in the section, man sao to the side and then bring the elbow back. I have noticed this is the same move as chun kiu but the elbow is brought in when doing biu jee but is out when doing chun kiu. Just wondering on your thoughts as why bring the elbow in. Hoping to talk vt in the forum for the first time in months.
The elbow are “in” (down) in both cases – in the CK the arm moves from a fak sao (at the end of section) to a fook sao, and in BJ from a fak sao (at end ofsection) to a chum (jum) sao. Same with the 3 fak sao into chum sao in the BJ set.
The difference pertains in my view to the thematic representation of the two sets – the BJ set focuses on the recovery aspects (what to do, for example if you lose control of an opponent). Hence the kuit, chum jang sao jong (sink elbow to protect structure).
wow nice answer. In my lineage when doing the chun kiu one the elbow is on the outside. It is quicker and you don’t clash your ulna on the incoming punch. You are blocking with the flexor digitorum portion of the arm. More meat so the bone is protected more. I may have to stop giving you a hard time that was a well thought out vt answer.
now this is the reason why i joined this forum
[QUOTE=bennyvt;986691]wow nice answer. In my lineage when doing the chun kiu one the elbow is on the outside. It is quicker and you don’t clash your ulna on the incoming punch. You are blocking with the flexor digitorum portion of the arm. More meat so the bone is protected more. I may have to stop giving you a hard time that was a well thought out vt answer.[/QUOTE]
These things are not “blocks” – they are bridge hands, and the action occurs AFTER contact, not from a distance. The chum (jum) sao, for example, you see in the dan chi sao ofYM WCK or the single sticking bridge of YKS WCK.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;986688]The elbow are “in” (down) in both cases – in the CK the arm moves from a fak sao (at the end of section) to a fook sao, and in BJ from a fak sao (at end ofsection) to a chum (jum) sao. Same with the 3 fak sao into chum sao in the BJ set.
The difference pertains in my view to the thematic representation of the two sets – the BJ set focuses on the recovery aspects (what to do, for example if you lose control of an opponent). Hence the kuit, chum jang sao jong (sink elbow to protect structure).[/QUOTE]
If you’d only post like this more often.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;986702]If you’d only post like this more often.[/QUOTE]
Agreed!
Although, personally, if you want to get a peek at kuen kuit most of it is stored online in the wingchunpedia.org site(although they have a plague on the forum!)
http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.KuenKuit
Also note that the Kuit referred to by Yik Kam are the only ones not really translated! SO if anyone is up for the job??!
In all respect, if anyone is practising Wing Chun and has not heard of chum jang then you have definitely only been exposed to the western ‘little idea’ of what Wing Chun is. I’ve said it before, hints and tips (kuen kuit) are fine, but that’s all they are; hints & tips. They’re everywhere!
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;986891]Agreed!
Although, personally, if you want to get a peek at kuen kuit most of it is stored online in the wingchunpedia.org site(although they have a plague on the forum!)
http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.KuenKuit
Also note that the Kuit referred to by Yik Kam are the only ones not really translated! SO if anyone is up for the job??!
In all respect, if anyone is practising Wing Chun and has not heard of chum jang then you have definitely only been exposed to the western ‘little idea’ of what Wing Chun is. I’ve said it before, hints and tips (kuen kuit) are fine, but that’s all they are; hints & tips. They’re everywhere![/QUOTE]
On a side note, that site is crap and nothing but accumulated misinformation.
The kuit is part of the classical curriculum of WCK, and should be gotten from your instructor WITHIN the context of your training. They are not “tips and hints” anymore than the forms and drills are “tips and hints” but an integral aspect of the curriculum.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;987095]On a side note, that site is crap and nothing but accumulated misinformation.
The kuit is part of the classical curriculum of WCK, and should be gotten from your instructor WITHIN the context of your training. They are not “tips and hints” anymore than the forms and drills are “tips and hints” but an integral aspect of the curriculum.[/QUOTE]
I humbly take tour point T.
As the Kuit can only be passed on WITH a Sifu and under guidance, then please explain how we can all even try to talk casually about them on a forum?
[QUOTE=wingchunpedia.org;987095]
Biu Jee
1.The Biu Jee hand contains emergency techniques.
2.Iron fingers can strike a vital point at once.
3.The stepping in elbow strike has sufficient threatening power.
4.The phoenix eye punch has no compassion.
5.Fak Sau, Ginger Fist, and Guide Bridge; their movements are closely coordinated and hard to defend and nullify.
6.Springy power and the extended arm are applied to close range.
7.The situation is different when preventing from defeat in an emergency.
8.The Biu Jee is not taught to outsiders.
9.How many Sifu pass on the proper heritage?
[/QUOTE]
For a crap site there still seems to be a little info on Biu Jee (even if it is just speculation) which may help discuss the form a little further IMO
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;987345]I humbly take tour point T.
As the Kuit can only be passed on WITH a Sifu and under guidance, then please explain how we can all even try to talk casually about them on a forum?
[/QUOTE]
We’re talking about them now.
For a crap site there still seems to be a little info on Biu Jee (even if it is just speculation) which may help discuss the form a little further IMO
As I said, it is mostly misinformation. Those kuit you cite are for the most part made up, and not genuine kuit (and you can know what is genuine by cross checking across lineage). “Iron fingers can strike a vital point at once”, is a perfect example. Biu jee sao is not a finger strike, the form is not about striking with the fingers, etc.
hmmmmmmmmmm…while the CK interpretation is interesting, I was taught that the recovery used in biu jee is not the jum sau of CK but more of a jut sau with some long bridge energy
Moses
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;986702]If you’d only post like this more often.[/QUOTE]
He can talk the classical stuff with the best of them.. But then he turns around and says it’s BS… “Structure doesn’t exist,” he said somewhere..
So on the one hand he buys into all the classical stuff but then on the other says it’s BS.
On the one hand says anyone can teach the system, then turns right around and disrespects all of the last generation Sifu.
See, it’s only valid if it has his special sauce… And he won’t or can’t show that.
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;986891]. . . . In all respect, if anyone is practising Wing Chun and has not heard of chum jang then you have definitely only been exposed to the western ‘little idea’ of what Wing Chun is. . . . [/QUOTE]
Cantonese has 7 tones according to Yale University Romanization. I’ll presume that you mean sinking elbow based on your Romanization. I think most WC people know that.
[QUOTE=YungChun;987480]He can talk the classical stuff with the best of them.. But then he turns around and says it’s BS… “Structure doesn’t exist,” he said somewhere..
So on the one hand he buys into all the classical stuff but then on the other says it’s BS.
On the one hand says anyone can teach the system, then turns right around and disrespects all of the last generation Sifu.
See, it’s only valid if it has his special sauce… And he won’t or can’t show that.[/QUOTE]
Now you’ve done it. 
From now on I’ll use the term T’s special sauce to refer to T’s uninformed rantings.
Yes Terence, I said uniformed because you don’t see all that I or others have to show.
And here it is…
And low fat too!
[SIZE=“3”]Order yours today and get Real Deal WCK skillz along with great tasting ribs![/SIZE]
i agree its not about finger strikes. And i don’t like the vital points stuff. I was mainly wondering why in chun kiu you block with the inside me the arm with the elbow out (more like a fuk sao with the hand turned) and in biu jee you turn the hand as you bring yous elbow in which means you block with the ulna bone and looks more like a tan when finished. The hand being turned down in chun kiu and facing up in biu jee, which changes the blocking surface. I know this is more to teach you the fastest way of bringing your hand back but was wondering about why its slightly different. And hey if you want to complain even when terrence gives good answers then stop complainin when he doesn’t.
[QUOTE=bennyvt;987533]i agree its not about finger strikes. And i don’t like the vital points stuff. I was mainly wondering why in chun kiu you block with the inside me the arm with the elbow out (more like a fuk sao with the hand turned) and in biu jee you turn the hand as you bring yous elbow in which means you block with the ulna bone and looks more like a tan when finished. The hand being turned down in chun kiu and facing up in biu jee, which changes the blocking surface. I know this is more to teach you the fastest way of bringing your hand back but was wondering about why its slightly different. And hey if you want to complain even when terrence gives good answers then stop complainin when he doesn’t.[/QUOTE]
You should stop thinking in terms of blocking and blocking surfaces. In CK, you are performing a fook sao (which represents a controlling action) and in BJ you are performing a chum sao (which represents a recovery action). They are not blocks. If you use those tools as blocks, they won’t work effectively.
[QUOTE=YungChun;987480]He can talk the classical stuff with the best of them.. But then he turns around and says it’s BS… “Structure doesn’t exist,” he said somewhere..
[/QUOTE]
No, I didn’t. You are LYING, certainly to others and probably to yourself. This is so typical of you delusional guys – you make up what you want to be true and proclaim it as though it is. If you say I said it, FIND IT.
So on the one hand he buys into all the classical stuff but then on the other says it’s BS.
On the one hand says anyone can teach the system, then turns right around and disrespects all of the last generation Sifu.
I really can’t help it that you guys can’t put aside yoru false preconceptions and think past the superficial. Try to follow this.
-
In TCMAs there is the curriculum --the forms, dummy, drill, kuit, etc. – which teaches you the various tools (physical actions, tactics, etc.) of a particular method. As an analogy, it is like learning how to play chess (how the pieces move, the rules of the game, etc.)
-
But the curriculum doesn’t – and can’t – teach you to use (fight with) those tools. You can only learn to use them by and through using them. In other words, you learn to box by boxing. You don’t learn to box by not boxing, by doing other things besides boxing. Or, to go back to the analogy, learning how the pieces move doesn’t teach you how to play the game well – to move your pieces to defeat your opponent. You learn that my playing lots of chess games.
-
If someone knows the curriculum (they know how the chess pieces move), they can teach it. Anyone can teach what they know. But just because they can teach you the curriculum (how the pieces move) doesn’t mean they can teach you how to be a good chessplayer.
-
If someone can’t do something, then they don’t really know it. And so, they can’t teach it. If they can’t do it and you listen to them tell you how to do it, you are being misled.
To get good at fighting (or chess) takes lots of practice actually doing it (fighting) – hundreds of hours of hard, grueling sparring against skilled people. This is true of any sport, athletic activity,etc. Do you want to tell me which WCK master or grandmaster has put in that work? If they haven’t, they can’t have learned to use their WCK beyond a superficial level. So, if you listen to them tell you how to make it work, you arebeingmisled.
- The people who brought WCK to the West weren’t skillful fighters, they were guys who had learned the curriculum. That’s what they brought us. But, it is up to us – through our work (sparring) – to learn to make it work.
See, it’s only valid if it has his special sauce… And he won’t or can’t show that.
I’ve told you how to develop skill in WCK, it’s the same way you develop skill in boxing or BJJ: go do hundreds of hours of sparring with the best people you can find, constantly trying to make your WCK work. That’s it. Simple. It’s not a matter of me showing it to you, it’s a matter of YOU DOING IT. Whether I or anyone else has done it won’t help you in the least.
But you don’t want to do that work but at the same time you want to believe you really “know”. Well, it doesn’t work that way.
I dont think you totally understand. In the old days fighting was just part of the learning experience. When you say the people that brought it to the west. You dont know who you are talking about. From my school, Barry was one of WSL top fighters, had heaps of challenage matches (against the best that was in hong kong or arrived), street fights etc. Many that learnt off WSL just learnt the moves and know what wong says. Barry used the challenage matches to try out different things, like he fought a judo guy and wanted to know if he could get him off him after he had a ahold of him. He waited to the guy grabbed him (bad vt) just to test it out. On a side note he actually completly busted his back when it happened but still won. He now has major spine nerve damage.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;987537]
No, I didn’t. You are LYING, certainly to others and probably to yourself. This is so typical of you delusional guys – you make up what you want to be true and proclaim it as though it is. If you say I said it, FIND IT.
[/quote]
Easy tiger…
Okay I stand corrected…
It’s just so hard to tell what you think is nonsense and what isn’t.. You are so wrapped up in the minutia of semantics.. Folks may mean exactly what you do but if you find a word that doesn’t resonate with you, bam, you go off on your rant. It’s hard to tell what you think IS and what you think is NOT valid within WCK.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;987537]
- In TCMAs there is the curriculum --the forms, dummy, drill, kuit, etc. – which teaches you the various tools (physical actions, tactics, etc.) of a particular method. As an analogy, it is like learning how to play chess (how the pieces move, the rules of the game, etc.)
[/quote]
And I see all kinds of differing interpretations of same.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;987537]
If someone knows the curriculum (they know how the chess pieces move), they can teach it. Anyone can teach what they know. But just because they can teach you the curriculum (how the pieces move) doesn’t mean they can teach you how to be a good chessplayer.
[/quote]
But “they” are teaching more than how the pieces move and the rules. WCK is more than that… It’s how, why, when, tactics, general strategy, etc, and how to implement…
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;987537]
If someone can’t do something, then they don’t really know it. And so, they can’t teach it. If they can’t do it and you listen to them tell you how to do it, you are being misled.
[/quote]
So here we see the dichotomy.. WCK is not chess.. Sifu teach more than the rules of the game.
On the one hand you say anyone can teach but on the other hand they can’t if they can’t do it, where IT is whatever you find valid…
And again we only know what you DON’T see as valid and you don’t show us what IS valid in WCK…with vague exceptions.
Another vague area is how you speak of applying WCK.. On the one hand you are adamant that control must always be used (2 hands?), yet, not to reach for hands, implying striking, but then you go back to it’s not WCK if you just strike.. (I assume this can mean at anytime in any single action or many)..
“The freed hand shoots the line” NOT “The freed hand seeks control..”
No Jeet Kune in WCK? Back that up…
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;987537]
To get good at fighting (or chess) takes lots of practice actually doing it (fighting) – hundreds of hours of hard, grueling sparring against skilled people. This is true of any sport, athletic activity,etc.
[/quote]
You see only black and white..
Yes you have a valid point here, but you also ignore all the levels of experience between the never fought guy, to the security guy who uses his skill nightly to the LEO who uses his stuff to survive, the occasional fighter to the world champion full contact fighter. . etc, etc… We can learn something from everyone, really, even if it’s what not to do..
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;987537]
The people who brought WCK to the West weren’t skillful fighters, they were guys who had learned the curriculum. That’s what they brought us. But, it is up to us – through our work (sparring) – to learn to make it work.
[/quote]
So none, not one had any fighting experience…? None had any real skill? None?
Then according to your own logic they had no business teaching…
Yet they brought over something you have dedicated so much of your time to.. Even now you dedicate much time to it.
I assume it is of some value to you, even though it came from, in your way of thinking, know nothing non fighters who couldn’t really do anything, never having been real fighters…etc..
Still you claim the art has merit, although you can’t say how that might manifest.
Look.. Either these guys brought over something you value or not.. Stop the schizophrenic duality crap..
Just to teach the system you have to have many attributes, to cultivate the same attributes in the students.. Those attributes do equate to skill.. Maybe not the end of the road but certainly the first few miles.
Clearly you see value in WCK.. So clearly these folks DID have some knowledge AND SKILL of worth, some may still have more value to add.. After all if there was anything there of any value then, one never knows what else could be useful…
Yet, you go out of your way to be rude, mock, insult and belittle these same people, who had/have no skill, no real knowledge according to you, who, you say, “couldn’t fight there way out of a wet paper bag,” yet some how they reshaped your life.. :D:eek:
No, your straight as an arrow.. :rolleyes: (note delusional guy eye roll)