levitate

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
61

[QUOTE=GlennR;1072835]Hi John

Id be interested on your take on the idea of comparing WC to Tai Chi… similar or vastly different?
Or somewhere in between
Regards
GlennR[/QUOTE]

Hello Glenn,

Can’t speak for other people, just my own experience.

If I equate Martial Arts to cook books, I will say the IYTC is a book on “the science of cooking”, while the KLWC is the “Master Recipe” book.

There was one time Master Wei countered my punches with something that looked like a Bong Sau and threw me across the room; and then when Master Leung asked me the show him some applications of IYTC, I did a “White Snake” and he said “but that’s our Stack Palms, and I haven’t taught you that yet!”

KLWC focuses on breaking structures, striking and attacking; IYTC focuses on defending, throwing and NOT to hurt anyone. So there are similarities and differences. But there are only so many ways a body can be used. Once the BS is peeled off I find a lot of arts merging into the same pot, as long as the art is combat orientated.

Cheers,
John

62

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1072868]That was my question?

  • Why do I need to know levitation?
  • If I don’t know levitation then what problem that I’ll have?
  • Can levitation enhance my combat skill?

I don’t know levitation so far and I haven’t found anything missing yet. Can levitation enhance my “hip throw” or my “roundhouse kick”?

If you are talking about dynamic rooting then I’ll agree with you that dynamic rooting is more useful than static rooting. But apparently you are not talking about “dynamic rooting” and I truly don’t understand your “agenda”.[/QUOTE]

Trust me, he’ll keep talking in circles, drop a name here and there but never actually answer your question, as it may expose his lack of applicable combat knowledge

GlennR

63

[QUOTE=imperialtaichi;1072871]Hello Glenn,

Can’t speak for other people, just my own experience.

If I equate Martial Arts to cook books, I will say the IYTC is a book on “the science of cooking”, while the KLWC is the “Master Recipe” book.

There was one time Master Wei countered my punches with something that looked like a Bong Sau and threw me across the room; and then when Master Leung asked me the show him some applications of IYTC, I did a “White Snake” and he said “but that’s our Stack Palms, and I haven’t taught you that yet!”

KLWC focuses on breaking structures, striking and attacking; IYTC focuses on defending, throwing and NOT to hurt anyone. So there are similarities and differences. But there are only so many ways a body can be used. Once the BS is peeled off I find a lot of arts merging into the same pot, as long as the art is combat orientated.

Cheers,
John[/QUOTE]

Thanks for that John

GlennR

64

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1072839]John,

Could you please elaborate what is “feeling like sitting on a swing” means? Thanks!

As for who mention what, my take is it is all about the state of attainment.

However, if the art itself is not par or match up to the level then the depth of the art is obvious.[/QUOTE]

Hello Hendrik,

I don’t think it was just different states of attainment; but different focuses, methods and goals.

Anyway, this is from a PURELY THEORETICAL IYTC point of view:

Stability is not attained through strong roots; but rather so unstable that the opponent cannot apply any force onto you. You can also move freely in any directions with the minimal of force, but always return the central equilibrium while releasing the “borrowed” energy. Hence solid rooting is a hinderance and it is not required; it becomes rather like, “sitting on a swing.”

“I am not concerned with my opponent being stronger than me; but rather if he changes faster than me, more agile than me and more accurate than me.”

Since this is not a Tai Chi forum, it is not appropriate to discuss these methodology further.

Cheers,
John

65

Hendrik is completely clear here speaking of a neutral state. If you have this already, you have a basis for ting jing, dong jing, and hua jing where you can react to the 6 direction vectors. You are in “neutral”. So will this apply to fighting? Completely so.

Demanding answers or wanting combat application or complaining doesn’t get it for you - go into the space between silence and movement, static and dynamic, and you change in accord to your opponent’s intention. This is also why wck is a neijia or should I say nei xiu (internal cultivation) and why Yang Luchan was “wu di” (without peer) - his skill makes no mistakes.

One of the better threads I have read in a long time and Hendrik was completely obvious, but the noise in some heads came out, :slight_smile: lol!

John, I have to say we both have tai ji and gu lao, so your comments are appreciated. And HS, our descendants will see a big clue of wck’s past… practice with noise or silence? Lol!

66

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1072826]-------------------------------------

or

As soon as there is movement, the whole body should be fluid, agile, and light
having all parts connected like a string of pearls. The energy is arousing, pure, and full.
The spirit is gathered and refined. No place for gaps or deficiencies. No place for unevenness. No place for disconnection.

------------------------------------[/QUOTE]

Thanks for sharing this insight Hendrik, and again I can sort of see why others get frustrated at your ideas. From what I understand here, you are explaining an internal feeling of a specific type of hei/chi/qi manipulation which causes the sensation of levitation?

Others feel that you have to be rooted, but if you think in terms of your hei/chi/qi then it is more understandable. We all know your feet will still have a connection to the ground, but if your hei/chi/qi is in constant motion or alive then you shouldn’t feel this rooting, you will feel a sort of levitation. Personally, I have also felt the same thing after a visit to a good chiropractor or after looking into the Alexander Technique so for me the ancient and modern are already around us outside of the Martial Arts. And that needs to be considered here.

As for it’s connection to Wing Chun and SLT it does make sense. If SLT is a neutral form, CK a sinking form and BJ a floating form, these are all different heigung methods. In fact, again, this type of energy is presented all around us in Martial Arts from BJJ to TKD. But the ‘neutrality’ isn’t so common imho which makes our SLT even more special.

And FWIW I do think ‘buoancy’ is a pretty good word to describe this effect. Although 9 times out of ten a buoy is anchored so it may not be as accurate as levitate. I like the term ‘arisen’.

67

To continue Hendrik’s ship/wave/anchor analogy and Robert’s rather telling “riding” alternative. If you surf you ride the wave. If you anchor the surfboard don’t expect to be still standing on the board when its all over.

68

[QUOTE=chusauli;1072880]Hendrik is completely clear here speaking of a neutral state. If you have this already, you have a basis for ting jing, dong jing, and hua jing where you can react to the 6 direction vectors. You are in “neutral”. So will this apply to fighting? Completely so.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree. Hendrik is not “completely clear” – he is maddeningly unclear. Even though I know what he is talking about, he only succeeds in making it confusing! He is using comic book language, poor reasoning, pseudo-science, etc. Quite frankly, if I didn’t already know Hendrik I would assume he was a complete idiot and a fraud, just like many people here.

And none of that (ting jing, dong jing, hua jing) will apply to fighting. Those things are not “real”. They don’t describe what is really going on with either your body or with your interaction (chi sao or fighting) with your opponent. There are no various “energies”.

Looking at martial arts this way is not in any way helpful – it is counter-productive. It will only make you worse. You will be going in the wrong direction in your training, your thinking, in everything you do. Looking at the world, your body, fighting, etc. through fantasy terms, using a fantasy model, etc. only takes you off course.

Demanding answers or wanting combat application or complaining doesn’t get it for you -

No, it won’t.

go into the space between silence and movement, static and dynamic, and you change in accord to your opponent’s intention.

I think that is all nonsense too. WTF does that mean? Have you ever noticed that boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc. doesn’t talk about the opponent’s “intention”? Let alone being “in accord with it.” Or about “silence”? Etc. They are concerned with reality, what really matters, etc. Not nonsense.

WCK is very simple. Not easy to do mind you, but very simple and straight forward: control the opponent (by breaking his structure and keeping it broken) while striking him. Focus on THAT. Focus on DOING THAT. Not all the bullsh1t.

This is also why wck is a neijia or should I say nei xiu (internal cultivation) and why Yang Luchan was “wu di” (without peer) - his skill makes no mistakes.

Neijia is more nonsense. WCK has it’s OWN mechanics for doing what it does. If someone wants to develop those mechanics, the ONLY way is by and through doing what it does.

One of the better threads I have read in a long time and Hendrik was completely obvious, but the noise in some heads came out, :slight_smile: lol!

And I think it was, like so many of Hendrik’s threads – which could be useful – to be a complete waste of time.

John, I have to say we both have tai ji and gu lao, so your comments are appreciated. And HS, our descendants will see a big clue of wck’s past… practice with noise or silence? Lol!

I agree that John provided good insight into the difference between WCK and tai ji’s METHOD.

With regard to “noise or silence” – all that Hendrik is providing is more fantasy fu for the fire.

69

[QUOTE=imperialtaichi;1072879]Hello Hendrik,

I don’t think it was just different states of attainment; but different focuses, methods and goals.

Anyway, this is from a PURELY THEORETICAL IYTC point of view:

Stability is not attained through strong roots; but rather so unstable that the opponent cannot apply any force onto you. You can also move freely in any directions with the minimal of force, but always return the central equilibrium while releasing the “borrowed” energy. Hence solid rooting is a hinderance and it is not required; it becomes rather like, “sitting on a swing.”

“I am not concerned with my opponent being stronger than me; but rather if he changes faster than me, more agile than me and more accurate than me.”

Since this is not a Tai Chi forum, it is not appropriate to discuss these methodology further.

Cheers,
John[/QUOTE]

John,

Thanks for your description.

For me, there is no different as if it is Tai Chi forum or Wing Chun forum when it comes to Advance TCMA, human body is human body. also examine different method and compare them will lead to more understanding.

As in Wing Chun kuen kuit says " Comes accept, goes return… lead action with silence" it has implied this is not an art of Rooting but following or .

Thus the IYTC principle is in the similar direction otherwise the art cannot achieve using less to defeat more.

70

[QUOTE=chusauli;1072880]

John, I have to say we both have tai ji and gu lao, so your comments are appreciated. And HS, our descendants will see a big clue of wck’s past… practice with noise or silence? Lol![/QUOTE]

Robert, yup. we leave the trace to the coming WCners.

Like a pupa turn into the butterfly, it must first get into and stay in the cocoon, then, it must leave the Cocoon to fly. Sure, it is extremely not comfortable to leave that cocoon of rooting or body structure, but in order to fly there is only one choice ---- get rid of the cocoon.

Ten years ago you raise the issue of body structure so that those who cant integrate their body/root to focus on the integration.

Now, Ten years later, we go a head and tear a part the body structure, the entire body behind the move, rooting with Riding, Floating, surfing…etc to get to flow.

71

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1072881]

Others feel that you have to be rooted, …
And FWIW I do think ‘bouancy’ is a pretty good word to describe this effect. Although 9 times out of ten a bouy is anchored so it may not be as accurate as levitate. I like the term ‘arisen’.[/QUOTE]

Yup, rooting some how becomes the truth for some, thus it is not easy to see beyond it.

When the physical body open up joints by joints, the Qi is flow lively, when Qi flow lively the body is open up. So be it from any angle it is " float" or whatever one wants to call it. Chen Man Ching the Taiji master call it Swimming in the air.

72

[QUOTE=CFT;1072882]To continue Hendrik’s ship/wave/anchor analogy and Robert’s rather telling “riding” alternative. If you surf you ride the wave. If you anchor the surfboard don’t expect to be still standing on the board when its all over.[/QUOTE]

Surf board is a great analogy.

As you know by now, that “term” is no longer important since we get the concept a cross.

and doing SLT is like surfing with micro moves of the whole body. instead of become a Woodern Dummy rooting there and just move the arm.

73

[QUOTE=YouKnowWho;1072868]That was my question?

  • Why do I need to know levitation?
  • If I don’t know levitation then what problem that I’ll have?
  • Can levitation enhance my combat skill?

I don’t know levitation so far and I haven’t found anything missing yet. Can levitation enhance my “hip throw” or my “roundhouse kick”?

If you are talking about dynamic rooting then I’ll agree with you that dynamic rooting is more useful than static rooting. But apparently you are not talking about “dynamic rooting” and I truly don’t understand your “agenda”.[/QUOTE]

You dont need to know because you are not practicing WCK but other external art.

for WCner the only way to truly activate SLT is via " Levitation, Floating, Surfing, Swimming…"

The following is a must to follow:

The whole body must not use one more gram of excessive effort, spontaneously handling the physical accord to the nature qi medirians flow, sipping/tasting the fine details is the wonderful theme of the practice.

Otherwise, the practice is dead, It will not produce the result SLT is designed for to support---- Comes accept goes return…etc. WCK is an Agile based art not a power root based art. As now the Contact point power and the body follow hand concept surface as in the other thread. Doesnt it proves that you are not expose to the Internal of WCK?

We have a good idea on what is a pre 1840 WCK extreme likely to be. and I believe all WCners deserve to know ----- Levitate, Contact point power…etc will surface.

Some might object the release of those type of pre 1840 signatures because it shows a strong evident to how WCK core and history doesnt likely to be what they believe in.

IE:
the HKB WCK power generation, that is not a Contact point power type. Thus it cant be WCK’s power generation type for inch power.

Shao lin WCK rooting stance as in Nam Kuen or Hung gar, rooting is a hinderance for practicing SLT. Thus, those type of art doesnt fit well into SLT.

Thus, the above two type of WCK can be considered as an evolution of WCK but it cant be the original form of WCK, Why? because these practice cannot make the core of WCK – SLT alive well.

However, saying the above, respect must be given to every evolution branch of WCK because every evolution is some one’s creative ideas and effort.

74

you are similar to a pupa in the cocoon thinking the cocoon is the whole world and ultimate, when other has become butterfly and fly freely.

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;1072886]I disagree. Hendrik is not “completely clear” – he is maddeningly unclear. Even though I know what he is talking about, he only succeeds in making it confusing! He is using comic book language, poor reasoning, pseudo-science, etc. Quite frankly, if I didn’t already know Hendrik I would assume he was a complete idiot and a fraud, just like many people here.

And none of that (ting jing, dong jing, hua jing) will apply to fighting. Those things are not “real”. They don’t describe what is really going on with either your body or with your interaction (chi sao or fighting) with your opponent. There are no various “energies”.

Looking at martial arts this way is not in any way helpful – it is counter-productive. It will only make you worse. You will be going in the wrong direction in your training, your thinking, in everything you do. Looking at the world, your body, fighting, etc. through fantasy terms, using a fantasy model, etc. only takes you off course.

No, it won’t.

I think that is all nonsense too. WTF does that mean? Have you ever noticed that boxing, wrestling, BJJ, etc. doesn’t talk about the opponent’s “intention”? Let alone being “in accord with it.” Or about “silence”? Etc. They are concerned with reality, what really matters, etc. Not nonsense.

WCK is very simple. Not easy to do mind you, but very simple and straight forward: control the opponent (by breaking his structure and keeping it broken) while striking him. Focus on THAT. Focus on DOING THAT. Not all the bullsh1t.

Neijia is more nonsense. WCK has it’s OWN mechanics for doing what it does. If someone wants to develop those mechanics, the ONLY way is by and through doing what it does.

And I think it was, like so many of Hendrik’s threads – which could be useful – to be a complete waste of time.

I agree that John provided good insight into the difference between WCK and tai ji’s METHOD.

With regard to “noise or silence” – all that Hendrik is providing is more fantasy fu for the fire.[/QUOTE]

75

[QUOTE=Sihing73;1072820]If that is truly how you feel, that your time is wasted, then why bother posting at all? Others here are getting something from what is posted, if you are unable or unwilling to do so then that is your choice. However, others apparently do not feel the same way.

Terms are always open to interpretation, particularily in WC as words and terms do not translate directly into English or whatever your mother tongue may be.[/QUOTE]

The post directly below yours seems to indicate that others do feel the same way. It also doesn’t help that you are deleting posts that describe the term “levitation” as ridiculous.

That is a little hypocritical - to delete dissenting posts and then to portray public opinion as concurring, don’t you think? There is a little bit of a conflict of interest in moderating a thread and posting with an opinion on the thread. You need to keep that in mind.

As far as terms being open to interpretation, my position on that is until someone directly calls out Hendrick on being stubborn with respect to saying “my description stands”, he does not do anything with respect to trying to communicate in terms that better describe his concept. I quoted the portion of his post that displayed this attitude.

Since I called him out on that, we have several synonyms that have emerged that all are more appropriate - “floating”, “buoyancy”, etc. Most of them have come from others trying to be Hendrik apologists. I still say to all of them - make him do his own work - he can use the same dictionary.com site to use a Thesaurus to come up with similar words where he can check the meanings against his understanding of the original Mandarin. My position on that still holds. I do try to understand the concepts in their original language, but to those who do not speak that language, it is of zero help to try and discuss these concepts without someone who takes effort and responsibility in translation and communication. And it’s the attitude of that I am confronting. Laziness.

We are now getting closer to where you can actually have a conversation about this. Do these concepts exist in Western fighting understanding? Absolutely. A key concept in grappling is to be tight enough to your opponent to control their movement, but loose enough to “float” to handle responding quickly to and countering their movements. If you lack that quality you are easily swept or reversed. In striking, good boxers / MT practitioners know how to flow with an opponent’s energy and make them miss. This could be described as “floating” to a certain extent.

Many of the clips we have seen, like the recent “WC vs. Boxer” clip you see the boxer having a greater ability to “float” than the WC guy. Many lower to mid level WC guys you see static upright head in one position moving back and forward on one straight line attacking centerline. That is absolutely lacking in any “floating” characteristic.

76

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1072901]The whole body must not use one more gram of excessive effort, spontaneously handling the physical accord to the nature qi medirians flow, sipping/tasting the fine details is the wonderful theme of the practice.
[/QUOTE]

What I agree with in this statement is that in any art the greater the technical ability the more efficient the energy is that you use. The goal in progression in arts is to become technically proficient enough that you control your opponent while utilizing less effort than your opponent.

77

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1072898]Surf board is a great analogy.

As you know by now, that “term” is no longer important since we get the concept a cross.

and doing SLT is like surfing with micro moves of the whole body. instead of become a Woodern Dummy rooting there and just move the arm.[/QUOTE]

Surfing or “riding waves” is a good analogy.

But quite the opposite, “terms” are absolutely important as they are the minute detail or “mechanics” of getting a concept across.

78

Actually, IMO Hendrik has been quite clear.

Levitate, float, buoyancy & other equivalencies.

In a way he is descibing a very natural path that has been forgotten in some systems.

IMO- 1. one does not need taiji or gulao or Yik Kam to get to that point… good Ip Man wing chun will do it too.

  1. it’s not about east or west- it’s perspective on natural motion present in east and west but more consistently emphasized in some TCMA-s.

  2. But understanding and fusing the so called external elements are important too- of one doesn’t get out of the way- a Mack truck can run over Chuck Norris and Chen Man Ching.

joy chaudhuri

79

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1072896]When the physical body open up joints by joints, the Qi is flow lively, when Qi flow lively the body is open up. So be it from any angle it is " float" or whatever one wants to call it. Chen Man Ching the Taiji master call it Swimming in the air.[/QUOTE]

It’s interesting that this thread is littered with more open connections to Taiji Hendrik, but my question to you is “if I have felt something identical to what we are discussing without ever having been trained by a Taiji Master or 12 Zhuang Gatekeeper, how is this possible?”

I ask this because, as you all know, my Sifu learnt from Lee Shing for over 25 years, and he is pretty certain that all he was taught was Wing Chun. Yes, the flavour of Wing Chun may be slightly different than most but it was all still Wing Chun to him and that is what and how I learnt.

Do you have any Yik Kam stanzas that relate to exactly what you are discussing here, or have you got varied Taiji stanzas that have helped you integrate the knowledge into your WCK? Or are they one and the same?

Like I said, very interesting and also very revelaving thread imho. Thanks for sharing.

80

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1072918]2. it’s not about east or west- it’s perspective on natural motion present in east and west but more consistently emphasized in some TCMA-s.
[/QUOTE]

So, not about east or west, but east emphasizes it more consistently?

LOL.

Good instruction regardless of origin will help develop the skills to float.

Oh, and happy “levitation” to you in your WCK. That was such a clear concept.