http://www.56.com/u37/v_NDA2OTI4MTA.html
Wing Chun was created by a nun called Wu Mei. Many of its earlier practitioners were related to southern chinese opera group, commonly known as ‘red boat’. The common art learned by them was the Hong Quan (Hung Kuen). Wing Chun was influenced & later became ‘hard’ & powerful.
Indeed , , were all from red boat.
I take it you read ‘Wu Mei’ secret autobiography ?
That is some of the contents which the kungfu master in the vid is trying to introduce the history of his hard bridge wing chun.
Wu Mei; was also known as Ng Mui - she was the legendary creator of wing chun (Ving Tsun).
was Wong Wah Bo. was Leung Yee Tei.
These are the hard wing chun vcds found on the internet.
http://www.langlang.cc/Movie.aspx?kwd=����&image.x=42&image.y=11
i disagree with wing chun becoming powerful.
a common misconception about the terms soft and hard when referring to styles
soft does not mean there is no effort or strength to the movements. soft style refers to the motions being continuous and fluid. western boxing is a soft style. karate has a lot of starts and stops. karate is a hard style.
wing chun practitioners being relaxed does not mean they hit weakly and not ‘powerful’ as hung quan practitioners. it means wing chun practitioners focus on relaxing the whole body, except for the muscles that they need to use to move. they isolate those muscles only when performing the movement
The Ng Mui story is a nice allegory.
As far as the hard-soft terminology goes, IMO it has nothing to do with “fluidity” – that is a characteristic of any good athlete, including fighters. From my perspective, the terms “hard” (gong in cantonese, go in japanese) and “soft” (yao in cantonese, ju in japanese), while they can pertain to qualities, refer specifically to methodology. That is, gong (hard) refers to striking (impact) and yau (soft) refers to grappling (attached action). Hence the kuit Yee Yao Jai Gong (Use soft to overcome hard) refers to using grappling or attached actions to stop him from striking; the kuit Gong Yao Ping Yung -(Hard and soft combine in use) refers to WCK’s method of controlling (grappling) while striking. That’s why WCK can be called a soft boxing method (or clinch/attached boxing method).
This is similar to ju (soft) referring to grappling in japanese styles (judo, goju karate, for examples) and go referring to striking methods.
According to signature evidence in this video, IMHO, this type of combinational practice of the set he is doing doesnt work well…
Thus, any one learn this better off learning Hung Gar.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;916166] the kuit Gong Yao Ping Yung -(Hard and soft combine in use) refers to WCK’s method of controlling (grappling) while striking.
That’s why WCK can be called a soft boxing method (or clinch/attached boxing method). .[/QUOTE]
This is not what the Chinese means.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;916173]This is not what the Chinese means.[/QUOTE]
Do you speak for all chinese now? 
FWIW, the characters (for “hard” and “soft”) have the same meaning in chinese and japanese.
It has been my experience that regardless of the language, two different people can hear the same terms, see the same characters, see the same movement, have the same kuit, etc. and have two entirely different explanations/interpretations? Why? Because they have different experience. We interpret those terms, those characters, based on our experience. And fighters interpret the terms based on their experience fighting while nonfighters – even if they are chinese – based on their experience, i.e., fantasy.
In the martial (fighting) arts, no one can tell what the movements, the terms, the kuit., etc. REALLY mean – since there is no objective meaning but only the meaning we give them – except by and through application (fighting). There and only there can you see if your “understanding” has validity.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;916231]Do you speak for all chinese now?
FWIW, the characters (for “hard” and “soft”) have the same meaning in chinese and japanese.
It has been my experience that regardless of the language, two different people can hear the same terms, see the same characters, see the same movement, have the same kuit, etc. and have two entirely different explanations/interpretations? Why? Because they have different experience. We interpret those terms, those characters, based on our experience. And fighters interpret the terms based on their experience fighting while nonfighters – even if they are chinese – based on their experience, i.e., fantasy.
[/QUOTE]
Good specualtion.
The issue is you dont know the language.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;916231]
In the martial (fighting) arts, no one can tell what the movements, the terms, the kuit., etc. REALLY mean – since there is no objective meaning but only the meaning we give them – except by and through application (fighting). There and only there can you see if your “understanding” has validity.
[/QUOTE]
Another self proclaim expert.
In Chinese there is a special phrase for this. It is Called Yee Monk Yin Monk or using a blind leading blind.
Let’s not go off topic and wasting bandwidth of the others.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;916241]Good specualtion.
The issue is you dont know the language
Another self proclaim expert.[/QUOTE]
The irony is i think you dont get where he’s comming from cause your england aint so good LOL
Round and round we go :o
Let’s not go off topic and wasting bandwidth of the others
you could help save some bandwidth by not using
So
Many
Spaces
DREW
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;916166]
As far as the hard-soft terminology goes, IMO it has nothing to do with “fluidity”[/quote]
It has to do with fluidity and many other things as well, eg. sensitivity.
Sticking with fighters, what may be regarded as fluid or soft in a given karate style may be regarded as hard by a kung fu stylist.
You are making the wrong assumption.
Soft can refer to a manner of striking just as hard can refer to the manner one grapples. There are principles involved that you do not seem to be aware of and that is fine (and no surprise either) as you don’t even pretend to practice traditional kung fu.
Yet you can use soft to overcome hard without using grappling techniques!
I think that you have grasped at best a small part of the “Wing Chun Story”.
You can be soft or hard while grappling.
You can be soft or hard while striking.
You can be soft or hard while blocking.
If you grasp the above points then you will be closer to understanding the kung fu approach.
The fact that Karate is influenced by Chinese kung fu (eventhough it seems apparent that the Chinese held back a lot of information regarding the higher aspects of training), would suggest that even their (Japanese) definitions of “hard” and “soft” are not as black and white as you suggest.
Why is this lineage is called Hard Bridge?
What is hard?
Brute force?
Non continous?
What is the consequence when a set such as SLT being done via a brute force way?
[QUOTE=Hendrik;916278]Why is this lineage is called Hard Bridge?
What is hard?
Brute force?
Non continous?
What is the consequence when a set such as SLT being done via a brute force way?[/QUOTE]
I don’t know why this lineage is called hard bridge. I doubt that this is a hard (as in say, Shotokan karate) style of Wing Chun eventhough his movements may look a little “hard”.
To really know this style’s “hardness” or “softness” one would need to touch hands with someone who practices this style of Wing Chun, I suppose. Only by contact will one be able to feel the softness/hardness and sensitivity of a kung fu exponent.
I also don’t think that this style is about brute force. I may be wrong but I don’t think that there are that many kung fu styles that use only brute force as I believe that there are internal elements in most if not all kung fu styles.
If one practices the SLT set with brute force then IMHO, one will get almost nothing out of it.
[QUOTE=Hardwork108;916283]I don’t know why this lineage is called hard bridge. I doubt that this is a hard (as in say, Shotokan karate) style of Wing Chun eventhough his movements may look a little “hard”.
To really know this style’s “hardness” or “softness” one would need to touch hands with someone who practices this style of Wing Chun, I suppose. Only by contact will one be able to feel the softness/hardness and sensitivity of a kung fu exponent.
I also don’t think that this style is about brute force. I may be wrong but I don’t think that there are that many kung fu styles that use only brute force as I believe that there are internal elements in most if not all kung fu styles.
If one practices the SLT set with brute force then IMHO, one will get almost nothing out of it.[/QUOTE]
I can be deadly wrong.
IMHHHO, all these hard, soft, brute… could be seen. Dont need to touch hand…etc
just for technical discussion, the demonstrator is unconciously hold up the qi flow of certain part of his hand/arm, thinking holding it he got power but he is doing the exactly opposite.
Because the Qi is hold in a certain part , he is force to use brute force to manual his physical. since it is brute force, which is similar to one leg stepping the break and the other stepping the gas. The brute force cannot emmiting outward, thus, it cannot become Jin.
Thus, IMHO, this is a dead art or solid using brute force type of art.
Soft true Soft needs to rely on Qi and medirian to cultivate. Hard true hard also needs Qi and medirian to cultivate it. Soft as whip and Hard as explosive. Any part of the body if hold, soft become wimpy and hard became brute force.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqSulR9Fymg&feature=related
Look at the finger of the pianist above, the shen and qi in those hands are active and alive. That is an expression of the Gong Yao Ping Yung or Hard and soft combine in use.
The fingers are Sensitive (soft) enough to identify the location, agile to walk around the keys, the control weight needed, and strong (hard) enough to spring out for explosive “hammering/ typing”. Jin is that focus typing hitting the piano key.
Gong Yao Ping Yung is an expression of the Dynamic state.
Thus, I have read from the Ancient acestors’s note.
Within Physical, Qi and Shen can be seen. Within Qi Physical can be known. Withing Shen the full story has been planted. when feeling is at its advance, feeling becomes KNOWing. Then, Chi Sau is no longer needed because one just know — as it is said USing Silence to lead action.
Art is Art. Blending and mixing blindly without soul will not take the art too far.
Art is Art, there must be life, elegant, and beauty in it.
Thus, a good art is similar to Windflowers that will carry one away to another dimension and one practice it for a life time…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3BnjfIGPek&feature=related
Just some thought.
The specific word
certainly does not mean controlling (grappling) while striking
One doesnt need 1000 years of science to know this, one just needs basic chinese language studies. Its a chinese term we are talking about, talking japanese is off topic.
WCK is not soft because of grappling. Its an internal art, meaning chi, jing, shen which you dont believe in.
This chinese word is a TCM commonly used term, in which you claim billions of chinese were wrong about. Its one thing to insult my entire culture and billions of my forefathers, comrades in their qi practices implying them to be idiots, its another to add your nonsense to our language.
In fact, since they were so wrong, how do you know the WCK you learnt was right? 
If billions of chinese passed were wrong, and billions now who do TCM still for health, compared to millions of Wingchun people, the chances of wingchun being all wrong is greater.
I think the tendancy here is to read way too much into it. The differences are not so philosophical as made out to be. It is a simple difference in technique preferances. Tan sao is soft, bill sao is hard. Hard is meeting force with force, soft if meeting force with soft. The difference is between deflecting and redirecting as opposed to forcefully blocking. And the differences can be ever so subtle.
[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;916335]I think the tendancy here is to read way too much into it. The differences are not so philosophical as made out to be.
It is a simple difference in technique preferances.
Tan sao is soft, bill sao is hard. Hard is meeting force with force, soft if meeting force with soft. The difference is between deflecting and redirecting as opposed to forcefully blocking. And the differences can be ever so subtle.[/QUOTE]
Tan Sao is Soft? Bill Sao is hard?
Meeting force with soft? what is soft?
[QUOTE=Shadow_warrior8;916333]The specific word
certainly does not mean controlling (grappling) while striking
One doesnt need 1000 years of science to know this, one just needs basic chinese language studies. Its a chinese term we are talking about, talking japanese is off topic.
WCK is not soft because of grappling. Its an internal art, meaning chi, jing, shen which you dont believe in.
This chinese word is a TCM commonly used term, in which you claim billions of chinese were wrong about. Its one thing to insult my entire culture and billions of my forefathers, comrades in their qi practices implying them to be idiots, its another to add your nonsense to our language.
In fact, since they were so wrong, how do you know the WCK you learnt was right? If billions of chinese passed were wrong, and billions now who do TCM still for health, compared to millions of Wingchun people, the chances of wingchun being all wrong is greater.[/QUOTE]
is a part of Yik Kam SLT kuen kuit under the (Training handling methodology)
, .. …
Very specific.. and details.
certainly not Japanese related.
certainly does not mean controlling (grappling) while striking.
[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;916335] Tan sao is soft, bill sao is hard. Hard is meeting force with force, soft if meeting force with soft. [/QUOTE]
Strange Quote ???
Why would a Tan be soft and a Bil be hard ? They both do exactly the same thing only at different heights and they both cut in (deflect) at an angle. So if timed right or not as the case may be they should almost be identical but for the fact that we are using a different combination of muscles.
Rather like intercepting any projectile the force is greatest in front of it and so its rather surprising IMO to hear that a Bil would be ‘Hard’ unless it was used against a angled hacking strike.