a difficult simplicity(1)

[sorrel]

I can only give you some examples of what it works for me by way of hints,clues etc,otherwise I could sound as if I had 'the answer',and it wouldn't be too wise considering how relative personal opinions are.We could start by saying we musn't care about our opponent's style, that way we are simplifying things.We should be aware of the center line as usual.We should have one technique to get into the fight for all styles,not one technique for every style.Our eyes must only have a global perspective of our opponent we should never look at his leg coming for us to deflect it or at his punches coming for us to use this and that technique,to use a bong sao in this type of situation is a bad start,or any other preconceived movement:The main thing to have in mind is that we don't look at our opponents legs, arms,etc and then react,we only need to feel, only then we should react,deflecting techinques are only a result of our attack,we make contact and then deflect or attack the attacker(blocks are kicks),our deflecting techniques for punches and kicks are only the result of our punches and kicks feeling our opponents pressure or tension,untill then we are attacking.The tension in wing chun when we practice chi sao is used for everything,legs,elbows,knees,ground fighting,etc,it means that if we find our way free we are always attacking our opponet,being aware of this tension changes your wing chun due to the fact that the tension is used the momment you make contact with your opponent.Thanks for your replay.

[foolinthedeck]

its difficult to express in few words and simple to express in many.
aim for less, simplify to a punch or further to that which no words describe.

[Phil Redmond]

We should be aware of the center line as usual.
And in some lineages the 'central line' as well.

[yuanfen]

A refresher for me Phil. Could you briefly describe what YOU mean
by the central line.? (I am not debating)Thanks.

[Phil Redmond]

Joy,
The central line is the "fan like" area away from the centerline where you can strike the same target without moving the shoulders (telegraphing). It is defined in the 1st few movements in the TWC SNT form where the arms are crossed downwards then upwards.
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/theory.asp#guard - Central line
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/empty.asp#top - SLT form.

[yuanfen]

Thanks much Phil.
joy

[JAFO]

I think a large part of it is to relate everything we do back to the most basic tenets of Wing Chun. The basic concepts of the center (or central) line, gate theory, economy of motion, direct defense and offense and conservation of energy are, in my opinion, the greatest gems in Wing Chun. The emphasis of these concepts, rather than some of the 'unorthodox' tools of WC, like the Bong Sao or the neutral stance, are what distinguish WC from just about all other martial styles. Ask many WC students and by the time they get down to it, the big attraction of WC and what appeals to them is this emphasis of these concepts.

I realize that many of the other martial styles share at least some version of center line and gate theory, but I know of no other style where the very first elements introduced to the newest beginner are not stance and hand position, but the introduction and breakdown of these zones. Where all of the tools introduced thereafter are related to how they work within the context of these basic theories. Wing Chun is unique in that from the very beginning we are instructed to deal with a "zone" defense and offense (to borrow a basketball term) rather than to chase hands. Working off of our gates, it really doesn't matter what type of technique is attempting to come through a gate because we train to defend the gate, not to react to specific types of punches or kicks. The same thing goes for our offense. We train to be agressive with respect to our offense and attack either through the center line, or if it is too well defended, to change our line so as to bypass the line they are defending. Strategy rather than tactics.

And thus I have come to believe that these core principles are so important to Wing Chun that WC was developed to serve the principles rather than the other way around. In that respect, the differences between "Traditional" Wing Chun that have occurred since its inception only occur to the extent that they found better ways to exploit those concepts. In the current MMA era, if a BJJ or another CMA fighter has a better way for exploiting those concepts we should be discarding that of ours which is obsolete and absorbing this new material, whereupon it will still be Wing Chun by virtue of our emphasis of the core principles. The fact that there has been so little change in Wing Chun during the last 50 years is not because WC teachers are stubborn or dogmatic about looking at different techniques, it is because these different techniques have not demonstrated themselves to be superior applications with respect to our core principles. Those who bring in other complete systems of fighting into their Wing Chun schools are doing so not in furtherance of the core principles so much as to introduce additional theories that are, in my opinion, sometimes contradictory to the core principles. It can be argued that depending on how they were doing with the core principles in the first place, brining in additional theories might even be a plus for them. Of course, that's just an opinion to be held rather than a fact to be found.

I look around and see how Wing Chun is presented, and the examples I see in the magazines and on the various web sites vary specifically, in my view, by how well they observe, maintain and promote the primacy of these basic concepts. Some people are clearly doing it better than others from this perspective. Matter of fact, I judge the efficacy of all martial arts through the exact same lens. The examples that demonstrate obvious holes in these basic theories represent a dead end in terms of progression (for my purposes, anyway) because they will always rely on the individual's superior speed, reach, strength or timing; or more often, the opponent's absolute ignorance, in order to succeed. That may be okay when you're young and big and fast and strong, but everyone gets old and declines in most of these attributes. The examples that impress me are those where the individual has chosen not just a better line, but the best line available for that situation and pusued it agressively and effectively.

I think if we all tried to define the movements we're making strictly according to how well they take advantage of the core principles, we could get away from the politics of style differences between the lineages. Exactly how a person throws a punch or holds a Bong Sao or presents a kick is, when you get down to it, a very secondary element when compared to how that person has identified and controlled their line and their gates. An individual can have the perfect punch or kick or hold or lock, drilled to exquisite perfection and honed to resemble the razor's edge. But if they can't bring that weapon to bear on the proper line, they are leaving a hole of which can be taken advantage. It is true that most of our non-WC competition can't take advantage of that hole, which is how WC got to be a big and as wide spread as it is today. That does not change the fact that "good" is not exactly the same thing as "best".

In that respect the comparison of the Hard and Soft 'styles' of Wing Chun are interesting, but somewhat academic. This debate between the big guy and small guy versions of Wing Chun go all the way back to the old days. For the big guy variants, locking up on the center and driving through the line using their structure, mass, and arm strength to collapse a bridge and destroy the structure of an opponent is certainly an effective application of the principles, which explains why this school of thought is as big as it is today. Likewise, the little guy variants of Wing Chun that rely more on footwork and flowing and a more technical use of traps and blocks are also an effective interpretation of these principles. But the bottom line for all WC variations is that they all succeed against opponents of comparable status in other martial styles only to the degree that they can successfully relate what their doing to these principles.

In the end, the best style of fighting for an individual is the one that they understand and can apply within their physical body type and attributes. We cannot all aspire to be UFC champions, but we can aspire to be the best we can be. Thus, it is the basics that we should focus on, more than the details.

[anerlich]

JAFO, good post, but couple of things I disagree with.


The fact that there has been so little change in Wing Chun during the last 50 years is not because WC teachers are stubborn or dogmatic about looking at different techniques, it is because these different techniques have not demonstrated themselves to be superior applications with respect to our core principles.

Up until the last 15 or so years, I agree with this. However I think that in the last 15, with the explosion of information about MA and various other changes, there remain plenty of stubborn and dogmatic WC practitioners, some of whom IMO are in denial about many changes going on around them.


It is true that most of our non-WC competition can't take advantage of that hole, which is how WC got to be a big and as wide spread as it is today.

I wouldn't dismiss our "non-WC competition" so readily; there's little empirical evidence of this claimed effectiveness other than various anecdotes, which are common to every style. With regard to legal means of non-theoretical style comparison, WC is hardly top dog. Thinking a style or formula will take the place of training harder than the other guy is a dangerous proposition IMO.

I think the prominence of WC has more to do with marketing and, at many schools the lack of really hard training or the need to test yourself, especially against other stylists, though this is not unique to WC. It would appear many people get what they want out of WC, but that isn't necessarily proven combat effectiveness. WC is probably the most popular TCMA (though Taiji may be more so), but Karate, Judo and TKD are much bigger.

[yuanfen]

Jafo- appreciate your good clear post and your taking the time to write it.

[Ultimatewingchun]

JAFO:

Liked much of your post - agree with Andrew' critique of it...want to add a few more points....

Your remarks about the efficiency of wing chun "zone-defenses" are good, but they go TOO FAR...especially when you wrote:

"It really doesn't matter what type of technique is attempting to come through the gate, because we train to defend the gate, not to react to specific types of punches or kicks. The same thing goes for our offense. we train to be aggressive with respect to our offense and attack either through the center line, or if it it is too well defended, to change our line line so as to bypass the line they are defending. Strategy rather than tactics.

And thus I have come to believe that these core principles are so important to Wing Chun that WC was developed to serve the principles rather than the other way around. In that respect, the differences between "Traditional" Wing Chun that have occurred since its inception only occur to the extent that they found better ways to exploit those concepts."

In Traditional Wing Chun...WE TRAIN TO DO BOTH...defend the gate;and, by use of the visuals we use (see my post on this thread about watching elbows and knees)...we ALSO train to program certain responses into our muscle memory that ARE technique-related.

For example: we would almost always use some version of lop or biu sao against a hook punch - even though a tan sao might "technically"also cover the same gate....because tan, quite frankly, doesn't work as well as lop or biu against a GOOD boxers' hook. (BTW...there are other resonses we might use against a hook, but the two I mentioned are the most common).

As regards to offense....we OFTEN train to attack the opponent's lead elbow (especially when we are in a parallel position vis-a-vis the opponent, ie. - he has a right leg leading and I'm leading with my left leg)...By attack I mean we spend a significant amout of time training to "go after" that elbow by punching at his body near that elbow - or attacking it with an aggressive bong sao and an extended wu sao - or attacking it with a lead hand pak or gum sao ...trying to set up a pak da or perhaps a pak/lop da situation....while ALWAYS stepping slightly to the OUTSIDE of his leading right leg...

Does this mean we don't pay attantion to "gates"...or that we are married to the idea of attacking only in the way I described ?
...NO...

THESE TECHNIQUES HAVE BECOME STRATEGIES IN THEMSELVES.

There are many other examples I could go on giving as regards TWC - but I think I've made my point...for now.

[JAFO]

Anerlich,

With respect, seeing as how I'm a newbie around here...

Believe it or not, I've been to the MMA mountain and I've done that. I don't discount what other people do because I have gone through a similar process at one time. Flowing - good; regimented forms - bad. Youth power - okay; Tradition - waste of time. All of that set-your-mind-free type of thinking - I was fully into it. To a certain degree I still believe. Form follows function.

I originally took up WC when I was still in my MMA phase. I only intended to add some of the basics to my other stand up fighting skills (so I could flow), and then I was going to move on to another grappling school. By the way, my prior training was not too bad, either. It took me a couple weeks in WC to understand I was in way over my head and had to learn that "vaguely similar" is nothing at all like being "equal". It took me about 6 months to overcome my 'bad' habits of bobbing and ducking and turning away from a punch in a clash and stand up and fight. By that time I realized that there is no point in even considering moving on until I get a handle on WC because it is just so technically superior to the boxing, karate and grappling I was doing before. There's enough material to acquire in WC that I doubt I'll ever move on at this point. I reckon I might be about halfway to the competency level right now, and I'll be well over 50 by the time I get there. At that point, the time it would take for me to learn how to flow into grappling might be better spent refining the game I already know. But that's just me.

"With regard to legal means of non-theoretical style comparison, WC is hardly top dog."

Agreed. Wing Chun was not developed as nor can it readily adapt to anything other than what it is. It was developed solely for one single purpose and it should be judged accordingly.

With respect to competition and other legal means of exploring the utility of different fighting styles, I would submit that all contests are governed by rules that will place greater restrictions on some of the participants than on others.

For example, back in the late 70s/early 80s, the tournament scene on the West Coast was geared to either one of two types of general styles of fighters. There were the 'open' tournaments sponsored by the different karate and kung fu organizations, and then there were the Korean-based tournaments that were geared toward the Korean styles. Wu Shu and Taiji were non-entities at the time. Each type of tournament had its set of rules that ultimately rewarded some styles over others. I don't know what it's like now, so I can't compare the current scenes.

In the open tournaments, hand techniques to the face and groin shots were scored, and kicks to the head were allowed and scored but not given any preferences. In the Korean tournaments, kicks to the head were awarded extra points, groin shots were prohibited and hand shots to the head were not scored. In both types of tournaments, the action stopped after the initial clash and throws/locks were not allowed.

I'm not familiar with the way any of the judo, aikido or other grappling style tournaments were run but I assume that they were set up to showcase the strengths and downplay the 'weaknesses' of their respective sponsors.

Thus in all the competitive scenes, outsiders almost need not apply because the deck was basically stacked against them. Sure, a Kenpo guy did occasionally sneak into the Korean tournaments and by uasing combinations they could get their kicks in, and on occasion a TKD guy who adapted a bit and added some boxing skills could take an open tournament. Although very effective for what it is, a BJJ fighter would have been at an incurable disadvantage at eithe type of contest because everything breaks up after the initial clash and grabbing/holding were prohibited.

So does that mean that BJJ and other grappling styles only gained effectiveness once tournaments were developed to favor their styles? Nope. It only means they went without widespread recognition for that effectiveness until contests were developed and promoted that allowed those techniques. By that, I also include the UFC and its clones.

So it is with Wing Chun. If we want to find out what it can do, the rules of the contest have to at least accomodate the types of techniques that WC teaches. The problem is that they are so different in intent. Wing Chun doesn't teach going for submission or knocking a person out; it teaches how to eliminate a person in a narrow little alley or in the middle of a packed room. Red Boat stuff. Thunder Dome stuff. Two men enter - one man leaves. All or nothing. You're way behind in "points" and as the guy moves in to finish you off, you come back from nowhere to take it from him and return it twice as bad.

Based on how it was developed and for what, the greatest failing of Wing Chun is that success requires total comittment. There is no half-way mark. As we have all seen in the past, failure to fully commit will get a WC guy hurt. How do you go about 'pulling' a kick the intention of which is to separate the pelvis from the spinal column? If you do pull it, how does the other person perceive this act of kindness? How can two people safely compete using Gerk moves that involve taking the kick and breaking the knee while it is still in motion? How can you have contact with most anything from the Third Form?

The problem with Wing Chun is that there aren't that many offensive moves in the forms that are actually 'legal', unless a person believes the punches in the First Form are a primary weapon to be used on a habitual basis. T-R-A-I-N-I-N-G.

Wing Chun is what it is. If we want to compete, we should train in and learn a style that was either developed for or can be safely adapted to the athletic and competitive nature of such contests. This is how we get a backfist (in some schools) out of a set of forms where no backfist exists. This is how people start thinking Wing Chun is about punching a person in the nose or kicking them in the chest, and then wondering why they have trouble stopping a good BJJ guy from shooting for the takedown. Which in turn is how people can (arguably) say that WC guys are full of crap.

[old jong]

Interresting post Jafo.
In your opinion....Could many misconsceptions about Wing Chun be in fact caused by the forms "lack of fighting guidelines"?...They are (IMHO) attributes forming molds and do not have the same function as other styles "forms" who indicate how and what to do in precise situations. ;)

[JAFO]

Sifu Parlati,

I am no sifu, not now, not ever; I just don't have what it takes. So I'm in no position to actually disagree with anyone. That said, I'm not sure that you and I are in any disagreement about the relationship between theory and technique here. We all drill, we all train specific responses and combinations. We seek to develop sound habits. Nothing wrong with that; how else to get the instinctual response?

The examples you used, IMO, still demonstrate the primacy of the principles. The Tan isn't an inferior motion because the punch coming to the gate is circular, it's an inferior motion in this case because the footwork necessary to support it by positioning the bridge in front of the elbow near the wrist is slower than simply using the Biu Sao or otherwise bridging on the inside gate. It's just as well, shifting that much on the inside gate isn't usually encouraged anyway, which is another application of basic theory.

The main point I'm attempting (poorly) to convey is that each of these techniques represent the "What"; they are a means to an end. The core principles represent (to me, anyway) the "Why". When I see a new technique or a combination, it's easier for me to remember it and integrate it with the other material I know if I can understand how it relates to the "why". Generally speaking, if I can't get a new technique to work, it's because I'm not applying it within the constraints of the underlying theory. Once I can figure out the relationship, it all seems to come together neatly. I'm sure that's a common experience for us all.

Without the why, it would just be like when I was learning katas and preset combinations when I was in karate. In order to be able to use those in any given situation, a person would have to be familiar with the designated response for every conceivable situation, rather than intepreting all of the situations based on their common positions. They also have to be able to pull that combination from a more disorganized mental catalogue because stuff isn't as directly related to each other and they are memorized rather than instinctual. I have seen technique overload in action before (though not in WC), and it isn't pretty.

Rote memorization has its place, but it is the understanding that makes the difference in WC, no?

[anerlich]

I keep hearing this argument about how Wing chun is extra deadly and only has one setting - KILL - which makes it totally unsuitable for contests.

If that were so, surely all the rooftops of Hong Kong where Bruce Lee, Wong Shun Leung, and William Cheung allegedly vanquished the CLF minions would be littered with dead bodies.

Emin Boztepe with his alleged 300+ streetfights (not that he's the only one) would be, rather than a celebrated WC instructor, doing hard time for mass murder.

Your statements about what WC is designed for simply do not match what it actually delivers in the real world.

My Sifu, Rick Spain, was a successful amateur and pro kickboxer in Australia in the 1980's. He's hardly the only such person (some of my si-dai have done so as well, as have Anthony Arnett and Joe Sayah from TWC).

WC CAN be successfully adapted for competition, the problem is not WC's "extreme deadliness" but rather the unwillingness of its practitioners to have a go, being more content to believe the fables of deadly techniques, and saying they're scared of hurting the competition too badly when in reality the reverse is more likely, because the competition train with the commitment you talk about and most WC people don't.

[JAFO]

Anerlich,

Surely you guys don't practice those techniques at speed, do you? How many times can a guy take a full-on Fak to the neck or a broken knee? So if you aren't working on those techniques, what are you working on, because that stuff is the rule, not the exception. There are just as many Biu Sao motions in SLT as punches.

Obviously, I cannot argue with you about the disparity in training regimens, nor do I disagree with the value of being more physical or working with the techniques in more realistic methods. I'm only saying that WC is not well suited to competition without some significant modifications. WC shools on the whole have a lot of room for improvement assuming the demand ever goes in that direction. I daresay that what your sifu does in the ring probably doesn't resemble what he teaches in the way of forms that closely. Is he effective in the ring? I'm sure he is. Is it Wing Chun? Well, even you didn't call it that.

If your assertion is that WC could be modified to prevail in the ring, I am in agreement with you except that at that point the intentions, the techniques, and the results are all going to be different. There'll be a lot of punching, for one thing. If your assertion is that techniques from other styles can be used using the same basic principles as Wing Chun and work better because of it, I'm mostly in agreement with that. If you're saying that people seldom died on the rooftops of Hong Kong, I believe you're underinformed. If you're saying a coupkle of the guys you mentioned never did anyone in, I'm in 100% agreement with you there. Of course, I can't say for sure because I wasn't there.

I think a boxer could cross train in WC and become a better boxer within the rules of boxing. Same thing for a BJJ guy or a Muy Thai fighter. For that matter, I have used WC methodology in a boxing rules match - it worked great. But it wasn't Wing Chun, it was something different.

Not that there's anything wrong or bad about being different than Wing Chun. There are a number of other styles out there that are wholly or partially derived from Wing Chun. Bruce was/is not the only guy to do that. These other styles are even proud enough of what they do to have their own name for it, rather than to say they are something that they aren't.

[anerlich]

If you're saying that people seldom died on the rooftops of Hong Kong, I believe you're underinformed.

You're entitled to your belief, though if you have any hard information to support it, I'm sure many on this forum, which is frequented by legitimate Wing Chun historians, would be fascinated, as would I.


that stuff is the rule, not the exception

That stuff is the fable, not the reality. If all your stuff is too deadly to practice at speed, you get no experience with contact, no chance to work against a resisting opponent. It's much easier to come from a sport type environment and add maiming techniques, than come from an "everything we do is deadly so do it slow and without contact" dreamscape which has no trasference to the real world.


These other styles are even proud enough of what they do to have their own name for it, rather than to say they are something that they aren't.

Opinions vary as to what is and isn't Wing Chun, and yours is but one. FWIW, my Sifu calls less and less what he does "Wing Chun" because of his opinion of *some* of the ideas of the self-appointed purists and keepers of the flame.

I've been around the block myself, and while your background sounds good I don't see it gives you a more informed view than that of myself or a number of other posters.

[JAFO]

Anerlich,

Please don't get me wrong . I don't consider my opinion to have any more validity than anyone else's and indeed less than many. With respect to 'my story', I don't think I need to remind anyone that this is the internet where anyone can be anyone. Who knows, besides myself, how much of my story is the truth, and further, who cares? For all anyone knows, I could be a bored 15-year old just itching to start some controversy for the pure fun of it. I hope nobody actually thinks that, but....

As to what is and isn't Wing Chun, my perception and interpretation of Wing Chun is defined by what's in the forms. I've always heard and read that the forms include everything, although it isn't all obvious at first glance. There has been more than one occasion where what I thought was a block or a diversion or even a strike turned out to be something far more aggresive. I'm betting there's more to come as I progress. Anyways, if a technique is in someone's form and it otherwise conforms to the principles then I don't see how it's open to debate. If it's not in a form or the particular application contradicts the principles, then it seems like the burden of proof is on whomever asserts it should have been there. Maybe it's time for the forms to change, although I haven't heard anyone suggest that yet - probably because I haven't been around here long enough.

The way I heard it (probably another fable) the goal of our forebears was to actually reduce the forms by finding more applications for fewer techniques. If someone can do that I'd sign up in a heartbeat because I find the volume of material I'm faced with now to be pretty daunting. If anything, it seems like the volume is growing as I go along. I have no reasonable hope of ever mastering the system, which is why I'll never be a sifu.

Nobody said anything about going slow with a technique, although I reckon if a person can get a legitimate technique all the way through the gates against a combative and struggling opponent without having to hurt them, doing it with the follow through should be a no-brainer. It is true that not having the experience of actually making the cut or taking the cut does leave some of us (me, for instance) at a disadvantage when it comes to being able to say that everything I do is personally field-tested by me. On the other hand, I don't need to be hit by a baseball bat (or a pole) to know that the results aren't going to be pretty. I must confess to being not at all desirous of having that particular experience, and because of that reluctance, I am somewhat conflicted. FWIW, I have lots of experience sparring in my former life, and I wasn't half bad at it. Nothing of a professional nature or its equivalent, as I have always approached the MA as a recreation or hobby.

We are all familiar how different people do things differently. I'm not conversant enough with it, but my sifu doesn't seem to have any problems pigeonholing where a person came from and how far their sifu got before splitting off, based on what they do and how they do it. At least when it comes to the Hong Kong lineages. What I've found is so interesting is that everyone talks pretty much the same basics, but their interpretations at ground level vary so much, even after only a couple decades of divergence. I've gotten to the point where I usually just skip all the text in an article or on a website and go straight to the pictures - which seem to tell the real story. I probably don't need to explain that any further.

Lastly, and as you have alluded, there is the importance of the individual's effort, which cannot be overstated. Regardless of lineage and instruction, the efforts of the individual count more when it comes to the finished product than anything else. I can imagine that some of the most skilled and/or effective fighters have come from mediocre instruction, and have done so purely as a function of their discipline and their follow through. Certainly the reverse is true. Some of us are just lazier than others - I'm sure my sifu would cringe at the thought of being judged solely by the skills of a couple of his students, depsite his best efforts with them. I'm trying hard not to be one of those guys.

Matter of fact, had I spent the time I've blown ranting on this subject over the weekend actually practicing my Wing Chun, I'd probably be a little better than I am today. I'm almost certain I would have stepped on fewer toes. For those who have found my remarks offensive, I apologize for that. It was not my intention.

[yuanfen]

Sharing- rather than debating point counter point.

1. the roof top fighting stories, Wang Kiu's stories , other HK journalistic stories are not the only "info" on wing chun efficacy
after Leung Jan's and Ip man's fights. Any time someone is not there it can be labelled as a story.

There have been wing chun people who have been on the dark side...possibly Jiu Wan and also one of his students.
There are other quite serious fights that I know of where wing chun people succesfully defended themselves. Some in the contemporary period- lets say 10 years.

2. But internet forums and even books are not depositories of wing chun "history".

3. If folks find some inadequacy in their own wing chun and shift to mma in part or totally, I have no problem with that. If folks dont have confidence in what they do- what they do can fail them.

4. As David W. pointed out, I have done other things before I came to wing chun in 1976- so in a way I came from mma to wing chun before the term mma was coined. Just as an advanced system absorbs other sytems as special cases- I found wing chun to be a very advanced and multi functional system. But an advanced system does not mean that the practitioner is advanced- as it may well be even in my case. The physics of a subject can be greater than the physicist studying it.. I have found wing chun to be very effective in non sporting situations for me and people who I know.

5. I didnt come to wing chun because of any marketing. By sheer luck (yuanfen), I ran into people (not just one) who were superb in wing chun and understood wing chun in depth and could and have used it.
My understanding of martial activity has not stood still and wing chun principles in my understanding of the framework helps me analyse other martial and combative events and activities quite well.

6. Wing chun is not the only way- if you find a superb teacher of
some other reasonably effective martial art or mixes thereof and
find wing chun to be incomplete- vaya con dios.

7. BTW, I am analytical enough- not to depend on "sifu sez" in martial arts, politics, religion or life.

8, I bow down real low to anyone who can fix my car, repair my pc
or can make two wooden joints fit exactly.

joy

[foolinthedeck]

good post yuanfen

[AndrewS]

JAFO,

if you wanna work with some people who like to take their Wing Chun and make it work with a breadth of other experience, drop me an e-mail at <razorbladekiss23@yahoo.com>. Workouts are a couple of times a week at my place in Silverlake in LA, I e-mail invites out a day or two before.

Later,

Andrew

[wentwest]

JAFO,
I recommend that you take Andrew S. up on that offer. He's a great guy, and is very knowlegable about Wing Chun and some other styles. You'll get a great workout too.

[Ernie]

andrew can i come to :D

i know i'll get there , just getting things back in order , might have all day next sat.
there is a new live in student at gary's from germany 12 years deep in wing chun , been with some big names and he is a big guy , maybe i'll bring him along :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

JAFO:

Your enthusiam for and apparent sincerity about wing chun is most welcome and refreshing - but I highly recommend you take up AndrewS on his offer. I've never met him but have had enough internet discussions with him and his friend Dhira (KenWingJitsu) to know that he won't steer you wrong...

What am I alluding to exactly ?

Don't shortchange your previous martial arts experience (and other fighting arts in general) - because you're now in love with wing chun. Keep your mind open... And as regards competitions and wing chun...

Don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of thinking that wing chun techniques are "just too deadly" - or that the "adjustments" that a wing chun fighter would have to make in order to fight in a tournament situation are "too extreme"... or even just to workout or spar/grapple/compete behind closed doors with other stylists would be "too problematical".

Wanting to spend MOST OF YOUR WORKOUT TIME with wing chun right now is a good thing - as a newcomer you really need to "get down" with the art...

But don't lose sight of the other ways to fight in the process - and keep whatever you learned in the past in the back of your head (ESPECIALLY THE GRAPPLING)....

You will probably want to return there later on to see what's what.

[JAFO]

I appreciate the input as well as the invitation to learn new things. Obviously, I'd be happy to extend the same invitation for anyone who is interested. I've worked with several folks from other lineages of Wing Chun, and in fact have a friend who's spent 10+ years with some of the most reputable schools in New York and the Bay area before he got to us. We generally work out together every week. If it's okay, I'm sure he'd be interested in meeting new people, too. I'm apologize if I implied that I'm actually a beginner; at 6+ years I'm probably somewhere in the middle rather than at either end of the spectrum. Then again, beginner, intermediate, expert and sifu all mean different things to different people.

For my experiences such as they are, I do indeed consider where I am right now to be a product of the sum. What was true for me when I came in remains true, only more so. This is important because my prior experiences gave me the context from which to more quickly and effectively compare the newer input. On the one hand, I wish I'd figured it out a lot sooner and saved myself some time, on the other hand there's no point in having regrets. I discount none of it, I've only discarded that which was less to me in favor of that which is more. Isn't that what we all profess?

I figure the purpose of study is to find the best expressions of those truths. In that, it's not so much about saying one way is right and another way is wrong, it's simply seeking the optimum way to do the same things.

I was looking for the bigger and better deal when I came in - if and when I leave it will be the same way and for the same reason. No doubt, this is a common sentiment.