There is only ONE Wing Chun....

[Sifu Moore]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sifu Parlotti,

The post "two sides of the coin" hits it right on the head. I have been saying it for over 10 years now ....There IS only one wing chun and it ecompasses many different expressions of the same art. Just like the title of your post "Two Sides Of The Coin" nails it all by itself for the enlightened reader...their may be two sides , but the bottom line is that it IS still ONE COIN.

This is why I have always choosen to reach out to any positive expressions of wing chun and to avoid the psssing contests that I used to engage in early in my "wing Chun childhood". Besides its such a waste of time to argue with fools as a wise man once told me.

I dont have to aggree with everyones apporach, but before I reject it , I test it and attempt to get the viewpoint of someone who utilizes and understands that approach at a fairley muture level. Ultimately, it must be tested in combat and then if it works for me 80-90% of the time, then I will absorb it. I dont care where it comes from if its effective and subscribes to WC principles in the context of the situation.

I thought that Wayne Belonoha exressed it well in his book the "Wing Chun Compendium" when on page 19 & 20 he disscussed Theory, Fact, Principle and the need to be able to balance competing demands. Balancing competing demands "to provide the most overall economic solution to a problem" in my opinion, again, hits it right on the head, and go's to the fact that different expressions of energy are approriate or in context at different times. " Being too fast, taking the shortest route, or using too little energy many NOT be the most effective. Use as much motion, time, and energy as necessary-no more -no less"

That mind set leaves plenty of room for all expressions of wing chun AND dare I say ANY OTHER MARTIAL DISCIPLINES that abides buy its core principles when they are in context. For me it has been liberating and has allowed me to raise my conciousness and refine my personal expression of Wing Chun. And that expression has never been Grand Masters, or Yip Mans, or Bruce lee's or yours or anybody elses..it always has just been my own. As I can not be anyone else but myself.

Again, great post Master Parlotti!! Hopefully more practitioners will share your insight and leave these almost "religious" geo-political psssing contests to the fools...let them continue to argue about it....but without us.

Your brother in Wing Chun,

Sifu Shannon Moore
www.templewingchun.com

[TenTigers]

Sifu John Cresscione said it best-"There are only two types of Wing Chun. Good Wing Chun and Bad Wing Chun. If it follows all of Wing Chun's theories and ideaologies, then it's Wing Chun. Period" and this was over twenty years ago, when all we knew about was Leung Ting , Mok Poi On,and William Cheung!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Welcome, Shannon Moore !!!;)

For those of you who don't know who he is...he's a very skilled, giant of a man with a terrific attitude about things - and has always been a breath of fresh air within William Cheung's World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association (TWC) for all the years I've known him - which are many.

Glad to see you here, Shannon...and good luck with your new school. (I'll try to make it down there for the Grand Opening/William Cheung seminar coming up this spring).

But back to the issues Shannon brings up concerning the "Two Sides of the Coin" thread: They may be two different sides, but as Shannon aptly points out - still one coin. And that's the whole point of that thread.

I don't agree with a number of things contained within WSL's view of how to fight with wing chun, as it is expressed in that book - but I know PEARLS when I see them - and there are many pearls to be found in WSL's wing chun philosophy.

At times he overemphasizes the efficiency of coming straight in and attacking the center of mass - and underestimates other approaches to the art...and at times his former "wing chun brother in arms" from back in the Hong Kong days, William Cheung, overemphasizes the longer range footwork, blindside strategy, etc. - and underestimates the importance of just coming in and attacking the center.

What can I say? It is what it is. But if you put it altogether and work at it long enough and hard enough, it all starts to come to light.

It's all one coin - and it's name is Wing Chun.

[ghostofwingchun]

Sifu John Cresscione said it best-"There are only two types of Wing Chun. Good Wing Chun and Bad Wing Chun. If it follows all of Wing Chun's theories and ideaologies, then it's Wing Chun. Period" and this was over twenty years ago, when all we knew about was Leung Ting , Mok Poi On,and William Cheung!

I am thinking things are not so black and white . . . there is not just good and bad or right way and wrong way . . . and wc is not judged apart from practitioner . . . there is in any martial or fighting art range of ability . . . in BJJ there is not just white and black belt . . . lol . . . I am thinking that good or bad wc is not a useful way to view things . . . there are people and they have wide range of ability . . . so there are all levels of wc. I am also thinking that we do not tell ability in wc . . . whether I have good or bad ability or where my ability level is . . . by looking to theory and idealogy . . . just the opposite . . . we tell ability in wc like we do in any other martial art . . . by what you can do . . . at least this is how I view things.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Phil Redmond]

Welcome Shannon, that was a very good post. I'd like to add the WC people should also stop the childish lineage bashing and defaming of others in WC or other martial arts for that matter. It is simply bad Mo Duk (martial ethics).
PR

[bcbernam777]

Being a WC practioner under William Cheung i would very much like to hear your opinion about the fact that William Cheiung himself claims to have the true Wing Chun (ie TWC) and that other lineages only have a "modified version" of Wing Chun. How do you reconcile this fact with you own personal view on there only being one Wing Chun, do you share William Chuengs view?

[ghostofwingchun]

Being a WC practioner under William Cheung i would very much like to hear your opinion about the fact that William Cheiung himself claims to have the true Wing Chun (ie TWC) and that other lineages only have a "modified version" of Wing Chun. How do you reconcile this fact with you own personal view on there only being one Wing Chun, do you share William Chuengs view?

There are so many claims in wc . . . lol . . . but so little hard evidence . . . and when there is evidence that disputes what we want to believe . . . we ignore it . . . or rationalize it away . . . all we know for sure is that secret footwork does not work in kung fu slippers . . . lol. Many people like story or legend that says what they do is best . . . for me when I hear such things I run the other way! I am thinking that if what they do is best they do not need story or legend . . . they will prove it for all to see and so do not need silly story or legend . . . Gracies did not need story or legend for example . . . if they can not prove it . . . then story or legend becomes a joke . . . an empty claim . . . so there you have it . . . proof or joke . . . which is the legend? Sorry to burst your bubble . . . but some bubbles should be punctured . . . they are not positive in any sense . . . only negative for all.

Thanks,

Ghost

[bcbernam777]

There are so many claims in wc . . . lol . . . but so little hard evidence . . . and when there is evidence that disputes what we want to believe . . . we ignore it . . . or rationalize it away . . . all we know for sure is that secret footwork does not work in kung fu slippers . . . lol. Many people like story or legend that says what they do is best . . . for me when I hear such things I run the other way! I am thinking that if what they do is best they do not need story or legend . . . they will prove it for all to see and so do not need silly story or legend . . . Gracies did not need story or legend for example . . . if they can not prove it . . . then story or legend becomes a joke . . . an empty claim . . . so there you have it . . . proof or joke . . . which is the legend? Sorry to burst your bubble . . . but some bubbles should be punctured . . . they are not positive in any sense . . . only negative for all.

Thanks,

Ghost

I think you misunderstood, I am not a student of William Chueng, It was a question to Sifu Moore, sorry should have made myself clearer

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Being a WC practitioner under William Cheung I would very much like to hear your opinion about the fact that William Cheung himself claims to have the true Wing Chun (ie. TWC) and that other lineages only have a "modified version" of Wing Chun. How do you reconcile this fact with you own personal view on there only being one Wing Chun, do you share William Chuengs view?" (bcbernam777)



***I REALIZE that you addressed your question to Shannon Moore, but as a student of William Cheung's for the last 23 years, I fell compelled to respond to this as well - although I certainly welcome Shannon's thoughts.

For me personally, we may never know for sure whether or not TWC was taught to William Cheung by Yip Man in private, and we may never know for sure if Yip Man intended for William Cheung to succeed him as Grandmaster of ALL of Wing Chun.

But I am convinced of this much:

1) William Chueng didn't "invent" the Traditional Wing Chun approach, as it is too complex for that.

2) The TWC system does bring extra added dimensions to wing chun that are highly fight efficient.

3) William Chueng is also a master (expert) at what he refers to as "modified" wing chun.

4) BOTH APPROACHES TO WING CHUN HAVE THEIR PLACE - DEPENDING UPON THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIGHT.

So in the end - it does add up to ONE wing chun - regardless of what William Cheung, Wong Shun Leung, Leung Ting, Emin Boztepe, Garrett Gee, or anybody else has to say about it.

[ghostofwingchun]

***I REALIZE that you addressed your question to Shannon Moore, but as a student of William Cheung's for the last 23 years, I fell compelled to respond to this as well - although I certainly welcome Shannon's thoughts.

For me personally, we may never know for sure whether or not TWC was taught to William Cheung by Yip Man in private, and we may never know for sure if Yip Man intended for William Cheung to succeed him as Grandmaster of ALL of Wing Chun..

Since Yip Man was not "Grandmaster of all WC" . . . and not just because grandmaster is made-up self-imposed title . . . I am doubting very much that he could intend for anyone to succeed him as such . . . lol!



But I am convinced of this much:

1) William Chueng didn't "invent" the Traditional Wing Chun approach, as it is too complex for that.


This is common sort of fallacy . . . Cheung could not have invented it . . . it is too complex . . . Creationsists borrow this sometimes too . . . yet someone did "invent" it . . . lol.



2) The TWC system does bring extra added dimensions to wing chun that are highly fight efficient.


What does fight efficient mean? And how do you determine that? I am thinking that some nontwc people might say that wc has dimensions that twc lacks . . . lol.



3) William Chueng is also a master (expert) at what he refers to as "modified" wing chun.


What makes some one a master? And why is Cheung a master?



4) BOTH APPROACHES TO WING CHUN HAVE THEIR PLACE - DEPENDING UPON THE EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIGHT.

So in the end - it does add up to ONE wing chun - regardless of what William Cheung, Wong Shun Leung, Leung Ting, Emin Boztepe, Garrett Gee, or anybody else has to say about it.

If William Cheung is a master . . . and grandmaster . . . is your view more accurate than his . . . I ask because you say regardless of what he has to say about it . . . your view is true . . . if this is true about there being only one wc . . . why is it not true about everything else in wc . . . that we should come to our own view and not just accept that of socaled master?

Thanks,

Ghost

[Phil Redmond]

Before this thread gets into a pssssing match. Rather than say that one version is better than another or knock someones Sifu. I simply say that of all the versions of WC that I've done over the last 36 years, I personally prefer what William Cheung has taught me. Others should feel the same about what they do.
PR

[Matrix]

.......... I simply say that of all the versions of WC that I've done over the last 36 years, I personally prefer what William Cheung has taught me. Others should feel the same about what they do.
PRPhil, You're a scholar and a gentleman. :)

[Ultimatewingchun]

You're trolling, ghost...so why not make like a "ghost" and vaporize. :rolleyes:

And if you think that TWC has nothing new to offer you that is fight efficient - stop by my place the next time you're in NYC and I'll show you a few things...:cool:

[Phil Redmond]

Phil, You're a scholar and a gentleman. :)
Thanks, I'm still a work in progress but I do have good intentions. We can all learn from each other.
PR

[fiamacho]

Before this thread gets into a pssssing match. Rather than say that one version is better than another or knock someones Sifu. I simply say that of all the versions of WC that I've done over the last 36 years, I personally prefer what William Cheung has taught me. Others should feel the same about what they do.
PR

Well I have been training in Wing Chun for 27 years, 5 years Modified and 22 years Traditional.

I do not know you Phil but this post on your preference is exactly the way I feel about my Wing Chun. Grandmaster Cheung's training and application methodology appeals to me as well, your post is a very mature and astute post.

[kj]

Thanks, I'm still a work in progress but I do have good intentions. We can all learn from each other.
PR

Ditto what Matrix wrote. FWIW, I've been learning from you for a number of years now.

Regards,
- kj

[chisauking]

Phil sez: Thanks, I'm still a work in progress but I do have good intentions. We can all learn from each other.
PR

That's only possible if one wants to learn from each other

[ghostofwingchun]

I am not trying to troll . . . and not trying to say anything negative about twc . . . if you are happy with what you do . . . whatever it is . . . that is great for you . . . what I do question are claims and assertions . . . especially backhanded compliments . . . for example that one person could not create twc . . . because it is too complex . . . well one person create judo . . . one persone create clf . . . one person create bagua . . . and so on . . . are these so less complex that twc? . . . lol . . . we also know that no one see judo or clf or bagua or twc before that one person began teaching it . . . a sure sign that this one person did create it.

I also question claims of combat efficiency . . . since this seems to mean different things to different people . . . challenge to stop by and see for myself is silly . . . this is common internet tactic . . . and it show a lack of maturity . . . I am sorry to say . . . question me . . . and I challenge you to something that I know will not take place . . . lol. Forum is for discussion . . . not for stop by and I show you.

If someone does not wish to discuss these things . . . that is fine . . . then do not open your mouth in first place and make assertion of these things . . . lol . . . I would not bring up question of Cheung creating twc if you Mr Parlati did not make bold assertion that he did not . . . and then offer silly it is too complex as only evidence of assertion . . . just as I would not ask you about combat efficiency if you did not bring it up. I am just wondering if when you say these things . . . are they just hot air . . . or do you just expect people to take your word for these things . . . do you expect not to be questioned?

Of course you can dismiss me as troll . . . that is easy way to avoid questions . . . but my questions and behavior speak for themselves . . . you raise issue . . . and I ask hard question about it . . . this is not trollish behavior . . . it only shows that I have serious questions about what you say . . . perhaps you do not like this . . . perhaps you are not used to people questioning you . . . if that is case I am sorry . . . but this is my way . . . I question assertions and claims . . . I do not accept things as true because someone says so.

Thanks,

Ghost

[reneritchie]

Phil just can't stop tinkering with the final flourishes. Any good art director would yank the canvas away at this point.

Very well said!

[anerlich]

one persone create clf

Not so - Choy Li Fut is a merging of three family styles, choy gar, li gar and fut gar according to a longtime clf practitioner of my acquaintance.


Of course you can dismiss me as troll . . .

No . . . but your style of posting . . . continually abbreviated by three dots . . . with spaces between . . . and occasional malapropism . . . sometimes make me wonder . . . that you are native English speaker . . . trying to come across like bad movie style Chinese sage . . . or like Tonto in Lone Ranger . . .

Not really calling you out, just wondering why you have adopted this strange posting style which is quite unnatural to type.

[anerlich]

Gracies did not need story or legend for example . . .

The amount of Rickson worship and the like on BJJ forums, and some of the elastic truth in "The Gracie Way", show that Gracie myths and legends are in fact propagating.

It's probably best to concentrate in the present and future of Wing Chun, and developing your own ability and understanding, rather than on which particular practioners from the past the Finger of the WC God might or might not have pointed at.