simplified wing chun

[Vyvial]

There has been a statement that has been attributed to Dr. Leung Jan, " I have spent my whole life taking out everything that wasn't needed in Wing Chun, now I can't find anything more to take away." I messed that up I'm sure.

But my point is, after working out a lot with some families that have the "one true original wing chun" and reading books on how to Master my kung fu..... all I can say is thank you Leung Jan for getting rid of all that extra fat.

[t_niehoff]

What makes you think that this (simplification) was something he passed along -- or could pass along -- to others? Do you have it? IMO, this refers to an individual goal. And this goal is not unique to WCK; you hear this repeated by fighters in every method.

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

This statement needs to be looked upon as one side of a coin, imo.

And on this side...the statement is a good one...ie.- get rid of all extraneous movements/training regimens that aren't really necessary - and could even slow you down and/or get in your way.

But the other side of the coin, imo, is this:

Always seek to learn MORE...about fighting...not just within your chosen system (ie. - wing chun)...but from other systems as well.

[azwingchun]

I agree with you here! Wing Chun people say this a lot, and there is nothing wrong with that! But several months ago I heard a guy from the UFC say the same thing. He said that his fighting method had been torn down to be the most efficient and basic workable techniques (I am paraphrasing.....so forgive me).

So the question of 'who has it', is a good one. ;)

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by Vyvial
There has been a statement that has been attributed to Dr. Leung Jan, " I have spent my whole life taking out everything that wasn't needed in Wing Chun, now I can't find anything more to take away." I messed that up I'm sure.

But my point is, after working out a lot with some families that have the "one true original wing chun" and reading books on how to Master my kung fu..... all I can say is thank you Leung Jan for getting rid of all that extra fat.



Last year, I was in Hana Hawaii for a meditation retreat.

So, In the kitchen, I ask this top cook (cheft )(sp?) of the resort what is his secret after decades of cooking. He told me --- take away what is not needed. Then, the cook's wife who is a top cook too told me --- put all what it needs in.

what is simplified? IMHO, there is no such thing as simplified. There is only a Kung Fu ( capability) which looks simple but that is after decades and decades of investigating/training/observing..... and it becomes concise/precise/elegant/deep to the point it looks "simple." or "simplified"


Leong Jan can get rid of his extra fat for himself. There is no way for LEong Jan get rid of other's fat. But if one doesnt know how to do a Tan Sau then one still has to learn/train/investigate..... may be somedays one can get rid of that extra fat, may be not.

And, Leong Jan and others are not necessary having fat in the same area of the body.

So, IMHO, there is not such things as simplified.
One always needs the big picture blue print, the methodology, the method. That is similar to taking down a wall. one has to know where to where it has to be taken down. what kind of different methods used --- hammer the rock, cut the wire, saw the pole....

how can it be simplified? to the contradiction, it needs to have a big library of methods and the methods has to grow. Such as today if one meet the BJJ, so what to do? one needs a something to start with to work on.

Sure, when one sees a great master of taking down the wall in action --- it is soooo simple for him.


As for that "one true original wing chun", forget about it. That only belongs to Yim Wing chun if she exist. and also one has to define, what true original wing chun is. The one true original Wing Chun kuen when Yim Wing Chun is at her 18 years old? at her 30? at her 45? at her 60's? which true one?

There is no "one true original wing chun" in a reality world that even we as human's nature is localized and evolved with our age.

if you can find it I am willing to know and learn that "one true original wing chun'



just some thought.

[t_niehoff]

Hendrik,

We actually agree! :)

IMO folks that think there is such a thing as an "original" WCK are overlooking the very nature of fighting arts (which includes WCK): they represent specific approaches toward fighting and means of training those approaches which are, and needs to be, constantly evolving, changing, growing -- they cannot be "captured" and preserved (or they cease to be fighting arts).

Terence

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Hendrik,

We actually agree! :)

IMO folks that think there is such a thing as an "original" WCK are overlooking the very nature of fighting arts (which includes WCK): they represent specific approaches toward fighting and means of training those approaches which are, and needs to be, constantly evolving, changing, growing -- they cannot be "captured" and preserved (or they cease to be fighting arts).

Terence

Terence,

I have never leave from my Localizatoin Evolution Theory.


As for the DNA and Chan stuffs, those needed to brougth out to look at under sport light and today's language to see what they really means and what really happen in a certain time period. We atleast have the infrared recording or the thermal recorder or the brain wave monitor. to see what happen.

May be those are worth nothing. May be those stuffs have important components that is vanished in present day.



Some people just born fighter. They dont have to know much. But most are not. So, a system needs to provide a big picture, methodology, methods..... in clear define way. Even art Localized Evolved over time. But, there is no excuse in ill define training. With ill define training, it is sure going to be unpredictable result. with an unpredictable result. How is one going to even talk about fighting? Just Cant, because one doesnt have the needed training one must have. So, what is the components of the past localization evolution. why is there? what things got shift? All are questions to make a better training platform. IMHO.



As what I see, from Tan Sau to Relaxation... to ...etc... we got a problem . As simple as the term Relaxation in the topic next door. There are specific concept in the old time and still needed in today's training ( as soon as we have physcial body ) which was totally lost for some. or why is one standing in the YJKYM. what is that knees alignment is for? What is it cultivate? why? how? what is the measurements.......


It is all about technology. and going high tech means it got more complex but because the blue print, the implement methodology got very fool proof... so we can repeat and produce even the complex computer without much quality problems and in low cost. and Technolgy is about Well DEfine Details. Just cannot have a stable Technology if things are not well define --- ISO900x.

Is our cellphone get more simplified every year? or get more function but looks more simple to use?

IS WCK more complicated then Solid state Physics to making computer system? NOt so.

if Cellphone is not simplified but get more complex. WCK cannot be simplified, Now I didnt say the expert cannot perform a great technics and looks real easy and simple.



just some thought.

[Vyvial]

nice post Hendrik

[KPM]

Originally posted by Vyvial
There has been a statement that has been attributed to Dr. Leung Jan, " I have spent my whole life taking out everything that wasn't needed in Wing Chun, now I can't find anything more to take away." I messed that up I'm sure.

But my point is, after working out a lot with some families that have the "one true original wing chun" and reading books on how to Master my kung fu..... all I can say is thank you Leung Jan for getting rid of all that extra fat.


While I agree with what has already been said in this thread, there is another way to look at this quote from Sijo Leung Jan. It is possible (and quite likely, IMHO) that what he is referring to is the version of WCK he taught upon retiring to his home village of Koo Lo. He was already an old man in his 70's with decades of fighting experience. He had no intention of teaching WCK in Koo Lo, but later changed his mind. He knew he didn't have many years left, so he simplied his curriculum based on his decades of fighting experience and teaching. He did away with the three form method (SLT, CK, BG) and instead taught in the San Sik format. He took the elements of the prior forms that he felt were core concepts to the system, that showed up and worked most often in a real fight, and that showed up in the system in different versions most frequently. He then reformatted them into "San Sik" or "separate points" typically consisting of 3 movements each and taught them this way. There is typically a version of each San Sik performed on the dummy, and a two-man drill that reinforces the concepts and movements for each. Most are also applied within the rolling Chi Sau platform. This is Pin Sun Wing Chun.....Leung Jan's "simplied" version of WCK. The content is still the same as his WCK prior to retiring to Koo Lo, but the teaching method is different. He took out anything that he felt was redundant and anything that only had marginally real-world application. So in one sense, I do feel that someone else can "trim the fat" for you. :-) But I do agree that you have to "trim the fat" for yourself in that you have to eliminate any inefficient and unneeded movements from your technique and improper application from your interpretations.

Keith

[KPM]

Hendrilk wrote:
It is all about technology. and going high tech means it got more complex

---Not always. What about all those design engineers working to simplify manufacturing processes to make them more efficient. They might disagree with you. :-)

Is our cellphone get more simplified every year? or get more function but looks more simple to use?

---Now we have a computer we can hold in the palm of our hand. In the not so recent past the same computing capacity would have taken up two rooms in an office building. Simplified? Or more complex? Sometimes technological advances involve learning how to achieve the same result by a simpler and more efficient means, like going from vacuum tubes to transistors.

if Cellphone is not simplified but get more complex. WCK cannot be simplified, Now I didnt say the expert cannot perform a great technics and looks real easy and simple.

---As alluded to higher up in this thread, some boxers and MMA fighters have only a hand-full of basic techniques that they know will work for them and that they practice over and over again until they are second nature. They don't spend years learning multiple forms with complex movements. If someone only wanted to be a competent fighter, they could do the same thing with WCK.....learn the core body mechanics and basics such as tan, bong, fok, tan da, gan da, etc., work them constantly against a resisting opponent in various situations (ala our own Terence Niehoff), and have a very functional version of WCK without ever learning a single form or doing Chi Sau. Anything can be simplified. It just depends on what you want with your end result.

Keith

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by KPM
But I do agree that you have to "trim the fat" for yourself in that you have to eliminate any inefficient and unneeded movements from your technique and improper application from your interpretations.

Keith


Inefficient, unneeded movements, improper, interpretations... are experience dependent.

[Hendrik]

some boxers and MMA fighters have only a hand-full of basic techniques that they know will work for them and that they practice over and over again until they are second nature. They don't spend years learning multiple forms with complex movements. -----


Complex does mean complex movements. If some one send a Blue tooth signal, can one recieve it without a blue tooth ready? :D




If someone only wanted to be a competent fighter, they could do the same thing with WCK.....learn the core body mechanics and basics such as tan, bong, fok, tan da, gan da, etc., work them constantly against a resisting opponent in various situations (ala our own Terence Niehoff), and have a very functional version of WCK without ever learning a single form or doing Chi Sau. Anything can be simplified. It just depends on what you want with your end result. -----


Then the story continous on, someday when some others come in with an attack of ----- an angle, a technics, a use of strenght, or and a body zone one never explore. it goes to back to square one.

Look at why the wrestle taking down lots of WCK people. how is a general WCK core body mechanics and basics such as tan, bong, fok, tan da, gan da, etc., fit into the wrestling take down to ground attack? efficient wise? effective wise?

On the other hand, is our Short power generation lost in the process of simplification? If so, we are in great trouble even if you are correct the world stay still and doesnot get more complex. :D

But you are right. I can also think about something which become more simple such as ---- post here in web. But then, we got more jobs needed to serve that "simple" . hehehehe

[Ultimatewingchun]

"It is possible (and quite likely, IMHO) that what he is referring to is the version of WCK he taught upon retiring to his home village of Koo Lo. He was already an old man in his 70's with decades of fighting experience. He had no intention of teaching WCK in Koo Lo, but later changed his mind. He knew he didn't have many years left, so he simplied his curriculum based on his decades of fighting experience and teaching." (Keith)


This makes a lot of sense to me.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"It is possible (and quite likely, IMHO) that what he is referring to is the version of WCK he taught upon retiring to his home village of Koo Lo. He was already an old man in his 70's with decades of fighting experience. He had no intention of teaching WCK in Koo Lo, but later changed his mind. He knew he didn't have many years left, so he simplied his curriculum based on his decades of fighting experience and teaching." (Keith)


This makes a lot of sense to me.


if the world hold still.
if the world keep evolve, grow, and advance....
one always can find a better way to do what one has done.
however, how to do a better way for what is not exist yet?

[t_niehoff]

Hendrik,

I have never leave from my Localizatoin Evolution Theory.

**That's the problem. And the HFY people never leave their theory. Etc.

As for the DNA and Chan stuffs, those needed to brougth out to look at under sport light and today's language to see what they really means and what really happen in a certain time period. We atleast have the infrared recording or the thermal recorder or the brain wave monitor. to see what happen.

May be those are worth nothing. May be those stuffs have important components that is vanished in present day.

**History and tradition have their place and can be interesting in and of themselves -- but if we rely on history and tradition, or the various histories and traditions, in an attempt to validate what we do instead of focusing on performance and results, all we're going to get is a big mess. You may disagree with the "Shaolin/Ch'an" connection and instead have a LET but how are you different from "them" (the opposing views) if you both use "history" (what you believe it to be) to validate what you believe is *the correct* WCK (fighting method) instead of using the ability to fight, actually use it, as a validation? (except to say "I'm right and they are wrong" which, of course, they say too.). IMO, two historical zealots are the same (just with opposing point of views). If you teach me WCK, and my focus is to better my fighting ability, my goal isn't going to be to copy you or do things as you do them but rather to do them in a way that works best for me (which may, or may not, be as you do). As will my students. Fighting arts don't produce xeroxed copies -- they can't and produce results.

Some people just born fighter. They dont have to know much. But most are not. So, a system needs to provide a big picture, methodology, methods..... in clear define way. Even art Localized Evolved over time. But, there is no excuse in ill define training. With ill define training, it is sure going to be unpredictable result. with an unpredictable result. How is one going to even talk about fighting? Just Cant, because one doesnt have the needed training one must have. So, what is the components of the past localization evolution. why is there? what things got shift? All are questions to make a better training platform. IMHO.

**All fighting methods, boxing, BJJ, muay thai, etc. provide "a big picture, methodology, methods, . . . " but they are not stuck with some "historical tradition" (dogma) limiting them. For example, John L. Sullivan or Mohammed Ali may inspire boxers, or Helio or Rickson may inspire BJJers, but any boxer or BJJer that fights will quickly discover that what drives them is making the art work for themselves not in "preserving" Helio BJJ or Sullivan boxing, in fact, those things don't exist outside of Helio or Sullivan (that they do is a myth) and can't be duplicated.

As what I see, from Tan Sau to Relaxation... to ...etc... we got a problem . As simple as the term Relaxation in the topic next door. There are specific concept in the old time and still needed in today's training ( as soon as we have physcial body ) which was totally lost for some. or why is one standing in the YJKYM. what is that knees alignment is for? What is it cultivate? why? how? what is the measurements.......

**"Still needed in today's training" depends on why you are saying so -- is it because they are necessary to produce results or increase fighting performance? If not, why are they still needed (except in keeping with traditional dogma)? If so, that is easy to *prove*, simply show, not argue theoretically, how they improve our fighting ability (by fighting with them). This is how our method evolves and grows -- things that are useful will remain, things that are not will die.

It is all about technology. and going high tech means it got more complex but because the blue print, the implement methodology got very fool proof... so we can repeat and produce even the complex computer without much quality problems and in low cost. and Technolgy is about Well DEfine Details. Just cannot have a stable Technology if things are not well define --- ISO900x.

Is our cellphone get more simplified every year? or get more function but looks more simple to use?

IS WCK more complicated then Solid state Physics to making computer system? NOt so.

if Cellphone is not simplified but get more complex. WCK cannot be simplified, Now I didnt say the expert cannot perform a great technics and looks real easy and simple.

**WCK is not like a cellphone, the human body is not like a microchip -- a cellphone is dead, a microchip is dead: the "models", i.e., technology, of each are fixed, unchanging, xeroxed copies, that do the same things the exact same way. WCK is, in contrast, alive. If you examine individual fighting arts (where they really fight) or any competitive physical activity for that matter, you'll instead see great variation, flexibility and adaptablility where the focus is on individual performance (results). Traditionally John L. Sullivan may have done things a certain way, and that way may have worked for him at that time, but that doesn't make it "correst" or "the way" or "dogma" -- thinking like that only limits you if your goal is increased performance/results.

Terence

[t_niehoff]

Keith,

So many "pseudo issues" stem from one source -- the divorce of fighting from the martial arts (including WCK). By losing the focus of the actual objective of our activity, we begin to shift focus to unimportant things, and the further lost we become. If our objective is *genuinely* to become better ice-skaters (or whatever physical activity) rather than pretend to be ice-skaters, most of the nonsense will fall by the wayside and we'll keep our course.

All the lineages are in a sense "textbooks" (a record of someone's teachings). The value of any textbook is not determined by looking at the textbook itself but rather in the individual's results achieved in using that text as a **guide** (we may all call a text "great" but if the students using it don't get results, how helpful was it really? or, it may look "crazy" to us but produce excellent results.). The textbook serves us, not limits or restrains us. WCK,like ice-skating, is not the textbook itself nor the drills/exercises at the end of the chapters -- it is the subject matter (skating) contained in the textbook which exists outside of the text itself (the text on ice-skating doesn't define the subject matter but attempts to teach us the subject matter) and is goal/result-oriented (actually being able to skate). As I told KJ on another thread, WCK is in the applcation, not the forms or the drills. Good teachers are not bound by the textbook but rely on their own understanding and skill of the subject itself. The text is an aid, not the primary source, of good instruction. Good students aren't judged by how well they follow the text or can repeat the text but in their mastery of the subject itself: how well they can produce results (skate). And there is a great deal about ice-staking that is not found in any text -- one can only learn it for himself by getting out on the ice. If your focus is on actually being able to skate well, you'll see this.

WCK is a certain approach individuals can use to become better fighters. So the real question is: has your text (lineage) helped you become a more skillful fighter? Yes or no. If you don't fight with skillful folks, you have no way of answering that question. You need to get out on the ice to see if your ice-skating manual and your ice-skating instructor has helped you become a good skater. If you stay off the ice (for safety or whatever reason), not only won't you learn to skate well, regardless of your text, but you'll have no way to guage where your skating ability really does rest. And any skating instructor that hasn't been on the ice a great deal, has no real skating skills or understanding of skating.

So to suggest that your text is somehow "streamlined" is as amusing to me as folks that think their text is "original" or other's who think their text is "superior". It is not the text that matters, it is our individual ability to do what the text is trying to teach us -- apply our method, FIGHT -- that matters. Once you have the skill, the textbook becomes unneccessary. If you can't ice-skate (and thus *know* what it takes to learn to skate), how can you intelligently discuss or even speculate as to the value of your ice-skating textbook? My view is that pien san, yip man, YKS, TWC, HFY, only has value if it *produces results for you*. If not, it has no value for you (regardless of how it may help or have helped others).

Regards,

Terence

[old jong]

Terence
When do you "fight" and who do you "fight"?...I hope it's not only sparring with your friends,you are so loud about.

If it is so,you should maybe take off your broken record from the turntable.

[AmanuJRY]

Hendrik,

I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed your posts on this thread so far, they have been more direct and clear.

I agree with what Hendrik and Victor have said, there are many ways to interpet the meaning of that statement, and without having Leung Jan himself to elaborate on his own meaning of it, there is no way to prove any interpetation. It means what you want it to mean.

[Vyvial]

Originally posted by AmanuJRY

I agree with what Hendrik and Victor have said, there are many ways to interpet the meaning of that statement, and without having Leung Jan himself to elaborate on his own meaning of it, there is no way to prove any interpetation. It means what you want it to mean. [/B]

Exactly!

[KPM]

Terence wrote:
All the lineages are in a sense "textbooks" (a record of someone's teachings). The value of any textbook is not determined by looking at the textbook itself but rather in the individual's results achieved in using that text as a **guide**

---Agreed. But in the world of academics, some textbooks are acknowledged as better than others and as being more concise and easier to learn from.

WCK,like ice-skating, is not the textbook itself nor the drills/exercises at the end of the chapters -- it is the subject matter (skating) contained in the textbook which exists outside of the text itself

---True. The curriculum is the means to an end, not the end itself. However, the curriculum itself can be acknowledged as having independant value in the experiences it creates and qualities it embodies. A law degree is a law degree, but some may place more value on one earned at Harvard than at the University of New Mexico. And the Harvard grad may have more fond memories and place more value on his educational experience than the UNM grad.

(the text on ice-skating doesn't define the subject matter but attempts to teach us the subject matter) and is goal/result-oriented (actually being able to skate). As I told KJ on another thread, WCK is in the applcation, not the forms or the drills. Good teachers are not bound by the textbook but rely on their own understanding and skill of the subject itself. The text is an aid, not the primary source, of good instruction.

---True again, but a concise and well-designed textbook may make a world of difference for the student learning. Good aides can be very important.

Good students aren't judged by how well they follow the text or can repeat the text but in their mastery of the subject itself: how well they can produce results (skate). And there is a great deal about ice-staking that is not found in any text -- one can only learn it for himself by getting out on the ice. If your focus is on actually being able to skate well, you'll see this.

---No argument here. But even the best students that have mastered the subject matter need a reference to refer back to once in awhile. Don't you ever consult your legal texts? I know I have to go back and look up medical information all the time. Do you think the expert skater never consults others for advice from time to time?

WCK is a certain approach individuals can use to become better fighters. So the real question is: has your text (lineage) helped you become a more skillful fighter? Yes or no. If you don't fight with skillful folks, you have no way of answering that question. You need to get out on the ice to see if your ice-skating manual and your ice-skating instructor has helped you become a good skater.

---No disagreement here. But I think it is a matter of degree. In your past posts you seem to advocate going out and looking for fights, or at least showing up in a boxing or wrestling gym or a karate school and inviting them to do their best at bringing on bodily harm. That may not be everyone's cup of tea, just as every skater doesn't aspire to be an olympic athlete. For some, sparring with equipment in a controlled environment is adequate experience for what they want to accomplish, just as most skaters are content to compete a local levels to show how well they can skate.

And any skating instructor that hasn't been on the ice a great deal, has no real skating skills or understanding of skating.

---Do you think every skating coach out there have been a world-class athlete? Were Angelo Dundee or Cus Damato heavyweight boxing champions prior to coaching Muhamed Ali and Mike Tyson? Bela Karoli has coached many girls to Olympic level gymnastics competition (including Nadia Comenichi and Mary Lou Retton), and I can guarantee you he has never been up on the balance beam! :-)

So to suggest that your text is somehow "streamlined" is as amusing to me as folks that think their text is "original" or other's who think their text is "superior".

---Then I guess you find Leung Jan himself amusing and a little off. He is the one that said he had simplified his WCK.

It is not the text that matters, it is our individual ability to do what the text is trying to teach us -- apply our method, FIGHT -- that matters.

---Sure, but you have to start somewhere, and some textbooks are more to the point, concise and efficient in their teaching methods than others. The text IS important. If you just want to learn to fight, then go enroll in the local boxing or MMA gym and stop coming to this forum and talking smack. If you want to learn to fight with WCK, then starting with a good text in WCK IS important.

Once you have the skill, the textbook becomes unneccessary.

---Only if you never intend to pass on your knowledge to others. If you ever want to teach your WCK to someone else, then you better have a good textbook they can refer to, because they too have to start somewhere. You may elaborate on the text and go into details explaining the text based upon your own experience and understanding, but having that texbook as a starting point is very important. I wouldn't try to teach my medical knowledge to anyone without good texts in anatomy, physiology, and diagnosis to refer to. It is said that the practice of medicine is an art, but there is a whole lot of science backing it up. The same could be said of WCK.

Keith

[Hendrik]

Terence,


I have never leave from my Localizatoin Evolution Theory.

**That's the problem. And the HFY people never leave their theory. Etc. ---------T


I dont see that is the problem. Everyone is free to choose thier own model. Some model works well to model the nature. Some dont. And, NO ONE model is perfect because there is no such things as Perfect model.


I create the
Localization Evolution Theory similar to creating the Integration and Differentiation in mathermatics when basic mathematic operation is in edequate to solve the issue.

When we want to see trend, we can do differentiation. When we want to see big picture, we can do integration,
we can also do running average to see the cummulative effect.

Localization EVolution Theory is just a tool.






.........

As for the DNA and Chan stuffs, those needed to brougth out to look at under sport light and today's language to see what they really means and what really happen in a certain time period. We atleast have the infrared recording or the thermal recorder or the brain wave monitor. to see what happen.

May be those are worth nothing. May be those stuffs have important components that is vanished in present day.

**History and tradition have their place and can be interesting in and of themselves -- but if we rely on history and tradition, or the various histories and traditions, in an attempt to validate what we do instead of focusing on performance and results, all we're going to get is a big mess. --------------- T


There is no Validation here in my Theory of Localization Evolution.

What it said is ---- Localization Evolution is a nature of human evolution. Let's find out what happen at a certain period of time. and what is that what happen means. We better be able to understand in detail what is what.

It will cear up things instead of get into big mess.





..............


You may disagree with the "Shaolin/Ch'an" connection and instead have a LET but how are you different from "them" (the opposing views) if you both use "history" (what you believe it to be) to validate what you believe is *the correct* WCK (fighting method) instead of using the ability to fight, actually use it, as a validation? ------------T


LET doesnt agree or disagree. LET just said, ok, lets examine in details what is going on at that time from different directions/view/field.


Same with a GPS system, there are so many satelites up there to reference with. Not a singel satelite.

LET is created to focus on using different "satelites" to find out the "location" then other stuffs.


With Shaolin/Wu Dang/Emei system of martail arts at Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty... or what happen in 1850 interm of Mok Gar, Choy Gar, Lee Gar,..Wing Chun Kuen in Canton and Five ancestors.... Fujian White CRane, ect in fujian, . one always can identify a certain things from others.



NOw, if anyone claim to have GPS system in his car since 1920.
Then, there better to have a good supported data from all over.



Fighting itself is relative. two brothers go to the same martial art school might get into a situaltion of both fight great, one good and one bad, both bad, ...... all sort of combination.

Even myself, how I fight today compare with three years ago not the same and it depends on my opponents too...I might lost all my skill, I am improve. so fighting can be used to be as one of the "satelites" of LET but not the only "satelite"


Fighting technics Signature , FTS is I think better reference then fighting (which is very depended on other factors) as a referece, IMHO. Say at the 1990's, the general kyokushin will use countinous low round horse kicks. The body of Kyokushin fighter is using the modified Yee Chuan structure (yes, Yee Chuan) . The Hong Kong WCK in 1960---- perior will like to use the chain continous sun punch, with pak da, tan da.... etc.

How about Kyokushin before Oyama Import and modified the Yee Chuan and Thai's Round horse kick in? How about the Fighting technics signature of Wing Chun Kuen before 1950?

As for win or lost, using same fighting technics signature or FTS can win with flying color or lost missarablely.

And as we know, FTS also Localized Evolved with time passed, even with the same person Say Oyama's Kyokushin or Aikido or every matial art grandmasters..... things evolve.





...............

Some people just born fighter. They dont have to know much. But most are not. So, a system needs to provide a big picture, methodology, methods..... in clear define way. Even art Localized Evolved over time. But, there is no excuse in ill define training. With ill define training, it is sure going to be unpredictable result. with an unpredictable result. How is one going to even talk about fighting? Just Cant, because one doesnt have the needed training one must have. So, what is the components of the past localization evolution. why is there? what things got shift? All are questions to make a better training platform. IMHO.


**All fighting methods, boxing, BJJ, muay thai, etc. provide "a big picture, methodology, methods, . . . " but they are not stuck with some "historical tradition" (dogma) limiting them. ------------T





I dont see Wing Chun Kuen was stucked with dogma. I see Wing Chun Kuen was not well understood. and some dont like to understand what is going on and call it a dogma as soon as some want to go dig dipper.

just take a very simple thing about Wing Chun Kuen as examine for fun.

At least what we know from different source in Canton, between 1850 and 1900, Wing Chun Kuen's Characteristics is " close range, agile, expert in sensesing/listening and using different type of power instantanously." That is the FTS.


Now, when some brought out the dust cover old books of WCK wants to investigate how or Why the he!! the Wing Chun Kuen people punch like a TKD and let the wrestle interup then take down without that " close range, agile, expert in sensesing/listening and using different type of power instantanously." characteristics of WCK shown, the investigation many time was shutdown.



Certainly, the answer of this investigation might be Wing Chun kuen is not parr. at all or might be Wing Chun kuen has lost its old Characteristics. or.... etc And one has to accept what is happen.

But, how many will give this chance of looking deep in, instead of jump right in to call it dogamtism, theoritical.... ..... and one can find out the people who jump in and not give these investigation a chance are some people (not all) who 1, train other arts beside Wing Chun Kuen. 2, think they have the only Truth art of Wing Chun Kuen fighting 3, have only interest in how to fight but not Wing Chun Kuen as an art....etc.....

And, ofcorse, similar to all search or research, there is no guarantee. things can turn out to be a totally garbage or turn into a precious jewels. We dont know. So my view, is give everything a chance.

But, I will not buy the story of who claim he has a car set up with air bag and GPS in 1920. Because LET models predicted that is very very very very very not likely to happen. ONe doesnt have Very large scale integrated circuit until decades later and one doesnt have the computing power until decade's later.

As, for the short power of Wing Chun Kuen, which is a FTS from mulitple reference source since 1850 of canton, the LET concluded it is very possible such a thing exist. and the next is to find out what is it in detail and the process of how is it activate so WCner doesnt look like a TKD guy punching.....

I take the stand of LET that nothing is rigth or wrong but things are relative. To not accepting new view is a limitation. To call something old without understand what is what is equally a limitation. Everything evolve as one's needs.


Just some blue sky random thoughts.

[t_niehoff]

Keith,

---Agreed. But in the world of academics, some textbooks are acknowledged as better than others and as being more concise and easier to learn from.

**The test for any text is not "acknowledgements" but the results it produces (that's what earns those endorsements in the first place). If you want to talk about how great your apple tree is, fine -- just show me the apples it produces, then I can see for myself. What we have typically are situations where everyone wants to talk about how great their apple tree is but no one has any apples!

---True. The curriculum is the means to an end, not the end itself. However, the curriculum itself can be acknowledged as having independant value in the experiences it creates and qualities it embodies. A law degree is a law degree, but some may place more value on one earned at Harvard than at the University of New Mexico. And the Harvard grad may have more fond memories and place more value on his educational experience than the UNM grad.

**The difference is that both produce results: genuine lawyers -- folks that actually practice law competantly. After that -- once we have results -- then we can begin to discuss the quality of results, etc. Without apples, we can't even begin to discuss the quality of the apples.

---True again, but a concise and well-designed textbook may make a world of difference for the student learning. Good aides can be very important.

**If you can't ice-skate, how can you judge whether an ice-skating textbook is good or not? Sure good aides are important -- but we determine their usefulness by the results they garner, not from conjecture. It always comes down to results. So who in pien san has fought, let alone defeated, skillful fighters (that you witnessed, not just heard *stories* about)? If you haven't seen results, how can you seriously talk about how good your text is? Boxers, BJJers, muay thai folks, MMAist, etc. don't need to rely on stories of how great their ancestors were (and those are stories, more fiction than fact for the most part anyway) -- they produce results themselves (actually produce their own apples).

---No argument here. But even the best students that have mastered the subject matter need a reference to refer back to once in awhile. Don't you ever consult your legal texts? I know I have to go back and look up medical information all the time. Do you think the expert skater never consults others for advice from time to time?

**In WCK, however, you're assuming your text is good, and provides good info for all kinds of reasons except for the most important one: seeing firsthand that it produces good results. If you actually fight, and you fight skillful folks, your perspective would be different.

---No disagreement here. But I think it is a matter of degree. In your past posts you seem to advocate going out and looking for fights, or at least showing up in a boxing or wrestling gym or a karate school and inviting them to do their best at bringing on bodily harm. That may not be everyone's cup of tea, just as every skater doesn't aspire to be an olympic athlete. For some, sparring with equipment in a controlled environment is adequate experience for what they want to accomplish, just as most skaters are content to compete a local levels to show how well they can skate.

**Keith, to skate ##at all## requires you get out on the ice -- there is no other way to become simply a competant skater (as you are learning to deal with being on ice). In WCK, you must actually fight (that's applying WCK; drills, forms are only prep work) to simply become a competant WCK fighter (because the fighting environment is different in kind from the environment in drills). Again, there is no other way. To say fighting "it is not everyone's cup of tea" is like saying "getting out on the ice to learn to skate isn't everyone's cup of tea." Well, I'm sorry to break it to you but if you want to learn to skate at a competant level, you must accept the necessity of doing that; if you don't want to get out on the ice, then don't take up ice-skating. If you want to learn to box, you'll need to get in the ring (fight); if you want to learn BJJ, you'll need to roll (fight); if you want to learn WCK, you'll need to fight. That's the nature of the beast.

And any skating instructor that hasn't been on the ice a great deal, has no real skating skills or understanding of skating.

---Do you think every skating coach out there have been a world-class athlete? Were Angelo Dundee or Cus Damato heavyweight boxing champions prior to coaching Muhamed Ali and Mike Tyson? Bela Karoli has coached many girls to Olympic level gymnastics competition (including Nadia Comenichi and Mary Lou Retton), and I can guarantee you he has never been up on the balance beam! :-)

**It's not a matter of having world-class skills. Karoli was a gymnist, and he has produced apples (his girls who have skills). Again, where are your apples or pien san's apples? And I'm not picking on pien san, because I could ask the same question of anyone. To learn tennis, golf, BJJ, or whatever to a competant level or beyond requires you learn it from someone that has developed at least competancy -- and that requires actually doing the activity itself. WCK is a fighting method. Being able to use WCK "techniques" in cooperative drills (like chi sao) doesn't mean they will translate to a fighting environment; if you fight, you'll experience that. And that's the same as if I said learning dry-land swimming won't translate to the water. To learn to become a competant swimmer, you need to get into the water.

So to suggest that your text is somehow "streamlined" is as amusing to me as folks that think their text is "original" or other's who think their text is "superior".

---Then I guess you find Leung Jan himself amusing and a little off. He is the one that said he had simplified his WCK.

**All good fighters talk about simplifying their personal approach (Machado is his BJJ book talks about how that's the black belt's aim, to simplify his BJJ). What I find amusing is how everyone talks about how great their apple tree is when they have no apples! And if they produced apples, they wouldn't need to tell anyone how good they are -- we could see it for ourselves. What is the difference between one lineage talking about how great their apple tree is than another? You point to Leung Jan as "proof" you have a good tree; another to some other story -- theirs is "original". Fine, then just show me the apples. If you have no apples, then you have nothing other than a barren apple tree.

It is not the text that matters, it is our individual ability to do what the text is trying to teach us -- apply our method, FIGHT -- that matters.

---Sure, but you have to start somewhere, and some textbooks are more to the point, concise and efficient in their teaching methods than others. The text IS important. If you just want to learn to fight, then go enroll in the local boxing or MMA gym and stop coming to this forum and talking smack. If you want to learn to fight with WCK, then starting with a good text in WCK IS important.

**So what if a text is concise? Or efficient? It can have all kinds of qualities, but if it doesn't produce results, then it is useless. If it hasn't helped you, then it is useless. You can praise the text all you like, it can get grat reviews, but if it doesn't help you produce results, then is was useless to you. So has your lineage produce results for you? If you haven't fought, and haven't fought skilled people, then you don't know. And even more importantly, if you don't fight as part of your training, you can never develop good fighting skills (results) regardless of your text.

Once you have the skill, the textbook becomes unneccessary.

---Only if you never intend to pass on your knowledge to others. If you ever want to teach your WCK to someone else, then you better have a good textbook they can refer to, because they too have to start somewhere. You may elaborate on the text and go into details explaining the text based upon your own experience and understanding, but having that texbook as a starting point is very important. I wouldn't try to teach my medical knowledge to anyone without good texts in anatomy, physiology, and diagnosis to refer to. It is said that the practice of medicine is an art, but there is a whole lot of science backing it up. The same could be said of WCK.

**A good ice-skater or good swimmer can teach without a text. Good boxers do it all the time. So can a good WCK instructor. As I said in my previous post, when you focus on results, most of the BS falls by the wayside. The text is only important in the context of being an aid to producing results. You have exalted the text over results. So do many others. That's when BS begins.

Regards,

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

Another quote that needs to be framed and hung on the wall in the place where you train...

"A good ice-skater or good swimmer can teach without a text. Good boxers do it all the time. So can a good WC instructor. When you focus on results, most of the BS falls by the wayside. The text is only important in the context of being an aid to producing results. Don't exalt the text over the results. That's when BS begins."

Thank you Terence.

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
When you focus on results, most of the BS falls by the wayside. The text is only important in the context of being an aid to producing results. Don't exalt the text over the results. That's when BS begins."


That has some truth
and it is very Western way of thinking.

[Vyvial]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
**A good ice-skater or good swimmer can teach without a text. Good boxers do it all the time. So can a good WCK instructor. As I said in my previous post, when you focus on results, most of the BS falls by the wayside. The text is only important in the context of being an aid to producing results. You have exalted the text over results. So do many others. That's when BS begins.


Beautiful and a very WC way of thinking about it.

[KPM]

Terence:

---My last post, as obviously we will just go round and round on this. You make some good points, but it is a matter of extremes. I've always found that the middle road is the best.

I originally wrote:
---No disagreement here. But I think it is a matter of degree. In your past posts you seem to advocate going out and looking for fights, or at least showing up in a boxing or wrestling gym or a karate school and inviting them to do their best at bringing on bodily harm. That may not be everyone's cup of tea, just as every skater doesn't aspire to be an olympic athlete. For some, sparring with equipment in a controlled environment is adequate experience for what they want to accomplish, just as most skaters are content to compete a local levels to show how well they can skate.

You replied:
**Keith, to skate ##at all## requires you get out on the ice -- there is no other way to become simply a competant skater (as you are learning to deal with being on ice). In WCK, you must actually fight (that's applying WCK; drills, forms are only prep work) to simply become a competant WCK fighter (because the fighting environment is different in kind from the environment in drills). Again, there is no other way. To say fighting "it is not everyone's cup of tea" is like saying "getting out on the ice to learn to skate isn't everyone's cup of tea."

---I did not say that. Please go back and read my original comment included above. Again, it is all a matter of degrees. You seem to advocate going out and picking fights with people who would like to do their best at bringing you grave bodily harm. THAT is not everyone's cup of tea. We can go round and round on this. Most everyone will agree, that yes.....WCK is about fighting, and yes.....to know if your WCK is effective you have to test it in a fighting situation, BUT most are not going to go out on a Saturday night and look for a fight in the parking lot of the local night club. I will say it again.... IT IS A MATTER OF DEGREES!

Well, I'm sorry to break it to you but if you want to learn to skate at a competant level, you must accept the necessity of doing that; if you don't want to get out on the ice, then don't take up ice-skating.

---For most people, "getting on the ice" does not have to involve an all out fight against someone purposely trying to hurt and maim them. IT IS A MATTER OF DEGREES!


**A good ice-skater or good swimmer can teach without a text. Good boxers do it all the time. So can a good WCK instructor. As I said in my previous post, when you focus on results, most of the BS falls by the wayside. The text is only important in the context of being an aid to producing results. You have exalted the text over results. So do many others. That's when BS begins.

---Well said, but the text DOES still have importance. Results may have more importance, but the text is STILL important. Do you teach WCK to your students without the benefit of using SLT?, CK?, BG?, the Mook form? How about you Victor? Hendrik? Vyvial? Have you tossed the textbook/curriculum passed down by your teachers aside to "do your own thing?" Or do you still use it as a starting point to get things started? That's it for me. I'm going on vacation! But I'm sure Terence will be able to craft some other elegant phrases for us.

Keith

[Hendrik]

Originally posted by KPM
Do you teach WCK to your students without the benefit of using SLT?, CK?, BG?, the Mook form? How about you Hendrik?

Keith


Hey Keith,


I am still doing that 100 years SLT form which I have done for past 28 years:D

and guess what? hahahaha. everyday I found that old set newer and simplerer! :D Sure it LET in me everyday!

[YongChun]

Well there has been lots of talk but in all my years I have never seen any Wing Chun guy show that he can defeat any well recognized fighter. So everything is just all talk with no action. In the 50's they said Wing Chun people talk with their hands. These days we all talk with our mouths.

Perhaps Wing Chun hasn't kept up to date since in general fighters are better these days, bigger, stronger, better trained. The best stories I have heard are from WT results in Europe when they challenged any style and mostly won. But that was in the 70's I think and again long ago.

I think it's all a matter of degree too. A lot of Wing Chun clubs carry on fights and their members may have various fighting backgrounds. So they do practice fighting. But to go up against professional fighters from the other styles is another matter. I don't hear of that happening. There is also no way to test Wing Chun for the real thing that we are training for which is to fight a few armed opponents for example. A few armed opponents usually means about 10 on one with some having knives and some machetes. Anyone tried that? Wong Shun Leung had at least one of those kinds of fights that he told me about and had the knife scars to prove it unless he slipped in the kitchen while making supper one night.

To learn to fight you have to fight. But to learn to fight who or what? To learn to fight the Gracies is different than to learn to fight the Thais or the Hell's Angels.