do you read and/or speak cantonese?
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1006423]do you read and/or speak cantonese?[/QUOTE]
No, I use a dictionary (just like I do for english when I don’t know what a word means) and ask one of the guys I train with who does.
wasnt a loaded question, honest!
i just wanted to know as you seem to have little room for manoeuvre in your interpretation of the kuit.
i wanted to know whether this was your interpretation, an interpretation that was given to you, or something else.
also, dont forget that many lineages have differing kuit, sometimes radically and sometimes based on semantics
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1006433]wasnt a loaded question, honest!
i just wanted to know as you seem to have little room for manoeuvre in your interpretation of the kuit.
i wanted to know whether this was your interpretation, an interpretation that was given to you, or something else.
also, dont forget that many lineages have differing kuit, sometimes radically and sometimes based on semantics[/QUOTE]
I understand. Look, I don’t take anyone’s word for anything, I check and recheck as many sources as possible, etc. I am VERY critical in all things.
There is a core WCK kuit that you find across lineage (just like there are core WCK movements that you find across lineage).
A huge problem with WCK is that loads and loads of bullsh1t has been piled onto that core, obfuscating it. Most people can’t find that core through all the bullsh1t.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1006434]I understand. Look, I don’t take anyone’s word for anything, I check and recheck as many sources as possible, etc. I am VERY critical in all things.
There is a core WCK kuit that you find across lineage (just like there are core WCK movements that you find across lineage).
A huge problem with WCK is that loads and loads of bullsh1t has been piled onto that core, obfuscating it. Most people can’t find that core through all the bullsh1t.[/QUOTE]
granted and agreed with.
i asked the point years ago, if two people have the same teacher and one has been there 1 year and one 10 years. and the 10 year student performs his drills much better and his knowledge is much higher, but the 1 year student beats him in sparring every time; who is better at wing chun?
do you have a link to the kuit that you relate to?
[QUOTE=LSWCTN1;1006441]granted and agreed with.
i asked the point years ago, if two people have the same teacher and one has been there 1 year and one 10 years. and the 10 year student performs his drills much better and his knowledge is much higher, but the 1 year student beats him in sparring every time; who is better at wing chun?
[/QUOTE]
There is actually a kuit that says Hoc Mo Mo Gong Sien Hou, Tat Jie Wai Sien - Don’t speak of who is senior or junior; the one who attains the skill first is the senior.
WCK is no different than any other sport or athletic activity in that regard. How LONG you’ve been golfing or playing tennis is meaningless in determining your skill level – there are people who play their whole lives and are forever duffers, and others who get really good in a very short period of time.
do you have a link to the kuit that you relate to?
No. The core kuit (the commonality between the Yip, YKS, Gu Lao, etc. kuit) isn’t posted on the 'net.
thanks for your responses 
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1006450]There is actually a kuit that says Hoc Mo Mo Gong Sien Hou, Tat Jie Wai Sien - Don’t speak of who is senior or junior; the one who attains the skill first is the senior.[/QUOTE]More of a classical saying than a kuen kuit.
SIZE=“5”[/SIZE]
[QUOTE=CFT;1006856]More of a classical saying than a kuen kuit.
SIZE=“5”[/SIZE][/QUOTE]
Very true. Some of the kuit are widely used classical sayings, for example Kuen Yau Sum Faat - “The fist comes from the heart” is in xing yi and many other arts. Some kuit are specific to WCK’s method.
As I see them, the kuit just provide a direction for your practice, but it is the practice that is primary.
The old “Loy lau hui sung, lat sao zik chung” is a good one but it can be interpreted incorrectly in the absence of guidance, i.e. what “zik chung” refers to (hand or whole body).
I asked some questions ages ago about:
[SIZE=“5”][/SIZE]
“Yau ying4 da ying4, mo ying4 da ying2, mo ying2 por jung”
(Have shape hit shape, no shape hit shadow, no shadow break centre)
I never did get a satisfactory answer.
[QUOTE=CFT;1006864]I asked some questions ages ago about:
[SIZE=“5”][/SIZE]
“Yau ying4 da ying4, mo ying4 da ying2, mo ying2 por jung”
(Have shape hit shape, no shape hit shadow, no shadow break centre)
I never did get a satisfactory answer.[/QUOTE]
What is it you wanted exactly? This again, is just another classical saying isn’t it?
[QUOTE=CFT;1006864]The old “Loy lau hui sung, lat sao zik chung” is a good one but it can be interpreted incorrectly in the absence of guidance, i.e. what “zik chung” refers to (hand or whole body).
I asked some questions ages ago about:
[SIZE=“5”][/SIZE]
“Yau ying4 da ying4, mo ying4 da ying2, mo ying2 por jung”
(Have shape hit shape, no shape hit shadow, no shadow break centre)
I never did get a satisfactory answer.[/QUOTE]
CFT,
Basically it refers to:
-
Yau ying da ying - If you see a shape, hit it. That is obvious. The target is in front of you - just hit it!
-
mo ying da ying - If no form, hit the shadow. This refers to the moving target. The action is too fast for your eyes to see, so strike at what you glimmer. Its like shooting a moving target - you shoot at where the target will be.
-
mo ying por jung - No Shadow, break center. This means the target is in front of you, break his center of gravity, control him, strike him at will. This is the WCK core objective. You need to push, pull or wedge and perpetually keep your opponent in a state of unbalance so you can strike him at will - breaking his COG (in Chinese, this is ) constantly to control him. Every strike has an unbalancing and resistance factor or a force setting up the next blow.
Of course, this supposes one has the correct training to do so. If no structure, you can’t - your localized arm power is inadequate to do the job.
Hope this helps.
Thank you very much Chu sifu. It’s just that the kuit seems to me to be on a continuum of “most preferred” to “last resort”. But from your explanation there doesn’t seem to be any correlation between the 3 “phases”, except from yau ying da ying to mou ying da ying.
Spencer, this one is not a classical saying. Definitely a kungfu thing, if not WCK specific.
[QUOTE=CFT;1006864]The old “Loy lau hui sung, lat sao zik chung” is a good one but it can be interpreted incorrectly in the absence of guidance, i.e. what “zik chung” refers to (hand or whole body).
[/QUOTE]
VT does not bring one or the other of these, it always brings BOTH…
If you just “zik chung” with the hand you’re just arm punching; if with the body then that brings the hands (IMO). I think body has to move in order to maintain the optimum elbow-body (1-fist) distance.
[QUOTE=CFT;1007101]If you just “zik chung” with the hand you’re just arm punching; if with the body then that brings the hands (IMO). I think body has to move in order to maintain the optimum elbow-body (1-fist) distance.[/QUOTE]
You have to move the body to reach the opponent. You have to use the body to hammer the nail.. What does any of this have to do with a “fist distance” for the elbow???
[QUOTE=CFT;1007036]Spencer, this one is not a classical saying. Definitely a kungfu thing, if not WCK specific.[/QUOTE]
Ok. Maybe a ‘classical’ martial saying but I wouldn’t go as far as to say Wing Chun specific. Maybe Hung Kuen IMO as they refer a lot to shadows/shadowless form fme.
As for interpretation I think Robert has done a good job there except for the 3rd ‘phase’, which I believe to mean something else.
From what I understand, if an opponent is said to have mo ying (no shadow) it is because they’re eratic and unpredictable and very, very fast. When confronted with such an agressor just plough through his centre, break it, as the body will always cast a shadow and be destructable (unlike the arms/legs)
Hence: Mo Ying Por Jung 
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1007115]
From what I understand, if an opponent is said to have mo ying (no shadow) it is because they’re eratic and unpredictable and very, very fast. When confronted with such an agressor just plough through his centre, break it, as the body will always cast a shadow and be destructable (unlike the arms/legs)
Hence: Mo Ying Por Jung ;)[/QUOTE]
If he is that fast you’ll never even see his center, let alone “plough” through it..
[QUOTE=chusauli;1006956]CFT,
Basically it refers to:
-
Yau ying da ying - If you see a shape, hit it. That is obvious. The target is in front of you - just hit it!
-
mo ying da ying - If no form, hit the shadow. This refers to the moving target. The action is too fast for your eyes to see, so strike at what you glimmer. Its like shooting a moving target - you shoot at where the target will be.
-
mo ying por jung - No Shadow, break center. This means the target is in front of you, break his center of gravity, control him, strike him at will. This is the WCK core objective. You need to push, pull or wedge and perpetually keep your opponent in a state of unbalance so you can strike him at will - breaking his COG (in Chinese, this is ) constantly to control him. Every strike has an unbalancing and resistance factor or a force setting up the next blow.
Of course, this supposes one has the correct training to do so. If no structure, you can’t - your localized arm power is inadequate to do the job.
Hope this helps.[/QUOTE]
I would only elaborate what Robert already said: that in WCK he don’t just hit to hit or to cause damage like boxers/kickboxers – our objective when striking is first and foremost to destroy our opponent’s body structure. So when Robert says “the target in front of you – just hit it”, what he means by “target” is the opponent’s structure. “Shape” provides you with direct access to his structure (with “shape” you know where he is structurally weak).
And, as far as hitting the shadow, this refers also to hitting his movement itself thereby using momentum to break his structure.
[QUOTE=CFT;1007101]If you just “zik chung” with the hand you’re just arm punching; if with the body then that brings the hands (IMO). I think body has to move in order to maintain the optimum elbow-body (1-fist) distance.[/QUOTE]
i believe this to be correct, but only at the point of impact. just after impact your arm then surely extends too?