WSL on LSJC

[Sean66]

+1 Graham.
Excellent posts and I agree.
I also use the sprinter analogy. Very useful and something that most people get right away.

[Graham H]

POST DELETED in order to avoid more pointless banter with BPWT and his funny LTWT ideas.

[LFJ]

Haha, I guess we haven't learned anything in the last 30 pages. We're back at page 1 again.

[BPWT]

POST DELETED in order to avoid more pointless banter with BPWT and his funny LTWT ideas.

Well, thankfully, whatever you wrote... I missed it.

I'm not dismissing the way you train, by the way. I just think there is more to the art than the way your teacher does it. What he does, and what he teaches, is surely good.

But it is not about other lineages having "disrupted training" and, by implication, missing something. If anything, the reverse is true.

In your lineage PB choses to teach one aspect of something, and then trains that one aspect to a high degree - allowing him to operate with real skill using it. He seems to have a good teaching method too, and that allows him to pass it on to others. Which is all good.

If your art has a very heavy focus on bong, pak, wu and punch (as Kevin agreed, and as T-Ray implied when he said the training would probably look simple to how some others train) then it is clear that this will be apparent both in your Chi Sau and outside of your Chi Sau.

For this reason, and due to the things we've all talked about over the past months, I think PB students (though not necessarily all WSL lineage students):

• Talk about LSJC, but talk far less about LLHS.
  
• Tend not to use many of Wing Chun's 'hands', or equate those hands as purely a training method for the hands you do use.
  
• Train Chi Sau from Poon Sau, but don't focus on the benefits of contact (be it quick or briefly maintained).
  
• Don't see the Biu Tze form as, in addition to others things, utilizing a slightly different power method to that found in Chum Kiu.
  
• As a rule, don't step into the stance of your opponent.

And so on. Again, I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. PB looks like he works hard and looks like he can kick ass with what he does train. If you train that way too and get the results you're looking for - then that's cool.

But it is a mistake to train what you do and then as a result assume that others who train differently must have stunted learning that didn't move pass a certain point. I would argue that others have moved beyond what you learn, as PB perhaps choses to not teach further than the areas he himself thinks work best. His decision. He can teach whatever he feels is best for him.

So for me, I am happy training what I train (and that includes LT's understanding of LLHS-LSJC) as I am looking to study, and therefore develop my use of, a system that fully integrates the art's concepts, hand motions, body methods, forms, etc, etc, and how they are used in Chi Sau and in Lat Sau (and so in reference to "Chi Kiu" and "Lei Kiu").

[BPWT]

Regarding LLHS, LSJC... from David Peterson's recent article in Wing Chun Illustrated, "MOON POINTING FINGER: Loi Lau, Hoi Sung; Lat Sau Jik Chung - Wing Chun in a Nutshell! (WCI, issue 12).

If the attack should come in the midst of an already close-quarters situation, then the Loi Lau concept takes on a more literal meaning because we WILL need to "stick" to the attacking limb in order for us to be able effectively control it and retain the ability to "feel" what may be coming next until we are free to strike. Again, this does NOT imply that you're "chasing the arms" pointlessly, but instead to stay in control and press towards their center.

Hmmm. Stick, Control, Feel. And not chasing hands.

Later, DP talks about how the skeletal structure supports "constant springy forward force" and enables the practitioner to be "like a spring-loaded device".

Pretty much the same explanation as I hear from Leung Ting. Strange that.

Doesn't sound to me like WSL, DP, LT, etc, had their training disrupted at the Chi Sau level.

But it does sound to me like PB choses not to teach at this level - instead keeping things at a stage where you don't utilize the above, but instead break contact and try to punch.

[LFJ]

LLHS, LSJC

They are rhyming phrases because they are meant to go together. They necessarily work together. But as I said previously, from the meaning of the words it seems some confuse the meaning of LSJC with that of LLHS anyway. But everyone seems to have their on interpretation. You are welcome to disagree with me, but would need a similarly logical explanation. I posted this explanation on a previous thread, but it is relevant here too:


The way I understand the LLHS-LSJC phrase is interaction between the opponent and yourself, how to act in relation to the opponent;

-When the opponent "advances" (loi) you "remain" (lau), i.e. make use of angling and such to intercept and keep the pressure forward but don't retreat taking pressure away.
-When the opponent "retreats" (heui) you "see them off" (sung), i.e. you advance in pursuit keeping the pressure on them.
-When the opponent's "arm is removed" or you are "away from hands" (lat-sau) you "rush straight" (jik-chung), i.e. you strike forward to their center.

LLHS is all about that constant 'spring-loaded' forward energy with the whole structure.
LSJC is a 'springing' effect of that energy when met with and once breaking obstruction or whenever there is free space to eat. Like the sprinter analogy just put forth.


And because it's also relevant;

The phrase 'kiu loi kiu seung gwo, mou kiu ji jou kiu' in my view:

Kiu loi kiu seung gwo = When a bridge appears, cross it.
A bridge is a path to cross a river to the other side. In fighting that is an open attack line. Crossing the bridge is having hit the target. When there is such a bridge, act swiftly and cross. If you hesitate (lacking LLHS, LSJC) you will meet an obstruction and lose the opportunity.

Mou kiu ji jou kiu = If there is no bridge, create it yourself.
Applying the above LLHS, LSJC principles, one should employ tactics of footwork and angling with tactical punching methods allowing for lin siu daai da ('to link dissipating with striking in one action'; i.e. simultaneous attack and defense) on the opponent to create open attack lines where an opponent's ability to present further obstruction is compromised due to a disruption of balance and facing.


For those who interpret the bridge as contact with an opponent, I'd have to ask how you understand this second phrase. In the most ideal situation when there is no contact and you can just punch them, why search for contact? If their hands are not in the way are you going to extend your man-sau and ask for contact so you can then 'cross' it? That is seeking an obstruction, not a bridge and is 'chi-sau' foolishness. If you call contact of your fist on their face a bridge, how then do you cross that bridge (first phrase), by punching through their skull?


My understanding of Ving Tsun in a nutshell.

[BPWT]

Mou kiu ji jou kiu = If there is no bridge, create it yourself.

Applying the above LLHS, LSJC principles, one should employ tactics of footwork and angling with tactical punching methods allowing for lin siu daai da ('to link dissipating with striking in one action'; i.e. simultaneous attack and defense) on the opponent to create open attack lines where an opponent's ability to present further obstruction is compromised due to a disruption of balance and facing.

For those who interpret the bridge as contact with an opponent, I'd have to ask how you understand this second phrase. In the most ideal situation when there is no contact and you can just punch them, why search for contact? If their hands are not in the way are you going to extend your man-sau and ask for contact so you can then 'cross' it? That is seeking an obstruction, not a bridge and is 'chi-sau' foolishness. If you call contact of your fist on their face a bridge, how then do you cross that bridge (first phrase), by punching through their skull?

In WingTsun, the Kiu is most often referring to the bridge arm - usually in reference from the hand to the elbow.

Of course, if you face an opponent and they have their hands by their side, or better yet tucked into their front trouser pockets or placed behind their back, then you wouldn't ask them to ask them to "put up their dukes". You're just going to hit them (though today this will probably land you in all sorts of legal strife).

I think this is plain common sense and no WT/VT/WC phrase is required to teach you this or instill the message. If you can simply hit someone because they have no viable means of stopping it, and no viable means of countering at the same time - then you hit them.

But if we are facing off, and there is a guard already up (for sake of argument let's say we're two Chunners and we both have Man and Wu), then I need/want to enter and strike while controlling a bridge and/or clearing the bridge arm (in order to prevent you from striking me as I strike you).

This would be 'building the bridge'. If I don't do this and try to simply pick you off with a punch, it is quite likely you will try and do the same thing to me. Which person is quicker, who has the better angle? Bad percentages. I want to try and avoid being hit as I'm hitting you.

So in LTWT when you start learning to play with the Lat Sau programs (attacking and countering from a non-contact range), you learn five basic entries - one of these is a simple Pak Da entry, another, for example would be a Fook Da entry. Both are about entering/striking/controlling.

In Poulperadieux's interview with Sifu Fernandez, the topic of learning under LT came up and Sifu Fernandez said, about the Lat Sau programs in Hong Kong, that LT told him how in one move you have to move your opponent's body, disrupt their balance, attack them (strike) and 'do Chi Sau'... all in one step.

Of course, LT when he says 'do Chi Sau' is not meaning that you ask your opponent to start doing Poon Sau with you. He's meaning that you engage and apply what you've learned through Chi Sau - how to control, redirect, handle force, etc, via the bridge arm.

As was mentioned in a previous thread, thinking of a bridge as a literal bridge, say crossing a river, has it's use in building up a mental image - but you can't take it to be literal. It just falls down as an example (no pun intended).

If the pictogram for Fook Sau involves a man controlling a dog, you don't take the dog to be a literal thing.

[LFJ]

As was mentioned in a previous thread, thinking of a bridge as a literal bridge, say crossing a river, has it's use in building up a mental image - but you can't take it to be literal. It just falls down as an example (no pun intended).

Oh yeah? Like where? How so?

But if we are facing off, and there is a guard already up (for sake of argument let's say we're two Chunners and we both have Man and Wu), then I need/want to enter and strike while controlling a bridge and/or clearing the bridge arm (in order to prevent you from striking me as I strike you).

Controlling or clearing a bridge? So you're left to swim across and be eaten by the crocodiles? That sounds like something you'd do to an obstacle so you can get to a bridge. The phrase says 'when a bridge appears, cross it', not control or clear it. That's no bridge. Why even call it a bridge then if the analogy fails to hold up at any point? If your analogy collapses before it even gets built, that means your understanding is wrong somewhere.

This would be 'building the bridge'. If I don't do this and try to simply pick you off with a punch, it is quite likely you will try and do the same thing to me. Which person is quicker, who has the better angle? Bad percentages. I want to try and avoid being hit as I'm hitting you.

Then there's the method I've suggested which is neither of the above and is logically consistent with the kyun-kyut. As I said, you're welcome to disagree with me, but your method will also need to be logically consistent with those phrases as they summarize the system, or something is obviously wrong, not that you might want to acknowledge though.

If my interpretation in the previous post "falls down as an example", please explain to me where and how as I have done with yours so that I may reconsider my method.

[BPWT]

Serious? How can anyone argue that an analogy is literal? By definition it means a comparison based on similarities, not exact duplication.

What bridge would you be meaning? One you travel on, or travel in? Two fixed points or just one? A solid structure or a flexible one. If you insist an analogy is quite literally something that is 100% perfect in description, are you suggesting your VT involves steel, stone, or rope?

Heck, in Tokyo there's a bridge that incorporates elevators! Where are your crocodiles concerning a nasal bridge or the bridge of the foot?



The idea of 'bridging' using the arms is found in many MA systems. But sure, you're free to interpret it as some sort of literal bridge of your own selecting if you wish - crocodiles optional, I suppose.

[LFJ]

You're just being stupid now. An open attack line is analogous to a literal bridge, a path to the destination on the other side, a path which if traveled by my fist results in you getting punched.

[Graham H]

Jesus! I can't even be bothered to read all that!

Put it to bed chaps ffs!

[GlennR]

Jesus! I can't even be bothered to read all that!

Put it to bed chaps ffs!

Its ok Graham............. this clip will explain every aspect of this discussion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYKJuDxYr3I

You can thank me later

[Graham H]

Yes! many thanks

[BPWT]

You're just being stupid now. An open attack line is analogous to a literal bridge, a path to the destination on the other side, a path which if traveled by my fist results in you getting punched.

C'mon, I said it can't be literal, and you said: "Oh yeah? Like where? How so?"

So I explained. Now you are talking about something being 'analogous to a literal bridge', which doesn't really make sense in this context either. By hey, no skin off my nose (that really is quite literal).

For sure, you could use the 'path' if you want to - but a path and a bridge are also not exactly the same thing. But semantics.

My point is that I defined the 'bridge' as it is defined by LT. I then explained how that idea functions in our system. No problem for me if you disagree.

But I am quite happy to place trust in LT's definitions and understanding. He's Chinese and a native Cantonese speaker, he studied Chinese and English literature and language at University, and he started his Wing Tsun training at the age of 13. He also has a huge interest in, and understanding of, other Chinese martial arts. But I suppose I should throw away that and trust some guy on an internet forum

You have some interesting posts and ideas - and it is nice to see a WSL lineage guy who doesn't think the world was created by PB... ... but on this topic, we don't necessarily see eye to eye.

[BPWT]

Its ok Graham............. this clip will explain every aspect of this discussion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYKJuDxYr3I

You can thank me later

LOL. But Glenn, are they singing about a literal bridge over troubled waters?