Regarding diverse approaches to WC...

[LFJ]

By the way, guys, another reason I think it's good to look at the various branches of _ing _un as indeed different systems, is because what's correct to someone else may be incorrect to us, but if we haven't studied their system and don't know why they do what they do, we have no place to say "you're doing it wrong".

Better or worse, that can be discussed, but correct or incorrect is relative to the specific system you're doing. Haven't you all had some fool tell you you're doing an action in SNT wrong, but because they have some entirely different concept in mind? Simple response, common ancestor maybe, but we don't do the same MA system!

 

[Danny T]

It's not that they can't; it's just that it doesn't last that long! haha.

But seriously, take for example the tan/fook angles and pressures. If they are vastly different (due to forms, lineage, pressure, etc)...then it's only a matter of nano-seconds before one defeats the other. Then, after a quick reset, the process starts over again, and the same thing happens yet again! This quickly becomes old and tiresome...unless one of the two alters their core structures simply to "roll with a outsider".

My earlier post was not to say that one or the other is correct or incorrect...simply that most times, the one whose chi sau tools were defeated fail to instantaneously adapt or change to accommodate / exploit the situation. This is either due to a gap in skill, timing, or simply a lack of understanding how to use what they were trained in.

I also find this and the others opinions that are similar interesting. I certainly have not done chi sao with all the differing styles but have with several.
If you are 'rolling' for the sake of rolling then yes I agree that the differences cause the roll to break down due to the differences in rolling. However if the roll is due to the cause and effect of attack and countering I disagree; unless there is a large difference in the skills of the participants
.

 

[LFJ]

However if the roll is due to the cause and effect of attack and countering I disagree; unless there is a large difference in the skills of the participants
.

That's still an issue with different systems. I need a partner to exchange force with me in a way that allows me to develop what it is I'm trying to develop in my system. Many others are working to control from the wrists, or doing some other such thing which means the force exchanged is different and it usually just turns into some sort of pseudo fight, losing the benefit of the entire exercise, in my opinion. If I want to test and compare things with someone I'll spar them, because the ultimate goal is free fighting skill. If you can convince me free-hand, I'm more likely to be interested in your chi-sau theories.

When chunners get together it's more often "let's chi-sau" than "let's spar". I think that is a problem. To me, chi-sau is a part of my personal training-time development, sort of private training to work on areas in my specific system. What goes out to meet practitioners of other systems/styles is sparring.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

I'm finding this so fascinating I started a new thread on it http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/63...tyles-branches-roll-together.html#post1668923

 

[geezer]

_ing _un.

Personally I hate that "_ing _un" term. Except for the "Weng Chun" clan, they all use the same Chinese characters, so why not just keep it simple and unpretentious. When speaking broadly about different groups, just use the generic spelling "Wing Chun" and if necessary, specify the lineages. It's really no different from other arts like Karate with all it's different ryu or FMA (Eskrima/Arnis/Kali) with all the different styles and systems. Honestly, just about every MA has divisions and conflicts. Why use a spelling ("-ing -un") that calls attention to it in such a negative way.

 

[LFJ]

Why use a spelling ("-ing -un") that calls attention to it in such a negative way.

Did not realize anyone would find that negative. Confused why you would.

 

[KPM]

Did not realize anyone would find that negative. Confused why you would.

Mainly because its just silly! ;-) And its negative because it highlights the fact that there is so much devisiveness in Wing Chun that we can't even agree on how to spell the name of the system! I'm with geezer. I see no reason why we wouldn't just say...Leung Ting Wing Chun, or Wong Shun Leung Wing Chun, or Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun, etc. Of course we can shorten it in conversation to LT Wing Chun, WSL Wing Chun, etc. But like geezer pointed out, the Chinese characters are the same. Spelling them out in multiple ways in English implies otherwise.

 

[LFJ]

Mainly because its just silly! ;-) And its negative because it highlights the fact that there is so much devisiveness in Wing Chun that we can't even agree on how to spell the name of the system!

I thought we established that there isn't "the system". That's why there are different spellings or lineage names in the first place. I see that as more reasonable than divisive. We may be great apes, but we always call ourselves humans and some of the other guys gorillas. Are we being silly and divisive, or reasonable in making the distinction clear?

I'm with geezer. I see no reason why we wouldn't just say...Leung Ting Wing Chun, or Wong Shun Leung Wing Chun, or Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun, etc. Of course we can shorten it in conversation to LT Wing Chun, WSL Wing Chun, etc.

You asked for a way to refer to the different systems collectively. I think calling them all the same thing is problematic, because people will make statements like "Wing Chun is this, Wing Chun is that". _ing _un, which is common on German forums at least, allows one to speak of them collectively yet not paint them all with the same brush, or show that we aren't speaking about any one lineage system in particular.

But like geezer pointed out, the Chinese characters are the same. Spelling them out in multiple ways in English implies otherwise.

Well, there are two different Wing characters that are used which we show by Wing and Weng, but when speaking of them collectively in Chinese you can say "the various sects of", which is not so wordy in Chinese. But we're writing English, so we have the luxury of playing with the alphabet.

 

[yak sao]

Did not realize anyone would find that negative. Confused why you would.

By using that spelling(or lack of), you are giving the appearance that yours is the only legit way and all others fall short.

I strongly believe that the method of WC I learned to be solid and legit, you obviously feel the same way about yours. With all their differences, they still have more in common with each other than they do with any other MA and are both wing chun, simply different families.

There are different families of tai chi as well but they're all still tai chi. To distinguish which one we're talking about if a distinction is needed, we put the family name first: Yang Tai Chi, Chen Tai Chi, Wu Tai Chi........

I'm with KPM on this...Yip Man wing chun, WSL wing chun, Moy Yat wing chun, Leung Ting wing chun..............

 

[LFJ]

By using that spelling(or lack of), you are giving the appearance that yours is the only legit way and all others fall short.

What?! You get all that from writing it in a way that refers to them collectively but still allows them their individual identity? Interesting... :uhoh:

There are different families of tai chi as well but they're all still tai chi.

The problem is you don't get sweeping statements like "Tai Chi forms are soft with no explosive movements like external styles", which would be false if Chen Style is included in that statement.

But you do get "Wing Chun is a soft and yielding art, based on sensitivity and stickiness", which is completely false if you're including WSLVT. People still talk about "the Wing Chun system" as if we're all doing the same thing with a little different flavor. I don't see it like that at all.

 

[LFJ]

I think saying Wing Chun is almost like saying Kung Fu. Haven't we heard the simplistic deference between Kung Fu and Karate as Kung Fu being circular and Karate being linear? It really depends on what kind of Kung Fu you're talking about, doesn't it? CLF, Mantis, Longfist, etc.. They are all Kung Fu, but we can't make umbrella statements about them all as Kung Fu.

Same goes with "the Wing Chun system", which no longer exists as one thing, if it ever did. LTWT, WSLVT, TWC, PSWC, etc. are all very different approaches to fighting, even if they share a close common ancestor. So we can't talk about them all as Wing Chun, unless in the broadest sense. The reason we can never come to any sort of consensus on things isn't because we're being too divisive and spelling things differently, but because we are indeed training different systems! A lot of bickering and politics would end if we'd simply acknowledge that, live and let live.

 

[yak sao]

Same goes with "the Wing Chun system", which no longer exists as one thing, if it ever did. LTWT, WSLVT, TWC, PSWC, etc. are all very different approaches to fighting, even if they share a close common ancestor. So we can't talk about them all as Wing Chun, unless in the broadest sense. The reason we can never come to any sort of consensus on things isn't because we're being too divisive and spelling things differently, but because we are indeed training different systems! A lot of bickering and politics would end if we'd simply acknowledge that, live and let live.

I don't think we disagree here...too much.
WC, when practiced and developed properly is going to become "your WC". If a sifu has 10 students they are not going to all come out looking the same. You should end up with 10 variations of a theme. As time goes on and these 10 people each teach 10 people it further diversifies. But it is still WC.
We just have to be careful about something you said in an earlier post I believe, which is embracing everything and calling it WC.
As diverse as WC can become, there is a point where you've left the reservation

 

[KPM]

I think saying Wing Chun is almost like saying Kung Fu.

--Exactly! "Kung Fu" is a very broad general term for all martial arts from China. A little less broad and general but still not entirely specific is the term "Wing Chun." What's wrong with using that? "Wing Chun" refers to what is now a rather diverse collection of systems that can be somewhat different but still recognized as belonging to the same grouping. There is not really a broad general term for all martial arts from Japan. But I see the term "Karate" as equivalent to the term "Wing Chun." There are many diverse versions of Karate, but all still recognized as belonging to the same grouping. They are distinguished by saying "Shotokan" Karate, or "Goju Ryu" Karate, etc. No one is coming out with clever ways to re-spell the familiar term "Karate." I haven't seen anyone claiming to do "Kurite" or "Karotay", or "Keraty." ;-) Why should "Wing Chun" be any different?

 

[LFJ]

Natural evolution is to be expected and it's totally fine if the core principles are intact to still call it the same thing. There are several old-school teachers under WSL who share more or less the same thinking. Each is a tad different of course, but still clearly WSLVT.

Then there is Wan Kam Leung, who openly and completely overhauled the entire system to where it bears no resemblance to WSLVT. That, I think, cannot be called WSLVT anymore... and it isn't. He calls it "Practical Wing Chun". So again, it's a different system.

It may well be quite practical, but I don't much like the name, kind of like so-called "Traditional Wing Chun". But as long as we just take them as names of specific lineage systems, it's whatever.

 

[LFJ]

@KPM

I suppose there's nothing wrong with calling them all "Wing Chun", it is accurate, but it's when people make sweeping statements to characterize "Wing Chun" that I take issue... because more often than not, it doesn't characterize what I do at all!

 

[geezer]

@KPM

I suppose there's nothing wrong with calling them all "Wing Chun", it is accurate, but it's when people make sweeping statements to characterize "Wing Chun" that I take issue... because more often than not, it doesn't characterize what I do at all!

I agree. We are each dedicated to our respective lineages and work hard to get things right --from the big things to the small details. Sweeping generalizations don't do justice to any of us.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

By using that spelling(or lack of), you are giving the appearance that yours is the only legit way and all others fall short.

I didn't get that impression at all. LFJ is the first person I've seen use it, but I actually thought it was quite clever and inclusive as it retains the letters that all WC spelling variations (that I've seen) have in common without the differences. I wouldn't adopt it myself though as it took me far too long to work out why it was used and wouldn't expect any non-chunners to get it, and it's so much easier to just type WC.

As as an aside to the general theme of different spellings, with reference to to WT I was under the impression that Wing Tsun was Leung Ting's tm, and anything called Wing T_un was an offshoot thereof. Does anyone know if that's correct or just stupid assumptions on my part?

 

[geezer]

As as an aside to the general theme of different spellings, with reference to to WT I was under the impression that Wing Tsun was Leung Ting's tm, and anything called Wing T_un was an offshoot thereof. Does anyone know if that's correct or just stupid assumptions on my part?

Yeah HK, that's pretty much the way I see it, with one notable exception. One of LT's very top guys in the US and the chief administrator of his US organization for many years split away from him over business reasons that lead to a lawsuit. The outcome was some kind of settlement that apparently resulted in him agreeing not to use the "WT" spelling in any form. He just went back to the classic "VT" spelling as used by his Si-Gung, Yip Man. Ironic since IMO this guy teaches some of the best "WT" in North America. I know because I train with him.

Anybody else ever play the WC spelling game? How many ways can you think of to spell WC? I'll start: Wing Chun, Ving Tsun, Ving Chun, Wing Tsun, Wingtsun, Wing Tzun, Wing Tjun, Wing Txun, Wing Tshun, Wing Tchun, Uingchun, Huingchon, Weng Chun, ....everybody Wang Chun tonight?

 

[KPM]

Haven't I seen someone put a "j" in it?

 

[geezer]

Haven't I seen someone put a "j" in it?

Yeah. Sifu Sergio: WingTjun.com