[QUOTE=Hendrik;1265723]IMHO,
Just Tan bong fook is not complete , these three doesn’t fully cover the 3D or "+ " .
Guilty by Hendrik’s proclamation!
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1265727]----------------------------------------------
Inferences from your own straw man models!!![/QUOTE]
Got nothing to do with me.
It is there in wing chun 1848. And it makes sense because it covers required dimension.
As for the common modern evolution : tan bong fook only seeds doesn’t . The so called three seeds don’t cover the full dimension. +
You are free to believe what you like .
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1265728][QUOTE=Hendrik;1265723]IMHO,
Just Tan bong fook is not complete , these three doesn’t fully cover the 3D or "+ " .
Guilty by Hendrik’s proclamation![/QUOTE]
Got nothing to do with me, horizontal without vertical doesn’t fully cover +.
The bottom line is either one wants to believe in a religion believing what ever the chief says is the truth
or
one wants to look at the biomechanics in an engineering way such as intelligent robotic to see how many degree of freedom and range is covered or not.
Same with the renessance era, you want to believe in the church or starting to look at the planet earth is round.
I personally believe the luk sao modern chi sao platform was intended to be a two-man san sik drill to develop the structure and energy of Bong, Tan, fuk sao,
Interesting idea! Yip Man Dan Chi Sao would logically be the first step of that, with it becoming Luk Sao when the other hand is added. But since YKSWCK doesn’t use the same Dan Chi Sao, Luk Sao likely came first.
In YKSWC luk sao is performed closer in than in YMWC to develop elbow range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aKH0uAFst0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIUcjt6skLw[/QUOTE]
I don’t know what you mean by that. Those clips look just like Yip Man Luk Sao. Yip Man Luk Sao will close in to elbow range at times as well depending on the circumstance.
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1265727]----------------------------------------------
Inferences from your own straw man models!!![/QUOTE]
Joy, I don’t even know what that means! Do you have a counterpoint?
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1265726]Kei, vertical.
Bong and kie are couple. Bong without kei is missing one element.
the 1848 YKSLT kuit says:
[/QUOTE]
Interesting! What is “kei”? KLPSWCK has a “Sao Sao” hand the looks very similar to what you are doing in that picture. And how does Bong have “Kei”?
But I would point out that some do the “modern” platform with more of an up and down motion of Bong/Tan than others. That would seem to cover the vertical line to me. In fact, I would argue that the “modern” platform puts more emphasis on the vertical line than the horizontal line! And the “ancient” platform puts more emphasis on the horizontal line than on the vertical line! Neither one really covers all 4 directions.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1265710]Ok.
IMHO, Alan or Robert is using a CSL dynamic platform which is no longer the modern generic Wck platform.
And this platform is rely on CSL power generation which is a seven bows based technology.
So, explicitly, it might looks generic in the beginning, but while in action it is a different type.
Csl dynamic platform can be analog to a four wheel drive for all range play, while genetic platform is a two wheel drive bounded by its structure and power generation for barrier range play.
The cars looks similar but not under the hood. If Csl doesn’t have their special engine, it cannot go into a certain range.[/QUOTE]
I still don’t understand what you are saying. Is the platform the rolling structure or not? I was seeing the “modern” platform as rolling with Bong/Tan/Fook and the “ancient” platform as rolling with Huen Sao. CSL still rolls with Bong/Tan/Fook, so what you are referring to as a “platform”? Do you mean the mechanics used for power generation? Because if you do this conversation has been completely off because we have been talking about different things! :eek:
BTW…what are you wearing on your feet in those photos? Your feet look huge!
all about the Horse
To me, this ‘platform’ discussion is “new” (I think)… however it could be just a terminology thing.
From my upbringing in WC…what you guys are discussing is more a matter or ones horse and level of support it provides to your actions and also a matter or footwork.
When I occasionally view sporadic youtube vids or vids posted here on chi sao…it seems to me either extremely one sided and/or lacks footwork.
Just my .02 Thanks.
PS: as for Hendriks choice of foot gear…I’m guessing some sort of Moon-boots? 
Maybe its cold where ever it is he lives? Warm feet is a good thing!
[QUOTE=KPM;1265734]Joy, I don’t even know what that means! Do you have a counterpoint?[/QUOTE]
“Counterpoint” is often a debating term. Debating has rules and judges.
A different analytical point- tan, bong and fook are three major families of motions- each family has many children- they cover
all dimensions and directions. And of course wing chun in application is a two handed system- so bong on one side can be accompanied by a wu or a kuen
on the other side for balanced issuing of force.
[QUOTE=KPM;1265737]I still don’t understand what you are saying. Is the platform the rolling structure or not? I was seeing the “modern” platform as rolling with Bong/Tan/Fook and the “ancient” platform as rolling with Huen Sao. CSL still rolls with Bong/Tan/Fook, so what you are referring to as a “platform”? Do you mean the mechanics used for power generation? Because if you do this conversation has been completely off because we have been talking about different things! :eek:
BTW…what are you wearing on your feet in those photos? Your feet look huge![/QUOTE]
You have said in well on the platform, that is what I mean
It took that in the freezing winter with the feet warmer shoe.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1265741]You have said in well on the platform, that is what I mean
Hendrik-KPM’s statement had several parts. Which part do you agree with.?
[QUOTE=KPM;1265736]Interesting! What is “kei”? KLPSWCK has a “Sao Sao” hand the looks very similar to what you are doing in that picture. And how does Bong have “Kei”?
But I would point out that some do the “modern” platform with more of an up and down motion of Bong/Tan than others. That would seem to cover the vertical line to me. In fact, I would argue that the “modern” platform puts more emphasis on the vertical line than the horizontal line! And the “ancient” platform puts more emphasis on the horizontal line than on the vertical line! Neither one really covers all 4 directions.[/QUOTE]
Kei is vertical way of using the part of the arm as bong is horizontal way.
Kei and bong cover the “+” . Thus, with both of them, it is a balance coverage. At least the 1848 YKSLT data point it is a balance one .
Kei is a vertical elbow type of arm where bong is horizontal wing elbow. Kei is pressing forward vertically while bong is pressing forward horizontally.
If you still lost, think about if bong is related to the horizontal forward elbow strike. And kei is related to the vertical forward elbow Strike.
These days, everything is called tan . Seem people likes to define as they like it.
As for 1848 data point,
The attach photo is Zhao Yang , it is not Tan but now a day many called it tan.
So, there are kei, zhao yang, tan. They represent different mechanics
Tan is hand at chest level travel from chest outward , zhao yang is end up in shoulder level, starting from lower chest level with kind of 45degree forward and upward. Kei is pressing forward with some rotation
[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1265742][QUOTE=Hendrik;1265741]You have said in well on the platform, that is what I mean
Hendrik-KPM’s statement had several parts. Which part do you agree with.?[/QUOTE]
As that Kpm post.
[QUOTE=KPM;1265737]I still don’t understand what you are saying. Is the platform the rolling structure or not? I was seeing the “modern” platform as rolling with Bong/Tan/Fook and the “ancient” platform as rolling with Huen Sao. CSL still rolls with Bong/Tan/Fook, so what you are referring to as a “platform”? Do you mean the mechanics used for power generation? Because if you do this conversation has been completely off because we have been talking about different things! :eek:
BTW…what are you wearing on your feet in those photos? Your feet look huge![/QUOTE]
"Starts with the modern platform and then it switches into the ancient range " type of platform is what I mean.
It is not an ancient huen sau platform
but it is no longer the modern platform which keep a barrier infront of ones body, (barrier as in the two pictures in the beginning of this thread. Which keep one away from moving close into the opponent body)
It was freezing winter so I wear a feet warmer shoe
[quote=vajramusti;1265740]------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“counterpoint” is often a debating term. Debating has rules and judges.
A different analytical point- tan, bong and fook are three major families of motions- each family has many children- they cover
all dimensions and directions. And of course wing chun in application is a two handed system- so bong on one side can be accompanied by a wu or a kuen
on the other side for balanced issuing of force.[/quote] 
rule #1. That’s what makes WingChun so powerful.
[QUOTE=KPM;1265733] I don’t know what you mean by that. Those clips look just like Yip Man Luk Sao. Yip Man Luk Sao will close in to elbow range at times as well depending on the circumstance.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the first clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aKH0uAFst0, I rarely seen ymwc luk sao played that close.
[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1265750]I was referring to the first clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aKH0uAFst0, I rarely seen ymwc luk sao played that close.[/QUOTE]
Luk sao can be close.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1265694]Again, what is that training good for in a mma era where people combine bjj and boxing is the norm?[/QUOTE]
And again, I don’t use pun-sau to fight. This question is as ignorant as asking what use SNT has against BJJ, since they can easily take you down.
It’s a stage of development only, not fighting. If you are progressing through free sparring and fighting and understand what you’re doing in pun-sau you won’t ask this question.
[QUOTE=KPM;1265701]In this clip starting at about 30 seconds in these guys are doing a decent job of rolling. This is the little bit more refined version that “coils” that I mentioned. Notice that the movement appears to be at the wrists, but there is elbow behind it connected to the hips.[/quote]
That’s not how the elbow is used in the system I study. It’s like a whole different martial art concept.
How can increased structure lead to less gamesmanship? Its like any activity, the more rules you impose the more specific things people attempt to “work” the rules. The more structured something is the less “open-ended” it becomes. But I do agree it shouldn’t be a fight simulation.
If you look at the structure as imposed “rules”, you are looking at chi-sau as a form of (unrealistic) sparring. That is a game. The less structure there is, the more you’re just doing unrealistic sparring (playing a game).
One of the first things we are training when we begin chi-sau is the use of the elbow. The structure of pun-sau is to develop its use in an exchange of force with a partner. Even when we get into gwo-sau we’re still developing these behaviors under increased pressure.
If we want to do something free form that is going to be relevant to facing BJJ and Boxing as Hendrik mentions, then we need to do realistic free sparring/fighting where we are applying what we have been developing with the system. Pun-sau is structured in such a way because it is developing something specific. If we want to do a free form exchange, we should be moving onto sparring, imo. Chi-sau being too free form turns into slaphappy nonsense with zero relevance to actual fighting which gives you nothing.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1265757]One of the first things we are training when we begin chi-sau is the use of the elbow. The structure of pun-sau is to develop its use in an exchange of force with a partner. Even when we get into gwo-sau we’re still developing these behaviors under increased pressure.[/QUOTE]
Same here. Heavy emphasis on correct elbow pressure, location, direction, etc throughout all hands and all motions and or transitions.
Without this IMO the participants lose the intent behind the drill.