Wing Chun vs MMA

[guy b.]

If it was Sergio himself doing the demo, yeah you could discount it. But its not. Its Master Lee Kong, a very well-known White Crane teacher in Hong Kong. If you can't see the similarities with Wing Chun, that's on you not me. I think others will see what I'm talking about. With all due respect, you haven't proven to have the most "open" of minds. ;-)

Doesn't really matter who he is..in the first clip he is doing no body method at all, only hands. Second he is doing it half heartedly or badly.

There is absolutely no similarity between this and wing chun other than they are both Chinese ways of hitting people. You might as well say that karate and wing chun are similar.

Here is some more decent white crane:

 

[guy b.]

It is held that Crane boxing was widely established and better known at earlier date than WC's emergence. Based on this, it seems quite plausible that Crane boxing may have been a source for what later evolved into Wing Chun. Of course "plausible" doesn't make it so. Granted the paucity of reliable records, it's all speculation.

It's baseless speculation though. It works in a different way to wing chun. If you were claiming that Goju ryu had similarities to white crane then you would be correct, they share body mechanics and forms. Wing chun just isn't similar, apart from the fact that it involves punching and kicking

 

[guy b.]

You can find Tang Shou, Fu Shou, chain punch, Biao Xee, and YJKYM in the southern praying mantis system as well.

Again very different to wing chun

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Again very different to wing chun

What will happen if you have cross trained both WC and southern praying mantis? Will you try to find a common ground between both systems, or will you use WC to fight on Mon, Wed, Fri, and use southern praying mantis to fight on Tu, Th, and Sat?

 

[guy b.]

What will happen if you have cross trained both WC and southern praying mantis? Will you try to find a common ground between both systems, or will you use WC to fight on Mon, Wed, Fri, and use southern praying mantis to fight on Tu, Th, and Sat?

Since they aren't conceptually compatible.you will either do one or the other, or a horrible confused combination of both

 

[yak sao]

What will happen if you have cross trained both WC and southern praying mantis? Will you try to find a common ground between both systems, or will you use WC to fight on Mon, Wed, Fri, and use southern praying mantis to fight on Tu, Th, and Sat?

This of course assumes you don't have to fight on Sundays.....then what?

 

[KPM]

It's baseless speculation though. It works in a different way to wing chun. If you were claiming that Goju ryu had similarities to white crane then you would be correct, they share body mechanics and forms. Wing chun just isn't similar, apart from the fact that it involves punching and kicking

Maybe so. But you yourself have admitted that Wing Chun may have evolved from one of the southern village arts. Ben Judkins seems to suggest the same thing in his blog. These southern systems all have similarities. Like I've pointed out, we have about 150 years of divergent development to explain differences. Who knows what that original southern village art was? An older form of White Crane? An older form of Hakka art? All speculation at this point. But given convergent legends and historical hints, an older version of White Crane would seem to be as likely a candidate as anything. Start with that and then add something to stimulate a "Wing Chun-like" path of development.....say a Snake element?.....or say inspiration and input from the Luk Dim Boon Kwun?...... or inspiration and input from a double long knife fencing system as Judkins suggests?........ It really doesn't matter at this point. But it makes for interesting investigation and discussion.

 

[LFJ]

I think it's more important to analyze how similarly different systems work, rather than how similar their forms might look. Appearance is superficial and means nothing if the interpretations and ultimate methods of fighting differ greatly.

If another system has a taan-sau action in its forms, it really doesn't mean anything unless it shares the same interpretation, and then only maybe. It could be entirely different and not actually share any historical ties, or it could be the same and still not share any historical ties!

Visual appearance is not enough to go on, because as a matter of fact, I can take apart each of the Wing Chun forms and explain the actions from a Northern perspective, because I can find actions that are visually similar or even identical from the North.

Problem is, their interpretations are completely different and they obviously don't have a shared history. Shared visual appearance really means nothing. It's to be expected, because we are all humans. I saw a gorilla fight on Youtube where they were using Longfist methods. Does that have any historical value?

 

[LFJ]

Ugh, someone was talking to me as I was typing that post. Lost my train of thought. My point is this; visual appearance alone means very little. If two systems are visually similar and function similarly, then that is interesting. Then we can start to look into the historical questions.

And the questions we need to answer are who taught what to whom, when and where. In my experience researching TCMAs in the North, if two systems are related, some information somewhere can be found to link them historically. Villagers often have stories that may match up with those from another village of some figure entering the village and teaching a style that is in some interesting ways similar to another. It gives clues as to who taught what to whom, when and where.

If there's absolutely nothing like that, it usually means there's no connection. Or at least, the connection is too far removed for it to mean anything anymore...

It's foolish to notice visual similarities, then jump to conclusions and declare Wing Chun's mother and father arts to be Emei Snake and White Crane without answering any of those essential historical questions, even if there are similarities in function. Because I can find the same similarities in the North where there is obviously no historical connection whatsoever.

But that's exactly what Beetlejuice did on the other forum, while tampering with terminology and applications to fit their theory. If you have 0 clue as to who taught what to whom, when and where, you've really got nothing, but especially if the similarities are only visual!

 

[KPM]

I

If another system has a taan-sau action in its forms, it really doesn't mean anything unless it shares the same interpretation, and then only maybe. It could be entirely different and not actually share any historical ties, or it could be the same and still not share any historical ties!

Good point! One could look at the Tan Sau in WSLVT compared to the Tan Sau in Ip Ching or Ip Chun Wing Chun and conclude, even though they are visually similar, since they have a totally different interpretations the systems could not possibly have come from the same teacher! ;-)

 

[KPM]

I agree that people only move in so many ways. So you look at the total package....narrow stance, short bridge, centerline structure, short power......doubtful that all of these elements emerged independently in multiple martial arts from the same region. So visual appearance does make a difference when looking for connections.

 

[LFJ]

I would think it normal that fighting systems would to some degree be influenced by what is common around them, either by using similar ideas or devising ways to deal with those ideas.

Those are pretty general ideas you list, and a system may still function quite differently while sharing those elements. I don't think there is enough at all to say White Crane is a "mother art" of Wing Chun.

 

[LFJ]

Good point! One could look at the Tan Sau in WSLVT compared to the Tan Sau in Ip Ching or Ip Chun Wing Chun and conclude, even though they are visually similar, since they have a totally different interpretations the systems could not possibly have come from the same teacher! ;-)

And that would be correct in the most likely of all likelihoods!

 

[KPM]

I would think it normal that fighting systems would to some degree be influenced by what is common around them, either by using similar ideas or devising ways to deal with those ideas.

Those are pretty general ideas you list, and a system may still function quite differently while sharing those elements. I don't think there is enough at all to say White Crane is a "mother art" of Wing Chun.

Its only one possible theory. And to me, it makes more sense than saying that Wing Chun empty hand was derived from the 6 1/2 point pole form.

 

[KPM]

And that would be correct in the most likely of all likelihoods!

But it isn't correct. So there you have Wing Chun from the same teacher that doesn't match in interpretation. So your idea that visual similarity means nothing and interpretation is the key is just as wrong as saying everything should be based on visual appearance. It has to be somewhat of a "gestalt" of everything. My point was simply that you cannot discount visual similarities entirely.

 

[LFJ]

But it isn't correct. So there you have Wing Chun from the same teacher that doesn't match in interpretation.

So you think Yip Man taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?

I wouldn't trust you to analyze possible relationships between any two styles then! Common sense must be applied.

It has to be somewhat of a "gestalt" of everything. My point was simply that you cannot discount visual similarities entirely.

I agree. But in many cases that is in fact all people have, and yet they still come to definite conclusions based on that, or even alter their Wing Chun method and terminology to fit their theories.

 

[KPM]

[So you think Yip Man taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?

---So you think Yip Man didn't teach Ip Ching, Ip Chun, and Wong Shun Leung all three? That he wouldn't have corrected Ip Ching and Ip Chun's idea of Tan Sau if they had learned it improperly from someone else? You think Ip Man taught ONLY Wong Shun Leung the correct interpretation of Tan Sau? Even if that was true, you would then have a whole lot of people teaching "Ip Man Wing Chun" that don't interpret Tan Sau the same way that WSL does. Therefore, by your standard, an outside observer would have to conclude that WSLVT and most other Wing Chun doesn't come from the same source.


I wouldn't trust you to analyze possible relationships between any two styles then! Common sense must be applied.

---Right back atcha buddy! ;-)

 

[geezer]

"...I wouldn't trust you to analyze possible relationships between any two styles then! Common sense must be applied."

---Right back atcha buddy! ;-)

@KPM: I agree. It's not that Guy is wrong or ill-informed. I mean we've all agreed that what with the paucity of good historical records, we are all just speculating on WC's connections to these other systems. However, it is clear that you and Guy have very different ways of viewing the subject. For what little it's worth, my outlook is open and inclusive ....that is to say more like yours, Keith. It has nothing to do with knowledge or facts. It's a matter of worldview. I focus on the connections and commonalities between things and people. Many others fixate on differences and distinctions. The "truth" (whatever that is) demands a balance of both perspectives. So...carry on gentlemen.

 

[KPM]

^^^^^Actually Steve, that was LFJ saying those most recent things. Not Guy. But they seem to think alike. Must be part of that "True Believer Syndrome." I just think it is rather ironic that I was told I was not using common sense by a guy that is convinced that Ip Man taught ONLY WSL the "correct" interpretation of Wing Chun!

 

[LFJ]

^^^^^Actually Steve, that was LFJ saying those most recent things. Not Guy. But they seem to think alike. Must be part of that "True Believer Syndrome." I just think it is rather ironic that I was told I was not using common sense by a guy that is convinced that Ip Man taught ONLY WSL the "correct" interpretation of Wing Chun!

I never said that. WSL never made that claim, and none of his students do. This is unlike LTWT and TWC, the founders of which both claim to have learned either the "final version" or the "traditional version" from YM, and their students "truly believe" it.

We just have thousands of people coming from other lineages, including these two, noticing what is taught as Yip Man derived Wing Chun by various others, and coming to a logical conclusion based on the merits of each system.

Show me someone who has trained 20+ years in WSLVT then completely renounced it in favor of LTWT, TWC, or another YM lineage. There are none. But I can show you literally hundreds from each lineage going in the reverse.

You once pulled out Occam's Razor here. Why not take it to this question of how there are so many conflicting versions of what YM taught?

Is it the simplest explanation of things to say YM must have taught several different versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways? Or could he have perhaps put more effort into a particularly talented student who was also an active fighter, and the others mostly copied each other and filled in gaps on their own?

Anyway, we've had this debate numerous times. Just take that as a rhetorical question. If you still believe the first theory, then I don't know what to say to you. Must be part of that "Gullible Hippie Syndrome".