U.S. Wing Chun sucks ????

[Phil Redmond]

An article in the Sept/Oct 2006 Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine by Tony Massengill:
The article states:
" . . . Without standard there is no reliability. There is only confusion. This describes the state of Wing Chun in the United States . What has been propagated in the United States as Ip Man's method of Wing Chun has been void of a standard of measure and thus very unreliable. One can visit any number if schools that claim to trace their lineage back to Ip Man and find almost no parallel between them. Not only do the basics forms they teach not resemble each other, they often don't even come close to the forms Ip Man himself put on film for his sons Ip Chun and Ip Ching just 10 days before his death. For years Wing Chun students from the United States have travelled to Hong Kong in order to get closer to the root source of Ip Man's system, only to find themselves ill prepared for the level of knowledge and skill they encounter. This has not gone unnoticed by the elders of the system in Hong Kong. Indeed, the standard in the U.S. has been the subject of much concern among the true leader of Ip Man's method . . . "

So basically we in the U.S. are S.O.L. He didn't mention Canada so I guess you guys are safe. :rolleyes:
PR

[Ultimatewingchun]

He's trying to sell the newest brand of wing chun kool aid on the market - his brand.

And pointing to the chaos that DOES exist as a reason to invest with him.

But the chaos is one issue...and whether or not his new (old) "brand" is anything different or better is an entirely different issue...one which he needs to prove on it's own merits...

and not on the demerits of others. But until then:

IT'S FOOL'S GOLD...once again.:rolleyes:

[Immortal_Dragon]

heh, kinda sounds like the state of all martial arts today.....

[travelsbyknight]

I had a friend in college who lived in Hong Kong his whole life. He studied in Ip Chun's school. Was his wing chun good? Sort of. What I mean is that he knew some techniques but whenever I chi saued with him he'd fold under any forward energy. Translation: I would trap while stepping forward and he would always back up and say, "Whoa! Why are you coming foward? Aren't you afraid of getting hit?"

This doesn't necessarily mean that the wing chun Ip Chun teaches is bad but my friend has been studying only Ip Chun wing chun for the last ten years.

[Lee Chiang Po]

08-11-2006, 03:53 PM
heh, kinda sounds like the state of all martial arts today.....


This is true. I had a young man bring a book to me for review, and it made me wonder. It is about southern Mantis, and it was scary. The stance was so wide, at least 4 feet or more, and most of the hand and foot techniques began behind the practitioner. A regular street fist fighter would have made short work of them. But you see, anyone can teach Kung Fu in this country.

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

I had a friend in college who lived in Hong Kong his whole life. He studied in Ip Chun's school. Was his wing chun good? Sort of. What I mean is that he knew some techniques but whenever I chi saued with him he'd fold under any forward energy. Translation: I would trap while stepping forward and he would always back up and say, "Whoa! Why are you coming foward? Aren't you afraid of getting hit?"

Not to criticize, but he was not doing the same Chi Sau that you were. Chi Sau is exactly what the name implies. You were trying to over whelm him with your forward motion as if it were entry into a fight form. It is designed only that you and a partner may practice your hand techniques and your hand blocks effeciently. It is a routine that is done over and over and over and you develop your Chi as you work your hand techniques and your hand blocks. Nothing more. I have watched many videos posted by individualy on this forum, and in most of them we see a sifu overwhelming and pounding on his students. This is not exactly what it is designed for. The forms are not fight forms. They are simply hand techniques and blocks that are put together into a routine so that you might also practice them without a partner. Some footwork is involved in 2 of the forms, but footwork can and should be practiced by ones self. Your foot work is as important as anything else. Maybe more so than anything else. Footwork is usually the area where people tend to forget.
Use Chi Sau as it is designed to be used. If you want to practice entry into a fight form, do free style sparing. Chi Sau will not come into play at all in this form of practice. Trapping, and redirecting is done from a fight stance. Not from a Chi Sau 2 man form. I go back to lurk now.

[Matrix]

It is designed only that you and a partner may practice your hand techniques and your hand blocks effeciently. It is a routine that is done over and over and over and you develop your Chi as you work your hand techniques and your hand blocks. Nothing more. I have watched many videos posted by individualy on this forum, and in most of them we see a sifu overwhelming and pounding on his students. This is not exactly what it is designed for. The forms are not fight forms. While I certainly agree that overwhelming and pounding has no place in chi sao, I still think there needs to be some good forward energy. Chi sao is a drill (not a fight) to develop sensitivity. You can learn to feel where the open lines are, and learn how to apply pressure or change the energy flow when resistance is met. There's much more to it than merely practicing "techniques" and "blocks". If your training partner is not giving you some decent energy, you will not learn to allow the different hands to just flow out based on the situation. You will just have a collection of techniques, which is the antithesis of Wing Chun, IMO.


Some footwork is involved in 2 of the forms, but footwork can and should be practiced by ones self. Your foot work is as important as anything else. Maybe more so than anything else. Footwork is usually the area where people tend to forget. You're right, people tend to forget footwork, and chi sao is a great place to develop the coordination of hands and feet that is critical to good footwork. I don't understand why you feel the need to impose this "no footwork" limitation on chi sao. As I see it, adding footwork to your chi sao adds a higher level in the progression to your training. It's one thing to practice footwork with stepping drills or shadow boxing or whatever. It's quite another to try and move around when someone is applying forward energy into your path.
IMO, chi sao should be a cooperative drill, where it is agreed upon beforehand who is the aggressor and who will receive. That does not mean the receiver is totally passive, just as it does not mean the aggressor needs to overwhelm the receiver. It is a sensitivity lab where both training partners learn in a cooperative environment. You can actually ask your partner, " Can you slow it down?" Speed it up? Give me a bit more forward energy? Or whatever you need to develop the skill or attribute you're working on in a given session.
At least, that's how I see it.

[Matrix]

So basically we in the U.S. are S.O.L. He didn't mention Canada so I guess you guys are safe. :rolleyes: I doubt it. We're usually not mentioned because we don't count. Just take anything American and add "eh" to it and you have the Canadian version. ;)

[lawrenceofidaho]

How to insulate yourself from Bullsh1t in the kung fu world.......

Step 1: Spar full contact with guys at your school. (This will correct some of your mistakes.)

Step 2: Spar full contact with people from other schools and other styles. (This will correct the rest of your mistakes.)

Step 3: Cross-train in a grappling art.

Step 4: Learn to recognize manipulative marketing & coercion by studying logic / critical thinking.

Live a balanced & happy Life....... :)

-Lawrence

[Lee Chiang Po]

You can practice your footwork with your Chi Sau, but is should be a planned routine. This way both partners can benefit. As for Chi Sau developing sensitivity, I have not seen that it benefits in this way. It may, but it has not been to my benefit. In my years I have had many altercations where my skills saved my butt. I am also trained in Jujitsu. In no instance did Chi Sau ever come into use in any of these altercations. I have never come up on a person that was MA trained, let alone WC trained. Most of the attacks were direct and the assailant just came straight in punching. All the Chi Sau I had ever done did help in that I was able to block or redirect a flurry of punches and then counter attack effectively. But at no time did our arms ever come into a Chi Sau position. Being able to defend one's self requires being able to move quickly and efficently. Footwork can be practiced in itself alone. Just like any other aspect of WC. WC foot work is the most effecient and simple and easy to learn of any system. Chi Sau is only practicable between 2 WC trained individuals. I do not recommend you attempt it with someone that is trying to gut you with a knife or trying to beat or kick your brains out. I have been stabbed in my chest on 2 occasions. Both times I was injured seriously. I even had a lung collapse. I have been cut several times and stabbed less seriously on several more occasions. Fighting is a serious business, especially when your life is on the line. By far the majority of individuals I have been in altercations with have been much larger than I, but they were drunk or did not know how to fight. Most large men do not know how to fight. They have just never had to learn. Their size is usually able to get them over.

[mattb]

All the Chi Sau I had ever done did help in that I was able to block or redirect a flurry of punches and then counter attack effectively.I think some people would call that a benefit from Chi Sau, I think Chi Sau did what it was supposed to in that respect.
But at no time did our arms ever come into a Chi Sau position.Maybe I'm way off base on this, but I thought Chi Sau was a drill and not to be translated as a literal technique. My understanding of Chi Sau was never a technique, but a drill to help enhance sensitivity, structure and awareness of angles of attack at close range. Much like hubud in Kali and sabetan in Silat.
Chi Sau is only practicable between 2 WC trained individuals.In a training environment? Sure. But you said yourself:
All the Chi Sau I had ever done did help in that I was able to block or redirect a flurry of punches and then counter attack effectively.All that Chi Sau training you did must have paid off no? From my understanding it sounds exactly like what Chi Sau was ment to do.

I've never once seen a Thai fighter pull off a whole 15 or 16 count drill during a fight...

[Liddel]

You can practice your footwork with your Chi Sau, but is should be a planned routine. This way both partners can benefit.

I would agree with this perhaps, only if i classified Chi Sao as the three actions repeated between two partners.

However i see Chi Sao as being a bit more, so IMO using footwork is a MUST and making sure its spontaneous and not a "planned routine" but rather actions as the situation dictates.

But i guess one could argue its not Chi Sao once actions deviate from Fook Jum Da / Tan Da Bong - so it depends on your definition.

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

As for the topic - US VT sucks - ahh i never paid to much attention to broad statements like this on any subject. :rolleyes:

[anerlich]

An article in the Sept/Oct 2006 Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine by Tony Massengill:

Who?

I guess us Aussies must be safe too, then.


Indeed, the standard in the U.S. has been the subject of much concern among the true leader of Ip Man's method . . . "

The big problem with this statement is that YM didn't name a successor, though so many claim the mantle.

[Mr Punch]

We all knew that!

Look at how long you people spend posting!

:D

[stricker]

dudes never been to la thats for sure. the names emin b or gary lam not mean anything??

he does have a point though. thats where lawrenceofidaho comes in :)

one thing lawrence you only need 3 if 1 and 2 say you do ;) could be all sorts of weaknesses you find and adapt to what that is. might need to use any number of training methods...

[travelsbyknight]

If you don't use footwork when you chi sau there's no way to train one of wing chun's most important aspects: aggresiveness(spelling?). After all isn't that how Yim Wing Chun defeated the monks. She was supposedly a smaller weaker woman who won using aggressiveness and body positioning and footwork.

I wasn't overwhelming my friend. He and I were the same build. I know what you guys mean though. Bigger guys always try to muscle through. Just because you're moving forward and someone is folding doesn't mean you're muscling. I was trapping and redirecting while using forward motion to uproot him. You need to do this.

[Matrix]

In no instance did Chi Sau ever come into use in any of these altercations. I have never come up on a person that was MA trained, let alone WC trained. Most of the attacks were direct and the assailant just came straight in punching. All the Chi Sau I had ever done did help in that I was able to block or redirect a flurry of punches and then counter attack effectively. But at no time did our arms ever come into a Chi Sau position. I hope not! That would be absurd. Like I said before, it's just a drill. It's not a fighting position. Just as we train SLT in YJKYM stance, we do not fight in YJKYM stance.

The sensitivity I'm referring to is a skill that allows to to sense when and from which angle an opponent is trying to apply force to you. At that point you can either attempt to apply a greater force and overpower them (not recommended) or you can change the angle and attack from there.
You can certainly use chi sao to practice your "techniques" and "blocks", however I think you're missing a lot of the benefits.

The problem with making things too planned is that you remove the spontaneous nature of the training. I want to feel the natural response to my movements and allow that to dictate my next move. The footwork is planned only to the degree that I will tell my training partner that I will be stepping in and around - especially if they are more junior and not as familiar with this level. Without footwork, you train yourself to overemphasize the hands which is already a problem as you noted.

[YungChun]

An article in the Sept/Oct 2006 Kung Fu Tai Chi Magazine by Tony Massengill:
The article states:
" . . . Without standard there is no reliability. There is only confusion. This describes the state of Wing Chun in the United States . What has been propagated in the United States as Ip Man's method of Wing Chun has been void of a standard of measure and thus very unreliable. One can visit any number if schools that claim to trace their lineage back to Ip Man and find almost no parallel between them. Not only do the basics forms they teach not resemble each other, they often don't even come close to the forms Ip Man himself put on film for his sons Ip Chun and Ip Ching just 10 days before his death. For years Wing Chun students from the United States have traveled to Hong Kong in order to get closer to the root source of Ip Man's system, only to find themselves ill prepared for the level of knowledge and skill they encounter. This has not gone unnoticed by the elders of the system in Hong Kong. Indeed, the standard in the U.S. has been the subject of much concern among the true leader of Ip Man's method . . . "

So basically we in the U.S. are S.O.L. He didn't mention Canada so I guess you guys are safe. :rolleyes:
PR
I think he should come on this board and debate this issue with us.. :D Glass houses Tony.. :)

The statement was in bad taste and has several holes in it.. In truth most WCK in the states does suck, but if there is more bad WCK here it's only because there are so many more "Sifu" here teaching who have no business doing so..

Such is the state of the system.. Since Ip Man named no inheritor and since standards don't exist there is no control..

As for Hong Kong WCK, I think they'd have a hard time showing me better WCK than I've already seen here in the US from folks who studied under Sifu that began studying long before Ip's sons got the itch to start training themselves..... ;) :p

[YungChun]

You can practice your footwork with your Chi Sau, but is should be a planned routine. This way both partners can benefit. As for Chi Sau developing sensitivity, I have not seen that it benefits in this way.

Perhaps because you were using "planned routines." Or perhaps it did benefit you but you didn't realize it.. If it didn't benefit you then what did?

There is a time to not move in Chi Sao and there is a time to learn how to move in Chi Sao..

There is a time to work on specfic moves in Chi Sao with varying resistance and there is a time to work freely in Chi Sao with varying resistance and full resistance....

This includes footwork and leg work and hand work--whatever work.

Again the attributes developed in good training are about sensitivity to energy and position of both yourself--your body/arms/legs, lines of attack and the opponent(s).



Truth in combat lies outside all fixed patterns..

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well there is one thing I can say about the original post on this thread that's positive: there IS a need for "some sort of" uniformity within the wing chun world (although I really don't see that ever happening in my lifetime)...because there IS chaos.

Just look at the interchanges betwen Matrix and Lee Chiang Po for example: clearly the answer to their debate must be that at CERTAIN early stages of chi sao there's hardly any footwork to be used...at other stages there are...at the very beginning there's not much forward pressure...at more advanced stages there's plenty of forward pressure...at certain stages of chi sao it's just a cooperative drill...at more advanced stages it's more competitve...at beginning and somewhat intermediate stages there's no kicking involved...at later stages there is...at beginning stages the two people are VERY close....at other advanced levels their arms are more extended (some call this chueng kiu sao - others just call it kiu sao)...

and then from apart it becomes gor sao...etc...etc

AND THIS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS WHY I USED TO post often about the need for sparring get-togethers....tournaments, etc.

To help bring some uniformity to the chaos - since COMPETITIVE interaction - done within a gentlemanly structure with protective gear so that injuries are avoided...will help us see what's really what in terms of what really IS good chi sao...what's really good gor sao...what techniques and strategies really DO work - and what's bogus, and so on.

Perhaps our new friend quoted in the mag article would like to attend one of these and show us how much better his system is. :p ;) :rolleyes: :cool: :D

[Liddel]

Nice post Ultimate, i very much agree with your call.

This i think is where most disagreements arise, there are many different levels of Chi Sao, so it all depends on the individuals POV.

IMHO mindset is the key. If you realise the specific use in real fighting, taking it out (in your mind) of the isolation of its method of training...it IS useful for fighting.

I def see it as more than Fook Jum Da / Tan Da Bong standing on the spot. :)

And just for a little perspective, YungChung said -

" In truth most WCK in the states does suck"

This applies IME to my area also and i live in New Zealand.
However there are a handful of those out there that make it work and do it justice just like the states.

[Vajramusti]

Rainy night in Georgia- Lawd it must be raining all over the world.


joy chaudhuri

[Sifu Tony]

In the article I didn't state that there was no good Wing Chun in the U.S., but that there was no standard by which to measure. I have had the pleasure of training with many good Wing Chun teachers in America, but there are many bad ones as well. You guy's have to admit that there are vast differences between many who profess to teach Ip Man's Wing Chun. As for Mr Redmond, I do not know you, nor have I seen your Wing Chun. I find it funny that you have chosen to identify with the substandard Wing Chun I mentioned in the article, rather than seeing yourself as one of those with a good standard. Why is that???:)

-Tony Massengill

[TenTigers]

Sifu Tony, could you please explain the differences and similarities to the way your wing chun is and Duncan Leung's? He is in your area, and his Wing Chun also comes from Yip Man, so I am sure you are familiar with him.
I do understand that "Gwok Si, Gwok Faht" each Sifu has his own method, but I am interested in your views on this as well.

[Sifu Tony]

Hi Ten Tigers,

I began my Wing Chun training with Master Leung, so I am pretty familiar with his Wing Chun. The differences I have found are in the close range aspects of the system. Master Leung's method seems to be more long range in application than the Wing Chun I have learned through Master Kwok and GM Ip Ching. Hawkins Cheung, who was a class mate of Master Leung explained in a series of articles years ago in Inside Kung Fu magazine, that they were young and interested in rough-necking with other kung fu styles, so Ip Man taught them a more (Long Range) method that they used in their exchanges with other kung fu people. And understand, they were age 15 - 18 when they trained with Ip Man, so as Master Hawkins Cheung explained, they didn't have the interest in the theory and principles, they just wanted to cross hands with their friends. So I think the differences are more in the close range application and a deeper understanding of Wing Chun theory. However, I found Master Leung to be an extremely talented Kung Fu man, and I have much respect for him and his methods.

-Tony

[YungChun]

Hi Tony..



In the article I didn't state that there was no good Wing Chun in the U.S., but that there was no standard by which to measure.

Well take a look at this...



Without standard there is no reliability. There is only confusion. This describes the state of Wing Chun in the United States . What has been propagated in the United States as Ip Man's method of Wing Chun has been void of a standard of measure and thus very unreliable. One can visit any number if schools that claim to trace their lineage back to Ip Man and find almost no parallel between them.

See, statements like, "There is only confusion. This describes the state of Wing Chun in the United States " hangs like a big negative wet blanket over all the Wing Chun, Ving Tsun, Wing Tsun, etc, in this Country--quite a whopper of a statement..and of course many folks will be offended.

There was no qualifier to exempt any US folks as you later wrote here:


I didn't state that there was no good Wing Chun in the U.S.

See, that little sentence there makes all the difference.. Perhaps the article should be amended.. :D

Ip man did not appoint anyone--including his sons--to be the inheritor of the system--and clearly he didn't for a reason.

So, yes there is a standards issue, but it is not limited to one or another family it covers all of those who descended from Ip's line and sadly has an impact on us all..

[drleungjohn]

You don't know me either-so it makes it more objective-

This is not how you drum up business for Sam Kwok's seminar-

Stating that Phil Redmond was grouping himself with the sub standard instead of the above par-poor attempt at diversion and re direction-that's a Sil Lum Tao move

I have been to England and Hong Kong-and I can say the same thing-sub standard in comparison to the US-no horse,no root,no linking,no ging,just fast sloppy choppy hands,flying elbows and trying to out speed the person-

You are assuming and decreeing that the IP BROTHERS ARE THE STANDARD BEARERS-WHY? SAY'S WHO ?-
IP CHUN has been documented as saying he had no interest in teaching and was only doing it for the money-IN AN ENGLAND Martial arts Mag -circa 1982!!

The Brothers systems are different-how do you come up with a standard-
The Brothers,as well as Moy Yat,Tsui Shong Tin participated in a US VTAA certification that many passed at the Ving Tsun Museum-standard enough?

So tell us what the standard is suppose to be? How do you measure up? Who decided the standard? How do you acheive it-only do Ip Brother's WCK

You are saying Moy Yat's Wing Chun kung fu is sub standard? When he is/was one of the supreme WCK Philosophers and thinkers,along with HO Kam Ming-another sub standard WCK Player?

So you are saying "long range" WCK is sub standard?
You are saying Hawkins' Cheung ,Wong Shun Leung,Kan Wah Chit and William Cheung are also sub standard?

THESE WERE THE GUYS THAT MADE WCK WHAT IT IS and paved a nice golden street for the brothers- IP brothers -who did they fight?-they came after the system made a name for itself in the street-
Because it's your lineage and you completed the curriculum?

Whom is "concerned" about the standard? The ones who have not taped into the US Market maybe?

Your article is condescending and bloated-even if you posted a retraction and apology,even if you tried to make amends-the words are out,the sentiment is clear and exactly correct on how you feel--no political shifting will be able to fix it-American WCK players know how to Doy Ying and shift

And just so you know-I happen to hold lineage in IP Ching's system,as well as others

I am deeply saddened that this magazine published the article w/o editing it,where was the editorial depatment,who proof read this?, - I have been reading it and have collected them all-since issue 1 with Adam Hsu on the cover-and talk about a lowered standard

John Crescione

[anerlich]

Throw a rock down a dark alley a hit dog will bark!

Only a fool listens to the braying of the ass, or takes seriously MA magaizine articles written by it.

[YungChun]

LOL


Throw a rock down a dark alley a hit dog will bark!

Not really..

The hit dog will probably "yelp" the rest of the dogs will more than likely start barking and a couple might just come rushing out of the darkness to bite you in the ass.. :D ;)


The lesson: Let sleeping dogs lie...

LOL

[tjwingchun]

You are assuming and decreeing that the IP BROTHERS ARE THE STANDARD BEARERS-WHY? SAY'S WHO ?-
IP CHUN has been documented as saying he had no interest in teaching and was only doing it for the money-IN AN ENGLAND Martial arts Mag -circa 1982!!

John Crescione
I have known Yip Chun since he started coming over regular to the UK since 1985, he has always been honest in my opinion with me and to anyone who has asked him questions, when travelling around the country helping with seminars he would relate to why he re-started his Wing Chun training, He told me of how he began Siu Lim Tao at about 7 years old but soon lost interest in training, he began training seriously when he was around 35 years old, he told me it was because he was the eldest son he felt an obligation to maintain his father's system.

Whether you believe that or not, is both irrelevant and of no concern to me, as he is my Sigung and I believe what he told me in person while looking into my eyes, (well it was via Sifu Kwok's translation but we were sitting on the back seat of the car on our way to different venues!), mind you he has the sort of sense of humour that would make that type of comment in passing, lol:D

In all the years Yip Chun have never proclaimed anything apart from being himself, not the only possessor of his father's knowledge, not the next Grandmaster of Wing Chun, only that he tries to pass on what his father passed onto him.

Which brings us to his brother Yip Ching, I first met him in Birmingham when he was doing a joint seminar with Yip Chun. Immediately he comes across as a different personality, so of course their Wing Chun is different, not so much in the slight variation in the forms more in the way they apply their technique.

He maintains much the same stance, in that he teaches how he remembers being taught by his father, but a more aggressive personality with a larger physique; would you expect the brothers to be using the same language in Wing Chun.

travelsbyknight, it will be as you said, not the methods of Yip Chun that are at fault, just someone trying to imitate them inadequately, saying that my Chi Sau is different to Yip Chun's as well as different from Samuel Kwok's, it is the same with the words I use to teach the forms.

I pass on how I understand myself from what I have been shown/told, not trying to mimic the actions and philosophy of my Sifu and Sigung.

Back to the point of this thread, it is my personal belief that Wing Chun, however it is spelt, will grow from strength to strength throughout the world, the more we expand, the more intellectual discussions we have, the more formats there are to show the effectiveness and simplicity of the system, then stronger we will become.

This is not global domination rhetoric, just that I see Wing Chun as a martial science not martial art, and as such through research and development it will progress and as long as we allow ourselves to do so, we will grow with it.

I am looking forward to the time when we are not bickering about names, whether it is Yip Man, Leung Jan, the Brothers Yip, WSL, WT, VT, and start having positive interaction using fact based arguments, body mechanics, theoretical and practical applications using simple straightforward concepts and principles.

Then again at 47 years old I might have to look into being cryogenically frozen before that sort of unity will be achieved, lol:rolleyes:

I have been told many times that my rose tinted glasses and Guinnesss induced enthusiasm hide the real world, but such is life, I enjoy my hopes of a brighter future.

[YungChun]

Back to the point of this thread, it is my personal belief that Wing Chun, however it is spelt, will grow from strength to strength throughout the world, the more we expand, the more intellectual discussions we have, the more formats there are to show the effectiveness and simplicity of the system, then stronger we will become.

Is there really an Easter Bunny? I want to believe..!

More likely that the art, like a fine wine, on the rocks, will tend to continue to dilute and become so voluminous and bland that it will have no taste left whatsoever... It's close now..

In the end it will be up to those who have the best "stuff"--"test it"--and make it work, that will lend longevity to the brand if at all.

You heard it here first.. ;)

The "bizzaro" flashlight has been pointed in Wing Chun's <and many TMAs> direction, so all those folks with the "new and improved" "revisions" of WCK better be able to make their "stuff" work..

If not you will be exposed and further reduce the "sex appeal" of the "brand."

Or, perhaps, just maybe, that's exactly what Ip, and others, had planned all along..... :D LOL…

[Sifu Tony]

Look at Tae Kwon Do when looking at the subject of a reliable standard. If a school claime to teach the Tae Kwon Do of the ATA, World TKD Association, or any other organized body, a student can leave one school in one state and move to a school of the same organization in another state and enter class without very much confusion. The standards are the same. In Wing Chun, the story is much different. When a student of Ip Man Lineage Wing Chun leaves a school in (You name the state) and moves to a school in another state, and is lucky enough to find another Ip Man Lineage school, will it be a smooth transition? The reason TKD schools do so well is there is no back stabbing, or bickering. If you study TKD, and tell another TKD person from another school that you study TKD, you have found a brother. If a Wing Chun person does the same, he has found an enemy. This is sad, and makes Wing Chun laughable to those of other systems. I have heard and seen in writing on forums such as this, that people should stay away from Wing Chun, because they eat their young!

Mr. Crescione, the names you named were from your mouth, not mine. And by the way, the proper way to ask a question is "Are you saying that ________'s Wing Chun is sub-standard?" NOT "You are saying that ________'s Wing Chun is sub-standard?" The first is a question, the second is a statement. A statement which I did not make, by the way. I know of your background, and know that you have been around a lot of "Ip Man" Wing Chun. How many variations have you run into? Slight differences are one thing, but there are those in the U.S. who are teaching what they call Ip Man's Wing Chun, and their Siu Lim Tao is not even close to the form Ip Man filmed. This is not only bad for the student, it is bad for Wing Chun.

-Tony

[tjwingchun]

More likely that the art, like a fine wine, on the rocks, will tend to continue to dilute and become so voluminous and bland that it will have no taste left whatsoever... It's close now..

Or, perhaps, just maybe, that's exactly what Ip, and others, had planned all along..... :D LOL…
Instead of a 'subjective art' which can only depend upon its followers to defend it, I maintain Wing Chun is an 'objective science' and as such will go through all the questioning and analysis and as you rightly point out, if it cannot come up with the answers then it will fail!

Personally it is my opinion that Wing Chun cannot fail, just as Physics cannot fail, my definition of Wing Chun is, "the understanding of personal body mechanics related to violent confrontations".

There are numerous other criteria, such as the psychology and philosophy of conflict, nevermind the social and sports implications that bring like-minded folk together to discuss and train in mutual interests.

However, the bottom line of what is Wing Chun, is "what works in a real fight"; how well do we know this as instructors and can we pass that knowledge on to help others achieve their aims, is a question aimed more at the individual not the system.

Cream will always rise to the top, just becareful the tits don't get it all!!!!:D :D

ps YungChun you are not intimating that there is any deviousness going on in the Wing Chun community, heaven forbid:eek:

[Phil Redmond]

In the article I didn't state that there was no good Wing Chun in the U.S., but that there was no standard by which to measure. I have had the pleasure of training with many good Wing Chun teachers in America, but there are many bad ones as well. You guy's have to admit that there are vast differences between many who profess to teach Ip Man's Wing Chun. As for Mr Redmond, I do not know you, nor have I seen your Wing Chun. I find it funny that you have chosen to identify with the substandard Wing Chun I mentioned in the article, rather than seeing yourself as one of those with a good standard. Why is that???:)

-Tony Massengill
The article states:
" . . . Without standard there is no reliability. There is only confusion. This describes the state of Wing Chun in the United States . What has been propagated in the United States as Ip Man's method of Wing Chun has been void of a standard of measure and thus very unreliable. . . . Indeed, the standard in the U.S. has been the subject of much concern among the true leader of Ip Man's method . . . "

I've learned from 4 direct students of Yip Man and I live and teach in the U.S. These statements include the U.S. as a whole. Anyone who reads English would think the same thing. By the way, who is the true leader of Yip Man's method?
PR

[leejunfan]

Sifu Tony,

With due respect I don't know you and you don't know me but your pride is getting the better of you. It is simple as looking through a window..... your article sent a clear message thoughout the Wing Chun cimmunity. As Sifu Redmond stated


Anyone who reads English would think the same thing.

When I read your article I took it to my school to show my students and fellow instructors. I didn't say a word. Everyone had the same reaction "What are these guys trying to sell?" or "They must be joking!".

I found your comparison of WCK to TKD standards amusing....literally... amusing... as in... I laughed. So what you are saying is you want WCK schools to sell Black Belt Programs (BBC's), make their curriculum insanly easy and marketable and start handing out Black Belts to people who couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag? If that is what WCK is to become I don't want any part of it. WCK is a fighting art/science and every one of Ip Man's students were taught differently. Like any family tree there are many branches each unique in their relationship with the root source.

If your article was meant to ruffle a few feathers it succeeded. Put simply, it was a massive slap to the face of the WCK community that the OTHER students of Ip Man created. Your article does nothing to unify the WCK world.... in fact.... it damaged and separated it even further. Congratulations! :(

Sifu Anthony Iglesias
www.syracusemartialarts.com

[sihing]

Look at Tae Kwon Do when looking at the subject of a reliable standard. If a school claime to teach the Tae Kwon Do of the ATA, World TKD Association, or any other organized body, a student can leave one school in one state and move to a school of the same organization in another state and enter class without very much confusion. The standards are the same. In Wing Chun, the story is much different. When a student of Ip Man Lineage Wing Chun leaves a school in (You name the state) and moves to a school in another state, and is lucky enough to find another Ip Man Lineage school, will it be a smooth transition? The reason TKD schools do so well is there is no back stabbing, or bickering. If you study TKD, and tell another TKD person from another school that you study TKD, you have found a brother. If a Wing Chun person does the same, he has found an enemy. This is sad, and makes Wing Chun laughable to those of other systems. I have heard and seen in writing on forums such as this, that people should stay away from Wing Chun, because they eat their young!

Mr. Crescione, the names you named were from your mouth, not mine. And by the way, the proper way to ask a question is "Are you saying that ________'s Wing Chun is sub-standard?" NOT "You are saying that ________'s Wing Chun is sub-standard?" The first is a question, the second is a statement. A statement which I did not make, by the way. I know of your background, and know that you have been around a lot of "Ip Man" Wing Chun. How many variations have you run into? Slight differences are one thing, but there are those in the U.S. who are teaching what they call Ip Man's Wing Chun, and their Siu Lim Tao is not even close to the form Ip Man filmed. This is not only bad for the student, it is bad for Wing Chun.

-Tony

The reason for this difference btwn TKD and WC is simple, TKD has been standardized by it's leaders and has been for decades, WC never has been standardized by it's leaders, especially Yip Man WC. Who fault is this? Yip Man's IMO. He taught students differently throughout the many years he taught professionally. He did this to suit the individuals needs, abilities and personal attributes. Plus he had students of his do most of the teaching at the school. And lastly, WC is a concept based system, TKD is technique based and can easily be standardized and learned. When concepts are the important thing, then all sorts of variations from students and teachers arise, different strokes for different folks. My WC is different from the Sifu's I have, although I do try to imulate then as much as I can, and is due to different physical attributes, build, understanding and intent that I possess.

As an observation you can see standardization in those organizations with leaders that focus more on makin a good buck and increasing numbers than those with real intent on passing down proper WC skills as they were taught, combined with those ideas they learned thru personal experience. WC is a tool to be used by the individual anyway they choose. If one chooses to pass it down to others they do so in their own way, usually borrowing some teaching methods from their own teacher, but also using there own ideas as well to pass the knowledge. For me as a teacher of WC for many years, this is how I look at it.

James

[aelward]

Once upon a time, I got involved in long, drawn out technical discussions on this Wing Chun forum; when I left a few years back, the general consensus seemed to be that despite our differences in approach, we were all learning variations of the same principles. With many of the cross-lineage gatherings that had been arranged through this forum, many of us came to respect what other people were doing, even if we did not necessarily agree all the time. After all the fracases of the 1980s, it was encouraging to see that people of different lineages could finally get along!

But now I am dismayed to see a leader in the Wing Chun community come out with such blanket statements as:



"There is only confusion. This describes the state of Wing Chun in the United States . What has been propagated in the United States as Ip Man's method of Wing Chun has been void of a standard of measure and thus very unreliable. . . . Indeed, the standard in the U.S. has been the subject of much concern among the true leader of Ip Man's method . . . "

Saying that we are "siding with the sub-par" by disagreeing with this statement is ridiculous. Intended or not, the original piece implies that there is a true leader of the Yip Man method, and that anything else is substandard.

Yes, there is a lot of poor Wing Chun out there. There is also a lot of good Wing Chun out there, too. The diversity of lineages enriches our art, it does not necessarily detract from it. The differences within the many good Wing Chun schools out there stem from varying interpretations of the same principles. An intuitive student with an open mind can pick up a lot from Sifus with different approaches: for example, Leung Jan learned from the large-framed Wong Wah-Boh and the more slender Leung Yee-Tai. Yip Man learned from Chan Wah-Shun and Leung Bik.

I will go as far as to say that standardization not only leads to stagnation of our art within an ever-evolving world, but also leeds to corruption among those creating the standards. If Wing Chun's diversity keeps it from becoming what we see in a lot of Tae Kwon Do organizations, then I am all the happier!

[reneritchie]

An old cliche about insantity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

It was a bad article.

It was a bad article for WCK in general, because it shows the MA community that despite the miracle of the 'net and the span of decades since Cheung/Boztepe, infighting is ever and always just one ill-conceived article away.

It was a bad article for the many YMWCK sifu and students who are now, and yet again, faced the indignity of their skills and standards (some of whom span more than half-a-century in the art) drawn into question by a persona and people who could not possibly understand or appreciate the true scope of everyone else's accomplishments (who could?).

And it was a bad article for Yip Chun because, after the Steve Lee Swift campaign of years past, and the Leung Ting fued in HK media, he is once again drawn into a quagmire where his own dignity and skills will be questioned in rebuttal, and who now carry again the stench of scandal and recrimination, when a long second thought could have saved them, everyone else, and the art itself another black eye it could sorely have done without.

But, bottom line, it was a bad article when other people/branches wrote it about themselves/their sifu in the past, it's a bad article now, and it will, unfortunately for our art, probably be a bad article again when the next passionate albeit short-sighted author writes it again. It will continue to be a bad article until such time as people finally stand up and decide not to tolerate such articles any more, and demand that their seniors and leaders, finally and fully, put the good of the art before themselves.

It will continue to be a bad article, written over and over again, until people realize that success does not, can not, and never will come from telling others their WCK is less than, inferior, or just plain wrong, and demanding standards, but by training their own WCK with such high quality, skill, integrity, and grace, that it raises the standard for everyone.

WCK deserves it.

[reneritchie]

BTW- If people want to do standardized WCK, there are already several global and regional organizations with their own set of internal standards, like TWC or WT.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"So tell us what the standard is suppose to be? How do you measure up? Who decided the standard? How do you acheive it-only do Ip Brother's WCK

You are saying Moy Yat's Wing Chun kung fu is sub standard? When he is/was one of the supreme WCK Philosophers and thinkers,along with HO Kam Ming-another sub standard WCK Player?

So you are saying "long range" WCK is sub standard?
You are saying Hawkins' Cheung ,Wong Shun Leung,Kan Wah Chit and William Cheung are also sub standard?

THESE WERE THE GUYS THAT MADE WCK WHAT IT IS and paved a nice golden street for the brothers- IP brothers -who did they fight?-they came after the system made a name for itself in the street-
Because it's your lineage and you completed the curriculum?...

Your article is condescending and bloated-even if you posted a retraction and apology,even if you tried to make amends-the words are out,the sentiment is clear and exactly correct on how you feel--no political shifting will be able to fix it-American WCK players know how to Doy Ying and shift." (John Crescione)


***THAT ABOUT SAYS IT ALL, John.


"Sifu" Tony is TROLLING in foolish waters.

Anything more need to be said about his posts/mag articles???

I don't think so.:rolleyes:

[reneritchie]

Something I wrote several of these bad articles ago... (http://www.wingchunkuen.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=20&mode=&order=0&thold=0)

[Vajramusti]

yawn
the forum posting system required 10 characters in the replies
so here we go

grin, rofl. yawn, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz(vis ualize 108-
that would be a standard.

[GungFuHillbilly]

Look at Tae Kwon Do when looking at the subject of a reliable standard.

If this is your argument, then you are saying that all gourmet cuisine is inferior to McDonald’s.


The standards are the same.

And you have provided NO PROOF that this is a good thing for MA. WCK is an ART, and through the history of art you find people with extraordinary talent. Not everyone graduating from Juilliard is a Bach or Bernstein.

Even the Kuen Kuit states that different students from the same teacher will have different skills.

It would appear that you are arguing more for the inclusion and mass diffusion of mediocrity; reducing WCK to the lowest common denominator.


When a student…leaves a school…and moves to another state…will it be a smooth transition?

You are confused. In many Asian cultures, this wasn’t done unless you wanted to insult or disown your sifu. From one perspective you are arguing that WCK in the United States has no standards (while WCK in China does) and how students going between schools would not experience a consistency of instruction. It is exactly the lack of this tradition in America that contributes to the experience of differences; but also, diversity. Each expressing WCK as their own personal art.


The reason TKD schools do so well is there is no back stabbing, or bickering.

I disagree. The reason TKD schools do so well is that they operate from a business model that emphasizes route learning and military like promotion. American TKD is a multi-level marketing program; a pyramid scheme. It markets to children and teenagers and gets parents to sign contracts and pay for test after test. This is why it does so well.


…there are those in the U.S. who are teaching what they call Ip Man's Wing Chun, and their Siu Lim Tao is not even close to the form Ip Man filmed.

WCK forms are not TKD forms. They are not fighting imaginary opponents or collections of techniques.

The forms are like text books. Different text books on the same subject will emphasize different things and perhaps be formatted or laid out differently. But the principles and the essence of the subject are contained therein.

Also there are many presumptions in your above statement:

Did Yip Man always teach the forms the same way to all his students?
Did Yip Man state that the forms shown on the film were ‘certified’ and was the only way to do the forms?
Did Yip Man name a person or create an organization to carry on in his name?
Did Yip Man feel that standardized teaching was the best way to pass on the tradition of WCK?

Perhaps addressing some of your assumptions might be in order.

Regards,
GFH

[drleungjohn]

That the best you can do for thoughtful, intelligent discussion rebutal-
Nice to see soem of the other WCK Community get into this-

Everybody else has said the stuff I would have added,so I'm done-
Make mine Burger King and 7up

[drleungjohn]

I have known Yip Chun since he started coming over regular to the UK since 1985, he has always been honest in my opinion with me and to anyone who has asked him questions, when travelling around the country helping with seminars he would relate to why he re-started his Wing Chun training, He told me of how he began Siu Lim Tao at about 7 years old but soon lost interest in training, he began training seriously when he was around 35 years old, he told me it was because he was the eldest son he felt an obligation to maintain his father's system.

Whether you believe that or not, is both irrelevant and of no concern to me, as he is my Sigung and I believe what he told me in person while looking into my eyes, (well it was via Sifu Kwok's translation but we were sitting on the back seat of the car on our way to different venues!), mind you he has the sort of sense of humour that would make that type of comment in passing, lol:D

In all the years Yip Chun have never proclaimed anything apart from being himself, not the only possessor of his father's knowledge, not the next Grandmaster of Wing Chun, only that he tries to pass on what his father passed onto him.

Which brings us to his brother Yip Ching, I first met him in Birmingham when he was doing a joint seminar with Yip Chun. Immediately he comes across as a different personality, so of course their Wing Chun is different, not so much in the slight variation in the forms more in the way they apply their technique.

He maintains much the same stance, in that he teaches how he remembers being taught by his father, but a more aggressive personality with a larger physique; would you expect the brothers to be using the same language in Wing Chun.

travelsbyknight, it will be as you said, not the methods of Yip Chun that are at fault, just someone trying to imitate them inadequately, saying that my Chi Sau is different to Yip Chun's as well as different from Samuel Kwok's, it is the same with the words I use to teach the forms.

I pass on how I understand myself from what I have been shown/told, not trying to mimic the actions and philosophy of my Sifu and Sigung.

Back to the point of this thread, it is my personal belief that Wing Chun, however it is spelt, will grow from strength to strength throughout the world, the more we expand, the more intellectual discussions we have, the more formats there are to show the effectiveness and simplicity of the system, then stronger we will become.

This is not global domination rhetoric, just that I see Wing Chun as a martial science not martial art, and as such through research and development it will progress and as long as we allow ourselves to do so, we will grow with it.

I am looking forward to the time when we are not bickering about names, whether it is Yip Man, Leung Jan, the Brothers Yip, WSL, WT, VT, and start having positive interaction using fact based arguments, body mechanics, theoretical and practical applications using simple straightforward concepts and principles.

Then again at 47 years old I might have to look into being cryogenically frozen before that sort of unity will be achieved, lol:rolleyes:

I have been told many times that my rose tinted glasses and Guinnesss induced enthusiasm hide the real world, but such is life, I enjoy my hopes of a brighter future.



Spoken like a true gentleman-and fellow 47 year old-please don't mistake anything I said as disrespectful as to the skills of the Ip Brothers-I vasilate at times from loving everybody in the WCK world, with a "let them b" attitude,to "Where the hell is the WCK Police" to "I want to kill them all"!
LOL!!

[ChuckK]

Look at Tae Kwon Do when looking at the subject of a reliable standard. If a school claime to teach the Tae Kwon Do of the ATA, World TKD Association, or any other organized body, a student can leave one school in one state and move to a school of the same organization in another state and enter class without very much confusion. The standards are the same. In Wing Chun, the story is much different. When a student of Ip Man Lineage Wing Chun leaves a school in (You name the state) and moves to a school in another state, and is lucky enough to find another Ip Man Lineage school, will it be a smooth transition? The reason TKD schools do so well is there is no back stabbing, or bickering.

-Tony

Hi;

TKD can be standardized because it is a martial SPORT, with specific rules on what can and cannot be done, which techniques are legal, how points are awarded, etc, which allows for belts and ranks to be awarded by specific skill sets learnt;

WC is not a sport, but a comceptually based self defense 'kuen fat', which allows for varied interpretations and adaptations according to the needs of its students and practitioners;

trying to standardize WC would be like saying there should only be one official species of dog, finch, or rice... I prefer to the process of Darwinism and natural selection to take care of what may be bad/sub-standard...

chaos and anachy can be good :)

Chuck

[Steeeve]

TKD is not just a sport style ....Its a fighting style from korea if u train it with the tradionnal ....very tought style ....Tkd is what u see dont forget the hwarang do ,hapkido ,kuuk sol wun ... TKD is the style open to western world by the korean ...

The bad think for wC is to have the chi sao sport ...its a joke... and WC is fighting style depend from who u learn it...but WC is a fighting arts for sure

Steeve:D

[Vajramusti]

Registered User Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Ottawa,Canada
Posts: 53

TKD is not just a sport style ....Its a fighting style from korea if u train it with the tradionnal ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might want to check up on General Cho's role in modifying Funakoshi's forms tp help create TKD. <g>

Sure- a sport can end up in fighting- per Rodney Dangerfield's comment that he went to boxing match and an ice hockey match broke out.

The forum gets funnier and funnier on "history" and related items.

Onward through the fog.

Joy Chaudhuri

[Phil Redmond]

TKD is not just a sport style ....Its a fighting style from korea if u train it with the tradionnal ....very tought style ....Tkd is what u see dont forget the hwarang do ,hapkido ,kuuk sol wun ... TKD is the style open to western world by the korean ...

The bad think for wC is to have the chi sao sport ...its a joke... and WC is fighting style depend from who u learn it...but WC is a fighting arts for sure

Steeve:D
Japan ruled Korea officially from 1907-1945. The Japanese squashed anything Korean, including the Korean martial arts. TKD is Japanese Karate with a Korean name.
http://countrystudies.us/south-korea/7.htm

Gen Hong Hi Choi, "invented TKD as a sport to be taught in Korean schools. Though TKD is based on Shotokan Karate, a Korean name was used to restore honor to the Korean people after their culture was nearl destroyed by the Japanese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choi_Hong_Hi
PR

[Immortal_Dragon]

I think diversity is good in a sense. However, diversity hurts the lineage and tradition of martial arts. The problem we see today is as someone posted earlier there is good wing chun and there is bad wing chun (as an example). There is good martial arts and there is bad martial arts of course. When someone comes along and changes a style to "diversify" it the traditon is gone and it's no longer following the same principles the founding masters developed. The end result is you have one form of a style being taught and perfomed 10 different ways. This need for diversity is ruining styles. We hardly see karate/TKD students have these long drawn out debates about tradition because the same theories, forms, and principles have been practiced the same way since day one. I saw a video over the internet of Gichin Funakoshi perform a karate kata a long long time ago. The video was black and white. To this day the karate students perform the same kata the same way Gichin Funakoshi did. Nothing was changed and of course there is no reason to contest any tradional lineage of the style.

Where diversity is good is when someone finds and discovers a new principle that works. We all know as with time everything changes and so do the way self defense is practiced. Many famous martial arts masters who founded styles centuries ago didn't have to worry about guns and all the modern era things we face today. So yes, in a sense diversity is needed to keep up with the times.

I think the best solution to all this mess and to help restore the martial arts honor system is for these new masters, sifus, instructors, coaches that come along and change a style is to simply name it a new style and not call it wing chun, shaolin or whatever the case may be. Bruce Lee founded Jeet Kun Do as a mixture of wing chun and his own theories but yet he didn't attempt to pass Jeet Kun Do as "wing chun".

[Phil Redmond]

Registered User Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Ottawa,Canada
Posts: 53

TKD is not just a sport style ....Its a fighting style from korea if u train it with the tradionnal ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might want to check up on General Cho's role in modifying Funakoshi's forms tp help create TKD. <g>

Sure- a sport can end up in fighting- per Rodney Dangerfield's comment that he went to boxing match and an ice hockey match broke out.

The forum gets funnier and funnier on "history" and related items.

Onward through the fog.

Joy Chaudhuri
Joy, some people don't research, and with regards to the forum, I need to stay away from here . . . LOL
Phil

[anerlich]

The reason TKD schools do so well is there is no back stabbing, or bickering.

LOL, you don't have a clue. Where I live, when TKD was relatively new as an Olympic sport, we had a split between TKD organisations, enormous amounts of name callling, and backstabbing and bickering by the supertankerload. Even worse than the worst WC b!tchfest you ever heard about.

TKD are very successful, sure, but certainly not because they are all one big happy family under God.

The best ways for WC to gain credibility again is along the lines mentioned in the "Role for Wing Chun in Reality Fighting" thread, not from intellectually bankrupt articles in MA rags written by self-appointed "Keepers of the true WC flame".

[leejunfan]

I think diversity is good in a sense. However, diversity hurts the lineage and tradition of martial arts. The problem we see today is as someone posted earlier there is good wing chun and there is bad wing chun (as an example). There is good martial arts and there is bad martial arts of course. When someone comes along and changes a style to "diversify" it the traditon is gone and it's no longer following the same principles the founding masters developed. The end result is you have one form of a style being taught and perfomed 10 different ways. This need for diversity is ruining styles. We hardly see karate/TKD students have these long drawn out debates about tradition because the same theories, forms, and principles have been practiced the same way since day one. I saw a video over the internet of Gichin Funakoshi perform a karate kata a long long time ago. The video was black and white. To this day the karate students perform the same kata the same way Gichin Funakoshi did. Nothing was changed and of course there is no reason to contest any tradional lineage of the style.

Where diversity is good is when someone finds and discovers a new principle that works. We all know as with time everything changes and so do the way self defense is practiced. Many famous martial arts masters who founded styles centuries ago didn't have to worry about guns and all the modern era things we face today. So yes, in a sense diversity is needed to keep up with the times.

I think the best solution to all this mess and to help restore the martial arts honor system is for these new masters, sifus, instructors, coaches that come along and change a style is to simply name it a new style and not call it wing chun, shaolin or whatever the case may be. Bruce Lee founded Jeet Kun Do as a mixture of wing chun and his own theories but yet he didn't attempt to pass Jeet Kun Do as "wing chun".

Sorry to disagree but... I have to. I have TONS of friends in the martial arts. I have seen TKD schools that look nothing like another TKD school. What you ARE seeing however is there are a few rather large TDK organizations who are very commercially recognized. So you say something like what you said above. That's broad generalizing. if you do the actual research of martial arts to the absolute core beginnings you will see evolutions of those systems. Some have stayed the same with only slight changes while others changed so much they became something different entirely. This is not a bad thing. Wing Chun is a perfect example of an evolution. It was created out of necessity from OTHER systems. just like every other martial art out there. An example would be modern day Brazilian Jujitsu.


when Mitsuyo Maeda, a master of Japanese jujitsu and judo, emigrated to Brazil where he taught his system to Carlos Gracie, who passed it on to his younger brother Helio. Other members of the Gracie family often call their style by personalized names, such as Charles Gracie Jiu-Jitsu or Renzo Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, and similarly, the Machado brothers call their style Machado Jiu-Jitsu (MJJ). While each style and its instructors have their own unique aspects, they are regarded as variations of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.


We can dive into the history of every style in existance and find these "changes" to the standard. Bu where does it get us. So Sam wants to push his Ip Man brand of Wing Chun to the world and denounce all others..... fine... let him. But like Sifu Francis Fong once said to me about Chi Sau and fighting in general. "People talk, talk, talk. Who's right, who's wrong and so on. But the guy still standing says anything he wants."

Mo Gong Kau, Gong Sau (Don't talk with the mouth, talk with the hands.)

[sir-elrik]

The ultimate judge is the tatami,ring, roof(not to forget where our art was shaped).

Seeking legitimacy from lineage is just an evidence of what u think wing chun is

comparing WC with TKD is just a marketing wish.

In addition the old man was not very consistent on what was teaching so how u want the art to be consistent when its establisher it wasnt?

In the end of the day WC is not advocating the self expresantion of it principles?
Is it so important who does the forms like the old man?
i thought that the most important thing is if it work for you?

[Phil Redmond]

The guy that started the thread below says that he learned two versions of the pole from the Yip/Ip bros.
. . . the first pole form I was shown is from Yip Chun, the second, Yip Ching, the differences are three extra techniques in the Yip Ching version. . .
http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42773
PR

[tjwingchun]

The ultimate judge is the tatami,ring, roof(not to forget where our art was shaped).

Seeking legitimacy from lineage is just an evidence of what u think wing chun is

comparing WC with TKD is just a marketing wish.

In addition the old man was not very consistent on what was teaching so how u want the art to be consistent when its establisher it wasnt?

In the end of the day WC is not advocating the self expresantion of it principles?
Is it so important who does the forms like the old man?
i thought that the most important thing is if it work for you?

I remember Yip Ching talking about a question he asked his father, essentially it was on the subject of changing the forms, Yip Ching inquired if it was OK to do so. Yip Man's reply was basically do what you want, over the years if your students can find value in it and it continues down the generations then it is a positive, if nobody takes on and maintains your changes then it shows they were not good.

So although the "use what is useful for you" ideology (seem to have heard that somewhere else lol) is a statement of true Wing Chun, "what is useful to the next generations" is a more dangerous statement to make and only history will confirm its validity.

That is why all I claim to teach is TJ Wing Chun, the TJ is Trevor Jefferson and the calligraphy that resembles TJ means YOU. My personal statement is that "I try to teach others how to understand THEIR Wing Chun the way I understand MY Wing Chun"