What do you think about the modifications in SLT this Wing Chun school brings?
-Retracting fook sau
-outgoing wu sau
-more frontal fak sau
-stance
-Article
A more interesting question
What do you think?
I asked first!
That matrix was nice. I think that if you make changes, good for you. If you’re proud, put it out there. But I don’t really get the need to have to put down “the old way” in order to substantiate the new innovations. If they’re good, they should stand on their own.
I want to experiment with that pulling fook sau before commenting.It must feel strange I presume.
Re: Integrative Wing Chun
Originally posted by old jong
What do you think about the modifications in SLT this Wing Chun school brings?
-Retracting fook sau
-outgoing wu sau
-more frontal fak sau
-stance
-Article
Reverse the medirians.
Using the White Crane San Chin.
Yan Kok Yau Chee. Everyone has one’s own path…
Read the article. See no point in arguing. I dont see it as
an improvement. people get all kinds of ideas. So what.
that’s just me…
I’m the old fashion stubborn like bull type, I still prefer the horizontal fok sau going forward… easier to focus forward energy… for me.
Fat Sau, hmmm… I feel that it is a way to use a “big” movement to help us find a “small” sensation - the energy transfer from joint to joint, from shoulder to fingers, well… that’s just me of cource :o
I think we’ve had this discussions before but anyway, to be kind id say do what what you like if it works.
To be honest i say he’s not understanding a few things judging by a few comments in the article. Im sure this guy knows how to fight, but some of the power generation ideas are lacking (if you want to juice the form for all its worth).
Just my 2 cents
I thought the article was pretty good all up. Resisted the temptation to put other lineages down and gave a good explanation. The “comparison” thing is always a mistake IMO, there have been articles from other lineages which did the same thing which have caused big problems - William Chueng’s “Traditional/Modified” being probably the worst, the HFY “system/style” thing less so.
FWIW, TWC has ALWAYS brought the Dai Jeung hand up to tan sao before bringing it back. We don’t end our heun sao is a horizontal fist either. We do our SLT fak sao at 90 like most others, but in CK and BJ it’s more like 45, along the central line.
Actually, the footwork reminds me more of Sanchin than anything else. Nothing wrong with that.
All up, I think Chung Sifu is correct in thinking that there is room for continuous improvement in Wing Chun and the way it is taught. And in thinking for oneself rather than following dogma.
All up, I think Chung Sifu is correct in thinking that there is room for continuous improvement in Wing Chun and the way it is taught. And in thinking for oneself rather than following dogma. [/B]
I agree. I just don’t think this is it. His reasons for giving up the ‘traditional’ methods aren’t justified IMO.
The only one that I agreed with was introducing the SKM stepping early.
Nice chart. Shame about the contents.
I concur with:
<<Sometimes the study of another art may be utilized to open ones eyes to what is found deeper in one’s own system. >>
My view is however - Until I have people writing legends about my abilities, chances are any defects are in me, not the system.
BTW, anyone have an accurate translation of ‘fook’? I hadn’t heard the ‘stalking’ version before. Last I heard, people had settled on ‘covering/controlling’
Pulling fook in chi sau.
Traditionnaly,fook moves forward and equalize the other guy’s tan (witch is also a forward motion.
I just wonder how the fook is going to react if suddenly the tan is withdraw or the line gets clear for an attack.
I have’nt tried it yet but seems to me that a fook moving this way would have to first stop his incoming motion before transforming itself into a punch.
I think we discussed this here with Dave several times before. Anyway, my thinking remains:
- We already have both extending and retracting bridges in WCK, (eg. the retracting Wu in SLT and the extending Wu in Chum Kiu.
- Therefor, changing it is really only changing the order of introduction of one variation vs. another
- Unless the other one (eg. extending in Chum Kiu) is left the same
- Then, one conceptual point/movement has been eliminated
- And as all conceptual points/movements are important
- That’s not a great thing.
- So, in the end, if you have both anyway, regardless of order, it’s not a big change
- But if you don’t, why not?
RR
Originally posted by teazer
My view is however - Until I have people writing legends about my abilities, chances are any defects are in me, not the system.
This one strikes a deep chord in me.
I rarely make judgmental comment on someone else’s art, whether differences, changes, or whatever, and I will make no exception now. Save reasonable consideration of advantages and disadvantages, what would qualify me as ultimate judge anyway. Or any of the rest of you for that matter.
This much of my thought I will offer. The beauty, integrity, and potential of Wing Chun as I have begun to see it leaves me virtually breathless. It is difficult for me to imagine any individual who can improve upon it without imbalance. I cannot argue the notion of evolutionary improvement, yet cannot imagine myself to change anything until I have explored every depth of what is already here. And as teazer suggested, till legends are written, LOL.
Wing Chun is so simple, but she is so deep. Whose lifetime is enough to fully know her? Maybe someone’s, but doubtful mine.
I suppose anyone with a strong sense of stewardship probably ponders such things, and ought to, whether their conclusion in the end is to change or not to change.
BTW, anyone have an accurate translation of ‘fook’? I hadn’t heard the ‘stalking’ version before. Last I heard, people had settled on ‘covering/controlling’
Connotations vs. denotations are difficult enough in one language, let alone in translation between languages … and such vastly different ones. Sometimes a “definition” is not nearly enough.
Having said that, “subduing” has some connotations I rather like for fook sau.
FWIW, regarding Sifu Chow. To the best of my knowledge, he is and has been completely open and honest about his art of “Integrative Wing Chun” - what it is, where it came from, and why he’s doing it. This to me is the crux of the matter, and I have every respect for that.
Last I looked at his website, he also credits the many people from different arts and lineages from whom he has gained knowledge and insight. To me, gratitude is a virtue. I have a hard time thinking of anyone who has worked harder to investigate, research, and become more broadly familiar with the many perspectives and variations on Wing Chun, not to mention other arts. Of all the things in this world to be faulted, a sincere curiosity and love of learning are not among them. I have nothing but respect for Sifu Chow in all these things. Not only that, but I also consider him to be extremely intelligent, astute, charismatic, not to mention a super nice guy. I believe and trust he is fully enjoying his path, and I couldn’t be happier for him in that.
Just some musings.
Regards,
- Kathy Jo
Re: Pulling fook in chi sau.
Originally posted by old jong
Traditionnaly,fook moves forward and equalize the other guy’s tan (witch is also a forward motion.
I just wonder how the fook is going to react if suddenly the tan is withdraw or the line gets clear for an attack.
I have’nt tried it yet but seems to me that a fook moving this way would have to first stop his incoming motion before transforming itself into a punch.
It seems to me like a legitimate question.I just wonder how could that fook be applied in chi sau for the reasons above.
I think we discussed this here with Dave several times before
yeah, but now he’s gone we can say “it SUCKS SUCKS SUCKS!!!”
Is there a problem in discussing on this topic?
It fells like a no-no for some reason even if the changes proposed in that article are ,I could say,significative.
Anyway,I will experiment on this.
Originally posted by old jong
Is there a problem in discussing on this topic?
It fells like a no-no for some reason even if the changes proposed in that article are ,I could say,significative.
Anyway,I will experiment on this.
For my part, I don’t think there should ever be problems discussing the merits of technical issues. The perennial caveat, IMHO, is that they should stay technical and non-personal. I realize that doesn’t always happen, of course, and sometimes it’s even a bit challenging to achieve, or at least without misperception. Fortunately, and for the most part it looks to me like folks here are inclined to take the higher road. Knock on wood. 
Even in such things, MMV.
Regards,
- Kathy Jo
Originally posted by kj
[B]
For my part, I don’t think there should ever be problems discussing the merits of technical issues. The perennial caveat, IMHO, is that they should stay technical and non-personal. [/B]
I am aware that Dave is involved in this and I like Dave as much as anybody else here.It is a technical question and if in the end I think this approach is wrong,well,everybody,even Dave can be wrong sometimes on a technical matter.That does’nt make him a jerk for that.
In fact,there are not many jerks on this forum and it is not because I fell that The Wing Chun theoric side should be as simple as it’s practical one that I consider people who like to ‘‘cut hairs in halves’’ as jerks! Get my idea?..So,nothing personnal in this thread .If ever I get this way,I will make it very clear in the beginning.
As Dave like to say…Peace!
Old Jong, I gotcha.
Sorry if it looked like I was addressing you in my earlier post. I promise I wasn’t … didn’t have you or anyone in particular in mind, so please don’t take it that way. Just sharing very general thoughts, in case it’s of interest or connects in some way with one or two who happen to be reading. If it doesn’t, and wasted words to the ether, sokay by me … writing is a form of therapy.
Peace back at ya.
Regards,
- Kathy Jo