Combining Wing Chun With Choy Lay Fut

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Southern Chinese Kung Fu
41

Thanks, you’ve made a friend. . . No one believes I’m 60. My first tour in Vietnam was in 1966. I was 18 then. If you go to the photo gallery on my website http://www.wingchunkwoon.com you’ll see a few pics of me in 'Nam. There was tension between different Chinese groups even to the point of shootings in NY’s Chinatown. I just happened to be a member of one of those groups.

I certainly would not have guessed that you were 60 years old. I have only seen you in a couple of recent video flicks, but you look like a kid. People tell me that I do not look 63, but they are lying to me.
Being chinese I also grew up in the Asian parts of the cities I lived in. I have seen a lot of different fighting styles, but have not been drawn to any of them because they seemed to require a greater physical ability that I possessed. Would take me way too long to learn and become proficient at.
Besides, CLF guys made up the larger portion of my diet.

42

[QUOTE=chasincharpchui;882052]actually that was me that posted

there is more to kung fu than just going to class, doin your session and paying your fees to your sifu. but than again its clear you don’t understand any of it.

mma? boxing? kung fu is not a sport.[/QUOTE]

:expressionless:
Looks like you completely missed the point. Boxing is not just a sport. It’s also a martial art. MMA is not just a sport - But the reason I referenced them is because they are the only popular venues where a fighter is tested. Where they win, lose, change and grow.

I’m not going to reexplain everything I just said in my first post, go back and read it if you didn’t understand how it correlates to my argument of art, I’ll just say this -

Watch boxing - It’s a relatively basic martial art which consists of jab, cross, hook, uppercut, weave, slip, block. - Yet even still, each boxer is different, each boxer fights differently, they develop their techniques differently - A “Jab” can have several variations. Not everyone jabs the same. Not everyone fights the same - Thats the “Art”, the self-expression. They don’t just fight differently because their trainer told them to, they developed their techniques on their own, through hours of hard work, training what worked for them, adapting new techniques, new strategies, new combinations. That’s art.

Sport? That has nothing to do with the art. The reason why self-expression is so prevalent in MMA and Boxing is because Fighters are tested to their limits where they HAVE to give everything they have, their heart, their soul, everything. They express themselves honestly, not limiting themselves by only what they’ve been taught.

You train in a single martial arts school never fighting anyone or being tested like that, never thinking outside of what your instructor tells you - You’re just a drone. The point of martial arts has been entirely lost on you. You may be a decent enough fighter to defend yourself, but you’ve lost the artistic aspect and you’re limiting yourself to simply being an inferior copy of your instructor.

there is more to kung fu than just going to class, doin your session and paying your fees to your sifu. but than again its clear you don’t understand any of it.

Riiiight, which is why I’ve written a multiple-paragraph explanation on my interpretation of martial arts, citing references such as Dr. Yang Jwing Ming, Yip Man’s students and Eddie Bravo(who was one of the first people to popularize no-gi jujitsu), and you’ve written… well lets see, absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever. Your interpretation of what martial arts means, seems to be some egotistical notion that you need to protect the honor of your “Ancestors”.

It’s ridiculous. Your lack of response to any of the points I’ve made only goes further to show that you only consider this discussion a symbolic ****ing contest.

I would absolutely love for you to actually respond to my post, instead of refuting the entire post with your ignorance of boxing and MMA being as much martial arts as choy lay fut.

43

well, let’s play "Devil’s advocate"so we can have a mature discussion, and exchange information-which is what this forum was intended for, and look at it this way:
(btw-if my ststements fall short of the mark, it is because although I have studied some CLF, I am in no way an authority on it, so if you can, fill in the gaps so we can have a better exchange)

-CLF is basically a long arm, non-sticking system.
Many people have said that you can shorten up the punches and have closer range, but was that the intention of CLF? Is that the way it was meant to be played? Does CLF have the short bridge? (which, if it did not, would in no way make it innadequate (sp?)I also realise that long arm does not equal long range, and can be played body to body striking with the arms rather than the end of the fist.

As a long arm/non-sticking style, my goal is to strike. If you try to stick, I will shift, withdraw my hand and shoot the other one out. My strikes are punishing. If you try to stick, I will strike your arms. etc. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.

As a short bridge system, I cannot afford to step back. I cannot afford for you to get off. I MUST shut you down before you can unleash your powerful blows. I will intercept your intent, and will choke off your attack, and continue the attack until you are subdued. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.

Both great strategies, but both still leave that window open.

CLF and WC have always been rivals-but this is due to this complete contrast in technique and strategy. (less filling! Tastes Great!)

So, does CLF have a short bridging group of techniques within the system, or do some peole feel that they need to go outside in order to provide this.

44

[QUOTE=hulkout;880611]My first martial art for many years has been wing chun. During the past year, I’ve started choy lay fut in order to branch out a bit. But I’m having some problems combining them. In wing chun, the centerline theory has always been drilled into my head over and over again. We’re taught to keep a tight structure and to not open up. I’ve also studied western boxing, so before I started choy lay fut, I was doing more of a jeet kune do approach. I used the footwork and punches of boxing along with wing chun. But boxing blends well with wing chun and can maintain the centerline. With choy lay fut however, a lot of the stances and techniques are very wide and seem to go against centerline theory. For example, one technique we practice is going into a unicorn stance (twist stance) with a straight punch and then stepping forward into a bow stance with a gwa-sow combination. It’s very powerful and effective, but combining it with wing chun is proving a bit difficult. Should I shorten the techniques a bit to make it tighter and more compatible? I know the techniques of choy lay fut can be used long or short. Or should I just practice them as 2 entirely different and separate arts?[/QUOTE]

I have always thought people over complicate simple ideas, and try to make things into unflexable mortal rules. They both have similarities and differences.
maybe you don’t really understand both arts enough to combine them? tighter or shortening doesn’t make it more compatible or less.
these techniques here seem to me similar to clf in some ways. Maybe you could build off of the similarities. Stratagies ect…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7hbittGBwo
again maybe your understanding of both arts isn’t enough… you should maybe seek a better teacher or get more experience.

[QUOTE=TenTigers;882107]
-CLF is basically a long arm, non-sticking system.

As a long arm/non-sticking style, my goal is to strike. If you try to stick, I will shift, withdraw my hand and shoot the other one out. My strikes are punishing. If you try to stick, I will strike your arms. etc. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.

As a short bridge system, I cannot afford to step back. I cannot afford for you to get off. I MUST shut you down before you can unleash your powerful blows. I will intercept your intent, and will choke off your attack, and continue the attack until you are subdued. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.
[/QUOTE]

sticking is for chi sao, fighting isn’t chi sao. At some instances you can “stick”, but again we are talking about fighting right? You are talking about only one strategy in WC, a very simple and limited strategy. A few times of a good sparring session will show you that this strategy doesn’t have a place in every situation. Thats why WC has many fighting strategies as does most striking arts. instead of focusing in the most extreme, and incompatible ideas …why not focus on the similarities?

45

sticking is not simply interpeted as chi-sao type sticky hands. Controlling the bridge, is probably the better term, but for argument’s sake, I used the word sticking. Controlling the bridge,whether it be sticking, trapping, crossing,crowding,pressing,immobilizing,etc is all part of it. Controlling the bridge is also controlling the body, leg, structure.

46

if we focus on the similarities, then we are not on the topic.
Although, that does make for an interesting discussion as well.
Perhaps you would like to start a thread?

47

sticking is not simply interpeted as chi-sao type sticky hands. Controlling the bridge, is probably the better term, but for argument’s sake, I used the word sticking. Controlling the bridge,whether it be sticking, trapping, crossing,crowding,pressing,immobilizing,etc is all part of it. Controlling the bridge is also controlling the body, leg, structure.

THATS A VERY GOOD POINT

control of the bridge ,control of the centerline,…control of the spine..control the structure… in striking or throwing or joint locking or ground fighting thats the goal…

Steeve

48

[QUOTE=TenTigers;882107]well, let’s play "Devil’s advocate"so we can have a mature discussion, and exchange information-which is what this forum was intended for, and look at it this way:
(btw-if my ststements fall short of the mark, it is because although I have studied some CLF, I am in no way an authority on it, so if you can, fill in the gaps so we can have a better exchange)

-CLF is basically a long arm, non-sticking system.
Many people have said that you can shorten up the punches and have closer range, but was that the intention of CLF? Is that the way it was meant to be played? Does CLF have the short bridge? (which, if it did not, would in no way make it innadequate (sp?)I also realise that long arm does not equal long range, and can be played body to body striking with the arms rather than the end of the fist.

As a long arm/non-sticking style, my goal is to strike. If you try to stick, I will shift, withdraw my hand and shoot the other one out. My strikes are punishing. If you try to stick, I will strike your arms. etc. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.

As a short bridge system, I cannot afford to step back. I cannot afford for you to get off. I MUST shut you down before you can unleash your powerful blows. I will intercept your intent, and will choke off your attack, and continue the attack until you are subdued. I will come at you with a barrage of unstoppable fury. I will rain on you.

Both great strategies, but both still leave that window open.

CLF and WC have always been rivals-but this is due to this complete contrast in technique and strategy. (less filling! Tastes Great!)

So, does CLF have a short bridging group of techniques within the system, or do some peole feel that they need to go outside in order to provide this.[/QUOTE]

My personal (which means I am not speaking for every single CLF guy in existence so please, FFS, don’t get offended) interpretation of this is that CLF guys, myself anyways view our strikes as sliding or riding over any established bridges. You’re absolutely right, if you attempt to bridge, or are even successful at it, I will want to instantly break - disconnect. I’ll slip and pull, the push back, doesn’t matter which hand I use or what technique - as long as I’m following the general principle of trying to short circuit the bridges.

So the way you described it is quite accurate, IMHO. So who wins? Both sides are trying to smother each other, no?

I guess the answer is whoever trains harder, fights more, has more innate talent/skill, has more learned skill, as well as experience amongst other things.

Just my 2 cents.

49

[QUOTE=TenTigers;882136]sticking is not simply interpeted as chi-sao type sticky hands. Controlling the bridge, is probably the better term, but for argument’s sake, I used the word sticking. Controlling the bridge,whether it be sticking, trapping, crossing,crowding,pressing,immobilizing,etc is all part of it. Controlling the bridge is also controlling the body, leg, structure.[/QUOTE]

sticking in the “wc” sense is chi sao for majority of the idea. You can use the word controlling the bridge… it means the same thing. Your working with a “bridge”. this isn’t the case in a large about of a confrontation. In some cases YES and in most cases NO. SO again that idea is very limited in a large scale to CHI SAO. You live under the impression that every just gives you a static bridge to work with. Again fighting isn’t chi sao, and WC isn’t fighting that looks like chi sao. I love chi sao, and I am not saying anything negative about it. I’m simply putting reality into the topic.

[QUOTE=TenTigers;882139]if we focus on the similarities, then we are not on the topic.
Although, that does make for an interesting discussion as well.
Perhaps you would like to start a thread?[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry if I got off topic.. I honestly thought the tittle of the topic was…

“Combining Wing Chun With Choy Lay Fut”.. and I was under the impression the first post was “But I’m having some problems combining them. In wing chun, the centerline theory has always been drilled into my head over and over again. We’re taught to keep a tight structure and to not open up. I’ve also studied western boxing, so before I started choy lay fut, I was doing more of a jeet kune do approach. I used the footwork and punches of boxing along with wing chun. But boxing blends well with wing chun and can maintain the centerline. With choy lay fut however, a lot of the stances and techniques are very wide and seem to go against centerline theory. For example, one technique we practice is going into a unicorn stance (twist stance) with a straight punch and then stepping forward into a bow stance with a gwa-sow combination. It’s very powerful and effective, but combining it with wing chun is proving a bit difficult. Should I shorten the techniques a bit to make it tighter and more compatible? I know the techniques of choy lay fut can be used long or short. Or should I just practice them as 2 entirely different and separate arts?”

so if I’m not wrong I’m on topic 100.
I posted a video showing more “circular” techniques, that are in some ways familiar to a CLF person. Although they are not the same. The idea being that both styles have at some times a similar element. The first step into combining them would be to look at those elements. See how they are used differently. If they are..
To just say shorten a CLF technique is silly, because it in essence is just superficially looking at what CLF is and what WC is. You have not gotten to the heart or the soul of the styles. thats like saying I’m combining boxing with wrestling by wrestling with boxing gloves. You would need to look at body mechanics, timing, ring strategy, footwork ect…

50

ok point well taken.
I stand corrected.
I agree that when combining two different styles, it is good to first see where they have similarities which may fit in with your present system.
I tell students from other systems when they come to my school,
“you need to look at the systems like two gears. Don’t look where they clash and lock up, rather seek the areas where they fit in with each other.” (I should follow my own advice-once again, I am humbled:o)

I also realize that although chi-sao may be a large part of WC (and other short bridge systems) training, it is but one split second during a confrontation, and sometimes not even that.
But that one moment may decide victory or defeat.

In Hung-Kuen, we seek to bridge. If there is a bridge, cross it. Where there is no bridge, build it. Bridging occurs in many different ways. Sure, nobody leaves their hand out for you, which is why we bridge with different parts of our bodies, not simply the forearms.
You can bridge a jab, by “following it home” and attacking the upper limb,shoulder, etc.
Or crashing it head on and taking it.
The same applies when their hands are in tight, like a boxer’s cover. Better for me. Crash their arms, and take their structure.

There are of course exceptions to the rule-Hung Kuen, like WC and SPM, goes in to strike.
Nobody goes in to trap,
just like nobody goes in to stick.
You go in to strike,
but if there is opposition, then you can stick, trap, run, or whathaveyou.
If the line is clear, then you take it.
BTW-this is considered a type of bridge in Hung Kuen as well, as I am bridging with your body, mind, and heart.

51

[QUOTE=TenTigers;882339]ok point well taken.
In Hung-Kuen, we seek to bridge. If there is a bridge, cross it. Where there is no bridge, build it. Bridging occurs in many different ways. Sure, nobody leaves their hand out for you, which is why we bridge with different parts of our bodies, not simply the forearms.
You can bridge a jab, by “following it home” and attacking the upper limb,shoulder, etc.
Or crashing it head on and taking it.
The same applies when their hands are in tight, like a boxer’s cover. Better for me. Crash their arms, and take their structure.

There are of course exceptions to the rule-Hung Kuen, like WC and SPM, goes in to strike.
Nobody goes in to trap,
just like nobody goes in to stick.
You go in to strike,
but if there is opposition, then you can stick, trap, run, or whathaveyou.
If the line is clear, then you take it.
BTW-this is considered a type of bridge in Hung Kuen as well, as I am bridging with your body, mind, and heart.[/QUOTE]

ofcourse I’m not saying this isn’t a perfect time to take advantage, its just that this situation is less and less with a trained fighter. You must be away of this and be able to adapt. People that just think about bridging, to me often come off predictable and have little intention in that initial strike. The way I look at is that, when I’m striking I look to knock your head off. Each striking has torque, and intent.. if for some reason you for example you post a hand , then I can bridge and knee for example.

I’m actually trying to think about judo throws in my clinch. I’m not really at the level to add them in sparring but its my intention.

52

TenTigers wrote:
“There are of course exceptions to the rule-Hung Kuen, like WC and SPM, goes in to strike.
Nobody goes in to trap,
just like nobody goes in to stick.
You go in to strike,
but if there is opposition, then you can stick, trap, run, or whathaveyou.
If the line is clear, then you take it.”

Monji12000 wrote:
" People that just think about bridging, to me often come off predictable and have little intention in that initial strike. The way I look at is that, when I’m striking I look to knock your head off. Each striking has torque, and intent.. if for some reason you for example you post a hand , then I can bridge and knee for example."

I think we are on the same page here.

53

The Yi or I is very important

Steeve