how to strike a wing chun strike? [Archive]

Kuen

01-26-2004, 09:00 PM

Sorry my post should've read:

this type of convoluted malarky is a big reason why all my friends who do western martial arts are all better than those FRIENDS who do chinese arts.

So it was meant as an observation not a blanket condemnation of CMA. Now, I'm sure you'll say the guys I know who do WC and other CMA's aren't any good or had bad teachers, etc. but I have a realist view of martial art. I don't look to Wong Shun Leung or Rickson Gracie...I look to see how the average person does with the art. If a person has to be a mystic sage, superbeing or muscle thug to make the art work, well, that will be an art soon piled on the trash heap of yesterday. As for why I have friends who do Western Martial Arts? Just re-read your post.

As for my explaing the WC punch, I probably couldn't in text but I know that even though my punch isn't the fastest or hardest (it's quite dainty actually :) ) it has worked every time I really needed it to work and that's pretty much all I need. Now you seem to enjoy dangling your esoteric knowledge like a worm before us poor forum fish...take care you don't get wet, now ya hyear.

yuanfen

01-27-2004, 06:46 AM

Kuen-
Firstly Anerlich is far from "esoteric".

Secondly--- defining an art by seeing the "average" from your perspective- is error filled. The difference between a well trained sniper and the average gun toting macho is considerable.

Wing chun was never intended as a mass production art.
Regarding "esoterica"... apart from problems in language or even
indirectedness... there are different cultural roots involved in
communications on wing chun. Some esoterica is inescapable imo---though necessary degrees can vary.

FWIW- I came to wing chun AFTER being fairly good at several western arts.

yuanfen

01-27-2004, 06:51 AM

There can be different languages for different functions- classic distinctions between connotation and denotation.... among others.
The languages of pure, applied, engineering, varying philosophies, sports, art, two person communications, multi person communications, intuitive insights---can have different nuances.

PaulH

01-27-2004, 09:36 AM

I often wonder if "Punch like arrow" refers more to penetrating power of the arrow or a bullet for instance. It makes a world of difference when correctly done. One can punch with very soft power, but it just goes right through a person like a nail. And yes it really hurts! Perhaps Hendrik can discuss more on how he can do this.

Regards,
PH

Phenix

01-27-2004, 09:46 AM

1, The post starting with a question on some WCK concept. It is very straight forward specific WCK Term. Where is the convoluted malarky from ?

Analogously, how can one look into a chinese painting without understand the angle and terms which the art means? There are depth in every art that can be understand only if certain perspective of the art is understood.

2, The post is about how to delive a strike the WCK way. What is the principle behind it. since it is WCK, The strike must be following the WCK way or principle or specifics. what is it so difficult if one be able to listern to observe to understand instead of rejecting anything if it is not the way expected it to be?

3, why is this topic essential? Because it deal with Delay of power generation. And that delay while striking might be one of the elements why one has no chance to do a multiple or even a strike when the grapper move in.

How can one claim to master or know a thing , an art without fully investigate and understood what is the elements of an art about?
Not to meantion with a mental attitude of rejecting?

In 1930 era, The creator of Yee Chuan GM Wang Xiang-Zai critic some CM system are just very surface with lots of show business moves. Wang himself oftern defeat fighters from various style, oriental or western with one strike. Just one strike.

WCK is a precise and consice elegant art in design, very similar to Yee Chuan. Without depth understanding about it will end up to be those show businese moves martial art system. Similar to Wang, when the ancestors of WCK can finish a job with a strike. today, One might becomes using dozen of moves and strikes but no big effect yield. not only that, it creates delays and gaps for others stylist to take advantage on. so is it that the art doesnt work or is it that one is "Average" which translate to surface. So, is the topic about convoluted malarky?
or it is about to discuss the implementation of that one strike which do the job?

if some love to stay at AVerage , That is fine. It is a free will world. But the world is vast and deep.

Just some thought

Gangsterfist

01-27-2004, 09:58 AM

Here is a maxim of WCK I am not totally sure of.

The staff does not strikes twice

Now this is where WC can get confusing, technical, philosophical, esoteric, etc.

Does it refer to the 6 1/2 pole? Does it mean the same fist should not strike twice, you should switch hands when striking? Does it mean you yourself should not get hit twice by the same attack? Does it mean your technique should be trained solid so you should not need to strike twice? Do different lineages have different answers to this maxim?

So what is a WC strike? That is a broad question that has many answers. Any answer could be debated till the sun bursts as well. When we get caught up in the myth of things we forget what the thing was really about. It doesn't really matter if Jesus Christ existed does it? No, I think what is written and known about what he did is most important. We should not debate about his existance but take the "myth" of what happened and apply it for better use. Now, I just used Jesus Christ as an example no religous debate intended here. Did Ng Mui train Yim Wing Chun kung fu, or was that just a code name for some secret art? It doesn't matter.

Does getting caught up in the philosiphy and mythology of WCK help the art? No, not really, but there is merit to it. These stories are here for a reason myth or not. They are here to teach us lessons, remind us of certain things.

Therefore whatever answer anyone gives on what a WCK strike is, would, or should be is not correct nor is it incorrect. I think the basic idea behind a WCK strike is effeciency.

On a side note, to some the history, myth, legend, and esoteric knowledge are an interest to some. I, myself must admit that the history of kung fu (myth or not) perks my deepest interest at times.

Phenix

01-27-2004, 10:05 AM

Pual,

1,Penetration is one thing.
2,How fast the strike can be accelarate is another,
3,what range the target of the strike cover will be , a point, an area, is another thing,
4,How effortless thus the strike can have a fast repetition freely is another thing,

ofcorse these above are non linear. one required a non linear even oppose conventional logic thinking.....

lots of stuffs. it is just not about watching a video go to a class and just striking.

If BJJ is a Grapping art and WCK is a striking art in general.
Then, when BJJ trains hundreds of ways to take down, choke, grap.... WCK better masters hundreds of way of doing strike. otherwise one end up wrestler the wrestler. There is no WCK.

Just some thoughts

Phenix

01-27-2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Gangsterfist

Therefore whatever answer anyone gives on what a WCK strike is, would, or should be is not correct nor is it incorrect. I think the basic idea behind a WCK strike is effeciency.

I agree on efficiency but not on "not correct nor is it incorrect"
However, effeciency is an adjective.

there areas of effecient need to be define clearly, and how to implement them are a question which is very specifics.
otherwise, one is empty inside not tangible at all because everything is just too general.

Grandfather Gracie cannot just tell his sons just rush in and grap effeciently.

BTW, efficient is not precise. effective and efficient add up are more like it.

The biggest problem WCK has now a day is it get too general and tooo logical. as leonardo davinci said something like " too big a room create chaos, small room good for focus"

Just some thought

Gangsterfist

01-27-2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Phenix
...If BJJ is a Grapping art and WCK is a striking art in general.
Then, when BJJ trains hundreds of ways to take down, choke, grap.... WCK better masters hundreds of way of doing strike. otherwise one end up wrestler the wrestler. There is no WCK...

Interesting point. There are many ways to throw a straight punch, or even chain punch. There are many different palm strikes, wrist strikes, punches, kicks, finger jabs etc etc. I think its not the strike but the principal and concept behind it is what makes it WCK.

To a lot of people WCK at first glance looks like a linear art, but infact its not. There are lots of circles in WCK they are just compact and effecient. Which is a big part of WCK. So if the concept is there then it could be considered a WCK strike. For example, I have never seen a head but or strike with the head in WCK. However, one of the concepts of WCK is a human bodies 13 weapons. One of which is the head. So WCK does consider the head to be a weapon. It does not really have any type of head but move in the form (except for maybe the end of bui gee form depending on lineage). One day while sparring with a brother I got trapped and my arms collapsed against my body. He was going to proceed to strike me in my face. I head butted him right away and knocked him off balance and created space to no longer be trapped. My sifu stopped us and asked why I did that. My only response I could think of is that it was my closest and most available weapon. So I applied the concept of striking with the closest weapon. Was it a pure WCk strike? Probably not I would say, but the WCK concept was there.

So what I meant to say is no answer is really incorrect if you can apply a WCK concept to it.

Phenix

01-27-2004, 10:24 AM

Gangsterfist,

true about lots of ways to strikes.

But there are more then that.
there are ways to strikes, angle to strike, target domain of strike,
and intensity of strike.. ect.

It is similar to Sonny's Cell phones. there are red one, blue one, with camera, with sim card, with flipping cases......single band...dual bands... all one can think about cell phone.

And all these link direct to the SLT and its still platform. Thus, I always disagree with concept claim originality which based on kiu sau type of reasoning and equavalent to other styles ect because they have more kiu sau...wck copy them.....or same soft kiu sau....
There are depth in SLT which are not discussed in public. Kiu Sau stuffs is not the core of WCK and the concept is not accord to WCK.

why?

wck is about continous analog, not discrete action. That is why SLT was said to be easy to learn but difficult to master. because it is continous analog, the transitions or transtient within the continous can cover both continous and discotinous. it is like a machine continously on and monitor/ adaptation keep going and never stops. That while monitor/adaptation continously needs to master all posible changes or transients of the feedback---or strike generation, target, intensity...... otherwise , the system dont work .

WCK is a striking art. Mastering every ways of striking in the latetal and vetical understanding is the key. It is about energy management not about shape.

In addition, why do we fear about take down if we are the master of strikes? we supporse to master all sorts of energy generation and neutralization in any time any place dont we? :D
are we still WCK? :D Yayaya, WCK is expert in neutralizing force with simultaneous striking.
Are we still that WCner or lost ourself in chain punch, tan sau, time, space...his-story... .within our own cyber space while the BJJ people learning and training 100's of take down, grapping... in all direction? when it is time to match them go learn thier art but preseve WCK's title. :D

if we dont address it and get back what we have rest rusty then we better filing Chapter 11. :D

Forgive me for my wacky thoughts

PaulH

01-27-2004, 11:03 AM

If I may add to your post, Hendrik, one does not have to strike continuously or chase the opponent aggressively with his attacks. Often it is better to wait for the opportunity to come to you or to set up the opportunity for the finishing touch yourself. Skilled or professional fighters often play, parry, evade and then suddenly bombard you with a few precise and powerful strikes calculated to knock you out very quickly and efficiently.

Regards,
PH

Phenix

01-27-2004, 11:31 AM

Pual,
If I may add to your post,----P

Certainly, this is a discussion. everyone is free to speak thier view.

Often it is better to wait for the opportunity to come to you or to set up the opportunity for the finishing touch yourself. ------ P

IMHO, there are something to watch out here. This sound logically correct.

but next time when you face an inrush opponent similar to ERNIE :D and when he comes in you step back.
after that step back, wait for say 0.5 second and strike back. See if you can still strike back immideately or you feel it is very difficult to get yourself accelerate to the state you need?

There is your gap. and oftern you cannot get back due to this delay.... he might come in an finished you.....

WAtch out for thinking logic that doesnt simulate realistic situation.

Skilled or professional fighters often play, parry, evade and then suddenly bombard you with a few precise and powerful strikes calculated to knock you very quickly and efficiently. ----

Those are well train. There are lots of components within thier moves. Not a time, space, energy thinking can oversimpified explaining the situation.

don't believe me? Trying to write a procedure steps teaching kid how to use a telephone.

and then,

Try to write a computer program on how to catch a based ball.
A oversimplify flow chart with timing, distance,..... sound great
but when you get into the wind spead, the road fictions, the variety of the vector force of the incomming based ball, your innertial speed...... and all cases. It is next to impossible.

and, the easy way is to go to the field, explain a little to the kid, and in no time they will running around catching based ball. Those flow chart on the program will oftern screw the kids out leading them to confuse because of missing links , different uncover situation.

So, why don't just let the kid experience, then discuss each subject while come out. set the mind on goal and let the human nature take care of the procedure naturally accord to the situation.

Back to the strike, if one put all one's mind in the process of this Kiu Sau or Tan Sau or Chain punch. When is the guy going to catch a ball? not to mention the ball can rotate with different direction. His mind is not in the Goal. It will not work. Have you think about how to steel your car before you drive it? have you think about how to move driving steel 2 inch here, 4 inch there, or you just think I want to go to LA? and that 2 inch or 4 inch is about how to adaptively adjust to the track to get to LA.

ofcorse one needs to KNow /feel the 2 inch shift of the driving steel with the wheel and based on what speed one goes. Which direction to steel, how much is enought, how much is the correction..... and one dont trying to pull hand brake thinking to reverse the car..... Same with Striking, IMHO, lots have to be address and experience...

Just some thought.

Gangsterfist

01-27-2004, 11:46 AM

Phenix-

You are correct there are many strikes in WCK. If the concept of WCK can be applied to the strike, then its a WC strike.

You asked what we thought a WCK strike was. Its simple if you think about it. If you can apply a concept or maxim to the strike, then its wing chun. If its effecient then its wing chun.

Phenix you wrote:

...true about lots of ways to strikes

But there are more then that.
there are ways to strikes, angle to strike, target domain of strike,
and intensity of strike.. ect...
.

Agreed there are unlimited ways to strike someone. If the concept of Wing chun can be applied to the strike then it can be considered a wing chun strike.

Your analogies of writing computer programs make a good point. The thing is there is no exact science or concept to fighting or combat. There are way too many variables to account for. Its pretty much total chaos. However, there can be science behind the concepts and techniques you execute. There is a reason you execute moves in forms. You don't do it to look pretty. There is concept and science behind the movements, and the form breaks it down so it can be analyzed. So if an attack is in one of the WCK forms (and each is different depending on lineage) or you can apply a wing chun concept or maxim to it, then in fact its wing chun. This can be viewed this way or from maybe a more purist person can be argued as well.

If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck. Then probably more than likely its a duck.

Jim Roselando

01-27-2004, 12:03 PM

Hello,

WCK is a precise and consice elegant art in design, very similar to Yee Chuan. Without depth understanding about it will end up to be those show businese moves martial art system. Similar to Wang, when the ancestors of WCK can finish a job with a strike. today, One might becomes using dozen of moves and strikes but no big effect yield. not only that, it creates delays and gaps for others stylist to take advantage on. so is it that the art doesnt work or is it that one is "Average" which translate to surface. So, is the topic about convoluted malarky?
or it is about to discuss the implementation of that one strike which do the job?

This is a very good issue! An old art I used to do called themselves Gu Yee Kuen (old noble boxing). Well, later I found out that this was a generic term for most south fist/kung fu. One of the reasons for the term Old Noble was so that the pupil would get the correct idea that crude fighting was not the goal! As we mature in MA is it our goal to achieve a level where we need to pund someone with chain punches and then mount him to finish the job? Or! Would it be our goal to achieve a highly refined skill and finish the job within 3 actions? Certainly we know the answer to that.

Basing all our skill of the one energy or Chain punch/linking energy in everything will not help us grow. A gradual refinement of everything should be what we want. As we grow we should shrink and shoot for the ability to generate more with less versus making everything larger or gross. We should also know everything thats going on inside our body and how to loosen/strengthen that way our insides power our outside without hesitation.

So, how can we achieve the level of our ancestors without full body knowledge/connection and refinement as one of our goals? Are we close to their level? Do we represent the stylistic info. in ourselves or are we just the shell/surface of the past?

Just some thoughts

Regards,

Phenix

01-27-2004, 12:11 PM

Houston (WCK) we have a problem (our new engine for generating power and its adaptive control Sucks. ) :mad:

Ernie, it only do Bang Bang, on the motor control, not adaptive at all, full of delay, with only one direction move... .:D

PaulH

01-27-2004, 12:58 PM

Roger! Our LA WCneers and WCtists will send a controversial T2 prototype to fix this soon. Stay tuned for further developments! Ha! Ha!

Gangsterfist

01-27-2004, 01:10 PM

Good points Jim.

One needs to learn how to properly execute strikes for them to yield the desired results. That is why we have sifus and seniors to help teach us how to properly do certain techniques. In the end all matters in the practitioner themself, however. How much hard work they put into it will show how well the end results are. You can chain punch someone 5 times and possibly do nothing, or you can straight punch someone once and knock them out..

Now then, should we concentrate on what our ancestors did or trained to better our kung fu? Sure it won't hurt to have the knowledge. Maybe we should not try to reinvent the wheel and take what our past kung fu ancestors did but advance it to modern times. Be more adaptive as Phenix put it. Obviously health and science have greatly improved since the begining of WCK. Should we not apply new discoveries to this art?

Perhaps there are hidden techniques, or maybe techniques that are not as obvious in our forms. In the Chum Kiu form there is an upper cut type strike. Thats not traditionally wing chum minded as far as strikes go. In Bui Jee there is a hook punch, which is definately not WC minded. However, you never know when you might need to execute these techniques. Perhaps you are in a situation where this type of technique would work best. Sometimes you have to use those "last ditch effort" techniques. Perhaps this also teaches us a deeper concept of martial arts in general. That not every technique is absolute that we must go against what we have learned to be "the way" to survive. No matter how good your WCK is there is always someone better.

To get more technical on a WC strike we could discuss enery release. Short range issuing of jing. Medium range release. Sinking, penetrating etc etc. The intellegence and science behind the strikes is there. Training the body to understand it is the hard part.

So after training all these forms and exercises and applying all these maxims of wing chun what results will we yield? Can we take the knowledge we gain and apply it differently, more adaptively? Can I apply my WCK to a round kick, a flying dragon kick, a sweep, a hook punch, a cross punch, etc etc.???

So what again exactly is a Wing Chun strike?

anerlich

01-27-2004, 02:51 PM

"However, effeciency is an adjective."

Actually, "efficiency" is a noun. "Efficient" is an adjective.

"Grandfather Gracie cannot just tell his sons just rush in and grap effeciently."

And "efficiently" is an adverb.

Actually, that's the way BJJ was in the early days. Just stumble through the rain of deadly kung fu blows or whatever, glom onto the guy, get him down somehow and take it from there.

Early BJJ standup was CRAP. And they STILL won.

Other than some aggressive guard attacks from standing, and flying armbars and triangles, etc., most of the takedowns in modern BJJ are borrowed from other disciplines, wrestling, sombo, etc. Plus most crosstrain, in boxing, Muay Thai, WC, etc.

I agree it is important to understand basic concepts and communicate effectively. One should understand basic BJJ history and concepts before opining on it, for example.

Also, "How to strike a WC strike" to me sounded like a request on to how to damage or intercept a strike from an adversary, not how you hit someone else. I agree there are cultural divides and communication issues, but staying on your side and demanding others cross the great water and not meet you halfway is not a recipe for fruitful discussion.

PaulH

01-27-2004, 05:41 PM

Speaking of fruitful discussion, I'm real busy now so I hope the forum members excuse me if I won't be able to reply to your interesting posts rightaway or for a while. Just to let you know what's going on. We'll see how long I can be away from this addictive forum. Ha! Ha!

Best wishes,

PH

Phenix

01-27-2004, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by anerlich

Actually, that's the way BJJ was in the early days. Just stumble through the rain of deadly kung fu blows or whatever, glom onto the guy, get him down somehow and take it from there.

Early BJJ standup was CRAP. And they STILL won.

I agree certainly they investing in lots of lost to be win.
Certainly, I have lots of home work to do because I learn the history from books and magazines only.

But,

1, Didnt Grandfather Gracie was a great Jujitsu artists to start with? I read it somewhere and saw pictures of the Grandfather match the Japanese.

2, That "STILL won " shows they are not rush in totally blind isnt it?

Or those kung fu mens must not know how to do really strike deadly kungfu blows. Otherwise, how many of them who rush in blind will survive? similar to the Boxer of the Boxer Rebellion rush into Mechine guns with a believe they are bullet proof. :D (JK)

I agree that there are communication issues. But since it is a discussion. To be creative is to see from any view. any view is great.
I dont look or expect any one include me to be right. In fact I expect we all wrong to begin with.

Only Wrong is Now. Right is about the past. when doing an experiments who the heck know one will be right? Right is after lots of wrongs. IMHO.

Your "Strike a stike" is also striking, IMHO. There is nothing wrong. In facts, one needs to be wrong. otherwise when we tries to be right is actually walking into a path of dull and dead.

How many years have we all just focus on the Correct, Original, BEst,.... Chain punch? for example? Sure everyone can be right and most right. But that right is about imitation ... nothing new.

To be very concern about Right, Original, traditional....... is about to be dead and cast in stone due to imitating the past. It limit us, it put us in disavantage. No more adventure. No more new invention, No more creativity. No more live and youth. No more Fun.
Because we all want Right , and to be always right is to be in the tomb.

Without going foward, trying out for WRONG. there will be nothing New. and Wrong = Now.

Again, I love to be wrong. otherwise we all speak about his-story. that is dead. and we are not dead yet.

When chain punches in YJKYM cannot sustain a grapper's inrush. We better go out, doing something wrong, search for hundreds way of wrong.... because the Right has become not working. So, something must be wrong with the Right.

I wonder, if next time when one is matching a grapper. instate of thinking to be Right and have to Win.... do this and do that.,, must win... WCK is the GREATEST art of the Universe!.....ect
Accept to lost, to be wrong, is the norm, instead ,thinking to help the Grapper to defeat one own self and help him to win. how will that do in both psychology and stress? Help ourself to screw up will be the greatest effortless ( is it a noun?) fun job in the world.
CAnt we compete to have the lowest grade instate of the highest? to be the F student instead of the A? Hahahaha

But look most of those A students end up having a good job imitating and going no where. Bill Gates is not A student?

I know, this is WACKY hendrik talking. May be I can be nominate to be the NUMBER ONE BS WACKY THINKER OF WCNER FOR THE CENTURY. THAT IS GREAT. ATLEAST I AM NUMBER ONE Right? :D:D

Just some effortless wacky thought.

PS. On a different view, in the symbolic history of Wing Chun Creation, it said that it is about a crane fighting a pyton or big snake. the Crane beat the snake not being take down to the ground. and the question is how is the crane did it? using it's pek similar to a wood peker? :D So how WCK suppose to strike? :D

anerlich

01-27-2004, 08:48 PM

1, Didnt Grandfather Gracie was a great Jujitsu artists to start with? I read it somewhere and saw pictures of the Grandfather match the Japanese.

The history of BJJ is very well documented (much better than most of WC, including what is in "Mastering Kung Fu" IMO) in the books "Brazilian Jiu Jitsu: Theory and Technique" by Renzo and Royler Gracie, Kid Peligro and John Danaher, and "Mastering Ju Jitsu" by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher. There are many web references as well, Google is your friend.

Worth reading even if you don't like BJJ, as examples of how MA history SHOULD be presented.

Carlos Gracie Senior and Helio Gracie were taught Ju Jitsu by Mitsuo Maeda, a Japanese (duh). The next level of Gracies down are mainly Helio's sons, including Rorion, Rickson and Royce.

Helio's most famous match was against the legendary Kimura, a match which Kimura won after a protracted battle, breaking Helio's arm as he refused to submit.

Or those kung fu mens must not know how to do really strike deadly kungfu blows. Otherwise, how many of them who rush in blind will survive? similar to the Boxer of the Boxer Rebellion rush into Mechine guns with a believe they are bullet proof. (JK)

Or maybe the really strike deadly kung fu blows and Dim Mak ain't so deadly after all. The boxers who faced bullets died (though that won't necessarily happen straight away with a maniac on PCP with either bullets or "deadly kung fu blows), most of the BJJ guys are still walking around fairly healthy.

I agree certainly they investing in lots of lost to be win.

I assume that's not an attempt at humour. Not that many losses, actually. And still far better than lots of victories against theoretical opponents like some other styles.

Phenix

01-27-2004, 08:57 PM

anerlich ,

Thanks for the infor.

I always respect those who put in thier sweat and blood.

Lost/ Win is not a criterion for my respect. Oftern lost is necessary in order to win.

travelsbyknight

01-27-2004, 09:09 PM

Kuen makes an interesting point. Sort of anyway. It's true that you don't look at people like Wong Shun Leung or Rickson Gracie because they are anomolies. You need to look at how MOST of the group(wing chun practicioners) are skill wise. This is basic sociology. If we just focused our time on the one dude who got really good...then we're missing the real picture.

If wing chun people, as a group suck, then we have to see why. Is it the teachers or the students or is the art flawed?

Phenix

01-27-2004, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by travelsbyknight
Kuen makes an interesting point. Sort of anyway. It's true that you don't look at people like Wong Shun Leung or Rickson Gracie because they are anomolies. You need to look at how MOST of the group(wing chun practicioners) are skill wise. This is basic sociology. If we just focused our time on the one dude who got really good...then we're missing the real picture.

If wing chun people, as a group suck, then we have to see why. Is it the teachers or the students or is the art flawed?

Counting from Helio, how many generation of students are there?
Counting form Ip Man, How many generation of students are there?

Average first generation students and average 5th generation students are going to be yield very different picture.

So what is the standard of Average? Difficult to say.

yuanfen

01-28-2004, 06:06 AM

travelsbyknight sez:

This is basic sociology
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
An often rigorless and absurd subject.

We struggle with the history of wing chun and now the sociology of wing chun. We already have claims on the physics...

poor ng mui- so many reductions-

next- the gerontology of wing chun?

01-28-2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by travelsbyknight
If wing chun people, as a group suck, then we have to see why. Is it the teachers or the students or is the art flawed?

To read this board of late, it becomes a wonder why people bother to practice Wing Chun.

01-28-2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by yuanfen
next- the gerontology of wing chun?

Ha ha - I'm already there. ;)

Regards,
- kj

jonp

01-28-2004, 09:07 AM

look at what the average person can do?

i aint the average person.

i look at what the art can do for me.

if i looked at what the average muppet ate

id be stuffing my face full of mcdonalds

is that what you want?

the only limits to your WCK are the ones you create.

WCK is for removing restrictions - think out of the box?

there aint no box.

yuanfen

01-28-2004, 04:16 PM

kj sez-

To read this board of late, it becomes a wonder why people bother to practice Wing Chun
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

A good question and a voice of reason.

Knifefighter

01-28-2004, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by anerlich

Other than some aggressive guard attacks from standing, and flying armbars and triangles, etc., most of the takedowns in modern BJJ are borrowed from other disciplines, wrestling, sombo, etc. Plus most crosstrain, in boxing, Muay Thai, WC, etc.

"How to strike a WC strike" Here is a perfect example of the difference between BJJ and wing chun. The BJJ guys are constantly asking themselves, "What can I steal from other systems or people or invent on my own that will make my BJJ more effective?" The wing chun practitioners, on the other hand, are constantly trying to figure out how to apply techniques using only wing chun principles.

anerlich

01-28-2004, 08:03 PM

The BJJ guys are constantly asking themselves, "What can I steal from other systems or people or invent on my own that will make my BJJ more effective?"

the only limits to your WCK are the ones you create.

WCK is for removing restrictions - think out of the box?

there aint no box.

Two good posts.

Here is the question: is looking for stuff to steal outside Wing Chun a sound strategy to evolve and improve Wing Chun, "removing restrictions", or is it a failure, seeing restrictions in WC which aren't actually there and going outside the non-existent box, the one represented by your own narrow- mindedness and lack of understanding?

Who REALLY understands Wing Chun and its deep strategy? The thief or the purist?

An honest question. Look at my profile and .sig, I think you'll see what my opinion is, however

;)

yuanfen

01-28-2004, 09:41 PM

Anerlich asks:

Who REALLY understands Wing Chun and its deep strategy? The thief or the purist?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honest IMHO- in the world of opinions--

the purist who knows his own personal limitations (height, weight etc) and intelligently observes what non wing chun people do and plays his own game.

PaulH

01-29-2004, 09:38 AM

If the goal is to defeat your opponent efficiently with least amount of resources, then I personally love to see how one does it whether by WC or non-WC way. I would have no qualm to acquire this new skill as my life may depend on it. And that is what really matter - The business of saving and preservation of precious life and its meaningful qualities.

On the other hand, if WC is mind power then there are no imposed limits in such a dimension where your intelligence, feelings, emotions, and spirit will guide you to the optimal path that you must take to defeat your formidable foes against diverse circumstances and physical limitations. Here I stand however long it may take.

Regards,
PH

Phenix

01-29-2004, 09:46 AM

If one doesnt understand deep and master the art one studies, how will one be able to present the art ? the contribution of study other art will that be just adding knowledge or stimulus one to investigate into the original art?

When a strike art practitioner no longer master the strike . such as a crane does not know how to use its wing, pek, craw........
how can it fight a snake?

anerlich

01-29-2004, 03:43 PM

the contribution of study other art will that be just adding knowledge or stimulus one to investigate into the original art?

That's the question I was asking. Is Wing Chun about a predefined set of principles forms and techniques, and, OK, formulae, or is it about using everything possible to win with utmost effectiveness, including stuff which Yip Man or Tan Sao Ng might have never seen?

Can you answer the question rather than rephrasing it?

When a strike art practitioner no longer master the strike

Posters on here keep telling me that Wing Chun is a complete art includes grappling and groundfighting as well, so these people are more than "strike art practitioners". So your statement does not apply to Wing Chun ... does it?

. such as a crane does not know how to use its wing, pek, craw........ how can it fight a snake?

Bad analogy. The crane is not studying a fighting art, it is using instinctive weapons. What you are describing is like an untrained person defending themselves, not a martial arts student.

The logical extension of what you are saying is that we shouldn't study any MA, including WC, because it will mess with our instinctive reactions.

There's probably some sort of bad Zen metaphor in there somewhere, but I can't see any point chasing it down.

KingMonkey

01-29-2004, 04:09 PM

If wing chun people, as a group suck, then we have to see why. Is it the teachers or the students or is the art flawed?
Well the students become the teachers eventually.
A lot of the problems that I perceive in the efficacy of the average WCunner and their acceptance of unrealistic and unchallenging training regimens are based on how WC is marketed and hence the students it attracts.
Forget the martial art.
Take a guy that chose to join an NHB or boxing gym on day 1 - no training.
Put him up against a guy who chose a WC kwoon day 1 - no training.
Who do you put your money on to win ?
I know who I'd be betting on.

Phenix

01-29-2004, 05:50 PM

anerlich,

Thanks for your view.

However different people view things different. Some lateral some vertical, some surface some deep. understand things from different angles...ect.

Setting any view to be the IT can be a disaster.

Asking questions is not about setting any view as the IT, but to see how everyone thinks. The same question might be answered differently because everyone is not the same.

gilsinger

01-29-2004, 07:19 PM

Asking questions is not about setting any view as the IT, but to see how everyone thinks. The same question might be answered differently because everyone is not the same.

One may ask questions of many in turn, in an attempt to learn something.

One may ask questions of a group altogether, presuming they are the teacher of the group.

If you are just seeing how everyone thinks, then there is no need for "Thanks for your view/good opinion. However,"

If you want to know what someone thinks, there is no "However," about it.

anerlich

01-29-2004, 07:21 PM

"Thanks for your view."

Shucks. Do YOU have a view?

"However different people view things different. Some lateral some vertical, some surface some deep. understand things from different angles...ect."

No kidding. :o

"Asking questions is not about setting any view as the IT, but to see how everyone thinks. The same question might be answered"

Not by you, apparently!

" differently because everyone is not the same "

Yeah, we're all different. :o Spare me the bleeding obvious, OK? If I want to be patronised I'll listen to political campaign speeches.

Edmund

01-29-2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by anerlich

That's the question I was asking. Is Wing Chun about a predefined set of principles forms and techniques, and, OK, formulae, or is it about using everything possible to win with utmost effectiveness, including stuff which Yip Man or Tan Sao Ng might have never seen?

Using everything possible to win is a good goal but that doesn't make everything a Wing Chun technique.

Wing Chun is not a complete art in the sense that it has groundfighting AFAIK.

Most NHB fighters have studied a variety of arts to some extent.
Since no one art is strong in all aspects of fighting.

Andrew, you have studied BJJ because TWC does not have strong groundfighting. This has improved your fighting abilities. But that doesn't make BJJ a form of WC technique does it?

Edmund

01-29-2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by kj

To read this board of late, it becomes a wonder why people bother to practice Wing Chun.

I get the feeling from reading certain threads that a significant number of posters here don't actually do Wing Chun!

Gangsterfist

01-29-2004, 08:12 PM

No matter what move you do whether it be a punch, kick, grapple, trapping, palm, fingers, gouge, etc. if you can apply a WC principle, concept, or maxim then its WC.

Your concept of WC will differ from lineage to lineage and ultimately from person to person.

Ultimatewingchun and anerlich both described to me their views on grappling recently. They are good valid points but differ somewhat from mine, and are similar in some ways as well. We all have different points. This forum is designed for discussions.

So then lets discuss how we strike a "wing chun" strike. Which btw is a real broad subject. Ultimately almost every type of strike could be argued that there is a WC principle behind it. Maybe that is because wing chun borrowed techniques from other styles of martial arts, just like a lot of styles have. So a straight punch (chain punch) is not peticular to wing chun. Wing chun has not invented any new ground breaking technique. However the philosophy and concept behind it makes it wing chun. Wing chun minded attacks are wing chun minded by the maxims of wing chun.

example:

If a strike comes in invite it
When someone strikes you allow it to come, don't fight it with force. Then at the apex of the attack make your counter attack. The arm is at its weakest when fully extended

When it withdraws escort it out
When the attack, after being extended, retracts follow it back, sticking to your opponet.

when loss of contact happens rush in
If you cannot stick to your opponet because they jumped back or circled their arm away in an attempt to counter you rush straight in. Don't worry about the limbs or what he is throwing at you next. Rush in and pummel the attacker.

This is a example of the concepts behind wing chun. You can apply this concept to countless combat situations. There is no exact science to combat, there is science behind the techniques of combat. This is another thing that makes wing chun unique.

Edmund

01-29-2004, 08:23 PM

If someone learns a BJJ technique from a BJJ person they should refer to it as BJJ not WC. Otherwise that would be doing that teacher a disservice.

Noticing a parallel between a BJJ principle and a WC principle is different from calling everything WC.

jonp

01-30-2004, 06:45 AM

IMO the only limit to wck is the human body.

the forms teach you ideas of what you can do,
as well as conditioning your body
chi sau and partner exercises improve your fighting attributes
principles and mottos are ideas to help you fight

if you dont fight then you cant expect to be a good fighter

if you train standup then the way you apply your wck standing
up is gonna improve

if you train on the ground then the way you apply wck on the ground is gonna improve

wck is about fighting

its about using what YOU have to defeat your opponent
as quickly as possible.

chris

01-30-2004, 08:33 AM

anerlich wrote:
"That's the question I was asking. Is Wing Chun about a predefined set of principles forms and techniques, and, OK, formulae, or is it about using everything possible to win with utmost effectiveness, including stuff which Yip Man or Tan Sao Ng might have never seen?"

My opinon is that Wing Chun is a predifined set of forms and principles but not a predefined set of techniques. Thus stuff that
Yip Man or Tan Sao Ng might have never seen could indeed be Wing Chun.

I have always liked the story Wong Shun Leung told about using his knee to KO an opponent who had bent over only to have other Wing Chun practioners criticize him for "not using Wing Chun". WSL's response was to the effect that it was Wing Chun because it was direct, his knee was the closest weapon ect.

IIRC Yuanfan stated in another thread context is very important in Wing Chun. I think the WSL story points out one aspect of the importance of context in Wing Chun - if WSL had tried to strike with his knee when his opponent was in a straight up stance - then in my opinon that would not have been Wing Chun.
So in the right set of circumstances a technique that might not be part of a Wing Chun curriculum might well be Wing Chun even if imported from BJJ or what have you.

On the other hand I would say Wing Chun is not about using everything possible - even if at times a technique might be effective - if does not follow Wing Chun principals it wasn't Wing Chun. As an example I once saw someone do a spinning backfist during chi sao - it worked - but it wasn't WC.

Phenix

01-30-2004, 09:12 AM

you all have Great ideas !

if you can apply a WC principle, concept, or maxim then its WC.------G

How do you think about principle, concept, or maxim ?
May be these all are not quite WC without a specific implementation methodology?

Similar to a crane has its pek, wings, claw. a snake has its body to wrap/coil , the poison, the teeth...

so if the snake implement the crane's principle trying to fly. and the crane implemented the snake's principle to lay on ground. Those can be done but not for thier most effective right?

Say BJJ's ultimate is Jujitsu. Thus, BJJ can import some WC technics but the core philosophy/implementation of wc might not accord to BJJ's philosophy/implementation.

The same with WC can import some BBJ technics but the core philosophy/implementation of bjj might not accord to wc's philosophy/implementation.

Now, the question is, do we really know / master what is the "full" philosophy/implementation of WC?. "full" here doesnt means everything but to be able to know the philosophy/implementation of WC. both big picture and details.

If we dont then we might not be a practitioner of wc. so, to carry this thought further, when one who did wck learn BBJ and then decided believing in ground fight is the destination. then, one's art is actually is A BJJ using some WC technics. not WC at all. Because one has given up the believe of one can end the match at standing.

Such as a crane cannot fight on ground as thier major fight similar to a snake. and a snake cannot do it standing up.

How to strike a wck strike? are we a wc practitioners? dont we suppose to be expert in the art of striking in wc way? so, it is not about bjj or other art, it is about do we know our own art---WC? or WC is just a symbolic without much content?

In addition, Without knowing WC philosophy/implementation to a full. how can one not get distract if some other comes up with different method, different claims of superior lineages, or even claiming WC is based on their art? it then become a marketing war trying to us the public to influence WC. nothing to do with the art

How to strike a wc strike is very fundamental. how to strike a wc strike? As I have heard, at Yip Man's time, for his lineage, there is writing about specifics such as how the shoulder must be place and there are 8 types of forces.... certainly different lineage of wc also have similar types of details...

but do we know how to strike a wc strike today? perhaps we have all forgoten about the art.

Just some thought.

Gangsterfist

01-30-2004, 10:43 AM

However, when comparing a snake and a crane fighting to humans doing WC, its not that transferable. This is because physically a snake and a crane are of different design. They are also animals which are acting upon instinct. In peticular the instinct of survival. A snake cannot spread its wings to look bigger becuase it has no wings. A snake can however, coil up to look bigger. So then the snake is executing the same concept as the crane just in a different matter. The snake strikes are linear because of their body design. They fling their bodies forward striking with their fangs. A crane does the same thing, but with its neck and beak. The cranes head is more disconnected from its body compared to the snake.

Now when we witness this and apply these concepts into venomus snake and white crane systems of kung fu, we are infact mimmicing the animals movements. Mimmicing them, but not exactly, we change it to fit our physique. That is why animal boxing can have some brutal concepts to it. Striking vital areas, gouging eyes, ripping groins, etc. Why is this? Is it because we are mimmicing animals? I would say yes. An animals instinct and strive for survival is strong, and they live in enviorments where only the strong survive and the weak perish. So animals will do anything by any means necessary to survive.

Even though the snake and the crane are 2 completely different animals they can both apply the same principals on how they survive.

Phenix

01-30-2004, 07:21 PM

The reason I continous to use Crane and Snake, is about symbolic. So, please not take it as Real Crane and Snake.

Because, story had it that Ng Mui saw the fight between Crane and Snake. Crane win. Then Ng Mui created her Martial art system --- The White Crane. Which according to legend, the mother of WCK.

Now, Ground fighting can be analogy to Snake's natural...... Certainly, Snake will love to take other animals to ground :D

The question remain is does the "crane" still know what "it" is doing?

Or the "crane" is trying to be a "snake"?

Just some thought.

chris

01-31-2004, 06:38 AM

Phenix wrote:

"The same with WC can import some BBJ technics but the core philosophy/implementation of bjj might not accord to wc's philosophy/implementation."

Does it really matter if the core philosphy of the art from which the technique is being adopted accords with WC if the technique can be implemented so as to be consistent with WC philosophy/principles?

"Now, the question is, do we really know / master what is the "full" philosophy/implementation of WC?. "full" here doesnt means everything but to be able to know the philosophy/implementation of WC. both big picture and details."

There are people at such a level of understanding. If you arer saying that some people look at techniques from other arts before sufficently mastering WC then what you are undoubtably correct.

But I think a point in understanding can be reached where investigations of other arts can serve to illuminate an individuals understanding of WC. I know that I am nowhere near such a level so that I have not crossed trained. Perhaps I will never achieve such a level. I think training in Wing Chun is an individual path where the principals of WC serve as guides to ensure that you do not wander off the path - but the path is wide and there is lots of room for individual innovation and expression without stepping off the path. But then maybe I practice Daoist Wing Chun instead of Chan WC :)