for Terence...

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

[QUOTE=duende;1007366]Actually the Kuen Kuit pertains EXACTLY to what I’m talking about. And in the spirit of conversation and WC comradery you just received some good info to absorb. Info that we’ve discussed online at HFY108 for years now. Unfortunately, you are just waaaay too defensive to realize it.
[/QUOTE]

No, I just received nonsense, and I am experienced enough to know it. Go try “sweeping” against some good boxers then come back and tell me how that worked for you.

But let’s look at Robert’s explanation…

If the shadow is a “Glimmer” like Robert says… 2) 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.

Then by this logic, your interpretation of Mo Ying Da Yeng means that you should shoot at a fist! Because by YOUR definition, it’s an action that’s too fast for eyes to see!! :wink:

No. The “shadow” has nothing to do with your vision. It refers to your opponent’s physical movement itself. Perhaps you can explain to me how reacting to and trying to hit something you can’t even see clearly is a good idea?

Our shadow reference is actually a true visual shadow… due to lack of focusing capabilities on the side when looking straight forward. YOUR shadow definition could be a fake, it could be fast jab, it could be many moving fast objects. Trying to hit any “glimmer” is pretty vague, by anyone’s account. You’ll not only be chasing hands… you’ll be chasing flies! haha :smiley:

This is all nonsense. Why are you talking about dealing with fakes and jabs? I’m not going to try and chase either. Either I’m out of range or I’m in range – and if I’m in range, I’m already in the process of clinching. If I get caught coming in, then I cover (the only sane thing to do). This kuit isn’t about dealing with your opponent’s punches.

Yes you do and you know it! This is one aspect of control. You would just rather argue than admit it. Funny how your recent posts about control and bridging echo concepts and strategies that we’ve been writing here online for years! But of course now it’s the “original Wing Chun Faat”!

I don’t try to dominate space (which is nonsensical), I try to directly control my opponent via direct physical contact (by pushing, pulling, wedging, etc.). If you don’t have direct physical contact, you can’t have any control. “Space” has nothing to do with it.

No $hit! It’s just a vague phrase, but in that phrase holds much to one’s understanding if they understand certain meanings and references in WC.

As far as being mislead. Have you read your posts lately?

First you say the kuit “teaches us how to do this effectively without leaving ourselves exposed, without over-committing our energy, and without chasing hands” and now you seem to agree with me that it doesn’t - and can’t - do that!

As I said, the kuit only gives direction to your practice, but you only learn via your practice.

42

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1007386]I wasn’t aware that you had actually read the HFY kuit. Have you? If not, how exactly is it that you are able to more precisely understand its interpretation over someone who has trained it for many years?[/QUOTE]

The kuit in question is a WCK kuit. HFY is just Garrett’s curriculum for teaching WCK. Is this Garrett’s “interpretation” of the kuit in question?

43

[QUOTE=Matrix;1007380]I believe that this is an excellent statement that more of us (including myself) should consider as a general rule.

The problem with being a critical thinker is that there is a tendency to totally focused on being critical and completely dismissing an opposing point of view out of hand.[/QUOTE]

Critical thinking is our only defense against nonsense, bullsh1t, etc.

In the martial arts, not only do we need critical thinking, but we also need lots and lots of solid fighting experience (with good people) to develop discernment. That’s why so many are led astray by “theory” and the people who espouse it – they just don’t have the requisite experience to know better. Then add dogmatic programming to the mix . . . .

44

Your dirty clinch is so wrong dude…all that ‘faat’ and you end up with ‘dirty clinch’ :smiley: keep walking you may encounter otherwise…your assuming what you know is all there is to know about VT …so wrong…:smiley:

45

Thanks duende. I’m always interested in lots of viewpoints. Commonality and differences are good points of discussion. You either learn something new, see something in a different light or the discussion degenerates a bit (or a lot - never mind)!

The “occupying space” term does make me question what it means because it sounds so “fixed in space”, like you’re putting up a wall. It must be more dynamic - in response to something - than that though? You not simply putting a limb out (no matter how well supported) to occupy the space?

So my understanding so far is that:

  1. Yau ying da ying is just to hit what is in front of you because you have facing (dui ying)

  2. Mou ying da yeng, is when you lose facing because of a mobile opponent. You will have to re-face (jui ying - chase shape/body) and hit in the same motion. I guess this is addressed in the Chum Kiu form.

  3. Mou yeng por jung. You have achieved facing again so in effect “do (1) again”. Up to now, I always thought that “mou yeng” was not even being able to “catch the shadow”, so I couldn’t really see how you could break the centre.

46

An interesting mix of comments and ideas (for once!)

Still no closer to an agreement?! :rolleyes:

And it all started by asking T if he knew cantonese!!!:confused::eek::confused:

47

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007511]The kuit in question is a WCK kuit. HFY is just Garrett’s curriculum for teaching WCK. Is this Garrett’s “interpretation” of the kuit in question?[/QUOTE]

Now I’m not an expert in kuit by any means. But I do remember in my WCK training experiencing some of Moy Yat’s kuit sayings, and HFY’s. And they certainly are distinctly different. I believe sifu Gee’s kuit was an oral one passed down in training. There may be portions of it that are the same as other WCK. But there certainly is quite a different meaning. I don’t think it’s an interpretation.

And with this particular topic, the shape and shadow in HFY pertain to dealing with dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision, or in other words dealing with a sucker punch or kick. There’s another aspect that deals simply with your facing related to your opponent in a bridge situation and specific hip, elbow, and bridge alignment. It’s just to get an advantage in a bridge situation leading to better facing and alignment than your opponent has.

So with all of the back and forth, one thing just to keep in mind in discussing some of this is that HFY is not Yip Man WCK or descended from that line, so concepts or things you hear may not be the same as what you hear from the Yip Man line. And just to head off the same old argument there, yes we know that public records haven’t been shown of this or definitive proof. But it is different. Kind of like you accept that gu lao is different.

48

[QUOTE=CFT;1007535]Thanks duende. I’m always interested in lots of viewpoints. Commonality and differences are good points of discussion. You either learn something new, see something in a different light or the discussion degenerates a bit (or a lot - never mind)!

The “occupying space” term does make me question what it means because it sounds so “fixed in space”, like you’re putting up a wall. It must be more dynamic - in response to something - than that though? You not simply putting a limb out (no matter how well supported) to occupy the space?

So my understanding so far is that:

  1. Yau ying da ying is just to hit what is in front of you because you have facing (dui ying)

  2. Mou ying da yeng, is when you lose facing because of a mobile opponent. You will have to re-face (jui ying) and hit in the same motion. I guess this is addressed in the Chum Kiu form.

  3. Mou yeng por jung. You have achieved facing again so in effect “do (1) again”. Up to now, I always thought that “mou yeng” was not even being able to “catch the shadow”, so I couldn’t really see how you could break the centre.[/QUOTE]

i think that occupying space will be a similar concept to covering, as seen in a basic tan sau and the basic puch. more in depth analysis could be in Duncan Leungs lineage, although i am just guesstimating here

49

How is basic tan sau and punch (chung choi) considered covering? A different convering to Western boxing?

50

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1007541]An interesting mix of comments and ideas (for once!)

And it all started by asking T if he knew cantonese!!!:confused::eek::confused:[/QUOTE]That’s the power of language! A subject close to your heart eh?

51

[QUOTE=CFT;1007581]How is basic tan sau and punch (chung choi) considered covering? A different convering to Western boxing?[/QUOTE]

sort of…

think of chung choi. it doesnt take the shortest path at all
first it comes to your centre
second it goes straight forward

the idea behind it is that it occupies the space from your shoulder to your centre. that way, if you leave early, you catch their strike, if you leave late you catch their strike and if you leave on time you catch their strike

not a standard tan though, its the palm down from side, comes out as a wu and occupies the space. therefore if you leave early, you catch their strike, if you leave late you catch their strike and if you leave on time you catch their strike

i have seen a Duncan Leung SNT dvd and he uses the bong to tan section of snt as a dropping tan which covers space too - similar principle, although we dont train that specific trait

52

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007510]No, I just received nonsense, and I am experienced enough to know it. Go try “sweeping” against some good boxers then come back and tell me how that worked for you.
[/QUOTE]

No $hit! This is basic knowledge. We’ve already gone through this point multiple times. You just keep bringing it up, because the entire premise of your argument is based on this simple understanding, and the fact that you don’t know what covering space truly is.

Remember the saying… Know yourself and know your opponent. Right now, you have no clue about your opponent.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007510]
No. The “shadow” has nothing to do with your vision. It refers to your opponent’s physical movement itself. Perhaps you can explain to me how reacting to and trying to hit something you can’t even see clearly is a good idea?
[/QUOTE]

If there is a threat oncoming at the peripherals of your vision… you must engage. End of Story. Mo Ying Da YENG defines the importance of this.

And btw, we engage while protecting our heaven, human, and earth gates… AND again… we have body mechanic tools for pre contact, partial contact, and fully-committed contact.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007510]
This is all nonsense. Why are you talking about dealing with fakes and jabs? I’m not going to try and chase either. Either I’m out of range or I’m in range – and if I’m in range, I’m already in the process of clinching. If I get caught coming in, then I cover (the only sane thing to do). This kuit isn’t about dealing with your opponent’s punches.
[/QUOTE]

Because they all create “Glimmers” in vision due to there speed. By your logic, you should be attacking them. This is Robert’s stated interpretation of the Kuit.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007510]

I don’t try to dominate space (which is nonsensical), I try to directly control my opponent via direct physical contact (by pushing, pulling, wedging, etc.). If you don’t have direct physical contact, you can’t have any control. “Space” has nothing to do with it.
[/QUOTE]

It has everything it do with it. If you don’t Jam up his space, he will have effective range and leverage to strike. If you don’t have proper space, you yourself may be jammed up… or create weak positioning that leaves yourself vulnerable to other attacks. It’s all about controlling the space.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007510]
First you say the kuit “teaches us how to do this effectively without leaving ourselves exposed, without over-committing our energy, and without chasing hands” and now you seem to agree with me that it doesn’t - and can’t - do that!

As I said, the kuit only gives direction to your practice, but you only learn via your practice.[/QUOTE]

You can try and read into it whatever you like. Obviously there are intelligent people here that have no problem understanding what I’m saying.

AND BTW…

The Kuen Kuit is Mo Ying DA YENG. Not Mo Ying JEUI YING!! and Not Mo Ying Da YING either!! I think our ancestors would know the difference being that they created these concepts!

It’s shadow! Not Shape! Two different Chinese characters. Which have VERY different meanings with their own reference points… as I clearly pointed out.

You and Robert keep spelling it wrong here. Maybe it’s not on purpose, but one has to wonder sometimes.

53

There is no spelling mistake. In Cantonese, shadow (ying2) and shape (ying4) would be transliterated with the same Roman characters with a different numeral for tonal differences.

Mandarin would be different though: ying3 (shadow), xing2 (shape).

54

[QUOTE=CFT;1007602]There is no spelling mistake. In Cantonese, shadow (ying2) and shape (ying4) would be transliterated with the same Roman characters with a different numeral for tonal differences.

Mandarin would be different though: ying3 (shadow), xing2 (shape).[/QUOTE]

Ok cool. Thanks for the info.

However, my point still stands. Shadow and shape are two very different concepts in WC. And when discussing them, it is important to be clear despite the Cantonese to English translation obstacle.

55

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;1007547]Now I’m not an expert in kuit by any means. But I do remember in my WCK training experiencing some of Moy Yat’s kuit sayings, and HFY’s. And they certainly are distinctly different. I believe sifu Gee’s kuit was an oral one passed down in training. There may be portions of it that are the same as other WCK. But there certainly is quite a different meaning. I don’t think it’s an interpretation.
[/QUOTE]

WCK is WCK – there is no such thing as “other WCK” (it’s, like saying “other boxing”; there is just boxing). HFY is just Garrett’s curriculum. If someone taught that tan sao was really an eye poke, I’d tell them that they were wrong. I don’t care that so-and-so teaches it that way. It’s wrong.

And with this particular topic, the shape and shadow in HFY pertain to dealing with dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision, or in other words dealing with a sucker punch or kick. There’s another aspect that deals simply with your facing related to your opponent in a bridge situation and specific hip, elbow, and bridge alignment. It’s just to get an advantage in a bridge situation leading to better facing and alignment than your opponent has.

The “shadow” in the kuit doesn’t refer to “dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision” or even dealing with attacks. FWIW, when you do pick up a strike coming in your peripheral vision you cover, not sweep or try and hit it (those things won’t work).

Nor does the kuit say anything about facing. Where in it does it mention facing?

So with all of the back and forth, one thing just to keep in mind in discussing some of this is that HFY is not Yip Man WCK or descended from that line, so concepts or things you hear may not be the same as what you hear from the Yip Man line. And just to head off the same old argument there, yes we know that public records haven’t been shown of this or definitive proof. But it is different. Kind of like you accept that gu lao is different.

No, WCK is WCK, just as boxing is boxing or riding a bike is riding a bike. The various “lineages” or branches are just various persons’ curriculums for teaching WCK (or how to ride a bike). Gu Lao is different than Yip Man WCK in how the WCK is taught (the curriculum), but it is the same WCK. The problem is many people don’t appreciate the distinction between the curriculum and the subject matter.

56

[QUOTE=duende;1007594]No $hit! This is basic knowledge. We’ve already gone through this point multiple times. You just keep bringing it up, because the entire premise of your argument is based on this simple understanding, and the fact that you don’t know what covering space truly is.

Remember the saying… Know yourself and know your opponent. Right now, you have no clue about your opponent.
[/QUOTE]

“Covering space” is nonsense.

If there is a threat oncoming at the peripherals of your vision… you must engage. End of Story. Mo Ying Da YENG defines the importance of this.

If you catch something oncoming in your peripheral vision (and you can’t therefore know what it is) it means you are well behind the timing – so you don’t have time to do anything except cover.

And btw, we engage while protecting our heaven, human, and earth gates… AND again… we have body mechanic tools for pre contact, partial contact, and fully-committed contact.

Pure bullsh1t.

Because they all create “Glimmers” in vision due to there speed. By your logic, you should be attacking them. This is Robert’s stated interpretation of the Kuit.

No.

It has everything it do with it. If you don’t Jam up his space, he will have effective range and leverage to strike. If you don’t have proper space, you yourself may be jammed up… or create weak positioning that leaves yourself vulnerable to other attacks. It’s all about controlling the space.

No.

You can try and read into it whatever you like. Obviously there are intelligent people here that have no problem understanding what I’m saying.

Appeals to popularity.

AND BTW…

The Kuen Kuit is Mo Ying DA YENG. Not Mo Ying JEUI YING!! and Not Mo Ying Da YING either!! I think our ancestors would know the difference being that they created these concepts!

It’s shadow! Not Shape! Two different Chinese characters. Which have VERY different meanings with their own reference points… as I clearly pointed out.

The kuit are not “concepts”.

You and Robert keep spelling it wrong here. Maybe it’s not on purpose, but one has to wonder sometimes.

I’m sorry but I am using the kuit that pertains to WCK and that you find in known legitimate (Yip, YKS, etc.) WCK branches, not Garrett’s kuit.

57

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007637]“Covering space” is nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

Is that all you got?? Really?? :stuck_out_tongue:

Can’t dispute the logic or physics of employing a stronger structure in space thereby protecting yourself and dominating the space at the same time. Shows how much you know.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007637]
If you catch something oncoming in your peripheral vision (and you can’t therefore know what it is) it means you are well behind the timing – so you don’t have time to do anything except cover.
[/QUOTE]

This obviously stems from a “sparring” only mindset.

Have you ever been mugged? You don’t get the luxury of facing off with an opponent like you do in sparring.

Sometimes time is not on your side, and you need to do your best to recapture the timing, facing, and protecting of your space.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007637]
Appeals to popularity.
[/QUOTE]

No… it shines light on ignorance. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007637]
Pure bullsh1t.
[/QUOTE]

Really? Guess you don’t know as much about Thai boxing as you claim. Because they cover the space in a very similar manner, with their footwork etc..

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007637]
No.

No.

[/QUOTE]

Haha… nothing to dispute.. just arguing for arguments sake.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007637]

The kuit are not “concepts”.
[/QUOTE]

Obviously not for you.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007637]

I’m sorry but I am using the kuit that pertains to WCK and that you find in known legitimate (Yip, YKS, etc.) WCK branches, not Garrett’s kuit.[/QUOTE]

Let’s check back here in couple years, and see what your definition of Mo Ying Da Yeng is then.

But of course… when you write your “new” paraphrasing of what I’m sharing here… it’ll be legitimate. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

58

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007633]
The “shadow” in the kuit doesn’t refer to “dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision” or even dealing with attacks. FWIW, when you do pick up a strike coming in your peripheral vision you cover, not sweep or try and hit it (those things won’t work).

[/QUOTE]

OH $HIT!!!

We didn’t even have to wait a couple of years for you to assimilate and paraphrase what I shared!!!:eek:

Terence is already at it! :smiley:

Notice how he tries to portray his “made-up argument” as being what I wrote… and then he writes the small bit of his understanding (in what I wrote) as his own.

Come on now!

59

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007633]WCK is WCK – there is no such thing as “other WCK” (it’s, like saying “other boxing”; there is just boxing). HFY is just Garrett’s curriculum. If someone taught that tan sao was really an eye poke, I’d tell them that they were wrong. I don’t care that so-and-so teaches it that way. It’s wrong.
[/QUOTE]
You say that like you are some kind of authority on WCK and overall lineages and like you telling someone that what they are doing is “wrong” actually carries some weight. It doesn’t. But thanks for sharing your opinion.

The “shadow” in the kuit doesn’t refer to “dealing with attacks coming in that you pick up in your peripheral vision” or even dealing with attacks. FWIW, when you do pick up a strike coming in your peripheral vision you cover, not sweep or try and hit it (those things won’t work).

In Garret Gee’s teaching application of it, it does. Denying that fact is what you term “intellectually dishonest”. But your description of “covering” actually is closer to what is actually taught by the term “sweeping space” than chasing hands is.

Nor does the kuit say anything about facing. Where in it does it mention facing?

We are discussing the exact phrase. The kuit again is general. The unlocked meaning is in the application of it, and the kuit holds the keys to this. In what we are taught in HFY, the application of this kuit term certainly has aspects of facing involved. Your facing is towards shape or shadow, and there are precise measurable meanings of that in a bridging situation. If that doesn’t exist in other teachings of WCK, then it doesnt’ exist in other lineages of WCK. In other words it’s different. Not “the kuit doesn’t say anything about it”.

No, WCK is WCK, just as boxing is boxing or riding a bike is riding a bike. The various “lineages” or branches are just various persons’ curriculums for teaching WCK (or how to ride a bike). Gu Lao is different than Yip Man WCK in how the WCK is taught (the curriculum), but it is the same WCK. The problem is many people don’t appreciate the distinction between the curriculum and the subject matter.

To a semi-blind man, all sources of light are the sun.

60

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1007637]“Covering space” is nonsense.
[/quote]
Hold this thought.

If you catch something oncoming in your peripheral vision (and you can’t therefore know what it is) it means you are well behind the timing – so you don’t have time to do anything except cover.

But you just said covering is what? “Nonsense”?

The kuit are not “concepts”.

Well they are not specific technical application. And they are more general terms. So if not “concepts”, then what in your own terms are they?

I’m sorry but I am using the kuit that pertains to WCK and that you find in known legitimate (Yip, YKS, etc.) WCK branches, not Garrett’s kuit.

Yes, it’s quite obvious you are talking about Yip kuit and interpretations. We are not. We are talking about sifu Gee’s kuit, and an application that comes from a different lineage and interpretation of a phrase that is common in both.

Please explain your legitimacy statement. You’re kind of all over the place with that - usually that argument you bring up in the context of known people associated with the lineage, not whether or not a fighting application of the kuit is sound.

If you mean by legitimacy the proven soundness of application in a fighting scenario, I’d love to see your evidence of Yip Man lineages having that where HFY people do not.

Since we’re striving to be intellectually honest.