The problem With practicing WC and other arts...

[geezer]

"The Chinese more like the culture, the philosophy, tend to generalization. When we do the Wing Chun and you sit on the stance, in foreign countries westerner or America they would say, oh forty-five degree or twenty-two point five degree…. Actually the degrees are some reference. Which is the reference…. When we learned, we never learnt degree. We just learned we have to lead the attack to the shoulder. We generalize like that

Another example is the stance. We say ninety ten. Ten percent of the weight is on the front leg. Or ninety percent is on the rear. Some say no it should be fifty-fifty. Or it should be seventy thirty. Dwell in the numbers… the figures!

Actually in our time we learned never to say numbers or figures. We just have to sit in the stance, we have to ba able to lift our front leg without moving the body.

So I understand the western mentality is to be analytical. Shall I face there? Is the degree 45? Or shall I face there?

No, it’s fighting and it is not concerned about the angles. Once we get it… it goes to the shoulder! I lead it to the empty. That will serve the purpose already."

--Sifu Donald Mak; Wing Chun – A Documentary. Empty Mind Films


I suppose this quote by Sifu Donald Mak may be somewhat true in a very broad sense, but like all generalizations, it can't be taken too far. in my case, it was my Chinese Sifu from Hong Kong who insisted that in his "WT" be trained with exactly 100% of the weight on the rear leg, that in stance turning, the feet turn precisely 45 degrees, and so forth. He used to get quite impatient with those who took a more relaxed attitude about any of the movements, as some of his American students were inclined to do.

Now on the other hand, this sifu's German branch was known for being even more hyper-technical. They analyzed and systematized the training to an even more extreme degree than the Chinese branch. I guess that would fit into the stereotype of the Western analytic outlook, and certainly with the stereotype we have of "Germanic culture". Still, it probably has more to do with the leadership of their organization. There are other German WC clubs in other lineages that have very different reputations.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I suppose this quote by Sifu Donald Mak may be somewhat true in a very broad sense, but like all generalizations, it can't be taken too far. in my case, it was my Chinese Sifu from Hong Kong who insisted that in his "WT" be trained with exactly 100% of the weight on the rear leg, that in stance turning, the feet turn precisely 45 degrees, and so forth. He used to get quite impatient with those who took a more relaxed attitude about any of the movements, as some of his American students were inclined to do.

Now on the other hand, this sifu's German branch was known for being even more hyper-technical. They analyzed and systematized the training to an even more extreme degree than the Chinese branch. I guess that would fit into the stereotype of the Western analytic outlook, and certainly with the stereotype we have of "Germanic culture". Still, it probably has more to do with the leadership of their organization. There are other German WC clubs in other lineages that have very different reputations.

It may best be described as lack of compartmentalization but actually generalization is very true as it is described by Donald Mak for a whole lot more than Martial Arts in China both north and south, you can find it in all sorts of things, much more than here in the USA, but not 100% of Chinese or Chinese sifus think that way. Almost everything I have read about Xingyiquan from old books and most new books rarely talks about percentage or degrees but the santi shi stance is best described that way. Also one of the newer books, by Di Gouyong (which I like) is heavy on weight percentage and degrees of bend. My Yang sifu (Hong Kong) could not care less about such things, my Sanda sifu (Harbin) does not care about them either (however he did use numbers...500 kicks per leg per day..hit the tree 300 times per side... :anic:.) and I do not think it is all that important to Chen Zhanglei (Henan Chenjiagou) either. And from what I can tell Fak Tak Ling (Hong Kong - Wing Chun) does not care about them, but I could be wrong there I have never meant him, just his students and my first Wing Chun sifu (American, student of Ip Ching) never talked about percentages or degrees but I did not really learn more that Siu Lim Tao so he may talk about them to those more advanced than me. But none of this means that all sifus in China think this way. This is also not to say that they will not adopt our way of thinking, when teaching us, to get the message across if need be. It also does not mean looking at in percentages and angles is wrong, it does imply that we may be over thinking it though.

Understand translating from Chinese to English sometimes get messed up even by the Chinese person speaking English (I hear it all the time in my own home) so it is possible the term generalization may not have been the best one to use for what he was trying to say but then, maybe it was exactly what he was trying to say.

 

[mook jong man]

I reckon western Wing Chun instructors have to use more descriptive language , because they don't seem to be as hands on.
My Chinese master would say " If someone try to hit you like this then you do this ".
There wasn't a real big discussion of the mechanical aspects of the technique at all for the most part.

Probably because he would physically put his hands on you and put your arms in the correct position , touch your back to straighten it etc.
He was always touching your shoulder or quadriceps to see how relaxed you were and physically setting up your stance as you were doing the technique.
So that you were in no doubt where your arms were supposed to be or how straight your back was.

Western instructors don't seem to be as touchy feely as Chinese ones , they will demo the technique on you so you can feel it , but the Chinese ones will demo the technique and also put their hands on you and run you through the movement.

 

[Danny T]

I reckon western Wing Chun instructors have to use more descriptive language , because they don't seem to be as hands on.
My Chinese master would say " If someone try to hit you like this then you do this ".
There wasn't a real big discussion of the mechanical aspects of the technique at all for the most part.

Probably because he would physically put his hands on you and put your arms in the correct position , touch your back to straighten it etc.
He was always touching your shoulder or quadriceps to see how relaxed you were and physically setting up your stance as you were doing the technique.
So that you were in no doubt where your arms were supposed to be or how straight your back was.

Western instructors don't seem to be as touchy feely as Chinese ones , they will demo the technique on you so you can feel it , but the Chinese ones will demo the technique and also put their hands on you and run you through the movement.

Mook, Sounds a lot like my instructor. (he is from Hong Kong under Jiu Wan)
He would put me in place, apply pressure and his explainations were usually, "do this" or "feel this? Now you do it".
When doing a demo, he would say thing like: "at this moment he punches like this, you do like this" or "you move like this". "you have to feel then you will understand. It doesn't matter with I tell you or show you. When you feel, you will know."

 

[arnisador]

I reckon western Wing Chun instructors have to use more descriptive language , because they don't seem to be as hands on.
My Chinese master would say " If someone try to hit you like this then you do this ".
There wasn't a real big discussion of the mechanical aspects of the technique at all for the most part.

Probably because he would physically put his hands on you and put your arms in the correct position , touch your back to straighten it etc.
He was always touching your shoulder or quadriceps to see how relaxed you were and physically setting up your stance as you were doing the technique.
So that you were in no doubt where your arms were supposed to be or how straight your back was.

Western instructors don't seem to be as touchy feely as Chinese ones , they will demo the technique on you so you can feel it , but the Chinese ones will demo the technique and also put their hands on you and run you through the movement.

This reminds me of similar experiences in karate, esp. w.r.t. Sanchin--American instructors using measurements to tell me where I should be, and Japanese instructors moving me to where they wanted me to be.

 

[rickster]

Its a no brainer and/or no wonder why JKD can accept WT...:headbangin::headbangin:

 

[Xue Sheng]

Its a no brainer and/or no wonder why JKD can accept WT...:headbangin::headbangin:

Yeah, except the guy I briefly trained JKD with (student of Jerry Poteet and Lamar Davis) thought you needed Wing Chun or Jun Fan for a solid foundatoin to really understand JKD. He actually thought Wing Chun was pretty good.

 

[Danny T]

JKD 'can accept' wing chun!! There is no accepting wing chun in JKD; wing chun is the foundation of Jan Fan which is a major foundation of JKD. Wing Chun, Boxing, and Fencing are the cornerstones to learn and understand the JKD Framework (where the guiding principles were developed and understood)

It is not until AFTER this framework is ingrained through training that the practitioner then utilizes the JKD framework along with any techniques from any other style or system to construct their personal system (their personal JKD). JKD is not just a bunch of techniques one likes that are thrown together but ones used through the understanding of the framework of JKD: which wing chun is a large part of.

 

[Thunder Foot]

And yet I've seen aspects of WC integrated well and successfully into JKD. It isn't WC and doesn't use anything like the WC strategy but you can take some techniques and ideas and, with though, practice, and care, work them into something else. After all, WC came from earlier arts too.

Arnisador,
I respectfully disagree with "not using anything like WC strategy". There is actually heavy WC strategy in JKD, the core JKD principles are all WC... save being "non-classical" which is where JKD starts its individualistic beginnings. In addition WC wasnt integrated into JKD, as that was its starting point; foundation of the art, as I`m sure you already knew.

That aside, i believe i understand the essence of your point made. I agree, perfection isn't required BUT is certainly recommended. There will always be exceptions where bad technique will and can work. I would be hard pressed however to find a situation where proper tech could not do the job as effeciently if not better than the compromised version (your "foot up" haymaker analogy). And I believe the folks in response may also be of similar thought.
Bruce called it "formless form". The objective being perfect execution of the form, and its within that mastery of such that we understand the many variations in which we can execute. Eventually we come to simply "doing it" as the situation demands no longer needing to rely on perfect form. Yet in still it begins and ends with the form because we simply "do" it. Just some thoughts.

 

[arnisador]

I think we largely agree! The WC approach is important in JKD but other strategies are used too--it's switching between them that's the key.

 

[cwk]

wow. good thread, can't believe I missed it all. Good points made on all sides.
Just Like to say that I've cross trained in a number of arts and found that the easiest to integrate, for me anyway, was muay thai.
I trained it here in Thailand where there is a stronger emphasis on clinching because of the rule set. I was lucky to be training at a gym with top level fighters ( lumpinee and ratchadamnoen champions among them) and through clinch training with them I learned that some of those boys have sensitivity that would put some WC guys to shame. I learned a lot from that training and have integrated some of the clinch work and sweeps into my own personal fighting style. I've been playing with flowing in and out of chi sao range and clinch range and I'm happy with it.
But I understand where some of you guys are coming from, if you don't have a solid foundation in WC to start with it could mess with your mechanics if you train something that deviated away from the WC mechanics/principles.
just my tuppence worth

 

[Xue Sheng]

Arnisador,
I respectfully disagree with "not using anything like WC strategy". There is actually heavy WC strategy in JKD, the core JKD principles are all WC... save being "non-classical" which is where JKD starts its individualistic beginnings. In addition WC wasnt integrated into JKD, as that was its starting point; foundation of the art, as I`m sure you already knew.

That aside, i believe i understand the essence of your point made. I agree, perfection isn't required BUT is certainly recommended. There will always be exceptions where bad technique will and can work. I would be hard pressed however to find a situation where proper tech could not do the job as effeciently if not better than the compromised version (your "foot up" haymaker analogy). And I believe the folks in response may also be of similar thought.
Bruce called it "formless form". The objective being perfect execution of the form, and its within that mastery of such that we understand the many variations in which we can execute. Eventually we come to simply "doing it" as the situation demands no longer needing to rely on perfect form. Yet in still it begins and ends with the form because we simply "do" it. Just some thoughts.

Agreed

And I have no way of verifying this but according to Kong Chi Keung (Ip Man >> Au Chi Sing >> Kong Chi Keung) who is a Wing Chun Sifu in Hong Kong who also studied JKD, His JKD teacher told him that Bruce Lee had said that JKD was basically high level Wing Chun

 

[mook jong man]

Agreed

And I have no way of verifying this but according to Kong Chi Keung (Ip Man >> Au Chi Sing >> Kong Chi Keung) who is a Wing Chun Sifu in Hong Kong who also studied JKD, His JKD teacher told him that Bruce Lee had said that JKD was basically high level Wing Chun

We were always told that JKD was just Wing Chun on the side.

 

[WC_lun]

I have to disagree with JKD being high level WC. Remember that Bruce Lee did not progress past an intermediate level of Wing Chun. I am not denigrating JKD. It is valid and has some great stuff to it. It also shares a lot with Wing Chun, but it is not high level Wing Chun...at least not the high level Wing Chun I have experienced. It is quite different in the operation at higher levels.

 

[mook jong man]

I have to disagree with JKD being high level WC. Remember that Bruce Lee did not progress past an intermediate level of Wing Chun. I am not denigrating JKD. It is valid and has some great stuff to it. It also shares a lot with Wing Chun, but it is not high level Wing Chun...at least not the high level Wing Chun I have experienced. It is quite different in the operation at higher levels.

From what I've read I don't think he even got up to learning Chum Kiu did he?

 

[WC_lun]

From what I've read I don't think he even got up to learning Chum Kiu did he?

Not that I have seen, though it looks like he had some experience with chi sau.

For those not in Wing Chun, Chum Kiu is the form one needs to be proficient in the be considered intermediate level for most schools. It is Wing Chun's second of three empty handed forms.

 

[Xue Sheng]

From what I've read I don't think he even got up to learning Chum Kiu did he?

There are those that say he didn't and those that say he did but I have never heard anyone worth listening to say he learned Biu Jee

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have to disagree with JKD being high level WC. Remember that Bruce Lee did not progress past an intermediate level of Wing Chun. I am not denigrating JKD. It is valid and has some great stuff to it. It also shares a lot with Wing Chun, but it is not high level Wing Chun...at least not the high level Wing Chun I have experienced. It is quite different in the operation at higher levels.

No one here is saying it is, there is simply a reference that Bruce Lee may have said it was which is only to show that there is a possibility that the Founder of JKD would not agree with what some say as it applies to Wing Chun not being important to JKD

 

[Flying Crane]

WC is not a collection of techniques strewn together and called a system.
It isn't even techniques as much as its techniques are a physical manifestation of WC principles at work.

funny, I've been using almost this exact language in describing Tibetan White Crane, and the importance of understaning the principles that drive the system, rather than just collecting the techniques.

This discussion isn't really about Wing Chun and other arts. Rather, it's really about practicing multiple arts, or mixing various arts together. There's a similar discussion going on over on Kenpotalk as well.

The issue to me is this: a well-designed system should have an underlying methodology that drives everything. Understanding how that works, and working to develop skill thru that methodology is what is important. I think a lot of people don't understand this, and instead they just look at the techniques and collect techniques. If that is how you look at the big picture, then you will be inclined to believe that you can just do that: collect techniques from where ever, and mix it all together and it'll be fine. THe problem lies in conflicting methodologies that may reside in different systems. The methodology gives you an approach to training and a consistency in how you do everything, no matter what technique you are doing. If you try to simultaneously practice several systems that each have a different underlying methodology, then you will have problems. If you punch in X sytem, and punch in Y system, and punch in Z system, but each system differs in how it teaches you to harness the power of the body to deliver that punch, then you are always kinda fighting yourself because you keep jumping from X to Y to Z methodology, instead of staying focused on one method and excelling at that.

The end result of the punch in X and Y and Z systems may all be the same, but the road you take in practicing each of them may be different, and that's where it's a waste of your time if you are trying to pursue them all.

It is possible to mix things, or practice more than one system at a time. But I think you need to be careful of what you mix and make sure it isn't creating a conflict in the methodology. If you just collect techniques and don't consider the underlying methodology, then your mix is likely to be dysfunctional and even schitzophrenic. And it's really really really easy to clutter your curriculum with junk that doesn't fit well with what you are doing, and you really do not need in the first place.

 

[Flying Crane]

Some additional thoughts:

I've seen people do the forms in my system, without any understanding of the underlying methodology. They were taught the forms more from a "collection" approach to learning. There was no teaching of the fundamentals and basics, as they are done in my system. Just the choreography of the form itself.

It's easy to tell when that was done, because even tho the choreography is "correct", everything about HOW it is being done is wrong. The rooting and stances and rotation and delivery of technique is all wrong. It's just some guy waving his arms about in imitation of our system. And as a tool for practicing and developing skill, it makes the form worthless.

I admit: I was guilty of that for a long time, as I also failed to properly understand the fundamentals. The instruction I was getting wasn't adequate in that regard. Once I got the necessary instruction, it changed everything. Nothing about how I practice my forms is the same as it was, even tho the choreography hasn't changed.

that's what happens when you just collect things. On the surface, it looks "right", but underneath it all, there's nothing driving it properly. It's like putting a lawn mower engine in a Ferrarri. It looks good sitting in the driveway, but as soon as you take it out for a drive you realize something isn't right about this.