siu lim tao article

[yuanfen]

The september 2003 issue of Inside Kung Fu just now hitting the stands has an article on some of the main ideas in the siu lim tao
by Ed de la Cruz (www.windycitywingchun.com). Ed is a student of sifu Augustine Fong of Tucson.

[BeWater]

Seemed like a decent article. But a couple things jumped out at me:

The first section is the most important, since this is where wing chun's mother motions -- tan, bong, and fok -- are developed.

When do you use bong in the first section?

After fok sau, we flip to a tan sau...

We do? In what part?

I'm in the Yip Man lineage, too. Did all his students learn SNT differently? Is nothing sacred???

Why does Ed look so angry? Why does the other guy look wasted? Even better, turn to the ads on page 104 and check out the look on Emin Boztepe's face. Anyone ever heard of relaxing?

Oh yeah, and Ed looks to be fay jong (sp?) on page 100, panel 3.

Granted, I'm new to all this, so maybe I just don't "get it" yet. If so, please set me straight.

[black and blue]

Why does Ed look so angry?

Isn't it obvious? Coz he's a bad mudda fooker... apparently :rolleyes:

And Emin's the baddest of the bunch, no? :rolleyes:

[yuanfen]

Be Water: As a source of great wing chun knowledge Ip Man
was not only very experienced but he was very analytical and
understood the principles of the subject of wing chun- the whole enchilada. Forms are condensed "texts" of the subject- very important pointers and indicators and condensations. He tinkered with the forms from time to time. For Wong Shon Leung he approved of adding another jum sao(though double jum sao is already in the form).

Ho Kam Ming was with Ip Man a long time-his forms are based on what Ip Man taught him.

While it is fashionable to claim having learned from wing chun- the amount of time spent actually spent with Ip Man and specially being corrected privately widely varies.

Principles are principles- they dont change easily. Fong's wing chun is very principle based. But in the sil lim tao (see Ed's article)
there are two places where he inserts additional wing chun motions in his edition of the text or the form and he explains exactly why for teaching purposes. One is the changing into tan
after the first fok saos before the huen and the wu.
The other is the double punch in the section where there are two handed motions like fan sao and lan. Ed summarizes the reasons.
The bong section comes towards the end of the form(bong tan etc- before the tuit sao section). Wu BTW uses the same side
of the bridge ae bong.

B & B__ Mags like facial expressions- so do some members of the public- what can I say- as the sphinx from phoenix.

[black and blue]

Yes, I understand. But it still cracks me up.

Wing Chun is all about being relaxed, says the man with gritted-teeth, muscles-a-bulging, veins-a-bursting, eyes-a-popping, sweat-a-dripping.

:rolleyes:

[BeWater]

yuanfen,

Thanks for the clarification! Couple questions:

The bong section comes towards the end of the form

Right, that's why I wasn't sure why Ed said "tan, BONG, and fok are developed [in the first section]". I guess it depends on what he means by "developed" -- but even so, I don't see how bong is developed in the first (or, for that matter, second) section. Maybe I'm just nitpicking though.

Wu BTW uses the same side of the bridge as bong.

What you mean by this? What is the implication?

[TjD]

Originally posted by BeWater
Seemed like a decent article. But a couple things jumped out at me:

The first section is the most important, since this is where wing chun's mother motions -- tan, bong, and fok -- are developed.

When do you use bong in the first section?



you don't use bong in the first section, however the slow tan wu fook wu fook wu fook wu section does definately develop the bong sau. it develops all the wing chun hands.

ask your sifu about jarn dai lik (jahng dai lik), or downward elbow energy.

where abouts in new york are you btw? :D

[BeWater]

TjD,

the slow tan wu fook wu fook wu fook wu section does definately develop the bong sau. it develops all the wing chun hands.

True. I guess I'm taking his statement too literally. After all, tan and bong are directly related.

where abouts in new york are you btw?

I'd give more detail but my Sifu specifically requested that absolutely no information be given about him or our school on the Internet. Sorry. :(

[S.Teebas]

BeWater says:Right, that's why I wasn't sure why Ed said "tan, BONG, and fok are developed [in the first section]". I guess it depends on what he means by "developed" -- but even so, I don't see how bong is developed in the first (or, for that matter, second) section. Maybe I'm just nitpicking though.


Maybe he means fok-sau. Cause fok is part of the bong sau motion.

[TjD]

Originally posted by BeWater
TjD,

the slow tan wu fook wu fook wu fook wu section does definately develop the bong sau. it develops all the wing chun hands.

True. I guess I'm taking his statement too literally. After all, tan and bong are directly related.

where abouts in new york are you btw?

I'd give more detail but my Sifu specifically requested that absolutely no information be given about him or our school on the Internet. Sorry. :(

understandable, i don't talk about my sifu online either :D just was wondering if you were in the same area is all.

[Whiplash]

Originally posted by BeWater
After fok sau, we flip to a tan sau...

We do? In what part?

I'm in the Yip Man lineage, too. Did all his students learn SNT differently? Is nothing sacred???


Possibly. I'm in the Yip Man -> Lo Man Kam lineage and we do the whole fook - tan - huen - jum - wu deal.

I have noticed some subtle and some not-so-subtle differences in SNT from clips off different schools websites. Not sure about the reasoning behind some of the changes. Perhaps it just comes down to each Sifus personal touch ;)

[BeWater]

just was wondering if you were in the same area is all.

Nope, not in the Albany area. :(

[Patrick Gordon]

Originally posted by BeWater

When do you use bong in the first section?

Wu sau is part of the bong sau family and structure. patrick.

After fok sau, we flip to a tan sau...

We do? In what part?

Going from fok sau to huen sau is the mother motion. Ed's sifu, A. Fong, added the tan sau motion between the fok and huen to show application. patrick.

Why does Ed look so angry?

I don't think he looks very angry, serious maybe. patrick.

Why does the other guy look wasted?

Why does the pope wear that funny hat? patrick.

Anyone ever heard of relaxing?

Just becuase Ed appears angry to you does not mean he is not relaxed or doesn't understand the concept of relaxation. Patrick.

Granted, I'm new to all this, so maybe I just don't "get it" yet. [/B]

[BeWater]

Just becuase Ed appears angry to you does not mean he is not relaxed or doesn't understand the concept of relaxation.

The point I was attempting to make is that if Ed looks angry, wether he actually is angry or not, he can not possibly be totally relaxed because his facial muscles are tensed. Granted, as yuanfen pointed out, magazines apparently like photographs of people with an intense facial expression, but it just doesn't strike me as wing chun like thing to do, and frankly I think he and his opponent look ridiculous. Maybe my beef is with Inside Kung Fu and not Ed.

[Patrick Gordon]

Originally posted by BeWater

The point I was attempting to make is that if Ed looks angry, wether he actually is angry or not, he can not possibly be totally relaxed because his facial muscles are tensed.
Granted, as yuanfen pointed out, magazines apparently like photographs of people with an intense facial expression, but it just doesn't strike me as wing chun like thing to do,

Ever hear of poker-face? It is ok to look angry or intense in a confrontation. It does not mean you are not relaxed, calm and perfectly in control. An angry look can be to intimidate your opponent. It doesn't mean you have gone against the Wing Chun principle of relaxation. patrick.

and frankly I think he and his opponent look ridiculous. Maybe my beef is with Inside Kung Fu and not Ed. [/B]

Don't let the photos upset you. Just read the article and enjoy :-) Patrick.