they mean. In fact they are based upon sink rise swallow spit from the beginning, tactically and conceptually. This is spelled out, not left to interpretation. My interest in terms of Mainland wing chun is in understanding how these ideas are integrated, if at all.

But how long does it take for someone to grasp the meaning of LLHS, LSJC??? Just tell some student the phrase and they will have no idea what you are talking about. It takes some explanation, fairly in-depth, and likely more than once for someone to grasp what is meant.

I would say it takes a few hours to explain both verbally and physically. It is both simple and profound, that is its genius.

So what Steve wrote might well be very appropriate for someone who didn't already understand what LLHS, LSJC means. Again, its just a Mnemonic device....a short-cut. You could make up a different phrase and attach the same meaning to it and it would work just the same. Nothing magical about it.

Make up a different phrase containing the same idea then please

 

[dudewingchun]

I dont see how LLHS/LSJC is the end all be all.

Can someone explain to me how it is all you need , because thats what alot of people here are implying.

 

[guy b.]

I dont see how LLHS/LSJC is the end all be all.

Can someone explain to me how it is all you need , because thats what alot of people here are implying.

It is not the entire conceptual base of VT, but is very important. It is all you need to substitute for Geezer's OP

 

[KPM]

I dont see how LLHS/LSJC is the end all be all.

Can someone explain to me how it is all you need , because thats what alot of people here are implying.

Ah Sean! That is because you are not a "True Believer"!!!!