I suggest you read this entire thread and it should save people from a lot of re-typing.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=26670&page=6&highlight=Roots
Okay. Please discuss the technical differences you have seen. Let’s not turn this into a debate on what certain forms are in your opinion.
No critiquing of what you feel is right or wrong.
In other words, differences between Yip lineage, Moy lineage, Kamon lineage, etc etc etc.
Cheung lineage technical Discussion
There was also a related direct comparison thread at that time, I’ll will have to search for it later.
The historical roots and “history”/“herstory” is the package by which the differences are sorted out in that thread. I think I settled on WT vs WC with VT being somewhere in between just to organize the concepts. Eventually someone will come in and tell us its all just a Hung Gar short form anyway. :icon_lol: A pyramid may have four sides but they all come together in a point at the top.
PS-I don’t know why you split my own thread out of here, no one else is gonna answer these questions in here 'cept me…
Ummm differences not why is pak sau used as an entry question etc etc etc.
You do EBMAS how is that different from TWC vs Kamon vs Alan Orr WC. Not which one violates what principles of logic or science or whatever is floating aorund in your head at this point.
Read the other thread. This is a thread about technical differences.
Not:
Double gaun sau if used as a double move violates the chun principle of using two hands to defeat one limb.
This is how you were taught and that is fine. As you used to say, you WT.
This is you saying another style is doing something wrong. Tonu doesn’t want a typical WT/VT/WC debate.
There are 8 million posts by chunners debating the very issues you continue to bring up as do others.
There are another 8 million of people never doing Chun.
Here is an example of a discussion of technical differences.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1715356&highlight=Technical+differences#post1715356
Notice, nowhere in that thread is anyone saying which style is wrong. No one is arguing about who is right.
Hopefully, you’ll understand what the other thread is about.
You want to answer questions, you now have your own thread to do this in.
Cross post for the two separate threads.
PS-I don’t know why you split my own thread out of here, no one else is gonna answer these questions in here 'cept me…
Ummm differences not why is pak sau used as an entry question etc etc etc.
You do EBMAS how is that different from TWC vs Kamon vs Alan Orr WC. Not which one violates what principles of logic or science or whatever is floating aorund in your head at this point.
Read the other thread. This is a thread about technical differences.
Not:
Double gaun sau if used as a double move violates the chun principle of using two hands to defeat one limb.
This is how you were taught and that is fine. As you used to say, you WT.
This is you saying another style is doing something wrong. Tonu doesn’t want a typical WT/VT/WC debate.
There are 8 million posts by chunners debating the very issues you continue to bring up as do others.
There are another 8 million of people never doing Chun.
Here is an example of a discussion of technical differences.
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1715356&highlight=Technical+differences#post1715356
Notice, nowhere in that thread is anyone saying which style is wrong. No one is arguing about who is right.
Hopefully, you’ll understand what this thread is about.
Okay, thanks for answering, and sorry for the inconvenience.
No sweat asking questions is cool. Here is the other thread.
No BS Martial Arts
This post was directed more at DTT because, I explained in the other thread why I was moving posts.
Apparently, he didn’t understand the short post so I made the position clearer.
Defense? What are you talking about? You guys want to have a stylistic debate that is fine. That is why I started another thread. That is why it is still in the CMA forum. If I thought it was garbage it would be in the YMAS forum with the other 8 million chun debates.
See this post?
Okay. Please discuss the technical differences you have seen. Let’s not turn this into a debate on what certain forms are in your opinion.
No critiquing of what you feel is right or wrong.
In other words, differences between Yip lineage, Moy lineage, Kamon lineage, etc etc etc.
I fleshed it out because, you guys apparently didn’t understand what Tonu wanted.
If you read the Aikido link they are discussing the differences between different schools of Aikido. They are also discussing where it possibly changed and why.
They aren’t talking about violating principles (whose principles?) or discussing a specific technique usage.
Technical use is not the same as a technical difference.
Think Tonu’s power generation vs Emin’s power generation. If that makes no sense a shin kick round house versus a TKD roundhouse.
Not right or wrong not necessarily better just different.
The difference between Moy Yat’s style and others is that it would seem more people ask what is the difference between Moy Yat’s style and others.
… and I’m not joking here, either. If you search KFM, you’ll find it asked a few times.
“What the fuck kind of question is that? I teach Ving Tsun.” – Moy Yat, said in response to a prospective student’s question of whether the school taught ‘modified’ or ‘traditional’.
Quit being obtuse.
I’m in East Bay, actually. Below is the website for my group. No, we don’t do any hard, full-contact sparring; but I like it anyway. If and when I want full contact, I may check out that EBM place in Oakland, but I’m digressing.
OK, but having a technical discussion without the theoretical background is not going to get very far in a _ing __un thread, since the system uses a limited number of techniques, in various ways, based on the theory of application.
So for this thread I will leave it at:
WT uses five moves and a turn. Tan/bong, Pak/jut, Jum/ Gaun, Lan/kau, and punch/elbow and the IRAS based turn/step.
But I’ll go read what you posted in my thread and stay over there, good luck with this.
OK, but having a technical discussion without the theoretical background is not going to get very far in a _ing __un thread, since the system uses a limited number of techniques, in various ways, based on the theory of application.
Yet, there are multiple pictures of multiple styles doing those techniques differently. So, yes, you can discuss the technical differences without telling people what they are doing is violating a principle in your style.
WT uses five moves and a turn. Tan/bong, Pak/jut, Jum/ Gaun, Lan/kau, and punch/elbow and the IRAS based turn/step.
Yet, no one does this exactly the same form style to style.
Hence a technical discussion of the differences. Yes, this can be done with out insults, with out someone being wrong, and with out principles.
I prefer to look at it as being flexible.
My classmate run the gambit: You come up against some, and they feel like they are a ghost. Others feel like they are a freight train. Some prefer the outside, some inside. Some talk a lot in detail, others barely say a word. Some stand evenly weighted, others bias the other way. Not only all these “differences”, but there are those who will change it from month to month, week to week.
If you want technical differences, then pick one. If you believe that’s the answer, then that’s the answer. But, I’m not going to define Moy Yat’s ‘style’ (whatever that means) via a comparison to others. It’s a silly exercise in mental masturbation.
Fair enough! =D
Yes, I know. You’ve been in enough threads with me to know this or, so I thought.
If you want technical differences, then pick one. If you believe that’s the answer, then that’s the answer. But, I’m not going to define Moy Yat’s ‘style’ (whatever that means) via a comparison to others. It’s a silly exercise in mental masturbation.
Yeah fuck you to.
The chun is based on a set of mottos. Everyone pretty much agrees on those. They are hanging on the walls of the Yip Man museum if I am not mistaken. (Toms been there to look at the water closet I think). Are you saying I have to accept very magazine sifu that claims the chun as correct for the sake of looking at differences and I can’t say certain specific things are NOT CHUN? as in not in any legit chun what so ever, even outside Yip Man family styles? (Such as doing a crossed arm double low block to stop a groin kick? This is a Wing Chun movie pose and I put it out there then for any chunner that is taught to do this to please step forward so I can stand corrected…)
Yes, anything goes? Cool, I will turn this into a grappling thread then…or maybe talk about round house kick’s to the head, or the Wing Chun bow and arrow form, since nothing can be wrong or outside the chun…ok, sarcasm off…
I get what your saying, we will just have to infer what each thinks is wrong with the other by what we don’t say.
“We don’t block low kicks with our hands in WT” is so much nicer…
The chun is based on a set of mottos. Everyone pretty much agrees on those. They are hanging on the walls of the Yip Man museum if I am not mistaken. (Toms been there to look at the water closet I think). Are you saying I have to accept very magazine sifu that claims the chun as correct for the sake of looking at differences and I can’t say certain specific things are NOT CHUN? as in not in any legit chun what so ever, even outside Yip Man family styles? (Such as doing a crossed arm double low block to stop a groin kick? This is a Wing Chun movie pose and I put it out there then for any chunner that is taught to do this to please step forward so I can stand corrected…)
Double goes for you.
Alrighty if that is exactly what you want.
Cool.
There you go Tom. It is what the OP wants not me.
Can I come back and play? I’ll be nice, and you know I make video and photo links…
edit:wow, merged while I typed.