For those of you interested in seeing the Kulo Wing Chun 22 form, this is the complete set, from Guangzhou Master Leung Wun Zi’s line.
Done in the proper “flavor”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPkVTBGyCPM
Done slowly for easy following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJHBkyB9fc
Cheers,
John
Very nice, thanks for sharing. 
Hey John,
Great demo, thanks for sharing! I notice the 22 point also keep their feet converging, and torques from the kwa instead of from the feet.
this is totally separate from the Yip Man stuff right?
[QUOTE=imperialtaichi;1042993]For those of you interested in seeing the Kulo Wing Chun 22 form, this is the complete set, from Guangzhou Master Leung Wun Zi’s line.
Done in the proper “flavor”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPkVTBGyCPM
Done slowly for easy following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJHBkyB9fc
Cheers,
John[/QUOTE]
Interesting…
[QUOTE=imperialtaichi;1042993]For those of you interested in seeing the Kulo Wing Chun 22 form, this is the complete set, from Guangzhou Master Leung Wun Zi’s line.
Done in the proper “flavor”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPkVTBGyCPM
Done slowly for easy following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QJHBkyB9fc
Cheers,
John[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I enjoyed those very much! Tasty flavour too.
Your “Large Twirling Hands” is very very similar to an element of the 3rd section of my first form. The Yip Man version I originally learned had a section that went “Tan/Gan/Tan/Huen/Middle Gate Palm Strike”; the version I do now has a “high Tan/low bong/Gan/high palm strike” which is executed similarly to large twirling hands.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1042994]Very nice, thanks for sharing. :)[/QUOTE]
what did you think was nice about it ?
Thanks for this. It’s great to see the full set of movements.
Dr. Fung,
Thank you for your generous contribution.
We of Gu Lao lineage are too few! I think your open posting reflects a generous nature!
Best wishes,
[QUOTE=k gledhill;1043395]what did you think was nice about it ?[/QUOTE]
I think it’s great that many of the non-Yip Man branches of WCK, like Gu lao 22 point, are finally being exposed to the public. This is important since it provides a more comprehensive view of the art.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1043502]I think it’s great that many of the non-Yip Man branches of WCK, like Gu lao 22 point, are finally being exposed to the public. This is important since it provides a more comprehensive view of the art.[/QUOTE]
A more comprehensive view? 
Having sets of sansau, whether they can be traced directly to Leung Jan or not, doesn’t make WCK more comprehensive, just easier to learn for basic self defence purposes imho and definitely easier to teach!
It is great to see though, I preferred the second clip. But all this needs to be followed up with the 40 point methods ;)
[QUOTE=imperialtaichi;1042993]For those of you interested in seeing the Kulo Wing Chun 22 form, this is the complete set, from Guangzhou Master Leung Wun Zi’s line.
Done in the proper “flavor”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPkVTBGyCPM
Cheers,
John[/QUOTE]
Hi John,
I really enjoyed the clip, Do you have any footage of yourself or Master Leung Demonstrating the applications or two-man san sik drills that you can post?
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1043563]A more comprehensive view?
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
Having sets of sansau, whether they can be traced directly to Leung Jan or not, doesn’t make WCK more comprehensive, just easier to learn for basic self defence purposes imho and definitely easier to teach!
No. WCK is WCK. A san sao format of teaching isn’t “easier to learn for basic self-defense” – it is just a different curriculum for WCK.
The reason I said a more comprehensive view is that by seeing different ways of teaching the same thing (WCK) – comparing different texts for the same subject as it were – we may help us see things from a different perspective and give us a fuller picture.
It is great to see though, I preferred the second clip. But all this needs to be followed up with the 40 point methods ;)
Well, I know that I won’t be uploading it.
Thanks everyone for the comments.
I believe WCK is WCK, while the expression of it may differ in different lineages, put the politics aside we all share very common roots. If we can all work together, we can take WCK collectively to new high grounds.
Cheers,
John
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1043620]WCK is WCK. A san sao format of teaching isn’t “easier to learn for basic self-defense” – it is just a different curriculum for WCK.
The reason I said a more comprehensive view is that by seeing different ways of teaching the same thing (WCK) – comparing different texts for the same subject as it were – we may help us see things from a different perspective and give us a fuller picture.[/QUOTE]
That does make sense, but I guess you would say that about a curriculum you’re familiar with. For me personally, a sansau curriculum is great if it’s supplemented with a good foundation, which I’ve found only within the Lee Shing WCK curriculum.
Standing on it’s own any sansau or personal sets are a preservation thing, and that’s cool, but I also like to think my chun develops and changes every year.
[QUOTE=imperialtaichi;1043620]I believe WCK is WCK, while the expression of it may differ in different lineages, put the politics aside we all share very common roots. If we can all work together, we can take WCK collectively to new high grounds.[/QUOTE]
I have been saying things like this for years, so I think its great that we are on the same journey. I’ve always got the feeling though that people want me to listen and train like they do without any return! And I too believe I’m holding onto something special (as most of us here do!)
What you ask for is almost impossible nowadays, but I do wish you all the luck in the world with your promotions.
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1043866]That does make sense, but I guess you would say that about a curriculum you’re familiar with. For me personally, a sansau curriculum is great if it’s supplemented with a good foundation, which I’ve found only within the Lee Shing WCK curriculum.
[/QUOTE]
It’s all WCK, and WCK is WCK. Curriculum are not WCK – they are someone’s approach to teaching WCK. WCK is a skill. The curriculum impart the various aspects you need to perform that skill.
A san sao curriculum is just as good a foundation as any other traditional curriculum. In a sense, they’re all equally bad.
As far as Lee Shing’s curriculum providing a “good foundation” – you’re the guy who thinks stepping away from an opponent is good WCK, right?
Standing on it’s own any sansau or personal sets are a preservation thing, and that’s cool, but I also like to think my chun develops and changes every year.
The curriculum isn’t the art (WCK). How you teach someone to ride a bike isn’t riding the bike.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1043909]ItAs far as Lee Shing’s curriculum providing a “good foundation” – you’re the guy who thinks stepping away from an opponent is good WCK, right?[/QUOTE]
Yes I am. And proud to know that retreating IS a part of WCK.
I tell you what, see how long it takes your wife/girlfriend/daughter to learn how to stand her ground against a 6ft 5, 20 stone attacker and then see how long it takes her to learn how to avoid them completely by retreating.
I know what strategy I would employ… :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1044126]Yes I am. And proud to know that retreating IS a part of WCK.
I tell you what, see how long it takes your wife/girlfriend/daughter to learn how to stand her ground against a 6ft 5, 20 stone attacker and then see how long it takes her to learn how to avoid them completely by retreating.
I know what strategy I would employ… :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know what strategy you would employ – and why you would be easily beaten.
WCK’s method is not to run away, but to engage, to crowd your opponent, to clinch as our defense (so that they can’t use their longer reach) and use that to bring in our offense.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1044196]Yes, I know what strategy you would employ – and why you would be easily beaten.
WCK’s method is not to run away, but to engage, to crowd your opponent, to clinch as our defense (so that they can’t use their longer reach) and use that to bring in our offense.[/QUOTE]
Thank you so much for writing this. Now I know for sure you have no clue about real combat. ALL Armies teach retrograde (retreating) movements. Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War by Sun Tzu - Section 10 - Terrain:
"7. In a position of this sort, even though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait, it will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage. "
“24. The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”
Military Academies across the globe teach this in large and individual combat.
LoneTiger108’s example of a woman standing toe to toe is spot on. Why do you think they have weight divisions in combat “sports”? 
You use boxers as example of fighting sometimes. Well, boxers teach retreating: http://www.ehow.com/list_6731465_basic-boxing-footwork-exercises.html
In and out training:
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-strategies/boxing-tactics/108-basic-boxing-footwork-strategy
Here’s a quote from http://www.myboxingcoach.com/footwork-the-pivot/:
“Youre taking on a boxer whos supremely talented on the retreat but doesnt offer the same threat on the front foot. You can attempt to chase your opponent down, cutting off the ring, but you are aware that by doing this youll be fighting to your opponents strength. . . . .”
I studied boxing at Gleason’s when it was near the Garden. My first lesson reminded me of the Wing Chun advancing and retreating footwork.
You post here like you’re so knowledgeable but many of your posts on combat and Wing Chun prove otherwise.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1044205]Thank you so much for writing this. Now I know for sure you have no clue about real combat. ALL Armies teach retrograde (retreating) movements. Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War by Sun Tzu - Section 10 - Terrain:
"7. In a position of this sort, even though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait, it will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage. "
“24. The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”
Military Academies across the globe teach this in large and individual combat.
[/QUOTE]
Phil, WCK isn’t about warfare but a specific approach to individual fighting (and not on a battlefield).
LoneTiger108’s example of a woman standing toe to toe is spot on. Why do you think they have weight divisions in combat “sports”?
No, it’s not spot on, it is a stupid illustration. So is your weight division point. Of course size and strength matter. They matter in the ring and they matter in the str33t. They are inherent advantages.
But WCK isn’t whatever you want it to be. It is a certain, specific approach to fighting that comes down to us from the red boats – wing chun kuen is the opera singers’ fist. THEIR approach is to control the opponent while striking him. Can a smaller person use that approach? Sure. In judo you are grappling (in a clinch), don’t they refer to the smaller person overcoming the larger person? How? By using their strength against them – which comes in large part by breaking their structure.
Even if your approach is to fight inside, can you make the tactical decision to run from a fight? Sure. But if you do have to fight, a smaller person isn’t going to have much chance by opening the space since then s/he will be giving the larger opponent (with longer reach) the room to make full use of his advantage (reach).
You use boxers as example of fighting sometimes. Well, boxers teach retreating: http://www.ehow.com/list_6731465_basic-boxing-footwork-exercises.html
In and out training:
http://www.expertboxing.com/boxing-strategies/boxing-tactics/108-basic-boxing-footwork-strategy
Here’s a quote from http://www.myboxingcoach.com/footwork-the-pivot/:
“Youre taking on a boxer whos supremely talented on the retreat but doesnt offer the same threat on the front foot. You can attempt to chase your opponent down, cutting off the ring, but you are aware that by doing this youll be fighting to your opponents strength. . . . .”
Boxing’s method is not WCK’s method. Boxing is a free-movement method of fighting, and in free-movement (when not attached) what boxers do makes great sense. It doesn’t make great sense when you are attached (WCK’s method).
I studied boxing at Gleason’s when it was near the Garden. My first lesson reminded me of the Wing Chun advancing and retreating footwork.
You post here like you’re so knowledgeable but many of your posts on combat and Wing Chun prove otherwise.
WTF is “combat”? I’m not talking about “combat” but about fighting. WCK’s method of fighting is to control your opponent while striking him. You can’t control him while retreating.
And p.s., WCK’s operative range, the range where its tools work, is when we can touch the opponent’s body with our hand. Outside of that range, our tools break down and don’t function (which is why the WCK kickboxers can’t use WCK movement as they are too far away). Chi sao “range” is WCK’s operative range.