How many styles of wing chun are represented here?

[schwarzdragon]

Last summer, I had to pleasure of training with my Chinese wife's uncle in Bandung, Indonesia for 2 months. He spent his life from age 4 to 30 studying under a Shaolin master in Fujian, China, where he learned 5 styles of kung fu, including wing chun. At age 30, he decided not to become a monk and got married and now has 9 children. Since then, he has made his living as a kung fu instructor in Jakarta. At the request of my wife's brother, he came to Bandung to train me after he heard that I had trained for 3 years in Cheung-style wing chun. At age 68, his kung fu was amazing. He analyzed my forms and techniques and concluded that my style of wing chun had deviated from that he had learned. The only thing that were basically the same were the Shil Lim Tao, Chum Kil, and wooden dummy forms (which he called the "Buddha Palm" wooden dummy form). His version of the Bil Jee form was very different to the point that I didn't recognize it. Also, he executed the Bil Jee in a deceptive manner that looked like a punch until it was about an inch or two away from the target, then he uncoiled his fist into the strike. By the way, his hands were like steel. He was amazingly fast, which my son videotaped with my Sony handicam. Still, he concluded that his style of wing chun was the authentic and that of Grandmaster Cheung's students were the modified from the original. I didn't notice much difference in the footwork, which is what my Sifu (Master) John Clayton told me during my training was the difference between our style and other styles of wing chun. At 68, he was awesome at chi sao. I feel lucky to have this experience. Can anyone tell me how many different styles of wing chun that are currently out there? Please tell me about your style of wing chun and how it differs from that of Grandmaster Cheung. Are the forms different? Two quotes from Confucious: "The gentleman or superior man thinks of virtue (te) while the commoners think of the soil, (i.e. work or profit)." "Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."

[viper]

i also do wing chun in the william chueng line i knew that its different from the shaolin style apparently alot of the wing chun lines are different i cant tell u exactly how many because some might not be heard of to often id say that wing chun is like a tree the branches rerpresent each one so im not sure also remember the shoalinn is alot of hard conditioning as well

[sihing]

There are lots of variations of WC. And now that there are lineages coming out that are not connected with Yip Man, even more variation is arising. My Sifu first studied under a instructor in the Wong Shun Leung lineage, then later under GM Cheung himself in Australia. I have only experience under my Sifu, but have looked at lots of WC systems throughout the years.

In the system I train in, it is very similar to TWC, but Sifu adjusted somethings as he saw fit. For e.g. in the first part of the SLT, once we place the Tan Sao out there, the elbow never comes closer or further away from body, just to the side to allow the Wu Sao to come back. This differs from TWC and most other WC systems. One reason why is to keep the forward intention in the movement always, by bringing the elbow position backward while going from Wu Sao to Fok sao you lose the forward intention. IMO, and that is all it is, Sifu just brought the art back to what it was, at least this is the way he explains it. He saw things that should have been there in the first place but wasn't, and so adjusted it as need be. I've met GM Cheung and have seen his WC live. He is very skilled in what he does and is a true master, no doubt there, but IMO, because he had to keep secret what he learned privately from Yip Man, he couldn't practice it with others or teach it, therefore the "Modified" version is what he did for years upon years, until Yip's death in 72'. This "modified" system is developed in him, and although he also has the TWC there too, it mixes sometimes, at least this is what I see of him.

Ours forms in general are the same but slightly different. Our chi-sao is relatively the same but refined and we have more drills/variations and applications that stem from the chi-sao. To me primarily chi-sao trains forward intention and proper structure/positioning to protect the centerline area, secondary is contact reflexes and trapping skills, etc.... Plus our WC has a chin na system incorporated into it and this is reflected in the cirriculum and testing requirements, as well as ground fighting, knife fighting & knife chi-sao, chair applications and stick fighting are there as well. Any TWC practitioner would see the similarities between what they do and what we do but would also notice allot of differences too.

James

[Phil Redmond]

For e.g. in the first part of the SLT, once we place the Tan Sao out there, the elbow never comes closer or further away from body, just to the side to allow the Wu Sao to come back. This differs from TWC and most other WC systems. One reason why is to keep the forward intention in the movement always, by bringing the elbow position backward while going from Wu Sao to Fok sao you lose the forward intention. James
You mean the "Mou Yuhk Jaang (Immovable Elbow", principle inherent in 'most' WC styles? TWC does that too


IMO, and that is all it is, Sifu just brought the art back to what it was, at least this is the way he explains it. He saw things that should have been there in the first place but wasn't, and so adjusted it as need be. I've met GM Cheung and have seen his WC live. James
Me too. That's how I know. Many private lessons on just SLT form. :D


He is very skilled in what he does and is a true master, no doubt there, but IMO, because he had to keep secret what he learned privately from Yip Man, he couldn't practice it with others or teach it, therefore the "Modified" version is what he did for years upon years, until Yip's death in 72'. This "modified" system is developed in him, and although he also has the TWC there too, it mixes sometimes, at least this is what I see of him. James
Oh, he knows the differences.


. . . Our chi-sao is relatively the same but refined and we have more drills/variations and applications that stem from the chi-sao.
James
More drills than what?
Phil

[sihing]

You mean the "Mou Yuhk Jaang (Immovable Elbow", principle inherent in 'most' WC styles? TWC does that too-


Me too. That's how I know. Many private lessons on just SLT form. :D


Oh, he knows the differences.


More drills than what?
Phil

Then why is it that GM Cheung loses his elbow position in SLT and other forms whenever I see him performing it? If this is wrong then why demonstrate it in public exibitions?

I'm sure GM Cheung does no the differences, he has explained it very well over the years, especially with that Inside Kung Fu article back in the 80', during the magazines "Wing Chun Controversy" run. I enjoyed that article emensely and studied it 100's of times, so I know that he cognitively realizes the differences. But does his body know the difference?

We utilize more drills in all aspects of the chi-sao cirriculum, parrallel single arm, x-arm/parrallel predetermined and random, Dbl arm also. Not that more is better, just different in what and how it is taught and what is emphasized. If this is not the case Phil, please provide something along the lines of proof. For e.g., how many single arm Dan Chi sao drills are there in the whole TWC cirriculum? I know of the variations where the slips come in (side energy, downward energy, upperward energy, etc..). We use 4 seperate drills, two of them start where the fok sao position attacks first.


My opinions in my post are strictly observations and nothing more of what I have seen over the years. Nothing personal is meant by it, as I said GM Cheung is a accomplished master with great skills...

James

[YongChun]

When I first learned Wing Chun, there were relatively few drills. Only the fundamentals were stressed.

Then with my next teacher, who had an engineering background, there were a million drills. I found that the drills could be almost infinite in number depending on the creativity and background arts of the teacher and sometimes on his or her desire to stretch the Wing Chun curriculum out as long as possible for maximum financial gain or maybe just because the teacher liked the creative process. Another reason could be that the teacher never being satisfied with the result keeps trying new variations on drillss in order to get a better result.

I have heard that under Yip Man there were not so many drills. Wong Shun Leung mentioned that everything mostly was incorporated into chi sau. The variations were numerous because each student had their own characteristics. Students practiced long hours and created hundreds of tricks and counter tricks. Chi sau was just play with the adept creative student being able to compose like Mozart in music, Euler in mathemetics or Thomas Edison and Leonardo DaVinci in the world of invention.

When Wing Chun is studied in some mathematical sense, the combinations and variations can be many and almost uncountable if you take into consideration the various energies and angles that are possible.

Maybe the WT approach which stretches the teaching out to the max and which incorporates attacks from all modern fighting arts maybe includes the most variations since they include all the classical attacks, modern Thai boxing attacks, grappling attacks, etc. Even in our own training in the 1980's we would analyze every combination of hand from inside to outside, crossed to uncrossed, high to low and use patterns and combinations like the Filipinos do e.g. HL, LH, HHH, HHL, HLH, HLL, LHH, LHL, LLH, LLL, etc. where H=high and L=low.

On top of this we would insert attacks from Chin Na, Aikido, Tai Chi, Judo, grappling, Preying Mantis, Hung style or whatever background people had. The name of the game was fun, variations, creativity and mostly more fun.

Later we figured all these drills were a waste of time. After that we met various masters who commented that we had very flowery hands with our many combinations and variations while their arts were generally very simple. However in their simplicity they had more variations than we did because an object that moves only in accordance to the force presented could move in an infinite number of ways and directions.

When we first met Kenneth Chung, the students here were expecting this and that interesting drill like most seminars (to keep the students entertained) however surprisingly there were zero drills. Kenneth Chung didn't believe in the concept of numerous arbitrary drills and variations. There were no drills. All the hands we had, he had but discarded in order to get to the essence of it all. I think what Kenneth Chung had against the concept of drilling was the idea of patterns or pre-planned responses. In the drill method, often two students doing drills would only be concerned with doing some pattern correctly with no concern for which way the forces were actually going. The result would be a violation of some very basic principles of Wing Chun which is to not oppose force with force and to really receive the incoming force.

When we met Emin Boztepe he also again confirmed the idea of keeping things very simple and mastering the core fundamentals before getting carried away with the flash.

I think if you use the music analogy then maybe the number of drills and variations depend on the ability of the student to "get it" and to be fluent. As long as the student doesn't "get it" then he must drill and drill and do more drills. Then again the drills don't have to increase in variety but maybe only in number of repetitions. But after he "gets it" then he can discard those drills because Wing Chun should be ingrained in every fiber of his body such that he is fluid and natural and moves with ease no matter what kinds of forces are presented. In the end our Wing Chun should be like the skill Jimi Hendrix (sorry I am dated) had on his guitar. The guitar was his home. He could do anything anywhere on his guitar.

So in summary I would say how many drills you have is not at all important. You can have zero drills or an infinite number of drills. Both can be good or bad. Some people like the chemistry approach where the more things you can make, the better. Some people like the physics approach where less (reduce everything to a single formula) is the best.

I suspect that the 20 millions drills approach may end up being close to the no drills approach. In the end, both may be just different paths to the same end.

In the end experience counts the most. Can you fight or not and against what types of opponents? Before I probably had 1,000 videos with enough drills to last a lifetime. Most of these I just gave away as being of no real use. The best I found was just to keep it simple and to get the experience against different kinds of opponents and to train hard like the MMA, grapplers and boxers do.

Ray

[Phil Redmond]

Then why is it that GM Cheung loses his elbow position in SLT and other forms whenever I see him performing it? If this is wrong then why demonstrate it in public exibitions?James
I have private lessons and instructor seminar tapes where the elbow isn't lost.
As far as the 'public' demos go think about that for a while. If only Pepsi would tell their formula to the world. :D

I'm sure GM Cheung does no the differences, he has explained it very well over the years, especially with that Inside Kung Fu article back in the 80', during the magazines "Wing Chun Controversy" run. I enjoyed that article emensely and studied it 100's of times, so I know that he cognitively realizes the differences. But does his body know the difference?James
All WC is inherently good whatever works at the time. Who knows?

We utilize more drills in all aspects of the chi-sao cirriculum, parrallel single arm, x-arm/parrallel predetermined and random, Dbl arm also. Not that more is better, just different in what and how it is taught and what is emphasized.James
You're basing the statement above by what you've been exposed to. I probably would have said that I've learned more chi sau drills in my Sifu's curriculum than I've seen in Wm. Cheung's. But that's me. I've learned throught the years that as soon as I think I got something there's more. I really felt that way that way when I saw the tape of Cheung Sifu performing drils and forms for the VTAA back in 1979?

If this is not the case Phil, please provide something along the lines of proof. For e.g., how many single arm Dan Chi sao drills are there in the whole TWC cirriculum? I know of the variations where the slips come in (side energy, downward energy, upperward energy, etc..). We use 4 seperate drills, two of them start where the fok sao position attacks first.James
There are at least four more that I didn't see you post here. Maybe I can email you a clip of at least one. I'm not stingy.

My opinions in my post are strictly observations and nothing more of what I have seen over the years. Nothing personal is meant by it, as I said GM Cheung is a accomplished master with great skills...
James
Hey James, I know that. I was just trying to help a WC brother out;) Man, I'm still learning myself.
Phil

[anerlich]

Well said, Ray.

The winner is not he with the more drills. Accumulation of techniques and drills is not the way.

With the various arts and weapons I've learned I know more drills than I could ever practise often enough for them to be useful.

[lawrenceofidaho]

Very cool post, Ray.......

That one's going into my archives. :)

-Lawrence

[wing_nut]

It's better to have one sharp knife than ten dull knives.

[lawrenceofidaho]

It's better to have one sharp knife than ten dull knives.
Cross-trainers like to have a knife and a fork too! ;)

[AndrewS]

It's better to have one sharp knife than ten dull knives.


So how does one sharpen a knife?



The mistakes commonly made in sharpening are uncontrolled edge angles, failure to establish a new edge, and leaving the edge too rough. The following methods address each of these mistakes.

The keys to success are:

1) Use an angle guide to control the edge angle,

2) Sharpen until you raise a burr, and

3) Hone or polish the edge smooth.

Some instructions refer to the sharpening motion as trying to slice a thin layer or a decal off the stone. This is bad advice, and here's why: most people won't hold a constant angle this way. Every different edge requires that you hold the blade at a different angle when slicing a thin layer. You instinctively raise the blade until you detect the edge working. This is almost a sixth sense, involving both feeling and hearing. The same thing happens when sharpening by hand. The duller the blade becomes the more you raise it more before you can sense the edge working against the stone. This creates larger edge angles as time goes on and the results gradually deteriorate. Skill and practice will overcome this problem, but the sure-fire way is to use a guide to maintain edge angle.

If you do not remove enough metal to create a new edge, you will leave some of the dull edge in place. The easiest way to determine that you have removed enough metal is to grind until you have raised a burr. Steel will naturally form a burr when one bevel is ground until it meets another. You can then remove the burr in the honing process and have a sharp edge every time.

A final honing and polishing will bring the edge to perfection

Seems like that involves more than one whetstone, eh?

<http://users.ameritech.net/knives/knives1c.htm>


Andrew

[wing_nut]

Cross-trainers like to have a knife and a fork too! ;)



Some people will only have a fork and bend it a little.:D

[lawrenceofidaho]

Some people will only have a fork and bend it a little.:D
Dude, that just went over my head....... :o

[Matrix]

Cross-trainers like to have a knife and a fork too! ;)Don't forget the Spork - spoon and fork all-in-one. :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

As was said, the winner is not the one with the most drills.

Imo, the winner is the one who can IMPROVISE on the MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY'RE THE MOST BASIC...drills...(of which there shouldn't be more than a half dozen or so - and I'm including double arm chi sao in this grouping as well)...

when he spars/fights with spontaneity and real contact.

[schwarzdragon]

Hello. I think that there are many ways of looking at wing chun. Still, it is a highly effective system that can be adapted in many ways to meet the purpose. My Sifu has told me many stories over the course of my training about using wing chun. One story involved someone coming into his studio with a 357 magnum to kill him. He disarmed the man, but not before he shot a hole in the floor (which is still there). One day, I came to train and the Sifu was in pain from a swollen arm. He said that he was attacked by several men in the alley near his house, who tried to hit him with a large board. The board broke over his arm (bong sao). The men were so shocked that he broke the board that they ran away. You just never know what will happen in life. Train hard so that you'll be prepared.

[Ultimatewingchun]

schwarzdragon:

First of all, I know your sifu, Johnny Clayton, very well and for many years, and he's quite a character - besides being one helluva fighter!

But what intrigues me the most about your posts on this thread so far is this part of your first one:

"He analyzed my forms and techniques and concluded that my style of wing chun had deviated from that he had learned. The only thing that were basically the same were the Shil Lim Tao, Chum Kil, and wooden dummy forms...."


***IT SHOULD BE pointed out that the TWC version of these things are very different in many ways than any other Yip Man based wing chun....

and then you went on to say this:

"...he concluded that his style of wing chun was the authentic and that of Grandmaster Cheung's students were the modified from the original. I didn't notice much difference in the footwork, which is what my Sifu (Master) John Clayton told me during my training was the difference between our style and other styles of wing chun."


***THE FACT that you didn't notice any difference in the footwork is VERY significant, imo...because...once again, TWC footwork is very different than other Yip Man based wing chun footwork in some very noticeable ways....

So, not withstanding the fact that this man concluded that TWC was the "modified" version of wing chun, what I find fascinating is the fact that there seems to be some big OVERLAPS between TWC and the wing chun that this man showed you - which may be the very things that make TWC different than other Yip Man based wing chun systems.

And if this is indeed the case about the Siu Lim Tao, Chum kiu, wooden dummy, and the footwork...then it would contribute to the contention that many people have (myself included) that William Cheung did not "invent" TWC out of thin air.

Of course, it doesn't provide any evidence as to whether he learned TWC from Yip Man or from someone else - but it is certainly some extra (and new) food for thought about the whole matter.