Siu Lim Tau Comparison

Nobody Important

2nd Black Belt
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
893
Reaction score
474
I thought this was an interesting video highlighting different approaches to Wing Chun.


Having read up a little on each branches history and theoretical approach , I can see their methodology come through in their forms.
 
There are many large problems with the Moy Yat (Yip Man) version as performed here. The HFY looks like a completely different system not focused on the same things. TWC looks like it might be a highly corrupted form of YM- if so then hard to see how it wouldn't be broken beyond repair.
 
There are many large problems with the Moy Yat (Yip Man) version as performed here. The HFY looks like a completely different system not focused on the same things. TWC looks like it might be a highly corrupted form of YM- if so then hard to see how it wouldn't be broken beyond repair.
Your beliefs are only applicable to you, to which no other branch is obligated to subscribe. What you hold to be truth is contrary to reality. The Wing Chun that you practice is NOT the standard to which all Wing Chun branches are held. Each branch has it's own interpretations & applications of the movement & theory. Each has equal rights to the label of Wing Chun.

Who are you to say what is right or wrong? I believe your approach is limited in scope for lacking core methods utilized by older branches, yet I don't insist what you do as broken. You do not employ the same strategies, tactics, methods, movements, theories etc. as these branches. Since you do not, what makes you think your method is applicable to them?

Quit trying to insist that what you possess is superior in theory, approach, function & application & that everyone should follow your approach. There is no singular, linear approach to Wing Chun. You cannot organize all the various interpretations into a neat little package and expect everyone to accept that as the only way, and suggest if they don't accept it, then what they have is broken or not Wing Chun. You don't get to decide what is or isn't legitimate, how to interpret based on your intelligence and comprehension or appoint standards.

Wing Chun existed long before Yip Man, Wong Sheung Lung & Philip Bayer and you, hard to believe that in an art that has spanned centuries and been learned by thousands, that only a few "chosen" ones learned the "truth" according to you. It has become quite evident that your knowledge & understanding are extremely limited when it comes to what constitutes the label of Wing Chun.

Personally I'm sick of your negativity & divisiveness. If you don't have anything constructive or positive to say don't post. Your behavior is getting old real quick.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was an interesting video highlighting different approaches to Wing Chun.


Having read up a little on each branches history and theoretical approach , I can see their methodology come through in their forms.
Good timing. I was thinking earlier how I wanted to find a video that shows the differences, now I don't have to look.

Quick question. DoesWing Chun have any forms that show more movement with footwork or are most of the forms stationary like this one?
 
Good timing. I was thinking earlier how I wanted to find a video that shows the differences, now I don't have to look.

Quick question. DoesWing Chun have any forms that show more movement with footwork or are most of the forms stationary like this one?
There is great variety depending on the branch. Cho Family, Vietnamese & William Cheung branches have lots of movement. Cho Family because they have some Choy Lay Fut influence, Vietnamese has some 5 Animal influence and William Cheung possibly has connection to Hung Fa Yi. The HFY people would have to verify as I've not seen their other sets.

Wing Chun is very diverse. Unfortunately a lot of branches are held in comparison to Yip Man branch as the standard of accepted practice. In reality this just isn't true. Many branches are much older, and as such contain much more diverse material.

Pao Fa Lian Wing Chun, Chi Sim Wing Chun & Chan Family Wing Chun have numerous forms with movement also.
 
I get the feeling this video was designed to make Moy Yat/Yip Man guys look bad and make HFY look good while piquing people's interest at its apparent similarity to TWC. At least choose a good example of each one if you're going to do a video like this.
 
@JowGaWolf


This is the branch from Chan Yiu Min, son of Chan Wah Shun the teacher of Yip Man. Commonly accepted as altered Wing Chun having some other southern art added in. I do find it cohesive though and still working within the "accepted" parameters. When they move they try to maintain WC mechanics. IMO it shows how WC can look while moving about.


Pao Fa Lien version of SNT.


Vietnamese SNT


Malaysian Wing Chun
 
Last edited:
There is great variety depending on the branch. Cho Family, Vietnamese & William Cheung branches have lots of movement. Cho Family because they have some Choy Lay Fut influence, Vietnamese has some 5 Animal influence and William Cheung possibly has connection to Hung Fa Yi. The HFY people would have to verify as I've not seen their other sets.

Wing Chun is very diverse. Unfortunately a lot of branches are held in comparison to Yip Man branch as the standard of accepted practice. In reality this just isn't true. Many branches are much older, and as such contain much more diverse material.

Pao Fa Lian Wing Chun, Chi Sim Wing Chun & Chan Family Wing Chun have numerous forms with movement also.
I would like to see the Wing Chun forms with the foot movement beyond the pivot. I usually see the forms where someone is just standing still in one spot. Don't worry I'm not one of those guys that believes there's only one correct way to do Wing Chun.

Thanks for the videos. I didn't see them until after I typed this message
 
I would like to see the Wing Chun forms with the foot movement beyond the pivot. I usually see the forms where someone is just standing still in one spot. Don't worry I'm not one of those guys that believes there's only one correct way to do Wing Chun.

Thanks for the videos. I didn't see them until after I typed this message
Plenty of branches with movement, they are just not as popular as branches coming from Leung Jan.
 
There are many large problems with the Moy Yat (Yip Man) version as performed here. The HFY looks like a completely different system not focused on the same things. TWC looks like it might be a highly corrupted form of YM- if so then hard to see how it wouldn't be broken beyond repair.

And again, tell us how you DON'T believe that WSLVT is the only "real" version of VT! :rolleyes:
 
And if it is not WSL VT, every other branch of Wing Chun is broken and corrupt. That pretty much the gist of Guy B's universe?
 
And again, tell us how you DON'T believe that WSLVT is the only "real" version of VT! :rolleyes:

Tell us again how you don't share the same opinion of William Cheung and his TWC.
 
I thought this was an interesting video highlighting different approaches to Wing Chun.


Having read up a little on each branches history and theoretical approach , I can see their methodology come through in their forms.
I wish they had put the lineage name above or below each video, to make it easier to keep up with which style is which. Probably more useful to those of us not familiar with the different styles.
 
I would like to see the Wing Chun forms with the foot movement beyond the pivot. I usually see the forms where someone is just standing still in one spot. Don't worry I'm not one of those guys that believes there's only one correct way to do Wing Chun.

Thanks for the videos. I didn't see them until after I typed this message

The 1st form, Siu Nim Tau, is stationary. The 2nd form, Chum Kiu, has turning / shifting, stepping, and kicks. The 3rd form, Biu Jee, adds additional footwork. The Dummy form uses footwork from the Chum Kiu in a particular way, and the weapons forms all add some footwork not found in the Chum Kiu (to my very limited knowledge of those later forms).

To your point Jow, the reason you likely see more comparison of one's SNT to another's SNT or focus on that is that it contains the "seed" techniques and essentially the conceptual base for the system, far more than the other forms do. Differences between different versions of SNT highlight where lineages have changed or diverged from each other, not just a change to individual techniques, but likely the concept behind it. I have a hard enough time trying to learn all of what is there in my own branch's SNT, I don't have the gumption or drive to try and break down other's to understand it.
 
And if it is not WSL VT, every other branch of Wing Chun is broken and corrupt. That pretty much the gist of Guy B's universe?

Pretty much high light the case of the frog in the bottom of a well ... his universe encompass only all that he could or want to see.
 
Your beliefs are only applicable to you, to which no other branch is obligated to subscribe. What you hold to be truth is contrary to reality. The Wing Chun that you practice is NOT the standard to which all Wing Chun branches are held. Each branch has it's own interpretations & applications of the movement & theory. Each has equal rights to the label of Wing Chun.

My comments are obviously from the point of view of YM Ving Tsun. The Moy Yat version presented has several large problems, possibly intentionally, which I think Martenmar also picked up on. It isn't a good representation of the system.

Commenting again from the point of YM VT, there is nothing negative or divisive in noticing that HFY wing chun looks like a different system compared to YM VT. They themselves claim that it is different.

Again from the point of view of YM VT I can see a vague resemblance in the TWC form. If it is supposed to work as YM VT works then this will be a problem (it will be broken). If not and other justifications exist for the movements (which I am sure they do), then what is the problem in noting that it won't function as YM VT functions? I'm not going to pretend it would all work great from the point of view of YM VT, because that would be misinformation and untruth, which wouldn't help anyone.

I believe your approach is limited in scope for lacking core methods utilized by older branches, yet I don't insist what you do as broken. You do not employ the same strategies, tactics, methods, movements, theories etc. as these branches. Since you do not, what makes you think your method is applicable to them?[

I am commenting as a practitioner of YM VT

Quit trying to insist that what you possess is superior in theory, approach, function & application & that everyone should follow your approach. There is no singular, linear approach to Wing Chun. You cannot organize all the various interpretations into a neat little package and expect everyone to accept that as the only way, and suggest if they don't accept it, then what they have is broken or not Wing Chun. You don't get to decide what is or isn't legitimate, how to interpret based on your intelligence and comprehension or appoint standards.

When no other theory is presented by anyone, it is hypocritical to be touchy about the interpretations of those people who are prepared to provide detailed explantion. YM VT works in a particular way and I don't see why discussion of this should be avoided so that people don't get offended. I don't have any opinion on wing chun that is not YM VT, other than to note that it is different

hard to believe that in an art that has spanned centuries and been learned by thousands, that only a few "chosen" ones learned the "truth" according to you

Not something I have ever claimed. No evidence that wing chun was around earlier than mid 19th century.

Personally I'm sick of your negativity & divisiveness. If you don't have anything constructive or positive to say don't post. Your behavior is getting old real quick.

Post alternative interpretations if you don't like mine.
 
Last edited:
If it is supposed to work as YM VT works then this will be a problem (it will be broken). If not and other justifications exist for the movements (which I am sure they do), then what is the problem in noting that it won't function as YM VT functions?

--------Why do you constantly need to point out how other branches won't work when approached with your VT methodology? In my opinion, you do it in effort to appear superior. They aren't your method, they are their own. No need to degrade them because you don't approve of their approach.

YM VT works in a particular way and I don't see why discussion of this should be avoided so that people don't get offended. I don't have any opinion on wing chun that is not YM VT, other than to note that it is different


----------I don't remember asking you how your YM VT works. Nor did I ask you to impose your opinion as to why you feel other branches are inferior to your assumed superior method, because this is what you insinuate. Why do you feel the need to offend constantly? Your YM VT is not the standard to which others are held. Get over yourself. If you don't have an opinion on anything other than YM VT why don't you go post on a board dedicated strictly to YM VT?
 
Last edited:

Latest Discussions

Back
Top