Wing chun philosophy

[justinmorris]

I am trying real hard to learn more about Wing Chun. I live in Wisconsin and I think I have found a couple of good training partners that will teach me Wing Chun in exchange for Jiujitsu lessons.

BUt so far everyone I have contacted me comes back saying there is no real techniques that are considered Wing Chun. Wing Chun is simply a philosophy or a method. There are principles in Wing Chun but not techniques. Ok so 3 different people from different WC schools have emailed me back saying this same thing.

I am having a hard time getting around this becuase I want to learn the techniques or drills used in Wing Chun. I already have a good understanding of the techniques I just want to work on them more. I dont understand why people keep telling that WC in only about philosophy or a method and there are no techniques. Almost every martial arts school I have trained at talked about the centerline, sesativety training, sticking, taking the path of least resistance, body unity, relaxing and explosive power. Even the old Brazilian guys I have worked with showed me all of these things in BJJ and none of them have even heard of Wing Chun at the time. BUt at the same time I have like 20 videos on Wing Chun and each instructor is showing techniques from Wing Chun. 20 vids 5 different instructors and the techniques are all almost the same and they are with out a doubt Wing Chun techniques.

Sorry if this makes no sense!

Justin Morris

[lawrenceofidaho]

Wing Chun *IS* about principles, but there are techniques which express these principles more purely than others. (e.g. a bong sau usually makes far better use of Wing Chun's concepts than a technique such as an over head block.)

[lawrenceofidaho]

It could be that all the guys you contacted are from the same lineage, or possibly the same teacher, which is likely why they answered the same way in regards to techniques (perhaps repeating an answer they often heard their instructor giving to others.)

Most Wing Chun people feel that it's techniques are contained within it's forms. There is a *degree* of consensus about what those techniques are, and *some* of the ways to apply them, but then, there is plenty of disagreement too.......

Maybe you could watch some of your tapes with your new training partners, and try working some of the drills which are shown if those guys aren't giving you enough concrete structure to get started with.......

Best of luck,
-Lawrence

[Gangsterfist]

The three pillars of wing chun are:

1) bong sao (wing arm)

2) tan sao (dispersing hand)

3) fuk sao (covering hand)

Those three techniques are pretty much exclusive to wing chun. Wing chun does stress a lot of principles and concepts and relies on structure.

Justin, it is IMHO that wing chun is not all philosophy and theory. I believe you must have a lot of hands on, live experiences with it. There is a ciriculum when learning wing chun. Every sifu approaches it differently with each individual student.

When starting out I learned the SLT (siu lim tao - first form) and single hand chi sao (don chi sao). I practiced those for about 6 months before my training progressed further. Some of my brothers who started the same time I did progressed differently. Some learned long pole after chum kiu, some learned the dummy, some learned biu jee. It just depends on where you are and how you progress. A good sifu will see where one thing will benefit you more than the other.

Don't be overwhelmed by the centerline theory, and the gates, and effeciency, and not over committing etc etc. They are all GOOD IDEAS, but not the end all be all best solutions.

Good luck in your training,
GF

[Phenix]

THE THREE PILLARS OF VAN HELSING DRACULA HUNTING WING CHUN KUEN ARE:


1, NON BROKEN ARROW (AUTOMATIC BALANCING DYNAMIC STRUCTURE)
2, VERTICAL WAVE HORIZONTAL WAVING SHORT CENTIMETER POWER (MIND, BODY, BREATHING, AND POWER IS ONE )
3, ALERTNESS(NON DUAL NEVER DIE)


VAN HENDRIK HELSING
AVENTURE IS FOREVER! SPRING NEVER DIE ;)

[Gangsterfist]

looks like your caps lock is stuck again phenix -? ;)

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Gangsterfist
looks like your caps lock is stuck again phenix -? ;)


CAPS LOCK IS GREAT FOR PRINTING OUT THE SECRET.
DO YOU SEE THE MESSAGE OR THE CAPS LOCK?
MOON OR FINGER? :d

[Tom Kagan]

"Philosophy is a walk on the slippery rocks" -- Eddie Brickell

This is by no means an exhaustive list--here are some more of the classic Ving Tsun philosophical techniquees:


Aristotelian technique: a technique performed using attacks learned solely from theoretical speculation untainted by any experiential data by one who feels that the latter is irrelevant anyway.
Hegelian technique: dialiptical technique in which the attack incorporates its own antithiattack, forming a syntheattack.
Wittgensteinian technique: the important thing about this type of technique is that it refers only to the symbol (our internal mental representation we associate with the experience of the technique--which must necessarilly also be differentiated from the attack itself for obvious reasons and which need not be by any means the same or even similar for the different people experiencing the attack) rather than the attack itself and, as such, one must be careful not to make unwarranted generalizations about the attack itself or the experience thereof based merely on our manipulation of the symbology therefor.
Godelian technique: a technique that takes an extraordinarilly long time, yet leaves you unable to decide whether you've been attacked or not.
Platonic technique: attacks between friends who don't really want to hurt each other, but have been itching to have a go ever since something happened to one of them in their past which the other never atoned for.
Socratic technique: really a Platonic technique, but it's claimed to be the Socratic technique so it'll sound more authoritative; however, compared to most strictly Platonic techniquees, Socratic techniquees wander around a lot more and need larger openings.
Kantian technique: a technique that, eschewing inferior "phenomenal" contact, is performed entirely on the superior "noumenal" plane; though you don't actually feel it at all, you are, nonetheless, free to declare it the best attack you've ever executed or received.
Kafkaesque technique: a technique that starts out feeling like it's about to knock your block off you but ends up just bugging you.
Sartrean technique: a technique that you worry yourself to death about even though it really doesn't matter anyway.
Russell-Whiteheadian technique: a formal technique in which foot and hand position and movement is rigorously and completely defined, even though it ends up seeming incomplete somehow.
Hertzsprung-Russellian technique: Oh, Be A Fine Girl/Guy, Hit Me.
Pythagorean technique: a technique executed by someone who has developed some new and wonderful techniques but refuses to use them on anyone for fear that others would find out about them and copy them.
Cartesian technique: a particularly well-planned and coordinated attack. "I think, therefore, I aim." In general, a technique does not count as Cartesian unless it is applied with enough force to remove all doubt that one has been attacked. (cf. Polar technique, a more well-rounded movement involving greater fist-to-nose contact, but colder overall.)
Heisenbergian technique: a hard-to-define technique--the more it unbalances you, the less sure you are of where the attack was; the more energy it has, the more trouble you have figuring out how far it bridged. Extreme versions of this type of technique are known as "virtual techniquees" because the level of uncertainty is so high that you're not quite sure if you were attacked or not. Virtual techniquees have the advantage, however, that you need not have anyone else in the room with you to execute them.
Nietzscheian technique: "she/he who does not attack you, makes your technique stronger."
Epimenidian technique: a technique executed by someone who does not attack.
Grouchoic technique: a technique executed by someone who will only attack those who would not attack him or her.
Harpoic technique: shut up and hit me.
Zenoian technique: your bridge approaches, closer and closer, but never actually close the gap.
Procrustean technique: suffice it to say that it is a technique that, once you've experienced it, you'll never forget it, especially when applied to areas of the anatomy other than the face.

[Phenix]

Here is a part of kept WCK kuen kuit of the LJ --> Yip Man --> ..... line.




¦]½t¦U´N¡@®í³~¦PÂk
Áö¤ª©wªk¡@ÅܤƤH¬°¡@ÁI©vµ´¾Ç¡@¦®¦b_ר_
¦×¨_¦¨¦ò¡@¥j¤µ´X¤H¡@µL¬°µL§Ú¡@µL¬ÉµL²×


Translation:

Condition depends on situation, however, different paths get to the same place.

Even it is said to be a fix method, the change and transformation is depend on the operator. The ultimate of the Zen teaching, the mission is to cultivate oneself.

Attained enlightement with this same body (in one life span) is rare, how many person can reach that state through out the past and future?
Non action and Non me, NON boundary and Non end.


Note: it doesnt say anti-Qing. it says cultivate onself!

[canglong]

justin,
Another take on what has been said, wing chun is based on a philosophy derived of concepts and principles and if you try to learn wing chun without an accute knowledge of these and only learning what might be called "wing chun techniques " your learning of as well as your application of wing chun may possibly suffer for it. Occassionaly there are ways we prefer to do something as individuals and then there is the right way to do something it just depends on the individual on how it actually will be done. Good luck in your search.

[anerlich]

IMO those who talk only of principles have not grasped them well enough to understand their application.

Often, the best way to get a beginner to grasp the principles of a system is to show, and get them to practise, a technique which embodies it. It's not just "techniques flow from principles", the relationship flows both ways. Both are equally important. If you just learn the philosophies and not the techniques, your suffering will be just as bad as the other way round.

Learn the Sil Lim Tao form - all the fundamental techniques of Wing Chun are therein.

You are right in saying that many of the principles of Wing Chun are embodied in BJJ, and many other systems, sometimes more effectively.

The problem with Wing Chun and other CMA is that many choose to attempt to hide their lack of understanding by the quoting of lofty-sounding aphorisms and deliberate obtuseness and obfuscation.

The posts on this thread and others in all caps illustrate this.

Nice post on philosophers, Tom.

[TjD]

Tom, that was absolutely hilarious :D

[kj]

Originally posted by TjD
Tom, that was absolutely hilarious :D

Ditto that! :D:D
- kj

[JAFO]

I think Tom nailed it. The "Compleat Guide to Wing Chun Philosophy"


The way I see it, Wing Chun techniques and applications are an expression of the core principles (centerline, gate, economy of motion, simultaneous defend/attack, etc) rather than the other way around. Many other systems have varying versions of the same principles; a few of these systems incorporated them from the beginning, but most of them seem to have assimilated them from the few other styles (like WC) that already had them.

IMO, the degree of "effectiveness" of any of these systems and/or their students have is a direct reflection of how well their applications and techniques conform to and express the core principles. If I knew of a system that had a better handle on these principles, I'd drop WC like a bad habit. I was looking for the bigger and better deal when I came to WC and if I leave it will be for the same reason.

[lawrenceofidaho]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by anerlich
It's not just "techniques flow from principles", the relationship flows both ways.

How does a principle flow from a technique? :confused:

-Do you mean that if someone is pragmatic in their approach, and a dilligent practicer, -that by trial & error experimentation with a technique, they gradually align themselves with more "correct" principles because they find that is what's actually working for them?

Or did you mean something entirely different?

-Lawrence

[kj]

Good point of inquiry, LOI.


Originally posted by lawrenceofidaho
[B-Do you mean that if someone is pragmatic in their approach, and a dilligent practicer, -that by trial & error experimentation with a technique, they gradually align themselves with more "correct" principles because they find that is what's actually working for them? [/B]

FWLIW. I'm hard pressed to imagine evolution of something as concise, elegant, and tightly integrated as Wing Chun without such an empirical feedback loop. Without tangible instances (e.g., example techniques), I don't know how else the underlying principles defining the art would have been validated and refined.

Who can say for certain if the chicken or egg came first. Though it likely didn't matter much once the bi-directional process of refinement was underway.

As a caveat, I severely doubt [understatement] that any single practitioner will ever significantly duplicate those centuries of combined genius and experience within the constraints of a lifetime. I remain incredulous when someone appears to believe that by sheer force of will, trial-and-error, or superior intelligence that they can or will.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[anerlich]

I meant that understanding of the principles will, and for effectiveness must, come from practising and considering the techniques of the style. Skill and understanding in MA comes not from thinking and talking, but doing.

If not, why do we all go to our respective academies and practise all those forms, belt each other up, etc.? Why do all that hard work when all we would need to do is just think about principles and discuss them on the internet.

If you think the latter is true, make sure you are fully insured.


Do you mean that if someone is pragmatic in their approach, and a dilligent practicer, -that by trial & error experimentation with a technique, they gradually align themselves with more "correct" principles because they find that is what's actually working for them?

You said that, not me, but I think you've just described the learning experience of any skill if you are honest about it. All principles do is help you make fewer mistakes, but they are only a map, not the territory, which is training itself.

"Empirical feedback loop" describes it very well.

[lawrenceofidaho]

KJ,

thank you for the term "empirical feedback loop". :)


Anerlich,

thanks for the clarification. -I think we are looking at different sides of the same coin.

Successful application of techniques is what we all strive for (of course). I just believe that it's good to have a clear idea in mind of *HOW* we want to execute them.

Allow me to draw a parallel between using Wing Chun principles, and planning / goal setting. -If two individuals of equal ability want to acheive a goal (starting up a successful Wing Chun school, for instance), and one takes a short amount of time formulate a clear plan in his mind (a plan which is modeled after other successful schools), while the other does not, and decides he will just handle things as they come up, it seems pretty clear who will have an edge if they are competing with each other......

But speaking to your point; it could also be true that the "planner" gets so caught up in projections of the future, that he becomes more interested in the plans themselves and fails to ever begin teaching classes, thinking that he will begin doing it "someday soon".

The reason I (personally) tend to put an emphasis on principles, is because there are a number of "eclectic" martial artists in the city where I live who try to use techniques which are "shaped" like Wing Chun's, but executed more like hard style karate.

A rather famous martial arts personality was here doing a lecture and book signing at a large bookstore in town, and when asked a Wing Chun related question (which he is supposedly an expert on), said; "The tan-sau is not a very good block, there are other blocks which work a lot better." -Granted, he did not have the time to go in to detail about why he thought this, but I would venture to say that the reason that he thought tan-sau didn't work was not because he didn't put in enough repetitions in practicing it (the guy doesn't seem to be lazy), but because he was not executing it with correct principles.

-Lawrence

[anerlich]

Lawrence, I agree, I think we are on the same page.


If two individuals of equal ability want to acheive a goal (starting up a successful Wing Chun school, for instance), and one takes a short amount of time formulate a clear plan in his mind (a plan which is modeled after other successful schools), while the other does not, and decides he will just handle things as they come up, it seems pretty clear who will have an edge if they are competing with each other.

That's true, but Tony Robbins and all the other performance "gurus" also tell you to back up your plans with immediate action. Achieving a goal still comes down to 10% inspiration (principles) and 90% perspiration (practising). Both are important.

Regarding the guy with the tan sao, I think you are overreaching in trying to guess his motives. You could be right, but jeez, I'd hate to think that every throwaway statement I made to a stranger was going to be subjected to that level of analysis. I might only ever speak again through lawyers. ;)

[reneritchie]

WCK has techniques in that there are historically determined ideals of how the body should move. These techniques, or tactics, are implemented according to a strategy. Together, the tactics and strategy are WCK.