What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[Nobody Important]

True. But people are people. They will always find something to argue about. A wise man once said to me (in regards to forum interactions)..."you get a group of martial artists together and a fight breaks out. Go figure!"

Such is human nature, lol.

 

[yak sao]

I agree with most of what your saying, but I think you may be placing too much stock on the concepts. As I mentioned earlier, the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed, not that this couldn't be, IMO it just wasn't the intention. Using Fung Gar as an example, it is not a stand alone system. It is a system of concepts and philosophy, that once learned, is used to elevated one's understanding of their current art, such as Hung Gar. If Fung Gar was to be used and taught in the same manner as Wing Chun, it would fall down the rabbit hole too, because it was designed as a refining tool not a general purpose tool.

So tell me more about Fung Gar.

 

[wckf92]

So tell me more about Fung Gar.

Yes, definitely! Sounds very interesting!!!

 

[guy b.]

I agree with most of what your saying, but I think you may be placing too much stock on the concepts. As I mentioned earlier, the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed

VT is a stand alone system, not meant to elevate something already posessed, and not designed to be added on to other systems as you describe for Fung Gar

Using Fung Gar as an example, it is not a stand alone system. It is a system of concepts and philosophy, that once learned, is used to elevated one's understanding of their current art, such as Hung Gar.

Don't see the relevance to VT. I don't agree that VT anything to do with white crane

 

[Nobody Important]

So tell me more about Fung Gar.

Sorry to say I do not know much beyond what I have seen and been told. I do not practice it. What I do know is that it is a system reputed to be founded by Fung Chat Leung, of White Crane fame and is an art based on bridges. The entire art is bound with the philosophical ideals of madam Fung. It bares resemblance to Hung Gar's 12 bridges and is similar in concept. I do practice a similar method called Lo Fu San Bak Hok, it is rumored they are related, but what I know only consists of 10 exercises of about 3 moves each. Like hard Chi Kung but no philosophy.

 

[Nobody Important]

VT is a stand alone system, not meant to elevate something already posessed, and not designed to be added on to other systems as you describe for Fung Gar

It is today, not necessarily true during it's inception. It is what it is because of how it was directed, it could of easily taken another course.

 

[guy b.]

It is today, not necessarily true during it's inception. It is what it is because of how it was directed, it could of easily taken another course.

No, what you are actually saying this:

the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed

i.e. you believe that VT is not supposed to be a stand alone method and is instead intended to be an adjunct for people who have trained other more complete systems, e.g. Hung Gar

I have heard this theory before, mostly from a HG person who used to post on the forums. He claimed the same thing about SPM and other systems, saying they need the more complete system understanding and physicality of HG to function. Obviously he didn't know VT, which has its own methods and is indeed a stand alone system.

 

[Nobody Important]

No, what you are actually saying this:



i.e. you believe that VT is not supposed to be a stand alone method and is instead intended to be an adjunct for people who have trained other more complete systems, e.g. Hung Gar

Pretty sure what I said was what I meant. Interpret as you like, we don't need to agree. Just thoughts to build a conversation, take from it what you will and interpret as you see fit. I won't be drawn into an argument debating trivial things.

 

[guy b.]

Pretty sure what I said was what I meant. Interpret as you like, we don't need to agree. Just thoughts to build a conversation, take from it what you will and interpret as you see fit. I won't be drawn into an argument debating trivial things.

You said:

"the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed"

This is a pretty unambiguous statement. You seem to want to equate VT and Fung Gar. Why would that be, and why should I take it seriously?

 

[wtxs]

Nobody Important, if you to stick around, better strengthen them finger tips, and get an spare keyboard, cause you are going to bang the sh$t out of them.

 

[JPinAZ]

I agree with most of what your saying, but I think you may be placing too much stock on the concepts. As I mentioned earlier, the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed, not that this couldn't be, IMO it just wasn't the intention. Using Fung Gar as an example, it is not a stand alone system. It is a system of concepts and philosophy, that once learned, is used to elevated one's understanding of their current art, such as Hung Gar. If Fung Gar was to be used and taught in the same manner as Wing Chun, it would fall down the rabbit hole too, because it was designed as a refining tool not a general purpose tool.

The WCK system is and can be both - a stand alone system and also something to help elevate what one already has. This is due to WCK being a principle/concept based art with the end goal of operating towards maximum efficiency & effectiveness vs. a stylized interpretation by an individual.
The principles of the system apply regardless of the person's experience level. I am equally able to teach someone to fight more efficiently that is new to martial arts, as well as someone with many years of experience.

Maybe it would be easier if you didn't compare Wing Chun and Fung Gar as they are 2 different systems and this might lead to more confusion. I might have missed it, but have you studied WC? And if so, for how long?

 

[Nobody Important]

You said:

"the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed"

This is a pretty unambiguous statement. You seem to want to equate VT and Fung Gar. Why would that be, and why should I take it seriously?

Concepts are not bound by physical technique, range or power generation. There are many different ways to achieve similar outcomes. Ones approach is determined by their personal beliefs and understandings. This can clearly be seen in how different arts approach defending against a haymaker. If it works in the confines of their method it is correct regardless of how someone else feels it should be done. If your art is missing a concept and the needed concept was added, wouldn't that art now be elevated? That's all I'm really saying.

 

[Nobody Important]

The WCK system is and can be both - a stand alone system and also something to help elevate what one already has. This is due to WCK being a principle/concept based art with the end goal of operating towards maximum efficiency & effectiveness vs. a stylized interpretation by an individual.
The principles of the system apply regardless of the person's experience level. I am equally able to teach someone to fight more efficiently that is new to martial arts, as well as someone with many years of experience.

Maybe it would be easier if you didn't compare Wing Chun and Fung Gar as they are 2 different systems and this might lead to more confusion. I might have missed it, but have you studied WC? And if so, for how long?

Nice post, I agree.

Yes I study WC, about 25 years now.

 

[Nobody Important]

I used Fung Gar merely to illustrate an example of an art based on concepts. My thoughts were simply to evoke some discussion. For anyone who feels that what I wrote is an attack on your personal beliefs, it was not. If after reading this you still feel that your beliefs have been threatened, then perhaps you should reevaluate and search for the cause of your insecurities.

 

[jhexx]

The WCK system is and can be both - a stand alone system and also something to help elevate what one already has. This is due to WCK being a principle/concept based art with the end goal of operating towards maximum efficiency & effectiveness vs. a stylized interpretation by an individual.
The principles of the system apply regardless of the person's experience level. I am equally able to teach someone to fight more efficiently that is new to martial arts, as well as someone with many years of experience.

Maybe it would be easier if you didn't compare Wing Chun and Fung Gar as they are 2 different systems and this might lead to more confusion. I might have missed it, but have you studied WC? And if so, for how long?

Truth.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I think you are wrong. It is the core understanding that differs or is lacking.

I don't know enough about Wing Chun to argue the finer points and I'm actually glad that I don't know the finer points. When I look at any WC lineage I assume the following about WC Practitioners.

1. Likes to take a direct linear path from A to B
2. Always thinking forward pressure either by continuous punching and interference with my ability to punch on that same path or by literally charging forward with chain punches.
   
3. High chance that the WC practitioner has limited footwork mobility simply because most practice from the perspective of close quarters fighting and just fail to train the necessary foot work to be quick on the feet beyond a fast pivot.
4. A WC practitioner is dependent on bridging as a form of attack and defense, Their goal is to screw up my punches while being successful with their punches
5. Fast hand speed for the purpose of overwhelming me with punches
6. An 80% chance of lack of awareness of their own footing because of the focus trying to flood punches to my face. I'm pretty sure about this one because there are very few videos showing Wing Chun footwork. Most Wing Chun videos show only the upper torso. The reason why only the upper torso is usually shown in demos and practice videos is because many of the school probably pay very little attention to mobility.
7. There will be 2 types of WC practitioners. One with a wide mobile stance and another with a forward facing squared off stance that isn't mobile.
8. Rapid combos, meaning that they aren't going to throw out many test punches if any. Their goal is to quickly throw punch 1-2-3 out really fast.
9. The majority of WC are obsessive about 4 main areas. Direct Linear attacks, Center Line, Fast combination punches, and Bridging. They train these areas more than anything else and as a result, shouldn't try to play or compete with them in those same areas.

These are things that I would consider as core to Wing Chun. If I were to go to any Wing Chun school and spar with the students, more than 5 of these characteristics would show in the first match. I can pick a random WC free sparring video from youtube and more than 5 of these characters will be present in those videos. I've only seen a couple of WC practitioners that don't fit the majority of these characteristics.

 

[LFJ]

These are things that I would consider as core to Wing Chun. If I were to go to any Wing Chun school and spar with the students, more than 5 of these characteristics would show in the first match. I can pick a random WC free sparring video from youtube and more than 5 of these characters will be present in those videos. I've only seen a couple of WC practitioners that don't fit the majority of these characteristics.

You are looking at very poor examples. But I guess that's a good thing if my opponent knows what MA I train and makes these assumptions about how I might fight them.

 

[Nobody Important]

You are looking at very poor examples. But I guess that's a good thing if my opponent knows what MA I train and makes these assumptions about how I might fight them.

In all fairness to Jogawolf he is not incorrect, you only have to look at YouTube to see the examples he his talking about. Good WC is rare. Unfortunately the art is too often represented by individuals who learned too quickly and have a poor understanding of how the principles and concepts can be applied outside the box.

 

[Phobius]

1. Removed
2. Removed
3. High chance that the WC practitioner has limited footwork mobility simply because most practice from the perspective of close quarters fighting and just fail to train the necessary foot work to be quick on the feet beyond a fast pivot.
4. Removed
5. Removed
6. An 80% chance of lack of awareness of their own footing because of the focus trying to flood punches to my face. I'm pretty sure about this one because there are very few videos showing Wing Chun footwork. Most Wing Chun videos show only the upper torso. The reason why only the upper torso is usually shown in demos and practice videos is because many of the school probably pay very little attention to mobility.

This is the reason so many people say you don't find good WC on YouTube, I believe.

Footwork is everything, you can't be close quarter without superior footwork. Also if practiced correctly there is very high focus on feet/leg awareness in close distance with a lot of drills specifically for it.

I sadly think there was a problem in how WC was taught and the forms teaching footwork got introduced too late and kept secret to many. As such footwork to a lot of schools is deemed unnecessary when in fact it is a vital key. So people should not spend years on first forms alone.

 

[guy b.]

Concepts are not bound by physical technique, range or power generation.

Some concepts are not expressable in terms of certain physical techniques, ranges or power generations. This is why different systems look different.

There are many different ways to achieve similar outcomes.

Sometimes so, sometimes not. VT concepts are quite specific and not that open to free creative interpretation.

Ones approach is determined by their personal beliefs and understandings. This can clearly be seen in how different arts approach defending against a haymaker.

You are talking about system understanding, i.e. concept and principle upon which the system is based- why different systems do different things, not personal understanding

If your art is missing a concept and the needed concept was added, wouldn't that art now be elevated?

It would depend on the concept and the system. Some ideas are not assimilable into some systems because they cause contradiction with ideas already present. You can't integrate the concept of avoiding blows to the head by slipping, bobbing and weaving very effectively into VT for example because it contradicts llhs, lsjc. Likewise it would be counter productive to integrate VT ideas into BJJ.