Origins of Wing Chun?

[kakkattekoi]

So you aren't going to explain?

i am not a sifu nor at a sifu level so it would be inappropriate for me to explain, however, in knife form there are moves like tan sau and gang sau which it's concept is taken from the empty hand

 

[Danny T]

Pole is not 100% related to WC while butterfly knife is
but usually learn during the last stage of WC training

the move/form and the foot work of the butterfly knife are all related to wing chun eventually you will understand it when you are at the stage of practicing the knife

You state these opinions and when asked to explain you say it is inappropriate to explain because you aren't a sifu.???
If it is inappropriate for one to discuss and explain then would it not also be inappropriate for one to even enter the discussion? This is a discussion forum and when done in an honest respectful manner anyone can discuss and explain their opinions regardless of one's rank, title, length of time training, or whatever. This is not a forum for only high level practitioners, all are welcome. Explain your non sifu opinion as a non sifu.

 

[Phobius]

Oh and if something you state is simply what was told to you by your sifu.

Feel free to point out that it is the opinion told to you rather than the opinion you have yourself. Both in my view are valid but should be clarified if possible. And don't take things told to you for granted. WC if any art to me shows that what you learn and how you learn it is different from person to person. If two people study the same art in the same way they both come out completely different in most cases.

We need to learn and act differently or otherwise there would only be one single art in the whole world and all would have mastered it. Imagine the dullness of fights when all behave the same way.

 

[KPM]

Not to pile onto kakka, please take this as a general statement that applies to anyone.......be careful when posting something and stating it like it was the gospel truth that applies to all Wing Chun. Things should be prefaced with..."in my opinion" or "based on my experience", or "from what I have seen", etc......... When things are stated with such finality and confidence, it just invites people to challenge what you have said and disagree.

 

[LFJ]

WSLVT stand for wong shun leung wing chun?
if i understand correctly, you mean in the wong lineage knife is not related to empty hand while pole is ?

Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun.

Knife is related to Biu-ji ideas - not core strategy.
Pole is related to Cham-kiu ideas - core strategy.

In some lineages, CK and BJ forms are related and complimentary. In WSLVT, they are entirely different thinking for different circumstances.

 

[kakkattekoi]

You state these opinions and when asked to explain you say it is inappropriate to explain because you aren't a sifu.???
If it is inappropriate for one to discuss and explain then would it not also be inappropriate for one to even enter the discussion? This is a discussion forum and when done in an honest respectful manner anyone can discuss and explain their opinions regardless of one's rank, title, length of time training, or whatever. This is not a forum for only high level practitioners, all are welcome. Explain your non sifu opinion as a non sifu.

Thank you
and apologize sincerely as Im new to this forum

 

[kakkattekoi]

Not to pile onto kakka, please take this as a general statement that applies to anyone.......be careful when posting something and stating it like it was the gospel truth that applies to all Wing Chun. Things should be prefaced with..."in my opinion" or "based on my experience", or "from what I have seen", etc......... When things are stated with such finality and confidence, it just invites people to challenge what you have said and disagree.

thank you for your sugguestion

 

[JPinAZ]

Not to pile onto kakka, please take this as a general statement that applies to anyone.......be careful when posting something and stating it like it was the gospel truth that applies to all Wing Chun. Things should be prefaced with..."in my opinion" or "based on my experience", or "from what I have seen", etc......... When things are stated with such finality and confidence, it just invites people to challenge what you have said and disagree.

While I agree it's nice to preface those things, it would also be a good step if others simply assumed this to be the case without having to say it every single time lol

 

[Danny T]

Thank you
and apologize sincerely as Im new to this forum

No need to apologize. Share your opinions and thoughts, explain them, and be respectful of others ideas & views. You'll do fine.

 

[Vajramusti]

---------------------------------------Sheesh. Elementary,Development of the structure,fundamentals of motion came and comes first. Weapons came and comes later to enhance development and power.

-------------------------



On wing Chun and history. books and you tube

Competent scholarly historians have been under involved in dealing with Chinese martial arts. Specially true for wing chun which is full of self serving lineage stories.

But the search for history is not irrelevant.. One has to have a sense of the subject, of reliable, translations and watching out for metaphors rather than one to one dictionary definitions.



There is no question that Ip Man has made the singular and greatest contribution in making the world aware of wing chun, Yet he did not write a book about wing chun or it’s “history”.. A brief statement on ng mui, yim wing chun two key boat people and leing jan, chan wa shun and then the magazine interview where he mentions the role of Leung Bik in his training. There are many reports on his conversations and his encounters



It was my great good fortune to be living in Tucson. And beginning my wing chun journey with Sifu Augustine Fong, attending Ho Kam Ming seminars in Arizona and taking lessons from him in Canada..



There is no good systematic written history of wing chun. Finding a decent and knowledgeable teacher and learning how to learn is much better than learning from books or the you tube.



A case in point is the relatively recently published book-”The Creation of Wing Chun”by Benjamin Judkins and Jon Nielson.Half the book involves a Cook’s tour of the Southern Chinese Martial arts-too general to shed muchlight on the depth of wing chun..The second half deals with “contemporary’ wing chun- no real insight on principles or concepts and is based on a few self serving interviews with people like Hawkins Cheung. Yet the search for history is not unimportant because it can give chance insights in addition to training and development.

 

[guy b.]

While I agree it's nice to preface those things, it would also be a good step if others simply assumed this to be the case without having to say it every single time lol

I would tend to agree

 

[guy b.]

i am not a sifu nor at a sifu level so it would be inappropriate for me to explain, however, in knife form there are moves like tan sau and gang sau which it's concept is taken from the empty hand

Just explain as you understand it. Obviously it is your opinion, no matter who you are

 

[guy b.]

-------------------------



On wing Chun and history. books and you tube

Competent scholarly historians have been under involved in dealing with Chinese martial arts. Specially true for wing chun which is full of self serving lineage stories.

But the search for history is not irrelevant.. One has to have a sense of the subject, of reliable, translations and watching out for metaphors rather than one to one dictionary definitions.



There is no question that Ip Man has made the singular and greatest contribution in making the world aware of wing chun, Yet he did not write a book about wing chun or it’s “history”.. A brief statement on ng mui, yim wing chun two key boat people and leing jan, chan wa shun and then the magazine interview where he mentions the role of Leung Bik in his training. There are many reports on his conversations and his encounters



It was my great good fortune to be living in Tucson. And beginning my wing chun journey with Sifu Augustine Fong, attending Ho Kam Ming seminars in Arizona and taking lessons from him in Canada..



There is no good systematic written history of wing chun. Finding a decent and knowledgeable teacher and learning how to learn is much better than learning from books or the you tube.



A case in point is the relatively recently published book-”The Creation of Wing Chun”by Benjamin Judkins and Jon Nielson.Half the book involves a Cook’s tour of the Southern Chinese Martial arts-too general to shed muchlight on the depth of wing chun..The second half deals with “contemporary’ wing chun- no real insight on principles or concepts and is based on a few self serving interviews with people like Hawkins Cheung. Yet the search for history is not unimportant because it can give chance insights in addition to training and development.

If you get 10 different wing chun people in a room and all disagree on what the ideas of wing chun mean, reaching back into history merely generates 10 different versions of that history irreversibly tainted with survivor bias and cherrypicking to fit. Given what wing chun is, its history, while interesting to whoever has the real wing chun, is irrelevant in terms of wing chun as a whole.

The only way we can reliably judge what we have today is to test it.

It is odd that you bemoan the lack of serious research into wing chun and then denigrate about the only person who is a serious researcher on the subject

 

[Vajramusti]

If you get 10 different wing chun people in a room and all disagree on what the ideas of wing chun mean, reaching back into history merely generates 10 different versions of that history irreversibly tainted with survivor bias and cherrypicking to fit. Given what wing chun is, its history, while interesting to whoever has the real wing chun, is irrelevant in terms of wing chun as a whole.

The only way we can reliably judge what we have today is to test it.

It is odd that you bemoan the lack of serious research into wing chun and then denigrate about the only person who is a serious researcher on the subject

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading the book and commenting on it is not denigration. I welcome comments from readers

 

[Danny T]

-------------------------

There is no good systematic written history of wing chun. Finding a decent and knowledgeable teacher and learning how to learn is much better than learning from books or the you tube.

The only way we can reliably judge what we have today is to test it.

There is a saying "Wing Chun can not be taught but it can be learned".
We can discuss and argue over every aspect of the system but it means little. Train, practice, & test with a decent and knowledgeable instructor. Ask questions, keep an open mind and test in numerous situations vs numerous persons. Test vs other martial artists, test vs fighters, test vs weapons, test vs whatever. Something doesn't work for you find out for yourself why it doesn't work for you, correct it and test again. It is a constant learning, developing, testing, & refining experience. In reality it doesn't matter who did what, when they did it or why. It is about you understanding for yourself what you are doing, why you are doing it and that you actually do it not just talk about it.

 

[guy b.]

In reality it doesn't matter who did what, when they did it or why. It is about you understanding for yourself what you are doing, why you are doing it and that you actually do it not just talk about it.

People can believe whatever they like- the end point of whatever did happen in history (which none of us can ever know for certain) is what we have ended up with today. And it is that present day wing chun which we should be evaluating. History can often be used as a way to deflect honest examination of reality in the present.

On the other hand history can give great insight into why certain things are done or the connections between things, but it is pretty unimportant if those talking about it do not have a common agreement of what constitutes the reality of wing chun in the present day. So I think history is very relevant within groups, but probably irrelevant between them, unless there is a lot of common thinking and common ideas. The temptation within groups to make just-so stories with history can be very high though, and it is important to treat it sceptically.

I don't agree that everything is as valid as everything else, both in terms of historical evidence and (much more importantly) present day effectiveness and coherence. It is meaningless to say that someone else's wing chun reality is just as valid as mine when I think that their wing chun doesn't work very well. But people have different criteria for judging things and at the end of the day it is their business what they believe.

 

[guy b.]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading the book and commenting on it is not denigration. I welcome comments from readers

The "cooks tour" part of Judkins' blog provides many interesting insights into the likely reality of many wing chun stories if one connects the dots, which he sometimes doesn't do, maybe intentionally, maybe not. Details of knife patters at different times in Chinese history is one such interesting nugget that gives the lie to many tales told today.

 

[Danny T]

People can believe whatever they like- the end point of whatever did happen in history (which none of us can ever know for certain) is what we have ended up with today. And it is that present day wing chun which we should be evaluating. History can often be used as a way to deflect honest examination of reality in the present.

Yeap

On the other hand history can give great insight into why certain things are done or the connections between things, but it is pretty unimportant if those talking about it do not have a common agreement of what constitutes the reality of wing chun in the present day. So I think history is very relevant within groups, but probably irrelevant between them, unless there is a lot of common thinking and common ideas. The temptation within groups to make just-so stories with history can be very high though, and it is important to treat it sceptically.

Yeap.

I don't agree that everything is as valid as everything else, both in terms of historical evidence and (much more importantly) present day effectiveness and coherence. It is meaningless to say that someone else's wing chun reality is just as valid as mine when I think that their wing chun doesn't work very well. But people have different criteria for judging things and at the end of the day it is their business what they believe.

The major problem with wing chun history is most all of it is legend, conjecture, and personal assumptions. Fun to discuss, foolish to argue over and even more foolish to argue over how the arguments are made.LOL
The wing chun training system is excellent. In my opinion if one uses the training for empty hands and then must retrain for weapons then you have wasted a lot of time and energy..., mental & physical. Now this is my conjecture based upon my understanding of other training and that the time it takes to respond in an attack came be the difference in life or death. I simply don't believe those training for defense were not concerned about weapon attacks and that the system takes that in mind with even the foundations. This can be a sticking point for many but does that make my use of wing chun poor/invalid compared to others or theirs to invalid? Especially when they can apply it effectively. Take a look at boxing. How many different styles of boxing are there? Some people are very effective with a particular style and others aren't, does that make the style invalid even when individuals disagree with them?

 

[guy b.]

Take a look at boxing. How many different styles of boxing are there? Some people are very effective with a particular style and others aren't, does that make the style invalid even when individuals disagree with them?

The problem with wing chun is that most people are ineffective with it. The vast majority.

And it is a concept/principle based system; doing whatever you like with it is not an option if it is to remain wing chun.

 

[Phobius]

The problem with wing chun is that most people are ineffective with it. The vast majority.

And it is a concept/principle based system; doing whatever you like with it is not an option if it is to remain wing chun.

Big problem with all arts are that most people are ineffective with them. Only way to increase the ratio of effective practitioners is to sort through the weed and select who to train. Wing chun I believe to be an art where most people start and continue to train, enjoying their time. As such most people tend to believe they should become effective with the art. In truth it requires you to be dedicated to what you train and constantly push your thresholds.

Take boxing, how many ineffective practitioners do you think will continue to train after having being hit in the head one too many times? Many of course may say no to all fighting and just punch a bag and they will never be seen on videos or in forums because they are afraid or non-believer of their own skillset. Same goes for MMA, and in some cases BJJ since they sort out the good from the bad as best as they can. Whether they lose some good people or not in the works is another discussion.

Wing chun you can be ineffective and do your chi sau all relaxed without a doubt in the world, it takes someone to push himself and challenge himself to find flaws and become even better by perfecting them.

Sorry for a long reply to your comment.