Is Wing Chun being used the wrong way in fighting?

[Gerry Seymour11]

It also works in a limited street fighting capacity where the other guy is throwing around, you are throwing straight and you have a bit more ticker than him.

The charlie zelenof basically.

“A bit more ticker” - better cardio?

 

[wckf92]

So to me Wing Chun is like guerrilla warfare where it's good enough to just hurt your enemy really bad and get out ASAP.

Nice!

 

[drop bear105]

“A bit more ticker” - better cardio?

More heart.

 

[KPM]

If Dave is right (WC is a refinement to an existing functional base), then it makes more sense. It would be a toolset just for that situation where you need to be in relatively close (not clinch) and work strikes. In that case, it (like I've said about Ueshiba's Aikido in the past) might not be intended for those with less physical skills, but for those who already have solid basics.

And this goes back to the idea that the majority of Wing Chun really has no "long range game".....which people hotly debated with me in the past despite the obvious logic of it all!

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

More heart.

Got it. So, you mean more commmitted to the fight, more intensity?

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

And this goes back to the idea that the majority of Wing Chun really has no "long range game".....which people hotly debated with me in the past despite the obvious logic of it all!

Clearly, I speak from very little knowledge, but what I’ve seen of WC doesn’t show any long-range tools (though I keep seeing where they would fit, so I wouldn’t be surprised if some branches have some).

 

[TMA17]

I like that WC is a simple art. It’s not overloaded with too much of any one thing. To me that’s a draw. You can always add more to it like any art.

 

[Juany118]

And this goes back to the idea that the majority of Wing Chun really has no "long range game".....which people hotly debated with me in the past despite the obvious logic of it all!

And yet I still get confused as to how you called TWC "long fist WC" and then say all WC has no long game

 

[wckf92]

And yet I still get confused as to how you called TWC "long fist WC" and then say all WC has no long game

He didnt... he said "majority of wing chun"

 

[KPM]

And yet I still get confused as to how you called TWC "long fist WC" and then say all WC has no long game

That's why I qualified my statement with "majority." TWC tends to be the exception, very likely because William Cheung also recognized the need and developed it. This is one of the things that sets TWC apart from most other Wing Chun.

 

[KPM]

I like that WC is a simple art. It’s not overloaded with too much of any one thing. To me that’s a draw. You can always add more to it like any art.

Exactly! All our legendary histories tend to point to the idea that WC was created to be learned relatively quickly as compared to other TCMAs. That's why it seems a bit off that some modern lineages stretch their curriculum out over so many years. Spending multiple years on the first form alone is just ridiculous...unless your WC has been elaborated upon to a huge extent that it takes that long to learn even the very basics!

 

[Juany118]

That's why I qualified my statement with "majority." TWC tends to be the exception, very likely because William Cheung also recognized the need and developed it. This is one of the things that sets TWC apart from most other Wing Chun.

I know man. I am finally going to sleep after a 12 hour duty shift followed by court so was just making fun, hence the . I only make fun, in that almost sad paramilitary manner, of those I respect.

 

[Nobody Important]

The thing is though it all depends of how the art evolved. Here are the two most popular "stories" and in either case, while Dave may be right, change the backdrop and things change.

1. A striking art designed by and for a woman to defend herself. A woman will often find themselves physically overmatched, not only in strength but endurance. If attacked it will also often be a bltiz attack. So if you are designing an art for women would you not want something similar to how many WC Lineages or Krav Maga work? Sudden "shock" to injure, disable, disorient etc. and provide an avenue of escape?

This is the real historical origins of the Wu Mei (Ng Mui) legend that was altered and spun into the Wuxia legends of the Republican Era.

Wu Mei - Wikipedia

Wu Zetian - Wikipedia

(Yes, I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't an always reliable source, but in this case, it'll suffice)

The only solid evidence for Wing Chun origins, IMO, lay with Fang Qiniang and the creation of White Crane Boxing at Xiao Lian Si (Siu Lin Ji) - Small Training Temple in Yongtai. This legend is shared by Wing Chun, Bak Hok and Hung Kuen with little alteration. All three arts are structured in a similar manner, rely on the same principles and mechanics, but have evolved to include other aspects. IMO, the only way such cohesive melding can occur is by having a system that allows for it to happen. It is said that the original art developed by Fang Qiniang was a method of San Sik. This method was derived from a base of Lohan Boxing and principles developed from observations of a crane in movement. Take that for what its worth, but to deny it outright in favor of a verifiable false creation story penned by one individual in the Republican Era is a dis-justice to its actual historical tradition. There are many verifiable old documents, by first and second generation students, that detail the history, traditions, theory and principles of Fang Qiniang's art.

2. That the origin is with the Red Boat Opera (or similar river traveling people) themselves. Boats will have people forced to fight in very close confines, even the pigeon toed stance can be argued to provide a more firm footing on the deck of a rocking boat.

Here are some clips of actual Boat Boxing.

Notice how very different it is to Wing Chun, an assumed boat boxing method.

There is a lot more to either but to look at an art today without knowing when/how/how why it was developed I think is wrong. One can argue TODAY it should be supplemental, that is why some WC Lineages have changed. Grand Master William Cheung teaches differently from other YM schools. Gary Lam.and Or teach differently as well just for this reason, but to say that from it's start it was a supplemental art I think is without evidence.

I will use military tactics again. As the nature of the battle field changes the tactics change (though sometimes too slowly). So to say that because Napoleonic tactics we're I'll suited to the US Civil War and WWI would be accurate. To say such tactics never made sense on their own however would be inaccurate, they did have their time and place it's just that the Generals stubbornly held onto them for too long.

I agree to an extent, but to try and propagate a narrative based on elements that support a predetermined outcome to an art admittedly modified in recent times is a false narrative. Ignoring key elements because we feel them to be irrelevant, unsupported, or because they contradict previously accepted parameters that support a personal viewpoint and narrative out of convenience, is not approaching the situation objectively.

Above I listed only two examples that blow a wide gaping hole in the accepted narrative concerning Wing Chun. There are many, many more, and if people (who truly want to understand the origins of Wing Chun) quit lying to themselves, they'll come to understand that the "history" they have been taught and the alterations made to support it are only propagated by those trying to protect their own self interests.

 

[Nobody Important]

Just throwing this out there.

What makes more sense, a new method developed to counter hundreds of years of proven fighting techniques, or, a new method developed to help maximize efficiency of those techniques?

Even the oral traditions of Wing Chun state it was developed to be learned quickly and put into practice straight away. If, it was a completely new form of fighting based on the same weapons, i.e.. punch, kick, grab, throw how could it be effectively learned quicker & better than methods that already employ punch, kick, grab, throw?

Time, repetition & practice are necessary to develop skill. Wing Chun still uses forms to transmit, so that isn't a factor, especially when many schools stretch the learning process out over a long time. That idea contradicts the premise it was founded on.

It makes more sense, IMO, that Wing Chun was developed as a new approach to emphasize refinement of basic gross motor skill in conjunction with simple strategy and tactics. This requires a base to work from. You don't put up drywall before the wall is framed out. You need to know where you are going.

This doesn't mean you are restricted to any particular methodology, as far as, what you are trying to achieve. It simply points out what you need to focus on to improve what methodology you prefer to use, ie, punch, kick, grab, throw. This is seen in arts like Hung Kuen, Bak Hok etc. that use Fang Qiniang's art as a way of elevating certain aspects they prefer to employ.

 

[Flying Crane]

This is the real historical origins of the Wu Mei (Ng Mui) legend that was altered and spun into the Wuxia legends of the Republican Era.

Wu Mei - Wikipedia

Wu Zetian - Wikipedia

(Yes, I'm aware that Wikipedia isn't an always reliable source, but in this case, it'll suffice)

The only solid evidence for Wing Chun origins, IMO, lay with Fang Qiniang and the creation of White Crane Boxing at Xiao Lian Si (Siu Lin Ji) - Small Training Temple in Yongtai. This legend is shared by Wing Chun, Bak Hok and Hung Kuen with little alteration. All three arts are structured in a similar manner, rely on the same principles and mechanics, but have evolved to include other aspects. IMO, the only way such cohesive melding can occur is by having a system that allows for it to happen. It is said that the original art developed by Fang Qiniang was a method of San Sik. This method was derived from a base of Lohan Boxing and principles developed from observations of a crane in movement. Take that for what its worth, but to deny it outright in favor of a verifiable false creation story penned by one individual in the Republican Era is a dis-justice to its actual historical tradition. There are many verifiable old documents, by first and second generation students, that detail the history, traditions, theory and principles of Fang Qiniang's art.



Here are some clips of actual Boat Boxing.

Notice how very different it is to Wing Chun, an assumed boat boxing method.



I agree to an extent, but to try and propagate a narrative based on elements that support a predetermined outcome to an art admittedly modified in recent times is a false narrative. Ignoring key elements because we feel them to be irrelevant, unsupported, or because they contradict previously accepted parameters that support a personal viewpoint and narrative out of convenience, is not approaching the situation objectively.

Above I listed only two examples that blow a wide gaping hole in the accepted narrative concerning Wing Chun. There are many, many more, and if people (who truly want to understand the origins of Wing Chun) quit lying to themselves, they'll come to understand that the "history" they have been taught and the alterations made to support it are only propagated by those trying to protect their own self interests.

Ok, I don’t have a dog in this race and so don’t care much about what the real answer is. However, I will offer an observation or two.

I watched the videos. First, I don’t see how any of that stuff would be advantageous on a boat where space is likely limited and the footing uncertain from the waves and general shifting motion of the boats deck. The first video in particular, with the elderly fellow spinning the staff and the trident, I can’t see using that under any circumstances, much less conditions on a boat. The rest of it all looked like any Shaolin or Lohan method in kind of a generic way, so what is it that makes it a “boat” style, nevermind the label someone put on the video?

Second, even if the stuff in the videos is actually a boat method, that doesn’t mean that wing chun cannot also be one simply based on the differences. Different people come up with different solutions for a similar situation. It happens all over the place.

 

[Flying Crane]

Just throwing this out there.

What makes more sense, a new method developed to counter hundreds of years of proven fighting techniques, or, a new method developed to help maximize efficiency of those techniques?

Even the oral traditions of Wing Chun state it was developed to be learned quickly and put into practice straight away. If, it was a completely new form of fighting based on the same weapons, i.e.. punch, kick, grab, throw how could it be effectively learned quicker & better than methods that already employ punch, kick, grab, throw?

Time, repetition & practice are necessary to develop skill. Wing Chun still uses forms to transmit, so that isn't a factor, especially when many schools stretch the learning process out over a long time. That idea contradicts the premise it was founded on.

It makes more sense, IMO, that Wing Chun was developed as a new approach to emphasize refinement of basic gross motor skill in conjunction with simple strategy and tactics. This requires a base to work from. You don't put up drywall before the wall is framed out. You need to know where you are going.

This doesn't mean you are restricted to any particular methodology, as far as, what you are trying to achieve. It simply points out what you need to focus on to improve what methodology you prefer to use, ie, punch, kick, grab, throw. This is seen in arts like Hung Kuen, Bak Hok etc. that use Fang Qiniang's art as a way of elevating certain aspects they prefer to employ.

If Wing chun was developed as a method to refine other skills that one has already developed through training in a different system, then the methods need to be compatible.

For example, wing chun would not work at all to refine the methods of my system, Tibetan white crane. The methods are not compatible. So if there is any truth in this idea, it would be limited to some particular system(s) and definitely not on a wide range of systems.

Just an observation.

 

[Nobody Important]

Ok, I don’t have a dog in this race and so don’t care much about what the real answer is. However, I will offer an observation or two.

I watched the videos. First, I don’t see how any of that stuff would be advantageous on a boat where space is likely limited and the footing uncertain from the waves and general shifting motion of the boats deck. The first video in particular, with the elderly fellow spinning the staff and the trident, I can’t see using that under any circumstances, much less conditions on a boat. The rest of it all looked like any Shaolin or Lohan method in kind of a generic way, so what is it that makes it a “boat” style, nevermind the label someone put on the video?

Second, even if the stuff in the videos is actually a boat method, that doesn’t mean that wing chun cannot also be one simply based on the differences. Different people come up with different solutions for a similar situation. It happens all over the place.

True, but, those videos are from an established culture spanning hundreds of years who adamantly state that their method was developed on boats.

Now, let's factor in evolution over time due to social convention and popularity of Wushu, and one can see how adaptations could have been made to conform. This doesn't mean that everything they do is altered, some remnants are bound to be left over.

The Red Boats were floating opera stages. Very little unused space on boat for much of anything. Some have used this for justification of why Wing Chun looks as it does, because of limited space. However , accounts from actual opera performers state that they always practiced their martial arts on land when they docked, and, their opera arts were no different in movement than what you see in those videos. This is historical fact that blows a hole in the "Wing Chun was developed to be used in confined space, like on a boat or in an alley theory".

No accounts prior to Yip Man state that Wing Chun was developed on the opera boats, merely that some opera performers practiced Wing Chun. That's a big difference concerning implications of use.

As a side note, I would argue that a wide stance, like horse stance, would be more practical for keeping balance on a boat than a high narrow pigeon tied one, like goat stance.

The evidence to support the narrative is severely lacking.

 

[Flying Crane]

True, but, those videos are from an established culture spanning hundreds of years who adamantly state that their method was developed on boats.

Now, let's factor in evolution over time due to social convention and popularity of Wushu, and one can see how adaptations could have been made to confirm. This doesn't mean that everything they do is altered, some remnants are bound to be left over.

The Red Boats were floating opera stages. Very little unused space on boat for much of anything. Some have used this for justification of why Wing Chun looks as it does, because of limited space. However , accounts from actual opera performers state that they always practiced their martial arts on land when they docked, and, their opera arts were no different in movement than what you see in those videos. This is historical fact that blows a hole in the "Wing Chun was developed to be used in confined space, like on a boat or in an alley theory".

No accounts prior to Yip Man state that Wing Chun was developed on the opera boats, merely that some opera performers practiced Wing Chun. That's a big difference concerning implications of use.

As a side note, I would argue that a wide stance, like horse stance, would be more practical for keeping balance on a boat than a high narrow pigeon tied one, like goat stance.

The evidence to support the narrative is severely lacking.

Well honestly the video of the younger fellow with the dao reminds me more of modern Wushu.

If this is one more area where the government got involved in the 1950s, then it could be much altered from what it was.

Either way, the stuff in the videos does not look much different from other stuff generally available. I don’t see anything there that jumps out at me in any way as being particularly well suited for a boat.

And again, even if it is, that does not mean that wing chun cannot be also.

 

[Nobody Important]

If Wing chun was developed as a method to refine other skills that one has already developed through training in a different system, then the methods need to be compatible.

For example, wing chun would not work at all to refine the methods of my system, Tibetan white crane. The methods are not compatible. So if there is any truth in this idea, it would be limited to some particular system(s) and definitely not on a wide range of systems.

Just an observation.

Then you obviously understand little of either method.

I've been a practitioner of Tibetan White Crane since 1988, under several lineages. There is an enormous amount of cross over in technique alone, not to mention theory. Small 5 Animal, Cotton Needle, & Small Moon Skills present a great deal of Wing Chun methodology. Just because other modes are employed doesn't mean that Wing Chun elements are non-existent.

There is even a fair amount of history to suggest that Tibetan White Crane is based on elements of Fang Qinang' s art. The only Tibetan elements in Lion's Roar (Tibetan White Crane, Lama Pai, Hop Gar) is actually the qigong methods based on Skum Nye & Trul Khor, not the martial techniques. These came from a myriad of sources like Tong Bei, Fut Gar & White Crane.

 

[Flying Crane]

Then you obviously understand little of either method.

I've been a practitioner of Tibetan White Crane since 1988, under several lineages. There is an enormous amount of cross over in technique alone, not to mention theory. Small 5 Animal, Cotton Needle, & Small Moon Skills present a great deal of Wing Chun methodology. Just because other modes are employed doesn't mean that Wing Chun elements are non-existent.

There is even a fair amount of history to suggest that Tibetan White Crane is based on elements of Fang Qinang' s art. The only Tibetan elements in Lion's Roar (Tibetan White Crane, Lama Pai, Hop Gar) is actually the qigong methods based on Skum Nye & Trul Khor, not the martial techniques. These came from a myriad of sources like Tong Bei, Fut Gar & White Crane.

Ok then.