I'm not running away from anything. I'm avoiding another pointless argument with someone who really isn't interested in friendly discussion at all, but just wants to fight.
The five directions of Wing Chun...
- Thread starter geezer
- Start date
I'm not running away from anything. I'm avoiding another pointless argument with someone who really isn't interested in friendly discussion at all, but just wants to fight.
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 87
My bad I just realised I didnt even read the main post properly. In this case from what I understand of it , it does apply in the situation geezer is talking about.
No worries
---Like I said on the other thread, I've probably been over-reacting. So I'll give this one another shot as well.
This is an opportunity for you to explain how Mainland wing chun differs wrt this apparent contradiction.
---Well, first you'll have to explain what contradiction you see. That hasn't been very clear to me.
The Chinese MA I have experienced do not provide big lists of keywords without guidance or interpretation.
---I agree. I never said otherwise. I pointed out that these keywords are Mnemonic devices. Obviously they would need explanation as to what they are supposed to help you remember!!
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, like I said, you can't just tell someone the Kuen Kuit and expect them to understand what it is talking about.
Make up a different phrase containing the same idea then please.
---I don't speak Chinese.
This is an opportunity for you to explain how Mainland wing chun differs wrt this apparent contradiction.
---Well, first you'll have to explain what contradiction you see. That hasn't been very clear to me.
The Chinese MA I have experienced do not provide big lists of keywords without guidance or interpretation.
---I agree. I never said otherwise. I pointed out that these keywords are Mnemonic devices. Obviously they would need explanation as to what they are supposed to help you remember!!
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, like I said, you can't just tell someone the Kuen Kuit and expect them to understand what it is talking about.
Make up a different phrase containing the same idea then please.
---I don't speak Chinese.
[QUOTE="KPM, post: 1747355, member: 32524]Well, first you'll have to explain what contradiction you see. That hasn't been very clear to me.[/QUOTE]
Ok great, thanks for making the effort. The contradiction in VT terms is really between the swallow spit sequence as employed in other Chinese MA and as I understand it, and the central VT concepts which link neutralisation to striking rather than having them separate, which stress cutting into an attack and making opportunities, rather than receiving force then doing something about it, and which focus upon pressuring and eating the space of the opponent, rather than luring and leading them as swallow sink principles do.
These are not compatible principles. I am keen to understand how mainland wing chun accommodates them? Are they used in a different way in Mainland WC compared to how they are used in white crane, SPM, Bak mei etc, etc, ect. If so what is the difference?
Or is the conceptual base of Mainland WC different to that of YM wing chun? Does it lack LLHS, LSJC? Does it lack Lin Siu Dai Da? How does it differ?
Ok great, thanks for making the effort. The contradiction in VT terms is really between the swallow spit sequence as employed in other Chinese MA and as I understand it, and the central VT concepts which link neutralisation to striking rather than having them separate, which stress cutting into an attack and making opportunities, rather than receiving force then doing something about it, and which focus upon pressuring and eating the space of the opponent, rather than luring and leading them as swallow sink principles do.
These are not compatible principles. I am keen to understand how mainland wing chun accommodates them? Are they used in a different way in Mainland WC compared to how they are used in white crane, SPM, Bak mei etc, etc, ect. If so what is the difference?
Or is the conceptual base of Mainland WC different to that of YM wing chun? Does it lack LLHS, LSJC? Does it lack Lin Siu Dai Da? How does it differ?
OP
- Thread Starter
- #27
Guy, please do not ask KPM these questions. You know that you will probably not be satisfied by his response and you will say so. He will get annoyed and say something provocative back.... Things will inevitably escalate. The rest of us will go and get popcorn and sit back and watch... but it will end up being a big waste of time.
Honestly, tell me if you think I'm wrong.
the central VT concepts which link neutralisation to striking rather than having them separate,
---I'm not sure what you mean by this.
which stress cutting into an attack and making opportunities, rather than receiving force then doing something about it, and which focus upon pressuring and eating the space of the opponent, rather than luring and leading them as swallow sink principles do.
---I've already pointed out that in Pin Sun at least, there is both. There is a time to go straight up the middle and "eat space", and there is a time to angle off, evade and set the opponent up. Both options are included. The deeper pivots sometimes used are what give Pin Sun the "side body" name. These are used to get completely off the line and evade or "suck in" the incoming force. This can off-balance the opponent, trap his arm, or at the very least put him in a vulnerable position. Any of this makes a counter-attack that much easier. Or...when the situation dictates Pin Sun will also go in very direct. I think, being an older version of the system, maybe it hasn't become as "specialized" (or maybe a more polite word would be "refined") as Ip Man Wing Chun.
---And from what I've seen of SPM, they certainly have aspects that drive straight up the center very directly. They don't always "swallow" to lead into an attack or a response.
These are not compatible principles. I am keen to understand how mainland wing chun accommodates them?
---In Pin Sun each has its place. Both are simply tactics. Why limit yourself to just one tactic? In a military setting a good tactician knows when to put on the pressure and drive straight in, and when to be evasive and go around. Just common sense.
Are they used in a different way in Mainland WC compared to how they are used in white crane, SPM, Bak mei etc, etc, ect. If so what is the difference?
----I haven't studied White Crane or the Hakka arts in any great detail, so I couldn't speak to that.
Or is the conceptual base of Mainland WC different to that of YM wing chun? Does it lack LLHS, LSJC? Does it lack Lin Siu Dai Da? How does it differ?
---Pin Sun certainly has Lin Siu Dai Da, but not the LLHS, LSJC in that format. The concept...yes. Just not that precise Kuen Kuit that I have seen. It would be interesting to know whether Sum Nung WCK uses that same Kuen Kuit. I suspect that it does. Not sure how far back it goes. Could be it is part of Pin Sun and it came from Leung Jan. Maybe my teachers just didn't choose to use that particular Kuen Kuit. Or it may be a relatively recent "add on."
---I'm not sure what you mean by this.
which stress cutting into an attack and making opportunities, rather than receiving force then doing something about it, and which focus upon pressuring and eating the space of the opponent, rather than luring and leading them as swallow sink principles do.
---I've already pointed out that in Pin Sun at least, there is both. There is a time to go straight up the middle and "eat space", and there is a time to angle off, evade and set the opponent up. Both options are included. The deeper pivots sometimes used are what give Pin Sun the "side body" name. These are used to get completely off the line and evade or "suck in" the incoming force. This can off-balance the opponent, trap his arm, or at the very least put him in a vulnerable position. Any of this makes a counter-attack that much easier. Or...when the situation dictates Pin Sun will also go in very direct. I think, being an older version of the system, maybe it hasn't become as "specialized" (or maybe a more polite word would be "refined") as Ip Man Wing Chun.
---And from what I've seen of SPM, they certainly have aspects that drive straight up the center very directly. They don't always "swallow" to lead into an attack or a response.
These are not compatible principles. I am keen to understand how mainland wing chun accommodates them?
---In Pin Sun each has its place. Both are simply tactics. Why limit yourself to just one tactic? In a military setting a good tactician knows when to put on the pressure and drive straight in, and when to be evasive and go around. Just common sense.
Are they used in a different way in Mainland WC compared to how they are used in white crane, SPM, Bak mei etc, etc, ect. If so what is the difference?
----I haven't studied White Crane or the Hakka arts in any great detail, so I couldn't speak to that.
Or is the conceptual base of Mainland WC different to that of YM wing chun? Does it lack LLHS, LSJC? Does it lack Lin Siu Dai Da? How does it differ?
---Pin Sun certainly has Lin Siu Dai Da, but not the LLHS, LSJC in that format. The concept...yes. Just not that precise Kuen Kuit that I have seen. It would be interesting to know whether Sum Nung WCK uses that same Kuen Kuit. I suspect that it does. Not sure how far back it goes. Could be it is part of Pin Sun and it came from Leung Jan. Maybe my teachers just didn't choose to use that particular Kuen Kuit. Or it may be a relatively recent "add on."
Eric_H
Black Belt
There are 10 directions, four front, four corner and up and down, but that's more general MA talk than just specific to Wing Chun.
Lin siu dai da. Does Mainland wing chun stress this concept? It is crucial in YM VT
How does Mainland wing chun differentiate between usage of these different and contradictory concepts? Is there some guiding idea?
SPM is almost exclusively a reactive system. It wishes to set traps and to lure in the attack. This is how it works. In my opinion it has much better tools than wing chun for doing this, but I still don't like it as a strategy. It is risky to give the initiative.
I don't think VT works very well as a baiting style of martial art- it lacks the tools of other systems. I think it is optimised to work in a certain way, as are most Chinese systems. Is Mainland wing chun not optimised in this way?
The strategy of these systems is luring in, putting in a disadvantageous position, then finishing. I think it probably worked quit well in past times. I don't think it works as well today with changes in the way people fight. What is the general strategy of Mainland wing chun?
Pin Sun certainly has Lin Siu Dai Da, but not the LLHS, LSJC in that format. The concept...yes. Just not that precise Kuen Kuit that I have seen. It would be interesting to know whether Sum Nung WCK uses that same Kuen Kuit. I suspect that it does. Not sure how far back it goes. Could be it is part of Pin Sun and it came from Leung Jan. Maybe my teachers just didn't choose to use that particular Kuen Kuit. Or it may be a relatively recent "add on."
If your Mainland wing chun lacks LLHS, LSJC then that explains a few things about how you approach the system. What central idea do you have in Mainland systems if not this one?
In your opinion, what are the common bating strategies used in the CMA striking system?
Last edited:
Lin siu dai da. Does Mainland wing chun stress this concept? It is crucial in YM VT
---Yes. As I noted previously. I think this is a key concept in all Wing Chun.
How does Mainland wing chun differentiate between usage of these different and contradictory concepts? Is there some guiding idea?
---Like I said, the situation dictates. It is only contradictory if you are trying to apply it in a contradictory way. If there is any guiding idea, I guess it would be to do what it takes to get the job done!
SPM is almost exclusively a reactive system. It wishes to set traps and to lure in the attack. This is how it works. In my opinion it has much better tools than wing chun for doing this, but I still don't like it as a strategy. It is risky to give the initiative.
---SPM does not ever attack directly?
I don't think VT works very well as a baiting style of martial art- it lacks the tools of other systems. I think it is optimised to work in a certain way, as are most Chinese systems. Is Mainland wing chun not optimised in this way?
---I read "optimized" as the same as "specialized." As I have noted, Pin Sun tends to be a bit more "open-ended" and less "specialized" than Ip Man Wing Chun. And I wouldn't say that Pin Sun uses much if any actual "baiting." Its more a matter of not meeting force with force. With the opponent is putting up a strong resistance Pin Sun will absorb, redirect, or evade rather than try and "blast through." You seem to be still be thinking of "spit" and "swallow" in terms of the way they are used in SPM, not the way they are used in Wing Chun, which I have described already.
The strategy of these systems is luring in, putting in a disadvantageous position, then finishing. I think it probably worked quit well in past times. I don't think it works as well today with changes in the way people fight. What is the general strategy of Mainland wing chun?
---The general strategy would be to survive the exchange! That might mean driving straight in, that might mean evading and looking for an opening, that might mean defending against a weapon, or that might mean running away!
If your Mainland wing chun lacks LLHS, LSJC then that explains a few things about how you approach the system. What central idea do you have in Mainland systems if not this one?
---I didn't say it lacked it. I just said I hadn't seen that exact Kuen Kuit used. And why does there have to be a "central idea"? This seems to be a very reductionist "western" way of thinking.
---Yes. As I noted previously. I think this is a key concept in all Wing Chun.
How does Mainland wing chun differentiate between usage of these different and contradictory concepts? Is there some guiding idea?
---Like I said, the situation dictates. It is only contradictory if you are trying to apply it in a contradictory way. If there is any guiding idea, I guess it would be to do what it takes to get the job done!
SPM is almost exclusively a reactive system. It wishes to set traps and to lure in the attack. This is how it works. In my opinion it has much better tools than wing chun for doing this, but I still don't like it as a strategy. It is risky to give the initiative.
---SPM does not ever attack directly?
I don't think VT works very well as a baiting style of martial art- it lacks the tools of other systems. I think it is optimised to work in a certain way, as are most Chinese systems. Is Mainland wing chun not optimised in this way?
---I read "optimized" as the same as "specialized." As I have noted, Pin Sun tends to be a bit more "open-ended" and less "specialized" than Ip Man Wing Chun. And I wouldn't say that Pin Sun uses much if any actual "baiting." Its more a matter of not meeting force with force. With the opponent is putting up a strong resistance Pin Sun will absorb, redirect, or evade rather than try and "blast through." You seem to be still be thinking of "spit" and "swallow" in terms of the way they are used in SPM, not the way they are used in Wing Chun, which I have described already.
The strategy of these systems is luring in, putting in a disadvantageous position, then finishing. I think it probably worked quit well in past times. I don't think it works as well today with changes in the way people fight. What is the general strategy of Mainland wing chun?
---The general strategy would be to survive the exchange! That might mean driving straight in, that might mean evading and looking for an opening, that might mean defending against a weapon, or that might mean running away!
If your Mainland wing chun lacks LLHS, LSJC then that explains a few things about how you approach the system. What central idea do you have in Mainland systems if not this one?
---I didn't say it lacked it. I just said I hadn't seen that exact Kuen Kuit used. And why does there have to be a "central idea"? This seems to be a very reductionist "western" way of thinking.
Does Liu Sin Dai Da not contradict swallow spit?
So you maintain contradictory ideas but you apply them separately, more like a toolbox approach than a systematic conceptual approach? I have not heard of a Southern Chinese System operating in this way before. Interesting.
Not really, provided the opponent is a living moving human being. It is a reactive style, like most of those systems including White Crane. This is built into everything it does from the ground up.
So Mainland wing chun is not like the other Sothern Chinese Sanchin based systems, and not like YM VT either? It seems more like a type of MMA or Jeet Kune Do the way you describe it, and less like a traditional Chinese System?
Again sounds quite unlike the other traditional systems in approach. It sounds quite "modern" even?
I would say that systematisation and conceptualisation is quite a Chinese approach to fighting. Chinese MA start with ideas and build out. Over conceptualisation can be a weak point.
Something like SPM will attempt to draw the opponent in, showing a false attack line that collapses causing over commitment. They have excellent elusive covering that tends to draw punches as well, while stepping to set up strong counter positions. Stepping and pivoting off line is very good. They are always advancing and are often closer than you think due to body lean, bowed back, arm position. It is a deceptive approach suited to 1 punch finishes and not extended sparring type fights.
They tend to focus on hitting places like the blood vessels of the neck, temple, eye socket, ears, wind pipe, solar plexus, heart, floating ribs or the liver using force multiplier hand shapes. It is a good style, if that sort of thing is what you are interested in. I think it is better than wing chun at doing this. It is kind of the anti wing chun, the opposite strategy. Such an approach often entails grappling and they have some simple but effective methods at this as well.
Does Liu Sin Dai Da not contradict swallow spit?
---No. If I use the idea of "swallow" with a Pin Sun "Lung Na" technique that grabs onto the opponent's arm as he punches using a double Lop Sau and a pivot that effectively yanks him off his feet and flings him face down onto the ground....is that not defending and attacking at the same time?
So you maintain contradictory ideas but you apply them separately, more like a toolbox approach than a systematic conceptual approach? I have not heard of a Southern Chinese System operating in this way before. Interesting.
---Just what "Southern Chinese Systems" are you talking about? Most CMAs use keywords and Kuen Kuit. What "systematic conceptual approach" are you seeing? Because that is not a traditional Chinese way of thinking. What "systematic conceptual approach" are you seeing in CMAs like White Crane, Hung Ga, or Choy Li Fut, or Tai Chi?
So Mainland wing chun is not like the other Sothern Chinese Sanchin based systems, and not like YM VT either? It seems more like a type of MMA or Jeet Kune Do the way you describe it, and less like a traditional Chinese System?
---Again, I think you have rather inaccurate impression of what traditional Chinese systems are like. They may have a unifying body mechanic and concepts that they adhere to, but by and large they don't have this one central guiding theme around which everything is built as you seem to think.
---No. If I use the idea of "swallow" with a Pin Sun "Lung Na" technique that grabs onto the opponent's arm as he punches using a double Lop Sau and a pivot that effectively yanks him off his feet and flings him face down onto the ground....is that not defending and attacking at the same time?
So you maintain contradictory ideas but you apply them separately, more like a toolbox approach than a systematic conceptual approach? I have not heard of a Southern Chinese System operating in this way before. Interesting.
---Just what "Southern Chinese Systems" are you talking about? Most CMAs use keywords and Kuen Kuit. What "systematic conceptual approach" are you seeing? Because that is not a traditional Chinese way of thinking. What "systematic conceptual approach" are you seeing in CMAs like White Crane, Hung Ga, or Choy Li Fut, or Tai Chi?
So Mainland wing chun is not like the other Sothern Chinese Sanchin based systems, and not like YM VT either? It seems more like a type of MMA or Jeet Kune Do the way you describe it, and less like a traditional Chinese System?
---Again, I think you have rather inaccurate impression of what traditional Chinese systems are like. They may have a unifying body mechanic and concepts that they adhere to, but by and large they don't have this one central guiding theme around which everything is built as you seem to think.
I asked:
SPM does not ever attack directly?
Guy Answered:
Not really, provided the opponent is a living moving human being. It is a reactive style, like most of those systems including White Crane. This is built into everything it does from the ground up.
---This seems pretty direct to me. I see very little "swallow" in this clip:
---This one seems pretty direct as well:
SPM does not ever attack directly?
Guy Answered:
Not really, provided the opponent is a living moving human being. It is a reactive style, like most of those systems including White Crane. This is built into everything it does from the ground up.
---This seems pretty direct to me. I see very little "swallow" in this clip:
---This one seems pretty direct as well:
No grappling, it is a striking system.
It is not linking striking with neutralisation of the opponent. It is grappling. LSDD is about linking striking and neutralisation.
Never experienced CLF. I know a few things about it but don't think I am qualified to comment. Same with Tai Chi.
All Southern Chinese systems I have experienced have a strong conceptual base, just like VT. This is one good way to tell the real from the fake.
HG has a definite conceptual training approach based upon based upon cultivation of the whole body and the associated neural pathways in expression of full body force, with progressive shortening of force pathways once developed. It is very much based upon the deployment of devastating force. In use it has a definite focus on pre-emptive striking and devastating finishing, mostly revolving around smashing the head and neck.
White crane has a define conceptual approach based upon receiving force and leading the opponent into space or traps while eating space with the aim of finishing from a decisive and overwhelming position in as few blows as possible. It uses a lot of grappling approaches and force multiplier hand shapes to this end. Development of whole body force with as little movement as possible is trained from the start via sanchin.
The real Chinese MA systems I have experienced were all conceptually based. The ones that were incomplete or nonsense were not. This is all I can say, given what I have experienced. I don't claim that it must necessarily be this way, just that it appears to be the norm for me.
