what is the real Ving Tsun, Wing Tsun , Wing Chun ?

[Callen1]

How much Wing Tsun is in Jeet kune do?

Bruce Lee developed JKD in the late '60s, coining the name in 1967. WT was formally founded around 1973.

 

[blindsage8 2]

But Leung Ting claimed to be a closed door student of Ip Man but...many dispute his claims

Leung Ting is a legitimate, long time student of Ip Man. There are a number of them. They are all "authentic". That doesn't make them all the same. The "Four Diamonds" of Ip Man's students, Leung Sheung, Wong Sheung Leung, Chu Shong Tin, and Lok Yiu were some of his earliest and most respectied studetns, and their approach, expression and teaching are all different. Other studetns such as Moy Yat, William Cheung, and Leung Ting are also legimate, long time students, and do things differently from all the others. His sons Ip Chun and Ip Ching are also legimate teachers as well. They are not all the same, and there is much debate about which versions are good, or better that others.

Ip Man's system is also only one branch of Wing Chun, and that is his modified interpretation of what he learned from multiple insturctors. So, what is this "real system" you're looking for? Because there is no one, perfected unchanging Wing Chun that is the 'real one', anymore than there is for any other system.

 

[blindsage8 2]

How much Wing Tsun is in Jeet kune do?

There is s good amount of influence from Wing Chung on JKD, but it is only one of a number of influences.

 

[Xue Sheng135 7]

How much Wing Tsun is in Jeet kune do?

Bruce Lee learned Siu nim tau. That pretty much eveyone agrees on. Some say he may have also learend part of or all of Chum kiu. I even read an article several years ago where they claimed he went back and finished the system.

Having done a little JKD, I would definitely say Siu Nim Tau and wooden dummy... anything beyond that is debatable... or arguable.... Also I have read that Bruce Lee's main Wing Chun teacher was Leung Sheung. But I can neither prove or disprove that.

As for Leung Ting, why is this important to you?

 

[_Simon_144 175]

I'll chip in here, probably against my better judgement.
Firstly, the concept of "authenticity" is problematic. Without going into my academic work too much, essentially, what authenticity is depends on what the person asking the question wants to be true. Basically, it's a BS concept that lends something validity based entirely upon subjective expectations and needs.

Authenticity in terms ow Wing Chun?? God knows.

But for me - I do both Yip Man and Sum Nung wing chun.
Yip Man Wing Chun - paired down, accessible, practical and efficient.
Sum Nung Wing Chun - simple but intricately detailed, difficult, practical, murderously effective.

Which one is "Authentic"? Probably both, but I'd also say, probably the Sum Nung stuff.

Very well said, that element of expectation and what one frames as "authentic" is very prominent. I see that alot in the karate world too, the "authentic", "true", "orthodox", "original" lineage..
Seems to be a human proclivity towards having certainty and doing the best or real method. There's no reason why multiple variants of a style can have different benefits and value.

Each stream tends to lean towards one thing or another, and emphasise a particular part of the spectrum of training. I know people want to know that what they're training is... legitimate. But we need to be honest about what we've already preconceived in our minds and what standard we're personally using to judge a style.

 

[isshinryuronin34 34]

Very well said, that element of expectation and what one frames as "authentic" is very prominent. I see that alot in the karate world too, the "authentic", "true", "orthodox", "original" lineage..
Seems to be a human proclivity towards having certainty and doing the best or real method. There's no reason why multiple variants of a style can have different benefits and value.

Each stream tends to lean towards one thing or another, and emphasise a particular part of the spectrum of training. I know people want to know that what they're training is... legitimate. But we need to be honest about what we've already preconceived in our minds and what standard we're personally using to judge a style.

What you say is true, there is a spectrum, but I don't see "original" being as subjective as you hint at. For karate, it's what it was from the early 19th century to the early 20th century. Karate as practiced now can be said to be "authentic" in the sense of that's what it's evolved to become and accepted to be called "karate." It's just a different kind with its own goals and standards.

This evolution to modern karate has its "benefits and value" as you say (not the least of which is the growth and popularity it has allowed), but at a cost of various important elements that defined the original style (as has been discussed in this forum pertaining to sport karate, as one example). It's hard to retain all the old while practicing the new competition-based art as sport requires specialization to be successful at it, meaning one's time is spent on only those things which allow one to win in the ring. But if we lose too much of the roots, the tree eventually becomes weak. Over-specialization has led to the extinction of many species.

As you rightly said, we must be honest with what "type" of karate we practice: Original, modern popular, sport, etc., and be aware of the path we are on, and at least be familiar with the other paths. IMO, all those above 2nd degree should have a good understanding of the art's history and evolution, no matter which path they follow, if they want to be true martial artists.

 

[_Simon_144 175]

What you say is true, there is a spectrum, but I don't see "original" being as subjective as you hint at. For karate, it's what it was from the early 19th century to the early 20th century. Karate as practiced now can be said to be "authentic" in the sense of that's what it's evolved to become and accepted to be called "karate." It's just a different kind with its own goals and standards.

This evolution to modern karate has its "benefits and value" as you say (not the least of which is the growth and popularity it has allowed), but at a cost of various important elements that defined the original style (as has been discussed in this forum pertaining to sport karate, as one example). It's hard to retain all the old while practicing the new competition-based art as sport requires specialization to be successful at it, meaning one's time is spent on only those things which allow one to win in the ring. But if we lose too much of the roots, the tree eventually becomes weak. Over-specialization has led to the extinction of many species.

As you rightly said, we must be honest with what "type" of karate we practice: Original, modern popular, sport, etc., and be aware of the path we are on, and at least be familiar with the other paths. IMO, all those above 2nd degree should have a good understanding of the art's history and evolution, no matter which path they follow, if they want to be true martial artists.

I do agree with you, and I guess I'm more so addressing the need to be training in the "original" or authentic style. Does that actually exist? Like,  actually? Right now? And what does that actually, truly look like? We are all training in particular lineages, streams of styles of old, but it isn't the original. Is it authentic? Again, we'd need to define that, and something tells me people perceptually frame the word authentic as the style being the exact same as it was in its inception. I don't think this is actually possible, and perhaps this perception causes alot of the division within martial arts.

I mean, I've heard people say that "Funakoshi did not allow free sparring and was against it, so we don't." So, to train in authentic Shotokan you shouldn't spar? Things did develop over the years and new methodologies evolved, yet you can still be in a lineage that trains in some or many of the ways they used to. And there were many methods which were simply borderline barbaric, would it be still training in original karate if those methods are no longer practiced?

It's a very interesting topic, and I don't mean to simply relegate "authentic" with just some subjective belief, but there certainly is a prevalence for worshipping and preserving the belief structure surrounding the notion of authentic/real. And even just looking at the question: "Which is the real Wing Chun?" is interesting.

 

[Kung Fu Wang144 175]

Authentic

Is DOS more authentic than Window?

All wrestling came from deer fight. Is deer fight more authentic than wrestling?

 

[isshinryuronin34 34]

I do agree with you, and I guess I'm more so addressing the need to be training in the "original" or authentic style. Does that actually exist? Like,  actually? Right now? And what does that actually, truly look like? We are all training in particular lineages, streams of styles of old, but it isn't the original. Is it authentic? Again, we'd need to define that, and something tells me people perceptually frame the word authentic as the style being the exact same as it was in its inception. I don't think this is actually possible, and perhaps this perception causes alot of the division within martial arts.

I mean, I've heard people say that "Funakoshi did not allow free sparring and was against it, so we don't." So, to train in authentic Shotokan you shouldn't spar? Things did develop over the years and new methodologies evolved, yet you can still be in a lineage that trains in some or many of the ways they used to. And there were many methods which were simply borderline barbaric, would it be still training in original karate if those methods are no longer practiced?

It's a very interesting topic, and I don't mean to simply relegate "authentic" with just some subjective belief, but there certainly is a prevalence for worshipping and preserving the belief structure surrounding the notion of authentic/real. And even just looking at the question: "Which is the real Wing Chun?" is interesting.

Good post. It's not realistic to actually practice true original karate these days, except maybe for a few crazy masochistic guys. We must remember that in the 1800's most practitioners were Okinawan professional warrior types who trained as if their lives depended on it - which it sometimes did. Karate wasn't designed to fight others with the same training. So sparring wasn't really a part of it. Elite military combatants don't spar as in a sport match - they engage in intense two-man drills against (or initiating their own) specific attacks as we think the old karate (toudi) practitioners did. Very little/none was written down regarding their exact methods. But we have some firsthand accounts from those masters born in the mid-late 1800's

What we can continue do is retain the fundamentals of close-in techniques, unique power generation and delivery, not too concerned on how it looks, use of grabbing, joint locks and vital point attacks. To me, this is the essence of authentic Okinawan karate. This later spread to Japan and after that, Korea which modified it into their own "authentic" styles as they diverged from the original Okinawan model.

A lot of this has been passed down thanks to old kata - if they haven't been corrupted by sport, would-be "masters" or poorly trained instructors, or by putting goals other than combat onto them. This is where lineage can be important. The problem is many of these fundamentals that define early self-defense karate have been cast aside in the name of sport and healthy hobby (not bad goals) and commercialism. There are certainly schools and instructors who strive to preserve as much of the old ways as practical, but chances are they're not getting rich from it.

At the end of the day I think there are several karate (and likely true for other TMA) types based on what goals are emphasized and the methods used to achieve those goals. Each can be authentic/real it its own way. I do kata (empty hand and weapons) two ways: Precise, pretty and technical, and a rougher more aggressive version that I think is more representative of the early days of karate (and for me, more fun to do).

 

[Ace-of-Spades7 6]

Is DOS more authentic than Window?

All wrestling came from deer fight. Is deer fight more authentic than wrestling?

Dude...if you don't know, you don't know

 

[Ace-of-Spades7 6]

As for Leung Ting, why is this important to you?

I've just heard a few things about leung ting that suggests a bad character
Also that his WT is inferior to that of say the first generation guys you mentioned

 

[Same Trick89 40]

Is Leung Ting WT authentic?

I understand Leung Ting’s VT branch is quite strong in Germany,, and of course also since long very well established in Hong Kong

 

[Ace-of-Spades7 6]

I understand Leung Ting’s VT branch is quite strong in Germany,, and of course also since long very well established in Hong Kong

Yes he's in Hong Kong

 

[APL7610 1]

Very well said, that element of expectation and what one frames as "authentic" is very prominent. I see that alot in the karate world too, the "authentic", "true", "orthodox", "original" lineage..
Seems to be a human proclivity towards having certainty and doing the best or real method. There's no reason why multiple variants of a style can have different benefits and value.

Each stream tends to lean towards one thing or another, and emphasise a particular part of the spectrum of training. I know people want to know that what they're training is... legitimate. But we need to be honest about what we've already preconceived in our minds and what standard we're personally using to judge a style.

If you were inclined, there's a really good book by a guy called Charles Lindholm called Culture and Authenticity that gives a good account of what Authenticity is in many, if not most, cases.

 

[Same Trick89 40]

Yes he's in Hong Kong

Yes I’ve been to his school, looked quite genuine., actually very much so.

 

[Ace-of-Spades7 6]

Yes I’ve been to his school, looked quite genuine., actually very much so.

was it busy?

 

[Same Trick89 40]

was it busy?

Not when I “accidentally” stepped in there, Leung Ting wasn’t there, a senior student oversaw the activity, school was in an apartment building on 3:d floor(if I remember correct) an apartment redesigned to a wuguan(not room for too many students),it was in the 80’s

 

[Ace-of-Spades7 6]

Not when I “accidentally” stepped in there, Leung Ting wasn’t there, a senior student oversaw the activity, school was in an apartment building on 3:d floor(if I remember correct) an apartment redesigned to a wuguan(not room for too many students),it was in the 80’s

he did build up his Organisation over the years, especially in Europe