---That's an interesting statement. Wing Chun is supposed to be less complex than other Gung Fu methods. That's one of its claims to fame....being a stripped down and stream-lined art.
Unfortunately I don't see it. The movements of Yong Chun may be simpler than other methods but the level of refinement needed for effective practical use is way more complex, because it is based upon Fine Motor Skill (FMS). FMS requires constant conditioning under heavy duress before it can become second nature, Unlike Gross Motor Skill (GMS) arts like boxing that require much less coordination/conditioning and are more natural responsively to stimuli.
---Another interesting statement! But then you have to wonder if a classic Long Fist fighter turned Wing Chun fighter would be any more successful under pressure without resorting to some version of Long Fist-ish kickboxing.
Correct, they would resort to GMS movement, Yong Chun would give them refinement of GMS elevating it. In a sense it would make their GMS more effective and economical. I use the term "Chasing the Taiji", FMS is about refinement, the act of trying to make your technique the most powerful, economical and efficient with the least amount of effort. Large movements can always be made smaller, Small movements cannot be made bigger (at least not efficiently). A sculptor does not add stone to create the sculpture he chips away at a large block to reveal the image. "Chasing the Taiji" is about striving to become the ultimate. Unfortunately many approach the methodology backwards, starting from refined movement and work towards unrefined movement. Using unrealistic and complex theory with simple movement or using unrealistic and complex movement for a simple theory.
---One of the advantages of practicing a boxing-based method is that you are constantly training against someone throwing techniques from a boxing-based method. In today's modern setting, most attackers are likely going to be using some kind of pseudo-boxing method against you....throwing haymakers, jabs, hooks, etc. Wing Chun is too specific. Wing Chun people spend the vast majority of their time training against someone else doing Wing Chun.
I don't necessarily believe the problem lies in Yong Chun working against Yong Chun so much as it is the mindset and approach to training. To me Yong Chun is a very specific art meant to deal with very specific conditions and environments. That is why I believe it is an advanced art meant to be a supplement to an art that is more GMS based. Ideally you want to be able to defend yourself with Combined Motor Skill (CMS). This is a realistic approach, this is where Boxing and Wrestling lie and why they are so effective, they are firmly based in the CMS realm and start with GMS. Yong Chun starts with FMS (Xiao Lian Tou Quan) and works its way backwards to a more GMS realm with Biao Zhi Quan, small movement to large movement. This is counterproductive in terms of learning biomechanic application. The art of White Crane that I do has many theories and techniques similar to Yong Chun, but they are not introduced until the end. We start off with big movements and large circles then gradually refine them to little movements and small circles. To me this is where Yong Chun shines as a standard for refinement of structure and mechanics, but it's a theoretical method, it's "Chasing the Taiji". It's hypothetical, a "This is what it could potentially be" type of thing, not a "This is what it is" type of thing.
This brings me to question that, if Yong Chun is supposed to be a complete art, why does it feel as if something relevant is missing? Many of the older family styles and mainland styles have more than just the 3 forms. Many of them have broader beginner forms that employ more GMS than is commonly seen in standard Ye Wen or Yuan family Yong Chun. Many of these systems also start the practitioner off with a set of "Boxing Like" San Shi, like the 3 Arrow Punch, which covers the Straight Punch, Hook and Uppercut and Whipping Hand, which covers Inward Parry, Upward Parry and Downward Parry and 4 Gates, which covers footwork based on the fighting stance. Simple practical fundamentals that will later be refined by the techniques learned in the forms and through Chi Shou, Drilling and Sparring. It seems to me that many Yong Chun teachers now days gives the practitioner a sharp knife and has them dull it through practice. Instead of giving them a dull rusty blade and teaching them to polish and hone it into something useful. All the old legends say that Yong Chun was created as a means to counter the more traditional Shaolin styles.
It has never been said that it was a beginners method, that Yan Yong Chun never knew any martial arts prior to learning the art or that it was to be a stand alone method. I believe that it was created to be a method of refining and elevating the traditional arts that were based upon Shuai Jiao and Qin Na theory. For me Yong Chun is a theory not an art. An art requires adherence to the dogma the instructor preaches, theory is free to be applied through experimentation to see if it "Holds Water". Something to ponder.
Unfortunately I don't see it. The movements of Yong Chun may be simpler than other methods but the level of refinement needed for effective practical use is way more complex, because it is based upon Fine Motor Skill (FMS). FMS requires constant conditioning under heavy duress before it can become second nature, Unlike Gross Motor Skill (GMS) arts like boxing that require much less coordination/conditioning and are more natural responsively to stimuli.
---Another interesting statement! But then you have to wonder if a classic Long Fist fighter turned Wing Chun fighter would be any more successful under pressure without resorting to some version of Long Fist-ish kickboxing.
Correct, they would resort to GMS movement, Yong Chun would give them refinement of GMS elevating it. In a sense it would make their GMS more effective and economical. I use the term "Chasing the Taiji", FMS is about refinement, the act of trying to make your technique the most powerful, economical and efficient with the least amount of effort. Large movements can always be made smaller, Small movements cannot be made bigger (at least not efficiently). A sculptor does not add stone to create the sculpture he chips away at a large block to reveal the image. "Chasing the Taiji" is about striving to become the ultimate. Unfortunately many approach the methodology backwards, starting from refined movement and work towards unrefined movement. Using unrealistic and complex theory with simple movement or using unrealistic and complex movement for a simple theory.
---One of the advantages of practicing a boxing-based method is that you are constantly training against someone throwing techniques from a boxing-based method. In today's modern setting, most attackers are likely going to be using some kind of pseudo-boxing method against you....throwing haymakers, jabs, hooks, etc. Wing Chun is too specific. Wing Chun people spend the vast majority of their time training against someone else doing Wing Chun.
I don't necessarily believe the problem lies in Yong Chun working against Yong Chun so much as it is the mindset and approach to training. To me Yong Chun is a very specific art meant to deal with very specific conditions and environments. That is why I believe it is an advanced art meant to be a supplement to an art that is more GMS based. Ideally you want to be able to defend yourself with Combined Motor Skill (CMS). This is a realistic approach, this is where Boxing and Wrestling lie and why they are so effective, they are firmly based in the CMS realm and start with GMS. Yong Chun starts with FMS (Xiao Lian Tou Quan) and works its way backwards to a more GMS realm with Biao Zhi Quan, small movement to large movement. This is counterproductive in terms of learning biomechanic application. The art of White Crane that I do has many theories and techniques similar to Yong Chun, but they are not introduced until the end. We start off with big movements and large circles then gradually refine them to little movements and small circles. To me this is where Yong Chun shines as a standard for refinement of structure and mechanics, but it's a theoretical method, it's "Chasing the Taiji". It's hypothetical, a "This is what it could potentially be" type of thing, not a "This is what it is" type of thing.
This brings me to question that, if Yong Chun is supposed to be a complete art, why does it feel as if something relevant is missing? Many of the older family styles and mainland styles have more than just the 3 forms. Many of them have broader beginner forms that employ more GMS than is commonly seen in standard Ye Wen or Yuan family Yong Chun. Many of these systems also start the practitioner off with a set of "Boxing Like" San Shi, like the 3 Arrow Punch, which covers the Straight Punch, Hook and Uppercut and Whipping Hand, which covers Inward Parry, Upward Parry and Downward Parry and 4 Gates, which covers footwork based on the fighting stance. Simple practical fundamentals that will later be refined by the techniques learned in the forms and through Chi Shou, Drilling and Sparring. It seems to me that many Yong Chun teachers now days gives the practitioner a sharp knife and has them dull it through practice. Instead of giving them a dull rusty blade and teaching them to polish and hone it into something useful. All the old legends say that Yong Chun was created as a means to counter the more traditional Shaolin styles.
It has never been said that it was a beginners method, that Yan Yong Chun never knew any martial arts prior to learning the art or that it was to be a stand alone method. I believe that it was created to be a method of refining and elevating the traditional arts that were based upon Shuai Jiao and Qin Na theory. For me Yong Chun is a theory not an art. An art requires adherence to the dogma the instructor preaches, theory is free to be applied through experimentation to see if it "Holds Water". Something to ponder.
Last edited:
