Hooking the wooden dummy leg

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

This last weekend, during the Wing Chun get-together in San Jose (mad props to John Weiland for arranging it!), two people from the Pien Sen lineage came all the way from Boston. My understanding is that their instructor is a Sifu Mui, who is also teacher to Sifu Stanley Jue.

One of the demonstrated the wooden dummy form. And, it more or less resembled the dummy form that I learned from a Yip Man lineage; however, it had several extra movements and the footwork was quite different.

It also had a section where the practitioner hooks the dummy leg with his foot as he leans back. I have also seen this in Sifu Augustine Fong’s videos. Does anyone else do this?

2

Nope. However in Pan Nam there is a hooking section on the very last move. You insert one leg in bik ma as you would expect, then you turn around so your facing away fromt he dummy, but you turn in the direction so your foot hooks in to the leg. There is a picture in booth the Leung Ting Roots book and in Complete wing chun.

The Pan Nam dummy is phsysically a bit different too. It was originally in the ground, so there are a couple of techniques where you step on the base of the dummy. It is usually impossible to do on most Yip Man dummies as they are to far from the ground. The leg also extends all the way to the ground.

Tom

AMATEUR SECRET

3

Hello,

Mui sifu is my instructor. It is highly unlikely that it was any of his direct pupils but I will address some of the other stuff in this reply.

This last weekend, during the Wing Chun get-together in San Jose (mad props to John Weiland for arranging it!), two people from the Pien Sen lineage came all the way from Boston. My understanding is that their instructor is a Sifu Mui, who is also teacher to Sifu Stanley Jue.

Stanley was a pupil of Sifu and teaches in the Boston area. He learned while Sifu had a public club back in the day.

One of the demonstrated the wooden dummy form. And, it more or less resembled the dummy form that I learned from a Yip Man lineage; however, it had several extra movements and the footwork was quite different.

Ok. Now I can be 100% sure it was not a student of my sifu and was a student of Stanley. Pin Sun WC has “no” woddem dummy form! We have what is normally called Dummy Hands (or more properly Mok Yan Jong Faat) and all our skills are applied on the jong but there is no set. The form you are seeing them do is what Stanley teaches them and I believe (as you can see some of the signature moves in it) it comes from his learning them from the Fong video.

It also had a section where the practitioner hooks the dummy leg with his foot as he leans back. I have also seen this in Sifu Augustine Fong’s videos. Does anyone else do this?

I have never seen anyone else do it but the one thing I can tell you is that its not the Pin Sun WC way of Dummy play!

Regards,

4

The two people who came made it perfectly clear that they did NOT learn from Stanley Jue, but had both been learning from Sifu Mui for about 10 years.

If you care to look into it, their names are Lamine Barry and Sylvia Hsieh.

5

Hello,

Too funny! I can be confident that they are not getting that stuff from my sifu! Stanley was one of the only people teaching some of the Fong stuff in his school combined with what he learned from sifu. My sifu laughs when he hears that some of his old students have imported other stuff into Leung Jan’s design. As a matter of fact he actually say’s some other stuff that is not so complimenting about them when he hears this sort of thing.

Mui sifu’s club in Medford shut down a few months ago and he relocated into the YMCA and in both clubs there is no wooden dummy. The only time we set up a dummy in the school was so that we could video tape him doing the sets on there. Other than that all dummy training was done at my home when sifu was teaching us out of there. In the 70’s he never set up a dummy as far as I know so that is probally why others have had to import into what they were taught.

This is not the first time people have claimed to be a pupil of my teacher! There was the infamous Bloodgod who was a fraud and there has been others. The Pin Sun WC curriculm is listed in my articles and when I see Sifu on Wed I will tell him this funny stuff as well. He gets a kick out of it.

Thanks for the chat.

Regards,

The two people who came made it perfectly clear that they did NOT learn from Stanley Jue, but had both been learning from Sifu Mui for about 10 years.

If you care to look into it, their names are Lamine Barry and Sylvia Hsieh.

6

Seems odd hooking then leaning back unless your pulling gaurd but most wing chun guys wouldnt do that…it would seem more normal going foward because it could be used as a trip or take down.

7

Martial Joe-

you have to know what it is about. Lots of things in wing chun dont make sense-at first glance.

Good reason why the dummy form as a form is taught in some families after a person
is legitimately into biu jee concepts.

8

Jim R sez:

Too funny!

My sifu laughs when he hears that some of his old students have imported other stuff into Leung Jan’s design. As a matter of fact he actually say’s some other stuff that is not so complimenting about them when he hears this sort of thing.

Jim R.

I do not know the relationship between your sifu and his students.

None of my business.

I can understand the laughter if he thinks that someone changed what he teaches,

But— he doesnt have a monopoly on what concepts came from Leung Jan and what didnt. There is no monopoly on that in the development of wing chun and there are lots of concepts in the usage of the dummy the old kind or the newer ones..

9

Hey Joy,

Jim R.

I do not know the relationship between your sifu and his students.

None of my business.

I can understand the laughter if he thinks that someone changed what he teaches,

Nothing to do with changing what he teaches. He is all for individual expression with application as every person is different. Its all about adding more to what the less can achieve without the more if you know what I mean? Thats how he looks at it. My sifu is an ultra simple man with his views on WCK. He believes Leung Jan’s Koo Lo design was so refined/brilliant and many greats have preserved and fought with the skills for many years now without having to add more to it. He does not believe in extra when the less already achieves as much as possible. Thats what makes him laugh.

But— he doesnt have a monopoly on what concepts came from Leung Jan and what didnt. There is no monopoly on that in the development of wing chun and there are lots of concepts in the usage of the dummy the old kind or the newer ones..

Nothing to do with that either. Hopefully after you read the above you will understand better. Nobody has a monopoly on Leung Jan or any WC. Everyone has their preservation and their info.. Some have more info. and some have less. Doen’t make anyone better or worst. The core of the dummy is expressed thru the teaching and there is no need for adding to it. Whats the point? If you could achieve the same results with less then why add more to it? Great masters (or shall I say “True Masters”) refine versus expand. Yip Man was a perfect example of that wouldn’t you say? If you want to explore other avenues and other platforms then that is great. Just be honest with your pupils and dont tell them its its something its not.

Regards,

10

Jim R sez:

Yip Man was a perfect example of that wouldn’t you say?

((Jim- neither one of us knew Ip man))

The core of the dummy is expressed thru the teaching and there is no need for adding to it.

((Depends on what you mean))

He believes Leung Jan’s Koo Lo design was so refined/brilliant and many greats have preserved and fought with the skills for many years now without having to add more to it.

((Conceptually sure. But what is addition and what is subtraction-
depends on perceptions))

If you want to explore other avenues and other platforms then that is great. Just be honest with your pupils and dont tell them its its something its not.

((Meaning…??))

11

Hi Joy,

((Jim- neither one of us knew Ip man))

We all know he (yip man) was a great master and he refined his teaching over the years versus expand. Thats what I am talking about

((Depends on what you mean))

The desired results one gets from training the dummy is there so adding more to what gives you the results is not needed and that is what Sifu is talking about.

((Conceptually sure. But what is addition and what is subtraction-
depends on perceptions))

Well, in our eyes it would be adding the total mok yan jong form to the system. The MYJ training is already built in. Expanding the progression would be not needed. Its nothing bad but just not needed.

((Meaning…??))

What I mean is if they are teaching their students Fong’s wooden dummy and are calling it Pin Sun WC then that is wrong.

Regards,

12

Leg sweep?

There is a leg sweep to the dummy leg in the TWC dummy form. Was what you saw a sweep?
Phil

13

Aelward sez:

It also had a section where the practitioner hooks the dummy leg with his foot as he leans back. I have also seen this in Sifu Augustine Fong’s videos

((John:List and Jim R:

There are things in wing chun that can look puzzling if the context of who, what, when and why is unclear. Some points-

  1. The leung Jan tradition through Chan Wah Sun definitely used the dummy in training. Dummy work is a real treasure box in wing chun training.

  2. The Koo Lo wc wing is based on Leung Jan’s teaching a few people some combinations of moves in the last 2-3 years of his life. Apparently the wooden dummy did not play the same kind of role in koo lo. Its not for me to critique or comment on the details of koo lo. If it works for them - great. But saying that the dummy and dummy motions are not necessary seems to imply criticism of Ip man wing chun.

  3. Ip man worked on “editing” the texts of wing chun- the forms from time to time. Different versions of the dummy emerged.
    If the text notion and the distinctions between development, concepts and applications are kept in mind lots of things can be more clear to reasonable people.

  4. Fong’s dummy form is more elaborate than most Ho Kam Ming’s dummy form which is also more extensive or atleast differnt than - say Moy Yat’s form as it appears in MY’s blue dummy book. Naturally, I have seen both HKM’s and AF’s forms including the dummy form. There are similarities and differences. Master Fong’s form incorporates leg routines that were separate drills. The dummy form in Master Fong’s system is completed after the student has learned part of biu jee- for specific reasons. Late in the Fong dummy form there are two leg motions that involve a “hanging” motion- one after an instep kick to the underside of the dummy leg and another a lean back after a sweeping kick that flows intoa leg hooking section
    followed by a “hanging-leaning” motion.

Regarding the hanging motion (followed bya punch) not only involves balancing, and controlling the other fellows leg- but it is an example of a major wc principle- recovery of structure. Thats why its late in the dummy form-:presumably the student hasa sense of the recovery function in biu jee by then.

An application of the recovery concept in the hanging motion is-
if you are pushed or are falling in a close encounter you can hook your leg to one of the legs of the other guy and avoid falling ,
recover your structure and return to attacking.

Hope that helps in clarifying Jon question and Jim’s comments))

Joy

14

Hi, Yuanfen!

Did you make the reunion seminar in Tucson? I was there the whole week but work and $$$ had me leave on Saturday. Sorry I missed you. Was lots of fun.

AndrewP

15

Andrew P- Yes- just got back. I was there for the last two days with 4 of my students.
Very informative and practical. Sorry we didnt connect this time.
Best wishes.

16

Hello Joy,

Hopefully this will clear this up. Seems you are not understanding the true point of this topic.

There are things in wing chun that can look puzzling if the context of who, what, when and why is unclear. Some points-

Very true. JR

  1. The leung Jan tradition through Chan Wah Sun definitely used the dummy in training. Dummy work is a real treasure box in wing chun training.

The dummy is as valuable to Chan lineage as it is to any lineage. It all depends on how much understanding you have in this area of development. JR

  1. The Koo Lo wc wing is based on Leung Jan’s teaching a few people some combinations of moves in the last 2-3 years of his life. Apparently the wooden dummy did not play the same kind of role in koo lo. Its not for me to critique or comment on the details of koo lo. If it works for them - great. But saying that the dummy and dummy motions are not necessary seems to imply criticism of Ip man wing chun.

This sounds a bit on the rude side but I will play devils advocate for a minute after I say a few things. The way you are describing the Koo Lo lineage is sounding like it is just some cheap basic art when the truth is you dont understand Leung Jan’s design as you only witnessed a tiny portion of the art when we met. Plus you obviously dislike it when I make comments about LJ’s teaching being more similar to YKS’s/Cho’s etc. so I can see how the emotions are driving your responces versus clear thinking. You have also made comments like; Jim, Koo Lo doesn’t own LJ etc.. Please Joy! Get a grip. Sometime when comments are not what people enjoy hearing they lose rational thought. Besides that you are making comments about some people training only 2-3 years etc.? Hear comes my devils advocate side! How long did Yip train with Chan before he took stroke? Oh yeah, what age was he when that happened? Well, a lousy 6 months at the age of 13 and then he practiced with his sihings for how long before he supposably went to an English speaking college (when he only spoke Chinese) and met up with the ellusive Leung Bik who cannot be confirmed! See how we can both play this game! Lets not get like this and keep it on topic and clean! A good hard working pupil can learn more in 3 + years under the guidence a good sifu than most can learn in 10 years. Quality versus quantity IMO. Now, lets try to keep the topic at hand. (YM folks please dont take those comments badly as I am just showing Joy how both can play the same game he just started) JR

The wooden dummy played a very valubale role in Koo Lo WC. Yet! Its not any more or less valuable than any other lineages. As a matter of fact it plays a major role from the first weeks of learning versus waiting until you reach Biu Jee to start playing on the dummy. The pupils are told how to apply their skills and what the desired attributes are supposed to be with each skill from day one. This only shows you are not understanding the point of this topic. If you leave the emotional attachment away from the discussion you will see it a bit more clearly. Nobody is criticizing YMWC! Breath in breath out! All I am telling you is whats the point of adding more when its already built in? Leung Jan’s design has all the essential elements/attributes for the Mok Yan Jong Faat and adding another dummy form is excess IMO. So, I say it again, whats the point? If you understand the attributes of Jong training you will see what I am talking about. JR

  1. Ip man worked on “editing” the texts of wing chun- the forms from time to time. Different versions of the dummy emerged.
    If the text notion and the distinctions between development, concepts and applications are kept in mind lots of things can be more clear to reasonable people.

Joy, you are not getting the point. Perhaps your loyalty to YMWC is not helping you see clearly. Sit back, read the discussion again and then you may see. Great fighting masters refine and do not expand. There is no insulting going on here but you seem to feel there is and you seem uneasy as you are using terms like “reasonable people”. Perhaps reasonable people understand what is being said versus emotions without clear thought. JR

  1. Fong’s dummy form is more elaborate than most Ho Kam Ming’s dummy form which is also more extensive or atleast differnt than - say Moy Yat’s form as it appears in MY’s blue dummy book. Naturally, I have seen both HKM’s and AF’s forms including the dummy form. There are similarities and differences. Master Fong’s form incorporates leg routines that were separate drills. The dummy form in Master Fong’s system is completed after the student has learned part of biu jee- for specific reasons. Late in the Fong dummy form there are two leg motions that involve a “hanging” motion- one after an instep kick to the underside of the dummy leg and another a lean back after a sweeping kick that flows intoa leg hooking section
    followed by a “hanging-leaning” motion.

There is nothing wrong with Fong’s form. Everyone knows its a bit expanded from Ho’s but thats ok as different masters will organize according to their desire. The main point is that; whats the point with adding another form to a system that has the core built in and if you do add it in then whats the point with telling your pupils its something its not? If you understand that then you will see why this conversation is not being understood by you. JR

Regarding the hanging motion (followed bya punch) not only involves balancing, and controlling the other fellows leg- but it is an example of a major wc principle- recovery of structure. Thats why its late in the dummy form-resumably the student hasa sense of the recovery function in biu jee by then.

And this has to do with what part of the original topic at hand? JR

An application of the recovery concept in the hanging motion is-
if you are pushed or are falling in a close encounter you can hook your leg to one of the legs of the other guy and avoid falling ,
recover your structure and return to attacking.

And this has to do with what part of the orignal topic at hand? For what its worth I learned this when I was practicing Fong’s version of Ho’s form way back. Yet. It has nothing to do with the orignal topic. JR

Hope that helps in clarifying Jon question and Jim’s comments))

I think you need to re-read the original discussion. For some reasons your emotions took over and missed the whole point. JR

Regards,

17

Jim- I have a pretty good grip on my emotions. Too much wing chun to be otherwise. And- I play no games- call em as I see them. I have made zero reference to your own koo lo motions.
And I made no reference to YKS and Cho. I stuck to post discussions and made a reference to Leung Ting’s often self serving but still interesting and informative work on the roots of wing chun.

The extensive “historical” discussions of wing chun on this list does not inform or legitimize
my understanding, practice and application of wing chun. Thruth ultimately is self evidentiary and is its own real authority, in my books.

Without going over same old post mortem on Leung Bik, Chan Wah Sun and
Ip Man’s sihing and their relationships..
“Expand” and "refine " (your words) are somewhat loose in their meanings and hence my attempt to seek clarification..
Word usage can give false impressions on what the positions really are.
Simply and currently, Ip Man’s wing chun is a very logically related
conceptual system and quite extensive in its hand forms and the
extension of motions and development into the dummy, weaponry, various forms of chi sao.

My real point was indeed in the mainline of the thread which dealth with John’s question on the leaning motion with the dummy. I provided the rational for the motions linking it with the progression of the forms, implementations and their functions.

After the the lead dummy leaning point of the thread- John asked about the two koo lo students who came to San Jose.
You went into gatekeeping issues of legitimacy and links to your teacher. I did not get into the discussion and pretty well stayed on course. No harm done-Cordially,

Joy

18

Hello Joy,

When we met it was a very nice and pleasant meeting. I very much enjoyed it. Hopefully this was just a mis-understanding of words. Sometimes reading a computer does not give you the same intent as being in person. I respect Yip Man’s, Yuen Kay San’s, Yik Kam’s and Koo Lo’s traditions. Good WC is just that and the name in front of it does not mean didly. Good speaking with you.

:cool:

Regards,

19

Hi Jim-

Yes. We hada good and far too brief meeting- which I have NOT referred to in my posts.

Some posts including mine can need clarification.

Good wishes,

Joy

20

Hi Guys!

—Mind if I interject just to make sure others reading this thread are clear on some intended meanings? I’m afraid that while the parties taking part in the discussion may have reached an understanding, others may be scratching their heads and going “huh?” :slight_smile:

Jim wrote:
My sifu laughs when he hears that some of his old students have imported other stuff into Leung Jan’s design. As a matter of fact he actually say’s some other stuff that is not so complimenting about them when he hears this sort of thing.

Joy responded:
I can understand the laughter if he thinks that someone changed what he teaches, But— he doesnt have a monopoly on what concepts came from Leung Jan and what didnt. There is no monopoly on that in the development of wing chun and there are lots of concepts in the usage of the dummy the old kind or the newer ones..

—I think Jim was referring only to the fact that PSWCK has no dummy “form”, and to show up at a gathering and pass off a form that originated in another lineage without making it clear where it came from is wrong and somewhat dishonest. PSWCK has no “forms” at all in the sense that other WCK lineages are used to the word. It is organized into individual “points” or “san sik.” Each of the “points” or motions learned in the air and unarmed are also applied on the dummy, making a separate and distinct dummy “form” unneeded as far as learning the PSWCK system. This does not mean that the dummy forms used in other lineages or systems are not legitimate and valuable. It only means that someone who goes around showing a choreographed dummy form and calling it PSWCK probably doesn’t know what he/she is talking about.

Keith