Strength and Biomechanics in Martial arts

[Steve]

I don't agree with this. While all arts are based upon certain concepts, not all schools train the concepts. If you do not know what the concepts you are training, how do you know you are adhering to them? Training technique does not equate to understanding what you are training. Yes, technique training is important, because we must all start somewhere, but if you know the concepts underlying the technique, the techniques themselves don't mean as much anymore.

A kick is a technique. A good kick follows certain concepts that make it "good." If you don't know what concepts those are, how do you know if your kick is good. How do you make your kick better? Yes, your instructor can show you a good kick, but if he can't show you why its a good kick it is just a game of monkey see, monkey do.

The "spin" I see normally is martial artist who train in this monkey see, monkey do manner, but do not want to admit to it. It becomes very apparent when you talk to one of the people because they can't understand anything beyong the techniques they have memorized.

Just so that I understand, are you suggesting that some MA styles do this? If so, can you be a little more specific? I agree that this isn't a good thing, but the thing is, what styles exist that do things like this? I can't imagine a good instructor who doesn't (or can't) show you the why behind a technique... in any style. Are you talking about students or instructors who don't understand the concepts behind the techniques?

 

[Steve]

Well of course it looks artificial man , they're trying to sell something , they are going to make it look as good as possible.
That sort of over acting sometimes happens with enthusiastic junior students when they are used as attackers.
I'm sure even your school if it is commercial would do much the same thing.

Apples and oranges. BJJ has the advantage of competition footage. I'm not saying that this is better or worse. Just that, in most instructional videos, concepts are taught and then demonstrated, then shown being used in competition. Stefan Kesting's DVDs use this formula. So, in a video like the one you showed, applying the same formula, you'd see what it looks like against someone who is both trained to perform the techniques and actually trying to execute them at full speed.

As I said before, the video explained the concepts in a way that is easy to understand, and I appreciate that. Does it work? No way to tell from those videos. It sounds like it might work, but you can't really tell from the videos with the ukes flying around like they've been tazed. Anyone who's seen a late night infomercial knows that sounding reasonable and being reasonable aren't always the same thing.

But in no way does it make the techniques shown any less legitimate , effective or powerful.
When done for real the attacker will not fly back out of frame , they will just DROP.

The reason I put up the first video was because it uses some good graphics to explain centerline theory etc , not to show case techniques.

And if that was your goal, they do the trick. The videos are clear, but there's no way to know from this whether they're legitimate, effective or powerful.

Of course the only real demonstrations of the concepts in practice ( in your opinion ) were done by Grand Masters , thats maybe why they're called Grand Masters.

I've only ever seen WC in one of three different ways. First, a staged demonstration where the actors are enthusiastic and compliant like your first video. Second, a demonstration where an untrained person is being tooled by a grand master, like the other three videos you show. Third, a video where the quality of the WC is unknowable and people who don't like WC use as proof it doesn't work while those who train in it vilify the participant and ask where the WC is. We've all seen too many of these.

All of that to say, I've never actually seen WC done by a middle level student against someone trained and motivated. I'd love to.

But that's a little tangential. Getting back to the idea of concepts and biomechanics in MA, are the concepts WC applied effectively only at an advanced level? That's the question I have.

If so, how do the students gain mastery of the concepts without any detailed instruction on technique?

 

[mook jong man]

The concept of Lin Sil Die Dar ( or simultaneous counter attack ) in Wing Chun is a little bit misleading , in the case of techniques where both hands are used , the actual attacking hand goes out a split second before the defending hand is even up.

Any technique in Wing Chun such as a kick for example must adhere to the five principles .

Simplicity - based on natural body movement , does not involve difficulted or contorted movement.

Directness - shortest time and distance are taken ie the centerline and simultaneous counter attack is used against an attack.

Economy of movement - from the Wing Chun guarding position only short sharp movements are used , efficient economical movements also help to conserve energy.

Minimum use of brute strength - This has two components in Wing Chun , executing force ( striking ) and how to overcome force (deflecting).
Wing Chun striking is not executed by sheer strength but by maximising force .
Deflection involves spreading the force of a blow over a wider surface area ,not taking the impact on one point only .
Also the opponents own force is used to his own disadvantage.

Practicality- The Wing Chun system is not intended to look showy or spectacular , there are no elaborate moves , all the moves are designed for practical use.
The techniques are not limited in their application by restrictive clothing or confined space

summarised from my late Sifu's book Wing Chun Kung Fu - an effective and logical approach to self defence .
This book is chosen as one of the training manuals of the Hong Kong Wing Chun association.

The thing is if your teaching a Wing Chun technique and it does not comply with these principles then you are not teaching Wing Chun , its as simple as that.

 

[mook jong man]

Apples and oranges. BJJ has the advantage of competition footage. I'm not saying that this is better or worse. Just that, in most instructional videos, concepts are taught and then demonstrated, then shown being used in competition. Stefan Kesting's DVDs use this formula. So, in a video like the one you showed, applying the same formula, you'd see what it looks like against someone who is both trained to perform the techniques and actually trying to execute them at full speed.

As I said before, the video explained the concepts in a way that is easy to understand, and I appreciate that. Does it work? No way to tell from those videos. It sounds like it might work, but you can't really tell from the videos with the ukes flying around like they've been tazed. Anyone who's seen a late night infomercial knows that sounding reasonable and being reasonable aren't always the same thing. And if that was your goal, they do the trick. The videos are clear, but there's no way to know from this whether they're legitimate, effective or powerful. I've only ever seen WC in one of three different ways. First, a staged demonstration where the actors are enthusiastic and compliant like your first video. Second, a demonstration where an untrained person is being tooled by a grand master, like the other three videos you show. Third, a video where the quality of the WC is unknowable and people who don't like WC use as proof it doesn't work while those who train in it vilify the participant and ask where the WC is. We've all seen too many of these.

All of that to say, I've never actually seen WC done by a middle level student against someone trained and motivated. I'd love to.

But that's a little tangential. Getting back to the idea of concepts and biomechanics in MA, are the concepts WC applied effectively only at an advanced level? That's the question I have.

If so, how do the students gain mastery of the concepts without any detailed instruction on technique?

Bjj does have an advantage in demos , in that techniques can be taken to right to edge , either breaking someones arm or stopping just short , or choking someone out or leeting them tap out .

But I can assure you that if you were hit for real by my late Sifu Jim Fung or Sigung Tsui Seung Tin you would be dead , end of story.
I have felt the power of these men and I was neither compliant or unsceptical if that is a word.

Wing Chun people don't give a rats **** about competition , all that matters is it works down the pub when some prick is trying to shove a schooner glass into your face.

My master said if you want to test your Wing Chun go to any of the pubs in Sydney and start a few fights.

 

[Steve]

Bjj does have an advantage in demos , in that techniques can be taken to right to edge , either breaking someones arm or stopping just short , or choking someone out or leeting them tap out .

But I can assure you that if you were hit for real by my late Sifu Jim Fung or Sigung Tsui Seung Tin you would be dead , end of story.
I have felt the power of these men and I was neither compliant or unsceptical if that is a word.

Wing Chun people don't give a rats **** about competition , all that matters is it works down the pub when some prick is trying to shove a schooner glass into your face.

My master said if you want to test your Wing Chun go to any of the pubs in Sydney and start a few fights.

The bolded part may or may not be true. Who knows what your late sifu could do? Not me.

What I'd like to know is whether everyone your late sifu taught could apply the concepts without technique? Or could apply the concepts proficiently at all?

I'm trying to get at this idea that was put forth that WC is different from other martial arts styles because it has no techniques and focuses instead on application of concepts. How many of your late sifu's students actually applied the concepts? Were these students only his most advanced? If so, what then, did the rest of his students do?

Honestly, whether WC works at all anywhere isn't the point of this thread. I'll take your word for it, if you say it works at the pub... doesn't really matter to me either way.

But you've said that WC is about concepts over technique and that this distinguishes WC from other arts. I don't see it. I'm hoping you can clear it up for me.

Let's step back to this. Boxing was brought up, and I said that Western Boxing has fewer discrete techniques than WC. I listed the four that I could think of: hook, cross, uppercut, jab. Boxing would seem to me to be even more of a "concepts to the nth degree" style than WC in that everything else is conceptual. Do you disagree? If so, how so?

 

[WC_lun]

Just so that I understand, are you suggesting that some MA styles do this? If so, can you be a little more specific? I agree that this isn't a good thing, but the thing is, what styles exist that do things like this? I can't imagine a good instructor who doesn't (or can't) show you the why behind a technique... in any style. Are you talking about students or instructors who don't understand the concepts behind the techniques?

I cannot comment on all styles and how they train as I've not trained all styles and even among the same style, training will vary. I can say that most martial artist that I meet train in a monkey see monkey do manner with no blue print for the system they are training. I doubt this is systemic, but rather just the way certain instructors are trained themselves. Going back to the example of the kick, is a person trained from the start what makes a good kick or are they told to just practice the kick over and over again until thier kick is good? There is a difference between understanding what and why you are performing something in a certain way and just doing it that way because your instructor said this is the way to do it. Another thing to remember about concepts and principles in a system is that in runs true through the entire system. What makes that kick good is also what makes that punch good. If it doesn't work for one or the other then it isn't a solid concept or principle. I also see this quite a bit.

 

[Steve]

I cannot comment on all styles and how they train as I've not trained all styles and even among the same style, training will vary. I can say that most martial artist that I meet train in a monkey see monkey do manner with no blue print for the system they are training. I doubt this is systemic, but rather just the way certain instructors are trained themselves. Going back to the example of the kick, is a person trained from the start what makes a good kick or are they told to just practice the kick over and over again until thier kick is good? There is a difference between understanding what and why you are performing something in a certain way and just doing it that way because your instructor said this is the way to do it. Another thing to remember about concepts and principles in a system is that in runs true through the entire system. What makes that kick good is also what makes that punch good. If it doesn't work for one or the other then it isn't a solid concept or principle. I also see this quite a bit.

Which is it? You say that you can't speak for all styles, but you seem pretty comfortable doing just that, albeit in a very nonspecific, abstract manner. Perhaps if you were a little more specific, someone on the board with direct experience with that style could elaborate. You mention kicking and punching, so clearly you have a striking art in mind. TKD? Karate? Muay Thai? Are any of these trained in a monkey see/monkey do manner?

In your experience, which martial artists train in a monkey see, monkey do manner? How is this different from what you do? Do new students in Wing Chun not functionally mimic their teachers?

 

[mook jong man]

The bolded part may or may not be true. Who knows what your late sifu could do? Not me.






Let's step back to this. Boxing was brought up, and I said that Western Boxing has fewer discrete techniques than WC. I listed the four that I could think of: hook, cross, uppercut, jab. Boxing would seem to me to be even more of a "concepts to the nth degree" style than WC in that everything else is conceptual. Do you disagree? If so, how so?

Well they do have less techniques mainly because they don't have to worry about their shins being fractured and kicked out from under them , so straight away you don't have to worry about any leg jamming or leg deflection techniques.

Our principles have meaning to us within the context and frame work of Wing Chun.
As I said in another thread a boxer maybe relaxed , but its not going to mean the same relaxed as a Wing Chun person who maintains the angle in their arm and lets the joint rotate from the shoulder joint.

Or a boxer may even have economy of movement , but in Wing Chun it means the hands rarely leave the centerline , and all attack and defence is executed on that line.

What maybe one mans economy of movement maybe another mans wasted motion.

The principals in Wing Chun mainly all relate back to the use of the centerline , and to my knowledge I don't know of any other art that religiously sticks to the centerline as Wing Chun does.

 

[bribrius]

I cannot comment on all styles and how they train as I've not trained all styles and even among the same style, training will vary. I can say that most martial artist that I meet train in a monkey see monkey do manner with no blue print for the system they are training. I doubt this is systemic, but rather just the way certain instructors are trained themselves. Going back to the example of the kick, is a person trained from the start what makes a good kick or are they told to just practice the kick over and over again until thier kick is good? There is a difference between understanding what and why you are performing something in a certain way and just doing it that way because your instructor said this is the way to do it. Another thing to remember about concepts and principles in a system is that in runs true through the entire system. What makes that kick good is also what makes that punch good. If it doesn't work for one or the other then it isn't a solid concept or principle. I also see this quite a bit.

i agree with this to a extent. often the why may not be told just the do. If the why isn't told then it is harder for a student to understand the premise of what they are doing. Either way you are copying a instructor. That is the best example and easiest way to explain the movement. But the student that understands the premise of what they are doing will gain much more than the one just copying what they see. That same premise transfers to other things, and even greater understanding so the student can think for themself and apply it better overall. The latter is copying, and possibly only copying, so to a extent may suffer later on in applying concepts in new ways independently. Also as they progress they may be missing the vital understanding of how it fits together. The difference between going from one movement to the next and from understanding one movement to the next.

similiar to reading a book in another language i suppose. you read a book and dont understand the words you may still be able to copy the book. You could copy it word for word if you chose writing it down identical. But you still wont understand the book.

 

[mook jong man]

The bolded part may or may not be true. Who knows what your late sifu could do? Not me.

What I'd like to know is whether everyone your late sifu taught could apply the concepts without technique? Or could apply the concepts proficiently at all?

I'm trying to get at this idea that was put forth that WC is different from other martial arts styles because it has no techniques and focuses instead on application of concepts. How many of your late sifu's students actually applied the concepts? Were these students only his most advanced? If so, what then, did the rest of his students do?

Honestly, whether WC works at all anywhere isn't the point of this thread. I'll take your word for it, if you say it works at the pub... doesn't really matter to me either way.

But you've said that WC is about concepts over technique and that this distinguishes WC from other arts. I don't see it. I'm hoping you can clear it up for me.

Let's step back to this. Boxing was brought up, and I said that Western Boxing has fewer discrete techniques than WC. I listed the four that I could think of: hook, cross, uppercut, jab. Boxing would seem to me to be even more of a "concepts to the nth degree" style than WC in that everything else is conceptual. Do you disagree? If so, how so?

Just to clarify I think you may have got me mistaken with Chinaboxer , I think he was going on about concepts over techniques.
What I keep banging on about is that any technique in Wing Chun must comply with the five principles or it is not proper Wing Chun.

We have techniques for sure , they"re all in the three empty hand forms , the wooden dummy form , and the two weapons forms.
The same movement in any form can have multiple applications , the three core techniques would be the Fook Sau , the Tan Sau , and the Bong Sau .
They all have multiple uses against any attack , so instead of having a block for this and another block for that , the deflections are all slight permutations of those core hand structures.

Junior students are taught to put into practice the hand structures and work on their attributes through the process of Chi sau.

It is a kind of laboratory where they experiment with techniques , work on their structure and stance , learn to collapse their partners structure and hopefully make their mistakes in Chi sau and not in the street.

That is probably the main way the structure , techniques , and stance are developed along with the practice of the forms.
In our lineage they also practice against random arm and leg attacks , grabs etc , but this is just applying the same hand structures they learn and execute in Chi sau at a different range , from futher out , that of the non contact range.

Working at a difficult range , close range , where the eyes cannot be relied upon , as reflexes from the eyes to the brain and then to the muscles telling them to activate are far to slow , by that time you have already been hit.

Reflexes must be hardwired to react spontaneously by the sense of touch , this takes many years to bring to a sophisticate level and many hours spent practicing Chi Sau.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I've been mulling this over for a few weeks now, based on a thread going on in the CMA forums on Wing Chun concepts. The gist of some of the early comments in that thread were that Wing Chun is based upon concepts and not techniques. That this made WC unique. Another was that WC focused on body positioning, leverage and biomechanics over strength.

Nope, The whole point of ninpo (and the difference with e.g. jujutsu styles) are the underlying concepts, and not the techniques. And this is true for most koryu. The concepts are everything.

Strength is important in all arts, but not more so than biomechanics, leverage, positioning etc. Even pro wrestling (which I have classified as a martial art) relies on positioning and biomechanics, rather than just strength.

So whoever was telling you that has been drinking too much of the CMA koolaid.

 

[frank raud]

Someone commented that wing Chun works from the centerline more than any other art. To my limited knowledge, that is/seems correct.

I believe the arts all are based on concepts. at some point, someone defined what a particular art is. Is this a grappling system, is it kick oriented, does it focus on the use of hands? Is it all encompassing? In BJJ, you will often hear"position before submission" That is a solid concept of how things work in BJJ and other arts. You generally can't get the submission, or knockout without the proper setup. In Judo, the concept of maximum effiency, minimum effort actually covers the previous "position before submission" without the specific detail. That is I think a very important part.

It is generally easier to explain something via features and benefits, than explaining the underlying principles. I know as a salesman, it is easier to explain to someone why a feature of a product will be advantageous to a customer, and that selling a concept to a customer is usually harder.

While most arts are obviusly based on concepts and principles, the teacher/instructor may not have the capability to explain the concepts as easily as he can explain the techniques. Does that make the concepts disappear? No. But the emphasis behind teaching may change after a generation or two.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm. Well, let's see if I can add a bit to this. Might take a little bit, though....

I've spoken a number of times about what a martial art actually is (not it's techniques, but it's underlying, or guiding philosophy), and how that reality of what a martial art is is really what makes one art different, or unique, when compared to another, particularly when there is a great deal of similarity in the arts themselves (superficially). And I think that a number of people here have gotten a fair bit of what I mean by that. However, there is still a degree of "old" thinking colouring this description. So I'll try again, and explain one aspect a little more than I have in other posts.

A martial art is not it's techniques, or it's training methods, or it's weapons, or it's ranges, or it's rule-sets, or anything similar. A martial art is an expression of an underlying, or guiding philosophy. A philosophy is really just a collection of beliefs and values which hold an internal consitency, or congruency, and are interlinked together. These beliefs and values then get expressed in a physical form, for martial arts taking the form of combative techniques and training methodologies. Psychologically speaking, these would be the "behaviours" of the "personality" of the art (the underlying philosophy giving decision making approaches to differing situations).

Now, I've spoken about how this philosophy can be social, cultural, economic, personal, spiritual etc, lending to the methods of the art itself, and it seems that most take that to mean the techniques. And while that is true, it's only part of it. The other aspect that is highly dependant on the philosophy is it's training methodologies themselves. For Koryu, that means a structured kata-based training method, with the techniques not changing in order to maintain the lessons the way they are intended to be transmitted, rather than allow the personality of a particular instructor "colour" the art and the lessons it has to teach. For competitive arts, that means a high emphasis on testing in a competitive arena, and training methods geared towards that (conditioning drills, sparring etc).

When it comes to an art such as Wing Chun, while all arts are based in the concepts that structure the systems themselves, they demonstrate and transmit them in different ways (Koryu kata transmitting the concepts by maintaining the methods that best encapsulate them, for example, which may be seen as being based more in "technique", although that really is missing why the training is the way it is). Wing Chun, due to it's guiding philosophy, has it's training methodologies dictated by that philosophy, and that philosophy says that the art is taught by constantly new expressions of it's concepts.

Now, another thing that may be confusing some is actually the very idea of these "concepts". I think a number of people are mistaking "concepts" with "strategies and tactics". For Wing Chun, the strategy (overall plan) is to survive/succeed/overwhelm with the concepts of the art. The tactics (methods used to achieve the strategy) include the physical techniques, such as Pak Sao, Bong Sau, Lap Sao, chain punching etc. These are not concepts, they are tactics. The concepts give rise to them, but they are not the concepts themselves.

So to say that Wing Chun teaches by concepts rather than techniques, making it unique, is completely accurate. Other arts certainly have concepts unique to them within their teachings, and concepts that help govern what those arts do, but the teaching methodologies (rising from the underlying philosophy) of these other arts are very different to the conceptual base of Wing Chun.

As to the body positioning, leverage etc in Wing Chun, well, that's again just in the way they train and teach the lessons they have to offer. But I don't think anyone can state that they are the only art that uses leverage to win.... although I have heard many arts claim that that is what sets them apart (using knowledge of leverage over strength, so a smaller, weaker person can triumph over a bigger, stronger one.... hmm, don't think I'd want to train an art that required you to be bigger and stronger in order to win! But for the record, there is a self defence method that stresses size and strength over anything else. It's called body building), such as BJJ, Judo, Aikido, Ninjutsu, and many more. It's not unique, but the methods used to express these ideas, teach them, and train them are.

 

[mook jong man]

Nope, The whole point of ninpo (and the difference with e.g. jujutsu styles) are the underlying concepts, and not the techniques. And this is true for most koryu. The concepts are everything.

Strength is important in all arts, but not more so than biomechanics, leverage, positioning etc. Even pro wrestling (which I have classified as a martial art) relies on positioning and biomechanics, rather than just strength.

So whoever was telling you that has been drinking too much of the CMA koolaid.

Well I told him that so it must of been me drinking the Kool aid , what ever the hell that is .
I'm Australian we drink beer and **** loads of it.

What I was trying to say is that the art of Wing Chun was allegedly founded by a Buddhist nun , who was already proficient in several forms of Kung Fu.

But she found that as a women they relied too much on brute strength , so she streamlined the existing knowledge into the art known as Wing Chun eliminating all unnecessary movement and exertion.

In the Tsui Seung Tin lineage that I am from Sigung Tsui advocates that relaxed muscles can tolerate greater external loads than tense muscles .

Thus the reason that all techniques are to be executed without muscular effort relying on the angles of the arms , the skeletal structure , the stance and in the latter phases of training the mind is used to energise and stabilise defensive and attacking structures.

Now whether we as juniors in Wing Chun can achieve this at our level is another thing , but it is something we strive for , keeping in mind that Sigung Tsui thinks anyone under ten years training is still a beginner in Wing Chun.

I truly believe that Wing Chun is an art in which a woman can reach parity with a man in fighting ability because of this emphasis on relaxation and structure , and not using strength.

Having done some chi sau sparring with one of Sigungs top female students this was confirmed for me especially being helpless against an onslaught of punches that were coming in at about six or seven punches a second , now I am not slow either , she was a little taller , but her biceps were smaller than my wrists , and when you touched hands with her you would swear to god she was about 30 or 40 kg heavier than what she was.

She had this power because she was trained in the Hong Kong method where chi sau is practiced for five hours at a time , stance is worked to death , and deep relaxation of the relevant muscle groups is cultivated.

If thats the kool aid give it to me by the bucket load I say.

 

[WC_lun]

Which is it? You say that you can't speak for all styles, but you seem pretty comfortable doing just that, albeit in a very nonspecific, abstract manner. Perhaps if you were a little more specific, someone on the board with direct experience with that style could elaborate. You mention kicking and punching, so clearly you have a striking art in mind. TKD? Karate? Muay Thai? Are any of these trained in a monkey see/monkey do manner?

In your experience, which martial artists train in a monkey see, monkey do manner? How is this different from what you do? Do new students in Wing Chun not functionally mimic their teachers?

You seem to want to make this a style vs style arguement. This style does this, while that style does not. With such a varying degree in which different schools within the same style train, this is impossible. Good Wing Chun focuses on concepts and principles so the student understands the art, and fighting in general, well enough to actively learn and adapt in any given situation. I have seen bad Wing Chun though, which does not do this. So I can't say all Wing Chun trains in concepts and principles, no more than I can say any other style does or does not. What I can do, is look at a way a particular person trains or have a conversation with them to see thier understanding and then form an opinion on if they get the concepts and principles of thier art.

If the underlying fighting concepts and principles of a style are solid, the "style" doesn't matter. That is just the flavoring to the training. The human body can only move in so many ways so it isn't like a fighting arts are going to vary widly in how to address that.

 

[ATC]

I don't agree with this. While all arts are based upon certain concepts, not all schools train the concepts. If you do not know what the concepts you are training, how do you know you are adhering to them? Training technique does not equate to understanding what you are training. Yes, technique training is important, because we must all start somewhere, but if you know the concepts underlying the technique, the techniques themselves don't mean as much anymore.

A kick is a technique. A good kick follows certain concepts that make it "good." If you don't know what concepts those are, how do you know if your kick is good. How do you make your kick better? Yes, your instructor can show you a good kick, but if he can't show you why its a good kick it is just a game of monkey see, monkey do.

The "spin" I see normally is martial artist who train in this monkey see, monkey do manner, but do not want to admit to it. It becomes very apparent when you talk to one of the people because they can't understand anything beyong the techniques they have memorized.

See now you have spun what I stated. You, for some reason, have added to what I said. Don't add to what was stated, this is when things change.

Your first statement in bold is exactly what I said. The rest is your add on.

Any school or person can deviate from the concepts, and as I stated if you do this you have something different, not what the art was intended to be.

So in actuality you do agree with me by your own first statement. The rest of what you state is just validation of what happens if you deviate from the concepts or mimic the techniques used in practicing the concepts without understanding the why or the concepts.

 

[Steve]

You seem to want to make this a style vs style arguement.

not at all. If anything, my agenda is that the foundation behind every style is functionally the same. The genesis of this was a discussion in the WC area, and so far WC students have been the most vocal. I'm asking questions and hoping for answers.

This style does this, while that style does not.

Not so at all. More like, "This style alleges this, what style doesn't?"

With such a varying degree in which different schools within the same style train, this is impossible.

Ahh. That's just the thing. Specific techniques might be different, but largely, my belief is that the differences are largely superficial and more to do with the culture of the style and how it's trained than any of the actual underlying principles.

Good Wing Chun focuses on concepts and principles so the student understands the art, and fighting in general, well enough to actively learn and adapt in any given situation. I have seen bad Wing Chun though, which does not do this. So I can't say all Wing Chun trains in concepts and principles, no more than I can say any other style does or does not. What I can do, is look at a way a particular person trains or have a conversation with them to see thier understanding and then form an opinion on if they get the concepts and principles of thier art.

If the underlying fighting concepts and principles of a style are solid, the "style" doesn't matter. That is just the flavoring to the training. The human body can only move in so many ways so it isn't like a fighting arts are going to vary widly in how to address that.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. Exactly! So, the question I asked earlier is which styles train in a monkey see, monkey do manner? I can't think of one. Individual schools? Maybe some do in every style. But I can't think of one style that teaches this way as a matter of policy.

 

[Steve]

Well I told him that so it must of been me drinking the Kool aid , what ever the hell that is .
I'm Australian we drink beer and **** loads of it.

Drinking the koolaid is a reference to Jim Jones and the mass suicide by him and his followers of the People's Temple in the late 70s. The adults made poisoned Koolaid, gave it to the children first, and then drank it themselves. Over 900 people died, including Jim Jones himself. It's a common reference to someone blindly accepting questionable information, or is just out and out brainwashed.

 

[Steve]

When it comes to an art such as Wing Chun, while all arts are based in the concepts that structure the systems themselves, they demonstrate and transmit them in different ways (Koryu kata transmitting the concepts by maintaining the methods that best encapsulate them, for example, which may be seen as being based more in "technique", although that really is missing why the training is the way it is). Wing Chun, due to it's guiding philosophy, has it's training methodologies dictated by that philosophy, and that philosophy says that the art is taught by constantly new expressions of it's concepts.

Now, another thing that may be confusing some is actually the very idea of these "concepts". I think a number of people are mistaking "concepts" with "strategies and tactics". For Wing Chun, the strategy (overall plan) is to survive/succeed/overwhelm with the concepts of the art. The tactics (methods used to achieve the strategy) include the physical techniques, such as Pak Sao, Bong Sau, Lap Sao, chain punching etc. These are not concepts, they are tactics. The concepts give rise to them, but they are not the concepts themselves.

So to say that Wing Chun teaches by concepts rather than techniques, making it unique, is completely accurate. Other arts certainly have concepts unique to them within their teachings, and concepts that help govern what those arts do, but the teaching methodologies (rising from the underlying philosophy) of these other arts are very different to the conceptual base of Wing Chun.

I'm trying to understand here. WC has concepts, and all styles have concepts. WC has strategies and tactics that are derived from the concepts. But then you acknowledge that all styles have this, but WC is then unique.... Can you be a little more specific? I'm a bear of very little brain. I'm just having some trouble following the logic.

 

[fighter_x]

I'm fairly sure that the idea of concepts touches every style. Each style developed had a vision on how to best defend yourself. I can imagine that the founders would then try to conceptualize a path to that vision, formulating several concepts to reach their specific goals. After hammering out a conceptual foundation, techniques were introduced and tested through trial and error to gauge if they fit in to the scheme of the concepts. Most of the techniques,as well as the concepts were likely based on life experience, or the instruction they may have received before creating their own style. Armed now with techniques, strategies were considered to enhance the potential for success of the techniques, and by nature this led to the development of tactics to support the strategy. Of course the last level if you will, is innovation and evolution. As the times change there are scientific breakthroughs, societal changes, and ongoing experiences that alter and change the original concepts. This is how it should be change is inevitable.

Still, I think every style at its birth had a vision, a concept or concepts, techniques, strategy, and tactics. Looking at them from this perspective offers more similarities among styles than differences.