Cr@p
Whoops
Someone calling themselves “Geezer” wrote:
Terence, where’s you’re introduction
We would like to know who we’re talking/writing to
Sheldon
Sorry, I didn’t think that in the land of fake names and anonymous trolls one was expected to introduce themselves. 
Terence
Hey Terence,
welcome to the fray. As much as we’ve disagreed on things in various discussions, my thinking has benefited from your analyses. It’s good to hear from you again.
Savi,
getting to application- forearm to forearm vs. wrist to forearm- so kiu sao implies contact with a closer range (forearm to forearm)? Is chi sao when either your forearm contacts another’s wrist or your wrist contacts another’s forearm or both?
The ‘scientific method’- I believe that was someone else’s addendum to my statements. I tend not to be someone to confuse the social sciences with science. If you don’t understand why many people have serious issue with your lineage claims, take a look at the controversies over the founding of Liu Ho Ba Fa (sp?), or claims by Yang exponents that their art has no connection with Chen taiji.
Take it easy,
Andrew
No No No, If You look Down The Bottom You’re Find My Name!!!
t_niehoff Wrote>
Someone calling themselves “Geezer” wrote:
Terence, where’s you’re introduction
We would like to know who we’re talking/writing to
Sheldon
t_niehoff Wrote>
Sorry, I didn’t think that in the land of fake names and anonymous trolls one was expected to introduce themselves.
So, you’re not really Terence then seeing as your in the land of fake names and anonymous trolls:confused:
http://www.aldertons.com/english-.htm
I think the link may help you out when it comes down to being a bit of a Geezer;)
Sheldon:D
AndrewS- This is interesting as well. When engaged, do you want to just hit the opponent and only bother with controlling their bridges if you have to, or is controlling their bridges a must on the way to hitting them. (Eg. if someone punches, you can change the line and counter punch all in one shot, or you can join bridges, position to cut off the offense, manipulate to destroy the defense, then hit, then stick and see - the first is faster but riskier, the second more complex but more robust).
(BTW - Stop trolling, we all know LHBF is a recent mish-mash and real Chenjia was lost during the PRC, forcing the family to scramble to recreate it using Tongbei… 
)
Further explained
Hi AndrewS,
Let me preface that the following information if from my understanding of HFY…
Your question: “kiu sao implies contact with a closer range (forearm to forearm)” seems only to address depth (distance) from the opponent.
When I was first getting into the seminar I myself was a bit confused as to the exact difference seperating Kiu Sao from Chi Sao. My background in Wing Chun is from the Yip Man/Moy Yat line so Kiu Sao (as I have been exposed to) in HFY was from a different perspective/context. In those three days I did have a much clearer understanding of the identity of the two. In Kiu Sao, YOU have forearm contact, and in Chi Sao, YOU have wrist contact. Kiu Sao techniques (as defined in the HFY) are not defined/determined by range, because the differences are determined by the level of risk.
--------example--------
Sometimes I think of it as plan A (Kiu Sao): intercept the opponent’s weapons, destroy their effectiveness and capabilities with minimal effort/maximum safety, take out the target. Hence our method of Kiu Sao to San Da.
If plan A fails, go to plan B (Chi Sao). Switch from forearm-to-forearm (kiu sao) contact to wrist-to-forearm (chi sao) contact. If you are successful in the switch, it is impossible for the opponent to regain/counter with their wrist according to the TSC. Now IF your expression of the Time and Space Concept (TSC) is incorrect (refer to the Paradigm of the Time and Space Concept thread by kungfu cowboy), then you would have to revert back to a Kiu Sao application (and another Chi Sao app if neccesary) IF they are able to counter. Hence here, the method would be:
- Kiu Sao to Chi Sao to San Da -OR-
- Kiu Sao to Chi Sao to Kiu Sao to (Chi Sao then San Da) or (San Da)
If both persons stay in Chi Sao you get looping which of course requires more time, space, and energy. Same goes if both persons stay in Kiu Sao; more looping. One would have to switch out of Chi Sao to Kiu Sao to prevent that (if their skills are equal), and try to capitalize on the shift and get to San Da.
I hope that wasn’t confusing. We utilize Kiu Sao and Chi Sao based on level of risk. How skilled is the opponent against your Kiu Sao? That’s the determining factor. My Sifu refers to this as ‘Risk Management.’ Also in HFYWCK there are no looping drills/exercises as somebody mentioned before. This is because of the methods listed above.
-Savi.
Savi - Interesting, do you ever go closer than forearm?
Savi said:
In Kiu Sao, YOU have forearm contact, and in Chi Sao, YOU have wrist contact. Kiu Sao techniques (as defined in the HFY) are not defined/determined by range, because the differences are determined by the level of risk.
Savi- hopefully without revisiting old non dialogues—
I dont yet per your discussion see the need for so many terminological distinctions that you are making between wing chun and HFY. Firstly what I do and I think for lots of IM wing chun folks as well- what is emphasized is the nature of the motion
and not “techniques”. If one overemphasized techniques then one goes down the road of creating endless subcategories of technques for the bridge versus techniques for other parts. Chi sao is not fighting anyway- but is a very important developmental tool.
Doing it well develops everything- the kiu, the distancing, the assesment of risk, and the adptation to the level of risk.
joy chaudhuri
Hey Savi,
Alright- let’s go to specific examples, 'cos I’m still confused. Wrist/wrist vs. wrist .forearm vs. forearm/forearm- if you’re forearm to forearm, you should be a bit closer together, no?
Moreover, if you contact forearm/forearm, then bail out to wrist/forearm if that fails, this implies you’re opening up some distance, to feel another way in? Yes, no. . .
Hey Rene,
To me, controlling a bridge doesn’t mean I have my hand on it. If I’m inside with my neckpulling hand to one side, and the other hand striking, with my legs in the game, I have nice control of the limb on the side of the neckpulling hand from jerking the neck and barring the same side shoulder with the elbow. I may get hit, but I can cut off most power shots from that side from this clinch position if I keep rocking the other guy’s balance.
My ‘bridge’ on a low shooter will have nothing to do with his hands- the head, neck and shoulder will be my primary contact points, and if I screw up and he gets his arms to my legs, I’ll attempt to control through my contact there.
I guess I see thinking of the arms as bridges as limiting.
As to which I prefer- in application, whichever works best for me at the time. The former seems safer if I have much better speed and timing than the other person, the latter safer if that’s not the case.
Later,
Andrew
P.S. I’m not trolling, LHBF is a millenia-old martial art fully recreated from an ancient daoist manual and is the precursor and touchstone for all other neijia, arising independantly from them while simultaneously being their progenitor art. . .
Savi,
Thanks for the reply.
Most HFY people I have met are very nice but on this forum a lot of us get reactionary.
(Savi) the ‘scientific method’ (restated by taltos: prove it’s wrong).
This may be true but even while Einstein had people trying to prove him wrong; he also spent the rest of his life trying to prove them right. Not sure if that proves anything but we can not flat out except any new theory, nor can we expect to try and disprove it when so little has really been released by your family.
(Savi) Let me point the mirror to you. WHY is the HFY structure different? Where did it come from? How did it evolve to look the way it does?
Savi, the DNA as Hedrick called it of Wing Chun is all very similar and different genetic traits present themselves differently depending on the parents and the dominant or recessive genes.
As far as your structure being different, it really is not. The stance is different and some of the distances seem different from what I do but in truth we all have to receive pressure the same and align our arms the same to pull off Tan, Bong or Fuk properly. Slightly different expressions of the same core ideas. Additionally, when I saw some of your seniors at the seminar actually move to San Da range it seemed convincingly similar to any number of other Sifu I have seen demonstrate.
(Savi) I will tell you the answer is NOT a marketing device, personal decision, or personal expression; not because somebody thought it looked cool, or better than something else. “Oh, it must be the Time and Space Concept thing!” Whatever that is, right? Exactly… (refer the kungfu cowboy’s thread (example) on the Time and Space Concept for explanations)
I agree that Time and Space is probably not just made up for marketing, though I cannot say weather the exact names are a reflection of Sifu Gee’s educational background or a direct translation from HFY family’s stated lineage of Shoalin and Chan. I do not know enough here.
I can say that the way it seems to be given out in very small pieces without alluding to a larger picture smacks of marketing and lengthening the education process. This is my opinion and I am sure there are other reasons behind it as well.
(Savi) Something inside you understood that and satisfied your curiosity in Ohio, or you would have followed up with your invitation to Sifu Loewenhagen’s school right?
Well not entirely, I only had time for one trip before the end of the year, but maybe in the New Year I will come and visit. I really hopped that I could have done Chi Sau with more people but everyone seemed so busy with Sifu Gee. Anyway, I got a good impression of the art and the manner it was taught in so I enjoyed myself and learned a lot.
(Savi) What is it they saw that you didn’t? The Siu Nihm Tau form isn’t much different? Footwork? Idioms? Training methods? Your statement about ‘not much different’ tells me that HFY looks like everything else. With different structure comes different applications, principles, natures, concepts, tactics and strategies. But it is not much different? If the language is the same but the context is different, should one ask ‘why?’ or ‘how?’ as opposed to others that say ‘it’s all the same anyway.’ ?
Maybe you should ask what did I see/feel that other didn’t?
(Savi) I really respect you as a martial artist and a Sifu, please don’t read this as being hostile. You and I did Kiu Sao at the VTM and I remember that your perspective did change from the start to the end of the seminar. How relevant is that difference? You sacrificed your time/money/energy to go out and experience HFYWCK, took many notes, asked many questions, and meet with the Sifus of HFY, but its sounds like your post is saying you didn’t gain or notice much. Fascinating. Why take so many notes and ask so many questions if not much was new/different? I don’t understand where you’re coming from.
Savi, I enjoyed working out with each and everyone there. I also enjoyed the material and gained a lot of insight into what was being said and done in the context of the HFY school of thought. I thank everyone for making the time and expense I put into it worthwhile. You have to understand though, if you look only at outwards appearances or only at the differences that is all you see. If you look at the similarities, again this may be all you’ll see. What I saw was a system with a different terminology, a slightly different form set and slightly different drills for building similar skills, similar understanding, and similar functionality as we others do when the do WCK.
Thanks for the reply lets meet again and keep open dialogue.
David
Savi - Hi
(you wrote) Sometimes I think of it as plan A (Kiu Sao): intercept the opponent’s weapons, destroy their effectiveness and capabilities with minimal effort/maximum safety, take out the target. Hence our method of Kiu Sao to San Da.
Does this mean that in the philosophy of HFY you would not directly strike an opponent without first creating a bridge?
Given the line I would strike and keep on striking until I needed to create an arm to arm bridge with my opponent.
Of course I would never hit someone who wasn’t threatening me or didn’t have it comming 
David
–Chi sao is not fighting anyway–Yuanfen
No kidding!
The problem is that you misjudged your oppt.
No trolling RH. No stalking. RH
Hi David,
Originally posted by Mckind13
[B]
Does this mean that in the philosophy of HFY you would not directly strike an opponent without first creating a bridge?
Given the line I would strike and keep on striking until I needed to create an arm to arm bridge with my opponent.
Of course I would never hit someone who wasn’t threatening me or didn’t have it comming
[/B]
I don’t mean to nitpick, but doesn’t striking an opponent create a bridge?
Regards,
A beautiful springtime for Yuanfen…
Who’s invoking you with their deception?
Rene Ritchie?
No, he isn’t that smart.
Red5angel?
Maybe…
Rolling_Hand?
Humm…
Interesting…gentle people who smile without arrogance or aggression.
grendel 
Originally posted by Grendel
I don’t mean to nitpick, but doesn’t striking an opponent create a bridge?
I believe it does. When you strike your opponent and he tries to nullify your attack; he is actually offering his bridge once contact is established. If you control the bridge, you have access to the “castle”.
Grndel wrote - I don’t mean to nitpick, but doesn’t striking an opponent create a bridge?
Regards,
Striking does create a bridge but i said an arm to arm bridge.
I simply was asking that if you are not presented with a need to do anything other then strike, does the HFY family do so anyway.
David
Originally posted by Mckind13
… I simply was asking that if you are not presented with a need to do anything other then strike, does the HFY family do so anyway.
If you have nothing else to do, strike!