Just curious why the differences in Siu Lum Tao? For example this version taught by an original Yip Man student, Duncan Leung: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8_ni3fblbc
Then there is this version of SLT which is very different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2yHyjALoKY
Is the second version from a different branch or style of WC? Or did Yip Man teach different versions to different students?
Second clip is Pan Nam SNT.
Andrew
the second SNT is not Pan nam …Its michael Wong SNT almost a goju ryu wing chun forms:D
Steevie
Steevie,
looks like the Pan Nam form I saw some folks who learned from Eddie Chong doing, though they did YMWCK and Pao Lin Fa, too, so I could be confusing things. I only vaguely remember the SNT I saw from someone from Oz whose teacher trained with Pan Nam direct.
And now that I look in ‘Roots and Branches of Wing Chun’ the sequence and the moves are the same as the ones this old dude with a birthmark on his face does on pages 309-316, but his name is Pang Nam. Must be someone else.
Andrew
P.S. I’ve seen some decent goju and uechi-ryu, and that ain’t goju. No slam on Michael Wong, or Goju.
Here’s some goju
And some more tasty goju of a more mature Higoanna
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjddaBWugLs&mode=related&search=>
Andrew
Andrew the goju ryu WC is a joke:) the guy look soo stiff and perform the form like a Karate guy…
what He do in the SNT seem some Yip man some YKS and some pan nam WC a blending … of wing chun
I saw the Pan Nam WC stuff from Eddie Chong not same stance and no centerline …
Steevie
Andrew is correct and he has good memory.
The sequence is the same as Pan Nam’s.
Just saw Higaonna in a demo over here. He’s now 69 and I still wouldn’t mess with him! Excellent power generation, very smooth, and beautiful movements, and a thoroughly nice guy to boot.
I have a friend who’s godan in gojuryu, and since they use a lot of the same range and have some similar movements (on the surface) I’m really looking forward to playing around with him. I haven’t sparred a gojuryu guy since I first started out in MA about 17 years ago. Their ‘ju’ is our ‘go’ though! Their tool training alone is scary!
Edmund writes:
Andrew is correct and he has good memory.
The sequence is the same as Pan Nam’s.
Ed Yuen? Is that you?
If so, it’s been a while.
Andrew
Sure is! How’s it going?
Doing well, man. I got married last year, went back into medical training and am halfway through my nephrology fellowship. Still training, though not quite as much as I’m picking up a medical subspecialty.
What’s up with you?
Gonna make it back through LA soon?
Andrew
P.S. Check your PM’s for my e-mail in case you lost it.
For the crowd- Ed’s the gent from Oz who showed me some Pan Nam stuff.
IMHO,
There are only two major type of SLT/SNT disregard of the motion or technics.
The two type are
1, using the intention to move the body direct.
The uniqueness of this type is “tensing” the part of the body when one intent to move it.
The move of this type is discrete direct and linear.
2, using the intention to lead the Qi and using the Qi to transport the body.
The Uniqueness of this type is " relaxing" the part of the body when one intent to move it.
The move of this type is resonance eventhough explicitly might look broken.
See, type 1 might look soft or slow or grace however the part of the body is tense up while one is intent to move it.
as for type 2, it might look soft or fast or … however the whole body is relaxing while one is intent to move it.
These two type of training will yield two different type of result.
The type 1 training is catagorized as an external training, why type 2 is catagorized as internal training for the CMA.
just some thoughts to share.
[QUOTE=Hendrik;740448]IMHO,
as for type 2, it might look soft or fast or … however the whole body is relaxing while one is intent to move it.
These two type of training will yield two different type of result.
The type 1 training is catagorized as an external training, why type 2 is catagorized as internal training for the CMA.
just some thoughts to share.[/QUOTE]
It loathes me to agree with Hendrick just out of principle and I don’t agree with his choice of vague ‘Qi’ or internal/external terminology, plus I can’t say I’m in agreement with the implications of his conclusion. But …
… I observed pretty much the same thing between the two videos also.
To be fair, the first one was a walk through of the sequence by two students for the purposes of making a video explanation. The second was almost the opposite of that.
Regardless, setting aside all superficial differences in stylistic flairs of choreography, intended filming purpose, and level of practitioner, I’d say there really is no significant difference between the two clips.
Every teacher make decisions what the want to emphasize and fiddle with to make something ‘their own’. The peculiar thing about Yip Man was his choice to greatly accelerate what he thought was a ‘clean up’ of each form’s purpose. It’s one of the reasons why, as he taught more, certain movements (such as the recovery movement of GinSao) were removed from SiuNimTao because they pop up again in later foms where he felt the nature of the form better matched the nature of the movement.
This fiddling is also the root of the reason why you’ll find GahnSao in Yip Man’s early teachings and disappearing when he moved to Hong Kong, only to see it reappear later after further experimentation - but stripped of what he thought was the ‘excess baggage’ of extra choreography. (Yes, I know some people call it a GwatSao in the first form instead.) You can observe a cross section of Yip Man’s students and predict when they trained pretty much based on this one ‘flair’ alone.
Check around some more - you’ll proably find other SLT/SNT’s which are different again. I’ve seen at least 3 versions just in my own lineage, and not just minor tweaks either.
Another Higaonna story - he visited Canberra back in the 70’s when I lived there and did an impressive kata and bunkai demo. He had planned to do some breaking, but the materials he needed didn’t, er, materialise. So he went outside the hall, taking the group with him, found an empty steel 44 gallon drum, and promptly front-kicked a hole through it with his bare foot.
Bandit
[QUOTE=Steeeve;740224]the second SNT is not Pan nam …Its michael Wong SNT almost a goju ryu wing chun forms:D
Steevie[/QUOTE]
I have the entire video that this clip is taken from, which lucky for me came free with WSL’s “Science of in fighting” from Amazon.
The guy is a bandit. He looked uncomfortable/awkward showing pre arranged demos…
His explanations of “his” style did not justify the application he was teaching IMHO. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=anerlich;740553]Check around some more - you’ll proably find other SLT/SNT’s which are different again. I’ve seen at least 3 versions just in my own lineage, and not just minor tweaks either.[/QUOTE]
You may think that they are different as apples and oranges, but all I see are fruit. 
If I wish to create dualities where I feel none exist, then yes, I’d agree with you. However, as of yet, the differences to me are superficial differences in flair, choreography, sequencing, level of practitioner, and choice of emphasis.
In other words, I see the ‘differences’ as inconsequential. Interestingly to me, that includes the differences between TWC SNT and everyone else they insist are ‘modified’. (Boy, if that doesn’t get Victor going, I’ll have to give him big Kudos for figuring out how to relax once in a while. 
)
Truth be told, without substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria, it’s all the same.
Heck, most of the time, I don’t care to make distinctions between “good” Muay Thai’s approach and “good” Ving Tsun’s. (!) So, why would I make the effort for a few “OMG they are totally different therefore they suck ass” family squabbles?
fiddle with’,…
Right Tom, I’ve seen many different versions of Siu Lum Dao/Sil Lim do,..( I learned a version of it from asst. Coach Jimmy Yee in Chicagos’ Chinatown at their ‘Athletic Club’. That school was a shoot-off of Master A, Fongs’ school in New York, but the form is different?),…just like All of the ‘fiddleing’ with the ‘Mook Yan Jong’ form! Either the 108-step, or the 116-step or Completely different variations,…all in all’, most of them are viable’ and valuable, no matter how ‘different’ or non-traditional in someones’ view they might be,…lol’. It is ALWAYS up to the teacher’ as to what he or she passes on to the students,…and , of course over the centuries, it has become the Many styles and cross-styles of martial-movement. Li Ma-Keh
Li Ma-Keh sez
The only school Augustine Fong has -is in Tucson Arizona. For wing chun instructors affiliated with him see the list at:
http://www.fongswingchun.com/school.php
No criticism of your slt- which I havent seen , is intended.
with good wishes for your wing chun.
joy chaudhuri
no problem,…
That’s what I was told’,..and I thought it was weird that the form was different than Master Fongs’. This was in 1978 when I had learned it. They didn’t advertise their Wing-Chun style as Master Fongs’,..I was told that one of the instructors had originally taken lessons from him,…? So, thanks for the input. Li Ma-Keh.
re: differences in SLT.
we all speak the same language. however, subtle differences arise because of accents, tones and inflections.
it is far more important to ensure that we are effective communicators than examining subtle differences between us.
to test our effectiveness we must convey messages in the most efficient manner, to those who speak different languages.
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
The question is,' said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master – that’s all.’