Wing Chun Sparring

[Nobody Important]

I am not talking about how it actually works. All martial arts are based on biomechanics and thus science. BUT if you look at the training method... as I elaborated on by breaking down the first three steps, it is. The others often use a more philosophical approach.

How it works is the entire point of my post, practicality, practicality, practicality. Those other arts I listed do not use a philosophical approach. The wording is simply different, they have sound theories on usage.

Well as I said elsewhere, where are our sources for the alleged breakdown? I have seen videos labeled as WC that later after research I verified were not WC at all (simply one example.) Second we are confronted with the idea of was it really a breakdown because at this point there is so much divergence between some lineages that I have seen people say "that wasn't WC..." or "their structure broke down.." only to see another reliable person say "that is what my lineage looks like." Hell I have had people say just the BJ form of my Lineage isn't WC.

My answer was in context to the OP. I have to an extent argued these same points you've just made.

That isn't how I am taught. We do SLT at the beginning of class (you should also do that at home) but after that we do drills with foot work and movement. The strikes and defenses all applied from fighting stance. Heck Sifu says "be a good training partner, zone, use footwork, don't stand there like a log." SLT is to teach the principles. To teach the proper angles, breathing, etc. That is why I said when you move to the following forms it's easier, you should have already been using foot work in training before to move to the forms that follow SLT. (maybe this is limited to GM Cheungs TWC I don't know).

Here's my point again. You say SLT is to teach the principles, proper angles, breathing etc. I view SNT as a collection of techniques and principles, not as a litmus to proper use. The power generation, angles, breathing, principles and overall movement is going to be much different when performed under some duress while moving as opposed to standing still. How can you know what is proper without even mild resistance? Modification will be required, which will force you to perform the techniques different than as done in the form. It's a set of two standards, IDEAL & PRACTICAL.

Because historically, hell today, you don't start sending people to war until they have completed training. In the context of WC, previously it took over a decade to turn a person into what was considered a "competent" martial artist. Typically a martial artist (as opposed to a mere soldier, soldiers amounting to cannon fodder) began training as children and were not seen as "competent" until their late teens/early 20s. WC was about taking 10-15 years and making it ~5 years. This seems odd today but it is the nature of the era and it is something that must be considered.

Now you're kind of babbling. What I was talking about is practicality, not preparation for war. I was speaking to usefulness. Again what is a more practical punch, standing in a goat stance and throwing straight punches or throwing a straight punch from a fighting stance? One is an isolation drill the other a fully integrated movement. Why practice one to go to the other? To me it isn't necessary, you can further develop and refine your straight punch from a moving fighting stance just as easily as you can from a goat stance. The difference is one is practical in application and will lead to a usable defense technique much quicker than the other.

Well I never said that. As a matter of fact more than once to KPM I said perfect structure is a training tool so that you can learn how your body should "feel" when fighting. Once you learn to "feel" you can fight using the principles without the picture perfect structure.

Something we can agree on, I would also add that, as far as structure is concerned, movement is needed if one is to progress.

 

[Nobody Important]

This is true of almost all TMAs, though some, as illustrated by the Crane photo I showed, are even more obvious than WC. I also explained elsewhere why. Fighting is dynamic and under huge pressure, training (especially today) is far less so because they don't want students hospitalized regularly. That is why I say it's about learning to "feel" in the perfect structure because you can "feel" that in structures that would not be seen as obviously "WC" but that one may assume in a dynamic encounter.

Just a side note, it's not required that you rip someone's head off in order to test their bridge or sweep their leg to test their stance. Pressure testing doesn't have to be "All Out" it can be done safely. Unfortunately many choose either to not do it or in an unrealistic manner. I don't see boxers and Jujutsu guys being regularly hospitalized.

 

[Juany118]

How it works is the entire point of my post, practicality, practicality, practicality. Those other arts I listed do not use a philosophical approach. The wording is simply different, they have sound theories on usage.

Again maybe it is the teacher in me but I look at learning first, then execution. WC is practical, once you know the system, the issue is a matter of how you are taught and with the multitude of lineages, on top of sifus, its a crap shoot I will admit.

My answer was in context to the OP. I have to an extent argued these same points you've just made.

I know just trying to be inclusive.

Here's my point again. You say SLT is to teach the principles, proper angles, breathing etc. I view SNT as a collection of techniques and principles, not as a litmus to proper use. The power generation, angles, breathing, principles and overall movement is going to be much different when performed under some duress while moving as opposed to standing still. How can you know what is proper without even mild resistance? Modification will be required, which will force you to perform the techniques different than as done in the form. It's a set of two standards, IDEAL & PRACTICAL.

this is where the instructor comes in. Yes SLT itself is limited in and of itself but in the school I study SLT is taught and then as students prepare for the next form they are not just standing still in drills with a partner, we must use footwork. While it's not full on sparring if a student isn't ending the drills with red skin from impact, if as a skinny guy like me the bones of the forearms didn't hurt from being struck, you weren't training. That's why I think much of the debate here is "off" because the divergence between lineages compounded by sifus creates vastly anecdotal experiences.

Now you're kind of babbling.

no, its a matter of perspective. I studied to be a history teacher and had a focus on military history. I thus see marital arts as what they were in a historical context.. war arts. I have since then, for 25 years, applied the arts in actual fighting (green and blue) hence my perspective (and in this case speaking as only from my personal perspective) is that martial arts are about fighting and fighting = combat, combat = war. War doesn't mean kill btw it means be victorious.

Again what is a more practical punch, standing in a goat stance and throwing straight punches or throwing a straight punch from a fighting stance?

in my school that is only how one throws a punch in SLT, when actually training outside of forms the "ma" stance is not used period.

I think this illustrates the disconnect I am trying to describe. Maybe some schools have people doing drills for novice students in "ma" al la SLT, mine doesn't. SLT is just that SLT, when SLT stops all students stop using "ma" and we use neutral and front stances. Heck one of the drills used on a "essentials" night or on the day it combines condition with essentials (think Crossfit meets MAs) everyone, even seniors, do a drill where you punch while swapping between left and right neutral then left and right front. No "ma".

 

[Nobody Important]

Again maybe it is the teacher in me but I look at learning first, then execution. WC is practical, once you know the system, the issue is a matter of how you are taught and with the multitude of lineages, on top of sifus, its a crap shoot I will admit.




I know just trying to be inclusive.



this is where the instructor comes in. Yes SLT itself is limited in and of itself but in the school I study SLT is taught and then as students prepare for the next form they are not just standing still in drills with a partner, we must use footwork. While it's not full on sparring if a student isn't ending the drills with red skin from impact, if as a skinny guy like me the bones of the forearms didn't hurt from being struck, you weren't training. That's why I think much of the debate here is "off" because the divergence between lineages compounded by sifus creates vastly anecdotal experiences.


no, its a matter of perspective. I studied to be a history teacher and had a focus on military history. I thus see marital arts as what they were in a historical context.. war arts. I have since then, for 25 years, applied the arts in actual fighting (green and blue) hence my perspective (and in this case speaking as only from my personal perspective) is that martial arts are about fighting and fighting = combat, combat = war. War doesn't mean kill btw it means be victorious.



in my school that is only how one throws a punch in SLT, when actually training outside of forms the "ma" stance is not used period.

I think this illustrates the disconnect I am trying to describe. Maybe some schools have people doing drills for novice students in "ma" al la SLT, mine doesn't. SLT is just that SLT, when SLT stops all students stop using "ma" and we use neutral and front stances. Heck one of the drills used on a "essentials" night or on the day it combines condition with essentials (think Crossfit meets MAs) everyone, even seniors, do a drill where you punch while swapping between left and right neutral then left and right front. No "ma".

I can see that we are somewhat on the same page, minor differences, but who doesn't have that. I think at this point we are simply talking past each other instead of seeing what we agree upon. Thank you for the conversation.

 

[KPM]

You're not fully comprehending what I'm saying, because you're stuck on the presumption of being taught core mechanics in Wing Chun. Let me try again.

----No, I think I understand what you are saying just fine. I'm just not buying it, that's all!

You're "core mechanics" existed long before learning Wing Chun. We learn to sit up, crawl, stand , walk & run. Over time we refine these actions to where we perform them with ultimate efficiency. We start with a big block & refine to a sphere, metaphorically. This is our true core mechanics, further refined through new movements, all that start big or as as step included that is built upon and refined to ideal efficiency. You seem to comprehend this with your last statement, but contradict it with regards to Wing Chun.

---I agree with your first part here, but how am I contradicting anything? We have our core mechanics for everyday activities. We have to shape the way we move into being Wing Chun mechanics when we are using our Wing Chun. Its no different than when someone learns boxing, dancing, shooting, or any other physical activity. You have to learn to move like a boxer, or a dancer. You start with the very general and move to the more specific. Unlike you, I do not see the Biu Gee form as being the more "general" and the SLT form as being the more refined "specific." The Biu Gee form is no more "gross" than the SLT form. The Biu Gee form simply teaches one how to "break the rules" when necessary and depart from the principles and structure learned in the SLT and CK forms. I don't think I am being "contradictory" at all.


Now I understand what you are saying about SLT & CK, but you're missing my point. BJ - CK - SNT is a natural progression. It's taking something considered clumsey & improper to something refined & proper. SNT is the IDEAL, it is the end goal. It is not a core mechanic, it is the refinement of core mechanic.

---I disagree. And I think the people that designed Wing Chun would also disagree, otherwise that is exactly the way it would be taught! Was it Andrew that said that the training is circular? THAT I agree with! SLT is the basic training because it teaches you the basic structure and motions of Wing Chun. It establishes the foundation. Then as you advance in your training and understanding you come back to SLT over and over to refine it and gain new insights. You refine your foundation to make it stronger and stronger. Why would you train your foundational form last?


You say "Maybe so! But that is not the way the system was designed!". Says who?

---Says everybody that has taught it for the last 100 years! Who teaches Biu Gee first and SLT last????


The system was actually a set of loose techniques prior to forms. Those loose techniques sought to refine existing movement not teach new ways of movement,

---We don't know what those loose techniques were like prior to forms. If Ku Lo Pin Sun can be used as a hint of what they may have been like, well.....the short sets in Pin Sun start out with the more simple sets and build upon them. They are progressive in what they teach. The very first set is not big gross movements at all. The second set learned is actually called Siu Nim Tau! The short sets are actually organized much like the progression in SLT/CK/BG. The initial sets are done stationary. Later sets add a pivot, still later sets add various footwork, and the larger gross movements are actually in the last sets....that again, are designed to deal with bad situations. One of the last sets is actually called "life after death" because it teaches you to recover from what looked like imminent defeat!


It's not logical. SNT is the epitome of Wing Chun. Yet, there is often no path to it, as it is taught first. It's teaching someone to run without all the steps required to get there. The proverbial "Sink or Swim" method of teaching. If the art is about maximization of potential, why is the focus on something already maximized? Only later to digress to learn movements & theory considered to violate the ideal.

----Sorry, but I disagree with that completely! Unlike most martial arts, Wing Chun starts you out with a simple form with NO footwork. You start out by moving one arm at a time, and slowly at that! You don't pivot or move the torso at all because you are learning centerline theory and alignment of basic techniques. What do mean "there is often no path to it?" A beginner has to start learning the basics somehow! These are the basics of Wing Chun! And it isn't "maximized"...there is not even any footwork! How can that be "maximized" for fighting?? What you wrote above just doesn't make sense.




You say "Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion". This is a damning testament to the effectiveness of what is taught in SNT & CK.

---No it isn't! In fact, it seems to be right in line with what some have been saying on this thread! Sh!t happens! Sometimes you are put in a position you aren't prepared for and have to do something else. You have to get yourself out of a bad situation. That might been suddenly bobbing and weaving because you weren't in a position to do a nice Tan Sau, that might mean doing a high cover at the last minute because you couldn't do a Bong Sau, etc. People have said here that resorting with kickboxing kind of responses is necessary because classical Wing Chun doesn't have all the answers. Well, Biu Gee is supposed to teach that kind of thing. Now one could argue that Biu Gee is out-dated because people fight differently today and the "bad situations" you find yourself in aren't dealt with in the Biu Gee form. I think there is some truth in that. But that doesn't change the fact that this was the intent of the Biu Gee form. At least that's what I was taught, that's what Wong Shun Leung and others taught!



If BJ is "advanced" there should be no issue in using it all the time. If it isn't considered advanced and is actually an example of what not to do & how to regain proper WC mechanics, why isn't it taught first? Shouldn't we be constantly striving to regain or maintain? Just like when we were learning to stand & walk?

--- How are you going to understand the ways to "break the rules" if you don't have a good understanding of the rules to begin with? How are you going to learn to recover good structure after you have lost it if you never learned good structure to begin with? Do you try to teach a child to run before he has even learned to walk? Are you yanking my chain here and playing the "devil's advocate"?

 

[KPM]

"It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?

----Who says those arts don't fail under pressure? Wasn't there a pretty damning statement earlier in this thread about ALL TCMAs? I've dabbled a small amount in Southern Mantis. While the initial form contains footwork, it certainly isn't considered an advanced form. Southern Mantis' approach to training doesn't seem any different than Wing Chun's.


You said "Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective". Many have, yet, as the topic of this thread discusses, why do they then resort to "Sloppy Kickboxing"? Especially if the method of instruction is superior? My response all along, and I have been consistent, is that it isn't.

---And you may be right! But I certainly don't think reversing the order in which the forms are taught is the answer! I have asked this....if people have found they need to change their Wing Chun in a sparring situation, then why have they not taken those changes back to their basic Wing Chun training and changed that as well? Again...fight the way you train and train the way you fight. This may mean doing the SNT form with more of a boxing structure rather than a YGKYM. This may mean putting some basic body movement or footwork into SNT. This may been getting rid of Chum Kiu completely and replacing it with something that teaches the footwork that is being used in sparring, etc. This is how things evolve. Inside, some people train classic Wing Chun and talk about structure and dynamics and then actually do something very different when they try to spar with Wing Chun.


Many have agreed with my assessment, or at least agreed that they were worth considering, only to later retract by spouting the same old rhetoric that the methodological approach is superior, without actually countering any point I've made.

---Well, if you are talking about me.....I agreed with your assessment but thought your whole idea of reversing the order of the forms was a bit off, and then you seemed to suggest that reversing the forms was the way it was intended to be taught and that is just way out in left field with nothing to support it.


How is the current manner in which WC is taught, superior to the manner in which nearly all other CMAs are taught? When the majority of evidence suggests otherwise. Ex. WC straight punch taught from goat stance vs. Boxing straight right taught from fighting stance.

---I never said it was superior. But how is it any different to the way other CMAs are taught? Do other CMAs start with their more advanced form first? Don't all systems start by teaching the basics? SNT is a BASIC form. As you progress through the system you go back and refine those basics in SNT more and more. But it still remains the basic foundational form.


How is WC supposed to be a simple streamlined art that is supposed to take little time to learn, when it is proven that quicker results can be had with other methods? Ex. WC basics taught in SLT while in goat stance vs. Boxing basics. Which one are you going to be able to use right away? Both can later be refined via structure and delivery.

----You may be right. But again, you are proposing a change in the way Wing Chun is trained. I have no problem with saying it should be trained more like a boxing method. That would be very close to JKD! But saying you would teach someone Biu Gee first and SNT last is not a "modern update" in training. Its just backwards, that's all!


Many that are successful with WC are so because it is not the first art they were trained in. Which was my point that WC is not an art for beginners and is truly an art of refinement. An art that elevates beyond "Sloppy Kickboxing", but IMO requires a firm foundation to chip and mold into something better.

---Inosanto's Panantukan starts with a western boxing base and then adds the FMA limb destructions, joint locks, etc. to that base. Maybe Wing Chun should be trained similarly. Start with a western boxing base and then add Wing Chun prinicples and techniques to that base. And again, this would be something very close to JKD and no longer classical Wing Chun. But then if someone does this, they should be truthful about what they are doing and not try to say they train "classical" Wing Chun and then do something else when they spar.

 

[Nobody Important]

No, I think I understand what you are saying just fine. I'm just not buying it, that's all!

Really? Disagree with me in one breath then agree on the next, smh.

I disagree. And I think the people that designed Wing Chun would also disagree, otherwise that is exactly the way it would be taught! Was it Andrew that said that the training is circular? THAT I agree with! SLT is the basic training because it teaches you the basic structure and motions of Wing Chun. It establishes the foundation. Then as you advance in your training and understanding you come back to SLT over and over to refine it and gain new insights. You refine your foundation to make it stronger and stronger. Why would you train your foundational form last?

If you read my post, where I used San Chin as a speaking point, I think you'll come to realize that I too believe it circular. I simply stated that I believe that the foundation of the so called foundational form is missing.

Says everybody that has taught it for the last 100 years! Who teaches Biu Gee first and SLT last????

Actually, Mai Gei Wong teaches some of the Biu Jee mechanics first, then focuses on SNT and believes Chum Kiu is the advanced form. There are others that have a similar approach. Look at Cho family SNT, way different than Yip Man, they have Biu Jee & Chum Kiu built into their SNT. They learn some of these mechanics from the beginning


The system was actually a set of loose techniques prior to forms. Those loose techniques sought to refine existing movement not teach new ways of movement,

It's not logical. SNT is the epitome of Wing Chun. Yet, there is often no path to it, as it is taught first. It's teaching someone to run without all the steps required to get there. The proverbial "Sink or Swim" method of teaching. If the art is about maximization of potential, why is the focus on something already maximized? Only later to digress to learn movements & theory considered to violate the ideal.

----Sorry, but I disagree with that completely! Unlike most martial arts, Wing Chun starts you out with a simple form with NO footwork. You start out by moving one arm at a time, and slowly at that! You don't pivot or move the torso at all because you are learning centerline theory and alignment of basic techniques. What do mean "there is often no path to it?" A beginner has to start learning the basics somehow! These are the basics of Wing Chun! And it isn't "maximized"...there is not even any footwork! How can that be "maximized" for fighting?? What you wrote above just doesn't make sense.

This is because you replied to this out of context, my statement was about circular training, SNT being the beginning & the end. I stated that too much emphasis is placed on fine motor skill in SNT. I'll come back to that in reply to you other post.

You say "Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion". This is a damning testament to the effectiveness of what is taught in SNT & CK.

---No it isn't! In fact, it seems to be right in line with what some have been saying on this thread! Sh!t happens! Sometimes you are put in a position you aren't prepared for and have to do something else. You have to get yourself out of a bad situation. That might been suddenly bobbing and weaving because you weren't in a position to do a nice Tan Sau, that might mean doing a high cover at the last minute because you couldn't do a Bong Sau, etc. People have said here that resorting with kickboxing kind of responses is necessary because classical Wing Chun doesn't have all the answers. Well, Biu Gee is supposed to teach that kind of thing. Now one could argue that Biu Gee is out-dated because people fight differently today and the "bad situations" you find yourself in aren't dealt with in the Biu Gee form. I think there is some truth in that. But that doesn't change the fact that this was the intent of the Biu Gee form. At least that's what I was taught, that's what Wong Shun Leung and others taught!

Your statements here, suggest to me, that violating basics is OK, but only in the context of when it suits you. I find problem with this. My question all along has been that, Biu Jee is part of the system, a part that teaches essentially how we move and react (bob, weave, etc.) prior to learning "correct" movement in SNT. Why wouldn't we work with that and try to refine to SNT? Again circular training.

--- How are you going to understand the ways to "break the rules" if you don't have a good understanding of the rules to begin with? How are you going to learn to recover good structure after you have lost it if you never learned good structure to begin with? Do you try to teach a child to run before he has even learned to walk? Are you yanking my chain here and playing the "devil's advocate"?

No I'm not, you're simply choosing not to seeing my perspective or you really don't understand it as you claim. It is not required that you understand any rules in order to break them. I will explain in my response to your next post.

 

[Nobody Important]

"It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?

----Who says those arts don't fail under pressure? Wasn't there a pretty damning statement earlier in this thread about ALL TCMAs? I've dabbled a small amount in Southern Mantis. While the initial form contains footwork, it certainly isn't considered an advanced form. Southern Mantis' approach to training doesn't seem any different than Wing Chun's.

Again, cherry picking and taking out of context. If you would have read my posts you would have seen, that I stated that when these arts are put to the test (with the exception of Tai Chi) they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. Their gross motor core is mostly intact, even under failure. Can WC claim the same?

As far as other arts are concerned, SPM, Hung Gar, TWC etc. Traditionally their first form is the foundation set (much like SNT) however, they contain large movements, later refined and use movement. Two things not found in SNT. What they have in common is that they always come back to the foundation set. The two things (large movements and moving) are not introduced until later in WC through the forms. You do not learn to refine by going from small (polished) to big (sloppy).

---And you may be right! But I certainly don't think reversing the order in which the forms are taught is the answer! I have asked this....if people have found they need to change their Wing Chun in a sparring situation, then why have they not taken those changes back to their basic Wing Chun training and changed that as well? Again...fight the way you train and train the way you fight. This may mean doing the SNT form with more of a boxing structure rather than a YGKYM. This may mean putting some basic body movement or footwork into SNT. This may been getting rid of Chum Kiu completely and replacing it with something that teaches the footwork that is being used in sparring, etc. This is how things evolve. Inside, some people train classic Wing Chun and talk about structure and dynamics and then actually do something very different when they try to spar with Wing Chun.

Hasn't that been what I've been saying. Here we agree to an extent, my argument all along has been. If Biu Jee contains movements such as bobbing, weaving, moving etc. (like boxing) why wouldn't we implement these methods first? Why don't we start with larger movement and chip away to small? Gross motor skill to fine motor skill within the context of WC. You say that its to set the foundation within WC structure. I have stated several times, that a punch taught from a fighting stance while moving is refined as easily as one taught from a goat stance. Core mechanics are not changed. Unless you believe that as you advance in WC forms that they do. If not, what is the harm in teaching in this manner first. Do you believe that Biu Jee violates WC structure? If you do why keep it. I don't believe that it does, and have argued that. You don't put stuff in your system that violates and contradicts your core structure. I believe Biu Jee contains movements that we are more naturally inclined to perform than what is in SNT. Lets look at Siu Lam for reference, they start with Long Fist routines and end with Soft Boxing routines. Hard, Big movement to Small, Soft movement. The core is never violated it is refined and evolved. If we are to put WC into this same formula it would be BJ - CK - SNT.

Well, if you are talking about me.....I agreed with your assessment but thought your whole idea of reversing the order of the forms was a bit off, and then you seemed to suggest that reversing the forms was the way it was intended to be taught and that is just way out in left field with nothing to support it.

I've presented why I feel that it is a viable approach. You've agreed to some of my assessments (I wouldn't expect you to agree to all). Our disagreement, has nothing to do with the order of the forms, but what we believe about Biu Jee. You think it violates WC structure, I do not.

I never said it was superior. But how is it any different to the way other CMAs are taught? Do other CMAs start with their more advanced form first? Don't all systems start by teaching the basics? SNT is a BASIC form. As you progress through the system you go back and refine those basics in SNT more and more. But it still remains the basic foundational form.

To answer your question, yes & no. Gung Ji Fuk Fu Kuen, Sam Chien etc. are beginning & advanced. As the art progresses methodology and technique are added to them. It is the same with SNT, in this respect. I am not arguing that. Training is circular, everything comes back to basics. Here is my argument again. With these other arts the beginning forms are big movement, stepping, basic theory etc. as they progress through the system the techniques become more refined, movement becomes smaller & more efficient, focus becomes more internal. Wing Chun methodology is exactly the opposite.

I have simply pointed out that WC's approach to systematic training is flawed. You've agreed that, if it is why don't people change it from the beginning. This is exactly what I have suggested. The difference is you're looking to boxing or something else. I'm suggesting that the answer is already there within the system, in Biu Jee. No need to change core mechanics. But this can only work if you believe that Biu Jee doesn't violate WC core structure.

----You may be right. But again, you are proposing a change in the way Wing Chun is trained. I have no problem with saying it should be trained more like a boxing method. That would be very close to JKD! But saying you would teach someone Biu Gee first and SNT last is not a "modern update" in training. Its just backwards, that's all!

How is it? I'm not saying eliminate SNT. I'm not saying don't teach it first. I'm saying that training is circular. No need to hyper focus on SNT. The core mechanics of the art do not need changed. Biu Jee is the key that unlocks WC. In my branch we have numerous exercises like Waist Bending, Crane Wings, Stepping, Covering, 8 San Sik etc. That are taught before SNT is even sarted, all of these exercises are based upon the movements as performed in Biu Jee. They are found as refined movements in SNT. But if they were taught as they appear in SNT, they wouldn't be practical for use. Students would become confused as to why we apply in one manner and practice in another.

---Inosanto's Panantukan starts with a western boxing base and then adds the FMA limb destructions, joint locks, etc. to that base. Maybe Wing Chun should be trained similarly. Start with a western boxing base and then add Wing Chun prinicples and techniques to that base. And again, this would be something very close to JKD and no longer classical Wing Chun. But then if someone does this, they should be truthful about what they are doing and not try to say they train "classical" Wing Chun and then do something else when they spar.

And doesn't this suggest to you (if you believe that WC is complete) that there is a fundamental breakdown in how WC is taught. The whole premise of my argument has been that I believe WC to be an advanced art not for beginners to learn but for accomplished artists to learn as a way of refining their skill. If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated. All of my arguments have been in support of this premise. I have stated my position clearly, but responses have been largely based upon biases to my answers without context to my original premise, that WC is not for beginners & is an art of refinement. I truly, believe that the training methodology has been altered long ago, by those that learned WC without a background in other arts. When we look at Mai Gei Wong, Yuen Chai Wan, Cho Family, Pao Fa Lien & Pan Nam their approach and structure to WC is very different than most, because WC wasn't their first art. The only exception to this (to an extent) is Leung Shun, but many would argue that the methodology is quite different.

 

[geezer]

@Nobody Important -- I'm also in disagreement with your idea of teaching WC forms in reversed order. I've been a professional teacher for some 30 years ( beginning in college as a GA, then Adult Ed., a couple of decades teaching secondary Ed., as well as teaching WC on and off since 1981) and such a curriculum certainly wouldn't work for the WC I practice. Not that there aren't serious problems with the way a lot of WC and TCMA in general is taught. I believe we need more active drills and sparring and a more open approach to effectively adapt to the kind of fighting methods that are dominant in the world today. And, some method of pressure testing the results, would be hugely helpful.

Many traditional MA curriculums are not adaptive and do not address these concerns. However, IMO reversing the order of teaching WC's forms would not be at all helpful. On the other hand, if you have students or training partners who are learning this way, and this approach is yielding positive results for you, keep us informed. If you can, post a video. I'd be interested to see what you are coming up with.

 

[KPM]

If you would have read my posts you would have seen, that I stated that when these arts are put to the test (with the exception of Tai Chi) they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. Their gross motor core is mostly intact, even under failure. Can WC claim the same?

---OK. I'll take your word on that, since I really haven't seen those arts in a sparring context much.


As far as other arts are concerned, SPM, Hung Gar, TWC etc. Traditionally their first form is the foundation set (much like SNT) however, they contain large movements, later refined and use movement. Two things not found in SNT.

---Ok. I follow that point as well.

What they have in common is that they always come back to the foundation set. The two things (large movements and moving) are not introduced until later in WC through the forms. You do not learn to refine by going from small (polished) to big (sloppy).

---True. But then Wing Chun doesn't have a lot of large movements anyway.



I believe Biu Jee contains movements that we are more naturally inclined to perform than what is in SNT. Lets look at Siu Lam for reference, they start with Long Fist routines and end with Soft Boxing routines. Hard, Big movement to Small, Soft movement. The core is never violated it is refined and evolved. If we are to put WC into this same formula it would be BJ - CK - SNT.

-----We may know different BG forms. Because to me, the movements of BG seem rather unnatural compared to SNT. The way the elbow is thrown, the bending forward and then backwards at the waist, etc don't seem all that natural to me! But I do take your point, and I will contribute to it. I will admit to this......the Ku Lo Pin Sun set that i referred to....."life after death".....was essentially the same movement from as the Ip Man BG form that has you bending forward at the waist and thrusting the arms downward and then leaning backwards as you sweep the arms up and outward. Henry Mui recognized that, while this is teaching to break the vertical line to evade a strike, it isn't done in a very good way given modern fighting methods. So he changed the set. Rather than doing it the "classic" way he teaches this set as essentially the same motions as the "bob & weave" from western boxing because he thinks this is much more practical. Now, this is still one of the last sets you learn. But I can see your point that teaching something like this more in the beginning would be useful. However, I don't think teaching the BG form in its entirety to a beginner prior to SNT would be that useful.



I've presented why I feel that it is a viable approach. You've agreed to some of my assessments (I wouldn't expect you to agree to all). Our disagreement, has nothing to do with the order of the forms, but what we believe about Biu Jee. You think it violates WC structure, I do not.

---Fair enough!



Here is my argument again. With these other arts the beginning forms are big movement, stepping, basic theory etc. as they progress through the system the techniques become more refined, movement becomes smaller & more efficient, focus becomes more internal. Wing Chun methodology is exactly the opposite.

----OK. But I would say that Wing Chun doesn't really have ANY big movements. It is a compact style. It doesn't go from large amplitude movements with hard power to smaller movement with soft power as you described for other systems because Wing Chun stays small amplitude as much as possible. Even BG. I guess that's why I don't see it as "gross movements" any more than SNT is "gross movements." They are simply movements that depart from the standard as learned in SNT and CK.




. In my branch we have numerous exercises like Waist Bending, Crane Wings, Stepping, Covering, 8 San Sik etc. That are taught before SNT is even sarted, all of these exercises are based upon the movements as performed in Biu Jee. They are found as refined movements in SNT. But if they were taught as they appear in SNT, they wouldn't be practical for use. Students would become confused as to why we apply in one manner and practice in another.

----And again, we may be talking past each other simply because we have learned different versions of BG! I can absolutely see training on a "san sik" basis prior to learning SNT. Sum Nung Wing Chun does this, as I sure you are well aware of. Rumor has it that Ip Man taught a set of drills like this early in the curriculum as well. Heck, most people do! And those preliminary 12 san sik taught in Sum Nung Wing Chun do have some larger amplitude motions that Ip Man Wing Chun does not include. So does Ku Lo Pin Sun, and it sounds to me like your system likely does as well. So I am coming to the conclusion that the BG form from Ip Man WC that I am envisioning is not the same BG form that you have in mind. That is likely our disconnect!




And doesn't this suggest to you (if you believe that WC is complete) that there is a fundamental breakdown in how WC is taught. The whole premise of my argument has been that I believe WC to be an advanced art not for beginners to learn but for accomplished artists to learn as a way of refining their skill.

----That may be true. And as you said that approach to the training might have changed fairly early on. Ip Man didn't start with something else. I don't think Yuen Kay Shan or Sum Nung started with something else. But the stories told in the Weng Chun lineage certainly have many of the major players coming to Weng Chun from some other system.


If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated.

----Fair statement. But something we have come to in a rather round-about way. And not because I didn't understand what you were saying. But because we get off on all kinds of peripheral points. And I would still say that the answer for "classical" Wing Chun is not to reverse the order in which the forms are taught and put BG first. But the answer may very well to be to start out on a san sik basis with larger motions first that are refined as time goes on.

 

[drop bear]

If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated.

----Fair statement. But something we have come to in a rather round-about way. And not because I didn't understand what you were saying. But because we get off on all kinds of peripheral points. And I would still say that the answer for "classical" Wing Chun is not to reverse the order in which the forms are taught and put BG first. But the answer may very well to be to start out on a san sik basis with larger motions first that are refined as time goes on.

from my purely sparring/fighting perspective wing Chun works against itself by making part of fighting the whole of fighting.

so the idea is to close the gap and trade a high volume of strikes into a guy from the pocket. now this works if you have a solid chin good punching power and great cardio.

it is certainly a method you use but there is a time and place.

now that is then combined with counter punching which generally you want to do from the out side with low volume striking. and is used if you want to be a bit saferough from a guy with good takedownside or knock out power.

so I can see why people go off reservation when they spar. for a large portion of people the methods are untenable. bitso of the methods rearranged and added to will just create better results.

having said that straight punches will quite often beat hooks. so for self defense if someone throws lazy hooks at you. then you could absolutely capitalise with basic Chun chain and counter punching. it just has to be done at the right place.

this is why arts that define themselves by sparring are never generic. and will be separated into games depending on the fighter using the system and who he is fighting.

I mean if I have reach on a guy. why would I close with him. I am giving him free shots.

 

[Juany118]

from my purely sparring/fighting perspective wing Chun works against itself by making part of fighting the whole of fighting.

so the idea is to close the gap and trade a high volume of strikes into a guy from the pocket. now this works if you have a solid chin good punching power and great cardio.

it is certainly a method you use but there is a time and place.

now that is then combined with counter punching which generally you want to do from the out side with low volume striking. and is used if you want to be a bit saferough from a guy with good takedownside or knock out power.

so I can see why people go off reservation when they spar. for a large portion of people the methods are untenable. bitso of the methods rearranged and added to will just create better results.

having said that straight punches will quite often beat hooks. so for self defense if someone throws lazy hooks at you. then you could absolutely capitalise with basic Chun chain and counter punching. it just has to be done at the right place.

this is why arts that define themselves by sparring are never generic. and will be separated into games depending on the fighter using the system and who he is fighting.

I mean if I have reach on a guy. why would I close with him. I am giving him free shots.

The problem is though that high volume punching (chain punching) looks cool in the movies but is really a beginner technique and is almost a training tool to simply develop the technique of relaxing after a strike so you can more readily do anything else; strike, defend, etc. (At least in my lineage).

While you may still straight punch when necessary they eventually become supplanted by palm strikes like ju cheung, biu sau (finger thrust) for "straight" strikes. (Again my lineage at least.). Of course fighting is dynamic and you may find yourself punching, even chain punching, but when you find someone constantly trying to chain punch, it's usually a sign of an experienced fighter knowing they are fighting a less skill opponent or a novice.

Now obviously you are more limited to punching while sparing, but even then the rule applies on chain punching, it is something that is very situational and less experienced students over use the technique. That was my only point. When I see two students simply trade chain punches over and over again I cringe a little bit.

 

[Nobody Important]

@Nobody Important -- I'm also in disagreement with your idea of teaching WC forms in reversed order. I've been a professional teacher for some 30 years ( beginning in college as a GA, then Adult Ed., a couple of decades teaching secondary Ed., as well as teaching WC on and off since 1981) and such a curriculum certainly wouldn't work for the WC I practice. Not that there aren't serious problems with the way a lot of WC and TCMA in general is taught. I believe we need more active drills and sparring and a more open approach to effectively adapt to the kind of fighting methods that are dominant in the world today. And, some method of pressure testing the results, would be hugely helpful.

Many traditional MA curriculums are not adaptive and do not address these concerns. However, IMO reversing the order of teaching WC's forms would not be at all helpful. On the other hand, if you have students or training partners who are learning this way, and this approach is yielding positive results for you, keep us informed. If you can, post a video. I'd be interested to see what you are coming up with.

TBH, there isn't a lot here I would argue with. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I'm not suggesting teaching the forms in reverse order per say, as much as I'm suggesting that the methodology of what lies in those forms. My rant about San Chin & SLT being the beginning & end of their perspective systems still holds true. I just believe in introducing some of the key concepts of Biu Jee early on. Things like moving, bobbing & weaving, elbows etc. These are things the student will return too, just as they will build upon the techniques learned in SNT.

No need to go outside the system, when these "bigger" body movements are already in the system. I simply feel it important for beginners to WC to have practical applicable movement from the start. Even if clumsy & awkward, it can be refined through SNT.

Not all branches of WC have dedicated Ji Ben exercises that teach them simple "boxing like" skills from the start. Exercises like bending waist (simple uprooting exercise based on emergency waist bend & iron half bridge), 12 San Sik (based on theory of position, bridge, control, hit, return), 8 San Sik ( based on common movements in SNT & BJ), gates drills (based on EWBIHB, Pak Sau, bong sau & gate punching). All these exercises use a lot of movement and are partner drills, & based mostly off of the methodology found in BJ, yet contain techniques from SNT. All learned before starting SNT in my lineage. We use SNT to refine, not teach, if that makes sense.

 

[Nobody Important]

If you would have read my posts you would have seen, that I stated that when these arts are put to the test (with the exception of Tai Chi) they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. Their gross motor core is mostly intact, even under failure. Can WC claim the same?

---OK. I'll take your word on that, since I really haven't seen those arts in a sparring context much.


As far as other arts are concerned, SPM, Hung Gar, TWC etc. Traditionally their first form is the foundation set (much like SNT) however, they contain large movements, later refined and use movement. Two things not found in SNT.

---Ok. I follow that point as well.

What they have in common is that they always come back to the foundation set. The two things (large movements and moving) are not introduced until later in WC through the forms. You do not learn to refine by going from small (polished) to big (sloppy).

---True. But then Wing Chun doesn't have a lot of large movements anyway.



I believe Biu Jee contains movements that we are more naturally inclined to perform than what is in SNT. Lets look at Siu Lam for reference, they start with Long Fist routines and end with Soft Boxing routines. Hard, Big movement to Small, Soft movement. The core is never violated it is refined and evolved. If we are to put WC into this same formula it would be BJ - CK - SNT.

-----We may know different BG forms. Because to me, the movements of BG seem rather unnatural compared to SNT. The way the elbow is thrown, the bending forward and then backwards at the waist, etc don't seem all that natural to me! But I do take your point, and I will contribute to it. I will admit to this......the Ku Lo Pin Sun set that i referred to....."life after death".....was essentially the same movement from as the Ip Man BG form that has you bending forward at the waist and thrusting the arms downward and then leaning backwards as you sweep the arms up and outward. Henry Mui recognized that, while this is teaching to break the vertical line to evade a strike, it isn't done in a very good way given modern fighting methods. So he changed the set. Rather than doing it the "classic" way he teaches this set as essentially the same motions as the "bob & weave" from western boxing because he thinks this is much more practical. Now, this is still one of the last sets you learn. But I can see your point that teaching something like this more in the beginning would be useful. However, I don't think teaching the BG form in its entirety to a beginner prior to SNT would be that useful.



I've presented why I feel that it is a viable approach. You've agreed to some of my assessments (I wouldn't expect you to agree to all). Our disagreement, has nothing to do with the order of the forms, but what we believe about Biu Jee. You think it violates WC structure, I do not.

---Fair enough!



Here is my argument again. With these other arts the beginning forms are big movement, stepping, basic theory etc. as they progress through the system the techniques become more refined, movement becomes smaller & more efficient, focus becomes more internal. Wing Chun methodology is exactly the opposite.

----OK. But I would say that Wing Chun doesn't really have ANY big movements. It is a compact style. It doesn't go from large amplitude movements with hard power to smaller movement with soft power as you described for other systems because Wing Chun stays small amplitude as much as possible. Even BG. I guess that's why I don't see it as "gross movements" any more than SNT is "gross movements." They are simply movements that depart from the standard as learned in SNT and CK.




. In my branch we have numerous exercises like Waist Bending, Crane Wings, Stepping, Covering, 8 San Sik etc. That are taught before SNT is even sarted, all of these exercises are based upon the movements as performed in Biu Jee. They are found as refined movements in SNT. But if they were taught as they appear in SNT, they wouldn't be practical for use. Students would become confused as to why we apply in one manner and practice in another.

----And again, we may be talking past each other simply because we have learned different versions of BG! I can absolutely see training on a "san sik" basis prior to learning SNT. Sum Nung Wing Chun does this, as I sure you are well aware of. Rumor has it that Ip Man taught a set of drills like this early in the curriculum as well. Heck, most people do! And those preliminary 12 san sik taught in Sum Nung Wing Chun do have some larger amplitude motions that Ip Man Wing Chun does not include. So does Ku Lo Pin Sun, and it sounds to me like your system likely does as well. So I am coming to the conclusion that the BG form from Ip Man WC that I am envisioning is not the same BG form that you have in mind. That is likely our disconnect!




And doesn't this suggest to you (if you believe that WC is complete) that there is a fundamental breakdown in how WC is taught. The whole premise of my argument has been that I believe WC to be an advanced art not for beginners to learn but for accomplished artists to learn as a way of refining their skill.

----That may be true. And as you said that approach to the training might have changed fairly early on. Ip Man didn't start with something else. I don't think Yuen Kay Shan or Sum Nung started with something else. But the stories told in the Weng Chun lineage certainly have many of the major players coming to Weng Chun from some other system.


If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated.

----Fair statement. But something we have come to in a rather round-about way. And not because I didn't understand what you were saying. But because we get off on all kinds of peripheral points. And I would still say that the answer for "classical" Wing Chun is not to reverse the order in which the forms are taught and put BG first. But the answer may very well to be to start out on a san sik basis with larger motions first that are refined as time goes on.

Please see my response to Geezer, that should better clarify my position. I appreciate you taking the time to see things from my perspective. I would only add one thing to clarify my point regarding Biu Jee. When I speak of BJ having big movement, I'm not speaking in terms like long fist. I'm referring to 1. Body moment ( waist bending & turning) 2. The extension of movement to the left & right. This really isn't seen in SNT & is not really emphasized in CK. These big ( for WC) body movements & extensions are emphasized in BJ. I look at the forms as small, medium & large because of the body (waist) movement involved. But, this large isn't to the extent of a system like long fist.

Power is controlled by the waist & stance. So using the waist with movement to generate force is important. As one progresses the big circle of the hip (s) that was being used can be reduced & compressed towards the spine. In my lineage we adhere to the "turtle front crane back" method of force generation, the same as white crane, where we differ from White Crane is we reduce the use of hip for generation of force to more of a spine method of force generation, this is done through practice of goat stance. We start big & end small. To try and create this force from goat stance without having done the other method first, we wouldn't be able to generate as strong a striking force. Our gung training starts with a fully integrated body doing "big" movements, and slowly progresses to a fully integrated body doing minimal movement without a loss of force generation. Does that make sense?

 

[KPM]

Please see my response to Geezer, that should better clarify my position.

Yes, that does help. And that is a bit different than what you seemed to be saying in your previous posts. Thanks.

 

[Nobody Important]

Yes, that does help. And that is a bit different than what you seemed to be saying in your previous posts. Thanks.

Well, we did go off script several times, it can get confusing.

 

[wingchun100]

It reminds me of myself when I tell students if you do a bil jee elbow strike and open the arm slightly and contact with the fist, you aren't 1000 miles from a boxing hook punch.

Okay, well I didn't know you said it since I haven't been on the board in a while. However, I knew Alan did because I met him via a Facebook group and found his videos.

 

[anerlich]

Sort of on topic:

Some styles teach large movements in their forms because they feel that under pressure the student will tend to cut them short and turn them into smaller movements anyway. Better this than cutting them so extremely short to be ineffectual, if you buy the rationale.

Some styles teach public forms where only a small movement is performed, but in the closed door version it represents something much bigger. A stamp with the foot on the floor in the public form actually represents a kick in the private form. The rationale being that the enemy will think, "that style has no kicks" and end up unexpectedly getting their a$$es kicked up between their shoulder blades when they engage. Not a fan of the security through obscurity model in martial arts, but YMMV.

Josh Waitzkin, the author of "The Art of Learning", chess prodigy, taiji push hands world champion, and BJJ black belt, talks about spending many hours trying to distil his techniques down to the smallest possible movements that still capture the essence of them, on one of his podcasts with Tim Ferriss.

Not suggesting any of these are the way to go, just points I found relevant and interesting and which might provoke further discussion (OK, argument).

 

[guy b]

my argument all along has been. If Biu Jee contains movements such as bobbing, weaving, moving etc. (like boxing) why wouldn't we implement these methods first? Why don't we start with larger movement and chip away to small? Gross motor skill to fine motor skill within the context of WC.

What you are probably looking for is in the other thing that is practiced from the start.

BJ is purposefully stepping outside the parameters of the system that is running correctly because..eventualities. It doesn't contain gross body methods that boil down to the refined VT goal and starting with BJ will end with something that is not VT.

 

[guy b]

This kind of idea is popular in systems like Hung Gar, and many HG practitioners feel that the gross body methods they learn can be channeled through something like SPM to produce something very refined and powerful. It may or may not work with some systems. I can't see it working with VT