Regarding diverse approaches to WC...

[geezer]

Hey all, recently on another thread, a highly regarded member of our WC forum posted to the effect that when they watched how another particular WC lineage approached certain key techniques, they didn't even "recognize" it as WC.

Reading these comments, I got to thinking about how in Western boxing, there are a lot of different styles a fighter can adopt ... in-fighter, out-fighter, a slugger, a brawler, a counter-puncher, and so on... and a coach will train-up his fighter according to what works best for that fighter.

Boxing styles and technique - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a fighter confronts an opponent with a different personal style in the ring, nobody talks about "not recognizing" what the other guy does as "boxing". Why should it be different for WC Chinese boxing? This is a question Alan Orr and others have raised, and honestly, they're onto something. Any thoughts?

 

[yak sao]

I agree with the whole "Chinese Boxing" moniker. In fact, I went with that for our group name (Chinese Boxing Club) instead of "kung fu" because I wanted people to see that WC is not about learning some magic formula or some secret techniques and then becoming some sort of invincible fighter.
I wanted them to understand WC is not a style of fighting but rather a training method that one uses to develop into a fighter.

To properly practice WC is not to be a carbon copy of your teacher. Each one of us is different. We all have various strengths and weaknesses and different personalities and temperaments. And while we all follow the same training methods, (forms, chi sau, lat sau, etc.) and adhere to core principles, the end result is not so we can all look and move and fight the same, but rather, just the opposite. Our training methodology was put together by the founders somewhat abstractly, I believe, on purpose so that each one of us learns to use WC to develop ourselves into the fighter that works best for each of us.

The end result is not being locked into structure and dead style but freely moving in an efficient, effective manner.

 

[KPM]

I agree with you as well geezer. Specifically defining what is and isn't Wing Chun is not easy. Different lineages have different body mechanics and ways to generate power, yet to most people each would "look like" variations of Wing Chun. Just because one version doesn't use exactly the same mechanics or strategies doesn't make it "not" Wing Chun.

 

[Tames D]

I agree with the whole "Chinese Boxing" moniker. In fact, I went with that for our group name (Chinese Boxing Club) instead of "kung fu" because I wanted people to see that WC is not about learning some magic formula or some secret techniques and then becoming some sort of invincible fighter.
I wanted them to understand WC is not a style of fighting but rather a training method that one uses to develop into a fighter.

To properly practice WC is not to be a carbon copy of your teacher. Each one of us is different. We all have various strengths and weaknesses and different personalities and temperaments. And while we all follow the same training methods, (forms, chi sau, lat sau, etc.) and adhere to core principles, the end result is not so we can all look and move and fight the same, but rather, just the opposite. Our training methodology was put together by the founders somewhat abstractly, I believe, on purpose so that each one of us learns to use WC to develop ourselves into the fighter that works best for each of us.

The end result is not being locked into structure and dead style but freely moving in an efficient, effective manner.

Great post!

 

[LFJ]

member of our WC forum posted to the effect that when they watched how another particular WC lineage approached certain key techniques, they didn't even "recognize" it as WC.

I don't recall it being said, or meant, like that. I said I don't recognize them as the same system; a statement with which you agreed, right? You can call almost anything WC if it shares outward similarities in form, shapes, and terminology, but if the underlying concepts are vastly different, and ultimately a different type of fighter is developed, they are hardly the same system to me.

Regarding boxing, while it can be used effectively as a self-defense method, it's still very much a game in the ring. A game can be played with different styles and still fit within the boundaries of the game. Not a problem.

The VT I do is a cohesive system of training methods designed to develop certain specific behaviors for fighting. It's not an art, only a skill, as WSL used to say. Another thing he used to say which is often misinterpreted is for one to be the master of VT and not its slave. He was referring to the strict elbow training we go through in development and to not think about it in fighting, but to fight mindlessly making the elbows work for us. Otherwise we are a slave to the system. People often take this out of context and use it as a license to do whatever they want and still call it WC, for lack of understanding the system.

As far as the "interpretation" argument for why everyone under YM seems to have a different system, all from one man... I don't for a second buy that YM taught various different systems to different students, or taught a special version to secret closed-door students, or that what he taught was so open to interpretation that the entire system could be so vastly different.

Some got it, some didn't, and they all developed according to their own understanding, or lack thereof. I think the fact that many lineages are roughly similar at the beginning of the system, but diverge greatly later in the system, especially with ideas of the BJ form, is a sign that not everyone completed the system and a lot of it has been made up to fill in the gaps.

I think YM taught one system (although simplified over the years), and we should all be more similar in the underlying strategy and tactics, but not everyone got it. WSL discussed this in an interview:

Interviewer: "How does the teaching of Yip Man differ from the way you teach?"

WSL: "Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation.

"Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have got the wrong meaning which they now pass on. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude.

"This is not a criticism of Yip Man but rather it reflects the attitude of the time which was very much traditional. Wherever and whomever I have been teaching, it has been my preference to convey the information to all people in attendance. I try to treat everyone equally during my lessons and seminars. If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job."

 

[LFJ]

To properly practice WC is not to be a carbon copy of your teacher. Each one of us is different. We all have various strengths and weaknesses and different personalities and temperaments. And while we all follow the same training methods, (forms, chi sau, lat sau, etc.) and adhere to core principles, the end result is not so we can all look and move and fight the same, but rather, just the opposite. Our training methodology was put together by the founders somewhat abstractly, I believe, on purpose so that each one of us learns to use WC to develop ourselves into the fighter that works best for each of us.

I would have no problem agreeing with this. Evolution and adaptation to the individual is okay as long as the underlying concepts are intact. If the underlying concepts are changed though, that may be fine for your personal development as a fighter, but at that point we are no longer training the same system. There are many different fighting systems taught under the name of WC. The forms, shapes, chi-sau, etc. may outwardly appear similar... but that's about as far as it goes between some lineages. Better or worse, they can't be called the same system in my opinion.

 

[KPM]

I would have no problem agreeing with this. Evolution and adaptation to the individual is okay as long as the underlying concepts are intact. If the underlying concepts are changed though, that may be fine for your personal development as a fighter, but at that point we are no longer training the same system. There are many different fighting systems taught under the name of WC. The forms, shapes, chi-sau, etc. may outwardly appear similar... but that's about as far as it goes between some lineages. Better or worse, they can't be called the same system in my opinion.

Of course. I think that should be pretty obvious to everyone. WSL Wing Chun is not the same Wing Chun system as Leung Ting Wing Chun, though both are Wing Chun. I think your intent was misinterpreted and many thought by "system" you meant Wing Chun in general...not variations of Wing Chun.

 

[PiedmontChun]

Within the school that I attend, there are students senior to me that, even if similar length of time invested individually, use their WC/WT obviously very differently.
I think there is definitely truth in a good teacher trying to teach in a unified way, but still turn out students that are not carbon copies of themselves even if not deliberately.

 

[Danny T]

Wing Chun is a system of training. Not a particular style of training or fighting.
How one expresses what they have learned going to be different.

Unfortunately, we now have a multitude of training styles that have been derived by how one expresses themselves.

We are all different in attributes and skill sets. We all have different perspectives and many have now latched onto specific expressions as being the system.

I teach WC principles, concepts, and the basic movements and positions. As the student develops, their personality as well as their skill set begins to manifest with-in their personal expression of the system.

I don’t believe we are to be slaves to the specific training methods but to use the methods to develop the individual.

If one is an A type personality I find they tend to express themselves a bit more straight forward and dynamically vs the B who tend to be a bit more reserve and then there is the C type who is very yielding with-in their expression.

It is all good. The System is Wing Chun; the expression of the system is based upon the individual and is the style.


Use the system and be yourself for you are the art you are the style.

 

[geezer]

... Evolution and adaptation to the individual is okay as long as the underlying concepts are intact. If the underlying concepts are changed though, that may be fine for your personal development as a fighter, but at that point we are no longer training the same system. There are many different fighting systems taught under the name of WC. The forms, shapes, chi-sau, etc. may outwardly appear similar... but that's about as far as it goes between some lineages. Better or worse, they can't be called the same system in my opinion.

OK, this makes sense. So what do we call the different systems that emerge under the WC umbrella? Certainly there is no absolute litmus test for what is and what isn't WC. I suppose we just continue with name prefixes like WSL WC, LT WT, Moy Yat WC, Ho Kam Ming WC, "TWC", etc. and recognise that while what we do may be similar, it is not interchangeable.

Ironically, it reminds me of a discussion about what is a "dialect" vs. a "language". It turns out that the distinction is often more political than liguistic. Where there is a political impetus to show unity, though the differences are great, the term "dialect" is used, as with Cantonese and Mandarin.

Conversely when the politics of division come into play, as with Hindi and Urdu, similar speech will be declared to be totally separate languages. And when the politics are complex, as with the Danes and Swedes, sometimes one group will express unity saying that they understand both forms while the other will insist that they are totally separate and can't understand a word that the other says.

WC is a lot like that.

 

[LFJ]

I agree WSL Ving Tsun, LT Wing Tsun, TWC, etc. are already good enough to distinguish different systems, so long as people realize they are really quite different approaches to fighting. I think it's problematic to call them all "Wing Chun" and say each is just another way of doing the same thing. This is difficult for beginners entering the world of WC.

Like if we both say we speak Romance language, it doesn't necessarily mean we can communicate if you're speaking French and I'm speaking Romanian and we haven't studied each other's language. Or worse yet, mixing the languages arbitrarily to speak in our own way, we're actually no longer speaking a functional language.

So when I say I don't recognize things done in LTWT as the same system, I mean I speak WSLVT and don't understand you. In a funny way it seems related at first, but it really doesn't make sense to me. We're not speaking the same language. I would not be able to roll with LTWT because we have entirely different concepts, different ways of rolling, and roll for different reasons.

 

[Kwan Sau]

I would not be able to roll with LTWT because we have entirely different concepts, different ways of rolling, and roll for different reasons.

I've found this to be true. Not every 'branch' of WC/VT/WT can 'roll' with the other. Differences in the ideas and angles of the required shapes (Tan, Bong, Fook, etc) cause immediate misalignments or tactical weaknesses that can be automatically expoited by either partners.

 

[Vajramusti]

I've found this to be true. Not every 'branch' of WC/VT/WT can 'roll' with the other. Differences in the ideas and angles of the required shapes (Tan, Bong, Fook, etc) cause immediate misalignments or tactical weaknesses that can be automatically expoited by either partners.[/QUOTE-------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree.

 

[KPM]

I agree WSL Ving Tsun, LT Wing Tsun, TWC, etc. are already good enough to distinguish different systems, so long as people realize they are really quite different approaches to fighting. I think it's problematic to call them all "Wing Chun" and say each is just another way of doing the same thing.
.

Then how would you refer to them as a group if not by calling them "Wing Chun"?

 

[PiedmontChun]

I've found this to be true. Not every 'branch' of WC/VT/WT can 'roll' with the other. Differences in the ideas and angles of the required shapes (Tan, Bong, Fook, etc) cause immediate misalignments or tactical weaknesses that can be automatically expoited by either partners.

When you say "roll" with each other, is that meant in a figurative sense? Or a literal sense, that being chi-sau?

 

[Kwan Sau]

When you say "roll" with each other, is that meant in a figurative sense? Or a literal sense, that being chi-sau?

Oops, sorry. Yes, I meant roll as in chi sau.

 

[Hong Kong Pooey]

Oops, sorry. Yes, I meant roll as in chi sau.

I can't do multi-quotes, but I'm intrigued by this whole tangent that different styles/branches can't chi-sau with each other. Can you guys expand on this please?

How can they be so different that you can't roll with each other? Surely it only doesn't work for whoever 'loses'?

This is coming from someone still very much at the early stages of my WC journey so please forgive my ignorance!

 

[Kwan Sau]

Can you guys expand on this please? How can they be so different that you can't roll with each other?

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.

 

[LFJ]

Then how would you refer to them as a group if not by calling them "Wing Chun"?

_ing _un.

 

[LFJ]

I can't do multi-quotes, but I'm intrigued by this whole tangent that different styles/branches can't chi-sau with each other. Can you guys expand on this please?

How can they be so different that you can't roll with each other? Surely it only doesn't work for whoever 'loses'?

We have different ways and reasons for rolling. You can't really roll properly, according to your system, if you put your arms together with someone doing it very differently. And it's pointless to try to adapt to the different style and hold your own against them, because ultimately our goal is not to be able to "defeat" people in chi-sau, but to survive a real fight. Chi-sau is a developmental drilling platform for training the tools specific to your system. No point in throwing a wrench in there. So if you want to test against another system of _ing _un, I say do it in free sparring!