Well, most of the clips I previewed that showed two-man exchanges were of this same nature. So what are we to think?
The five directions of Wing Chun...
- Thread starter geezer
- Start date
Well, most of the clips I previewed that showed two-man exchanges were of this same nature. So what are we to think?
It is not linking striking with neutralisation of the opponent. It is grappling. LSDD is about linking striking and neutralisation.
---No. I believe the Kuen Kuit is referring to simultaneous attack and defense. This can come in many forms. In my example there was a strike. The opponent struck the ground. But Ok, how about a sudden Lop Sau that yanks the opponent forward into a knee strike? That's neutralizing and striking with a "swallow" concept as well.
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.
---Ok. What Southern Chinese systems have you experienced and what are their central conceptual base around which they are structured?
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.
---That sounds pretty general, pretty vague, and could describe a lot of martial arts. How is this a central conceptual base? Being strong and hitting someone in the head hardly seems very sophisticated or conceptual to me. How does this make Hung Ga any different than say....Choy Li Fut?
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.
---Again, that doesn't sound very unique. It doesn't sound that much different than what you described for SPM. Sounds rather like Tai Chi as well.
---No. I believe the Kuen Kuit is referring to simultaneous attack and defense. This can come in many forms. In my example there was a strike. The opponent struck the ground. But Ok, how about a sudden Lop Sau that yanks the opponent forward into a knee strike? That's neutralizing and striking with a "swallow" concept as well.
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.
---Ok. What Southern Chinese systems have you experienced and what are their central conceptual base around which they are structured?
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.
---That sounds pretty general, pretty vague, and could describe a lot of martial arts. How is this a central conceptual base? Being strong and hitting someone in the head hardly seems very sophisticated or conceptual to me. How does this make Hung Ga any different than say....Choy Li Fut?
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.
---Again, that doesn't sound very unique. It doesn't sound that much different than what you described for SPM. Sounds rather like Tai Chi as well.
They teach it as two separate systems and make clear to students what is and isn't WSLVT.
While it is a bit of silly demo with a person not actually trying to hit Mark, you have posted a clip that shows SPM 'receive, shake, strike' concepts repeatedly, in response to every action by the opponent. In YM VT this would be hand chasing and would completely lack LLHS LSJC concepts. Mark is always receiving, then off-balancing, then responding. Does your wing chun function in this way?
Grabbing as a first action is not VT because it is not in accordance with LLHS, LSJC. I would also say that grabbing first in order to knee is not simultaneous attack and defence because first grab then knee.
You are saying that it is ok to grab as a first action in your mainland wing chun?
Personally I have experienced SPM and VT. I have talked to and trained with others who have experienced other Systems.
I don't know enough about CLF to comment. HG has a strong bias towards pre-emptive striking and setups. In this respect it differs from systems like SPM which prefer to receive first. It also has a strong conceptual bias towards eating space, chasing centre of mass, and not stopping. In this way it is rather like VT.
SPM, Bak Mei, Lung Ying and to an extent White Crane are conceptually very similar. They are all unlike VT. I don't know enough about Tai Chi to comment on that.
Last edited:
Yes, it is obviously SJ/Judo based. Certainly not VT.
I kind of like it, very circular movements. Quite interesting how he incorporates circular movements to a very linear art and concept.
Cant say more without actually meeting him or someone taught to his liking.
I see a lot of "parry and hit." Does your Wing Chun not do this? This seems pretty direct to me. He isn't doing any kind of elaborate "swallowing" to set up a return "spit". He's just doing parry and hit. My Wing Chun certainly functions this way at times. Your's doesn't? You can't always make the pre-emptive strike. You can't always be the one launching the attack. Sometimes, many times, you have to defend first. When doing so you aren't always in range to parry and strike simultaneously. Sometimes you have to parry as you close with the strike. That is what I see Master Mark doing. This is still attacking directly after a simple parry.
Grabbing as a first action is not VT
---Again, maybe not YOUR Wing Chun! You have this bad habit of trying to generalize WSLVT to all Wing Chun. WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged!
You are saying that it is ok to grab as a first action in your mainland wing chun?
---Absolutely! If someone is thrusting a knife at me, the first thing I am going to do is get out of the way and grab the arm to establish positive control. If someone is punching at me and there is a reason NOT to use a maximum response, I may Bong and flow right into a double Lop Sau to toss them away without hurting them. My Wing Chun has options other than punching someone out!
Personally I have experienced SPM and VT. I have talked to and trained with others who have experienced other Systems.
---And what was the "central concept" of those other systems?
I don't know enough about CLF to comment. HG has a strong bias towards pre-emptive striking and setups. In this respect it differs from systems like SPM which prefer to receive first.
---So it makes it different from SPM. That doesn't necessarily make it unique. That makes it very similar to a lot of Shaolin-derived systems. Its hardly a "central concept."
SPM, Bak Mei, Lung Ying and to an extent White Crane are conceptually very similar. They are all unlike VT. I don't know enough about Tai Chi to comment on that.
---What is the "central concept" of White Crane? What is the "central concept" of Bak Mei that makes is different from SPM?
---Again, maybe not YOUR Wing Chun! You have this bad habit of trying to generalize WSLVT to all Wing Chun. WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged!
You are saying that it is ok to grab as a first action in your mainland wing chun?
---Absolutely! If someone is thrusting a knife at me, the first thing I am going to do is get out of the way and grab the arm to establish positive control. If someone is punching at me and there is a reason NOT to use a maximum response, I may Bong and flow right into a double Lop Sau to toss them away without hurting them. My Wing Chun has options other than punching someone out!
Personally I have experienced SPM and VT. I have talked to and trained with others who have experienced other Systems.
---And what was the "central concept" of those other systems?
I don't know enough about CLF to comment. HG has a strong bias towards pre-emptive striking and setups. In this respect it differs from systems like SPM which prefer to receive first.
---So it makes it different from SPM. That doesn't necessarily make it unique. That makes it very similar to a lot of Shaolin-derived systems. Its hardly a "central concept."
SPM, Bak Mei, Lung Ying and to an extent White Crane are conceptually very similar. They are all unlike VT. I don't know enough about Tai Chi to comment on that.
---What is the "central concept" of White Crane? What is the "central concept" of Bak Mei that makes is different from SPM?
You also mentioned the differences between WCK and SPM. You said that SPM has no direct attacks, which seemed unlikely to me. So I checked and found things that looked pretty direct to me. But likely it is a matter of emphasis. It seems a more accurate statement would be that WCK puts an emphasis on moving into the opponent with a strike and then reacting to his response, while SPM puts an emphasis on waiting for or drawing in the opponent's strike and then reacting to that. But Wing Chun also reacts to opponent's strikes and SPM will also attacks directly. Is that fair?
I guess my objection is to saying that any martial arts system has a "central concept" that it has to adhere to. There are always exceptions to the rules. There are always variations and differing situations that have to be accounted for. So I think that the more closely a system adheres to a single "central concept", the more "specialized", "streamlined", or even "one-dimensional" it has become. Some systems may adhere to a main concept more than others. Some systems may use multiple concepts to guide them, depending on what they are dealing with. It appears this likely applies to the various flavors of Wing Chun as well!
The MGF clip you found is, in terms of being representative of the System, a bit like 'Science of infighting' from WSL..
There really isn't anything direct in what MGF is doing, it is all bread and butter absorb unbalance strike stuff. The circling hands are a common way of doing this in SPM, as are the drawing cover hands. In terms of how this looks compared to its use in fighting, well as I said it is a bit like Science of Infighting. People see a lot of things in that which are missing from VT, and apparently it is the same with Mark's film. As someone who has done a fair bit of SPM I would say that I am a better info source than random youtube clips, just as I would say you are a better info source than random clips for Mainland Wing Chun info, which is what I am really interested in understanding.
SPM is based upon reacting and leading. It is a style that lures and baits. It really isn't about attacking directly. It has a particular conceptual base to this end. If you start storming in with fists flying then you are doing something wrong in SPM. You are playing your weakest card.
VT is not about reacting and chasing hands, it is a style that imposes pressure and eats up space, forcing mistakes and creating open attack lines. It has a particular conceptual base to this end. If you start reacting to what the opponent gives you in VT and forget to chase centre and apply pressure then you are doing something wrong - chasing hands, your weakest card.
Both VT and SPM are extremely conceptually optimised systems. I think you lose what makes them good if you try to use them in ways they were not designed for.
This may be the case. Can you tell me how you think Mainland wing chun fits into this picture?
Please, I said VT, not wing chun. I would be very happy for you to provide specific information on how your wing chun differs in comparison (no simple conceptual base?). Don't feel that I am judging you, we are talking about different systems it seems.
Ok, so Mainland wing chun is more like a mixed striking grappling system and it is up to the individual how to use the various concepts and techniques which it contains, as and when?
It is a central concept in that it determines how a HG practitioner views fighting, what their main strategic goals are likely to be, and how they will try to reach those goals. I am not sure what this line of questioning about other systems is supposed to achieve. I have experiences 2 conceptually based Chinese systems and have talked to people from other systems who claimed a similar conceptual base. If you have experienced differently then that is ok and equally valid. It isn't a popularity contest.
SPM, Bak Mei and Lung Ying are all the same system, "Hakka kuen" if you like. There is no difference other than time and some fake origin legends. Crane is a bit different to these others but has some very similar approaches and training methodologies. It is obviously related, although I do not know the history of it.
It had to be add on, because he does not have pure WSL VT.
What he's doing violate the most basic concept ... too many moves to get the job done, just go straight down the middle and take the guys head off with one move.I don't think KPM uses VT does he? No offence was intended anyway. Of course I meant the VT that I practice.
Isn't yours WT?
