Answer 6, part 1
Thanks guys!
Here Sifu elaborates on a fascinating kungfu concept, “jue zhao” or “ultimate technique”.
Thanks guys!
Here Sifu elaborates on a fascinating kungfu concept, “jue zhao” or “ultimate technique”.
Question 6: (Sifu Leonard Lackinger, Austria)
My "double-question" is related to techniques and skills.
In martial arts there is no ultimate technique by itself, except if someone has mastered a technique to an ultimate level. Is this pre-condition for techniques also valid for skills like the 72 Shaolin Arts and how much effort does a practitioner need to acquire such a high level?
There is always a nemesis to every technique. What is the nemesis to the Shaolin Arts taught at the 72 Shaolin Arts course in Finland?
My "double-question" is related to techniques and skills.
In martial arts there is no ultimate technique by itself, except if someone has mastered a technique to an ultimate level. Is this pre-condition for techniques also valid for skills like the 72 Shaolin Arts and how much effort does a practitioner need to acquire such a high level?
There is always a nemesis to every technique. What is the nemesis to the Shaolin Arts taught at the 72 Shaolin Arts course in Finland?
Answer 6, part 1
Thank you for this question which highlights a very important point.
The term “jue zhao”, which means “ultimate technique”, is often used in kungfu circles. It means that a master is so skillful in this technique that whenever it is applied in combat, his opponents have no chance to escape defeat.
Although the term refers to a technique, it is actually the skill in applying it that decides victory. If a less skillful practitioner applies the same technique, his opponents may readily counter it.
In kungfu conversation, normally no clear distinction is made between skills and techniques, although strictly spearing “skills” are referred to as “gong”, and “techniques” as “fa”.
It is in our school that we make a clear distinction between “skills” and “techniques”. This distinction has brought us much benefit. For example, we have become very cost-effective because we realize the difference between skills and techniques.
Hence, this pre-condition is also valid for skills. In fact, it actually refers to skills. It is the skill of a master that is “ultimate”, not his technique. “Ultimate” here means that his skill in applying the technique is so high-level that opponents cannot avoid the technique.
Although skills are crucial, the term “jue zhao” or “ultimate technique” usually refers to the technique. The master uses the same technique every time he executes his “jue zhao”.
Will he be equally successful if he uses a different technique but with the same skills? He will be less successful, though he may still defeat his less skillful opponents. “Jue Zhao” is seldom used. It is used only when the master find it difficult to defeat an opponents with other techniques.
In kungfu history, it is well known that the “jue zhao” of Wong Fei Hoong, a famous Southern Shaolin master just about 150 years ago, was “no-shadow kick”. He seldom used it, but if he ever used it, it was a sure hit. His “no-shadow kick” was so secretive that even his inner-chamber disciples did not know it, though they had heard about it.
One night a few of his inner-chamber disciples, led by his most senior disciple, Leong Fuun, stole into Wong Fei Hoong’s room to “steal” the no-shadow kick. Leong Fuun pretended to assault his master, who gave him a no-shadow kick, sending him many feet away.
Wong Fei Hoong taught Leong Fuun the no-shadow kick. Later, with the no-shadow kick, Leong Fuun defeated another well-known master called Chow Yen Kit in a public duel.
(Part 2 follows)
Thank you for this question which highlights a very important point.
The term “jue zhao”, which means “ultimate technique”, is often used in kungfu circles. It means that a master is so skillful in this technique that whenever it is applied in combat, his opponents have no chance to escape defeat.
Although the term refers to a technique, it is actually the skill in applying it that decides victory. If a less skillful practitioner applies the same technique, his opponents may readily counter it.
In kungfu conversation, normally no clear distinction is made between skills and techniques, although strictly spearing “skills” are referred to as “gong”, and “techniques” as “fa”.
It is in our school that we make a clear distinction between “skills” and “techniques”. This distinction has brought us much benefit. For example, we have become very cost-effective because we realize the difference between skills and techniques.
Hence, this pre-condition is also valid for skills. In fact, it actually refers to skills. It is the skill of a master that is “ultimate”, not his technique. “Ultimate” here means that his skill in applying the technique is so high-level that opponents cannot avoid the technique.
Although skills are crucial, the term “jue zhao” or “ultimate technique” usually refers to the technique. The master uses the same technique every time he executes his “jue zhao”.
Will he be equally successful if he uses a different technique but with the same skills? He will be less successful, though he may still defeat his less skillful opponents. “Jue Zhao” is seldom used. It is used only when the master find it difficult to defeat an opponents with other techniques.
In kungfu history, it is well known that the “jue zhao” of Wong Fei Hoong, a famous Southern Shaolin master just about 150 years ago, was “no-shadow kick”. He seldom used it, but if he ever used it, it was a sure hit. His “no-shadow kick” was so secretive that even his inner-chamber disciples did not know it, though they had heard about it.
One night a few of his inner-chamber disciples, led by his most senior disciple, Leong Fuun, stole into Wong Fei Hoong’s room to “steal” the no-shadow kick. Leong Fuun pretended to assault his master, who gave him a no-shadow kick, sending him many feet away.
Wong Fei Hoong taught Leong Fuun the no-shadow kick. Later, with the no-shadow kick, Leong Fuun defeated another well-known master called Chow Yen Kit in a public duel.
(Part 2 follows)
Comment