[QUOTE=LFJ;1207657]The problem with that is it makes fuk and taan sound like the same energy. They have different effects and are applied in different situations, sometimes to defeat the other. Different concepts require different interpretations, although in person there’s of course one quick way to clarify. :p[/QUOTE]
No they have the same “energy”. It’s a f888ing punch!
One uses the outside of the arm to clear any obstacles and protect our center (Tan) and one uses the inside (Jum/Fook). Two punching concepts for the main weapon in Ving Tsun. The straight punch.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1207636]My angles are correct for my Wing Chun.[/QUOTE]
I want to stand up for you here from a Gung Fu perspective, Phil. I am not a WC practitioner and I have trained SLT with WC practitioners in the past. The technique you demonstrate comes right out of the beginning section of SLT. You make the key point that the arm does not move, the centerline does. In the training I do, this is called ‘attack hands’ or’ ‘clinging hands’, and operates on a similar principle. I think what the other guys are talking about is that with ‘pure’ WC operation, they stay square to the opponent and use the ‘springing’ energy to use the technique rather than a ‘guiding energy’.
The result of your operation is that you can maneuver from the inside to outside or outside to the inside of the opponents bridge, depending on where you want to attack the opponent. I would say well done. You have put something together that is a ‘jeep’ or ‘all terrain vehicle’ that can go anywhere at all times in the engagement. Thank you. All the best.
SKM
[QUOTE=SKM;1207662]I want to stand up for you here from a Gung Fu perspective, Phil. I am not a WC practitioner and I have trained SLT with WC practitioners in the past. The technique you demonstrate comes right out of the beginning section of SLT. You make the key point that the arm does not move, the centerline does. In the training I do, this is called ‘attack hands’ or’ ‘clinging hands’, and operates on a similar principle. I think what the other guys are talking about is that with ‘pure’ WC operation, they stay square to the opponent and use the ‘springing’ energy to use the technique rather than a ‘guiding energy’.
The result of your operation is that you can maneuver from the inside to outside or outside to the inside of the opponents bridge, depending on where you want to attack the opponent. I would say well done. You have put something together that is a ‘jeep’ or ‘all terrain vehicle’ that can go anywhere at all times in the engagement. Thank you. All the best.
SKM[/QUOTE]
Well, it could be that some of these guys are overly masculine, what with all those testosterone and hormone supplements they take to keep their pecks pert so that when they beat their chests, all can hear!
Lets take post 2 for an example, you could always give you feedback more constructively and in a less rude and confrontational manner. I just cannot see you, k_gledhil, talking to a paying client you are training like that. I imagine you do know how to be polite and phrase criticisms in a soft manner.
In general I fear the Buddhist and Taoist aspects of WC, at least gauging by some people’s conduct on these boards, are completely wasted on them.
[QUOTE=Graham H;1207659]No they have the same “energy”. It’s a f888ing punch!
One uses the outside of the arm to clear any obstacles and protect our center (Tan) and one uses the inside (Jum/Fook). Two punching concepts for the main weapon in Ving Tsun. The straight punch.[/QUOTE]
Two punching concepts/energies, with spreading and suppressing effects. Hence the names. But sure…
[QUOTE=LFJ;1207686]A paying client wouldn’t be telling people what the fuk-sau is. Phil is an instructor in his own right.
Wing Chun isn’t a religion. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say it was a religion. I merely acknowledged and commented that Taoism and Buddhism have influenced the development of wing chun, and that includes ideas regarding etiquette and conduct in wing chun.
Just becasue Phil is teaching, that does not mean that it is OK to suddenly be rude and show poor etiquette and conduct.
[QUOTE=Paddington;1207690]I didn’t say it was a religion. I merely acknowledged and commented that Taoism and Buddhism have influenced the development of wing chun, and that includes ideas regarding etiquette and conduct in wing chun.[/quote]
…which people may be inclined to follow if they are Buddhist or Taoist. The majority of folks are learning how to punch people while not being punched. Religion is a separate matter.
Just becasue Phil is teaching, that does not mean that it is OK to suddenly be rude and show poor etiquette and conduct.
Or, it gives more of a reason to point out the ridiculousness of the techniques he’s teaching people, and likely charging a fee for, not just that he’s practicing for himself.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1207700]…which people may be inclined to follow if they are Buddhist or Taoist. The majority of folks are learning how to punch people while not being punched. Religion is a separate matter.
Or, it gives more of a reason to point out the ridiculousness of the techniques he’s teaching people, and likely charging a fee for, not just that he’s practicing for himself.[/QUOTE]
Religion is one thing. Spirit is another. Gung Fu is permeated with spirituality whether you wish to believe that or not. Every move has spirit. Do you believe in being ethical in your training or does it not matter to you? I am asking a direct question and not being smart. I want to know what you believe the spiritual content, if any, of your Gung Fu to be.
Please explain in detail the reason you think Phil’s technique is ridiculous and what proof you base that assumption on. Notice I said proof. Thank you. All the best.
SKM
[QUOTE=LFJ;1207700]
Or, it gives more of a reason to point out the ridiculousness of the techniques he’s teaching people, and likely charging a fee for, not just that he’s practicing for himself.[/QUOTE]
This is the thing with people such as yourself; becasue you are overly masculine-ised you are unable to view a discussion as something other than an arena in which there are winners and losers. Consequently you fail to be able to understand or read what a person has written.
At no point did I say that it is wrong to point out, from ones own perspective, why something is weak. I just stated that I think such feedback can be done in a polite and constructive way.
EDIT: I would much prefer these forums to be more active with many more interesting discussions. Unfortunately I see certain people’s behavior and conduct as the reason why participation levels are low on these forums. You don’t make these forums a nice place to be.
@SKM - I explained in a good bit of detail what issue I take with the technique he taught in my first response. Go back and look.
@Paddington - I didn’t find his response rude, just straightforward, but so be it. Besides, maybe we’re wrong and Phil will show him that it actually works when he goes to NYC.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;1207640]I got away with it when I fought CLF guys. When I’m in NY I can demonstrate it on you and you really try to hit me. I should be back in April. I’ll let you know when in advance when I’ll be there.[/QUOTE]
Cool, I will be in Colorado doing a seminar late in April, but look forward to hooking up again.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1207714]@SKM - I explained in a good bit of detail what issue I take with the technique he taught in my first response. Go back and look.[/QUOTE]
I did go back and look. Thank you. What I read is your interpretation of the technique and not your personal experience with the technique. Phil has shared his personal experience with the technique as he has successfully engaged CLF with this technique. I assume that Phil is being truthful in an explanation of his experience utilizing this principle of motion in an active engagement. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
I understand what you are saying regarding your interpretation of this technique. I can only say this: You claim in one of your posts, “…you do a jat-sau on the inside of the opposite arm and that’s not going to jerk their second punch straight into you before you can do the rest?” I have to ask you, are you seriously going to jerk someone into you that is already coming at you full steam? I understand your premise for this, that you seek to do a timing disruption with the technique and then do a quick draw, hitting them before they hit you. Have you successfully used this technique in an engagement and does it work every time you do it on a stranger? I am not trying to be smart with you but find out whether you are indeed talking about something that works for you each and every time with a stranger.
Now insofar as “four techniques”, tell that to any Pa Kua or Hsing I practitioner who utilizes an-chi-lo-fan. Ask them if they are doing four techniques. They will tell you it is one technique. In similar vein, Phil does one technique. It can be broken down into different parts for teaching purposes but when it comes to application, it is one technique. And of course he would want to get to the outside with a CLF practitioner because the opponent has just laterally crossed his center line setting him up for a checkmate. Phil solutions that brilliantly and I applaud him for engaging with strangers who do not fight his style.
From what I can tell, this is a matter of interpretation. Phil has one and you have another. I appreciate your intelligence in this discussion, however, you have not proven Phil wrong. Thank you. All the best.
SKM
[QUOTE=SKM;1207719]I have to ask you, are you seriously going to jerk someone into you that is already coming at you full steam?[/quote]
That’s what I asked Phil. Of course I would never do this technique. Even if they weren’t charging forward, I wouldn’t cross myself and jat on the wrong side. It’s just asking for the second punch.
I understand your premise for this, that you seek to do a timing disruption with the technique and then do a quick draw, hitting them before they hit you. Have you successfully used this technique in an engagement and does it work every time you do it on a stranger?
I’m not sure if you read my response or who’s, but I would never do this technique. It’s a big mistake in my view.
Now insofar as “four techniques”, tell that to any Pa Kua or Hsing I practitioner who utilizes an-chi-lo-fan. Ask them if they are doing four techniques. They will tell you it is one technique. In similar vein, Phil does one technique. It can be broken down into different parts for teaching purposes but when it comes to application, it is one technique.
Call it what you want, it’s not done in one beat. It’s several actions in response to a single punch, neither simple, direct, nor efficient.
And of course he would want to get to the outside with a CLF practitioner because the opponent has just laterally crossed his center line setting him up for a checkmate.
The round punch never laterally crossed his center line. It was coming from the outside and Phil crossed himself to chase and catch the hand on the opposite/wrong side to move it and get to the opponent’s blind side. It’s trying too hard to get outside, doing something that puts him in a bad position at least, and at worst would be disastrous.
[QUOTE=LFJ;1207723]That’s what I asked Phil. Of course I would never do this technique. Even if they weren’t charging forward, I wouldn’t cross myself and jat on the wrong side. It’s just asking for the second punch.
I’m not sure if you read my response or who’s, but I would never do this technique. It’s a big mistake in my view.
Call it what you want, it’s not done in one beat. It’s several actions in response to a single punch, neither simple, direct, nor efficient.
The round punch never laterally crossed his center line. It was coming from the outside and Phil crossed himself to chase and catch the hand on the opposite/wrong side to move it and get to the opponent’s blind side. It’s trying too hard to get outside, doing something that puts him in a bad position at least, and at worst would be disastrous.[/QUOTE]
Agree, lets not forget that VT is designed and guided to fight ALL systems not one. If you are making such big angles inside a guy to engage an arm you’re leaving yourself open. As a tactical idea ??
:eek::rolleyes: