FHSYK Two-Man sparring set

[TenTigers]

Even though it is not in my particular lineage, I have played it, and I have a love/hate relationship with this set. On one hand, I enjoy two-man sets, on the other hand, I find that there are many sets that are more performance-based rather than real skill development.
I would like to discuss this set, pick it apart, find its strengths and weaknesses, and hopefully not insult anyone in the process.

[Subitai]

Ah what you do at your school is 10x's better Ten.

I did that sparring set and taught it for years. Me no Likey no more. It's ok for beginers and mabe up to intermediate. But after that, if you really want to apply, other than just fighting:

Do Live drills, ones that don't require choreography are far better. Then gradually ramp up the intensity of the training over time.
I think a better way to introduce bridging concepts to students is to do Hung Drills that end up being spontaneous and flowing...almost like Chi Sao in Wing Chun, only it's all Hung.

The problem is when a students stay in the "2 man Choreographed sparring mode TOO LONG" in their career. Then when some boxer who knows how to stick and move gives them a simple (albeit effective) straight blast, all their forms go out the window. Live timing and waiting for choreography will never equate...No matter how fresh you try to keep it.

Beginners and Non traditionally trained people looking at a traditional style like Hung don't understand a SERIOUS KEY ELEMENT in thier ability to apply in a modern sense. I.E. = THAT IS:

"You (the fighter), can only respond to what is given to you". Be it offense or defense: It seems so simple yet it escapes most people. Even if i'm the aggressor and pressing the fight, I must still FOLLOW, Deal With and/or take advantage of how my opponent reacts to me.

For example, Imagine Ten Tigers is standing off a guy about 10ft away...he's about to fight a dude equil in size and let's say for example TEN is hell bent on using his HUNG STYLE.

How does the other guy present himself? Options:
Does he engage and allow Ten to do some bridging in more depth? The type of skills he actually practices in his school? Boy that would nice if all the world fought that way?

== You get UFC commentators like Joe Rogan Bashing Wing Chun...saying stuff like "Trapping doesn't work" Traditional arts don't work. In a way he's correct... albeit in a sport setting.
Imagine if a MMA fighter were NICE enough to present themselves in such a way as to Enable Traditional Wing Chun to be able to bridge and fight like they train? But will they? NO, NEVER!! and why should they?? They will always do whats easiest for them.
What really happens is, the mma guys says "Oh Hell no, I can just avoid all that mess and take this dude down"

Does that mean that Wing Chun sucks, NO...it's just that many guys havn't made the jump to be able to apply it in NON TRADITIONAL circumstances. To be more specific vs a more modern attitude where people are more enclined to grapple. Not just on the ground...they crash and hold like octopi, not just keep a distance. No ref to say break start again.

Yes grappling has existed for allong time before UFC...but also culturally (especially Chinese Mentality), Many traditional styles viewed "Just Knocking Someone down" as a win. But really the fight isn't over.

I believe this is better way to begin teaching bridging concepts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhMnMAAQ2XM&NR=1

*** Most import though, keep it spontaneous and ever changing. Again, make it like Hung Gar Chi Sao. Each guy choosing to do whatever he wants to, his partner must learn to adapt. Then after a student has matured, gradually intensify the toughness.
I do a ton of these, i'm also doing a seminar at Aiping Chengs school in Orange CT coming up in Feb. You interested Ten?

[cheesedip]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOe7GqvJT-A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9khPc7XtaXA

Back in the day! (we shortened it for the demos)

[TenTigers]

yep-I agree with "O"
Great demo clip-both you guys, btw.
Some of it I like, I do like the minute adjustments,the recovery techniques after sweeps, or leg blocks, the trapping/running hand,mirroring the gwa cup,leg hooks,
Others, are in my book a "Bozo No-No." Stepping three times back while blocking is completely opposite to my fighting philosophy. The double backfist and x block thingy-nope,can't do it.
But-they are nice looking in demos-which leads me to believe that the set was for demo purposes rather than to teach application. Which as O states, is better taught through more realistic drills.
Onassis is right-it's ok for beginners or intermediate students-but FHSYK is not a beginner form, so it really doesn't make all that much sense to me.
The thing is, in order to pull this set off and have it look good-you need to be at a more advanced level. Catch -22.
Ok, so agree or dissagree.
I would also be interested in exactly which techniques or sections you do like and/or do not like, and why.

[Yogicmotion]

I actually dig it as a set. Now as it relates to teaching real fighting then no. When it comes to teaching actual fighting I think the drills you guys are talking about especially the video O posted.

[Daifong]

First of all, so-named Gung Ji Chaak is Lam Saiwing's compilation, bringing practical drills and additional skills together into a two-man presentation. Actually, it should be called "Lam Saiwing Chaak", or "Hung Kyun Chaak", because it encompasses both foundational and specialty techniques found within the GJFFK, FHSYK, Sap Ying Kyun, all main pillars. Also, some not found in those sets at all.

So-named Fu Hok Chaak is actually a revision of Gung Ji Chaak, because the guys wanted something fresh and new to demo. This was established by an individual, or individuals, who already knew how to fight, but wanted something more dynamic and less repetitious to demo. The idea was, that by the time you mastered the Gung Ji Chaak, your skills would all be up-to-par, and the newly-established demo form was available to learn. It was never, until quite recently, used or intended as any kind of "replacement" for Lam Sawing's original choreography.

Now, the rumor somehow started, that "the Gung Ji Chaak teaches you Gung Ji applications, and the Fu Hok Chaak teaches you Fu Hok applications", when actually this is not the case. Really, it's just a simple matter of, "you learn the GJFFK first, and then the FHSYK, you learn Gung Ji Chaak first, and then you learn the Fu Hok Chaak", coupled along with, "we need some names to call these different two-man sets by, when they are to be announced onstage", no more, no less.

Yes, some schools just focus on demo-ing, because demo-ing is fun. Then the emphasis becomes, "you can be on your tiptoes for the whole set, so long as your heel is down on your cat stance, both beginning and at the end". I can't speak to this. It all depends on the values of that school. Also, the individual(s) who are actually involved.

Bottom line, even the best "Chaak presentations" have never been a substitute for "Technique Breakdowns" and "Reaction Drills" (Saan Sik/ Bin Fa), generally, and based on projected situations as well. Still, when I hear the way people talk about their basics sometimes, it doesn't sound as though they are getting quite what they should be,
which, in my mind, should be the real concern.



Best,

Michael

[TenTigers]

Making much more sense now. I have seen the GJFFK Doi Chaak, but don't recall where.
Are there any vids?

[Daifong]

A quick look on the internet turned up these:

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMTY5MzU5Njk2.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0RmbI-N0qo

These clips of Gung Ji Fuk Fu Kyun Chaak (工字伏虎拳拆) are from Tang Fong lineage, made up of the same, or similar drills. I suppose this set, as a presentation, is considered "simple", being the reason why they always seem to have beginner kids demo-ing it. Anyway, I could not find one posted, of a version more similar to ours.

[shuen]

the forms in the last posted vids don´t really look like the Gung Ji Partner-Set we do but i do not find any videos either.

maybe i do a quick video today in training....

[Supji]

Nice Post Michael! - the two man sets always were fundamental and the breaking down, drilling etc is more valuable - in fact once the understanding is there - a multitude of 2 man sets can be created ...

[Chris H]

I agree with O's sentiment. I was always told that the two-man sets were purely for demo purposes, and, like how Michael said, they weren't necessarily linked to the pillar forms that they were named after. This was always funny, because when I used to teach Lau Ga Kyun to my students, I'd tell them the story behind it, and how it wasn't really "Lau Ga", etc., and then I'd talk about the deui chaaks, and say that they weren't really linked to the pillar forms directly, and they'd always look at me like, "WTF?" Poor guys were always confused, hehe.

Going back to O's drill vid, I like this set up, because I find that the short bridging of Hung Kuen represents more of what you'd see in a real altercation than what you'd see in a classical chi sau type position. However, with that being said, both paradigms (Hung Kuen-esque & Wing Chun-esque) are obviously far removed from the F.U.T. (Fucked Up Tangle) of what a real altercation turns into. But, no matter if it is Greco-Roman, , Muay Thai, Shuai Jiao, Judo, Wing Chun, BJJ, or FMA & Indonesian arts- they all have short-range/ clinch-range, attached-hitting structures that give them a little sandbox to play in. Hung Kuen needs more of this, IMO, and I think O's vid is moving in that direction.

[Daifong]

[Daifong]

Cheesedip,

I believe that this is the thread you were referring to. Here is the clip of Gung Ji Chaak that you had posted. These are students of Leung Kwok Fung Sifu, of Hong Kong (student the late Grandmaster Chow Wing Tak):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws4aO2M-iOI

[cheesedip]

Thanks Daifong. I brain farted and lost track of things!!!

[Daifong]

No worries, Cheesedip. I was just trying to make the case for Gung Ji Chaak as being a viable training method, but everything posted so far is "less than conclusive", IMHO...

I'd hate to have to say, "just take my word for it"!