Many agree that Yong Chun is conceptual in nature & expressed through it's principals. There are even legends that state it was developed as a concept. This begets the question; Is Yong Chun a true stand alone martial art or is it a method of development and refinement applicable to any martial art? Can it be both & still considered Yong Chun?
Martial Art or Theory?
- Thread starter dlcox
- Start date
zuti car
Blue Belt
Both , and it has a same source as some other martial arts , like white crane . Being practicing both I can say that Wing Chun and Zonghe quan are based on identical principles and concepts ,while expression of these concepts and principles is quite different .
Kwan Sau
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 349
- Reaction score
- 60
Interesting. Care to provide an example or two?
zuti car
Blue Belt
Center line theory \ controlling the space , destruction\control opponent's center of gravity , a lot of sticky hands practice , importance of structure ...if you read any explanation of basic wing chun concepts and principles all that can be said for zonghe .Expression of these concepts and principles is quite different .
for example , chi sao
wing chun
Zonghe
for example , chi sao
wing chun
Zonghe
I also say it is both a method and a set of principles/concepts. Many people seem to believe that if you are using a few Wing Chun concepts that makes it Wing Chun. I don't agree with that view. As Zuti pointed out, White Crane uses many Wing Chun concepts. That doesn't make it Wing Chun. Southern Mantis uses many Wing Chun concepts. That doesn't make it Wing Chun. Jeet Kune Do uses many Wing Chun concepts. That doesn't make it Wing Chun. On the other hand, just going through the motions of Wing Chun without understanding the concepts behind them it just some version of Wu Shu that LOOKS like Wing Chun. Its a package deal.
- Thread Starter
- #6
With the wide variety of flavors in various Yong Chun & White Crane branches, aside from descriptive labeling for marketing purposes & emphasis on preferred use of certain principles, can they truly be considered different? Or are they all really just different expressions of the same thing? Same goes for other arts that use the same theory but interpret it differently and call themselves by another name. This brings me back to, is Yong Chun truly a defined art in its own right or simply a concept of how to maximize potential of human movement?
- Thread Starter
- #7
Hi Keith,
I agree to an extent with what you're saying but would also argue that if all the principles are present, instead of just some, even though they are expressed and interpreted differently, is it truly something different? Or just one's understanding of those principles applied to preferred movement & approach to conflict resolution. Again, in Yong Chun alone there is great variety in technique & flavor, to the point many would not recognize them as related.
- Thread Starter
- #8
I wonder if the original developer(s) meant for the art to be a transformative concept, like a primordial Jeet Kune Do, and like modern Jeet Kune Do it developed into a structured method that adheres religiously to the dogma of the user, thus creating various new styles.
zuti car
Blue Belt
I am pretty sure they didn't think in these categories , time , place and culture at the moment of creating wing chun \ white crane ,had caused very specific mind set for martial artists .
Last edited:
zuti car
Blue Belt
I can say that wing chun and zonghe definitely are not same thing , although they share same concepts and principles .
- Thread Starter
- #11
Are you sure its not simply aesthetics? Personal preference based upon preferred approaches to the concepts & principles. Is it not just labeling? Or are they truly unique entities? Your assumptions many be limited by your experience and prejudices of what you believe to be representative of Yong Chun. This applies to us all. The concepts & principles of many southern TCMA are the same. To weigh them against Yong Chun as the gold standard of representation of these principles & concepts is biased. Yong Chun is simply one interpretation of these principles & concepts. Can they all not derive from the same theory of refinement? Over the years people affixed labels to categorize others personal expression of these concepts & principles. Which makes us think they are unique and new. Are they really? Or is it all simply personal expression.
zuti car
Blue Belt
Do you think AK 47 and M16 are same ? They basically work on same principle , have same tactical purpose but are they same weapon , just a different design ?
- Thread Starter
- #13
Generically, yes. They are both assault rifles. I'm not talking about which is better or more effective, but if they are conceptually the same as defined by the concepts & principles? Does this make them similar enough to say that they are offspring of the same parents, siblings so to speak. If the answer is yes, then we can say that although unique unto themselves they also share the same DNA, which makes them of the same source. If raised in the same household (geographic area) they would even share the same values. The question lies in the genetic source material, though they will evolve and develop along different paths, they are not dissimilar enough to be considered as something new. Like comparing bow & arrow to rifle. More like comparing composite bow to re-curve to compound.
- Thread Starter
- #14
Many of the southern TCMA arts share a common origin myth. Could they not be called something like, Mantis Yong Chun, Crane Yong Chun, Snake Yong Chun, Tiger Yong Chun, Red Boat Yong Chun, White Brow Yong Chun, Dragon Yong Chun etc. If Yong Chun is considered the foundational concept. These are questions that I ponder, just looking for opinions.
- Thread Starter
- #15
If we use the analogy that all Wrestling styles are Bows, we have compound bows, composite bows, re-curve bows, long bows and cross bows. We know each is based upon improvements to the technology, all essentially perform the same task, but have a special purpose that the improvements were used to address. So lets say Composite Bow=Boke, Re-curve Bow = Shuai Jiao, Long Bow = Sumo, Composite Bow = Judo and Compound Bow= BJJ. Then we can definitively say that each style thereafter, that focuses on the specific aspects of the principles of compound, composite, re-curve etc. is based upon that particular improvement to the technology and all are based upon that of stick and cord. Wouldn't this analogy hold true for arts like Yong Chun? If Yong Chun is Compound Bow, couldn't all arts that are based upon Compound Bow principles really be the same thing, just decorated differently? Even with addition of silencers, sights etc. to improve the use of the technology, do these additions change the basic principles of Compound Bow?
I agree. I was about to write the same thing when I saw Zuti's reply!
Again. I agree. Because I don't think they do share ALL of the same concepts and principles. IMHO, some of these concepts are actually "physical" concepts in the sense that they say how we are going to move and apply a technique. Since zonghe isn't moving and applying techniques the same way that Wing Chun does, they don't share ALL concepts and principles.
Well, sure. But where do you draw the line? I mean in the end aren't ALL martial arts really just variations on the same intent....to fight? If fighting in general is the basic Recurve Bow, couldn't ALL martial arts that are based upon Bow and Arrow principles really be the same thing, just decorated differently? Couldn't they just be called something like Japanese Martial Arts, Korean Martial Arts, Chinese Martial Arts, etc. ;-) My point is you can generalized or particularize as much as you want. What does it really mean in the end? Maybe there are some versions of Wing Chun that are very similar to White Crane and the two may just look like variations of the same thing. But I don't think that is true of the version of Wing Chun that I practice! Maybe 150 years ago White Crane and Wing Chun were variations on a theme. But both have evolved in their own directions.
- Thread Starter
- #19
I agree, though I wouldn't give it such a gross over generalization. Technology does advance and upgrades to overall concepts do evolve as a result. But in the end aren't arts that have even 75% of their principles, concepts & techniques, regardless of emphasis and application, truly just variations on a theme? Personally I think so. This isn't to say that they are equal in terms of usability or functionality, we all interpret based upon preferences, we are biased. There are many branches of Yong Chun, some familiar some not. Some branches have an outward appearance that look like Crane, Snake or even Mantis. Some write them off as blended methods, but they aren't generally contested as not being Yong Chun. Which goes back to my original question, was Yong Chun originally just a concept for refinement and improvement?
