[QUOTE=KPM;1253073]For Navin:You said that the Luk Sao platform was part of the snake and crane WCK of Lo Man Kung which predates YKS. I can’t find anything on this. Do you have links with info?[/QUOTE]
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=153965044713296
[QUOTE=KPM;1253073]For Hunt1: You said that the Luk Sao platform was part of the Chum Kiu form in some lineages. Can you describe what you mean by this?[/QUOTE]
At 0:17 into this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEy5Ur93RBc
[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1253079]At 0:17 into this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEy5Ur93RBc[/QUOTE]
Ha, interesting. What’s the point of that?
[QUOTE=KPM;1253073]For Navin:
You said that the Luk Sao platform was part of the snake and crane WCK of Lo Man Kung which predates YKS. I can’t find anything on this. Do you have links with info?
For Hunt1:
You said that the Luk Sao platform was part of the Chum Kiu form in some lineages. Can you describe what you mean by this?
For Hendrik and Spencer:
You both said you had documents that describe Luk Sao platform. Can you provide us with a English translation of those descriptions along with authorship and dating?
I’ve looked for footage of Vietnamese Wing Chun doing the Luk Sao rolling Chi Sao platform and have only found footage similar to the post that started this thread. Does anyone have a link to a vid showing them using Luk Sao?
From the evidence at hand, there are no indications of the specific Luk Sao rolling platform being used as a two-man interactive exercise prior to the generation of YM and YKS. The evidence suggests that the interaction of the “three heroes of Foshan”…Yuen Kay San, Yip Man, and Yiu Choi came up with it. Since Yuen Chai Wan was YKS’s brother and Yiu Choi’s teacher at one point it makes sense he would have been shown this as well. Since they all interacted with Ng Chun So as well, its hard to rule him out as the originator. We do have Sum Nun saying he was there and that Yuen Kay San was the one that developed this and shared with at least Yip Man.
I don’t have anything invested in this either way, and in the end it really doesn’t matter. But I find it interesting from an historical standpoint. I’m open to solid evidence that shows that Luk Sao existed as a “double arm Chi Sao” training exercise prior to these gentlemen.[/QUOTE]
KPM,
It is in the following note book written 1890.
It is keep within the snake crane wing chun lineage only , in next issue of new martial hero, the content will be briefly reveal to the world to show how Wck is as it in pre 1890 era.
The note is still for inner circle family member. Only a few seen it including Sifu Robert Chu .
It is a big book in Classical Chinese on Wck key points and curriculum …etc. No English translation in the mean time. Not intend to open for public . It is reveal partially combine with yik kam kuit in the next issue of new martial hero magazine just to clarify Wck root and content by documented evidence, when todays world is having many version of Wck history.
Combine the yik kam kuit and this note we do know what happen with Wck in 1850 to 1890 era with a 20/20 sight on the big picture. This two ancient document echo each other’s even they are from different isolated Wck lineages for past 160 years. and provide clear description of Wck in that era. So, yes, we do have evidence on what is happening and evolution.
With these informations above, we now go beyond yks and Ipman or even Leung jan era, we know what is WWB , yik kam , lo man Kung red boat era Wck, or go straight to Wck of Leung LAN Kwai the god son of Yim wing chun and person who responsible to spread Wck in the red boat opera 1850 . No speculation, what one see is what one get. We have gone that far.
Per sifu Robert Chu and my conversation yesterday, we don’t even have 50 % of ancient Wck kungfu as in the document develop. Via the two documents, we can see No one lineage has it all, but every lineage has a great piece of Wck.
A brief intro for the " wing chun kuen true description " in next issue ( nov 2013) of new martial hero magazine. This will be the first time in the past 80 years Wck history and root is presented as it by the ancient documents.
Any volunteer love to helping to translate the following to English is greatly appreciate! Thanks!
1840 ,
1850 -1890
1850
1850 -1890
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1253085]Per sifu Robert Chu and my conversation yesterday, we don’t even have 50 % of ancient Wck kungfu as in the document develop. Via the two documents, we can see No one lineage has it all, but every lineage has a great piece of Wck.[/QUOTE]
Very interesting
. I wonder which aspects of Wing Chun have been lost over time…? And for what reason(s)?
Lack of Power generation, momentum handling , internal Kung development,…etc.
Causing the handling to be not fully activate… Lost of indepth development …etc.
After 1950 , Wck evolve to fit general public needs …etc.
IMHO
From 1850 to 1865 is war time, china continuous to struggle upto 1911, china never settle until 1990,
lost of Wck seniors in uprising , lack of time for proper indepth training as in 1830. Information lost big time.
Thus, one has different type of stories.
Such as Wck is for those who is un educated in red boat.
The matter of fact is both the writing from yik kam and snake crane Wck shows highly educated writing.
Thus, one can’t expect to have villages who learn for simple self defense to know those advance stuffs .
The first thing was lost is the yjkym. Clamping goat is an explanation to villagers folk.
You take that as ultimate role model you dead.
Simple as that but no one raise the issue in the past 70 years keep clamping the knees the ankle,
thinking some days some Devine being is going to help one to become super man like Bruce lee.
As in this picture, those nam kuen type of locking clamping joints, one can’t do force flow from ground ,
some called it structure, and I call it loading down knees and ankle rack.
It violate law of physics or newton mechanic. So, the whole thing end up to become a body push , who is big in muscle who win arena.
That is not what the Wck type.
Time needs to wake up.
[QUOTE=HybridWarrior;1253088]Very interesting
. I wonder which aspects of Wing Chun have been lost over time…? And for what reason(s)?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KPM;1253072]So, you are saying that there are various “labels” and that all of these are distinct and important? I thought you didn’t like labels. ;)[/QUOTE]
Well no not exactly, there are interactive methods that have specific Wing Chun labels 
And no. I do not like labels that are used to market my sigung and his teachings, like Kulo/Gulao/Piensan etc and everyone that knows me knows this too, as you do so stop taking the pi$$ lol!
[QUOTE=KPM;1253072]Yes, and in most Yip Man lineages the rolling without going into attacks is called “Luk Sao.” [/QUOTE]
Ah… this is not what I am talking about. Looksau for me is a closer range forearm to forearm rotation, so in fact everything is attacking because you are in range and it is only the fusion of each roll that nullifies the attack from breaking through. What I mostly see in other Ip families is the practise of Poonsau, more wrist to wrist and longer range.
[QUOTE=KPM;1253072]You seem to have replaced “Chi Sao” as a general term with “Doi Lien.” Most lineages don’t do that and so wouldn’t talk that way in general discussion. Now, in your categorization, if Luk Sao is rolling without attacks, Gor Sao is rolling with attacks, and San Sao is essentially free-fighting…what are Chi Sao and Poon Sao?[/QUOTE]
Yes I have done what you say because that is how it was written for me. Where the original writings originate is the question, because IMHO they come from a time before Ip Mans HK era. The term I know is unique to our Academy.
[QUOTE=KPM;1253072]You could have just said: “this is how LSWCK labels the various interactive training” and saved us a lot of trouble! :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Well if I had said that I would be wrong. One, I do not believe is this LSWC label and two, both uncles that are still teaching (Goh & Lee) do not use these terms at all as far as I know. It’s simply Chisau for everything interactive other than sparring. As I have said, I use this term for my own reasons and don’t expect anyone else to adopt them lol!!
Each to their own (again!)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=153965044713296
Wow! That’s got to be some of the worst examples of Chi Sao I’ve seen in awhile! There may have been 3 or so rolls in there in a “Luk Sao” structure, but it was hard to tell. Mostly just flailing about!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEy5Ur93RBc
It would take some vivid imagination to derive the Luk Sao rolling platform from that! First, its just one side or one arm…just like in the Pin Sun Dai Lim Tao drill. There is a significant step from that to using the two-arm rolling of Luk Sao Chi Sao. Second, most lineages interpret these movements as joint locks or controlling movements, maybe an inward Pak Sao with a palm strike. But I’ve never seen anyone associate this with Chi Sao.
I do not believe is this LSWC label and two, both uncles that are still teaching (Goh & Lee) do not use these terms at all as far as I know. It’s simply Chisau for everything interactive other than sparring. As I have said, I use this term for my own reasons and don’t expect anyone else to adopt them lol!!
Then the next time you take objection to the terminology someone else uses, which happens to be pretty standard terminology, maybe you should explain yourself a little better!
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1253085]Per sifu Robert Chu and my conversation yesterday, we don’t even have 50 % of ancient Wck kungfu as in the document develop. .[/QUOTE]
At least you are man enough to admit you don’t have complete WC. 
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1253085]Via the two documents, we can see No one lineage has it all, but every lineage has a great piece of Wck.[/QUOTE]
Please don’t speak for everyone - I highly doubt you or Robert have the experience in even a 1/10th of the WCK out there, let alone even seen them, to make these ignorant statements.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1253085]Per sifu Robert Chu and my conversation yesterday, we don’t even have 50 % of ancient Wck kungfu as in the document develop. Via the two documents, we can see No one lineage has it all, but every lineage has a great piece of Wck.[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%! if WCK people would but aside their politics and agendas for the greater good of the WCK Art, and just compare notes with each other constructively regardless of differences in linage, we would have a better picture of what the ancient Wck kungfu was.
Forums like this one are a great medium for that, but unfortunately only few on here are willling to do so.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;1253085]Per sifu Robert Chu and my conversation yesterday, we don’t even have 50 % of ancient Wck kungfu as in the document develop. Via the two documents, we can see No one lineage has it all, but every lineage has a great piece of Wck.[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%! if WCK people would but aside their politics and agendas for the greater good of the WCK Art, and just compare notes with each other constructively regardless of differences in linage, we would have a better picture of what the ancient Wck kungfu was.
Forums like this one are a great medium for that, but unfortunately only few on here are willling to do so.
[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1253495]I agree 100%! if WCK people would but aside their politics and agendas for the greater good of the WCK Art, and just compare notes with each other constructively regardless of differences in linage, we would have a better picture of what the ancient Wck kungfu was.
Forums like this one are a great medium for that, but unfortunately only few on here are willling to do so.[/QUOTE]
Navin,
With the two ancient documents it is very clear now on what happen. Now we can piece up things to see big pictures and details. How different kuit fit into the big picture. As in this Sung Num YKS kuit as in photo fitting into which part of the snake crane Wck secret note.
As for politics , sure, it is just too many defending their own lineages. Yesterday, I told some one I don’t care which history speculation, I only based on the two documents here on. What exist exist. Facts is facts. I sure will give face to those who makes up his - story because they are just human like us. But as for what is closes to the truth, the standard is in next moth new martial hero magazine and reveal to the world. No one can change what is exist. The definition of Wck will come out because more and more people will share and speak up for the truth.
Notice that almost every few years I present a new evidence to support my presentation since decade ago in here. I have never changed my story or history but more and more evidence found, more and more family join in. The view get Clearer and clearer. As I mention before, my agenda is education.
I am so confused by all these labels.
[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1253495]I agree 100%! if WCK people would but aside their politics and agendas for the greater good of the WCK Art, and just compare notes with each other constructively regardless of differences in linage, we would have a better picture of what the ancient Wck kungfu was.
Forums like this one are a great medium for that, but unfortunately only few on here are willling to do so.[/QUOTE]
Maybe it’s not unwillingness, maybe it’s just that some people here don’t agree that WCK is a shell of what it once was and therefore don’t feel the need to have to try to piece it back together.
I won’t argue the fact that there’s far too much politics in WC today, but I don’t feel the need for a ‘better picture of what ancient WCK kungfu was’. That would mean the assumption that all of today’s WCK is incomplete, or as some would have us believe, only 50% of what it once was. Besides the fact that there’s no way to even prove this without a time machine, yeah, I’m sure that is the case for some - but not for all. I for one don’t feel that way about my WCK..
[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1253581]Maybe it’s not unwillingness, maybe it’s just that some people here don’t agree that WCK is a shell of what it once was and therefore don’t feel the need to have to try to piece it back together.
..[/QUOTE]
I agree. Times change. The needs of a fighting method change. How do we know we even want to do whatever this “ancient” WCK may have been? How do we know that those elders wouldn’t look at some of the innovations that have happened in WCK with time and say..“that’s pretty good! Show me how you did that!”
And I think this was said before? But ALL Wing chun was “made up” by someone! Lots of martial arts have been mish mashed to create a new system from parts of several older ones. Some have just been made up more recently than others! What counts is good biomechanics and effectiveness. You can have all the ancient double helix power, but if you end up on your back every time a good grappler shoots in, then it might be worthless!
OK, I’m kind of hesitant to say this, given the recent kumbaya moment about politics and agendas. But what the heck, this is KFO forums after all!
First. I contacted Robert. He has seen the documents that Hendrik notes. He has even visited the Snake-Crane guys that Navin mentioned. You know what his comment was? He said there would be no Luk Sao Chi Sao in the modern sense without Yuen Kay San!
Second. I’m surprised none of the Hung Fa Yi guys have commented about this point. But if, based on available evidence, it looks more and more like the Luk Sao Chi Sao platform was developed by one of the “3 heroes of Foshan”, then it begs the question…where did Garrett Gee learn it??? I have no agenda and no politics, just curious about history!
He said there would be------- no Luk Sao Chi Sao in the modern sense ------ without Yuen Kay San!
based on available evidence, it looks more and more like the Luk Sao Chi Sao platform was developed by one of the “3 heroes of Foshan”. ? [/B]
[QUOTE=KPM;1253623]OK, I’m kind of hesitant to say this, given the recent kumbaya moment about politics and agendas. But what the heck, this is KFO forums after all! 
First. I contacted Robert. He has seen the documents that Hendrik notes. He has even visited the Snake-Crane guys that Navin mentioned. You know what his comment was? He said there would be no Luk Sao Chi Sao in the modern sense without Yuen Kay San!
Second. I’m surprised none of the Hung Fa Yi guys have commented about this point. But if, based on available evidence, it looks more and more like the Luk Sao Chi Sao platform was developed by one of the “3 heroes of Foshan”, then it begs the question…where did Garrett Gee learn it??? I have no agenda and no politics, just curious about history! ;)[/QUOTE]
Do you know what is a double helix embedded in the ck set?
Can you activate the three sets of Wck as it means to be or design for?
Do you practice wing chun kuen?
You sure can created your new system, but like Bruce lee, please call it JKD.
Time can change, but should Wck Upto anyone to define it?
As for
*You can have all the ancient double helix power, but if you end up on your back every time a good grappler shoots in, then it might be worthless!
First know what it is before making comment.
Second, tell me which style or which technic is guarentee to work and make one invincible every time ?
Third, how do your ck set function properly without double helix?
Some one can say But ALL Wing chun was “made up” by someone!
Sure but too bad he is not wing chun thus what he made up is not what wing chun made up.
That simple.
As I share with you previously, Wck doesn’t do southern mantis type of side blocking. Otherwise, it is not Wck.
[QUOTE=KPM;1253621]I agree. Times change. The needs of a fighting method change. How do we know we even want to do whatever this “ancient” WCK may have been? How do we know that those elders wouldn’t look at some of the innovations that have happened in WCK with time and say.."that’s pretty good! Show me how you di
And I think this was said before? But ALL Wing chun was “made up” by someone! Lots of martial arts have been mish mashed to create a new system from parts of several older ones. Some have just been made up more recently than others! What counts is good biomechanics and effectiveness. You can have all the ancient double helix power, but if you end up on your back every time a good grappler shoots in, then it might be worthless![/QUOTE]
Accept what is there by evidence.
But lots of people can not take that. There is where the agenda and politic starts.
the kuit of Luk Sao
opponent soft I am soft
opponent hard I will recieve and issue in the same time
clamping the yang I inject the yin force down to the ground
You see what you get. Yes, they play with force vectors.
So, how can yks invent the Luk Sao chi Sao platform when in 1890 people already record these?
Yks might practice Thier Luk Sao chi sau in Thier own way which is respectable ,valid and legitimate. However, that doesn’t mean YKS or the three hero invented the Luk Sao chi sau platform.
Same with some one saying YKS created the three sets. That too is not accord with reality. Yks might practice and evolve his three sets, which is respectable and valid. But he doesn’t invent the three sets .
Can I define Wck? Sure, but called it Hendrik way of Wck or Hendrik Do but not Wck as practice in the past. And also no guarentee Hendrik knows what the heck he is talking about if you want to learn the real Wck.
[B]I rest my case here and no going to follow this thread , I leave the cards which will open to tell its own story. It is a simple technology case. Is it an apple platform of android platform as simple as that.
Finally is there a invincible ipad from apple? No such thing exist in the world. But one don’t call ones invention ipad from apple.
As I have told some Wck sifus yesterday, I am ok whatever history you love to defense your lineage or boost yourself. on Wck , I only trust that two writing which validate each other’s from the 1850 to 1890 , the rest doesn’t matter. Because it is the true face of technology I would like to see. [/B]