Principles of Wing Chun

[Xue Sheng]

Wing Chun is a martial arts system rather than a “style”. The word “style” implies that practitioners are only copying a series of movements that are in-built through mechanical repetition, whereas the word “system” implies that there’s a set of principles behind the way the movements are carried out.

Principles of Wing Chun​

 

[APL76]

I wholly agree that Wing Chun should operate as the embodiment of the principles that guide it. However, the series of movements that are built in through repetition are the delivery system of those guiding principles.

Not to suggest that you are doing this here, but I Always find it somewhat odd when Wing Chun practitioners highlight the distinctiveness of Wing Chun being that it's a "concept-based art" or, not about techniques but about principles.

I may be naive here (only ever studied Wing Chun apart from a short stint at Kenjutsu) but are not all martial arts guided by their principles?

 

[Xue Sheng]

I wholly agree that Wing Chun should operate as the embodiment of the principles that guide it. However, the series of movements that are built in through repetition are the delivery system of those guiding principles.

Not to suggest that you are doing this here, but I Always find it somewhat odd when Wing Chun practitioners highlight the distinctiveness of Wing Chun being that it's a "concept-based art" or, not about techniques but about principles.

I may be naive here (only ever studied Wing Chun apart from a short stint at Kenjutsu) but are not all martial arts guided by their principles?

I am simply trying to research things about Wing Chun and sharing what I find, not making any statements about it

 

[APL76]

I am simply trying to research things about Wing Chun and sharing what I find, not making any statements about it

Totally understand that, and I agree with your original point. And, as I said not suggesting that you are carping away at the point about Wing Chun being "concept based".
I'm just noting my personal puzzlement at Wing Chun people who DO belabour the point that Wing Chun is special because it is "concept based". My guess is most if not all martial arts are.

My 2 cents on the original point would be something to the effect of:

Style versus system to describe Wing Chun? Meh, semantics, one can define how they use style or system to encapsulate either or.

And, while I agree completely that Wing Chun should be guided by its principles, the movements built in though repetition, and indeed the sensitivity built in though things like Chi Sao, are absolutely essential to be able to embody Wing Chun's principles and deliver them appropriately. So basically, I disagree with the proposition that you sometimes see (and again, not suggesting you are saying this) about Wing Chun not being about the techniques. Principles, techniques, and sensitivity/force handling are all part and parcel of delivering Wing Chun. Leave out any of the three aspects, and your Wing Chun will be sub-optimal.

Indeed, my assessment of why so much Wing Chun is....questionable... is not because it lacks sparring, or 'pressure testing', or because there's superfluous techniques that don't work, or any other explanation typically offered. The problem is more fundamental than any of those. The biggest problem I see is people don't adequately train the foundations that underlie the entire system. To put that another way, they don't train the techniques anywhere near well enough to facilitate the embodiment of Wing Chun principles.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Below is the quote from Xue Sheng's OP from the accompanying article. But it has implications that I feel need to be addressed.

"Wing Chun is a martial arts system rather than a “style”. The word “style” implies that practitioners are only copying a series of movements that are in-built through mechanical repetition, whereas the word “system” implies that there’s a set of principles behind the way the movements are carried out."

First of all, the article seems to be a marketing effort from someone's web page with a lot of "puffing" and not an objective analysis of the art. Being a "style" does NOT imply "copying and mechanical." This is a false assumption by the author that plays into his narrative (similar to Bruce Lee's of JKD - no disrespect meant).

the point that Wing Chun is special because it is "concept based". My guess is most if not all martial arts are.

Of course!

And, while I agree completely that Wing Chun should be guided by its principles, the movements built in though repetition, and indeed the sensitivity built in though things like Chi Sao, are absolutely essential to be able to embody Wing Chun's principles and deliver them appropriately.

Again, of course! Trained technique is the expression of the principles embodied in an MA system. It's what gives "voice" to the song. What would one of Beethoven's symphonies be without violins, oboes and drums that are played by musicians who have diligently practiced thru hours of repetitions until their skills are "in-built?" Just so much inked paper, the symphony's real potential unrealized!

I do agree with the writer's definition of "system" and of its being composed of principles.

"Styles" are just identifiable variations on the method of expression. Shorinryu and isshinryu are 2 styles within the system of Okinawan (and most) karate, sharing many of the same principles. The principles of punching are the same for both mentioned styles. But the punch and its principles are expressed in a slightly different manner; one using primarily the twist punch, the other a vertical punch.

As many here know, early karate had no defined styles, only principles. As styles developed thru divergent evolution the main principles' DNA was still passed on to the various branches. Even now, regardless of the particular style, we can say, "Karate is karate." The system lives on, thanks (in a big way) to technique still being practiced, as seen in kata for example. Kata (also in a big way) is the caretaker of these principles. When Nagamine Shoshin said, "Kata is karate," I'm confident that he meant not the dance with memorized techniques against imaginary attackers, but the principles those techniques express.

Wing chun has a lot in common with Okinawan doctrine. But they, along with all the other systems/styles, aren't that special or have claim to "the" secret of MA.

BTW, APL76, I noticed you've been around for a while but haven't contributed much. Hope you do so more often.

 

[APL76]

Below is the quote from Xue Sheng's OP from the accompanying article. But it has implications that I feel need to be addressed.

"Wing Chun is a martial arts system rather than a “style”. The word “style” implies that practitioners are only copying a series of movements that are in-built through mechanical repetition, whereas the word “system” implies that there’s a set of principles behind the way the movements are carried out."

First of all, the article seems to be a marketing effort from someone's web page with a lot of "puffing" and not an objective analysis of the art. Being a "style" does NOT imply "copying and mechanical." This is a false assumption by the author that plays into his narrative (similar to Bruce Lee's of JKD - no disrespect meant).

Of course!

Again, of course! Trained technique is the expression of the principles embodied in an MA system. It's what gives "voice" to the song. What would one of Beethoven's symphonies be without violins, oboes and drums that are played by musicians who have diligently practiced thru hours of repetitions until their skills are "in-built?" Just so much inked paper, the symphony's real potential unrealized!

I do agree with the writer's definition of "system" and of its being composed of principles.

"Styles" are just identifiable variations on the method of expression. Shorinryu and isshinryu are 2 styles within the system of Okinawan (and most) karate, sharing many of the same principles. The principles of punching are the same for both mentioned styles. But the punch and its principles are expressed in a slightly different manner; one using primarily the twist punch, the other a vertical punch.

As many here know, early karate had no defined styles, only principles. As styles developed thru divergent evolution the main principles' DNA was still passed on to the various branches. Even now, regardless of the particular style, we can say, "Karate is karate." The system lives on, thanks (in a big way) to technique still being practiced, as seen in kata for example. Kata (also in a big way) is the caretaker of these principles. When Nagamine Shoshin said, "Kata is karate," I'm confident that he meant not the dance with memorized techniques against imaginary attackers, but the principles those techniques express.

Wing chun has a lot in common with Okinawan doctrine. But they, along with all the other systems/styles, aren't that special or have claim to "the" secret of MA.

BTW, APL76, I noticed you've been around for a while but haven't contributed much. Hope you do so more often.

Thanks.

Yeah, I lurk more than I actually engage. Partly just because I'm pretty busy, partly because I often feel I don't have a great deal to add to a lot of conversations on here, not that there have been many lately. This is mostly because while I do know a variety of Yip Man Wing Chun, I have trained exclusively in Sum Nung Wing Chun for going on 25 years now, while most of the conversations here seem to focus on Yip Man related stuff or people. And/or the difference between Yip Man stuff and Sum Nung stuff makes it hard to relate to some of the conversations.
When topics are more generalised however I will occasionally chime in.
I still have look on here usually every day however, just to see if anything interesting has come up.