[QUOTE=hskwarrior;816033]in my opinion, kicks can get you in trouble unless the person you are kicking in on their back knocked out or covering up.
nah kicks are good, but you won’t always have the opportunity in the streets to use an effective kick. you can’t kick if you’re jammed up.[/QUOTE]
Well to be fair, a lot of the techniques given on the two threads leave you open if not thrown correctly, or under the right circumstances.
Sow Choih ( Sao/So pick your favorite) can leave you extremely wide open if not done at the right time. Same goes for kicks. But I thought the idea of the thread was what is “destructive” when used at the correct time.
Of course, the original question is unanswerable unless we are prepared to “destroy” something in order to test our claims.
If you substitute the word “favorite” for “most destructive” I would pretty much agree with the first list but would substitute a Hop Ga straight backfist for gwa cheui. White Crane’s “deng” (nailing) is also powerful but best used when the opponent is defenseless.
Lama, in all its forms, is packed with grappling/wrestling techniques, many of which are effected with the basic “punches.” I have a theory that the whole “long hand” designation of these arts was either created to mislead the general public or was mistakenly attributed to lama kyuhn by non-practitioners who were judging by the appearances of the sets. Long arm extension does not equate with long distance technique.
As for the chaap cheui/chyun cheui discussion, I’d like to add two differences that apply to their respective systems as I’ve learned them: chaap is generated with more use of the triceps muscle (added to the force of body rotation) and the hand may or may not rotate. The old style chyun uses a similar body rotation but the arm stays more relaxed in transit (what I call a ballistic strike) and the forearm does not rotate in those styles not influenced by Siu Lahm.
once again, the “chaap” under “chyuun” comment was based off of david ross’s site. some lines MAY categorize both of them as straight line attacks, but in my line, they are separate hands. generated from different angles, but the path it follows, is both in a straight line rather than circular
And BIU is no joke. I don’t think there is another style that uses Biu the same as Lama. I don’t even know if the Haap Ga or Baahk Hok people use it the same![/QUOTE]
We have a four-finger biu in a couple of our Hop Ga sets that seems identical to that in White Crane’s tit lin kyuhn. The one-finger gam gong jih feels very different and requires much more training.
[QUOTE=Gru Bianca;816479]Sorry, could you please elaborate more about this Siu Lam influence?
Thanks[/QUOTE]
Sure. I’m basing this largely on information from Quentin Fong (Fong Kwan) and Cheuk Tse (Jeh Cheuk Tong).
Most TWC teachers under Ng Siu Jung and his brother were former Hung Ga or Choy Lei Faht men. Their Siu Lahm stylisms were allowed to influence their teaching of TWC. One major example is the punch beginning with the fist palm up at the side of the body. The original lama style performs chyun cheui beginning with the fist behind the body palm down. The chyun fist grazes the ribs on the way forward and completes the strike without ever turning the wrist. This prevents interference by antagonist muscles that might slow the strike if the hand were turned. This is how Ng Siu Jung taught.
Another example is that all original Lama forms were simple line drills. The most conservative lineages teach sets that are northern style straight roads. Some instructors were unable to give up their beloved southern style sahp jih patterns and modified the sets to fit their preferences.
Some of Ng Siu Jung’s students such as Teng Jak Ming and Au Wing Nin (who learned Lama before becoming Ng’s student) learned only Lama/TWC or did some form of Lama first and kept more conservative training methods.
I’ll get into trouble for saying this but many schools of Lama today are openly teaching systems blended with some form of Siu Lahm. Sometimes they are hard to distinguish from CLF or look like a link between Lama and Hu Hok Pai. Nothing wrong with this. Hop Ga is shaolinized to some degree because Wong Yen Lam was eclectic in his approach. I suspect Wong Lam Hoi passed on a “purer” form of Lama.
Despite the differences in approach I think all these systems are good, and as Mr. Parella indicated, there aren’t enough of us around.
[QUOTE=jdhowland;816565]The chyun fist grazes the ribs on the way forward and completes the strike without ever turning the wrist. This prevents interference by antagonist muscles that might slow the strike if the hand were turned. This is how Ng Siu Jung taught.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure that I buy this from a myokinetic perspective - could you specify which agonist / antagonist couple you are talking about?
Nope. Sorry, I wasn’t referring to agonist/antagonist pairs but to synergistic enervation of the arm in general. Triggering the brachioradialis, for example, while turning the hand may cause undesirable elbow flexion during the strike.
thats interesting that you regard TWC as passed by wang lam hoi as a “purer” form of lama pai. usually, its stated in the reverse, that pak hok pai is the most shaolinized" of the tibetan systems
Yeah, I know. Popular opinion… I suppose it depends on what aspects of a system you’re talking about. White Crane did pick up a lot of southern gung fu culture in it’s names of forms, etc.,. But I think the techniques remained pretty conservative, true to their northwestern roots.
Because Wong Yan Lum was senior to Wong Lum Hoi many people assume Hop Ga is an older style. This is just a guess, but I suspect Wong Yan Lum, the son of a southern Siu Lam stylist, modified his style during his many years of experience, creating something that included, but was not limited to, the lama fists. One of my reasons for thinking this way is that the sets we have from Ng Yim Ming are amazingly complex compared to the fairly simple and direct White Crane and Lama forms from Au Wing Nin. It could be that Wong Lum Hoi or Ng Siu Jung preferred to simplify their training methods. But I’m relying on the old adage that systems tend toward greater complexity until they fall apart.
You can’t rely on names to tell you where a system fits chronologically or morphologically, either. The popular history when I was a teenager was that it was all Lion Roar, then Lama Kyuhn, then Hop Ga, Then White Crane split off from the rest. Most systems now calling themselves Lama Paai are derived from teachers of TWC and HG lineages. After the war with Japan it was once again relatively safe to use the old names that could have led to boycott during the early Nationalist period because of the association of lamas and Tibetan culture with the unpopular Ching regime.
My opinion is that no revolutionary new system was created when all this was going on. All branches have the same early pedigree and are equally justified as inheritors of the Lion Roar tradition…except maybe the looneytunes out there claiming that our style was authorized by a Dalai Lama or given by a boddhisattva and is thousand of years old…but I rant.
[QUOTE=jdhowland;816565]Sure. I’m basing this largely on information from Quentin Fong (Fong Kwan) and Cheuk Tse (Jeh Cheuk Tong).
Most TWC teachers under Ng Siu Jung and his brother were former Hung Ga or Choy Lei Faht men. Their Siu Lahm stylisms were allowed to influence their teaching of TWC. One major example is the punch beginning with the fist palm up at the side of the body. The original lama style performs chyun cheui beginning with the fist behind the body palm down. The chyun fist grazes the ribs on the way forward and completes the strike without ever turning the wrist. This prevents interference by antagonist muscles that might slow the strike if the hand were turned. This is how Ng Siu Jung taught.
Another example is that all original Lama forms were simple line drills. The most conservative lineages teach sets that are northern style straight roads. Some instructors were unable to give up their beloved southern style sahp jih patterns and modified the sets to fit their preferences.
Some of Ng Siu Jung’s students such as Teng Jak Ming and Au Wing Nin (who learned Lama before becoming Ng’s student) learned only Lama/TWC or did some form of Lama first and kept more conservative training methods.
I’ll get into trouble for saying this but many schools of Lama today are openly teaching systems blended with some form of Siu Lahm. Sometimes they are hard to distinguish from CLF or look like a link between Lama and Hu Hok Pai. Nothing wrong with this. Hop Ga is shaolinized to some degree because Wong Yen Lam was eclectic in his approach. I suspect Wong Lam Hoi passed on a “purer” form of Lama.
Despite the differences in approach I think all these systems are good, and as Mr. Parella indicated, there aren’t enough of us around.[/QUOTE]
Thank you very much for your explanation. Very clear, I understand your point, can’t comment on its content, however I feel I have to add that in our Pak Hok we do have the wrist twisting while charging for Tsin Choy and it might even be true that we have a Siu Lum influence (can’t really say for sure) but it’s curious how our line comes exactly from the two you mentioned (Teng Jak Ming and Au Wing Nam) that are supposed to be more influence free.
Any way, all good and might all of us one day reunite for good.
[QUOTE=Gru Bianca;816808] “… in our Pak Hok we do have the wrist twisting while charging for Tsin Choy and it might even be true that we have a Siu Lum influence (can’t really say for sure) but it’s curious how our line comes exactly from the two you mentioned (Teng Jak Ming and Au Wing Nam) that are supposed to be more influence free.”
Wow. That really surprises me. My two teachers learned in the 1940s and '50s. I wonder if the change happened later.
Anyway, thanks for the food for thought. I hope we can train together someday.
[QUOTE=jdhowland;816855][QUOTE=Gru Bianca;816808] “… in our Pak Hok we do have the wrist twisting while charging for Tsin Choy and it might even be true that we have a Siu Lum influence (can’t really say for sure) but it’s curious how our line comes exactly from the two you mentioned (Teng Jak Ming and Au Wing Nam) that are supposed to be more influence free.”
Wow. That really surprises me. My two teachers learned in the 1940s and '50s. I wonder if the change happened later.
Anyway, thanks for the food for thought. I hope we can train together someday.
Be well,
John[/QUOTE]
Hi John,
it is a possibility that the changes did happen later and it is also a possibility that the change was implemented by my Sigong, honestly I can’t tell cause I don’t really know.
As for the training together It would really be nice if you’d live in Asia :D, but you might be interested in coming next year to the world pak hok pai gathering to which for example Quenting Fong did partecipate this year.
[QUOTE=jdhowland;816761]Nope. Sorry, I wasn’t referring to agonist/antagonist pairs but to synergistic enervation of the arm in general. Triggering the brachioradialis, for example, while turning the hand may cause undesirable elbow flexion during the strike.[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure that I buy it; biomechanically speaking, brachioradialis is intrinsically strongest as an elbow flexor when the forearm is in neutral, and stronger relative to biceps when the forearm is fully pronated, because biceps is at a relatively less advantageous position leveragewise; it also assists in pronation from full supination to neutral (and vice versa);
so, if you start with the arm chambered (meaning the elbow flexed and the forearm fully supinated) iand you extend the elbow and pronate the forearm, while brachioradialis will assist with the later, it really won’t impact the former, because it does not function that efficiently as an elbow flexor in that part of its range (and again, it’s not going to be recruiting all that much during unresisted pronation since pronator teres is going to be the prime mover anyway); and once you go past neutral, it’s not even functioning as a pronator anymore, so there’s no reason for it to be “on” at that point at all; and on top of that, during elbow extention you’re getting reciprocal inhibition of elbow flexors in general anyway, so brachioradialis might not even be “on” to begin with…(unfortunately I couldn’t find any EMG studies on Medline pertaining to this specific movement to support or refute this)
as far as “synergistic enervation” (although I think you meant “innervation”, as “enervation” means a loss of strength due to removal of a nerve…), I’m unclear as to what you are suggesting: are you talking about groups of muscles that perform the same arthrokinematics (e.g. - all elbow flexors) or those that are innervated from the same spinal level or by the same peripheral nerve? if the latter, it’s true that both triceps and brachioradialis are innervated by n. radialis, so are you suggesting that recruiting the former may somehow “tirgger” the latter, creating some sort of “drag” on the motion of elbow extension? in an intact nervous system, I don’t see how this is going to be an issue, but maybe I am misunderstanding what you are trying to explain…