Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There was some disengaging after intercepting an attack rather than pursuing. That tells me that there might be WC techniques present, but potentially not the under lying principles.
---This is Duncan Leung lineage. He was a student of Ip Man. And you are right, most of this is pattern type drills...reaction/response drills. So why would you expect them to have forward intent and not to disengage? These are "back and forth" drills, that's usually how "back and forth" drills work.
From an outsiders view... WC is both a concept driven art
and technique driven art. But my question is this:
How many principles can you "lose" before its not wing chun?
Which leads to asking, "What is "the" orthodox wing chun?"
Because the argument over who has the "real" wing chun has never been settled. And until a baseline is codified or a universal standard that enumerates absolute minimum core tenants...is achived by some consensus...then we are shooting blind folded at a moving target.
And leg-checking a kick like a kickboxer? That seems more fitting for a competition and trading strikes with an opponent.
After 1:00 it didn't even look like WC anymore - guys throwing Muay Thai type kicks on heavy bags, checking kicks with the leg versus trying to move in and crash the opponent
I said while much of it was drills, I didn't see discernible forward pressure or intent. Obviously pattern drills you would expect it to be 1-2, reset, repeat. But then as it progressed and showed other students and more dynamic drills.....I didn't see it there either. I don't expect to see blind-folded chi-sau on displaybut there was nothing there showing what I see as a hallmark of good Wing Chun. And leg-checking a kick like a kickboxer? That seems more fitting for a competition and trading strikes with an opponent.
And leg-checking a kick like a kickboxer? That seems more fitting for a competition and trading strikes with an opponent.
I think I saw forward intent whenever they moved forward.It does not look very relaxed, and while much of what was shown look like pattern type drills, they seemed to lack forward intent I'm used to seeing in WC/WT/VT. There was some disengaging after intercepting an attack rather than pursuing. That tells me that there might be WC techniques present, but potentially not the under lying principles.
After 1:00 it didn't even look like WC anymore - guys throwing Muay Thai type kicks on heavy bags, checking kicks with the leg versus trying to move in and crash the opponent, and some serious chasing arms at 1:25.
It looks like the school teaches kickboxing and MMA as well, so maybe they are after a hybrid or eclectic approach. I wouldn't criticize anyone's training methods if that is what they want to train. Not my cup of tea though.
I say none. You must maintain all WC core principles for it to remain WC. It's tricky though, because we can't even agree on what those principles are, or more specifically what forward intent isFrom an outsiders view... WC is both a concept driven art
and technique driven art. But my question is this:
How many principles can you "lose" before its not wing chun?
Which leads to asking, "What is "the" orthodox wing chun?"
Because the argument over who has the "real" wing chun has never been settled. And until a baseline is codified or a universal standard that enumerates absolute minimum core tenants...is achived by some consensus...then we are shooting blind folded at a moving target.
I say none. You must maintain all WC core principles for it to remain WC. It's tricky though, because we can't even agree on what those principles are, or more specifically what forward intent is? I know what they are and I'm only a student. Problem is, there are Sifu's who don't, and who are teaching and posting videos. So that's where part of the problem lies.
In terms of what WC should look like. It depends on who I'm fighting and what I get. Hopefully, I train realistically and when I fight my WC principles stay in tack. Hopefully, in my journey, I have transitioned from technique and drills into the more useful underlying concepts and ideas of what WC really is? Hopefully!
Are we talking techniques? If we are talking principles? Then let's use forward intent as an example. I just can't let this one go.Could it be there is a spectrum?
And what do you call something that is 90% wing chun and 10% the opposite principles, or ignores 10%?
How about 70/30%?
What do you call something 50% in keeping with the tenents principles
Are we talking techniques? If we are talking principles? Then let's use forward intent as an example. I just can't let this one go.
So if ones understanding of forward intent is only going forward. There easily could be a misconception of breaking a rule or concept by retreating. So the lack of truly understanding what a concept or principe is could lead to a 'spectrum'? So if forward intent has multiple layers and is always there. It could be perceived that the said principle is not there to some who can't see past the first layer?
Same goes with centerline or any of the other core WC principles. If center line is only the quickest distance between a and b or is never to be crossed. Then going around center may not be perceived as WC? Since WC uses the most direct route in order to achieve it's goal of hitting? What if hitting isn't available? What if centerline is occupied? Should we force our way into that space? Wouldn't that be breaking WC's rule of not meeting force with force?
You see where I'm going? If you can only take things at face value then you get an art that lacks this or that. If you can see beyond the techniques, then the art becomes complete. Simple? He'll no! It's taken me over 20 years and the possibilities still trip me out.
It is tricky. My current teacher tells me he's teaching me combat WC. We still do what everybody else does. We just make it combative. What might that mean you ask? We make it work lol! No, really it's just stripping it down. He describes it like sharpening a blade. You take material off to sharpen and to get the tip smaller. Something like that. I probably butchered that one sorry lol.This is a tricky place... GM John Pelegrini was at when he overhauled Hopkido to make "Combat Hopkido". If he called it something else... his critics would say "he stole it from Hopkido without crediting the source." But if he called it Hopkido, critics from within the existing Hopkido groups would say "oh thats not real Hopkido... its missing this, and this and it is missing that other thing too... and what?
I like what I see at this school... even if it is not orthodox wc.
So in order to sharpen a blade you need bare stock. Eventually that stock becomes smaller as it get sharpened over and over again. The metal stock will not get bigger as it is sharpened
So you could say the first layer of WC (techniques and drills) are like a forged dull knife stock or blank. We all get handed that dull stock as we go through the system. As we start to pull back layers that dull stock starts to hold and edge and becomes smaller as it sharpens.
So by getting stuck in technique and drills your knife will always be dull. Even if you master the techniques the result will stay the same.
I think most have it backwards and try and ad material as they progress.