Hello,
I would like to get some comments on the performance of the Fook Sau and Wu Sau in the SNT.
What is the energy involved in each movement?
Why does the Fook go out while the Wu comes in?
In application are the energies and movements reversed?
What advantages or disadvantages are there in performing the movements this way?
What advantages or disadvantages would there be in reversing the movements in the forms, ie Wu going forward while Fook comes back?
Peace,
Dave
Well heres my junior effort, well more of a partial response. The fook goes forward as an offensive stick and the wu sau comes back as a yielding wu again sticking. I have also heard its supposed to develop chi enrgy as well
just my 2 pence !
I hope I helped.
Are we gonna be tested on this?
Yin/Yang`
Hello,
First of all, thank you for the replies thus far.
So far everyone seems to be in agreement, correct me if I’m wrong 
, with the idea of Wu being a withdrawing movement and Fook extending forward. Now, I guess my question is this; Is this always the case? In Chi Sau is Fook more of an agressive movement or more of a passive listening movement? Does the Wu Sau exert energy forward or is is used to absorb and redirect energy being brought in? Can you withdraw the Fook and extend the Wu rather than the other way around? If you use the Wu to absorb, then does it become something different after a certain point, and if so what?
I agree that both Fook and Wu are very important movements and the understanding of the energy found in each one is crucial. However, if one looks at the CK form one may find a Wu which extends rather than draws back. If this is the case then why do it as a withdrawing movement in the 1st form? Also, when supplementing the Bong with a Wu is the Wu going forward or back?
While there is no “test” on this topic I thought it might be interesting to discuss something directly related to Wing Chun rather than digress to other non-related items.
Oh, for those who are curious, I was originally taught to extend Fook and Withdraw Wu, just like most were. However, after several years of discussion and practice, my Sifu has reversed the movements in the 1st form. So I guess we do it backwards 
Anyhow, I am curious as to the reasons for doing it the way each of us does it. I am not advocating one way over the other. After all, the important thing is whether or not you can make it work. Still, it is sometimes a good idea to look in new directions. By providing feedback each of you is helping me to think deeper about how I do it and decide if there is anything which needs to be changed. By getting a better understanding of both methods it enhances my understanding of why and how.
Thanks,
Dave
Why Fook n’ Wu?
What are these motions simulating from reality?
Hi Dave,
Elastic/spring like. Fook tames, Wu wards. Concentrate on the paths and point(s) of power.
Fook goes out because it’s subduing the opponent. It’s cutting into them and disrupting their offense. Wu comes in because it is guarding. It is allowing the opponent to think s/he’s getting what s/he wants while we’re changing the line or eating the space.
They can be, but I tend to be pretty specific in my terminology and just because the shape looks Fook or Wu like, it may not really be that (could be Chai or Lan)
The way it is? Teaches you to expand and contract, two of the elemental concepts. Trains the centerline, which is vital in the beginning, and builds specific flexibility and Ging.
Reversed? Could do the same but you’d have to reverse the already reversed versions elsewhere in the sets so as to maintain the balance and ensure you’re training both.
Rgds,
RR
Is one way right and the other wrong?
Hello,
Rene,
When Fook goes out does’nt it change to something else? Also what about the Jum Sau or Jut Sau does the energy in either of these “withdraw”? I think that Jum would be a better example of a “withdrawl” originating from Fook. Of course, I am placing both of these within the Fook family and not necessarily as firm examples of Fook Sau.
So you use Wu as a decption to draw in the opponent. At what point do you stop withdrawing or at what point does the Wu transform into soemthing else? In other words, I doubt that you would withdrawl the Wu to the chest but would have an optimum position at which to stop the withdrawl; what would be a rough idea of where this is? Again, using the example of Bong/Wu Sau-Is the Wu withdrawing or pressing forward?
Not an attack but I am curious. FWIW I have withdrawn my Taun to my chest on occassion and been able to draw in the opponent to my advantage. Nothing is set in stone. I believe we have had this discussion in the past and can agree that the “extending” Wu might be easier for beginning students while the “withdrawing” Wu may be a more “advanced” concept to grasp.
Thanks again,
Dave
1) What is the energy involved in each movement?
Relaxed, forward intent (to opponents body) in all parts of the body…in all movements.
2) Why does the Fook go out while the Wu comes in?
So we can keep this intent in a movement that has a strong structure (in relation to solving the problem we are presented with) …while moving in a certain direction. Need it be backwards or forwards. There should be no restrictions on what a movement can do, only it does what the situation dictates.
3) In application are the energies and movements reversed?
Application should be the same as what you practice. (ie same direction the energy flows)
4) What advantages or disadvantages are there in performing the movements this way?
If you perform all the same then your body can react without the need to think about changing…just react.
5) What advantages or disadvantages would there be in reversing the movements in the forms, ie Wu going forward while Fook comes back?
Dont know. Do you see any advantages to the change? What I currently do works… but as you said there is already a Wu going forwards in the CK form. So why exclude the movement going backwards? …wouldnt this be leaving out a motion the movement can be practiced in??
Hi Dave,
Nope, IMHO, the fook (controlling) extending is part of being fook. The hands, as I see them are paths (actions) and not poses. If the hand is coming back, might be kao (detaining), chum (sinking), on (pressing) or any of a number of things.
I’m not using Wu as a deception, per se, but as it’s intended - a guard. The Wu would become something else when it is no longer guarding but actively engaging - some form of lan, or changing into tan (dispersing), fook, bong (wing), kao, lap (grapsing), etc.
If I have to withdraw the Wu too far back, it usually changes into cheung (supporting), which minimizes the danger to my center. With every hand, I try to make sure it has structural alignment (positioned in a way where the skeleton supports it and is not in danger of immediate collapse under pressure). When Wu is restracted too far, it gets into that danger zone, which means recovery might have to kick in, and then its less than optimal.
No worries on “attack”. Questions and answers are just discussions. As I’ve said a million times, discussion can be like Chi Sao. If you know your WCK you can just relax, have fun, smile and roll. It’s only when you fail you need the CK of changing lines or turning points, or the BJ of furious recovery. 8). If someone can point out my flaws (errors in my analysis), I’m more than grateful.
I think the Wu in SLT is a challenging concept to master, but think that’s part of the reason for its inclusion. Sometimes you need to break habits early on, and the Wu is a nice Yin/Yang balance to some of the other elements in the set. We stands in our KYMs and we doos our Saam Pai Fut. It’s part of the investment 8)
One question back - when you do the Chut Wu Sao in SLT, do you do the reverse now in Chum Kiu? If not, where do you make up for it, or is it just eliminated?
RR
Maybe I am wrong or else not wanted in this semi-private discussion, but if certain moves are intended to achieve specific results, would not reversing their order or direction be counter-productive or even detrimental?
I don’t train a high bong-sao to protect my lower body, nor do I chi-sao to improve my chi flow or build up my shoulders or whatever else people say when asked questions about WC that they either don’t know the answer to or don’t want to answer.
Every motion has a purpose foremostly and secondary attributes thereafter.
Hi Dave. Since you already received so many thoughtful responses, I’ll aim to avoid excessive redundancy. Here is to only a subset of your many questions:
However, if one looks at the CK form one may find a Wu which extends rather than draws back. If this is the case then why do it as a withdrawing movement in the 1st form?
Just as for other techniques, wu sau is of course more than a technique. 
In addition to a forward intent, wu sau also embodies an important “receiving” quality, which is illustrated and experienced in practice of the first set. The inward motion of the wu sau underscores this quality of “receiving” which, IMHO, may otherwise become too easily obscured.
Also, when supplementing the Bong with a Wu is the Wu going forward or back?
We might consider if it really matters if the wu goes forward or backward with the bong sau. If the wu sau initially moves forward to its position, and then if it goes a little too far forward, maybe then we should move it a little backward to correct the positioning. Perhaps a wu sau may even be momentarily still, neither moving forward or backward (or at least as still as the bong sau, which “neither stops nor stays”). I’m not trying to be facetious here, but rather to illustrate that “it depends.”
In the first set we learn something of the nature of the wu sau. In the second set and in later applications, we further learn and experience how that nature may manifest under different circumstances.
If the various qualities of the wu sau are appreciated and understood - e.g., positioning (not just of the hand, but the entire arm and body, and also in relation to oneself and the opponent), its intentional nature, its protective nature, its controlling nature, and its receiving nature - then, in application, a properly trained wu sau should respond correctly based upon the external stimulus.
Chum Kiu affords us an environment in which to practice perfect positioning without external stimulus. When external stimulus is applied(e.g., forces with varying magnitudes and directions) then one or more various aspects of the wu sau may become more readily apparent.
Some loose thoughts, anyway, in case of any use in your enquiry.
Regards,
Nice so far
Hello,
S.Teebas,
I agree with point 1
Point 2-agree with the no restrictions on a movement idea. I would rather grasp the concept then the shape or movement.
Point 3-I could not agree more. However I find that the Wu in application, for me at least, seems to be forward rather than back. I also find many instances when I use the Fook to draw an opponent in. For example when breaking a wrist grab with a Huen Sau to the outside I end up in a Fook and can pull the opponent in breaking his balance.
Point 4-Again I can agree with this. However, if it is more efficient to use the extending Wu then would practicing this way make more sense?
Point 5-This comes to the crux of the matter. Is it advantagous to draw back the WU, ever? If Wu is a guarding hand then, if the intent is forward, is it you who withdraws or is it the opponents energy which pushes back a lesser force? In other words, if there was no force moving you to withdraw would you extend instead? If so, then it makes more sense to train to extend rather than withdraw, imo. Whereas the Fook is a sensitive, passive movemetn used to listen to the opponent, it might be better to not be active, or extend the Fook. IMO the Fook must change in order to be effective when extending.
Ren,
I seem Fook more as the sinking. I veiw it as a more passive mvoement used to listen to the opponent and then react to what is given. Not so much an “active” movement to attack. While you can attack from Fook I find that such an attack must change into another technique to be effective anyhow, thus no longer being Fook anyhow.
Again with Wu being a “guard” should the focus be on extending forward? My reason for asking is I kind of always did my Wing Chun with forward intent irregardless of technique. For example my Taun is really a strike into the opponent, it is his force which makes me pose Taun. Since my Wu is also going into the opponent it seems to make more sense to go into rather than not.
As to the question back-I do not do the Chut Wu in Chum Kui so I guess I lost it. Maybe it is a good thing that I learned it for so many years and can still do it. However, I will confirm the absence with my Sifu. Please keep in mind that my approach is still my own and based on several different things. I would not claim to be a fair or accurate representative of my current Sifu.
FWIW-I can do a lot of the “old” things and make them work against most people. Then I run into Sifu who can make all of these things fail. 
Gives me pause and reason to consider his methods.
Alpha Dog,
You are quite welcome in this discussion 
Please do not take this the wrong way; IMHO it is incorrect to think in terms of specific moves for specific ends. I think that one should grasp the concept behidn the move and then accept that sometimes these concepts need to be bent or broken depending on the situation. While you can say every motion has a purpose, it is the energy behind the motion which defines its use in relation the energy being received. In other words while I may pose a Taun I need to be willing to step outside of the box and use Taun diferently to get its full benefit. Biu Tze teaches us to sometimes break the rules to get our end results.
Peace,
Dave
Dave
No worries, I don’t offend easily!
Maybe I am missing something, but my point is, understanding what a motion is actually used for IS understanding the concept that lies behind what would otherwise be just some strange hand motion – especially to a newcomer. Ergo, if you can “see” what it is the hand is supposed to be controlling/defending against or striking, you can have a pretty good idea of a) whether you’re doing it right or not (including using correct energy) and b) where the vulnerabilities may lie. If you see a weakness, then that should raise questions in the mind, like “Am I doing this right? Do other forms of Wing Chun do this move this way or differently, and why? Is what I am expecting out of this action realistic, and if not, can that expectation be satisfied via another part of the form, without the need to modify anything?” and so on.
Another brief, hello, Dave. In response to Rene you wrote
Again with Wu being a “guard” should the focus be on extending forward?
Ah, this may be some difference in our thinking.
I prefer the connotation of “protective” more than “guard” for the wu sau. Since I cannot contend against force with force, I may not be able to abruptly stop, “block,” push or hold away offending objects and forces. I am more concerned to control, and utilize. To utilize, it may be to my advantage to “receive” or “accept” the offense in a manner which allows it to be controlled and utilized. Head of glass, tofu belly, bridge of iron wrapped in cotton and all of that.
If I can “receive what comes” to a degree that allows my opponent to over commit themselves, or reveal a vulnerability for me to utilize - then advantage to me. I don’t always want to ward something off or away even if I could. I rather admire the attitude of the spider, who invites the intruder for lunch. Among other baits, wu sau too can serve.
OTOH, if my opponent has a wu sau that is easy to “read” or is over committed in some fashion, that may also serve as something for me to capitalize on. In keeping with this idea, I don’t wish to reveal any particular aspect of my own wu sau unnecessarily. Though happy for any information my opponent may choose to reveal to me, I do not wish to share in kind except on a need to know basis. ;D
Virtually all hands and “techniques” have a nature for listening, controlling, transitioning, and attacking. In my mental model of Wing Chun, all hands have both a passive and offensive nature, circumstances dictating which characteristics become more readily apparent.
My loose change is spent. Feel free to use or rip apart as may be fitting.
Regards,
Hi Dave,
Here’s my 2 cents.
From a choreography perspective, extending the fook sau (and tan sau) help to train the elbow position and connection of the arm to the body. Withdrawing the wu sau provides a method to bring the arm back and also trains the elbow position and body while ‘swallowing’ force.
I view all bridges as ‘listening’ so in that regard, it shouldn’t matter whether the bridge is extending or receiving, it still is feeling and sensing. Also, I don’t really like the term active and passive because, to me, everything we do is active.
We are always acting upon the opponent’s center even if that means we are receiving/withdrawing our bridge to extend him or extending our bridge to jam him. Both are active, IMHO, but the difference is in the timing involved (before or at/over extension), the manipulation of force (intercept before it is at maximum or leading it once it is at maximum), and control of the space between us (moving myself closer or creating distance).
In the particular case of fook sau, the ‘subdue hand’, it makes more sense to me that this family of bridges is more aggressive in nature. I don’t mean in the heavy forward pressure sense, but in the conceptual sense of attacking, probing, and destroying weaknessess in the opponents structure (lop sau, pak sau, gum sau, etc.). Subdue denotes a more controlling, manipulative nature.
I don’t necessarily see wu sau as only going forward to ward off an attack just as fook sau can be used to either gum sau (into) or jut sau (withdrawing/leading) without changing shape.
Wu sau can be used in both ways depending upon what you want. I can keep my body still and extend the wu sau, or I can keep my wu sau still and move my body. It depends upon the position you want relative to your opponent and what you are feeling at the time.
If I feel a heavy force, I can withdraw the wu sau to over extend him rather than trying to hold my position and keep him out. Similarly, I can use my wu sau to establish contact and then lead the force in another direction away from my center. In these examples, the wu sau is substantial, but not rigid, and must feel the opponent’s intention and force. In some cases, I might need to go forward first to make a connection before withdrawing to lead.
Did that muddy up the waters a little bit more?
Dzu
Dave…
Is it advantagous to draw back the WU, ever?
Certainly. Is it possible the opponents force will be directed to us in a manner that requires this movement, this redirection?.. Yes.
In the contex of application use of such Wu sau movement, yes I can think of some instances where applicable. But i try to stray from fixing my thoughts on “do this when this happens”…im sure you also know this.
As Kj mentioned, force can not be combated head on if we are to take full advantage of WC. And as such your comment:
if there was no force moving you to withdraw would you extend instead?
…I think yes. This is movement… the skill here is to keep on doing your WC the entire time. The skill, the energy, the focus… keep it flowing the whole time you are in that ‘fighting mode’. Which is what i have been taught to strengthen during the ‘slow’ section of SLT. The way i see it…the same energy developed in SLT is the same energy required in fighting. The tough part is having a mind strong enough to keep the focus (or direction of energy as you put it) while external forces are trying to beat you to a pulp.
While my answer seems to have strayed from the topic at hand, it is related in the facet that all movements are essentially the same. Once they are correct, the correct movement naturally (only as i can describe it) ‘occurs’ and you no longer need to think ‘should i extend or retract here?’
There is a natural, easy, safe path to your destination and you have to allow it to occur.
Muddy waters clear day
Hello,
Kathy Jo,
Thanks for both of your replies. I guess in my mind I would opt for something other than a Wu to “receive”. Not saying Wu can not and does not do this just that it would not be my first choice.
Dzu,
You make an interesting point regarding the choreography and the training of the return of the hand. However the drawing back of the Fook can also train the elbow for withdrawl also.
One question for everyone:
Would it be fair to say that the Wu sau goes forward in ALL other forms to include the dummy and that Fook is trained to withdraw? If so why would that be? All of the core principles can be found in SNT and are repeated throughout the rest of the system. Why would a “withdrawing” Wu and “extending” Fook be found only in the SNT and not repeated in several other places? Or are they repeated?
Peace,
Dave
Dave,
I agree that the hand can be returned by using a withdrawing fook sau. It’s easy to speculate why something was choreographed a certain way. Was it really to emphasize a concept, or was it purely for aesthetic reasons?
In the ‘standard’ version, the tan sau extends first, followed by huen sau to wu sau, which withdraws. Perhaps the tan sau - huen sau- wu sau transition was important and worth emphasizing so it was put in first? The tan sau to fook sau transition is later utilized in the second section, the tan sau to jum sau and the tan sau to bong sau transition in the final section so everything is more or less covered as you progress through the set. Perhaps the founders wanted to keep everything simple, hence no repetition in the transitions.
Obviously there are a lot of interpretations and we can only speculate and interpret for ourselves. Your questions could also be expanded to ask why are there three fook saus in the first section and only one tan sau? etc. Perhaps it was about keeping things simple and using one set to emphasize one half and another set to emphasize the other half?
In the YKS system, the sets open up with the sup jee sau/sae ying sau, which uses a more fluid serpentine motion of the wu sau/bridge hand to train moving it in all directions (among other things). For some reason, it’s only partially preserved in the Biu Jee set for YMWC. Obviously YM, for whatever reason, decided that this opening was extraneous. He probably had his reasons just like your Sifu had his reasons for making changes.
Dzu
Keep it coming
Hi Dzu,
First thank you for a well thought out and diplomatic reply. It is far easier to fall back into old cliches and semi answers rather than participate in a discussion with differences of opinion.
I think that Wing Chun has gone through several changes or evolutionary modifications over the years. I am sure that every great Sifu has changed or added something to the system in their time. Yip Man is one example.
There are certainly more questions than answers, sometimes. However, it is in the asking of these questions and the willingness to step outside of the norm that one may find a deeper understanding of the system and their own body as a whole.
It would be interesting to learn more about the sup jee sau/sae ying sau. I can also tell you that the Chum Kui has some modifications to it as well. Naturally I am biased towards this approach but this in no way means that I think it is the only “right” way to do something. I would be curious to compare some of the modifications in relation to how you do things as well.
FWIW here are three reasons given to me by my Sifu for the changes. While still leaving things to be discovered they can point one in the right direction;
Anyhow, I am enjoying the discussion thus far and appreciate everyones input. I look forward to further enlightenment.
Peace,
Dave