difference bet. twc and pan nam wingchun....

[wingchunKid]

hi there craig.

it's interesting to know that after learning the twc for six years you still want to learn pan nam. pardon my ignorance but for me who is just studying hung fa yi wing chun, could you tell me if there is a major difference between the two styles?


again, welcome to the forum...

later.

alan

[Craig]

Thanks for the thread starter Alan and thankyou also for your welcome.
I guess I should start with a little bit of history I lived in Melbourne Australia since birth and studied TWC for about 6 years under Sifu Del Fisher who was taught to Sifu level by GM Cheung, for whatever reason they stopped talking and so you won't find my Sifu on GM Cheungs websights. ( Not the first time that students and teachers have stopped talking as I'm sure a lot of us can relate)

After 6 years I moved to Adelaide because my wife told me to lol......
(perphaps another forum topic)


Having studied "THE" TWC I knew for certain that the only other style was modified WC and not "real" TWC. I knew that I had been taught the best and for the last year help teach the one and only true style.

No disrespect to TWC or my Sifu both of which I love dearly, however I found in the directory only two schools in Adelaide. One was GM Jim Fung - the other GM Felix Leong. As you can imagine I was shocked and confused to realise that there were two schools both telling me that they were of true lineage and teaching on the one hand "closed door student yip man kung fu" and "Pan nam/ Hong kong/Guang Zhou (Yuen Kay Shan) styles"

How could this be? More than one style? Outragous!
So I tried Jim Fung's school and whilst in one lesson I learnt some new applications and ways of applying body mass in different ways (something they're big on) I also recieved an interesting education about how GM Cheung doesn't know what his doing, was not taught by Yip Man like GM Jim Fung was, how my forms and ability was poor etc. etc. The final crunch was having trained so hard for so long in Melbourne being told that as a "beginner" I would not be allowed to use their wooden dummies for 3 - 5 years because they were only for senior students. No disrepect to GMJF, they are obviously entitled to run their school how they wish but it wasn't for me.

So I joined up with Felix Leong and whilst I wished to train because it all seemed new and exciting (and he didn't bag my technique or previous Sifu - too much) I had three main obstacles at the time, 1 location of Kwoon (red light district), 2 cost of training 3 hours I was working. I was to later find out that my current instructor trained under GM Felix and specialised in Pan Nam style whilst also being involved in the security industry.

So I shacked up in my garage and practiced my forms at home for four years - obviously no one out there actually new "real" kung fu and I became dissolusioned about WC and wished for the day I could afford to either a) teach or b) find a good instructor.

Went for a jog one night about 5 months ago past a local Judo hall and stopped in my tracks. There was a sign out the front with JUDO written vertically as JU, next line DO they had filled it in as JUst DO it I laughed and looked in thinking maybe one day my daughter could go along - it's a nice safe fun style to learn and a good intro to martial arts IMO

My jaw dropped - they were doing Chi Sau - sticky hands.

So went in and talked with the instructor

This is what happened and sorry for taking so long to get to the point....

I walked in off the street and had about half the class turn to me over the next minute as they realised I was there and wave and mouth hellos with smiles (no one looked me up and down as you can get in a lot of martial arts clubs)

The instructor explained that he works for free, all fees go to the Judo club and towards equipment and that his interest is in teaching. ( so fees are about half to a tenth of all other clubs I have seen in Adelaide)

He was truly interested to see MY style and discuss it as were most of the students.

He told me some home truths about GM Cheung - and also about his Sifu and other clubs in Adelaide - the point being no one is perfect you just have to find what works and what is right for you.

Then he and his students beat me real good - with my permission(semi contact)

So thats why I signed up

In amongst all that I realised through about ten hours of net surfing with Google that WC is as versatile an art as any Kung Fu and has many variations and styles. My exploration has found that they ALL work well in theory - some appear slightly easier/more difficult to apply but in the end it really comes down to the individual and their ability to apply what they have learned, I find however that the more I learn about Pan Nam and other styles that perhaps TWC is not nearly as traditional as GM Cheung makes out IMO and not to say it's not effective either

I also find that you are only as good as your instructor lets you be, and in that sense feel blessed that I have found a second Sifu who's interest is genuinely in teaching and growing mutually.

So that's the intro about me and my Kung Fu....
Now differences so far?
That is something that I am finding is growing exponentially in relation to how much I train and begin to understand their forms.
Next Post....

[Craig]

Part B ( for those of you that aren't asleep so far)
Good post by Sihing under:
Southern Shaolin Global Kung Fu Discussion Forum > Systems, Lineages, and Expressions > Traditional Wing Chun - TWC > TWC Vs. Monk
Explains about half way through page one about TWC fairly well - if you have any questions about the basic theories I'm more than happy to help or explain further as I see them.
Please read this first as it will help below.

Now if my terms don't make sense let me know I'm writing most phoenetically so as they sound, please feel free to let me know how they should be spelled....my Cantonese and Mandarin extend as far as San Choy Bow (a tasty pork dish wrapped in lettuce) and thats about it.

So far I have found that Pan Nam has the following differences:
Sil Lim Tao (spell it how you like)
The start in PN is
Hands by side, feet together, lift arms forward thumbs towards roof
at horizontal axis hands move up as an eye strike.
Hoon sau to fist and retract to side,
Toes out, Heels out, Bend legs, Pelvis Out
Try to feel as uncomfortable as you can ( it's getting easier each week)

High cross arm guard
Low " " " "
High Double back fist
Hoon sau and retract

Now I'm sure that with a little downloading you can find a TWC tape of the first part of Small Thought already you should see major (yet subtle) differences

The main differences are that PN style is very direct - a lot of close quarter techniques and moves (I'm still talking small thought here) it's more aggressive and hidden ie. your techniques you do are less visible to your oponent.

The moves allow you to gain a closer distance and /or maintain a closer distance, there is no movement that suggest a block, it all seems to be deflection and redirection, it is much harder in attack, and more obvious in strikes - influence is placed in the specific technique and style of attack - eg, the wipping motion associated with the 1 inch punch

I am still learning the Chum Kiu as I am only a few months in.

In practice PN practitioners in this Kwoon ( DOJO lol) don't have any interest in their position compared to their adversary. They seem more interested in the following principles:

How quickly can I gain contact on an arm and leg or three limbs at once?

Can I intitiate a response straight away from my first attack/defense?

Can I avoid an initial attack and then redirect without moving or compromising my centre line?

Can I work in side their centre line to outside or vice versa?

I can collapse my Bon Sau on purpose - even before I connect

Bon Sau is a weapon

I can roll over an opponent's guard with elbows as I can with punches - elbows can allow me to trap because my wu sau becomes hidden.

Power can generate from a tight, close stance

Training to take a hit in the stomach and practising sticky hands in a semi contact environment prepares you for a messy fight

All fights are messy - even when you are in control - see monk verses TWC again and some of the many repsonses in the monk's favour

Techniques that have multiple applications like a chop which seeks opponents wu sau have untold advantages in winning without thinking

Work the inside of your opponent to devastate - the outside to control.

Work the legs for balance and crippling their fighting ability both inside and out

OK

That is my list to date and I realise that some points above will be considered (and I realise are) a combination of how my new Sifu teaches, common to many styles including TWC and possibly in some instances a method rather than a specific difference.

But I find that so far this is what is relevant to me as someone who has reached an instructor level in one art lineage and then moved to another.

So here ends my post, can I just say the following, thankyou again for your thread intro because I feel that this may allow (hopefully) everyone here to see what I'm about to some degree and also open up some discussion about different styles

My disclaimers are that I wrote all this in a hurry and would like to point out that I wish no disrespect to anyone here and would like to clarify any points should someone feel I have done so. That this does not in anyway represent the "whole Craig" I just can't do so in a half hour of typing so there's a fair chance that we can all discuss this further and learn more about each other.

One point about your post Alan and I'm sure it's just me being silly, however you wrote "pardon my ignorance but for me who is just studying hung fa yi wing chun"
Maybe I am taking this out of context but your not "just studying" if my experience over the last 8 - 10 years has taught me anything it's that your studying real and true kung fu - as have I, as have all students of Chinese/Asian martial arts, some are different, all are deadly - IMO all aim to avoid violence where possible in philosophy (i hope)

I know nothing about Hung Fa Yi style and hope that I can add to or ask questions in your discussions even though I don't know your style. I'm guessing that between the two extreams that I am learning I can hopefully contribute and learn with you and others on this forum.

Much respect to you and yours

Craig

PS Sorry about the long posts - just needed to get all that off my chest - hope your all still awake!

[wingchunKid]

hi craig.

i am most thankful to you for really taking the time to answer my question. i just came off work(230 am here) and i don't have much time to read and fully understand your explanations just yet. tomorrow when i wake up, i promise to really read it thoroughly.

i am glad that you found a school to continue your study of wing chun and hopefully things will work out just fine for you.

you can be sure that i will ask more questions if i have any after re-reading your post.

later.

alan

p.s.

One point about your post Alan and I'm sure it's just me being silly, however you wrote "pardon my ignorance but for me who is just studying hung fa yi wing chun"

what i meant here is that i am only studying one system compared to studying two or more and therefore i have nothing to compare hung fa yi wing chun with.

[Craig]

I have also noticed that hung fa yi uses a quite wide stance with feet facing forward, these stances seem from the pictures I have seen very similiar to TWC only wider. Pan Nam style employs the pigeon toe footwork and also stepping/turning with both heal and toe applications the stances are all very narrow and shoulder width most of the time, apart from when you are utilising your weight to shift or drop an opponent.

I had a feeling after I'd posted that I had mis-interpreted your comment - then when I logged on today I saw the edit post option!

Thanks for your reply and patience as I learn my way around this sight.

Craig

[duende]

Originally posted by Craig
I have also noticed that hung fa yi uses a quite wide stance with feet facing forward, these stances seem from the pictures I have seen very similiar to TWC only wider. Pan Nam style employs the pigeon toe footwork and also stepping/turning with both heal and toe applications the stances are all very narrow and shoulder width most of the time, apart from when you are utilising your weight to shift or drop an opponent.

I had a feeling after I'd posted that I had mis-interpreted your comment - then when I logged on today I saw the edit post option!

Thanks for your reply and patience as I learn my way around this sight.

Craig

Hi Craig,

Welcome to the forum. In regards to your statements about stances... stylistic differences such as narrow vs. wide stances are merely surface level techniques in the art of WC.

In HFY our five stances relate directly to the 360 degree strategy of Bai Bot Bo Gin and it's eight different body methods.

[Craig]

Originally posted by duende
In regards to your statements about stances... stylistic differences such as narrow vs. wide stances are merely surface level techniques in the art of WC.

In HFY our five stances relate directly to the 360 degree strategy of Bai Bot Bo Gin and it's eight different body methods.

Perhaps I am misinterpreting your post duende, I do not understand the concept or meaning of Bai Bot Boi Gin and body methods and you are welcome to explain these if you feel it appropriate.

My question (s) to you is how can you see as stylistic what half your body does in a fight? Have you never done leg chi sau? Do you not spend time in small thought with you legs in one particular position? Why would differences in stance be merely surface level? Are you saying someone with wide feet, compared to someone with narrow feet, compared to pigeon toes, compared to someone who can incorporate all these techniques are equal fighters?

I would suggest that perhaps the person who has the best centre of balance, whilst having the ability to control their opponents balance in all their stances would make the best fighter....

As I mentioned though, without having full understanding of you comments - I am at a loss to understand fully why you feel differences in stances are "surface level"

Look forward to your reply...

[duende]

Hey Craig...


If you want to get caught up in the differences between stances we can... however, I for one doubt that would be beneficial to either of us.

Too often practictioners from different WC lineages focus on superficial differences between techniqes without fully taking the time to actually study and see the concepts behind these techniqies and reasonings why they are different.

Take your post for example... You obviously have experience in TWC and have made technical assumptions about HFY based on your knowledge of TWC.

Yet you have no idea of Bai Bot Bo Gin, which is the core concept and fighting methodology behind all HFY footwork.

So you see, it's not that I disagree with your first post or your last post for that matter. It's just that there is so much more to it.

This statement of yours rings the most true

"I would suggest that perhaps the person who has the best centre of balance, whilst having the ability to control their opponents balance in all their stances would make the best fighter...."

Whether the toe's are in or out, whether the stance is super narrow or wide is not the objective... the concept above about balance and control is.

And what dictates balance and control??? Energy and Range/leverage... or what we refer to as Time, Space and Energy.

The purpose of Bai Bot Bo Gin, is to maintain ones energy focus directed on the target, so that range can be maintained either for a safety belt, or so that time is on your side for an attack.

There is 36 different body methods that we drill in HFY so that we can implement the concept of Bai Bot Bo Gin in the full 360 degrees.

Yes we do have YGKYM and we also have Lueng Yi Ma and Buhn Yi Ma and a T stance even... which are core footwork structures. But once energy and real fighting tactics are involved the focus of footwork changes from technical structures to bridging, range, spacial leverange and more.


I hope that helps bring us to an understanding.

regards,

Alex

[Craig]

Thanks for the welcome Alex. I agree with your points and have found your response most instructive in HFY. Thankyou for taking the time to reply. It is always hard to not sound like your nit-picking when you have no inflection ie. on a forum and I don't want you to think that I was trying to do this. I certainly don't want to upset anyone and don't want to get caught up in silly debates about technical differences either, like yourself.

My motive for posting was simply curiousity based on the pictures I saw on the net. HFY obviously has a very sound philosphy and seems to be quite scientific in it's reasoning. I will endeavor to learn more about this system - everyone I've asked in Australia hasn't heard of it so far, but as the net is showing the world there are a lot more styles of WC than just Yip Man....

Thanks again for the reply.

[sihing]

I think the same, there are some similarities between the two arts TWC and HFY. Not only do I state this based on what I see, but also on what I have read regarding the HFY system. I don't want to ruffle anyone feathers here, but one of the students in my school bought the Mastering Kung Fu book for us as he was curious about it also, so for the last month or so I've had a chance to read through it again and study it more thoroughly than the first time I skimmed through it. On many occasions I found similarities. For example, on pg.#113, the authors, while discussing Biu Jong, write and I quote "to bridge the gap between the practitioner and the opponent, Biu Jong is applied with the knee brought high to cover the middle and lower gates, shooting in at a angle to minimize the opponents ability to counter. Simutaneously, it sets up a flanking position". Now never having the opportunity to witness HFY WC in action, but based on this description it describes almost to a tee the TWC entry technique and concept. On pg #133, the authors state "Jit Kiu requires footwork to engage. Specifically, the angle-in concept is employed. A practitioner should never Jit Kiu when squaring up (i.e. when nose to nose with an opponent). Jit Kiu requires adaptation and change of postion to maintain center orientation while gaining a superior postion. Further down the page the authors write "In reference to the five elemental battle arrays for Facing and Pursuit, one can Jit Kiu before making contact. If one senses hostile intent, one does not stand directly in front of the potental attacker. Instead one automatically moves to the side." To me this all sounds the same as TWC's blindside theory. There were many many other references that made me think of TWC concepts and principals to which I am more familiar with. This is not to say that both art are exaclty the same but over the last 17yrs of participation in the Wing Chun system, I have not seen two arts from different lineages look more similiar and share so many concepts and principals.

I look forward to the day I can witness HFY live for myself and discuss in person with an Instructor in the art of HFY to compare and exchange notes persay.

James

[duende]

Originally posted by sihing
I think the same, there are some similarities between the two arts TWC and HFY. Not only do I state this based on what I see, but also on what I have read regarding the HFY system. I don't want to ruffle anyone feathers here, but one of the students in my school bought the Mastering Kung Fu book for us as he was curious about it also, so for the last month or so I've had a chance to read through it again and study it more thoroughly than the first time I skimmed through it. On many occasions I found similarities. For example, on pg.#113, the authors, while discussing Biu Jong, write and I quote "to bridge the gap between the practitioner and the opponent, Biu Jong is applied with the knee brought high to cover the middle and lower gates, shooting in at a angle to minimize the opponents ability to counter. Simutaneously, it sets up a flanking position".


Hey James... no feather ruffled, but I think it would help if I made some things clearer for you. First off, most of what is presented here about bridging the gap in this paragraph is not unique to either TWC or HFY. In fact many WC I've seen uses flanking, as well as shooting in angles. Hell... wasn't it Sifu David Peterson who wrote a whole chapter in a WC book about flanking and how it related to the warfare of old battle ships and the firing angles of their cannons that ran along their sides.

However yes we both bring up our knees to cover our lower gates. But so does other MA's... take Thai Boxing for example.

I have seen pictures of the TWC entry technique in books and in video's. And I can definitely can see how you feel it's similar in what you've read here. However, I do think it's critical to understand that the authors wrote BIU JONG here and not BIU SAU. This is VERY important in HFY because unlike a Biu Sau, a Biu Jong does not pre-determin or hold any fixed expecations about oncoming energy from an opponant. It's primary purpose is to feel the bridges energy and control the centerline. VERY often from a proper Biu Jong positioning Jit Kiu will not even occur and be bypassed completely.

In my observations of the TWC entry technique I've only seen Biu Sau employed, and a closing of the gap sometimes from many feet away... distances that defnitely would not be found in the HFY system.

Also... there is no preference for the Blind side in HFY. Yes we do have live side and dead side just like everybody else. But time, space, and energy alone dictates our positioning. Nothing else.



Originally posted by sihing

Now never having the opportunity to witness HFY WC in action, but based on this description it describes almost to a tee the TWC entry technique and concept. On pg #133, the authors state "Jit Kiu requires footwork to engage. Specifically, the angle-in concept is employed. A practitioner should never Jit Kiu when squaring up (i.e. when nose to nose with an opponent). Jit Kiu requires adaptation and change of postion to maintain center orientation while gaining a superior postion. Further down the page the authors write "In reference to the five elemental battle arrays for Facing and Pursuit, one can Jit Kiu before making contact. If one senses hostile intent, one does not stand directly in front of the potental attacker. Instead one automatically moves to the side." To me this all sounds the same as TWC's blindside theory. There were many many other references that made me think of TWC concepts and principals to which I am more familiar with. This is not to say that both art are exaclty the same but over the last 17yrs of participation in the Wing Chun system, I have not seen two arts from different lineages look more similiar and share so many concepts and principals.

I look forward to the day I can witness HFY livefor myself and discuss in person with an Instructor in the art of HFY to compare and exchange notes persay.

James

You know James... I'm gonna have to say that this last paragraph you quote is just plain off and downright confusing if you don't have a HFY perspective.

In a nutshell... We all try to take the better angle of attack. Sometimes we slip right in, sometimes we run into interference. Sometimes we can just use our rooting and YGKYM... sometimes we have to side step a bit to maintain a proper range and then angle in for attack.

You guys call it blindside and other WC'rs hate that you call it blindside but still flank just as well.... and it gets all stupid and political.

Before all this happens though, you have to have proper facing which is referred to in HFY as Bai Jong... or the first phase of combat. In my experience some WC schools don't think much of Bai Jong other than it's just an asking hand etc.... with Man sau and Wu sau... In HFY however there are many drills and fundamental concepts in Bai Jong. That include many variations of the Biu Jong engagement, and Bai Jong Bot Bo Gin footwork and facing.

I don't want to go too deep into it here but on one level within the Bai Jong stage we can read an opponant and try to set up etc... but truly... only the Biu Jong point of contact will dictate the next course.

If this point of contact is squared off and centerline control is not acquired THEN... That's when Jit Kiu occurs (as in Jit Kiu phase of combat). This then could lead into what we would call a CHi Sau timeframe.. until centerline control is established allowing for either CHum Kiu and Jeui Ying.

OR however, if centerline control IS established upon the biu jong point of contact then Jit Kiu is skipped and either chum Kiu or Jeu ying can directly follow. Centerline control for us is NOT ONLY being able to open up/block an opponant's arm with a Biu Sau. Centerline control in HFY is ability to dominate your opponants full heaven human and earth structure... or Tin Yan Dei.

What's so damn confusing about that last paragraph from MKF that you quoted is that all the terms from the 5 phases of combat are not only timeframe terms, but strategy or technical terms as well. So it gets SUPER confusing when they are used in both manners in the same paragraph.

I'm going to respond to your quesion on the TWC section as well, so this along with that response should be very helpful in understanding more about HFY.

As far the quote about sensing hostile intent and your seeing that as Blindside theory... I can only say that that is absolutely wrong in the HFY I've ever studied. We never just move to the side. Only energy dictates how we move and what positioning/range/spatial relationship/angles we take with an opponant. We DO use our footwork and try to get the best facing we can though.

We do this by taking our Bai Jong position and making our 6 gates tighter... using our footwork to get time on our side. Getting our knee, hip and elbow struture all facing so that the A-B centerline is ours... so that we can effect the entire stucture of the opponant or what we call Tin Yan Dei That's how we set up.

talk to you later,
Alex

[sihing]

Originally posted by duende
Hey James... no feather ruffled, but I think it would help if I made some things clearer for you. First off, most of what is presented here about bridging the gap in this paragraph is not unique to either TWC or HFY. In fact many WC I've seen uses flanking, as well as shooting in angles. Hell... wasn't it Sifu David Peterson who wrote a whole chapter in a WC book about flanking and how it related to the warfare of old battle ships and the firing angles of their cannons that ran along their sides.

However yes we both bring up our knees to cover our lower gates. But so does other MA's... take Thai Boxing for example.

I have seen pictures of the TWC entry technique in books and in video's. And I can definitely can see how you feel it's similar in what you've read here. However, I do think it's critical to understand that the authors wrote BIU JONG here and not BIU SAU. This is VERY important in HFY because unlike a Biu Sau, a Biu Jong does not pre-determin or hold any fixed expecations about oncoming energy from an opponant. It's primary purpose is to feel the bridges energy and control the centerline. VERY often from a proper Biu Jong positioning Jit Kiu will not even occur and be bypassed completely.

In my observations of the TWC entry technique I've only seen Biu Sau employed, and a closing of the gap sometimes from many feet away... distances that defnitely would not be found in the HFY system.

Also... there is no preference for the Blind side in HFY. Yes we do have live side and dead side just like everybody else. But time, space, and energy alone dictates our positioning. Nothing else.





You know James... I'm gonna have to say that this last paragraph you quote is just plain off and downright confusing if you don't have a HFY perspective.

In a nutshell... We all try to take the better angle of attack. Sometimes we slip right in, sometimes we run into interference. Sometimes we can just use our rooting and YGKYM... sometimes we have to side step a bit to maintain a proper range and then angle in for attack.

You guys call it blindside and other WC'rs hate that you call it blindside but still flank just as well.... and it gets all stupid and political.

Before all this happens though, you have to have proper facing which is referred to in HFY as Bai Jong... or the first phase of combat. In my experience some WC schools don't think much of Bai Jong other than it's just an asking hand etc.... with Man sau and Wu sau... In HFY however there are many drills and fundamental concepts in Bai Jong. That include many variations of the Biu Jong engagement, and Bai Jong Bot Bo Gin footwork and facing.

I don't want to go too deep into it here but on one level within the Bai Jong stage we can read an opponant and try to set up etc... but truly... only the Biu Jong point of contact will dictate the next course.

If this point of contact is squared off and centerline control is not acquired THEN... That's when Jit Kiu occurs (as in Jit Kiu phase of combat). This then could lead into what we would call a CHi Sau timeframe.. until centerline control is established allowing for either CHum Kiu and Jeui Ying.

OR however, if centerline control IS established upon the biu jong point of contact then Jit Kiu is skipped and either chum Kiu or Jeu ying can directly follow. Centerline control for us is NOT ONLY being able to open up/block an opponant's arm with a Biu Sau. Centerline control in HFY is ability to dominate your opponants full heaven human and earth structure... or Tin Yan Dei.

What's so damn confusing about that last paragraph from MKF that you quoted is that all the terms from the 5 phases of combat are not only timeframe terms, but strategy or technical terms as well. So it gets SUPER confusing when they are used in both manners in the same paragraph.

I'm going to respond to your quesion on the TWC section as well, so this along with that response should be very helpful in understanding more about HFY.

As far the quote about sensing hostile intent and your seeing that as Blindside theory... I can only say that that is absolutely wrong in the HFY I've ever studied. We never just move to the side. Only energy dictates how we move and what positioning/range/spatial relationship/angles we take with an opponant. We DO use our footwork and try to get the best facing we can though.

We do this by taking our Bai Jong position and making our 6 gates tighter... using our footwork to get time on our side. Getting our knee, hip and elbow struture all facing so that the A-B centerline is ours... so that we can effect the entire stucture of the opponant or what we call Tin Yan Dei That's how we set up.

talk to you later,
Alex

I know this is going to sound funny, but I can relate to all of your comments above. We use what we call blindside theory, maybe for lack of better words. But in essence it is employed when needed and is dicated like you said based on what the opponent is giving us. Concerning your comments about Bai Jong and facing, we also are vitally concerned with this aspect of combat, not just putting our hands out and waiting from there. Each and every time I witness Sifu going through grading reviews with junior students, this aspect of facing and guard always comes up. Everything we do starts from this and I can relate, even though the terminology is different. You see most each and everytime I read something about HFY or someone relates something about HFY, I can see striking similarities. This doesn't not nearly happen as often when I visit other WC sites or forums.

Just a note, regarding David Peterson and WSL WC. I downloaded the "Science of Infighting" by WSL, and found many similar things also. Also the fact that the blindside theory, entry tech, and many other aspects of the TWC system have been out there now for 30yrs plus, since GM Cheung decided to reveal what he call TWC. Who knows, maybe others picked up on some of his material and incorportated it, maybe not. Just like some people in WC will incorporate concepts they have picked up from the book Mastering Kung Fu, unfortunately things like this happen. Just a thought.


James

[Craig]

I recently sent this email to my Sifu interstate......any thought comments etc. would be appreciated.

I was very appreciative of the one night I was able to spend with you all whilst in Melbourne and in spite of relfections I have been given about weaknesses in my technique and therefore Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) I felt that the short time I was able to spend at our Kwoon was invaluable to myself in both finding and cementing my thoughts on why TWC is effective and also why what I am currently learning is equally effective. It was interesting hearing from Mike during our chi sau why the centre line is so important and why it is important to continue to gain control through the gate you are trying to open rather than redirecting your force whenever you are blocked.

We recently had a grading back in Adelaide which I helped with but was not a part of as it was a first level grading. They consider me to be at a second/third level (out of five) because of my training in Melbourne.

I am finding some things hard to adjust to, as they ( same as every other place I've approached) find fault in GM Cheungs TWC which I lack the experience to explain. On some points I find this is the result more of my lack of abiltiy than a reflection of TWC because they say "your guard is wide and you are attempting to bridge through outer gates rather than through your centre"
( interesting Mike that you should point this out and then my Sifu and Sihing's in Adelaide would say the same thing within the week). Trouble is that they are to some degree making judgements on TWC based on my technique same as in my one day in Melbourne people judged to varying levels the style I am now learning based on my techniques. This is not meant to be a negative comment to either TWC or Pan Nam but simply an observation that all people make observations about different styles because all styles have strengths and weaknesses as we all know.

I suppose in the end given another year of training and my commitment to study this new style I am learning, the proof will be in the pudding.

What I did notice in Melbourne is that in the four years since I've trained either you have subtlely changed your forms (or I have) either way I feel it is very difficult to continue studying TWC without an instructor. So I am asking what do you all think I should do? To date I have not had a conflicting point of view between TWC as taught by GM Cheung through Sifu Del and the style I am now learning. My point is that whilst I am a firm believer in what I was taught to date in Melbourne whithout guidance I feel it is impossible to properly master any of of the techniques I have learnt.

On the other hand what I have learnt is proving to be an excellent foundation for what I am learning now. The forms I am currently learning are truly devastating in technique and I am finding at this stage in my journey require my undevided attention. I feel that in order to become a master of one art can only be achieved by solely concentrating on that art. I can spare the time to do each form properley twice each day. Without instruction doing TWC forms seems to be detracting from my ability to fight because I have found both through my limited chi sau in Melbourne last visit and my chi sau in Adelaide I am obviously not applying the forms properly because I am being attacked through my centre constantly.

If you have any comments to my email I would love to hear from any of you. The intersting thing is that most of what I write is internal ie the inside as my kwoon in Adelaide has only positive things to say about my technique and the faults they pick are certainly the same faults that would be picked in Melbourne.

i guess I have some confusion about how to train from here in because I don't want to let go of the forms I have learnt in Melbourne but I feel to some degree that without further training I may of already lost them. This is not to say that I can't do small thought and that 108 and to some degree chum kill, but for the sacrifice of subtle differences why should I train both?