Honest HFY Question-

[JPinAZ]

And this from Wayfaring:
Victor,

I'm starting to pick up the idea that some of what you talk about central lines may share some similarities with how we deal with facing. Honestly, I don't think I have a good grasp on what you mean by central lines yet over discussions and your writeups. I'm going to go over a few of your posts on it and see if I can get a better picture.

I also agree with Dave here. But again, this doesn't mean you understand HFY, just that he understand you and sees some similarities.

Are you trying to say that these commentsof HFY members you are reposting is implying that you yourself understand HFY and that the 2 systems are one and the same because both sides can see some similarities?? I think you are grossly overlooking the DIFFERENCES that exist between the two as well...

[Ultimatewingchun]

And I'm inviting you, Savi, or whoever else, to show me in plain English what you think those differences are.

And then let's see whether they are major or minor differences.

[JPinAZ]

What this will prove - by the end of this thread...

is that the two systems are essentially one-and-the-same.

Just stay tuned......

Why?

(Because I believe the two men learned from the same source).

Cool, I applaud your honesty. But Vic, even IF by some remote chance you are correct in your assumption, is it possible that they both were shown vastly different things?? If they both learned from the same person, why are the concepts, theroies, and most obviously to you, TERMS totally different? Do you have a guess at that as well?

Also, are you saying that one or both the men are lying about where they learned there WC from? Because like it or not, that is what your statement says.. And that's a conversation I'd rather not have with you

And I'm inviting you, Savi, or whoever else, to show me in plain English what you think those differences are.

And then let's see whether they are major or minor differences.

When you get a chance, please read my post here: http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthr...6141#post16141
Besides history, it describes some very big technical differences between HFY and TWC IMO, just in the opening moves of the SNT forms, just for starters. If they are truely the same system, from the same teacher, why the big differences just in the opening of the SNT?

[Phil Redmond]

Here's a very brief explanation of the Central line:
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/theory.asp
Generally we cover the Center Line and strike along the Central line facing the point of contact with the Center Line. I'll add a video showing that on my website.

[CFT]

The best way might be to post the section on "Popular Wing Chun" here. I do not want to tempt potential copyright Nazis or would do it myself.

I think you're OK to post it Andrew. There is "Fair Use" provision in the USA Copyright Act of 1976.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig..._1976#Fair_use

Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use:

1. the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive)
2. the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity)
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used, and
4. the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.

The Act was later amended to extend the fair use defense to unpublished works.

I made a mental note to look at my copy of MKF last night but forgot. I think that given the time difference you could be the first to do this.

[Wayfaring]

THE CENTRAL LINE
In TWC it all starts with the Central Line principle, which defines the area a practitioner, without pivoting his hips, can cross his wrists evenly at the lower, middle, and upper gates when in a neutral stance. The very first movement you make with both arms after opening up your stance in any of the three forms - and immediately before throwing the vertical punch with your left hand - is the move that defines the central line.

OK, Victor, I'm not sure I'm all on board with what you're trying to prove, and I personally don't believe that HFY and TWC are "virtually the same system". I do believe that there are more similarities than with other WCK families from my limited experience and observations.

However, I think I'm starting to understand your TWC Central Line principle a little better, and I thank you and Phil for your efforts in education and investigation.

In HFY it doesn't start with the Central Line principle, it starts with the HFY Formula. Are these the same? Some of the width definitions you describe here sound close. However, the HFY formula has many other key elements involved. These provide precise reference points for "inside the box" WCK in HFY. The precision level that you describe for even reach in Central Line is equally precise for each of the other areas in the HFY Formula.

I don't think they are the same. For example, in Phil's link there is a picture of a guy with 3 different poses or positions. Two are marked "incorrect", and one is marked "correct". None of the 3 represent an accurate depiction of the HFY Formula applied. None are even close.

So I would say although the Central Line and HFY Formula may have some similarities, there are also some very key differences. And if they are different at the very elemental base, they are certainly different.

This doesn't necessarily mean that your theory of some kind of connection in the past is wrong. I don't know about all that. But certainly a complete transmission of the same WCK system along two separate paths is not the case as I can observe from differences.

[Wayfaring]

I think you're OK to post it Andrew. There is "Fair Use" provision in the USA Copyright Act of 1976.

I think the Fair Use provision allows for quoting sections verbatim from copyrighted material, but prohibits this beyond a certain quantity. So quoting paragraphs or sections of books is certainly legal but reproducing whole pages, chapters, etc. is not.

I certainly think copying a paragraph or two from a book verbatim for discussion purposes is very well within the legal boundaries of this act.

[CFT]

I think the Fair Use provision allows for quoting sections verbatim from copyrighted material, but prohibits this beyond a certain quantity. So quoting paragraphs or sections of books is certainly legal but reproducing whole pages, chapters, etc. is not.

Yes, rule of thumb we used at university was photocopying up to 10% of a book or journal for research use. Probably a whole different matter (i.e. not allowed) if photocopying for a class handout.

I don't think Andrew is going to type or even scan the whole book. IIRC it was just a few paragraphs.

[osprey3883]

Alan posted-

You are a bad man Nick! LOL

re-

Originally Posted by Nick Forrer
Actually Alan if you want a book on wing chun its hard to beat fighting by Bob Breen. The wing chun on display in that im sure would meet with your approval.

Thats awesome the Sifu and his student from the WC line that is made up are excited about the WC in a book thats not about WC.
Real f'ing genius coming out of that (Robert Chu) WC family.

Matt

[osprey3883]

What this will prove - by the end of this thread...

is that the two systems are essentially one-and-the-same.

Just stay tuned......

Why?

(Because I believe the two men learned from the same source).

And it's about time that fact was revealed.

Victor,
Are you saying GM Cheung studied with Dr Wang Ming as well?

OK back to what I believe to be the productive side of this thread-
Re the Bong Laap drill in the clip that was posted, we have already had a good discussion about what concepts are being expressed. As I mentioned earlier in the thread this IMO doesn't present what HFY terms as Kiu Sau because the contact (bridge) keeps being broken and re-established, but I think Phil mentioned that this was a very basic Bong Laap drill. Do you or Phil have any other Bong Laap drills that you would be willing to share that would better express not only an engagement but also maintaining the bridge from a Bong Laap timeframe in TWC?

Matt

[Ultimatewingchun]

When you get a chance (Victor), please read my post here: http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthr...6141#post16141
Besides history, it describes some very big technical differences between HFY and TWC IMO, just in the opening moves of the SNT forms, just for starters. If they are truely the same system, from the same teacher, why the big differences just in the opening of the SNT?"


AND HERE'S WHAT I FOUND IN YOUR LINK THAT YOU WROTE:

"...in the first moves of the opening of SNT, the hands are crossed low to high with contact at either the wrists or forearm with the arms making more-or-less and ‘X’ shape. This signature is common through most WC seen, from YM, to YKS to TWC even. And from what I have read, seen and gathered, there are various reasons for this. A good explanation was just given most recently by Victor as he describes in Central Line concept on KFO both here http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=221
and here http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=238

But what if we look into this a bit more? From what I have learned of the ‘B’ category (HFY in this case), the opening is shaped more like an upside-down ‘V’, with the crossing at the hands/wrist and the elbows pointed in/down." (JP)

***SO WHAT? The TWC opening looks like an upside down 'V' also. It's the meaning behind the shape(s) that's important. Not whether or not we call it a V or an X - based upon what portion of the configuration we chose to look at and comment upon. But's let's look further into what you wrote.

................................

"One example (of the HFY concepts behind the opening move of (SLT)...would be that the opening describes our 4-gate Tien Yan Dei theory (hands crossing at middle, low then high references)." (JP)

***AND there's a "major" difference between you saying that and when I said that the x shape defines the gates? ( I said six gates - you said 4. So what? HFY clearly uses 6 gates when all is said and done - doesn't it? Very minor difference so far, JP.)

.....................................

"Another would be the fact that the opening is supported by specific reference points along the center line coming from the Sup Ming Dim (wing chun formula). Both of these support the idea of having the strongest structures in space along the CL. This also points to what supports and gives rise to some of HFY's Kiu Sau concepts, which is how to maintain the strongest structures along the center line & box theory." (JP)

***TOO vague an explanation (without giving an explanation of Sup Ming Dim that contradicts anything I've said) to assume that TWC doesn't cover the same points/concepts. I mentioned two very important "reference points" in my description of the meaning of the X movement at the opening os SLT, didn't I? (The east-west parameters of the Central Line - wherein you can use both arms/hands simultaneously to the same exact distance without having to move shoulder - thereby maximizing the speed and the overall abilty to use both arms in attack and defense simultaneously).

And as far as kiu sau (longer range bridging) is concerned - and how this helps maintain the strongest structure along the centerline and box theory...well just substitute the term "central line" for "centerline" in that sentence and consider the fact that the up and down motion of the x defines a box right in front of a TWC fighter - now doesn't it?...A box that must be covered more by "kiu sao" (longer range hands and structures - doesn't it? Which is what is covered in the drills/concepts I described in earlier posts (very different than what is covered in close quarter chi sao training).

And btw, all these points also cover what you said in your next few sentences:

"Another key concept with the Sup Ming dim is HFY’s 5-line theory (which describes width) and how it also supports the structure in space along the center line based on reference points." (JP)

***ANOTHER WAY of explaining what I just said about the parameters of the "east-west" Central line - and what it means. Furthermore, I'll take this opportunity to talk about how TWC defines those 5 points you just referred to:

1) the main centerline
2) the line parallel to the main centerline that runs down your right side chest line
3) the line next to that which runs down your right side along your shoulder line
4) the line parallel to the main centerline that runs down your left chest line
5) the line next to that which runs down your left side along your shouler line

"This is evident when looking at how the elbows point inward more as compared to the ‘X’ shape seen in other WC. So, 5-line, together with the TYD & CL theories is what drives the ‘V’ shape be maintained. Or better said, the ‘V’ shape is a result of staying with these concepts, principles & theories, as well as most all actions by a HFY practitioner. It is also a clear indication that most other WC does not follow these same concepts in their opening." (JP)

***DON'T know about "other" wing chun systems - but I still haven't read anything here to suggest that the elbows in TWC are held/positioned any differently than HFY does. Our elbows ARE pointed "inward" - because the basic TWC "jong sao" has the arms held close to a 45 degree angle - so the elbows are a bit closer to the center than perhaps other systems do.

[taltos]

Thought I’d make a quick pass-by and offer this…

Thanks to Redmond Sifu for the links. His website is extremely well organized, and packed with TWC information. My prior experience was limited to flipping through books in a bookstore, but that site offers a ton of resources. Thanks again.

My only WC experience has been with the Yip Man system (through the Moy Yat lineage for about ten years), and Hung Fa Yi, so any statements I make come from those two points of reference (and straight off the top of my head since I just watched some of the videos).

The first thing I noticed was that it appears that TWC uses vastly different footwork than what I learned in the Yip Man system. I also see differences in how the stances and forms are opened, and in other places.

The advanced Siu Nim Tau also seems to have moves/footwork that are not present in the forms I learned in the Yip Man system.

However, and I am not attempting to start anything or to cause any issues – just to share my first impression, the basic choreography/sequence (i.e., taan, huen, wu, fook, paak, dim jreung) of the form seems to share more in common with what I learned in the Yip Man system than it does with what I learned in Hung Fa Yi.

**PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT DISCUSSING “BETTER” OR “WORSE,” ONLY IDENTIFYING DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES.**

That said, I DID notice that the advanced Siu Nim Tau includes some footwork, as does the Hung Fa Yi Siu Nim Tau, and that was not present in what I learned in the Yip Man system. I also noticed that there were some movements (I don’t remember the exact number) that were not present at all in what I learned in the Yip Man system.

However, when I do the same comparison with HFY and YM, there are many, many differences and additions. I did a rough count in my head, and I stopped before the end of the first section with twenty. Far more than I saw in the TWC and YM comparison.

I realize that the form is not the “be all, end all” of a system, and that obviously things may be more stressed in actual drills and applications, so I am not making any definitive statement here, only sharing an observation.

Also, one way (not the “only” way) to think of the Wing Chun Formula is a way to draw a precise grid in which every movement can be referenced for exact positioning. By this I mean instead of “elbow down, in front of body,” the location and position can be precisely identified. As humans, we of course have a center, a shoulder, and halfway in between, but the placement in HFY is much more precise (again, not a statement of “better” or “worse”). Sort of like a three dimensional graph paper. When I do SNT in HFY, every single move can be gauged using this “grid” for proper placement and structure. When I watched the TWC form with that in mind, the placement and structure was not the same as HFY. And again, NOT “better” or “worse,” just an observation that we play certain hands in different places, and presumably (I don’t know for certain) for different reasons. It would seem that if something that is so fundamental to HFY that it is taught before anything else is absent from TWC, then the two systems may not be “one in the same.” But that really does not matter, since each system (and the YM I studied as well) can stand on its own without the need to reference one another for legitimacy or results. All are complete collections of concepts and principles in and of themselves, and I respect them as such.

I really do enjoy this open dialogue, and hopefully this kind of positive exchange will continue. There are others here (Matt comes to mind) who have also shared their experiences, and have worked to keep things positive, and I am sure they can add or clarify to what I have observed as well. I applaud everyone’s efforts. TWC really is an interesting and distinct lineage, and I look forward to educating myself more about it when time permits.

I really must get back to work. I’m paying for these crazy graduate courses, so I might as well get A’s. I just didn’t want to let Redmond Sifu’s olive branch of links and information go unnoticed and un-thanked (is that even a word?).

Be well and train well.

-Levi

[anerlich]

I made a mental note to look at my copy of MKF last night but forgot. I think that given the time difference you could be the first to do this.

LOL. I made the same mental note and also forgot. Believe it or not, I had more important things to occupy my attention.

[JPinAZ]

Victor, Again I appreciate your open dialog and your honest attempt do dicuss your system with everyone. Hopefully, this discussion (on my part) is taken as a look and both the similarities, as well as differences I/we see in the systems. And this, in no means, is a way of me saying anything is better/worse than the other (at least from my end of the discussion).
To be frank, I also feel that at one point these 2 systems were one and the same - along with all other WC at one point. And I also agree that there are more similarities between these 2 systems than some others to be sure. But I also see some strong differences that really do seperate TWC & HFY as being now, 2 distict systems that both stand on their own. I think you are simply ignoring the differences to prove a point about similarities. I hope I am incorrect in this thinking.

"...in the first moves of the opening of SNT, the hands are crossed low to high with contact at either the wrists or forearm with the arms making more-or-less and ‘X’ shape. This signature is common through most WC seen, from YM, to YKS to TWC even. And from what I have read, seen and gathered, there are various reasons for this. A good explanation was just given most recently by Victor as he describes in Central Line concept on KFO both here http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=221
and here http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=238

But what if we look into this a bit more? From what I have learned of the ‘B’ category (HFY in this case), the opening is shaped more like an upside-down ‘V’, with the crossing at the hands/wrist and the elbows pointed in/down." (JP)

***SO WHAT? The TWC opening looks like an upside down 'V' also. It's the meaning behind the shape(s) that's important. Not whether or not we call it a V or an X - based upon what portion of the configuration we chose to look at and comment upon. But's let's look further into what you wrote.

Victor, you yourself said the arms make an 'X' shape in TWC, and the sahpe is very important when discussing the concepts behind the shapes. In HFY, the concepts, principles & theories drive all the shapes. In the pictures I've seen of TWC's opening, and through your descriptions, this also seems to be the case. Does TWC evolve and change so fast that pictures become out-of-date within months? And descriptions lose thier value within days?

From what I have read here and seen in pictures, there is an X created, where the hands/finger tips point to the corners of a box when crossed at the low and high bounds out to the shoulder dimension. This can clearly be seen in the pictures Phil provided, and described by a lovely woman in the photos. Are you saying that these pictures are wrong?

Also, it looks as if the fingers are at the shoulder dimension when crossed at the upper bound, and the arms clearly look to be at an X shape (the lines in the picture help illustrate this point. Further, the elbows seem to point at almost 45 degrees in the opposite direction.
From a HFY perspective, this would be incorrect, as it goes against our CL thoeries, our distinct ref. points of the formula, as well as 4-gate TYD (I say 4-gate since 6-gate is not present with this facing). These things are obviously not what drives her hands in the photos (from a HFY perspective only) - unless I am missing some information and/or you are saying the pictures are incorrect? And I agree when you say "the meaning behind the shape(s) that's important. " - that is my whole point!

one other big difference that I see between HFY & TWC are the bounds of the gates as drawn in the pictures of the woman describing the Central Line in TWC. From a HFY POV, the line at the top of the upper gate. and the division of the upper and middle gates is different. Also, the line that devides the lower gate is not in the same place. These things are defined by HFY' Sup Ming Dim (10 bright points - Wing chun formula), something that is taught at the begining in HFY. So it is clear that the systems are opperating under much different concepts in this regard.

Again, not saying HFY or TWC is better worse, just saying that from a HFY perspective, the pictures Phil was gracious enough to provide do not look to be driven from the same principles and concepts that drive HFY's opening to SNT - which is something I think you might be trying to say here? And that is fine, I am most possitive that TWC is a great system that stands on it's own two feet. But I think it's silly for you to say they are essentially one and the same. If so, explain the differences I see. Which, BTW, I am only talking about just the opening of the hands. I see many more, but this is a start.

"One example (of the HFY concepts behind the opening move of (SLT)...would be that the opening describes our 4-gate Tien Yan Dei theory (hands crossing at middle, low then high references)." (JP)

***AND there's a "major" difference between you saying that and when I said that the x shape defines the gates? ( I said six gates - you said 4. So what? HFY clearly uses 6 gates when all is said and done - doesn't it? Very minor difference so far, JP.)

In case I wasn't clear in my post on HFY108, HFY has both 4-gate Tein Yahn Dei as well as 6 gate theories. These are 2 seperate theories based on different facings, range and footwork (or lack-there-of). In the case of the Duei Ying facing at the opening of the SNT, we are only talking about 4-gate TYD. 6-Gates do not come into play until there is footwork. The differences IMO become clearer with this understanding. But to be honest, I did not see where you say that 4-gate or 6-gate anything is what DRIVES the hands in the opening of TWC. Again, maybe I missed it. I'll go back and re-read what you wrote here.

BTW, you realize you are using the 'x shape' terminology here again?

"Another would be the fact that the opening is supported by specific reference points along the center line coming from the Sup Ming Dim (wing chun formula). Both of these support the idea of having the strongest structures in space along the CL. This also points to what supports and gives rise to some of HFY's Kiu Sau concepts, which is how to maintain the strongest structures along the center line & box theory." (JP)

***TOO vague an explanation (without giving an explanation of Sup Ming Dim that contradicts anything I've said) to assume that TWC doesn't cover the same points/concepts. I mentioned two very important "reference points" in my description of the meaning of the X movement at the opening os SLT, didn't I? (The east-west parameters of the Central Line - wherein you can use both arms/hands simultaneously to the same exact distance without having to move shoulder - thereby maximizing the speed and the overall abilty to use both arms in attack and defense simultaneously).

And as far as kiu sau (longer range bridging) is concerned - and how this helps maintain the strongests structure along the centerline and box theory...well just substitute the term "central line" fr cwnterline in that sentence and consider the fact that the up and down motion of the x defines a box right in front of a TWC fighter - now doesn't it?...A box that must be covered more by "kiu sao" (longer range hands and structures - doesn't it? Which is what is covered in the drills/concepts I described in earlier posts (very different than what is covered in close quarter chi sao training).

And btw, all thse poinst also cver what you said in your next few sentences:

"Another key concept with the Sup Ming dim is HFY’s 5-line theory (which describes width) and how it also supports the structure in space along the center line based on reference points." (JP)

***ANOTHER WAY of explaining what I just said about the parameters of the "east-west" Central line - and what it means. Furthermore, I'll rake this opportunity to talk about how TWC defines those 5 points you just referred to:

1) the main centerline
2) the line parallel to the main centerline that runs down your right side chest line
3) the line next to that which runs down your right side along your shoulder line
4) the line parallel to the main centerline that runs down your left chest line
5) the line next to that which runs down your left side along your shouler line

"This is evident when looking at how the elbows point inward more as compared to the ‘X’ shape seen in other WC. So, 5-line, together with the TYD & CL theories is what drives the ‘V’ shape be maintained. Or better said, the ‘V’ shape is a result of staying with these concepts, principles & theories, as well as most all actions by a HFY practitioner. It is also a clear indication that most other WC does not follow these same concepts in their opening." (JP)

***DON'T know about "other" wing chun systems - but I still haven't read anything here to suggest that the elbows in TWC are held/positioned any differently than HFY does. Our elbows ARE pointed "inward" - because the basic TWC "jong sao" has the arms held close to a 45 degree angle - so the elbows are a bit closer to the center than perhaps other systems do.

Thanks for your further clarification. I feel my Sihing Levi did a great job of covering these details from a HFY as well as YM perspective.

Victor, you speak of a 45 degree angle in your last sentence. You do realize, that 2 45 degree angle lines, when crossed make an 'X' right? Again, this angle would be incorrect from a HFY perspective. Finally, I repeat, I'm not saying TWC is 'wrong' from a TWC POV, just that this shape would be incorrect when you are working under the concepts/principles within HFY. Hopefully this is clearer to you?

Jonathan

[osprey3883]

Anerlich,
Savi does make a good point about the history link on your site.
Yip Man WC has always traced it's lineage back to the Reb Boat opera. Does your family of TWC trace their lineage back to the Hung Gun Boxer society?

Matt