"Wing Chun" as an Adjective vs Noun

[Xue Sheng]

I agree with that. Don't really know that the history is accurate, honestly can't say it is. Just dumping what was shared with me out so that we can have this conversation. Also appreciate that the story is shared as anecdotal in large part to just help explain the need for some of the principles of the art.

I think it's really liberating that we don't really know. It gives us some license to experiment with it and make it what we feel is most effective for us. There is something really beautiful about that.

I don't believe the art ever took the scientific method into account. I imagine not given its rediscovery/refinement in Western Europe. The same thing with other useful concepts like music notation, in particular rhythmic. I mention this in part because things like "proof by authority is meaningless" are useful concepts for making sure you dig to understand the logical physics-based proof for why what you're doing works to its most granular units of expression.

Rhythmic notation can be super useful too. For example, if we're talking about landing the foot just after the impact of a punch (I know there are different takes on this but bare with me) we can talk about the time in between the punch and the foot landing as being an 8th note. Then we can practice reducing time by decreasing length to a 16th note punch, 32nd note punch..., 64th note punch..., etc. That we ultimately want the time in between to approach 0 but that the punch land before the step (same could be said the other way around - foot landing before the punch).

I had a xingyiquan shifu who was also a musician and he taught things rhythmically. Also liked to watch his opponent and figure out their rhythm....and then attack on the off beat.

Experimentation within an art is a good thing, but if you want to keep the same name, IMO, you need to keep the basic structure of that art. Also take into account there are things that do not work today because of changes in other types of fighting and there are those things that do not work today because people do not take the time they need to better understand the art. Sometimes that is due to people being impatient, sometimes it is due to the fact that life is a whole lot faster paced today than it was a 100 years ago in China

 

[lansao]

I had a xingyiquan shifu who was also a musician and he taught things rhythmically. Also liked to watch his opponent and figure out their rhythm....and then attack on the off beat.

Experimentation within an art is a good thing, but if you want to keep the same name, IMO, you need to keep the basic structure of that art. Also take into account there are things that do not work today because of changes in other types of fighting and there are those things that do not work today because people do not take the time they need to better understand the art. Sometimes that is due to people being impatient, sometimes it is due to the fact that life is a whole lot faster paced today than it was a 100 years ago in China

Funny you say that. I feel like we keep the foundations largely the same. Rarely is there a need to calibrate but when there is we take the liberty. That said we do use the language/syntax it gives us to design counters to new offensive movements introduced by other arts.

So if we needed to design a response to a BJJ shoot-in, it would be good to know in detail how they work and what their objective is, and then ask how we can defend against it in a way that avoids force against force, simplifies/unifies movement, incorporates deflection or a strike, and leaves us in an advantageous position.

But I feel like to understand that we need to go and train with BJJ pros, fail, get back up and ask why we failed, work on a counter, then test that counter over and over again until it’s calibrated enough to introduce to the art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Hey everybody, hope this doesn't come across as heresy, but wanted to share a perspective I've more and more been leaning into. That is of treating the phrase "Wing Chun" as an adjective as in addition to as a noun. The way I've understood Wing Chun, and I believe many of you have too, is as a principle based art that selects for movement based on a set of criteria. If a movement meets that criteria, then it is Wing Chun. If it doesn't, then it's not.

This leads me to look at the phrase "Wing Chun" as a filter on movement (or adjective for movement) as well as the name of an art in an interchangeable way. You can watch a UFC fight, or boxing match, and if a movement follows the criteria, say something like "that was some good Wing Chun right there."

I feel like this is how Wing Chun stays fresh and the blades stay sharp. Improving the criteria over time to optimize for best performance. Eliminating movements that don't fit that criteria or train the right habits to support those movements. Assessing other arts for movements that can have Wing Chun principles applied to them and feeling comfortable adopting them into the art with proper attribution.

It's important to give credit where due in terms of where movement originated. For example, an arm bar from Jiu Jitsu, or a redirection from Aikido should have attribution so that when you're teaching it as part of Wing Chun, we know where it came from. But then, after applying WC principles, feel comfortable saying "this movement is Wing Chun."

Anyone else share this perspective?

As usual, I've shown up with no WC knowledge to post about a WC topic. Enjoy!

This is the same approach I take with what I teach. If it fits the principles ("criteria") of my curriculum, it can be part of my curriculum. I often reference other arts in doing so, but after a point, it's just a technique. So, I might introduce "a Boxing-inspired jab", but after I teach it a couple of times, it's just "a jab". Why? Because at some point, it needs to stop being separate. So, if you found a way to incorporate the direct entering version of our Unbendable Arm classical technique, you might teach it initially as "this comes from NGA's Unbendable Arm". But at some point, if it's working well for you and your students, it should become part of WC by naming. Whether that means just dropping the "this comes from NGA's", or actually finding a suitable WC-ish name for it (probably by using one of your standard arm positions and whatever term you use for entering toward center), it should stop being an NGA technique and start being a WC technique.

(Almost entirely unrelated note - about half the time I type "WC" my mind goes back to French, where that would be the borrowed term to refer to the "water closet" or restroom. Makes me giggle, because I'm obviously still 12 years old.)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I get what you are saying and I've heard the term "Kung Fu" used that way, not just with fighting,but with...closing a sale or making a bowl of noodles.

It doesn't seem right to me, though to watch a boxing match and say "that was good Wing Chun". That person trained as a boxer, I don't want to take credit for their skill by associating it with what I do.

Wing Chun stays fresh because we train it and apply it, not because we try to make it something else. Conversely, I don't want to claim that other things are Wing Chun.

But I get what you're saying, even if I wouldn't say it.

I took it more as watching that same boxing and saying "That'd make good Wing Chun."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Then that, IMHO, becomes something else....see Jeet Kune Do for example

I agree it eventually does. The question is at what point? How much does the content have to change for it not to be WC? One technique clearly isn't enough. Certainly neither is two. 100 is more than enough to say it's different.

Of course, if the entire art were to accept (over time) 50 new techniques into it, we'd just see it as the progression of the art. If one school integrates 50 new techniques (and no others do), they're probably not actually doing what's recognized as WC any more, and ought to give it a new name to avoid confusion.

 

[lansao]

As usual, I've shown up with no WC knowledge to post about a WC topic. Enjoy!

This is the same approach I take with what I teach. If it fits the principles ("criteria") of my curriculum, it can be part of my curriculum. I often reference other arts in doing so, but after a point, it's just a technique. So, I might introduce "a Boxing-inspired jab", but after I teach it a couple of times, it's just "a jab". Why? Because at some point, it needs to stop being separate. So, if you found a way to incorporate the direct entering version of our Unbendable Arm classical technique, you might teach it initially as "this comes from NGA's Unbendable Arm". But at some point, if it's working well for you and your students, it should become part of WC by naming. Whether that means just dropping the "this comes from NGA's", or actually finding a suitable WC-ish name for it (probably by using one of your standard arm positions and whatever term you use for entering toward center), it should stop being an NGA technique and start being a WC technique.

(Almost entirely unrelated note - about half the time I type "WC" my mind goes back to French, where that would be the borrowed term to refer to the "water closet" or restroom. Makes me giggle, because I'm obviously still 12 years old.)

Very cool. I feel like remembering where the movement came from is useful for remembering the context for it’s application. To know something came from BJJ out of a need to defend against a particular set of movements, etc.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Eh, that sounds like a very eclectic Wing Chun approach though honestly. I am reminded of some of the WSL guys who used to frequent this forum who used to espouse their philosophy that (and I am generously paraphrasing here) - WC/VT is a very specific tool, and should remain so, not have lots of things added to it and overcomplicate it. It was a very narrow view but I had a hard time disagreeing with them. WC/VT/WT is a very specific way of fighting, like a very sharp knife which can cut many ways, not a jumbo swiss army knife.

People will always be eclectic in how they fight, incorporating anything and everything they have learned, but if Wing Chun is a coherent system, seems like it makes sense to leave it that way.

I think I will agree with you that Wing Chun can spill over into regular (i.e. non-fighting) life though. Important maxims like "When the way is clear, move forward" and "If you meet a greater force, give way". Can't count how many times those reminders have come to mind in situations that had absolutely nothing to do with physical fighting.

I can't agree at all with that view of any art, except where the limitation is inherent in the focus. A sword art could reasonable say "we don't do ground grappling - that's not swordwork". And I could even see someone who sees WC as strikes-only (clearly there are many who don't see it that way) saying "we don't do groundwork - that's grappling". But, if WC (and that's a difficult term to refer to - so many difference within that grouping) contains a leg trip throw (don't know if it does, so just play along - there are plenty of other techniques we could use as examples), it's a small step to both a leg sweep and a hip throw, if those fit the basic movement principles (at least one of them probably doesn't, but you get the point). So, if they're similar in principle, are you really adding anything? The individual techniques are never actually the art - the principles are. The techniques are how an art is taught/learned, and in the "grey areas" between those techniques are a bunch of similar techniques that apply the principles a bit differently.

 

[now disabled]

The techniques are how an art is taught/learned, and in the "grey areas" between those techniques are a bunch of similar techniques that apply the principles a bit differently.

Firstly I know nothing about wing chun so I cannot and will not make commen

However the part I have quoted from @gpseymour post makes a heck of a lot of sense, as he said techniques are how any art is taught and learned (in fact in life everything is learned by technique basically) to me I would add that to the grey areas as in you can have a very gifted teacher who is technically excellent and can execute all the techs etc to me where a great teacher emerges is in the grey area as he/she has to be able to breakdown the techs and any similarities between same in a way that is understandable to students and that may have to be more than one way (not everyone gets it first time) and let them see that although things look very similar they are different but also that in reality things from one can be combined into or flow through another.

The key is in the grey area and in that thereby lies the competent from the good from the great teacher and that is where maybe things do get confused or muddied

 

[PiedmontChun]

I can't agree at all with that view of any art, except where the limitation is inherent in the focus. A sword art could reasonable say "we don't do ground grappling - that's not swordwork". And I could even see someone who sees WC as strikes-only (clearly there are many who don't see it that way) saying "we don't do groundwork - that's grappling". But, if WC (and that's a difficult term to refer to - so many difference within that grouping) contains a leg trip throw (don't know if it does, so just play along - there are plenty of other techniques we could use as examples), it's a small step to both a leg sweep and a hip throw, if those fit the basic movement principles (at least one of them probably doesn't, but you get the point). So, if they're similar in principle, are you really adding anything? The individual techniques are never actually the art - the principles are. The techniques are how an art is taught/learned, and in the "grey areas" between those techniques are a bunch of similar techniques that apply the principles a bit differently.

Yes! In the end, the principles of the system are what define it, not the techniques. I agree with you and that's actually where I am coming from, even if we seem to disagree.

Would Akido have a technique such as a right jab feint to distract an opponent, followed by a left hooking punch to the liver? I don't know much about Aikido but my suspicion would be that it does not have such a technique. Why? Because it is likely out of step, or does not harmonize with underlying Aikido principles or strategy. I think the same analogy applies to WC, or can apply to it. If something does not fit coherently into the system, it might still be a valid technique, but it might be better viewed as distinct from the WC system, rather than try and make it a part of the WC system.

 

[geezer]

...Almost entirely unrelated note - about half the time I type "WC" my mind goes back to French, where that would be the borrowed term to refer to the "water closet" or restroom. Makes me giggle, because I'm obviously still 12 years old.

Yeah, the late GM Yip Man made the same association with that term "WC" referring to the restroom, what with Hong Kong being a British colony and all, which is purportedly why he started using the English spelling "Ving Chun" or "VT" instead. Later Leung Ting adopted his "WT" spelling, partly to distinguish his personal version of the style, and also to avoid the "WC/Water Closet" connection as well!

 

[geezer]

Yeah, the late GM Yip Man made the same association with that term "WC" referring to the restroom, what with Hong Kong being a British colony and all, which is purportedly why he started using the English spelling "Ving Chun" or "VT" instead. Later Leung Ting adopted his "WT" spelling, partly to distinguish his personal version of the style, and also to avoid the "WC/Water Closet" connection as well!

BTW ...anyone want to cross WC sticky hands? ...didn't think so!

 

[now disabled]

Yes! In the end, the principles of the system are what define it, not the techniques. I agree with you and that's actually where I am coming from, even if we seem to disagree.

Would Akido have a technique such as a right jab feint to distract an opponent, followed by a left hooking punch to the liver? I don't know much about Aikido but my suspicion would be that it does not have such a technique. Why? Because it is likely out of step, or does not harmonize with underlying Aikido principles or strategy. I think the same analogy applies to WC, or can apply to it. If something does not fit coherently into the system, it might still be a valid technique, but it might be better viewed as distinct from the WC system, rather than try and make it a part of the WC system.

It depends totally on the Aikido you choose and how you choose to interpret it and do not get over tied up in what harmonizing means as there most certainly is atemi to anywhere on the body in Aikido and nothing is really out of step.

It is hard to fully explain in words what harmonizing actually means as all the vids you guys watch are mostly demos and well that does give off a somewhat false sense of things but it looks very impressive. Also well without going into it in depth alot of this peace and love thing about Aikido is one misunderstood and well there are reasons for same.

I am only speaking from my Aikido stand point not the NGA style

 

[now disabled]

Oh and if ya think that in a fight if the opponent gave me the opening to jab his kidney then ummm yup i most certainly would lol

 

[lansao]

BTW ...anyone want to cross WC sticky hands? ...didn't think so!

Chi Yuck.

 

[DaveB]

That makes sense. I don’t mean for this to mean we take credit for other arts’ work. I just feel that we should be free to advance the art with contributions from other systems, give them attribution to their source, apply Wing Chun principles, and add them to the system. Not about taking credit at all, but about updating the central library with findings from our environment.

Does wing chun need updating?

Personally I believe the art of wing chun is fine. There may be a case for updating the culture and by extension the training methods traditionally associated with wing chun, but to me this is a different questions than updating the art.

Any update needs a solid reason for being added and the real nature of the problem assessed.

 

[lansao]

Does wing chun need updating?

Personally I believe the art of wing chun is fine. There may be a case for updating the culture and by extension the training methods traditionally associated with wing chun, but to me this is a different questions than updating the art.

Any update needs a solid reason for being added and the real nature of the problem assessed.

I believe it does. Regular review, critique of foundations, assessments of new techniques introduced by other arts, and the development of technique to counter them. Sometimes the updates are as simple as just observing a new aspect of something we already practice. For example, my Si Gung felt the art needed a variant of the hook punch and added what he called our "hook angle side punch." Not a traditional hook but with footwork it cuts about the same angle as one.

How should our footwork evolve to address the increased popularity of BJJ to counter shoot-ins? I keep hearing Wing Chun has no ground work, and sure we'd rather not stay on the ground, but what are the techniques and forms we train to help us get back up in the event that we end up on it? Do we just accept the ground as a blind spot in our training and go elsewhere to learn how to handle that?

 

[now disabled]

Yes! In the end, the principles of the system are what define it, not the techniques. I agree with you and that's actually where I am coming from, even if we seem to disagree.

Would Akido have a technique such as a right jab feint to distract an opponent, followed by a left hooking punch to the liver? I don't know much about Aikido but my suspicion would be that it does not have such a technique. Why? Because it is likely out of step, or does not harmonize with underlying Aikido principles or strategy. I think the same analogy applies to WC, or can apply to it. If something does not fit coherently into the system, it might still be a valid technique, but it might be better viewed as distinct from the WC system, rather than try and make it a part of the WC system.

Also do bear in mind that umm certain pure Aikido techs in reality you have to tweak them ...The principles you learn remain the same it the application that you tweak ... to great examples are kotegaeshi ...the big cicle demo version in reality if you do that will get you a nice smack in the mouth so you tweak it ...small circle and add atemi then it works ...the other easy one is hiji waza as yup in the dojo it will work in reality it won't as your opponent might need "encouraged" to allow you to either break his elbow joint or break it and throw him so you tweak it to gain that opening (ok guys simplistic examples).

So don't think that Aikido won't do something as it will it just comes over to many as it won't lol....also to actually learn the basics does take longer imo and the concepts and I mean dynamics can seem odd until you understand the base it coming from

 

[DaveB]

I believe it does. Regular review, critique of foundations, assessments of new techniques introduced by other arts, and the development of technique to counter them. Sometimes the updates are as simple as just observing a new aspect of something we already practice. For example, my Si Gung felt the art needed a variant of the hook punch and added what he called our "hook angle side punch." Not a traditional hook but with footwork it cuts about the same angle as one.

How should our footwork evolve to address the increased popularity of BJJ to counter shoot-ins? I keep hearing Wing Chun has no ground work, and sure we'd rather not stay on the ground, but what are the techniques and forms we train to help us get back up in the event that we end up on it? Do we just accept the ground as a blind spot in our training and go elsewhere to learn how to handle that?

The questions that needs answering are, why are these things important, and do the principles as they stand provide workable solutions to these questions?

Challenge matches between styles are basically why mma exists, so yes, just do mma and fill in the gaps with other arts that specialise.

The constant Wing chun Fail videos on the Internet don't ever highlight a problem with the art, only with the way the individuals involved have trained. If you only apply footwork to attacks and do nothing for ring craft or distancing, is that the art or your lack of sparring experience?

Similarly if you freeze after your first gloved fist to the face or hold a low guard because you don't know that your not fast enough to coordinate your blocks against a moving opponent, that's on you for living in a combatless bubble.

And any answers to those problems that come from reinterpretation of the core principles is not to my mind a change to the art.

 

[lansao]

The questions that needs answering are, why are these things important, and do the principles as they stand provide workable solutions to these questions?

I don't disagree with that.

Challenge matches between styles are basically why mma exists, so yes, just do mma and fill in the gaps with other arts that specialise.

Agree with this too. Spend time with MMA fighters and learn how to respond to their movements.

The constant Wing chun Fail videos on the Internet don't ever highlight a problem with the art, only with the way the individuals involved have trained. If you only apply footwork to attacks and do nothing for ring craft or distancing, is that the art or your lack of sparring experience?

Similarly if you freeze after your first gloved fist to the face or hold a low guard because you don't know that your not fast enough to coordinate your blocks against a moving opponent, that's on you for living in a combatless bubble.

Agree with this too to some degree although I see a lot of "combatless bubbles" being justified based on principle. Often with excuses centered around Wing Chun being designed for survival versus competition. But I struggle with that a lot.

And any answers to those problems that come from reinterpretation of the core principles is not to my mind a change to the art.

I agree with this the most! The core principles should change way less often than the tapestry of movements that form as a consequence of them. That said, even laws of physics undergo scrutiny, new axioms are introduced in mathematics, and I don't believe our principles should be treated any differently.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Yes! In the end, the principles of the system are what define it, not the techniques. I agree with you and that's actually where I am coming from, even if we seem to disagree.

Would Akido have a technique such as a right jab feint to distract an opponent, followed by a left hooking punch to the liver? I don't know much about Aikido but my suspicion would be that it does not have such a technique. Why? Because it is likely out of step, or does not harmonize with underlying Aikido principles or strategy. I think the same analogy applies to WC, or can apply to it. If something does not fit coherently into the system, it might still be a valid technique, but it might be better viewed as distinct from the WC system, rather than try and make it a part of the WC system.

Ah, stated that way, I agree. I tend to end up integrating more than that, but thay’s my curriculum (my system), not Nihon Goshin Aikido.