I have read Sun Tsu’s classic only once and must confess it is much more difficult to grasp than it looks.
With respect to Wing Chun, however (as this is a Wing Chun forum), I’d like to ask how might three main concepts be applied. Namely: “when the enemy attacks, retreat; when the enemy is uncertain, antagonize; when the enemy retreats, pursue.”
Anyway I have my own thoughts on the subject but I’d like to hear yours.
Loi Lao Hoi Sung; Fung Lat Jik Jong (aka Lat Sao Jik Jong). Receive/Keep what comes, send off/accompany what goes, charges straight when free (free hands charge straight).
Rgds,
RR
“when the enemy attacks, retreat”
that ain’t in line with the wc way of thinking. you don’t retreat.
now, don’t be tellin me about when an attack comes, you “retreat your arm”.
“You can’t see it if you blind but we will always prevail (true)/Life is like the open sea, the truth is the wind in our sail/And in the end, our names is on the lips of dying men/If ever crushed in the earth, we always rise again/When the words of lying men sound lush like the sound of a violin/The truth is there, it’s just the heart you gotta find it in” - Talib Kweli
“retreat” as in recoil?
my take on this particular issue is that in Wing Chun, “retreat” might be the same action as the cork on the water – goes in only to bounce back. but perhaps I am stretching here.
“when the enemy attacks, retreat”
Sharky: Obviously the term “retreat” in here does not mean to give up and run away. It’s a strategy. Lure him in. And whether it’s retreating your arm, or swallowing his energy, it’s all about the context with the word “retreat”.
Is the art of war telling you to give up as soon as you get attacked? No. Then why be so literal with it’s application in WC?
IMO: “Loi Lao Hoi Sung; Lat Sao Jik Jong” is saying the same thing, only making it less ambiguous. Optimized for the reader’s understanding maybe (just incase they see an attack and want to turn their back cause the Art of War said so).
-BP-
I agree with you both. Meng Shuo and Burns, however both methods may be used.
Staying has advantages, moving has it’s advantages depends on circumstances, and evaluation of opponents skill level upon contact. In a real fight, what matters is winning.
Scott
I think the problem is in the terminology. I’ve always heard it said…
“FOLLOW what comes, Chase what leaves, and rush in upon loss of contact.”
If his arm was coming towards you, your arm would follow it in the direction towards you, thus moving backwards or “Retreating,” though it isn’t in reality retreating. It’s sticking.
Many movements in Wing Chun DO Have backward momentum (Fuk.)
-Scott
“I’m just an actor, just like Robert f***ing Redford when I say those stupid words that they expect me to say.”–Art Alexakis
thanks
Now, what about “antagonize?”
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR> “when the enemy attacks, retreat; when the enemy is uncertain, antagonize; when the enemy retreats, pursue.”
[/quote]
With respect to Wing Chun:
“When the enemy attacks, retreat” means don’t meet force with force. It doesn’t literally mean retreat, but rather stay in contact and deflect his force.
“When the enemy is uncertain, antagonize” means attack any opening he offers.
“When the enemy retreats, pursue” - the meaning is obvious.
Max
Yooby Yoody
attack vs antagonize
I think these are two different things altogether, Max (thanks for the response, by the way).
I see it as “make your opponent do something stupid”. break his concentration, cause him to try something rash or unskilled.
Hi Meng Shuo,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR> I see it as “make your opponent do something stupid”. break his concentration, cause him to try something rash or unskilled.
[/quote]
The way I see it, if the opponent is uncertain, he’s most likely tense and is already acting in a rash or unskilled way. I think in one respect, the maxim highlights the importance of certainty, ie confidence in one’s own skills.
What does the word “ant agonize” mean anyway? I always thought it meant to sting like an ant, ie attack. 
Max
Yooby Yoody
Max
antagonize, British and Australian usually -ise verb [T]
If you antagonize someone, you cause them to feel opposition or dislike towards you.
It’s a very delicate situation and I’ve no wish to antagonize him.
With the publication of this controversial book, you risk antagonizing a large section of the population.
( Cambridge International Dictionary of English )
– if antagonize and attack mean the same thing, then there is no trapping/baiting, which i think is a fundamental part of battle, don’t you agree Max?
Or are you trying to antagonize me? 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR> – if antagonize and attack mean the same thing, then there is no trapping/baiting, which i think is a fundamental part of battle, don’t you agree Max?
[/quote]
It depends on the strategy one chooses to adopt, which in turn depends on one’s strength, one’s skill and one’s position at the time of attack. If the enemy falters (ie is uncertain), I believe it’s often best to take the initiative and blast into them if one is in a good position to do so, rather than concentrate on trapping their hands. My focus in a fight is to demolish the opponent as quickly as possible, but that is a personal choice, suited to my large physique and my ferocious mindset.
Max
Yooby Yoody
Aussi brutes
Glad to see some evidence of wit and humour out here!
Being of more modest size (as you might have guessed by now), I must consider strategy more than brute force in the application of Wing Chun.
Meng Shuo
Remember that the Idioms, or Kuen Kuit are only guidelines.
Therefore I would like to know what order do you do these? ie. “Stay with what comes, follow what goes nothing in the way hit!”?
Sifu Roy
Order
Why have an order? That is a lot of assumptions IMO. It was my belief that wing chun simply takes things as they come. If the encounter is “on”, and they are feeding you energy, you recieve it. If their energy is pulling away, you follow it.. etc.. In any case, you end it.
No preference, no bias, no time to decide, just do.
-BP-
Why that order?
Thanks BP but it was a very leading question i was posed, don’t you think?
Of course, combat is not like a simple, “first i do this, then i do this.” if it were, you really could learn wing chun from watching Master Yip Man’s videos!
Anyway, i am not a relativist by nature, and being somewhat of a novice, i decided not to say, “it depends” and go out on a limb (anyway, i was asked “what would YOU do Meng Shuo?” not “what should EVERYONE do?”)
I don’t believe in picking fights; ergo of the 3 choices i wouldn’t hit first; once threatened, i would strike back; then follow until my poor opponent was obliterated!
anyway, it just proves my point that baiting is a tactic, and apparently a Wing Chun one too as it thrives out here!
Oversimplified
He never actually wrote, that you should always flee when the enemy attacked.
He states that if you are attacked by a stronger force then you should flee. But only until you get to a position where you can defend yourself, on terms most suited for you.
This applies very well with WT where you bend like a cane to the force and retal using the opponents own strength against him.
agreed
The reason I started asking about this book was simply this: it’s a great book, filled with insight into strategies of fighting. Strategies imply intellect, rather than brute force. Strategies are behind the development of an advanced system of fighting like Wing Chun – thought, planning, assessment of the enemy, trickery, deception, knowledge of terrain and so on can all be brought into the equation.
“No try, do – or do not. There is no try.” This is the Art of Yoda.
You can train your hands to be sensitive and your bong to be angled so perfectly in line with whatever anatomical part of your body you wish, but don’t forget the brain is your best weapon.
Here’s a Cheng Yu (idiom) people might want to consider: Tien1 Xia4 Wu2 Nan2 Shi4, Zhi3 Pa4 You3 Xin1 Ren2 (there’s nothing to fear in this world except those who are determined).