I dont want take sides here. I, like others, am interested in what you guys do. But YuanFen made a good point: if Tai Chi guys can explain there seemingly extremely complicated system in detail then why cant you? If it has something to do touch, feel, chi, internal energy etc then that can be explained, or at least an attempt can be made to explain. If taichi people can do it so can you. It doesnt have to be in detail. Perhaps some of the main aspects of the system could be explained besides the time space thing cause I dont understand that.
Originally posted by AndrewS
Back to facts- Yip Man’s mainland students do not have dan chi sao- from Leung Ting, Rene- Kathy Jo has met them, perhaps she can chime in.
Regretfully, I can’t help out on this one. Our time with Lon Gi was limited and the exchange went no further than sharing of forms, at least while I was around. There may well have been some discussion about dan chi sau, but I would have missed it in Cantonese. (I’ve tried lip reading, but so far it hasn’t helped much.)
All may not be lost, though. There was a student of Lon Gi posting here on the forum a few months ago. His handle is “narjar”; maybe he is still around. (I’m assuming it’s a he.) Perhaps he can be summoned via PM, email, or special thread topic. Here is a link to the thread with his posts.
It’s times like this when I really miss the old netwars with Sigman and the masses.
LOL. He’s still out and about on the net if you ever get a hankering to revive old times. 
Regards,
- Kathy Jo
Hey Levi,
there are two areas of HFY being addressed here.
The ‘science’ of HFY- its methods, training, and formulae. This is, to some extent, amenable to examination by the scientific method, and your comments regarding the scientific method are valid in that context.
The second area is that of historical claims. History is not a science. It is an area of scholarship. You assemble the evidence and present your organization of that evidence in your framework, and let others see what you’ve done with what you have to work with.
Does HFY chi sao come from a tan/bong/fook platform? Is this used in it’s dan chi? You can look at the science of the techniques on the one hand, on the other, the question is raised of where this overlaps with other lines of Wing Chun. Based on when things branch off, commonalities and differences, one should be able to contrive a picture of the evolution of the various arts and their relationships.
Later,
Andrew
Reply to David/Desertwingchun in brackets
In the context of which you have written, good teachers have nothing to do with “correcting” arm position.
((Really. I We do have a disagreement. Correcting both sao and kiu
seems very important to me to make sure that both the hand shaping and the bridge work is correct))
Kiu Sao and Chi Sao are two separate and distinct entities.
((If so why not define the differences in detail. What does HFY mean by the terms?))
Quite simply stated the reason you cannot follow the discussion of HFY Kiu Sao is because you have no reference from which to begin your understanding.
((HFY folks have not provided much))
To many wing chun people, what we consider Kiu Sao is so close in appearance to Chi Sao one cannot make the distinction between the two. It is not solely arm or hand position but principles wherein lies the difference.
(( Does not apply to me.A publicly meaninful definition of how you use these terms would be a service to your sub style))
Kiu Sao doesn’t exist unless you recognize it and obviously you don’t, can’t or won’t.
((Problem of meaning- how used))
You are correct Kiu Sao does refer to an arm bridge. Let me ask you a question - in your system does Kiu Sao training exist in Chum Kiu or anywhere else? If so, please explain where and the principles and or concepts that govern it.
((Chum Kiu like many terms has more than one meaning but controlling bridges is certainly one of them. I correct the bridges of chum kiu whenever I am teaching chum kiu to anyone. In turn, I show them how to link the bridges and use them in chi sao. The chum kiu is full of short arm bridges as opposed to biu jee.
In chum kiu best to pass the opponent’s incoming bridge from above. If the opponents bridge eneters your own bridge area-
you need to turn thr situation around rightaway…there is more but I hope that you get the idea.)))
I honestly wish you will attend the next seminar held here in Chandler. If cost is an issue I will personally pay for your admission.
((Sincere thanks for your generous offer. I will keep it in mind butI prefer first to be intrigued by HFY descriptions which is not yet the case. Iam not into BJJ but Renzo and another Gracie have writtena pretty clear book on what they are about. Taiji folks do a pretty good job on providing an intro to their subject. Seems like HFY should be able to do the same on the forum))
AndrewS,
Thanks for the response. What I was trying to re-iterate was any answers you get here are going to be incomplete by virtue of the person answering the questions having yet to complete the system. As has been proven the case before, with lineages other than HFY, there is a tendency here to take one person’s understanding of something as represenative of the systematic truth of a lineage. In the Yip Man system offered at my school, Laahp Sau is first introduced a few months into your training. During that time, you are drilling the first section of Siu Nihm Tauh as well. If you were to ask someone who has been in the school two months about bong sau, they will look at you funny because bong sau does not exist to them yet. They have an incomplete picture. That does not mean that our system lacks that fundamental concept/structure/position.
Again, as long as we can agree on the reality of the exchange, there is no reason we can’t discuss things from the perspective of OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING. However, some of the questions have been phrased to indiacte that Savi, Chango, and others are somehow certified to fully and conclusively represent the HFY lineage. This is not the case, and perhaps (I speak for no one but myself) any hesitancy to answer is because they do not wish to misrepresent a complete system with their own incomplete understanding.
I am not trying to be difficult, and I am certainly not trying to perpetuate any agenda or defend anyone in particular. I am not name calling, or pointing fingers. I hope I have addressed both sides of the equation equally, because I think that we can really start moving in positive directions once we get passed this. It would be a shame to see this thread closed.
So, having said that I am no expert or representative of HFY, I will attempt to answer some of your questions by directing you to complete answers…
–Does HFY chi sao come from a tan/bong/fook
–platform? Is this used in it’s dan chi? You can
–look at the science of the techniques on the
–one hand, on the other, the question is raised
–of where this overlaps with other lines of Wing
–Chun. Based on when things branch off, commonalities
–and differences, one should be able to contrive
–a picture of the evolution of the various arts and
–their relationships.
http://home.vtmuseum.org/genealogy/hung_fa_yi/curriculum.php
Lists the descriptions of the HFY Daan Chi Sau platform, including the initials (which hand begins the skill challenge) and the response. Since this list was compiled under the guidance of Grandmaster Gee, it is safe to assume that it is representative of the HFY Daan Chi Platform as it relates to the rest of the system. If you have specific questions, system-wide answers are best found by asking a certified instructor rather than a student. I know some senior VTM members are in Hong Kong right now, so an answer may not be immidiate, but the VTM is approachable and open.
As for your history questions, I would again direct you to the Museum. Since I am not currently fluent in Chinese, any information I can give you would admittedly be based on my trust in someone else’s translations of oral and written information.
On a final note, please, anyone, do not hesitate to let me know if I am ever disrespectful, deflective, or confrontational. I try very hard to be open and forthcoming, and I certainly want to know if I ever appear otherwise.
-Levi
Wow just clicked the computer on.
Andrew,
In light of not adding to the personal attacks. I will allow you to paint the picture here.
<snip> Chango’s attempting to have an intellectual discussion and hurting his head. While I realize you aren’t in a position to call your senior an *ss in public (a place I’ve been), realize he’s being one.
<snip>They’re worthy of a politician and demonstrate the level of mental acumen at which you aim to convince.
<snip>Trying to bullsh*t your way through something only hurts your case.
This is your self portrate! I think your words say it all Picasso . I’m not interested in a P$$ing match with you. I would just get P$$ed off and you would just get P$$ed on. So I will just allow your words to make it clear why your post are not worthy of my attention. Understanding is not what you seek just a poor attempt to attack something that you refuse to understand. Maybe you do not have the campacity to understand. I realize that if you are not ready there is nothing I can do for you. I’m sorry that you suffer.
Yuan fen,
I think Levi has provided alot of the information that you seek in his last post. I think it is fair to say that I do not speak for the entire HFY lineage. You want me to go on this forum and say Yip man Dan Chi sau is etc… and HFY Dan chi sau is etc… Please let me explain the dificulty in this discussion. First we have to address the difference in languages. So at that point I would have to explain to you the HFY center line concept the 5 line concept the gate understanding, triagler theory, dimentional vs directional, one line three point concepts in all three dementions, 3 1/2 point concept, two elements, Half moon principle and a basic understanding of the 5 stages of combat and when Dan chi sau expressions are appropriate. Then once this is address I can start to address the first progression. Now I have to say that I’m interested in raising the awarness of the martial arts comunity of WCK. I’m happy to discuss all lineages (to the best of my knowlege) I’m even more enthusiastic about discussing WCK families that’s history is shaolin is origin. But I have to say that I do this forum and other internet activities in my spare time for my own enjoyment. I’m not interested in providing a Internet corespondence coarse. I say that jokingly but really to get through the language barrier I think it would take far more information that is appropriate for this forum. I hope you take the time to come to a workshop or possibly pick up the book that is currently in the works. I’m not saying these will satisfy what you are after but those resources will at least bring you to a closer understanding of where I’m coming from and possibly help further our comunication. My goal is not to argue or to go incircles about this. I think it might be healthier to get a better format to display this load of information. It would not be appropriate to write page after page of the information that you request. Maybe in the future we can comunicate better. But I think we have met our limitations at this point.
Chango (saat geng sau) 
Hi Chango
Allot of what you said came across as rhetoric.
When we met in person you were able to explain in detail the concept of time, witch I might translate as a combination of both timing the entry and finding a better (or best) position in relation to the technique and opponents attack (without getting too long winded 
)
Lets talk about the five stages of combat.
On one hand we have the Kiu Sau – Chi Sau – San Da progression. On the other we have the philosophy of wandering, discovery and focus (don’t have my notes here, don’t remember the exact words you guys use for the SMK)
At the top of the pyramid we have HFY’s/Sifu Gee’s 5 stages of combat.
Realizing that they may have several applicable definitions depending on time and space etc, what are the 5 stages of combat?
With warm greetings from So-Cal 
David
Hello David!
Hello David,
How are things? I understand why the time concept could come across as timing. It think you will apprecieate what is meant when I say the proper time for a techinque goes beyond timing when we understad that the proper time will also determine the appropriate focused technique. Now to understand the proper space you must apply the 10 bright points! (3D reference points) I know it is hard not be long winded on the subject.
The five phases of combat are Baai jong, Jit Kiu, Chum kiu, Jeui Ying, and Wui ma.
Again the terminology maybe the same as some but the meanings are very different. everything has a focus meaning and if it is not then HFY rejects it. Do you remeber the part of Sigung’s Gee’s lecture on the interpertation of the keun kuit? That each are very specific and require very specific experiences? this is the hurdle that I’m faced with when presenting information! the language problem is not just in reference to a thing but a specific experience. so to read these stages of combat or to hear them with out the precise HFY experience required it will all seem the same. Maybe you might be able to do better when explaining what you took in at the workshop. I find that this forum would not be appropriate to explain each and every experience to arrive at the questions being posted.
Chango (Saat geng sau)
Taltos!
I had a look at the link you posted for your Kwoon’s curriculum.
There is a description of bridging work…
“Sup Yee Mouh Kiu: Contains 12 concepts, 3 techniques for each concept, creating a total of 36 techniques.”
I would very much like to know what these concepts and techniques are. If you have time, can you list them?
Many thanks
Duncan
Sorry about this, but…
Andrew, I had to do alittle research in order to understand you more. My findings are as follows:
Posted by AndrewS on 11-06-2002 03:57 PM: As much as technical questions interest me, my original point was historical, not technical.
>Perhaps you should reread the post.
Posted by AndrewS on 11-06-2002 11:41 PM: Look, I don’t pay a lot of attention to history. It frankly bores the p*ss out of me
>It is not efficient to answer questions presented by someone not interested in their own question.
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:45 AM: history bores me, especially in martial arts. I know a good bit of it, but tend to view it as a ‘he says, she says’ collection of self-serving mythology. You can take that personally if you like, but it’s really a broad generalization which reflects my views on human nature.
>I wonder Andrew if 1) history bores you, and 2)you have an opinion that seems to draw no line between history and ‘self-serving’ mythology, why should we participate in your game?
Posted by AndrewS on 11-06-2002 03:57 PM: Single arm chi sao is a Yip Man training innovation from his arrival in Hong Kong. Formalized chi gherk was developed by Leung Sheung and others in Hong Kong.
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:45 AM: The history posted on on the VT Museum and Arizona sites raises more questions than it answers. No sources or references are posted Show some primary sources if you want academic respect for a historical theory.
> Have Yip Man, Leung Sheung, and “others in Hong Hong” told you these things exclusively? Have they showed any documentation when they ‘logged’ dates, times, and places the ‘innovations’ occurred? Or are you taking someone else’s word for it? Can you present your resources?
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:05 PM: The VT Museum has hosted seminars with senior Yip Man students, ok. Great. Post the transcripts.
>Do you like telling people what to do, if you yourself do not appreciate someone else telling you to be more respectful on the forum :)? Hmmm… Keep in mind I am not an archive of historical information. Unfortunately, I do not have the VTM archive at my disposal to hand out to somebody whose intentions I do not know. You will have to contact Master Benny Meng; the curator of the VTM, and Master Loewenhagen; the west coast director of the VTM for such a priviledge.
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:05 PM: You’re attempting to argue from authority, another flaw in basic logic. Either present some data or admit you’re taking Benny and Richard’s word for this.
> Not so Andrew. This has nothing to do with authority. I was implying that they are presenting what they know BASED on their experiences with the grandmasters/masters of different lineages. Do you do the same? Though I do not claim to be perfect, the flaw is not on this side.
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 09:53 AM: As to neutrality- I’m looking at the information I have available to me- the stuff up on the HFY websites, the various published articles, Rene and Robert’s book, Leung Ting’s book, and conversations with a variety of people. This is what any non-Chinese speaker has easily available, and is what you’ve got to produce evidence to address.
>Do you consider conversations and recently published information such as books and articles to be historical documentation? Have you given the same treatment to the information on the HFY, VTM, MengsofAZ web sites? If it is so easily available to you, why ask me for everything? I, along with others have pointed you to information which you seem to have read with a grain of salt - not a neutral position on your part.
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:05 PM: Back to facts- Yip Man’s mainland students do not have dan chi sao- from Leung Ting, Rene- Kathy Jo has met them, perhaps she can chime in. Yip Man’s classmates do not have dan chi sao- multiple SN/YKS lines have made this statement. Gua Lo has no dan chi sao.
>Again you offer no documentation to support your statements. I am not fluent with the other lineages for I have not experienced them first hand. If you do have the documentation, I would like to have them FedEX’d to a particular address for which I can critically analyze, with the disposition that I do not care for historical artifacts to feed my own self-serving needs. Sorry 
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 12:05 PM: If you’re refering to objectivity, it requires facts. All you’re presenting is stories and assertions, soemthing obvious to objective viewing.
> The above does not demonsrate that we must then be guilty of the same misgivings? In what format would you like the facts, other than letters on your computer screen?
Posted by AndrewS on 11-07-2002 01:01 PM: You seem to be incapable of simply saying, ‘I don’t know and I take my sifu’s word for it’ which is a perfectly acceptable answer. Not everyone is a historian, and not every student an authority on the entirity of their art.
> Let me open my mouth so you can put more predetermined words in it. I’m sorry Andrew, but I don’t recall ever claiming to be these things either. If I have, can you post the post on this forum? By the way, the proper approach to analyzing the HFY system is to use the Scientific Method, which sir Taltos gracefully pointed out is to disprove what is presented through all possibilities. HFY’s equivalent to this is Hau Chun Saan Sau. Another flaw in basic logic? Again, Hmmm… If you are putting the HFY on trial, are we not innocent until proven guilty according to the legal system? Make sure you know the process you follow before you point your finger again.
Chango sez: I think your words say it all Picasso . I’m not interested in a P$$ing match with you. I would just get P$$ed off and you would just get P$$ed on. So I will just allow your words to make it clear why your post are not worthy of my attention.
(( Chango-But you do give things your “attention” and do it in an awful way per sample above..
Much of the rest of your post is full of garbled jargon- which do not clarify key concepts - but like muddled overgrowth could use Occam’s razor for clarity and simplicity))
Originally posted by yuanfen
[B]Chango sez: I think your words say it all Picasso . I’m not interested in a P$$ing match with you. I would just get P$$ed off and you would just get P$$ed on. So I will just allow your words to make it clear why your post are not worthy of my attention.
(( Chango-But you do give things your “attention” and do it in an awful way per sample above..
Much of the rest of your post is full of garbled jargon- which do not clarify key concepts - but like muddled overgrowth could use Occam’s razor for clarity and simplicity)) [/B]
Mr. Chauduri,
Each of the concepts intricate to HFY whom Chango stated are not simple. Keep in mind that just this single question on the origin of HFY Chi Sao has gone this far on this thread. Each concept whom Chango noted are far to complicated to address unless ALL of us have gone through the Hauh Chun Saan Sao method. Mere visualization from words will not suffice to justice to both parties. The physical experience is just as crucial. Without it it will be garbled jargon.
-Savi.
Savu sez:Each of the concepts intricate to HFY whom Chango stated are not simple. Keep in mind that just this single question on the origin of HFY Chi Sao has gone this far on this thread.
Savi
Its gone on this far for the simple reason that the HFY folks on this forum throw out a word here and there or a label and then cannot or will not explain
the meanings to reasonably capable readers.
planetwc,
my responses are in [[brackets]]
I think where a lot of the problem here in this discussion stems from is that you are all well versed in the Yip Man system, and can one hopes offer discourse on that system.
[[ Thank you for the vote of confidence in our Yip Man System knowledge. Without restating what I posted last night, I can only say that since this particular thread was concerning a HFY workshop (which unfortunately I was unable to attend), and the arguements here seem to stem from the ‘clear origin of HFY chi sao’, making a comaprison to another lineage would not be directly addressing the issue at hand, and would really only open up the proverbial can of worms. I’ll make the asumption here that everyone, on both sides, approaches this forum with an open mind and without preconceived notions, and with that I’ll assume that negative comments made on either side, real or perceived, are just due to innocent misunderstandings. I understand that both sides have earned the ire of the opposite, and maybe a “compare and contrast” would be better served on a different thread, not one dedicated to a HFY workshop. Although personally, I don’t think we’ll collectively be able to keep it personable and friendly.]]
Here you have many of your Yip Man bretheren asking for a comparision to Yip Man’s system and you seem unable to provide ANY sort of comparision to it.
[[ Again, this whole fiasco started with AndrewS’ question (direct quote) … “Alright, so for everyone involved with this seminar, what is the ‘clear origin of HFY chi sao’, which Chango claimed would be revealed at it?” No offense to AndrewS - it’s a perfectly valid question (although maybe in the spirit of good will it could have beed phrased a little better) - but he wasn’t asking for a comparison to any other system. He was asking for the HFY origin of HFY Chi Sau as presented at an HFY seminar. It’s perfectly reasonable that the answer would be an HFY answer, in HFY terminology, and would be primarily relatable to the HFY system. To expect anything else would be to misunderstand the original question. ]]
Can you offer for example a description of Yip Man style Dan Chi Sao from say 2 of the 3 masters you have on record plus your own personal observations having studied Moy Yat’s interpretation via Benny Meng a certified instructor in that style?
Perhaps then someone like Tom Kagan can chime in that your description matches what he believes to be the essence of how this is taught and performed within the Moy lineage.
[[ This is an argument waiting to happen. Let’s say that we discuss how Sifu A and Sifu B teach Dan Chi Sau. Then Tom lets us know if that’s how Grandmaster Moy Yat taught it. Will they be identical? Surely not. The question itself can’t be answered because the question has too many variables to be directly addressed. An analogy: I ask Barry Bonds how was taught to bat, then ask Mark McGuire if that’s how he was taught. If McGuire was taught different, does that mean Bonds learned wrong? No. It just illustrates that the question is poorly phrased and inherently unanswerable. ]]
Then can you offer the same kind of discourse on the Hung Fa Yi Dan Chi Sao platform and principles?
[[ Sure, but based on the question, the answer is “HFY does it this way because that’s how HFY does it. HFY compares to itself with 100% accuracy.” Something everyone already knows. ]]
These are not personal attacks,
[[ I know, and I did not take your comments as such. If anything, there seems to be genuine interest and a desire to atually listen and give the information it’s due consideration. Again, I hope I’m not coming across as deflecting the issue. Maybe what we all need to do - and I do mean ALL, as in on both sides of the coin - is post well though out, well worded questions that are simple and direct. Face to face, it’s easy to ask what you’re thinking right now and through trial and error fine tune the information to actually answer the question. On a forum such as this, all we have is exactly what was typed, and with the time lag of not everyone here at the same time, it’s virtully impossible to satisfactorily address vaguely worded, fifteen point, directed questions. Much easier is “in YKS WC, what methods are used to introduce a newbie to proper root?” While this exact question has never been posed to my direct knowledge, I do know that Rene Ritchie, a YSK practicioner, has been simple, direct, and elegant in his responses to simple, direct, and elegent questions about his lineage and training methodologies. Much harder would be “Hey dude, what’s you Biu Ji, and why do you do it different?” Do you mean Biu Ji as in “darting fingers” or as in the form? And different from what? All I’m saying is the answer can only be as good as the question allows - we all need to stay away from the “do you still beat your wife” questions that can’t e adequatey answered because they are (or seem like) a set up from the start. ]]
Gentlemen, YOU are stating (not non-HFY students) that Hung Fa Yi has such a degree of rigor in it’s movements and expression and theories that it can be expressed as a literal formula, among other things.
[[ True enough, and in our tests, we have to express the formula in motion, with no words, so by the very nature of our training methodology, every HFY practicioner is taught from the very start that explaining the formula IS NOT the formula, you have to SHOW the formula. Explaination is the semantic “at this exact time in this exact space with this exact energetic and this exact structure, the HFY formula would be manifested as exactly XXX.” Bu a nanosecond later, that explaination of the formula would no longer be 100% because something may have changed. Although I would like to add (and I apologize if I seem like I am nit-picking) that your post was addressed “To Chango and the rest of the HFY family.” I am in the HFY family, and I never made the claims that you ascribed to me as said member. And as I said earlier, and my Sibok Chango agreed, we do not represent the HFY family. So, to anyone not explicitly following this post, without us saying anything, you are labeling us, in the eyes of the readers, as representative of the lineage. The question, however genuine and friendly, is a set up (intentional or not). If I answer, the answer comes from me as MY UNDERSTANDING, but the context of my answer is framed by your inplication that as a member of the HFY family, my answer is the HFY answer. It might be, but it might not, and I don’t wish to have the science of HFY judged my my mental faculties. ]]
Why is it that we could have the same kinds of discussion with students from the Chi Sim Weng Chun, Cho Family, Yuen Kay Shan family, Koo Lo family, etc. etc. in terms of comparitive differences, stances etc. but this discussion is seemingly impossible with Hung Fa Yi?
[[ I definately think that we can, but I also think that MAYBE because HFY practicioners see HFY as so precise, that the questions must be precise in order for the answers to be precise. ]]
[[ I appreciate all the points that you have raised, and I think I understand where you’re coming from, and your points are all valid. I honestly don’t feel qualified enough to offer up anything other than my interpretation at this stage in my training. That’s not avoiding the issue, that’s respecting the people here enough to be honest and upfront. Although I am sure that other of my HFY brothers and sisters would be happy to oblige, if given the opportunity through clear, non-loaded questions. ]]
Facts… yes… Interesting.
[b][i] - Andrew S wrote:
- Yip Man’s mainland students do not have dan chi sao
- Yip Man’s classmates do not have dan chi sao
- Gua Lo has no dan chi sao.
- I see no dan chi sao listed among the Chi Sim methods- particularily interesting as that art would branch at least roughly contemporarily with HFY. Is there dan chi sao in Chi Sim, and if so, where does Andreas Hoffman consider it to crop up in the art?[/b][/i]
I can’t make comment on the first three facts, but the last fact you need to check. While I don’t wish to discuss Chi Sim Weng Chun out of respect for Sifu Hoffmann’s wishes, I feel I must make comment to some degree. Chi Sim does not train Chi Sau; they train Kiu Sau. Chi Sim Kiu Sau covers both single and double arm training – so part of your argument needs to be readdressed. Chi Sim does not have Chi Sau; Sifu Hoffmann and Sifu Meng discussed Kiu Sau vs. Chi Sau extensively on Sifu Hoffmann’s last visit.
In Southern styles, Kiu means “bridge” and refers to the arm, from elbow to wrist. Several Southern styles make use of Kiu Sau training:
- Leung Yi Mo Kiu (dragon shape feel bridge)
- Chu Ga Tong Long (Chu family mantis)
- Baak Mei (white eyebrow)
- some branches of Hung Ga (hung family)
- and two branches of Wing Chun: HFY and Chi Sim.
The focus of Kiu Sau is different is each of these families:
- Leung Yi Mo Kiu making use of a grabbing /clawing energy and finger power
- Chu Ga Tong Long focusing on shocking power and trapping
- Baak Mei focusing on shocking/bouncing power and finger power
- Hung Ga focusing on attacking bridges, using each motions as both attack and defense;
- Chi Sim focusing on flowing through all ranges of combat: kick, strike, grab, and throw;
- Hung Fa Yi focusing on structure.
HFY is in a unique position, containing both Kiu Sau and Chi Sau, to understand both Chi Sim Weng Chun (that has Kiu Sau but not Chi Sau) and other families of Wing Chun (that have Chi Sau but not Kiu Sau).
[i] - Joy wrote: -
So HFY folks if they chose to discuss their system on the forum should be able to explain in a common language or style of communication their understanding or what they mean by a perfect tan sao, or time space relationships that they see, or an unique relationship to Chan and other things that HFY folks have referred to in the forum.[/i]
And who defines the “common language”? Should I bow to you or you to me? Communication is a two way street. You have to make the effort to understand what is offered rather than demand that the world be handed to you on a silver plate. I can give you the words but does your experience allow you to understand the words without experience of their meaning? No. Ask David. His ideas about HFY are different now that he’s experienced a taste of it as compared to before his experience. David, what were some of your thoughts/“conclusions” before and after your visit? Was there something that you had idea X before the workshop and then realized we meant Z afterwords?
[i]- Joy wrote: -
Correcting both sao and kiu seems very important to me to make sure that both the hand shaping and the bridge work is correct[/i]
You are lost in the terms. Sau and Kiu are terms for the body, yes (sau=hand and kiu=forearm). But that doesn’t explain Kiu Sau. Trying to use your own frame of reference to understand something new is very difficult. You look at your understanding and don’t see what we’re trying to share. This is why Hou Chyun San Sau is necessary. Without direct experience of the topic under discussion, understanding will never be clear.
[i]- Joy wrote: -
Kiu Sao and Chi Sao are two separate and distinct entities. If so why not define the differences in detail. What does HFY mean by the terms?[/i]
Ah, now you want to learn HFY? Are HFY students your Sifu? You’re funny, Joy.
Kiu Sau refers to a specific timeframe. Before you can talk about Chi Sau or hitting (Saan Da) you have to address the Kiu Sau timeframe (timeframe – frame of time, sort of like a range in fighting but not quite; I’m still mulling over how best to communicate this concept). Chi Sau requires contact - but how is that contact initiated? How much is this a focus other Wing Chun families as a whole? Grand Master Wong Sheung Leung once said something to the effect that you don’t try to chi sau, you try to hit the guy and if he puts something in the way, then chi sau takes over to continue the attack. The mindset of trying to hit without regard to self-protection is alien to HFY (that is what Grand Master Wong’s comment seems to be saying – is there another understanding from members of his family?). I don’t go out of my way to kill you. For me to hit you, you have to really enter my space – this was the last topic discussed (briefly) at the workshop on Sunday (and also plugs into Chan, but that’s a more involved discussion).
Kiu Sau addressed how to engage with an opponent when making initial contact. Several styles make use of different approaches to Kiu Sau (see above) but HFY approaches the issue looking at human structure before looking at energy. If you don’t have structure, there is no discussion of energy. If you play energy for energy, that’s ultimately a speed and power game. If I have the right structure, you can’t bounce/shock/grab/grasp me – you have no leverage for energy or grabbing.
Looking at structure, when I touch this guy, am I protected? Can he hit me or not? I want to find the position where I have maximum protection. From there, you learn to roll to maintain the proper range and find structure against changing energy. Can I hit my opponent at the range of Kiu Sau? Potentially. Is that the focus? No.
Grand Master Gee had several people demonstrate their reaction to different scenarios. In each case the person attacked without regard for the other person’s ability to react. In each case, Grand Master Gee demonstrated HFY’s response by finding the body structure that offered maximum protection without escalating the situation. Each position he demonstrated offered an immediate ability to escalate the threat to the opponent but always removed the possibility for the opponent to escalate the situation.
Kiu Sau <=> Chi Sau <=> Saan Da is the logic. You can also skip Chi Sau and move directly to Saan Da if the situation is right.
[i]- Joy wrote: -
If the opponents bridge eneters your own bridge area - you need to turn thr situation around rightaway…there is more but I hope that you get the idea.[/i]
In your statement above, you’re referring to your opponent’s forearm entering the area of your forearm. In the Chi Sau timeframe, you’re right – you had best turn the situation around immediately!
However, this has nothing to do with Kiu Sau from the HFY perspective. If you enter my space and I break your structure with Kiu Sau, there is no need for Chi Sau. If I meet a thief on my doorstep, should I invite him in to the house before I beat him? Jokes about the law aside, if I want to maintain maximum safety, I want to address the threat as far away from my body as possible. Suppose I’m attacked by a knife – do I want that knife slashing around close to me or further out?
Chi Sau serves as insurance. If you have the skill to cross my Kiu Sau, Chi Sau comes on-line to restore my position and/or destroy your position and attack. These are two different technologies and trained two different ways. Each has a progression, set of experience, guiding Kuen Kiut, strategies/tactics, and Saam Mo Kiu experience. However, Chi Sau and Kiu Sau have different natures and can’t be mixed. Kiu Sau focuses on structure while Chi Sau deals with the formula and maintaining/breaking structure to hit (in a general sense).
[i]- Joy wrote: -
Much of the rest of your post is full of garbled jargon- which do not clarify key concepts[/i]
Chango’s comments on the prerequisites of are entirely appropriate and completely clear.
Without knowing the context of HFY, a clear answer cannot be given that you can digest. Great precision is offered but you have to be qualified to understand the answer. That’s not ego, that’s reality. How many years of math are required to understand Calculus? Chango’s listing of terms is neither garbled nor jargon. At least not in the sense of “obscure and often pretentious language marked by circumlocutions and long words.” I have the feeling that you were attempting to mean. The terms used are the most appropriate and the closes to the Chinese terms. If you sincerely wish to understand, quit kvetching like a child about how things are offered and sincerely make an attempt to understand.
Jeremy R.
a step in the right direction…
Chadhuri Sifu, my comments are in [[ brackets ]]…
I see your genuine attempt at being “open minded”.
[[ Thank you. ]]
The issue basically is that there should be a way other than “come to our workshop” for list members to discuss what they do with each other. Otherwise the forum will miss an important dimension of various wing chun folks discussing what they do.
[[ I agree. I hope that my post prior to this opens the door to that, althought admittedly the forum can only go so far, but much further than it currently has. ]]
Water over the dam.
[[ Again, thank you. If everyone could do that - start with a clean slate - I think we’d be amazed at what we could learn from one another. I can only hope it’s not too late. ]]
You list several bachelors, masters and an abd as being mebers of your group. That is no substitute for substantial discussion between people ina martial art.
[[ Agreed. I was only trying to assure AndrewS that several of our members were familiar with academic methodology. I was not trying to imply that a degree somehow equals smarter. I thought I made that point, but it’s certainly possible I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. My Grandfather never graduated High School, and everytime I talk with him I learn something profound. And surely our WC ancestors were not all engineers and chemists. ]]
in doing and explaining wing chun. I understand that there are various levels of achievement. I dont speak for any one but myself either.
[[ Again, if we could all agree to speak only for ourselves… ]]
So HFY folks if they chose to discuss their system on the forum should be able to explain in a common language or style of communication their understanding or what they mean by a perfect tan sao, or time space relationships that they see, or an unique relationship to Chan and other things that HFY folks have referred to in the forum.
[[ Agreed. I hope my prior post helps this along. Thanks for the insights. Your points are well taken. ]]
[[ -Levi ]]
Re: Wow just clicked the computer on.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chango
[B]Andrew,
In light of not adding to the personal attacks. I will allow you to paint the picture here.
<snip> Chango’s attempting to have an intellectual discussion and hurting his head. While I realize you aren’t in a position to call your senior an *ss in public (a place I’ve been), realize he’s being one.
<snip>They’re worthy of a politician and demonstrate the level of mental acumen at which you aim to convince.
<snip>Trying to bullsh*t your way through something only hurts your case.
This is your self portrate! I think your words say it all Picasso . I’m not interested in a P$$ing match with you. I would just get P$$ed off and you would just get P$$ed on. So I will just allow your words to make it clear why your post are not worthy of my attention. Understanding is not what you seek just a poor attempt to attack something that you refuse to understand. Maybe you do not have the campacity to understand. I realize that if you are not ready there is nothing I can do for you. I’m sorry that you suffer.
Chango,
you seem to confuse attacks on your horrible communication skills and imperfect understanding of HFY history with attacks on HFY. Let me make this clear- anyone reading what you write will rapidly come to the conclusion that you don’t know what you’re talking about and will do anything to avoid admitting that. I have no respect for that sort of intellectual dishonesty. It’s bullsh*t, and I have no problem calling it that in public.
Religion is the last refuge of the scoundrel, compassionate one.
Andrew
Free Is Good!!!
Desertwingchun2 Wrote>
I honestly wish you will attend the next seminar held here in Chandler. If cost is an issue I will personally pay for your admission. Possibly then you will be able to offer a first hand experience point of view.
The man gave you a free chance to see it:eek:
Desertwingchun2 Wrote>
So again I extend an invitation to attend the next workshop here in Chandler at no cost to you. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll gain an understanding of the discussions that you have found vague and sloppy.
How can you turn this down, something you spend so much time talking about and you still question it:eek:
Yuanfen/Joy Wrote>
Sincere thanks for your generous offer. I will keep it in mind butI prefer first to be intrigued by HFY descriptions which is not yet the case. Iam not into BJJ but Renzo and another Gracie have writtena pretty clear book on what they are about. Taiji folks do a pretty good job on providing an intro to their subject. Seems like HFY should be able to do the same on the forum
Turned it down again but still wants to talk about it:eek:
Yuanfen/Joy Wrote>
Its gone on this far for the simple reason that the HFY folks on this forum throw out a word here and there or a label and then cannot or will not explain
Why don’t you take him up on his offer, all it’s going to cost you is the gas to get there, unless you’re in walking distace:confused:
Atleast then you can then come back and in you,re own words tell everyone what you experienced;) Me Ol China
Hey Jeremy,
thanks for the very informative reply. The historical stuff needs answering at some point, but as I’ve said elsewhere history generally bores me.
Kiu sao- ok, so the idea is from precontact to control contact by making contact with the most mechanically advantageous structure as compared with the opponent’s structure as opposed to bridging with an attacking bridge? Fair statement? An approach reminiscent of Xing Yi? I presume going directly to san da means moving in covered and safe and just hitting the other guy without touching his arms (bridging).
From this, I take it that in precontact as you are presented with different positions you will adjust your structure accordingly to maximize your advantages.
In my understanding of fighting, the most useful skill is to change as one moves in, changing to adapt to the opponent’s changing position. Responding to a jab to frontleg takedown conversion requires significant change in body positioning. Is this part of your kiu sao idea.
Later,
Andrew
my observations…
AndrewS wrote…
you seem to confuse attacks on your horrible communication skills and imperfect understanding of HFY history with attacks on HFY.
[[ Why attack someone for not being perfect? It can’t open honest dialogue - it can only put someone on the defensive, besides being illogical because since no one is perfect, the implication is that it’s perfectly acceptilble to attack EVERYONE for ANYTHING since they can’t possible be perfect. If you have the opinions you stated, no one is going to tell you you’re not entitled to them. But isn’t fighting fire with fire, force against force, contrary to most WC? Is there perhaps a better way to go about getting answers, if that’s really what you want, than by attacking the person your asking? I’m not even sure of the question anymore. Are you asking Chango about HFY Dan Chi Sau, HFY History, Chi Sim Dan Chi Sau, or if he has imperfect communication skills, or if he has an incomplete understanding of HFY history? If you ask question A, and get an answer you don’t understand or one that does not address your question, perhaps you could ask question A again, in a slightly different way, rather than criticizing trait B or asking C and D and E. Without addressing the primary question, we’ll all just keep going around in circles. ]]
Let me make this clear- anyone reading what you write will rapidly come to the conclusion that you don’t know what you’re talking about and will do anything to avoid admitting that.
[[ What if we come to a different conclusion? Like the conclusion that there have been misunderstandings on both sides - for whatever reasons - and instead of trying to go back to the beginning and re-addressing the core issues, we are instead going around in circles? What can be said of me, having made such a conclusion that does not fit into your definition of what ANYONE would conclude? This is the point I was trying to make earlier about loaded questions. The outcome has already been pre-determined, so any variance from that is an affront to expectation. ]]
[[ -Levi ]]