Siu Bot Gwa

[futsaowingchun]

Ok, thanks. That helps a bit.
Is your sifu (Henry) still alive and teaching or...?

No, he passed away in 2011

 

[Kwan Sau]

No, he passed away in 2011

Oh, sorry to hear that.
And you say now, there are just a handful or so of you passing his art along?
Mostly in the US or...?

 

[futsaowingchun]

Oh, sorry to hear that.
And you say now, there are just a handful or so of you passing his art along?
Mostly in the US or...?

In the U.S. I know of only 5 people. 3 of them are in NY 1 in D.E. one in Chicago,and there is one guy in Germany who trained with Henry but I never met him and I don't think he completed his training. Sifu James Cama taught Fut Sao for years. I also was a student of Sifu Cama, but he recently passed away a few weeks ago.

 

[dlcox]

That's the first I've heard them credited to Leung Yi Tai, not saying it's not possible, just that I haven't heard it. Where'd this info come from?

Liang Zan is the only one known to have passed down an entire system based on Sanshi, he credits this to Liang Yi Tai in all the oral legends. Many of the branches stemming from Liang Zan state the same in their histories. Most of the short sets and Sanshi are fundamentally the same as what is found at Gulao, leading one to conclude that they are of the same source.

I've trained both, they're different down to the very core. The training methods, body framework and principles and concepts don't match in a significant way. There was some intermingling in the Leung Bik/Yip Man timeframe, but I've not seen anything credible before that.

Under Andreas Hoffman? Because if so his stuff is heavily modified. Dang, Tang, Lou families preserve the 'One' form tradition of Yong Chun, yes some have embellished the art, but the root still traces back to the same source that Ye Wen and others trace their origins to. Simply because they modified things doesn't mean that they are no longer Yong Chun. Look at Hongjia, many branches, and like with Yong Chun and Ye Wen, everyone assumes that Lin family (Lin Shi Rong, Lam Sai Wing) is the standard for Hongjia. This couldn't be further from the truth. Lin Shi Rong heavily modified Hongjia, Ye Wen modified Yong Chun. The older branches of Hongjia coming from Zhanjiang and Tan family are in many respects closer to the root as Hong Xi Guan is the one who actually passed it down to them. Lin family comes from Lu A Cai. And if we are to give any credibility to the oral history, what is considered "Village" style Hongjia is historically intermingled with Yong Chun not olny through the red boats but also in lineage. Look into it yourself, you don't have to believe me.

No, it all comes down to the core principals, concepts and body engine that drives WC vs any other martial art.

This IMO really comes down to semantics, prejudice and political stance. I'm not a big believer in body engine crap, concepts and principle yes. We could argue back and forth all day about this but there is no sense in it. I will not engage in a discussion about subjective nuance and interpretive theory and how they interplay with body mechanics, I'll stick with the basics of human motion and let everyone else argue about how to maximize that potential. There is only Ti, Shuai, Na & Da how someone wants to classify this, express it, use it etc. all comes down to understanding of the principles and influences involved, I'll let people do it the way they understand it and not try to convince them their doing it wrong based upon my beliefs.

 

[dlcox]

acher
e aw
I know there are holes in the history of Fut Sao. Its mostly been passed down to us not by documents but by stories from teacher to student. We do have all the forms in fut sao intact. So the best way is to just study it and decide for your self. Sadly, Henry Leung has passes away and only myself and a few continue to teach his art. How and why Xun Yun learned the Gu Yee Kuen has never been written down. I have heard the story but I wont speak of it. I dont think most people will believe it anyway so better to just let it fade away.

I understand completely it could turn into quite the rabbit hole, thanks.

 

[dlcox]

From my research the siu bot gwa footworks are hidden in all authentic wck linages, but are never explained to the same extent as in Fut Sao wck. So many never fully grasp the full understanding of how they are applied.



Which branch of wing chun are you referring to? Is there a link to this linage of wing chun?

I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that it is the Chen Lu Guai (Lo Kwai) branch. He was an early student of Liang Zan and he originally learned one form with 4 sections, the 4th section called Xiao Ba Gua. I think this branch went to Taiwan. I don't know much more than that.

 

[Eric_H]

Liang Zan is the only one known to have passed down an entire system based on Sanshi, he credits this to Liang Yi Tai in all the oral legends. Many of the branches stemming from Liang Zan state the same in their histories. Most of the short sets and Sanshi are fundamentally the same as what is found at Gulao, leading one to conclude that they are of the same source.

That's certainly plausible.

Under Andreas Hoffman? Because if so his stuff is heavily modified. Dang, Tang, Lou families preserve the 'One' form tradition of Yong Chun, yes some have embellished the art, but the root still traces back to the same source that Ye Wen and others trace their origins to. Simply because they modified things doesn't mean that they are no longer Yong Chun. Look at Hongjia, many branches, and like with Yong Chun and Ye Wen, everyone assumes that Lin family (Lin Shi Rong, Lam Sai Wing) is the standard for Hongjia. This couldn't be further from the truth. Lin Shi Rong heavily modified Hongjia, Ye Wen modified Yong Chun. The older branches of Hongjia coming from Zhanjiang and Tan family are in many respects closer to the root as Hong Xi Guan is the one who actually passed it down to them. Lin family comes from Lu A Cai. And if we are to give any credibility to the oral history, what is considered "Village" style Hongjia is historically intermingled with Yong Chun not olny through the red boats but also in lineage. Look into it yourself, you don't have to believe me.

Andreas may not be as qualified as he led people to believe, but video of other family's practitioners reveal a similar body engine. Whether or not he modified the strategy to favor his own personal MA background - I'll leave that up to the Chi Sim people to argue. Fact is they still use an animal style bending body, which is not what Wing Chun is about. You may not be aware, but there was a lot of pressure about 10-15 years ago to create a link between Weng Chun and Hung Kuen too, AFAIK, they ran into the same thing - nobody credible in Hung Kuen circles would accept it. It also depends which Yongchun you're referring to - more than one art bears that name. They are not all the same thing.

This IMO really comes down to semantics, prejudice and political stance. I'm not a big believer in body engine crap, concepts and principle yes. We could argue back and forth all day about this but there is no sense in it. I will not engage in a discussion about subjective nuance and interpretive theory and how they interplay with body mechanics, I'll stick with the basics of human motion and let everyone else argue about how to maximize that potential. There is only Ti, Shuai, Na & Da how someone wants to classify this, express it, use it etc. all comes down to understanding of the principles and influences involved, I'll let people do it the way they understand it and not try to convince them their doing it wrong based upon my beliefs.

No, it is much more than semantics. Chasing Ti Da Shuai Na only puts you in a technique driven level, as there are a million ways to execute those four ideas in combat. Also, none of them are specific to WC, you can do all 4 with Choi Lei Fut, Bak Mei, Praying Mantis etc. WC is unique in the idea of it's software (concept and principle) and hardware (body structure) supporting one another (Centerline, Ying Lik, etc). While we have lineage and personal understanding based arguments over the right way to do some of these things, there are common constants such as maintaining and regaining an upright posture driven by Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma - this is not the modus operandi of any Weng Chun I have trained or seen. No self centerline = No Wing Chun.

 

[dlcox]

Andreas may not be as qualified as he led people to believe, but video of other family's practitioners reveal a similar body engine. Whether or not he modified the strategy to favor his own personal MA background - I'll leave that up to the Chi Sim people to argue. Fact is they still use an animal style bending body, which is not what Wing Chun is about. You may not be aware, but there was a lot of pressure about 10-15 years ago to create a link between Weng Chun and Hung Kuen too, AFAIK, they ran into the same thing - nobody credible in Hung Kuen circles would accept it. It also depends which Yongchun you're referring to - more than one art bears that name. They are not all the same thing.

I'm aware of the controversy and agree with your statements concerning Mr. Hoffman. "Weng Chun's" ancestral root is IMO not Hongjia, it and other sytems were used to embellish Yong Chun. This is also clearly seen in the Vietnamese Yong Chun, where "Animal" concepts were incorporated. But, simply because different concepts were utlized to express certain principles and theories this shouldn't eliminate these branches from the family tree, things evolve. Pao Fa Lien, Chan Yiu Min, Yuen Chai Wan, Yik Kam all express Yong Chun different from Yip Man style. Pao Fa Lien and Yuen Chai Wan actually are closer in appearence and concept to "Weng Chun" than "Wing Chun" yet no one regards them as not being "Wing Chun". Plenty of branches express an "Animal" flavor.

No, it is much more than semantics. Chasing Ti Da Shuai Na only puts you in a technique driven level, as there are a million ways to execute those four ideas in combat. Also, none of them are specific to WC, you can do all 4 with Choi Lei Fut, Bak Mei, Praying Mantis etc. WC is unique in the idea of it's software (concept and principle) and hardware (body structure) supporting one another (Centerline, Ying Lik, etc). While we have lineage and personal understanding based arguments over the right way to do some of these things, there are common constants such as maintaining and regaining an upright posture driven by Yee Gee Kim Yeung Ma - this is not the modus operandi of any Weng Chun I have trained or seen. No self centerline = No Wing Chun.

Yong Chun theory is not unique, it was not created in a vaccuum, many southern arts utilize the theories and principles found in Yong Chun. Some northern arts do as well. Everyone has different interpretations of what they feel is the correct method and true understanding. As a matter of fact, there is more diversity and inconsistancy in the Ye Wen (Yip Man) branches than in any other family. There is no standard. Your comment of "No self centerline = No Wing Chun" isn't as clear cut as you make it to be, as unfortunate as this is it is true. Some branches prefer a motherline and use of gates as compared to using the centerline as a reference point, this was seen in Cheung Bo's art that he taught to Sum Nung. This doesn't mean that the centerline wasn't an important concept, it simply wasn't the sole focus.

I agree that there are some points agreed upon by the various lineages that define what is "Yong Chun", unfortunately there are more that cannot be agreed upon and this is where the dysfunction and splintering begins. At the end of the day we have to simply put aside our predjudices and accept that there is no "Right" way, "Wrong" way or "Pure" branch that defines or sets a standard for what is and what isn't Yong Chun as a whole. It's up to each lineage and family to set their own standards and regulations. It's not really up to a "Popular" branch or the "Largest" organization to set the bar and define Yong Chun for everyone else based on what they believe, Yong Chun is way too deep a well for that.

 

[dlcox]

Various forms of non-mainstream Yong Chun lineages. Notice the simularities and differences they have with each other and to Ye Wen's branch. Notice the small and large body movements utilized and the heavy emphasis on qigong with some of them. Some of these branches are drastically different to what is considered "Classical/Traditional" Yong Chun, some not as much, but all still Yong Chun. There is a common thread that binds all of them.

Pao Fa Lian Siu Lim Tau
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIrfgpYSI3Q
Weng Chun Sam Bai Fu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBrIuxxk8ec
Pan Nam Biu Jee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLagzA0UxjQ
Weng Chun Sap Yat Kuen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfdyrXr_PmM
Cho Ga Siu Lim Tau?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2QHaD5BMyg
Vietnamese Vin Xuan Dragon Set?

This is only a small sampling of some of the other systems of Yong chun out there, there are many, many more unusual and obscure branches.
There are more sets from various branches of these same lineages some drastically different from one another even though they claim the same source/teacher. Just goes to show that Yong Chun is a vast system with many interpretations and influences.

 

[dlcox]

Vietnamese Yong Chun

Vietnamese Xiao Lian Tou

Dang Family Yong Chun 6 1/2 Point pole

Interesting version of the Arrow Fist set

Chan Wah Shun/Chan Yiu Min Biu Jee Form

Chan Wah Shun/Chan Yiu Min Taming Tiger Fist

 

[kung fu fighter]

Do you study this Branch of wing chun? or have any youtube links to it?

 

[Eric_H]

Pao Fa Lien and Yuen Chai Wan actually are closer in appearence and concept to "Weng Chun" than "Wing Chun" yet no one regards them as not being "Wing Chun". Plenty of branches express an "Animal" flavor.

Because the root of the system is there, the technology that drives Siu Nim Tao (even if not consistently expressed) is at least often present. Wing Chun climbed out of the animal styles and evolved away from it, and while we retain certain attitudes and shapes (heck my line uses Dragon, Eagle and Crane shaped techniques/attitudes sometimes) the way and the why of how they are expressed and driven makes them WC vs something like Lung Ying or Hung Kuen.

Your comment of "No self centerline = No Wing Chun" isn't as clear cut as you make it to be, as unfortunate as this is it is true. Some branches prefer a motherline and use of gates as compared to using the centerline as a reference point, this was seen in Cheung Bo's art that he taught to Sum Nung. This doesn't mean that the centerline wasn't an important concept, it simply wasn't the sole focus.

Simply put, some branches are off in left field. As for Sum Nung's WC the folks I've met from that line do keep upright and use YGKYM to drive their WC, so I'm not sure what you're referring to as an example?

I agree that there are some points agreed upon by the various lineages that define what is "Yong Chun", unfortunately there are more that cannot be agreed upon and this is where the dysfunction and splintering begins. At the end of the day we have to simply put aside our predjudices and accept that there is no "Right" way, "Wrong" way or "Pure" branch that defines or sets a standard for what is and what isn't Yong Chun as a whole. It's up to each lineage and family to set their own standards and regulations. It's not really up to a "Popular" branch or the "Largest" organization to set the bar and define Yong Chun for everyone else based on what they believe, Yong Chun is way too deep a well for that.

I disagree, there are ways to figure out who's right and wrong, and it's about what structures and strategies are consistently reflecting the basic principals of WC. Though we might often wish it otherwise (lord knows I have on occasion) leverage cannot and will not lie to you. You are right, however, it's not about largest, popular, oldest, etc - it's about being true to the WC system. WC technique, same as any technique, can lie to you, but the system never does.

It seems we are at an impasse - you seem to feel like everything should be preserved, I'm more eager to sort things out and throw away what we don't need. Difference in outlook I guess.

 

[dlcox]

Because the root of the system is there, the technology that drives Siu Nim Tao (even if not consistently expressed) is at least often present. Wing Chun climbed out of the animal styles and evolved away from it, and while we retain certain attitudes and shapes (heck my line uses Dragon, Eagle and Crane shaped techniques/attitudes sometimes) the way and the why of how they are expressed and driven makes them WC vs something like Lung Ying or Hung Kuen.

For the most part this was the point I was trying to express without outright saying it. You have recognized this so what is the argument?

Simply put, some branches are off in left field. As for Sum Nung's WC the folks I've met from that line do keep upright and use YGKYM to drive their WC, so I'm not sure what you're referring to as an example?

Maybe so but just because YOU don't like how they approach the art doesn't make them wrong. Sum Nung modified Cheung Bo's approach to fall in line with what he learned from Yuen Kay San.

I disagree, there are ways to figure out who's right and wrong, and it's about what structures and strategies are consistently reflecting the basic principals of WC. Though we might often wish it otherwise (lord knows I have on occasion) leverage cannot and will not lie to you. You are right, however, it's not about largest, popular, oldest, etc - it's about being true to the WC system. WC technique, same as any technique, can lie to you, but the system never does.

It seems we are at an impasse - you seem to feel like everything should be preserved, I'm more eager to sort things out and throw away what we don't need. Difference in outlook I guess.

Ah, disagree based upon who's ideology and approach as the standard? Way to many variables when in comes to pressure testing a technique. Should everything be preserved? Who am I to say, simply because I don't agree with someone else's method doesn't mean that they aren't relevant, that they don't exists. They have just as much a right to exists as anyone else. Who gave YOU the authority to speak for all of WC and decide what is needed and what is not? While this may be applicable on a personal level it certainly doesn't apply on a global one. Too many out there that think they know it all and what they possess is the truth and genuine and like religious zealots try to convert those who think different to them, and when they can't they try to erase them. I guess we clearly don't hold the same values, were you raised in wartime Germany?

 

[Kwan Sau]

I'm more eager to sort things out and throw away what we don't need.

Interesting outlook. So, where does this "throwing away" start or end in your opinion?
Can you provide an example from your version of wing chun?
Are you an Instructor or sifu and if so have you thrown out certain things in order to simplify the system?
And if not, why?

 

[Eric_H]

For the most part this was the point I was trying to express without outright saying it. You have recognized this so what is the argument?

I think we are talking in circles here. I've said that if the root of WC is in there, and gave the example of centerline and YGKYM as the most basic of WC core concepts, and you objected that not all WC does that. I disagree, i think that getting away from those core concepts is the exception, not the rule of Wing Chun. It's when people do animal shape techniques that use animal style body and strategy that anyone should feel ok saying "that's not part of the WC system" even if it is a block of knowledge that's in a particular WC line. Do you concur? Because that's not what is implied by your previous posts.

Maybe so but just because YOU don't like how they approach the art doesn't make them wrong. Sum Nung modified Cheung Bo's approach to fall in line with what he learned from Yuen Kay San.

No, it's expressing the basic principals inconsistently or not at all that makes someone wrong.

Ah, disagree based upon who's ideology and approach as the standard? Way to many variables when in comes to pressure testing a technique. Should everything be preserved? Who am I to say, simply because I don't agree with someone else's method doesn't mean that they aren't relevant, that they don't exists. They have just as much a right to exists as anyone else. Who gave YOU the authority to speak for all of WC and decide what is needed and what is not? While this may be applicable on a personal level it certainly doesn't apply on a global one. Too many out there that think they know it all and what they possess is the truth and genuine and like religious zealots try to convert those who think different to them, and when they can't they try to erase them. I guess we clearly don't hold the same values, were you raised in wartime Germany?

Since you've missed the point again by talking about techniques.... it's not about the techniques, it's about the concepts and principals that drive them. If a technique deviates from principled action, then we can safely say that it's not expressing the WC system, even if in shape it is a WC technique. As for the rest, you're getting a little bit personal simply for the fact I don't agree with you. You don't know me, you have no idea what I know or don't. I've clearly laid out my decision making framework for what I consider WC or not for people to agree or disagree with as they see fit and you have yet to do the same. By the same right, who are YOU to decide these things are WC?

Also, as a person of German descent, I don't appreciate being called a Nazi. That's more than a bit inappropriate.

 

[Eric_H]

Interesting outlook. So, where does this "throwing away" start or end in your opinion?
Can you provide an example from your version of wing chun?
Are you an Instructor or sifu and if so have you thrown out certain things in order to simplify the system?
And if not, why?

I learned the majority of the Moy Yat system (through pole and dummy) before being introduced to my current line. At this point I've thrown away most of all of it from my personal kung fu. Same with a few other styles of kung fu I've trained.

A pretty easy example is using Chaap Cheui - I've learned that move from a few different arts. I can "WC-ify" it by using it under the concepts (software) of centerline theory or gate theory, but the body structure (hardware) to get it done doesn't fit the WC frame. That's something I can't pass along as "WC System" because under the ruleset I've already marked out, it doesn't fit. Could be arguably a "WC technique" though (works sometimes not others, has some elements but not consistently, etc)

 

[dlcox]

I think we are talking in circles here. I've said that if the root of WC is in there, and gave the example of centerline and YGKYM as the most basic of WC core concepts, and you objected that not all WC does that. I disagree, i think that getting away from those core concepts is the exception, not the rule of Wing Chun. It's when people do animal shape techniques that use animal style body and strategy that anyone should feel ok saying "that's not part of the WC system" even if it is a block of knowledge that's in a particular WC line. Do you concur? Because that's not what is implied by your previous posts.

You can disagree with me all you want concerning what the core principles YOU believe constitue what is Yong Chun. Strict adherence and dogmatic approach to a singular understanding and comprehension of the concepts utilized in Yong Chun is a narrow viewpoint. One that is propagated by agenda, poltical alignment and popular factions wanting nothing more than control over the Yong Chun systems as a whole. The whole origin story of Yong Chun is based upon conflict between two animals, the same as many other TCMA. It's ludicris to think that animal mimicry wouldn't present in some branches. You don't have to agree with them or their methods, but you have no right to dismiss them as not authentic based upon your personal beliefs or mine for that matter. These are the same implications I've made from the beginning.

No, it's expressing the basic principals inconsistently or not at all that makes someone wrong.

Who's to decide what the basic principles are for everyone, not me, not you. To each their own, irregardless what either of us believe. It's their right to practice their system as they see fit, whether or not anyone else sees it that way. There is no umbrella organization that oversees and regulates Yong Chun, until that time comes every branch has a legitimate claim to the individual use and expression of how and what THEY interpret as Yong Chun.

Since you've missed the point again by talking about techniques.... it's not about the techniques, it's about the concepts and principals that drive them. If a technique deviates from principled action, then we can safely say that it's not expressing the WC system, even if in shape it is a WC technique. As for the rest, you're getting a little bit personal simply for the fact I don't agree with you. You don't know me, you have no idea what I know or don't. I've clearly laid out my decision making framework for what I consider WC or not for people to agree or disagree with as they see fit and you have yet to do the same. By the same right, who are YOU to decide these things are WC?

Seems to me you're the one who missed the point. My argument all along has been about the theory, concepts and principles. People will interpret them according to their preferred use and understanding, I won't get in the way of that and tell them that they are doing it wrong. You're the one who seem he can't seperate theory from form, as clearly illustrated in your post. There is more than one way of doing something, more than one interpretation of the "Proper" use of theory and principle. I've said all along no one has all the answers. Yes you have clearly laid out your framework for what you consider Yong Chun and that is something that is only applicable to you. In your passive aggressive way you imply that your method and understanding of the concepts and principles is the only correct way, I simply pointed out that it is not. We don't have to agree, I'm fine with that, I'm simply pointing out your predjudices, ethnocentrism and singular view. You're correct I don't know you or what you represent yet YOU feel the need to represent your way as the correct one simply based upon the appearence of what others present. That is why I implied you were a Nazi, if you don't want to be called one, don't act like one.

I'm done with this conversation, have a good day.

 

[KPM]

I think I am somewhere in between the viewpoints expressed by Dave and Eric. On the one hand, Wing Chun is very diverse I would bet some of the things we do in Pin Sun would not adhere to what Eric defines a proper Wing Chun concepts. Yet Pin Sun comes from Leung Jan and has been preserved pretty much intact in Ku Lo village. Fung Siu Ching's line diverged from Leung Jan's line long ago. So it makes sense that their descendants have evolved in different directions. So I can see Dave's point in that who are we to say someone's Wing Chun is wrong or incorrect?

Yet.....there has obviously been lots of "mixing" in some of the mainland lineages. At some point, technique starts to diverge from what most of us would consider Wing Chun, despite whether it is guided by Wing Chun concepts or not. And some technique, while giving lip service to Wing Chun concepts, really doesn't follow them despite what their lineage says. Just because a Chinese guy two generations ago decided to blend some other method (animal or otherwise) with the Wing Chun he learned, declare himself a "grandmaster" and proceed to teach his new method to the masses.....doesn't necessarily mean that what he came up with isn't a bunch a crap, despite what his followers may think. So yea, I can see where Eric is coming from as well. ;-)

In the end is comes down to what the individual wants to do. If someone likes preserving and being part of a tradition of Wing Chun with fancy flag dancing, lots of archaic weapons and animal forms, then more power to him! If someone likes the simplicity and directness of Wing Chun concepts and technique and just wants to do what works for them, then more power to them as well! I see nothing wrong with eliminating some of the superfluous stuff that may have been added in the past if it really adds nothing to effectiveness in today's world. Personally, I don't see a lot of value in spending time on the Butterfly knives. I have replaced them with the tactical folder, which is much more applicable than 2 short swords in today's world. On the other hand, I am not going to start eliminating any of the solo sets in Pin Sun I have learned, because I don't trust my own knowledge and abilities to know exactly what to do away with! What I see as pointless today, I may very well discover is important later! Sparring most definitely does NOT teach you everything you might needed in a real encounter.

Anyway, I think I am rambling now so I will shut up! But good discussion!

 

[Eric_H]

You can disagree with me all you want concerning what the core principles YOU believe constitue what is Yong Chun. Strict adherence and dogmatic approach to a singular understanding and comprehension of the concepts utilized in Yong Chun is a narrow viewpoint.

Each expression of the system should be weighed and measured against some sort of rubric of authenticity. I proposed what is most common among *all* the lines of WC as a starting point. I don't think that's being dogmatic, rather it's looking for the common denominator.

One that is propagated by agenda, poltical alignment and popular factions wanting nothing more than control over the Yong Chun systems as a whole. The whole origin story of Yong Chun is based upon conflict between two animals, the same as many other TCMA. It's ludicris to think that animal mimicry wouldn't present in some branches. You don't have to agree with them or their methods, but you have no right to dismiss them as not authentic based upon your personal beliefs or mine for that matter. These are the same implications I've made from the beginning.

You're the only one who has brought up political issues. I have little interest in them anymore. If we are to believe that all WC came from the same source, that we were indeed one family at some point, then we have to try to piece together what was original, what was added and why it was added. If something was added for a reason that doesn't hold water (ie: only learned part of the system so supplemented with X or already knew X style so blended it in etc) then we can assume that's not core WC. It's perfectly fine to have it be part of "so-and-so's" WC but then we both honor the changes they made and know what existed outside of their influence. That doesn't necessarily make it WC core.

Who's to decide what the basic principles are for everyone, not me, not you. To each their own, irregardless what either of us believe. It's their right to practice their system as they see fit, whether or not anyone else sees it that way. There is no umbrella organization that oversees and regulates Yong Chun, until that time comes every branch has a legitimate claim to the individual use and expression of how and what THEY interpret as Yong Chun.

Actually, Wing Chun as a system has to decide if that's what we're really going for here. The essence of WC cannot be changed, it simply is what it is - that's not up to me or you. I think we as a community should be able to demonstrate and debate our different branches of WC and come to actual conclusions of if what we're doing follows the concepts and principals.

Seems to me you're the one who missed the point. My argument all along has been about the theory, concepts and principles. People will interpret them according to their preferred use and understanding, I won't get in the way of that and tell them that they are doing it wrong. You're the one who seem he can't seperate theory from form, as clearly illustrated in your post. There is more than one way of doing something, more than one interpretation of the "Proper" use of theory and principle. I've said all along no one has all the answers. Yes you have clearly laid out your framework for what you consider Yong Chun and that is something that is only applicable to you. In your passive aggressive way you imply that your method and understanding of the concepts and principles is the only correct way, I simply pointed out that it is not. We don't have to agree, I'm fine with that, I'm simply pointing out your predjudices, ethnocentrism and singular view. You're correct I don't know you or what you represent yet YOU feel the need to represent your way as the correct one simply based upon the appearence of what others present. That is why I implied you were a Nazi, if you don't want to be called one, don't act like one.

There is more than one way to do something, but only one way to do it that authentically obeys the ruleset laid out by Wing Chun principals and concepts. Its something that we all strive for and I have seen people from various lineages achieve in different formats. If you have something to hang your hat on as a WC guy other than "well gee, everybody must be right" then I'm all ears. So far you haven't demonstrated any reason that my viewpoint should change.

Childish insults gain you nothing. The Nazis killed millions, that's nothing to joke about, nor do I appreciate the racist undertones.

I'm done with this conversation, have a good day.

Already am, to you as well.

 

[dlcox]

I know I said I was done but please bear with me a moment.

=Eric_H;1654812]Each expression of the system should be weighed and measured against some sort of rubric of authenticity. I proposed what is most common among *all* the lines of WC as a starting point. I don't think that's being dogmatic, rather it's looking for the common denominator. If we are to believe that all WC came from the same source, that we were indeed one family at some point, then we have to try to piece together what was original, what was added and why it was added. If something was added for a reason that doesn't hold water (ie: only learned part of the system so supplemented with X or already knew X style so blended it in etc) then we can assume that's not core WC. It's perfectly fine to have it be part of "so-and-so's" WC but then we both honor the changes they made and know what existed outside of their influence. That doesn't necessarily make it WC core.

Believe it or not I agree with you here, it's simply trying to get everyone to agree on what constitutes a "Core" that is problematic. This is one of the factors that have led to the splintering of Yong Chun.

Actually, Wing Chun as a system has to decide if that's what we're really going for here. The essence of WC cannot be changed, it simply is what it is - that's not up to me or you. I think we as a community should be able to demonstrate and debate our different branches of WC and come to actual conclusions of if what we're doing follows the concepts and principals.

Again I agree, but the problem lies in everyone's interpretation of "Original Essence".

There is more than one way to do something, but only one way to do it that authentically obeys the ruleset laid out by Wing Chun principals and concepts. Its something that we all strive for and I have seen people from various lineages achieve in different formats.

And here is the rabbit hole, again there has to be a consensus as to not only how a situation is approached but also on what is the best principle, concept and theory to be applied and by which methods/techniques relay these best according to the individual's preference of use and understanding of the concepts, principles and theory. A boxer will not approach it the same as a grappler, etc. This becomes a real issue when trying to iron out "Standards" especially when concepts are subject to various methods of Jin. Mindset and approach to combat are greatly affected by personal belief, religious faith, cultural influence, societal norms etc. Whether we accept it or not these things do play a factor into how we do things even in a self defense situation, hence it will affect our arts.

I'm all for everyone having their own way, it doesn't mean I have to accept it and with some I don't, but I will not dismiss them as "Illegitimate" simply because I do not agree. For all I know I could be wrong in my thinking and approach they could be right. I won't be so pompous to presume I know it all.

Childish insults gain you nothing. The Nazis killed millions, that's nothing to joke about, nor do I appreciate the racist undertones.

In all sincerity I apologize for the insinuation. Lets start over, hello my name is Dave I do Wing Chun......