I have no idea, but one thought comes to mind. They say the average person knows twenty to thirty thousand different words, but how many do we use with each other during brief interactions?
only ___ moves
- Thread starter wckf92
- Start date
MA is like to use the right key to open the right lock. Since there is no master key, you will need to have many different keys.
Great analogy.
There have been some excellent answers given already.
I just have one consideration to add:
There are many sayings and stories but do they in any way reflect the actual truth of the matter?
In the case of Yip Man, to say that he always used this or that technique to win his fights, the person making that statement must have seen YM do some real fighting - and n = 1 or maybe 2 is far from enough to draw a conclusion.
The question is: Who has actually seen YM fight, and even been present at sufficiently numerous of these to say that he always used the same few techniques?
As far as Wong Shun Leung goes, you will often hear the story that he finished his fights with one or two punches (or sth to that effect). But did he really? There is at least one documented match where this didn't happen...
A healthy dose of scepticism and rational thinking should always be applied when one hears certain things. Especially so if one uses this information as a basis for further speculation and drawings of conclusions.
As far as the Wing Chun system goes, I do not at all think it is very vast. It is - like any other of the (southern) Chinese - a very simple system.
Interestingly, if you talk to senior practicioners of various styles (I have been fortunate enough to meet a few) they all say that there is just very little which really matters, and that is what they train even at old age.
Essentially, what one will find if you look into the history of the various arts is that they are all very "small", i.e. a few basic techniques and then some concepts and strategies (incidentally exactly as the Ljchtenauer system is structured in the "Tower" manual) and certain Gei Buhn Gong (Jibengong), i.e. specialized basic training (conditioning, etc.)
At the end of the day, the goal of any system which is supposed to be used for real fighting is simplicity and practicality.
And it is very interesting to note that the way such as system is structured is identical in ancient Europe and old China.
I just have one consideration to add:
There are many sayings and stories but do they in any way reflect the actual truth of the matter?
In the case of Yip Man, to say that he always used this or that technique to win his fights, the person making that statement must have seen YM do some real fighting - and n = 1 or maybe 2 is far from enough to draw a conclusion.
The question is: Who has actually seen YM fight, and even been present at sufficiently numerous of these to say that he always used the same few techniques?
As far as Wong Shun Leung goes, you will often hear the story that he finished his fights with one or two punches (or sth to that effect). But did he really? There is at least one documented match where this didn't happen...
A healthy dose of scepticism and rational thinking should always be applied when one hears certain things. Especially so if one uses this information as a basis for further speculation and drawings of conclusions.
As far as the Wing Chun system goes, I do not at all think it is very vast. It is - like any other of the (southern) Chinese - a very simple system.
Interestingly, if you talk to senior practicioners of various styles (I have been fortunate enough to meet a few) they all say that there is just very little which really matters, and that is what they train even at old age.
Essentially, what one will find if you look into the history of the various arts is that they are all very "small", i.e. a few basic techniques and then some concepts and strategies (incidentally exactly as the Ljchtenauer system is structured in the "Tower" manual) and certain Gei Buhn Gong (Jibengong), i.e. specialized basic training (conditioning, etc.)
At the end of the day, the goal of any system which is supposed to be used for real fighting is simplicity and practicality.
And it is very interesting to note that the way such as system is structured is identical in ancient Europe and old China.
There are many sayings and stories but do they in any way reflect the actual truth of the matter?
---Likely very little! We are talking about fighting arts here, so naturally any stories (either 1st hand or 2nd/3rd hand) have to be considered suspect when they serve the purpose of glorifying or building up the fighter or the method.
A healthy dose of scepticism and rational thinking should always be applied when one hears certain things. Especially so if one uses this information as a basis for further speculation and drawings of conclusions.
---Absolutely! But too many people like to "hero worship" rather than keep an open and a bit skeptical mind. We found this out recently on the FB forum in that thread about Tai Chi power generation! ;-)
As far as the Wing Chun system goes, I do not at all think it is very vast. It is - like any other of the (southern) Chinese - a very simple system.
---Compared to a lot of the Northern CMA systems this is true. But compared to something like Thai boxing or Western boxing....not so much! Both Thai and Western boxing manage to be very effective fighters with far fewer techniques than are found in the Wing Chun forms. So I do think there is some truth to the idea of "only a handful" of techniques known very well is all that is needed.
Interestingly, if you talk to senior practicioners of various styles (I have been fortunate enough to meet a few) they all say that there is just very little which really matters, and that is what they train even at old age.
---And I would bet that this often turns out to be simple fundamental techniques learned very well! ;-)
(incidentally exactly as the Ljchtenauer system is structured in the "Tower" manual) and certain Gei Buhn Gong (Jibengong), i.e. specialized basic training (conditioning, etc.)
---Small point....the "Tower Fechtbuch" is a Sword & Buckler manual that pre-dates and is different from the Lichtenauer system. Lichtenaeur's system is found in the works by Ringeck and others. ;-)
At the end of the day, the goal of any system which is supposed to be used for real fighting is simplicity and practicality.
---Excellent point. And this is why I often question the "classical" Wing Chun training that people do. Is it truly practical for the way people fight today? Is this the reason why "classical" Wing Chun often falls apart during hard sparring? If the goal is "real fighting" does "classical" Wing Chun need to evolve and adapt and keep up with the times? There was another thread in the FB forum recently where someone posted a video of a training drill progression that was good. It started out showing a "classical" Wing Chun Pak Da closing drill....using Pak Sau's to "enter and close" on an opponent and then finish with chain punches. As he progressed the drill he put on boxing gloves and things changed. His stance changed slightly so he no longer stood flat-footed and used the YGKYM. He started using more head movement. He even started punching a little differently. He even admitted that putting on gloves and making it more "free-flowing" was more realistic. When asked why he didn't train the beginning or "classical" version of the drill the same way, he really didn't have a good answer other than something along the lines of ....."I've been doing this long enough that I can adapt things as needed." He totally missed the point I was trying to make. If you are truly training a "simple and practical" system....shouldn't you "train the way you fight and fight the way you train"????? Why have one set of mechanics you use when doing "classical" training and a (even if slightly) different set of mechanics you use when actually fighting or sparring? That is not my definition of "simple" or "practical"!!!! I can say from experience that in the FMA training I have done, this is not the case! In the FMA styles I have trained they have an eye for practicality and application from the moment they put a weapon in the hand of a beginner!
---Sorry for the little rant. Just a recurrent topic that I have been thinking about a lot recently again. ;-)
---Likely very little! We are talking about fighting arts here, so naturally any stories (either 1st hand or 2nd/3rd hand) have to be considered suspect when they serve the purpose of glorifying or building up the fighter or the method.
A healthy dose of scepticism and rational thinking should always be applied when one hears certain things. Especially so if one uses this information as a basis for further speculation and drawings of conclusions.
---Absolutely! But too many people like to "hero worship" rather than keep an open and a bit skeptical mind. We found this out recently on the FB forum in that thread about Tai Chi power generation! ;-)
As far as the Wing Chun system goes, I do not at all think it is very vast. It is - like any other of the (southern) Chinese - a very simple system.
---Compared to a lot of the Northern CMA systems this is true. But compared to something like Thai boxing or Western boxing....not so much! Both Thai and Western boxing manage to be very effective fighters with far fewer techniques than are found in the Wing Chun forms. So I do think there is some truth to the idea of "only a handful" of techniques known very well is all that is needed.
Interestingly, if you talk to senior practicioners of various styles (I have been fortunate enough to meet a few) they all say that there is just very little which really matters, and that is what they train even at old age.
---And I would bet that this often turns out to be simple fundamental techniques learned very well! ;-)
(incidentally exactly as the Ljchtenauer system is structured in the "Tower" manual) and certain Gei Buhn Gong (Jibengong), i.e. specialized basic training (conditioning, etc.)
---Small point....the "Tower Fechtbuch" is a Sword & Buckler manual that pre-dates and is different from the Lichtenauer system. Lichtenaeur's system is found in the works by Ringeck and others. ;-)
At the end of the day, the goal of any system which is supposed to be used for real fighting is simplicity and practicality.
---Excellent point. And this is why I often question the "classical" Wing Chun training that people do. Is it truly practical for the way people fight today? Is this the reason why "classical" Wing Chun often falls apart during hard sparring? If the goal is "real fighting" does "classical" Wing Chun need to evolve and adapt and keep up with the times? There was another thread in the FB forum recently where someone posted a video of a training drill progression that was good. It started out showing a "classical" Wing Chun Pak Da closing drill....using Pak Sau's to "enter and close" on an opponent and then finish with chain punches. As he progressed the drill he put on boxing gloves and things changed. His stance changed slightly so he no longer stood flat-footed and used the YGKYM. He started using more head movement. He even started punching a little differently. He even admitted that putting on gloves and making it more "free-flowing" was more realistic. When asked why he didn't train the beginning or "classical" version of the drill the same way, he really didn't have a good answer other than something along the lines of ....."I've been doing this long enough that I can adapt things as needed." He totally missed the point I was trying to make. If you are truly training a "simple and practical" system....shouldn't you "train the way you fight and fight the way you train"????? Why have one set of mechanics you use when doing "classical" training and a (even if slightly) different set of mechanics you use when actually fighting or sparring? That is not my definition of "simple" or "practical"!!!! I can say from experience that in the FMA training I have done, this is not the case! In the FMA styles I have trained they have an eye for practicality and application from the moment they put a weapon in the hand of a beginner!
---Sorry for the little rant. Just a recurrent topic that I have been thinking about a lot recently again. ;-)
OP
wckf92
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,553
- Reaction score
- 538
- Thread Starter
- #27
This topic had me thinking about our WSL VT folks. Comparatively speaking, they seem to focus on the punch whereas most other WC focus's on a lot more hands/tools. They appear to train hard on perfecting the punch, making it a multi-use tool (offense contained defense) while emphasizing footwork, etc.
Wish they were still around to comment but haven't heard from them in a while...
Wish they were still around to comment but haven't heard from them in a while...
I thought of them as well! I recalled one discussion that was all about how WSLVT was so simple, not about applications, and only about the punch. I asked about the dummy form. I was told the WSLVT dummy form does not teach technique applications at all...it still just teaches the strategies for the punch. So I commented that it sure seems contradictory to the idea of being "simple and efficient" to have a systems with 3 empty hand forms and a dummy form to teach how to land a simple punch. That seems rather redundant to me! I don't recall the response to that point being a very happy or good one! ;-)
Second.
I disagree with the idea that the form contain a multitude of techniques and that anything is superfluous and not useful.
To my understanding all is there for a reason and for a "complete" system, nothing can be left out.
The Wing Chun forms, particularly the SLT is nothing short of brilliant in that regard.
Left, right, middle - high, middle, low - front, middle back - 8 angles - 7 "points" - defense line, etc.
All you need for short range fighting.
Take anything and you don't have all bases covered.
Third.
Wing Chun is not Western boxing, nor is it Muay Thai. One should remember that each of these styles are what they are because of the environment they are supposed to be used in.
Thus, Western boxing is very limited because of the rules of the sport. Muay Thai's repertoire.of skills and techniques is.also decided by the rules of MT competition. These rules allow for a greater variety of tactics than boxing (kicking, elbowing, clinching, throwing) and is as such more versatile. MMA provides even greater freedom and requires an even more diversified skill set.
So what does Wing Chun require?
Wing Chun is a close range fighting style and requires skills to manipulate and control the opponent's bridges and a lot of the techniques are designed to manifest the various concepts the style (well, some anyway) espouses. F.ex. Tun Tou Fau Chaam, Yat Fung Yee, etc...
If you want to fight like a long fist style, such as Western boxing, you don't need these things but why then not just learn boxing, that would be much more efficient.
Also, Wing Chun and the applications of its concepts do not extend to just training against other Wing Chun people. That assumption is, IMO, showing a lack of understanding what things are for and how to apply them. We all agree that Wing Chun is a very clever and intelligent system, I am sure, but at the same time some people think think the creators just had enough smarts to create a system to fight itself??!!
That doesn't seem particularly clever...
If you need to change what you are training in your forms, your drills and your fighting, there is a problem...
The people who think things need to be modified should consider that long fist styles are nothing new, nothing the various southern styles haven't faced before, so why does it need to be "adapted" to modern times?
In my opinion the problem is that people try to "spar" with the system, which will inevitably make you play a game you are not supposed to play as a Wing Chun stylist - and get the experience that the system doesn't hence the need to "improve"/modify it so it works in sparring or to face the modern day fighter.
Strangely enough, it was not that much of a problem for many a gong fu brother of mine to apply their WT against boxers or Nak Muay outside of "ring conditions", even though we never did any "sparring". What we did very often though was training fighting, small gloves, a groin cup and a helmet, fighting without stopping until KO or submission, anything goes. The instructors ensured that there was no playing, no dancing around, etc. but crowding the opponent as soon as possible and attacking him relentlessly until one of the above events occurred.
If you train like this, with proper intensity, integrating all of the various Wing Chun skills, it works fine for what it is supposed to do...
But you won't do well if you want to do some rounds of sparring with someone who is good at that.
I disagree with the idea that the form contain a multitude of techniques and that anything is superfluous and not useful.
To my understanding all is there for a reason and for a "complete" system, nothing can be left out.
The Wing Chun forms, particularly the SLT is nothing short of brilliant in that regard.
Left, right, middle - high, middle, low - front, middle back - 8 angles - 7 "points" - defense line, etc.
All you need for short range fighting.
Take anything and you don't have all bases covered.
Third.
Wing Chun is not Western boxing, nor is it Muay Thai. One should remember that each of these styles are what they are because of the environment they are supposed to be used in.
Thus, Western boxing is very limited because of the rules of the sport. Muay Thai's repertoire.of skills and techniques is.also decided by the rules of MT competition. These rules allow for a greater variety of tactics than boxing (kicking, elbowing, clinching, throwing) and is as such more versatile. MMA provides even greater freedom and requires an even more diversified skill set.
So what does Wing Chun require?
Wing Chun is a close range fighting style and requires skills to manipulate and control the opponent's bridges and a lot of the techniques are designed to manifest the various concepts the style (well, some anyway) espouses. F.ex. Tun Tou Fau Chaam, Yat Fung Yee, etc...
If you want to fight like a long fist style, such as Western boxing, you don't need these things but why then not just learn boxing, that would be much more efficient.
Also, Wing Chun and the applications of its concepts do not extend to just training against other Wing Chun people. That assumption is, IMO, showing a lack of understanding what things are for and how to apply them. We all agree that Wing Chun is a very clever and intelligent system, I am sure, but at the same time some people think think the creators just had enough smarts to create a system to fight itself??!!
That doesn't seem particularly clever...
If you need to change what you are training in your forms, your drills and your fighting, there is a problem...
The people who think things need to be modified should consider that long fist styles are nothing new, nothing the various southern styles haven't faced before, so why does it need to be "adapted" to modern times?
In my opinion the problem is that people try to "spar" with the system, which will inevitably make you play a game you are not supposed to play as a Wing Chun stylist - and get the experience that the system doesn't hence the need to "improve"/modify it so it works in sparring or to face the modern day fighter.
Strangely enough, it was not that much of a problem for many a gong fu brother of mine to apply their WT against boxers or Nak Muay outside of "ring conditions", even though we never did any "sparring". What we did very often though was training fighting, small gloves, a groin cup and a helmet, fighting without stopping until KO or submission, anything goes. The instructors ensured that there was no playing, no dancing around, etc. but crowding the opponent as soon as possible and attacking him relentlessly until one of the above events occurred.
If you train like this, with proper intensity, integrating all of the various Wing Chun skills, it works fine for what it is supposed to do...
But you won't do well if you want to do some rounds of sparring with someone who is good at that.
Jibengong (Mandarin)
Gei Buhn Gong (Cantonese)
All styles (should) have this, although it might take different forms depending on what system you practice.
My personal foundation training at the moment consists of training with the "tang huen" (rattan ring, although mine is made of tough rubber), various forms of wall training (pressing/rubbing, striking, punching, etc.) grabbing and catching heavy stuff with the fingers, Fai Zhi Gong (twisting chopsticks) and some other traditional stuff.
Gei Buhn Gong (Cantonese)
All styles (should) have this, although it might take different forms depending on what system you practice.
My personal foundation training at the moment consists of training with the "tang huen" (rattan ring, although mine is made of tough rubber), various forms of wall training (pressing/rubbing, striking, punching, etc.) grabbing and catching heavy stuff with the fingers, Fai Zhi Gong (twisting chopsticks) and some other traditional stuff.
gpseymour,
we were talking about the form containing too many techniques...
And the function of the form.
Essentially, I agree with you: If the ideas conveyed by and through the forms are preserved through other means, nothing is lost.
One doesn't really need forms as long as the theories and concepts are implemented in drills and application.
we were talking about the form containing too many techniques...
And the function of the form.
Essentially, I agree with you: If the ideas conveyed by and through the forms are preserved through other means, nothing is lost.
One doesn't really need forms as long as the theories and concepts are implemented in drills and application.
Forms are teaching/learning tool. It's not a training tool. Partner drills and solo drills are training tool.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
I disagree. Forms are an excellent training tool.
I don't know anything about WC, but I was also told to 'KO' (finish) in about 3 moves.
In fact, we need only 1 good hit for the knockout and, assuming the opponent is not asleep, 1-2 for creating a sure opportunity. Or 1 for the opening, 1 for KO, 1 for confirmation. If we need more, things are not going well... It means we are weak, or the opponent quite good and we are losing our opportunity.
But it was for a self-defence mindset. In combat sports we have time and we should use it to our advantage. Furthermore, the public will appreciate a bit of show and will say a quick KO is just luck.
In fact, we need only 1 good hit for the knockout and, assuming the opponent is not asleep, 1-2 for creating a sure opportunity. Or 1 for the opening, 1 for KO, 1 for confirmation. If we need more, things are not going well... It means we are weak, or the opponent quite good and we are losing our opportunity.
But it was for a self-defence mindset. In combat sports we have time and we should use it to our advantage. Furthermore, the public will appreciate a bit of show and will say a quick KO is just luck.
