[QUOTE=HardWork8;889514]Bj is about finger strikes and a whole lot of other things as well.[/QUOTE]I know a couple of versions of biu jee and neither has anything to do with finger strikes. In fact in all the WC forms I know the strikes and moves are kind of unimportant if you’re thinking in terms of application. Finger strikes in biu jee? Meh. Much more important things going on than that.
[QUOTE=Toby;889550]I know a couple of versions of biu jee and neither has anything to do with finger strikes. In fact in all the WC forms I know the strikes and moves are kind of unimportant if you’re thinking in terms of application. Finger strikes in biu jee? Meh. Much more important things going on than that.[/QUOTE]
I can only talk about what I know of my lineage and I will also say that if your Wing Chun does not have IP training then learning finger strikes (Snake and the Crane) would be irrelevant.
It is also possible that a lot of the “quick fix” schools of Wing Chun that are prevalent nowadays will not teach you techniques that are time consuming, specially if the sifus that are teaching, have no knowledge of their existance, just like many instructors who have no knowledge of IP and the internals that are part and parcel of Wing Chun.
At my school the main teacher’s been learning MA for about 50 years and WC for at least 30, maybe 40. At various times up to 3 systems of WC have been taught and I think he’s learned 5, some in more detail than others. We’ve got students who’ve been at the school for about 20 years and earned “sifu” status, although they still consider themselves students. So if it’s a “quick fix” school they’re all obviously slow learners.
With respect to IP, we don’t train IP, no (although my teacher has). I don’t think any private students learn it either at this stage. But we do tend to emphasize a particular strike, and it must be conditioned to be effective and it takes a long time and lots of effort so there are some parallels to IP. It’s regarded as higher percentage than finger techniques.
With respect to “internal training”, there might be some in WC but IMHO it’s not something that is discussed in any system that I’ve seen, at least not in any online videos. Furthermore, in most IMA systems I’ve seen there isn’t any “internal training”.
But anyway, you’re missing my point. Irrespective of what strikes are/aren’t in WC forms, the strikes themselves aren’t the most important part. In fact, the important part might demonstrate part of what you’re calling “internal training” although I doubt you know what I’m talking about since like I said you missed my point and you’re focussing on the hands.
E.g. to emphasize my point - think of a strike like a straight jab. Does it really matter what’s on the end of your arm? Could it be a flat palm, a bagua palm, a sun fist, a horizontal fist, a leopard fist, a phoenix eye fist, a horizontal finger strike, a vertical finger strike, etc, etc? It’s irrelevant. It’s what’s driving the strike that’s important. What drives your strikes? How is that trained in your forms?
[QUOTE=HardWork8;889507]I suspect that you wouldn’t want one of these “poorly skilled” fighters coming at you in a bar.
[/QUOTE]
Any sane person doesn’t “want” to be assaulted.
“Poorly skilled” guys have been gouging each other’s eyes and biting noses for centuries. What makes you think that a fighter trained in kung fu cannot do the same?
Poorly skilled people getting away with stuff against other poorly skilled people isn’t a good barometer of how we should proceed to develop skill in fighting.
Talking of experience, how many Snake stylists have you defeated in real fights, recently? Actually, how many ANY stylists of kung fu have you defeated, recently?
I am asking a logical question, here!
No, you’re not. The question you should be asking if you are interested in these “Snake tactics” is not what I’ve done but what evidence exists that “Snake stylists” have ever been able to use these things successfully and consistently in fighting against decent-level competition. And the answer to that question is none. And that is a partial answerto your next point.
Actually it is you who BELIEVE BASED ON SPECULATION THAT IT WOULDN’T WORK!
No, my conclusion is based on evidence (see above). Also, instead of listening to the opinions of nonfighting “kung fu men” tell you what things will or will not work in fighting, why not talk to proven high-level fighters and fight trainers about the sorts of things that will work?
OR do you want me to send an email to Douglas Wong asking him to gouge somebody’s eye for real on YouTube? LOL,LOL,LOL! But then some people would say that the, now blind man, was being compliant…LOL,LOL,LOL!
As I always say, a good laugh never hurts.
Wong’s never fought and will never fight.
People can either base their views and opinions on theory and conjecture or on experience/evidence. In an earlier post I gave a simple way for a person to see for themselves whether this stuff is useful or not – through experience. Similarly if someone thinks this stuff works on the ground, all they need to do is roll with some good grapplers and try to bite or poke and you’ll see. That’s my point: these sorts of things never come from people with actual experience, from someone who says “I routinely pull this stuff off in rolling against purple belts in BJJ”, but from people with no experience but theoretical beliefs of what should work based on stories. The fact we don’t hear it from anyone with experience is revealing.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;889501]I am glad :)..It looks like it so far, but then I wouldn’t be suprised if the Snake manifests itself in one of the Yip Man lineages as well, because I really believe that all Wing Chun has these elements. Maybe a Yip Man practitioner can pleasantly surprise us in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Strictly speaking, I’m of Ip Man heritage via Lee Shing. SO I’d have to confirm that Snake concepts are used in what I have been taught, along with the Crane. Also, Snake characteristics should NEVER be boxed into the idea that it’s all about finger strikes etc. NEVER. Just as The Crane doesn’t JUST fly?!
[QUOTE=t_neihoff;889501]Similarly if someone thinks this stuff works on the ground, all they need to do is roll with some good grapplers and try to bite or poke and you’ll see. That’s my point: these sorts of things never come from people with actual experience…[/QUOTE]
I agree on the most part with what you’re saying here T, and although you may not like it this point helps me explain my previous ramble.
Snake ‘characteristics’ ARE present throughout BJJ imo. Its not the finger striking, but it is definitely present in the ‘gripping’, rolling and submission tactics. After all, that’s all a Snake will do. Bite you, poison you, wrap around you and squeeze you to death. All this before it eats you! 
Sounds like decent BJJ to me…
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;889598]Strictly speaking, I’m of Ip Man heritage via Lee Shing. SO I’d have to confirm that Snake concepts are used in what I have been taught, along with the Crane. Also, Snake characteristics should NEVER be boxed into the idea that it’s all about finger strikes etc. NEVER. Just as The Crane doesn’t JUST fly?!
I agree on the most part with what you’re saying here T, and although you may not like it this point helps me explain my previous ramble.
Snake ‘characteristics’ ARE present throughout BJJ imo. Its not the finger striking, but it is definitely present in the ‘gripping’, rolling and submission tactics. After all, that’s all a Snake will do. Bite you, poison you, wrap around you and squeeze you to death. All this before it eats you!
Sounds like decent BJJ to me…[/QUOTE]
Adding animal names to what we do is a cultural thing, even BJJ is guilty of it with their "anaconda choke: and their “mata leao” ( Lion killer).
Its all good.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;889601]Adding animal names to what we do is a cultural thing, even BJJ is guilty of it with their "anaconda choke: and their “mata leao” ( Lion killer).
Its all good.[/QUOTE]
Then there’s my hero - Eddie Bravo and his names like:
New York
Chill Dog
Kung-Fu Move
etc…
These are names so they can remember positions as well as for calling things out from the sidelines in competition your opponent isn’t aware of. Very true re: cultural influences in MA. The ancient Chinese studied the moon, sun and stars…nature…weather patterns and seasonal changes. It’s no wonder that Tai Chi (based on the Tao) has “natural” names for movements.
[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;889601]Adding animal names to what we do is a cultural thing, even BJJ is guilty of it with their "anaconda choke: and their “mata leao” ( Lion killer).
Its all good.[/QUOTE]
Part of what I’m saying here, but I’m not just referring to ‘names’ of techniques (used secretively or not!)
I’m on about the fundamental characteristics of the early systems. From what I see and who I’ve spoken to BJJ IS a ‘Snake Style’. Why wouldn’t any of the combos or trainig ideas be IN Wing Chun if we’re snake based also?
The simple answer is, they are! Just need to look harder and study more imo
[QUOTE=couch;889620]Then there’s my hero - Eddie Bravo and his names like:
New York
Chill Dog
Kung-Fu Move
etc…
[/QUOTE]
Dirty Sanchez
rusty trambone
angry pirate…
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;889660]
I’m on about the fundamental characteristics of the early systems. From what I see and who I’ve spoken to BJJ IS a ‘Snake Style’.
[/QUOTE]
Yes and no, I guess. Thing it, BJJ is a Judo/JJJ derivative that took the Ne Waza/Ground Fighting and expanded on it. We can draw parallels in any MA to Snake this or Crane that. The main concern is always does it work - pressure tested. 
Stop being such a Dirty Sanchez, LoneTiger! JK Had to use that phrase…LOL
From what I see and who I’ve spoken to BJJ IS a ‘Snake Style’.
I agree with Couch. Analogies will only get you so far.
I use python analogies a lot when teaching choke entries - firm but flexible, strong but not tense, constricting, etc.
But BJJ is IMO a different, er, animal from Snake style KF.
You could say BJJ is like a python, Snake KF more like a rattlesnake or cobra. But ultimately analogies will only get you so far.
To assume that one is a type of the other or vice versa, or that knowledge of one implies some understanding of the other, is IMO doing a disservice to both.
More than meets the eye…
I also agree, which is why i posted earlier…
I have snake techs (or rather techs that are said to be from the snake)
…Because the tech and its effectivness are first and foremost not which animal thier said to derive from.
Which lends back to the original post…“of releance to VT”… the only relevance actions have to that of VT are in two important areas IMO.
Body Mechanics - how your body creates each action.
Timing - where and when you use it.
and with these points in mind i feel whats shown in the vid isnt relevant to MY Chun. His mechanics and timing are differnt, regardless of what experience he has with VT.
You could say BJJ is like a python, Snake KF more like a rattlesnake or cobra. But ultimately analogies will only get you so far.
I agree. I know some are of the opinion that these names derive from the cultural beliefs etc which makes sence, but i also think that using names that we see today
i.e " Dragon steals lotus flower" LOL (one of the more elaborate names, so glad i do VT )
served to preserve thier knowledge and keep ones kung fu close to thier chests.
People couldnt steal theory etc back in the day without learning from a master because of these terms and there… somewhat misleading desguise…
Just my opinion. 
DREW
[QUOTE=Toby;889557]At my school the main teacher’s been learning MA for about 50 years and WC for at least 30, maybe 40. At various times up to 3 systems of WC have been taught and I think he’s learned 5, some in more detail than others. We’ve got students who’ve been at the school for about 20 years and earned “sifu” status, although they still consider themselves students. So if it’s a “quick fix” school they’re all obviously slow learners.[/quote]
Quick Fix schools are just an example of why certain techniques may not be taught in many Wing Chun schools. As you probably know, the majority of Wing chun schools are quick fix schools even some with “credentials”. My mention of these type of schools was meant to be just an example of why some schools may not teach these aspects.
Other reasons may include the fact that some sifus may consider it “irrelevant”.
Some lineages or branches may have taken them out of the curriculum or perhaps they did not have them in the first place.
So there are many possible reasons why you have not seen significant emphasis on the finger strikes.
I am not aware of the system that parallels IP, so I cannot really comment. I can however say that in our lineage IP is fundemental how else will one use finger strikes, chi-na and even - at the later stages of training- some Tiger Claw techniques. So it all depends on the contents of your style.
And that is what I mean when I say that many schools don’t teach certain aspects. The internals are in ALL kung fu styles. We were taught that the first part of Siu Lim Tao is a chi kung exercise.
Here is another school that is of the same opinion:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7kFBHp9oB7g
It does in the way I understand what I practice. It depends on the target you are aiming at, to start with. You are not goint to hit the hard part of the skull with a closed fist, but perhaps a palm strike. Or if you are targeting the eyes, then a finger strike or a phoenix eye may be more relevant.
I am not sure about your question, but here goes. There is never one thing that drives one’s strike. On one level it is intention on the other level it is forward elbow motion inside the body unity and structure, within the Wing Chun concepts and principles. Furthermore the breathing has to be co-ordinated to the strike.
The forms practice incorporate all of the above in relevant dosages.
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;889592]Any sane person doesn’t “want” to be assaulted.[/quote]
In that case let me state again, I suspect that you wouldn’t want any of these “poorly skilled” coming at you in a bar.
SERIOUSLY Terence, they are “unskilled” fighters, so it would be a piece of cake for a “Functionally” trained fighter such as yourself. If such a fighter grabs you to bite your nose, then all you have to do is to blow your nose “functionally” of course, inside his mouth.
You are making more of your “fantasy” assumptions, Terence old boy. For all you know some those guys in the old days had more REAL or dare I say functional fighting experience than you.
The fact that they have survived generations and not only in China, but in Okinawa(in other formats), should tell you they are not useless. However, if you are that interested, then lets form a forum posse (I almost spelt that the wrong way ;)) and search the YouTube for fights where Snake stylists gouge the eyes and puncture the throats of fellow competitors.:rolleyes:
How do you know that they are nonfighting kung fu men. How many of them have you beaten in real fights???
All the sifus that I have had contact with have had numerous fights between them. However, they do not follow what you would classify as “modern” mode of training.
There are some techiques that do not transfer well to competition - and no sir, goggles won’t do!!!, so they are trained in other ways. If you are in doubt then go to your local Chinatown and find out for yourself!
Did you challenge him and he refused?
As I stated my sifus have had plenty of fighting experiences.
Sheesh! now we have to search the YouTube for people who have bitten off the noses of BJJ purple belts.:rolleyes:
Terence, why BJJ purple belts only? Will the bitten-off noses of brown belts do? Come on help us here!
TERENCE! you are the one without experience, if you have not met traditional kung fu sifus who have not fought for real then that is because you have not looked. You have not looked because you were afraid of what you would find!
In short you didn’t want YOUR FANTASY WORLD to crumble to the ground!
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;889598]Strictly speaking, I’m of Ip Man heritage via Lee Shing. SO I’d have to confirm that Snake concepts are used in what I have been taught, along with the Crane. Also, Snake characteristics should NEVER be boxed into the idea that it’s all about finger strikes etc. NEVER. Just as The Crane doesn’t JUST fly?![/quote]
Agreed. I believe that I have stated earlier that the Snake element also refers to the softness. And of course, this in turn has relevance to “listening” and “leaking” concepts.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;889736]There is never one thing that drives one’s strike.[/QUOTE]
errrr… momentum.
There is never just one thing that powers momentum though.
and take this with a grain of salt but… i get the feeling you parrot alot of what your told and not from things born of your own experience.
But i could be wrong, its just a feeling.
DREW
[QUOTE=HardWork8;889736]And that is what I mean when I say that many schools don’t teach certain aspects. The internals are in ALL kung fu styles. We were taught that the first part of Siu Lim Tao is a chi kung exercise.
Here is another school that is of the same opinion:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=7kFBHp9oB7g[/QUOTE]I totally disagree with the school of thought that relaxation is the path to internal mastery. There is nothing correct in that video from my perspective, nothing at all. We are also taught that in the first section of SLT there is a lot more going on than meets the eye, but none of that is evident in anything else I’ve seen. Simply standing there and saying relax and feel the chi in the fingertips, nope, doesn’t do anything IMHO.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;889736]It does in the way I understand what I practice. It depends on the target you are aiming at, to start with. You are not goint to hit the hard part of the skull with a closed fist, but perhaps a palm strike. Or if you are targeting the eyes, then a finger strike or a phoenix eye may be more relevant.
I am not sure about your question, but here goes. There is never one thing that drives one’s strike. On one level it is intention on the other level it is forward elbow motion inside the body unity and structure, within the Wing Chun concepts and principles. Furthermore the breathing has to be co-ordinated to the strike.[/QUOTE]You’re missing the forest for the trees. I don’t care what my hand’s doing (to a certain extent obviously - e.g. it can’t collapse under pressure). It’s what’s powering the hand that’s most important. Where does that come from? IMHO training time would be better spent developing that than developing IP.
Think of a sun fist. Even if the fist is tightly clenched and held strong at impact, what happens if the wrist is loose and floppy and not perfectly aligned? It’ll collapse and you’ll break your wrist. What about if the wrist is straight and you hold that strong too but your elbow is flared out and loose? It’ll pop out sideways and you won’t transmit any force. So fix your elbow then think about what drives that, and what drives that, and what drives that, and so on … the hand is not the most important IMHO. Not to mention it’s much easier to develop than other things. From our perspective one thing drives everything else … that’s what is most important.
Fwiw…
as to the first part of siu lim tao being a qigong - I don’t know how widely held a belief this is in the WC world, but one piece of “evidence” supporting this perspective is that the first section of SLT bears a strong resemblance to one part the Yi Jin Jing I learned which is called “pan hei” (“expelling breath”); now, the hand motions are not as specifically WC-like, as the set is not training specific fighting movements, but it has the extending “tan sao” and sort of a “fuk sao”-like movement for the single-arm work, and the double arms stuff has some similarities as well;
what’s also similar is that the “pan hei” is done at the beginning of the practice, following some initial “soft” work, with one main purpose being (among other things) to expel residual volume from the lungs prior to other later exercises that work on increasing inhalation capacity (e.g. - some of the exercises are done with up to 20 inhalations before exhaling); I don’t know how the breathing is taught for SLT, but for us, it’s done with a full exhale on the extension / expelling, and then a series of sequential inhales on the gathering / coming back in
so, it does not seem unreasonable that this part of YJJ was used somewhere at some point as a “template” on top of which the specific WC hand movements were overlaid; but this makes sense, as there are other sections of the YJJ that clearly serve as pre-cursors to the stance, iron body / palm and tiger claw training I have seen in various shaolin / shaolin derived styles (meaning that we practice them for health, not fighting, but it wouldn’t take too much tweaking to make them martial)
^ I could believe this. We’re taught to synchronise breathing with the inward/outward movements. Initially it’s taught to breathe out with the outward movement, in with the inward. I changed it in SLT for various reasons so now I do the opposite and apparently that’s fine too, but I’m specifically training a mechanic that works well with outward motions with an in breath. Apparently as I get better I should be able to do the mechanics of what I want to do regardless of breath direction, as in a spontaneous situation I can’t delay a movement in order to synchronise my breathing. Makes sense 
. I’m not good enough to get the right sort of feeling happening when I try to do that - at this stage I really like to do the in breath/expansion movement, feels just right. It feels empty if I don’t have my breath pattern where I want it. Not bad, just empty.
I have also heard that it said that YM said that SLT should take 45min to perform correctly, mostly due to a long time spent on this specific section we’re discussing. Obviously with those time spans you can’t do one breath/one movement. But with that timeframe something else is being trained and at this stage I really like to work on my breathing and synchronicity so that’s what I do instead. I get the other things other ways. Not that I work on WC much any more in comparison to my other style.
WRT what you said in another thread, we essentially do the reverse, Taoist breathing style.
[QUOTE=Toby;889752] I changed it in SLT for various reasons so now I do the opposite and apparently that’s fine too, but I’m specifically training a mechanic that works well with outward motions with an in breath.[/QUOTE]
interesting; what caused you to decide to do so on your own (just wondering about your process in that regard)?
[QUOTE=Toby;889752]Apparently as I get better I should be able to do the mechanics of what I want to do regardless of breath direction, as in a spontaneous situation I can’t delay a movement in order to synchronise my breathing.[/QUOTE]
I believe that is the end goal / result: breathe and movement harmonize to the point where one can no longer tell which “causes” the other; this is a common concept in many different system, both Chinese and others
[QUOTE=Toby;889752]I have also heard that it said that YM said that SLT should take 45min to perform correctly, mostly due to a long time spent on this specific section we’re discussing. Obviously with those time spans you can’t do one breath/one movement. [/QUOTE]
that makes sense - same with YJJ (and taiji): at the initial level it’s conscious (e.g. - breathing / moving slowly); later on, it’s spontaneous, meaning that the body naturally takes a longer time (it’s own time) to do certain things - actually, it probably always wants to do it, just that the “conscious” mind hasn’t learned how to “listen” to that particular frequency - dovetails w/meditation practice, as well;
[QUOTE=Toby;889752]WRT what you said in another thread, we essentially do the reverse, Taoist breathing style.[/QUOTE]
based on my personal experience and verifying it w/my sifu, eventually, that one actually gets to the point where the “regular” and the “reverse” merge into something that’s like a “natural reverse” (
) - ok, meaning that the abdomen doesn’t go totally loose, but you also don’t contract it fully - in fact, it almost “pumps” / changes tension during the course of the breath depending on what you are doing (also same w/pelvic floor / bottom of feet); I think this is what allows you to have root but also stay loose up top (this applies to both “health” and “combat”, just varying in intent, sorta, depending on what you are doing specifically);