Attn: yuanfen on the weapons/pole

[Sihing73]

Hi yuanfen,

I figured it would be better to start a new thread rather than continue on this subject on the RH Banning thread.

On that thread you stated the following:
"((Mixing apples and oranges dave. Yes the weapons came after the hands historically and should do so now sequentially in training as well. The weapons are extensions of the hand and you do some things for enhancement of the hands and for development and adjustment to weighting. BUT-The body principles -
remain the same....no new metaphysics involved. But when people are not ready for the weapons- fantasies can emerge))))

This was in response to my proposing the addition of the pole from another art to be included in Wing Chun. I mentioned that the power generation was different as well as implied a difference in some of the body mechanics and principles.

If you are willing I would like to discuss this in greater detail. I am of the impression that you have learned the pole form. With this in mind I would lke to ask your impression of the exercise known as "Chair Gwun Kuen". In this exercise one adopts a rather wide and low horse stance and also trains to punch to the side "across" the body. I would be interested in your impression of how this compliments other principles of Wing Chun. For example, would you say this does not violate the principle of crossing or passing through the gate because the body is turned in that direction? If so, what about the legs and waist which stay pretty much forward during this exercise?

Consider also the stances in use with the Pole form. Why so different than the rest of Wing Chun? You do not find this "variance" in the knife form, or do you ;) ?

Would it be possible to learn the Pole without knowing the rest of the Wing Chun system?

I ask not to be smart but because you seem to imply that the pole is an extension of Wing Chun. I feel that the pole is a fine example of the incorporation or integration of another art into the Wing Chun system. The original form may have been modified to fit within the basic framework of Wing Chun however it is still quite different from the rest of the system. This variation is not found within the knife form which does pretty much act as an extension of the arms. The pole on the other hand uses quite different footwork and body mechanics, IMHO, then found within the rest of the system. Ones facing method is quite different in comparison to the rest of the system.

If the pole was indeed adopted from another system then is it possible and even desirible for the same thing to happen today? What I am getting at is whether it would be "acceptable" to examine another system, like BJJ or Kali for example, and incorporate things from that system into your art? This seems to have happened in some families particularily the Veitnamese and perhaps the Malaysion lineages.

Like someone else said in another post what is most important is whether it works or not. Would it be true to our Wing Chun forerunners if we reject examining another system or art out of fear of diluting our Wing Chun. If, as you indicate, most of us have not learned "real Wing Chun" then what is more desirible; an art which is "politically correct" or one which "works"? I know which one I would choose. However, I am not saying in any way that Wing Chun is deficient. Rather my exploration of Kali has opened my eyes to things already found within the Wing Chun system. Rather than find a defect I have seen, from another perspective, the "completness of the system". Complete not because the art contains everything for every possible situation. No, rather complete because by teaching one to learn and apply concepts instead of technique it allows for the integration of other arts to be built upon a viable framework. Thus Wing Chun can include many arts. However, they will not be applied from the original perspective but from the Wing Chun framework. This is hard to get across in this medium but in essence you would no longer do Kali but you would perform the "kali sticks or knife" from a Wing Chun perspective.

Sorry for the rant but I am curious about your response and whether or not you feel the pole can be learned seperately from the rest of the system.

Peace,

Dave

[yuanfen]

A quick post before actually doing and teaching wing chun on a gorgeous Sunday Arizona in May morn.Some answers to your questions in bullets.
. Sure the pole and the knives were adapted by the Leung jan-Yip man tradition after the empty hand system was worked out.
. generally it is important to learn using one's body well before adding weapons.Nost people are not at that stage. Wing Chun is not a mass art.
. the usage of the weapons is in the wing chun way- not the hung gar way.
.Yip Man's preferred do and its name is different from others. Only 3 or 4 people learned the weapons completely and directly from YM.Thats not an insult... some others learned from each other in varying degrees.
.In YM WC some things are done for development purposes-others for direct application...in a less sophisticated parallel---the use of the speed bag in boxing and hand position and actual usage of the hands.
.the use of the wide horse in punching and pole is a supplemental devlopment exercise... not a practise of the real application motions.
. ditto for cat stance in do and kwon ...teaches balance, sinking etc... devlopment--- not direct application in the same way.
. most people who import other things into wing chun--just havent learned enough wing chun...such as Bruce lee. You have to know something before you improve it. Not a brief against improvement, in principle.

Really, the cavalier nature of much net conversations hampers
serious and knowlegeable discussions--easily invites the wise guys. And one can again drive Black and Blue -nuts. In some of your posts Dave---you seem to be an advocate for adapting different things into wing chun... sticking to good wing chun is a much better journey. Until one is super good... a Yip man or leung Jan ...pontification on changes is silly. If one imitates bits and pieces from other systems---you lose. Boxers box better than JKD or muay thai, wrestlers wrestle better than Ali, bjj folks know some pages of the kamasutra better than boxers or tkd folks.
Ban yuanfen I say... bam em all...the long and the short and the tall!!

[Sihing73]

Hi Yuanfen,

You make a good point about the limitations of the net and the transmission of some things.

While I can agree with some of your points, application is oftimes different than training I would be curious to see the differences between your training or form and application. Not a slight here but since you mention the wide horse and cat stance and seem to imply they are for training only, I am curious as to what may replace them in application.

You are correct in your thought that I am not against the inclusion of other arts into Wing Chun. If there is merit in the addition then why not? Again refering to the limitations of this medium I would like to reference a fine book which does much to explain my viewpoint on this. "Living the Martial Way" by Forrest Morgan. There are several references to building a strong core art and then exploring other arts to round out the limitations of this core art. Also, my Sifu is of the same mind, if something works and does not violate Wing Chun then why not take it and make it a part of your personal approach?

I like to win in a fight. I am not so concerned with whether or not it looks pretty, proper or even if it looks like Wing Chun. I am concerned with whether or not it enables me to go home at night. Most of those I have taught came because of the limitations of their former approach. Too many people put on blinders and stick to "tradition" in essence they become a slave to the way the art was transmitted to them. As I said in my previous post, exploring other arts has not pointed out lacking in the Wing Chun I was taught. No, it has rather opened my eyes to the things I was seeking already being found within the system. I may not do my Wing Chun exactly like someone else, but I do stick to the underlying core concepts, or try to ;) However, I have attempted to make the system my own and to be able to use it effectively.

If one looks at traditional martial arts there is a strong "tradition" of blending arts. Pakua is an excellent example as many Pakua Sifu, even today, REQUIRE training in a previous martial art before considering one for training. The training is then "tailored" to the individual. It is still Pakua but it is now a representation of the individual and what he needed and brought with him. This tradition can be found in other arts as well. In particular when the arts were used for combat. One would be foolish to not incorporate something which may save ones life. Leaving the CMA for a moment look at the Romans. Part of the reason they were able to conquer many nations was their ability to learn and adapt according to the threat they faced. Of course, strong discipline and severe training and teamwork were also a factor. But I think you get what I am getting at. Today we can sit safely in our homes, behind our keyboards and fantasize about what will and will not work.

I believe that Wing Chun is an excellent combat art, when taught properly. I also believe that Wing Chun is an eclectic art being developed from several other arts. I also believe that if I were most likely to face someone armed with a club or knife or a wrestler I would spend some additional time training for that specific threat. No, I would not try to wrestle a wrestler. However, if I had an understanding of how he did things I would incorporate that knowledge into my "system" to be better prepared to face the threat. Thus learning all I can about my potential enemy and his method of fighting in order to better insure my going home at night.

Peace,

Dave