Archive through June 08, 2006

Tim's Discussion Board: Ba Gua Zhang : JKD / Wing Chun vs. Bagua: Archive through June 08, 2006
   By Fatboy (Unregistered Guest) on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 10:29 am: Edit Post

Hey Tackleberry, at least I have made the effort to talk MA concepts & technique, I did a search on your posts, and nothing but a load of churlish lily-livered jolt-head rebuttals. Do you actually know any MAs concepts you'd like to share, or talk about, I did'nt find any evidence of you providing any sensical writings on any MAs, period!


   By Ronnie (Unregistered Guest) on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 01:12 pm: Edit Post

Hi Rich

You wrote
"And furthermore... If you are a wing chun artists, then you dont understand the body connections that Beng Chuan and a chain punch share, and if you are a Hsing I man, and dont know Wing Chun, then shut up, or go and learn wing chun, then you will give your arguement validity!

As of now you have no credibility."

Having studied Wing Chun for many years and also Muay Thai and some Hsingi, I feel that maybe you need to explain further how you think chain punching is similar to beng chuan. From what I can see it is like comparing a boxing jab (chain punching) to a straight cross (beng chuan). Id say that Beng Chuan has the edge on power however the Wing Chun chain punching has a dare I say faster delivery.

As for the credibility comment maybe Fatboy did have a valid point, maybe you could provide us all with a credible explanation of how you infer Wing Chun chain punching is as good if not more powerful than Beng Chuan.

Your in MAs


   By Rich on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 10:25 pm: Edit Post

Ronnie,

Absolultely, I will try to explain to the best of my abilities... so I will keep it very simple and straight!

First, I think you are right, that Beng chuan is more powerful than a common chain punch. Maybe I didnt explain well, but I am not talking about sitting in one position(like yee jee ma) and just chain punching, any style would not have "true k/o power" doing that.

I am reffering to chain punching (done correctly) and moving. So... if you have your left hand and left foot forward, and are in a 60/40 stance, and inch step forward with the left foot, you follow step with the right foot, and the right punch and right foot land together, that is a Beng Chuan correct?

However, that is also the same pattern that a Wing Chun man will follow. What must people are referring to as chain punching is what most wing chun people themselves see as wrong. You dont just rapid fire punches for the fun of it or as a entry technique. Yes Wing Chun is a rapid fire punching system, but it never advocated throwing aimless and nonstop punches.

As far as a Beng Chuan being more powerful than a chain puncher(say 3 punches) that is going to depend on the person and how they were taught.

Wing Chun: left hand and foot arrive together and follow step, inch step etc.

Hsing I: left hand and foot arrive together and follow step, inch step etc.

The power for both system work from the ground to legs, to waist etc.

To further compound what I be sayin! If you know the wing chun pole techs. There are a small number of techs, just like Hsing I and the pole is also used to strenghten for the power punching. Many people dont know or understand this for some reason. I believe it was not taught much, or until recently.

Anyways...


   By Ozzy Dave on Monday, June 05, 2006 - 11:49 pm: Edit Post

I don't practise Hsing yi so can't comment on the mechanics of Beng Quan from anything other than observation. I sparred with a guy that does Hsing Yi and his Beng Quan was delivered low and from very close in. Appart from the fact that he only tried to hit me in torso area with that style of punch it seemed very much like the Wing Chun style of punching to me.

What people forget is that Lian Wan Kune or "chain punching" is easy to do wrong as when people punch fast with it they tend to go in a circle, with the delivery of the punch actually going down just prior to contact, kind of like scrapping your knuckles on something rather than punching. The object is to "sink" the punching hand after contact and allow a straight trajectory for the next strike.

I've found it a very good punching style with good force transference due to the excellent structual alignment and no trouble inducing a KO given the right circumstances.


   By Ex Army Boxer (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 11:39 am: Edit Post

Hi I used to box in my early Army days and won a few fights. Done quite a bit of army self defense but never come across the chain punching technique.

If chain punching is so good how come I never seen it in any Western Boxing matches? Please explain guys.


   By Chi (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 02:25 pm: Edit Post

Pretty much for the same reason you dont see a Heng chuan being used in the boxing arena... it is not geared for gloves.


   By Ozzy Dave on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 11:20 pm: Edit Post

Gloves would tend to cause the technique to be applied in an ineffective way as described in my post above, especially 16oz gloves, which is why boxers punch across the centre line in combinations not along it.

Actually, Lian Wan Kune is best applied in bursts of two or three, not a constant stream. So, imo chain punching is really best described as a type of combination. Bare knuckles, it makes perfect sense.


   By Rich on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 02:28 am: Edit Post

Absolutely! Alot of people ask why Wing Chun doesnt spar or compete with gloves. It is not a style geared for that type of fighting.

I have very really seen any Hsing I, Tai Chi, Wing Chun people fight at tournaments. I believe that is why other styles such as Choy Lay Fut, Hung Gar, etc. think these arts are not upto par with them.

Hung gar and Choy Lay Futs forms etc. blend perfectly for a gloved type of tournament.

However, I wouldnt mess with a good Choy Lay Fut dude without gloves, they are some tuff cookies.


   By Ex Army Boxer (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 07:44 am: Edit Post

Was'nt this gloves think used as an excuse why Bruce Lee's inch punch was not used in Western Boxing as well? However you can still hit hard from an inch to a few inches away with 8-16oz gloves on, so it's a question of setup, nobody in Western Boxing hangs around long for you to set up the inch punch for delivery. You may say you can't generate hitting power with gloves on from an inch away but you can, say you hold your fist and inch way from someones jaw with gloves on and let em have it!!!.

So it's a question of set up, if you can find some one who's gonna hang round long time for you to give em a highly telegraphed technique (excusing that famous bolo punch sold to Marvin Hagler by Sugar Ray) then that's fine.


   By Taiwan 69-73 (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 12:16 pm: Edit Post

I'm not going to become embroiled in the argument regarding Wing Chun chain punching versus Peng Chuan. I have only observed Wing Chun not practiced it. I have practiced Hsing I for 36 years. Peng Chuan as practiced in form and Peng Chuan as executed in a fight may not be exactly the same. Wu Hsing is the foundation for Hsing I practitioners. If you have one technique you have one hundred techniques. Every technique has many variations.

As a Hsing I practioner continues to learn the twelve animals and other forms you find yourself executing Peng Chuan over and over again. You deliver it moving forward. You deliver it retreating. You deliver it from various angles. You deliver it in combination with various blocks.Basically Peng Chuan is a straight punch.

In WuHsing Lin Huan at the turn entering the second half of the form you step forward delivering Peng Chuan in the traditional manner. Then you move backwards. You deliver one Peng Chuan as you plant the left (back) foot. Then you deliver another as you transition forward and plant the right (front) foot.

The key element in Peng Chuan is learning to cut the angle of an opponent's punch by over riding it with your Peng Chuan. Note that when practicing Peng Chuan you slide the punching hand down your other arm in simulation of this technique. In other words you are deflecting an opponent's punch and delivering your own with the same arm/hand in one motion.


   By Fatboy (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 12:41 pm: Edit Post

Beng Chuan should absorb first then spring forward like an arrow, it represents the wood elelment, Wood has the meaning of the bending but rooted posture of a tree. You don't blindly step forward with Beng Chuan, absorb, neutralise with a wringing motion, redirect, and BENG.


   By Rich on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 04:05 pm: Edit Post

Fatboy,
You are completely incorrect and Taiwan is absolutely correct.

You have only a beginners mindset of Beng Chuan. And by the way... the cutting punch is another example of Wing Chun and Hsing I's likeness.

Just to inform you... you can use the sinking block of Beng Chuan and deflect an opponent completely away without ever having to throw a punch.


   By Rich on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 09:51 pm: Edit Post

Fatboy,
Actually you have no understanding of Beng Chuan.


   By Ozzy Dave on Wednesday, June 07, 2006 - 11:59 pm: Edit Post

Ex Army Boxer,

The one inch punch as used in demonstrations is a trick that looks impressive to the uninitiated.

You can certainly hit hard from a short distance (gloves or not) and that is primarily what Wing Chun trains for the so called Duan Gin or "inch power".

The problem with gloves for a Wing Chun trainee is not power per se but that the movement of the fists in the chain punch whilst wearing boxing gloves is compromised by making them go in a circle rather than straight. Basically, boxing gloves are too big an obstacle on the end of your arm to allow such a technique to be performed with the correct structure. That's one of the reasons why nothing like it exists in modern boxing. If you look at some of the posturing of the old bare knuckle boxers you will notice that they are also set up to punch down a centerline between themselves and the opponent.

Chain punching is not a "telegraphed technique" its opportunistic. The set up for chain punching is after contact is made eg the first "punch" moves the opponent's arm and/or controls the opponents balance sufficientlty to allow the second strike a window of opportunity. In Southern CMA this is called "making a bridge".
Once a hit lands another follows rapidly through the same window.

Taiwan 69-73,

From your description and my own observations I'm at pains to discern a major difference detween the "straight" punch of Hsing Yi and the "straight" punch of Wing Chun when used in actual application.


   By Taiwan 69-73 (Unregistered Guest) on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 01:42 am: Edit Post

Ozzy Dave,

As I said, I can't comment on Wing Chun as I am not a practitioner of Wing Chun. I have found that most martial artists are loyal to their particular art or arts. I am, of course, no exception. I have also found through all of these years that there are levels of achievement in any art. Hsu Hong Chi (my teacher) said that when one studies the martial arts there are three levels of achievement. There is "skin" where the MA has only a superficial understanding. There is "muscle" where the MA has a sound, normal, understanding that allows for a for good, shall we say, muscle driven execution. There is "bone" where the MA fully understands the art in its most advanced state.

Most people who undertake the study of the MA never advance beyond the "skin". Someone who is a good martial artist may find the "muscle". This is someone who is dedicated, works hard, devotes himself, and wants to be good but is simply unable to advance further. A very few martial artists get to the "bone". These MA's have a certain twist in their minds that allow them to achieve a level of understanding that others simply can't attain regardless of how badly they want it or how hard they work. Those who get to the "bone" discover differences in techniques and their execution that make them superior.

Hsing I or Pa Kua, or Wing Chun are only truly represented by those who reach the "bone". A martial artist is not practicing the real Hsing I, Pa Kua, or Wing Chun unless he has reached the "bone" If you took all of those practicing a given style in the entire world it is likely that fewer than one in one thousand ever approaches this level of achievement. It may be that that is an over estimation. A practioner of a particular MA might train for his/her entire life and never even see one of those practitioners who has reached this level.

I was fortunate enough to be taught by one who had and that was Hsu Hong Chi. The thing that makes Peng Chuan different is the way it is delivered/executed by a superior practitioner. It is a straight punch but there are some "subtleties" involved in its delivery. These "subtleties" cannot be taught. A teacher can only guide the student in this direction. The student must discover them himself. There is no other way.

I say all of this knowing that I leave myself open to extensive criticism. I realize that some will think me a nut or wierdo. So be it.


   By Rich on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 02:38 am: Edit Post

Superb statement!


   By Fatboy (Unregistered Guest) on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 05:16 am: Edit Post

Rich wrote
"Fatboy, Actually you have no understanding of Beng Chuan."

Rich so many poeple study MAs with their ears but not with their eyes. I trust my eyes more than my ears, so if one master tells me this or that, I observe and see if this or that is in accord with what I percieve as use in Combat.

You should know that the original ‘Xingyi’ completely lacked the training method of the twelve forms, but the whole body was supposed to express the essence of all these twelve forms. It did not have the theory of the mutual promotion and restraint of the five elements, there were just the five elements representing five kinds of forces. It did not have any fixed techniques, boxing routines or forms of movements either.

In the words of great Hsingi/Yiquan Grandmaster Mr Wang Xiangzhai I quote his own words on the five elements (I previously quoted the words on wood in my Beng Chuan anology, which you replied saying I was completely incorrect, and went on further to get another swipe at me sayin I know nothing of Beng Chuan):

"I remember well the words of my late teacher about the five elements: Metal means the strength contained in the bones and the muscles, the mind being firm like iron or stone, being able to cut gold and steel. Wood has the meaning of the bending but rooted posture of a tree.

Water means force like the waves of the vast sea, lively like a dragon or a snake, when used, it is able to pervade everything. Fire means strength being like gunpowder, fists being like bullets shot out, having the strength to burn the opponent’s body by the first touch. Earth means exerting strength heavy, deep, solid, and perfectly round, the qi being strong, having the force of oneness with heaven and earth. This is the syncretism of the five elements. It has nothing to do with one technique overcoming another technique as the modern people claim. If one first sees with the eyes, then thinks of it again in the mind, and then launches the counter-attack towards the enemy, it is very seldom that one will not get beaten up."

All I do is quote from the teachers and their Great Grandmasters I have been fortunate to be exposed to on my travels, Rich, you don't even know my abilities! You remind me of the type of student whom assiduously practises this or that certain type of style or styles for many years and flatters oneself by claiming that one alone has accomplished the profound skills, and then becomes the a know it all of that school. This way one feels they will even be respected by the fellow MAs from other schools or even their own school. Once such people are told to abandon all their learning and start studying from the beginning, or try a different approach, it is really intolerable for them.


   By Ozzy Dave on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 05:40 am: Edit Post

Taiwan 69-73,

Nice analogies for skill development and perception in the Arts.

However, I don't subscribe to the idea that any particular style has an exclusive mandate on effectiveness or even unique biomechanics so stylistic loyalty isn't a factor for me.

I believe stylistic idiocyncracies only circumscribe a practitioner's ability at an elementary level and that there are universal structural factors that influence power and efficiency.

This is prehaps most poetically expressed by Wong Shun Leong, a famous practitioner of Wing Chun when he stated something to the effect that for him before practising Wing Chun a punch was just a punch while he was learning a punch was a complicated thing and after he knew Wing Chun a punch was just a punch again.

Subtleties that can't be taught and are displayed in the crucible of application through the inventiveness of individuals (which is the real reason that the teacher rather than the sytle is the important thing)is not what I'm talking about. I'm not even sure if its what you're talking about.

To me it appears your definition of the "difference" of Beng Chuan could be equally true purely between practitioners of Hsing Yi.

Let me put it another way, I'm still at a loss to find a MAJOR difference biomechanically, in the structural principles, if you like the "Fa Gin" expression, of both styles in their respective general application of a straight punch at the point of impact.


   By Rich on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 05:46 am: Edit Post

Fatboy,
Interesting post. I was making reference to your knowledge on beng chuan... you said you dont go forward, and redirect, etc. That is not correct.

As far as not knowing your abilities... good point. And you dont know mine, and furthermore... I never have, will, or wished to be or claim to be a know it all.

However, your name calling and assumptions show your mental position, and it appears you want people to think you "know it all".

However, you are right. I did practice alot and did manage to learn alot, and was a good source of information etc. but never flattered myself.

You appear to study this or that... a few months with a wing chun dude and you know it all about wing chun.


   By Fatboy (Unregistered Guest) on Thursday, June 08, 2006 - 06:42 am: Edit Post

We will go round incircles with this one, Rich, Things I say on this group are purely to keep it going and spice up the discussions, plus I may be in a jovial mood and type some funny , if you don't find it so not everyone has the same sense of humour. Yes, I don't know it all about Wing Chun, I have been exposed to the art, and I used my eyes. I personally have no preference for Yong Chun, but hey that's me, that don't mean some Yong Chun somewhere guy can hand my ass to me.

I don't want people to think I know it all, I don't, I just want to see lively debate allbeit with my own penchant for mischief. Hey show me one person on this newsgroup who has not name called in one way or another, no matter how subtle.

This is a MAs discussion board, the type of thing many Masters warn their students about!!!

p.s. I think you should give up Yong Chun, it's making you very defensive, have you ever heard of Yong Chun Psychosis? a severe mental disorder demonstrated by the Yong Chun adept, when anyone questions the style or technique of Yong Chun, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning. Hey don't bite allready I did'nt say you had it, only if you'd heard of it?