A while back I went to an open practice session with some guys from other styles. Watching one of these guys demonstrate how he would approach various situations, I was struck by how differently he defined what was a "good technique". Even at the same close range that we favor, what he used was very unlike WC/WT. He used indirect, complex sequences that often crashed force against force. When it was my turn to share, I would try to achieve the same objective in the simplest, most direct manner I could, borrowing my opponent's force as much as possible. The other guy did not appreciate this approach at all. To him, the WC/WT looked too basic. He felt that his complicated approach was way cooler and more sophisticated... or in short, "better". It would not have been possible to change his mind and still keep the practice session "friendly"... if you get my drift.
On the other hand, these concepts of simplicity, efficiency and borrowing the force are pretty much shared by all the WC/WT practitioners I've met. So while there was no common theoretical base to discuss what was a "good technique" with the guy I described above, it should be possible to have meaningful exchanges with other WC/WT guys.
Now some of what we feel is "best" is largely a matter of lineage, instructor and personal preference, like how your lineage chooses to do the forms. Or, perhaps, how you adapt your stance. Each method has its own rationale, and we could debate "until the cows come home". And get nowhere. Especially since I don't have any cows.
On the other hand we should be able to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of our techniques, based on our common concepts. So whether I do WC, WT, VT, or some other lineage, we should be able to break down what we do and see if we are doing the simplest, most efficient and effective move or not. If you can show me how to get from "A to B" more efficiently, I'll take your technique... because that's also my definition of good Wing Chun (however you spell it). Now I'll get down off my soapbox and ask you guys, "What is your definition of good Wing Chun/Tsun?
On the other hand, these concepts of simplicity, efficiency and borrowing the force are pretty much shared by all the WC/WT practitioners I've met. So while there was no common theoretical base to discuss what was a "good technique" with the guy I described above, it should be possible to have meaningful exchanges with other WC/WT guys.
Now some of what we feel is "best" is largely a matter of lineage, instructor and personal preference, like how your lineage chooses to do the forms. Or, perhaps, how you adapt your stance. Each method has its own rationale, and we could debate "until the cows come home". And get nowhere. Especially since I don't have any cows.
On the other hand we should be able to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of our techniques, based on our common concepts. So whether I do WC, WT, VT, or some other lineage, we should be able to break down what we do and see if we are doing the simplest, most efficient and effective move or not. If you can show me how to get from "A to B" more efficiently, I'll take your technique... because that's also my definition of good Wing Chun (however you spell it). Now I'll get down off my soapbox and ask you guys, "What is your definition of good Wing Chun/Tsun?