Tai chi Advantages over....

[dre_doggX]

Tell me what advantages Chen style taijiquan or tai chi in general have over the wing chun fighting system

Andre Lashley

[Water Dragon]

Uhhh, I think you mean how is it different.

You may take my life, but you will never take my Freedom

[EARTH DRAGON]

Tai chi is an ancient Chinese martial art, It means Grand Ultimate Fist.It is most often referred to as a internal Martial art indicating that the emphasis is placed on strengthening the mind , circulating the chi, and relaxing the body so that is free to move. Beyond its Martial application however it is also a complete system of physics and philosophy, best characterized by the tai chi symbol known to Americans as the (yin yang circle) with in this symbol to semi circles of dark (yin) and white (yang) make a complete circle as they constantly merge into each other , Symbolizing the spirit of “moving harmony”this harmony of motion describes the laws of yin and Yang which assert that in the phenomenal world both physical and energetic.All existence is a relationship between these two , for without left there can be no right, without night there is no day and Countless others.
In the system Yang represents all that is expressive,productive and strength oriented ,yin is receptive yielding an internal. In the martial aspect of tai chi, the relationship between the yielding force of yin and the unbending force of yang forms the core of the fighting technique. The yielding force is used to avoid or redirect opponents attack,while the unbending force is used to counter attack.this change from yielding to a bending is achieved in the form of Circle therefore the main pattern of tai chi is like many circles spiralling continuously without end. In application these principles led to force, which Master Ching Man Ching once described as replied 2,000 pounds with four ounces.
I hope this explains and answers your question!

http://www.kungfuUSA.net

[dedalus]

I study Yang style rather than Chen, but before I came into the internal arts I was a wing chun student too. Like anyone who loves their system, I do think taiji has more depth than wing chun. Wing chun has almost immediate benefits in terms of self defense, but it also bottoms out more quickly once you get good. Taiji is a long term investment, but it pays greater returns (both in combat and health). The hardest thing to do is to find a good, martial teacher.

One thing that does puzzle me is the idea that taiji can be learnt as a "sideline" to another art. I can only imagine that it is taught and studied superficially. Incidentally, I don't think wing chun mixes at all well with taiji or bagua (both being very circular). I had to work hard to overcome my wing chun habits to learn taiji properly.

[dre_doggX]

All styles of Tai chi have somewhat of a linear movement to them.
espeacial Chen style.

I think it would be best if I train in wingchun with some taichi because they do go together(read "Bruce Lee presents Intrenal Martial arts" any walmart store) then I will shift to tai chi chens tyle so this way i get the benifets and combat readys of wing chun with the growth of Tai chi.
my wingchun already has lots ofyeilding and controling in it .
besides I see tai hci as a super form of Jeet kune do. in Taoism. so cant there be tai chi (theory) in every style. I think so.

Andre Lashley

[Fighting Hawk]

Taijiquan as we know it today isn't all that ancient, having originated in Chen village only around 300 years ago, when Chen Wangting applied the theories to the martial arts he already knew.

I've studied Yang style since '91, Chen since '96, and studied Sun briefly, but had to stop due to the demands of my job, which is a shame because I enjoyed Sun greatly.

In taijiquan, especially the Chen style, you will find a far greater variety of technique than in Wing Chun (which is a fine system) as well as a greater emphasis on power generation and being able to emit spontaneous power in a greater number of ways. You will also likely find deeper qigong than in Wing Chun. It all really depends upon what you're looking for.

If you're looking for something that's more Wing Chun-esque, you might want to look at Xingyiquan (Hsing I Chuan) as well. It's more linear and aggressive than Taijiquan generally is, and like Wing Chun has a smaller number of techniques, having the five element fists as the main techniques and then some animal techniques beyond that.

- Build a man a fire and
he'll be warm for a
night. Set a man on
fire and he'll be warm
the rest of his life

[Kaitain(UK)]

if you want to do either purely

Taiji is linear and circular btw - in equal measure. When compared to the pure linear WC it feels completely alien.

I train with a few WC guys (Samuel Kwok lineage) - one of them trains Taiji with me (6 years WC/1 year Yang Taiji).
He found the following:

1)his Chui Sau in Wing Chun became superior to that of the other students at his level because the Taiji made him softer than they were. He also developed a strong root that the others do not have.

2)his instructor was softer and more rooted than him despite only training WC - my friend had taken a short cut that made him better than his equivalents - but he worries that he missed an important period of 'learning to be soft' and 'learning to root' through WC practice.

3)WC favours a range that is alien to Taiji - Taiji lends itself to grappling, WC is more focussed on striking. He found that his Taiji couldn't work because he was loathe to change ranges the way Taiji does. WC is kick/punch/elbow/get out - Taiji is kick/punch/elbow/shoulder/grapple. I'm not saying WC doesn't do that - I'm saying that it doesn't encourage it.

4) Yielding - Taiji yielding is different to WC yielding.

5) Taiji really helped with his WC by explaining concepts in a different way. He realised that the elbow placement for Tan Sau (I think - the palm up sort of cutting move) was to enable efficient energy transfer of an opponents force and to prevent his own structure from collapsing, to better root the energy. The analytical nature of Taiji has helped him understand these things better. He maintains that they come with time anyway, but that through understanding the principle in Taiji he was able to improve far faster.

For the first 6 months we were fine in pushing hands sparring (striking/kicks/breaking off if desired etc) - I was always better (because we were using Taiji style 'open' pushing hands) but he was getting through to me. However, the last 6 months have seen things go badly wrong for him - as my yielding and listening has improved he barely gets through now at all. He feels like he is fighting a net - wherever he applies energy he finds nothing but an attack from elsewhere.

I have got better whilst he is not progressing. We discussed it at length on Friday and realised that the problem is the Chui Sao in WC trains forward energy - when exercising with Taiji push hands this is something that can easily be taken advantage of (it is quite an obvious energy) but he can't not do what is ingrained from his WC. We found that training the 'wiggly gung' that I criticised so heavily gave him the best results for months because he was unable to draw any similiarity to WC push hands.

It is a result of two different training methods that are close enough that they overlap and cause problems. I don't believe one is better than the other - they just confuse each other.

Taiji can definitely be trained as a sideline to supplement another art - as long as you train it with that purpose in mind. I don't think it mixes very well as an equal.

Last note - don't limit yourself to a set Taiji style before you've looked for instruction in your area. Every style has great as well as awful instructors - find the best instructor you can (recommendations etc). Chen may be the most combat minded but if you train it with a charlatan it'll be worthless.

Just my thoughts - and most definitely not an attack on WC.

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[Kumkuat]

that's funny, I thought almost every movement in taiji is circular or in a arc. Even the hidden hand punch in chen style.

[Kaitain(UK)]

straight in the circular, circular in the straight

circular waist motion can lead to a straight or circular strike - brush knee twist step, circular waist motion, straight manifestation in the strike

that's at the most basic level of understanding

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[wujidude]

from http://www.bawcsa.org/bio/KenNFZQ.html

"Feng Zhiqiang and Kenneth Chung
Feng Zhiqiang is the vice president of the Beijing Municipal Arts Association and president of the Beijing Municipal Chen-style Taijiquan Research Institute. He is also the head of Huaxia Martial Arts Club with the FESCO International Training Center.
Feng Zhiqiang was born in 1926 and is a well-known master of Chen-style Taijiquan. He was a student of Chen Fake, the 17th generation direct descendent of Chen-style Taijiquan. Chen Fake brought the Chen system to more general "modern" awareness in 1928. In 1928 he began to teach Old Style Number One and paochi or "Cannon Fist" to students in Beijing. Feng Zhi Qiang the person Chen Fa Ke would use in his personal two-man Taiji demonstrations. Feng Zhiqiang, therefore, is considered a "high hand" in the art of Chen Taiji. In his youth, Feng Zhiqiang studied Tongbei and Liu He Xingyiquan from Han Xiaofeng and Hu Yaozhen, respectively. Through intensive training with Chen Fake, Feng Zhiqiang mastered the grappling, throwing, and shaking-strength skills of Chen-style Taijiquan.

He is also a coauthor (along with Feng Dabiao and Chen Xiaowang) of one of the few English books on Chen Taiji. This book is entitled Chen Style Taijiquan, published by Hai Feng in 1984.

Chen Changxing, Chen Fake's grandfather is the Chen who taught the Chen system to Yang Lu Chan, the subsequent founder of Yang Taiji. Yang Lu Chan, who was very proficient, became very prominent in the elevation of Taiji within Chinese culture. Chen Zhaoxu, Xiaowang's father, was understood to be, of course, a prominent student of Chen Fake as well.

Chen Xiaowang is the 19th generation standard bearer for Chen Taiji.


The Beijing Wu Shu group came to San Francisco in 1985 to have an exhibition. The head coach of the group was Wu Bin, and the leader was Mr. Chiang. Most of the 28 members of the team were in their 20's. Feng Zhiqiang, also a member of the team, was in his late 50's.

Y. C. Wong introduced Ken to Feng Zhiqiang in his 8th floor, Grand Avenue hotel room. Their conversation ranged from Martial Arts to Kung Fu to sensitivity. At this point, Feng Zhiqiang invited everyone in the room to touch his hands. Present were the following martial artists: Ben Der, Y.C. Wong, Eddie Chong, Kenneth Chung, possibly Sidney Wong, and some other SF martial artists.

Prior to this meeting, Ken had been diligently trying to "abandon" the power he had developed prior to his "benching" by Leung Sheung. Ken had, to this point, spent nine to 10 years getting "soft." When Ken's turn came, Ken touched Feng Zhiqiang, but finding no openings in Feng Zhiqiang's area, subsequently, would not want to go in. Feng Zhiqiang invited Ken to use more energy. Ken politely refused. Feng Zhiqiang continued to invite Ken in, and Ken continued to refuse. Finally, Feng Zhiqiang said that he couldn't show Ken what he wanted to show him unless he gave Feng Zhiqiang more energy. Ken felt at this point that he was at the limit of his "soft" energy. Feng Zhiqiang continued to encourage him to use more power, so Ken, did as Feng Zhiqiang requested.

Before he knew it, Ken said his hands were on the floor to his left. Feng Zhiqiang did this move two or three times to Ken. Then Feng Zhiqiang said he wanted to show Ken something different. Feng Zhiqiang then landed Ken on the bed two or three times. Ken said that he wasn't "tossed" but more like "placed." That is, he had the distinct impression that Feng Zhiqiang was "throwing" him in such a controlled fashion that Ken would land particularly when he landed on the bed.

One has to be at a certain proficiency level in their own style and have an open mind to really appreciate this functional placement. Ken had met many taiji people by this time, including Chen styles, and had yet to find compatible hands. Feng Zhiqiang stood out without question, opening Ken's eyes. He provided the right and perfect feeling that led Ken to experience more of the Chen style. Ken took him as a mentor in Martial Art.

To have a chance to touch Feng Zhiqiang's hands in this manner was heaven to Ken. After the meeting, Ken was totally enlightened and couldn't close his eyes for the next two nights. They met again three days later. Ken found out more about this master. However, Ken was not trying to learn Chen's Taiji. He just wanted to be close to the master and share his experience and insight within Martial art.

It's no surprise that some people mistook Ken to be dying for Taiji. Only those at a higher level of Martial Art understand -- to capture the essence of an art takes a life time search. Ken spent his time in Wing Chun and that enhanced his ability to admire a wonderful Chen's style master like Feng Zhiqiang.

Aside: to remind some monkeys out there -- don't count on your being a natural to pick this up easily, even if you are in Chen style. It took a visit by Chen Xiaowang for some Chen style monkeys to discover how beautiful their style's "internal energy" can be. There are quite a few monkeys in different countries who happen to be self-claimed masters, playing at being an authority figure way too often. They met with Chen Xiaowang briefly in Australia in 1995. Ken, a Wing Chun stylist, acknowledged this beauty and internal energy some ten years ago with Feng Zhiqiang in San Francisco, and with Chen Xiaowang in Xian, China.

That's what happened in the first meeting between Ken and Feng Zhiqiang. Later, one of Ken's "students" was with Feng Zhiqiang, and asked Feng Zhiqiang what he thought about this upstart's hands. Now, such a question coming from a teacher's student would have been the height of disrespect. The relationship between Ken and this "student," this student's age, and the student's relationship with Feng Zhiqiang, presented a unique opportunity. This allowed for the question to be asked without disrespect and without divulging the student's relationship to Ken.

Feng Zhiqiang's comment about Ken was, "He has very good listening energy." This was such a wonderful comment from Feng Zhiqiang and meant a tremendous amount to Ken. This compliment dwarfed all the good comments and flattering for all those past years from different martial artists, some of which are from his own clan in Wing Chun. Now, Ken knew he was and still is on the right path."

[[Censored]]

1) Chicks dig the graceful movements of Tai Chi. Not the ruthless efficiency of Wing Chun.
2) Tai Chi practice is better for health.
3) Few people would even think to question the fighting ability of a Tai Chi practicioner.
4) Wing Chun forms are so ugly, only an engineer could love them.
5) Tai Chi people aren't inundated with lame "yeah, I know that Bruce Lee stuff too" comments.

And I could go on, you know... :)

[Kevin Wallbridge]

"... only an engineer could love them."

LMAO!

Seriously, internal connection is grad school compared to the middle-school technique level of Wing-Chun. As useful as trapping is, its nothing compared to the power of mid-range grappling.

"The heart of the study of boxing is to have natural instinct resemble the dragon" Wang Xiangzai

[Repulsive Monkey]

Seeking the curve wqithin the straight and the straight within the curve is true, but Taiji is not meant to be linear, energy seems to circulate in its movements.
Bruce was hardly an internalist, in fact I would have to declare that he wasn't. How anyone can say that Taiji is a higher form of Jeet Kune do, obviously they haven't a clue about Taiji.

[Kaitain(UK)]

both linear and circular - at a variety of levels. Bagua is circular, Hsing-I is linear, Taiji has a mixture of both.

waist turns, straight punch.
issue straight but with a circular motion (diagonal flying is best example of this - your body is travelling in a straight line whilst rotating as well)

it all comes down to definition - how would you define straight and circular in the context of MA? Is it jab vs hook?

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[Guandi]

>Bagua is circular, Hsing-I is linear, Taiji has
>a mixture of both.

this really depends on what you are looking -- eg Mike Patterson said that in fact every movement in Hsing-I is circular, the linear movements are just the obvious ones.

If you go deeper than your description is not valid anymore.

Guandi

[Kevin Wallbridge]

Taijiquan has been described as the spear within the shield, while Xingyiquan is the shield within the spear. This refers to the relative qualities of straightness and roundness in the respective styles.

If you ever get a chance to see Xinyi Liuhequan (10 animal Xingyi) you will never mistake it for linear.

"The heart of the study of boxing is to have natural instinct resemble the dragon" Wang Xiangzai

[Kaitain(UK)]

it's bad enough explaining that taiji has both without getting into the other sisters.

BROAD definitions follow:
Bagua = circular
Hsing-I = linear
Taiji = bit of both
I don't believe that this is the same as 'straight in the circle'

whether that is purely physical, or discusses the fight philosophy or whatever - broad generalisations can be picked apart. But the above are the accepted brackets when talking generally.

I know a little about Taiji - I know nothing about Hsing-I or Bagua - I was regurgitating the standard descriptions found in most internal books I've read as well as information on various web sites.

As a related question - why do people act like being linear is inferior to being circular? I don't feel that calling Hsing-I linear in anyway denigrates the style.

As far as I can see it, to generate power you have to rotate the waist - what you do with that power is what defines linear/circular.

Guandi - you haven't really demonstrated your statement with evidence of any sort. I can describe various layers of finding the straight in the circle in Taiji. Position, movement, philosophy - i'll elucidate later as I'm knackered at the moment.

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[[Censored]]

Internal connection is grad school compared to the middle-school technique level of Wing-Chun.

Wing Chun has internal connection. WC players are so humble that they don't like to talk about it, and so clever that they never reveal it to outsiders.

I've already said too much. Excuse me.

[Kevin Wallbridge]

Humble Wing-Chun players, nice thought.

They are surely clever, perhaps they can hide it from themselves. The only internal Wing-Chun practitioners that I have met were also highly skilled in Taiji, Xingyi or Bagua. I've never talked to a pure Wing-Chun stylist who didn't claim to be internally connected, but I've never touched one who could demonstrate it.

"The heart of the study of boxing is to have natural instinct resemble the dragon" Wang Xiangzai

[dre_doggX]

Thanks alot I really appericate it. As as I get a car. I well take monthly and weekly drives to Tai chi schools (chen style if possible but I wont mine training with others.) I will stick if Tai chi chaun since you put thens that way Kaitain. but I still think wing chuns theories can serve some purpose in my combat.

thanks.

Andre Lashley

[Repulsive Monkey]

As stated with the development of an internal art, yes, one's Wing Chun may become internalised. But it is not an internal art.

[[Censored]]

What is a "pure Wing Chun stylist"? Someone who, when exposed to theories and training methods of other arts, plugs their ears and closes their eyes? In that case, you may be right. I've never met a pure WC stylist myself.

Are you a pure Tai Chi stylist?

The initial connection established by WC is: my hand to your jaw, and your ass to the ground. True, but this does not denote a lack of sophistication. The 2-3 year WC guy has the luxury of refining their practice, while their 2-3 year Tai Chi opponent is busy recovering from their injuries.

Wing Chun = Safety First!
Q.E.D. :)

P.S. "Internal art" is just a marketing scheme to lure in the hippies.

[Kevin Wallbridge]

Yes I've met plenty of people for whom Wing-Chun is their art, nothing else they've done is as sophisticated, so I don't see anything of any other art in there.

To think that you can't use three years of Taiji may be true if you look at the students in Grandma's class at the community centre. I'd put anyone with three years of connection against someone with only three years of technique. No doubt that it is harder to grasp connection three years, and its a lot harder to maintain the kind of dedication to the work that is needed, but I know plenty of examples.

A classmate of mine is in Japan right now. With two years of Chen style he was able to control a 28 year Shorinji kenpo master (the kenpo guy tried to show him a lock and couldn't apply it, and when the two-year Taiji student touched him he put him on the ground). When this same two-year student met a 40 year Judo practitioner he was able to neutralize every technique the master used.

Am I a pure stylist? No, but I also don't need to go outside any one of my styles to make them more complete. I can use Chen without resorting to Xinyi or Bagua, or any combination of the above. The Beng and sticking quality in my Bagua surely benefits from my Chen training, my ability to change in my Chen surely benefits from my Xinyi, the angling in my Xinyi owes something to my Bagua. Yet they are all based on the same set of principles and the techniques that result from these priciples are radically different.

If my ass were so easily put to the ground I would be more circumspect than I am.

Your theory ignores the facts of midrange grappling. You presume that the weapon that you launch across the midrange will land on the target you choose beforehand. This may not be true. You had best be connected to yourself and to the planet before attempting this against someone with more than technical skill. I have no doubt that you have lots of hands-on training with very good trapping and bridging skills, it may be that you have never had the opportunity to touch someone with real internal power.

To be stuck at technique level is to be forced to do a lot of math when coming "off the line." When that kind of method is met with whole body sticking, not just clever hands, the flaws in the calculations can be revealed. "No plan of battle survives initial contact with enemy."

Low technique level may beat low stick level, but high technique level does not beat high stick level. Don't argue for partial skills.

"The heart of the study of boxing is to have natural instinct resemble the dragon" Wang Xiangzai

[[Censored]]

I'd put anyone with three years of connection against someone with only three years of technique.

As would I. But

Wing Chun = Techniques
Tai Chi = Connection

is completely false.

Am I a pure stylist? No, but I also don't need to go outside any one of my styles to make them more complete. ... they are all based on the same set of principles and the techniques that result from these priciples are radically different.

And these same principles are the source of Wing Chun.

"As long as people have two arms and two legs, there will only be one martial art." A famous Wing Chun student said that, guess who?

Your theory ignores the facts of midrange grappling. You presume that the weapon that you launch across the midrange will land on the target you choose beforehand.

That is not my theory, I assure you. Nor is it traditional Wing Chun theory.

[Fighting Hawk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "As long as people have two arms and two legs, there will only be one martial art." A famous Wing Chun student said that, guess who? [/quote]

Which is a lovely quote that just ain't true. But it's a nice thought.

- Build a man a fire and
he'll be warm for a
night. Set a man on
fire and he'll be warm
the rest of his life

[Kevin Wallbridge]

The theory I was referring to was that your hand would be on my jaw. A specific theory not a general one.

While the same principles may be behind Wing-Chun and the Big-Three internals, nothing I've seen in Wing-Chun practice actually develops the same way as the others. As I said, I have seen very high level Wing-Chun, scary stuff no doubt, but the people displaying these skills were just using it to show a context, as they had moved past Wing-Chun into internal styles.

Do you know of Yeung Fuk from Seattle or his student Dave Harris? Master Yeung is a reknown practitioner of Red Boat Wing-Chun. He told me that while Wing-Chun is ok for hitting people, you have to train neigong for power and complete skill. He can demonstate the highest levels of the art, yet he was almost dismissive of the method. That made me look at Wing-Chun with a more critical eye.

For two years I shared a club with a Wing-Chun teacher. We had about the same amount of time in martial arts. We touched and talked theory a lot.

My current teacher Eric Tuttle can also do amazing things with Wing-Chun alone, he trained it hard for almost 20 years, yet he is the source that I derived the technique/connection contrast from. He describes it as being clever like a fox, but the internals are powerful like a tiger.

Where is the spiral jing? Where is the power stretch? Where is the change in the structure? Where is the open/close of the tissue? Where is the training of the 6 harmonies? How do you dig power out of your root? Where is the Song and Beng?

Your can call my conclusions completely false, but they are not mine alone and they are not based on ignorance, they are based on research.

"The heart of the study of boxing is to have natural instinct resemble the dragon" Wang Xiangzai

[wujidude]

A little history on Kevin's reference to Fook Yeung:

Mr. Yeung, now in his eighties, was a good friend of the late Bruce Lee's father. When Lee came to the United States after leaving Hong Kong and Yip Man, he trained for a while with Mr. Yeung, definitely polishing his skills. Lee, remember, had not completed his Wing Chun training under Yip Man.

Mr. Yeung used to perform martial arts roles with a Chinese opera company. As such, he had to study a number of arts in some depth. In addition to Wing Chun, he studied baguazhang and taijiquan, and possibly other arts. Although he still plays around with martial arts, most of his practice now is dedicated to the Omei qigong forms.

[Repulsive Monkey]

Or should it be E-Mei as in E-Mei Mountain Qigong systems? Dedveloped on E-Mei mountain monasteries?

[Kevin Wallbridge]

Thanks again wujidude. I wanted to avoid the name dropping of Lee Junfan, but its a good bet that the Red Boat approach had a strong influence on the direction Bruce Lee took in his martial arts.

The pronunciation of the characters for "beautiful eyebrow" is Emei in the Beijing dialect, but Omei in Sichuan dialect. Omeishan, the mountain, is in Sichuan province.

I actually had the good fortune to spend some time training Omei Qigong on Omei mountain with my Qigong teachers. Has anyone else ever seen a Qigong sword form?

"The heart of the study of boxing is to have natural instinct resemble the dragon" Wang Xiangzai

[HuangKaiVun]

For me, I prefer Wing Chun.

I'm Southern Chinese with a fast little jerky body. Though I can pull off Chen's circular reeling jing, I'm much more at home with Wing Chun's straightaway linear motions.

Yet if I were long and lanky like many Northern Chinese (e.g. Chen Xiaowang and Ren Guanyi, the two Chen authentic lineage guys out there), I'm sure that I'd prefer to USE my length to my advantage in Chen Taijiquan.

[Daniel Madar]

Are you mentioning Chen Xiaowang and Ren as the only two, or just as two examples?

Merciless is Mercy.

[wujidude]

. . . aye? Just kidding. Man I would love to visit the Emei/Omei Shan area. Sichuan is my favorite Chinese regional cuisine, too. You're fortunate, Kevin.

I actually haven't met Yeung Feuk personally. I just met a couple of his students when I was in Seattle, and got that tidbit about Lee Jun Fan (Bruce Lee). Lee absorbed a lot of influences into his Jeet Kune Do, and I would guess both martial and philosophical influences from his (relatively brief) time with Yeung Feuk. Just my speculation, though.

[gazza99]

"And these same principles are the source of Wing Chun. "
:rolleyes: um....NO!!!! :rolleyes:

"Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong"-Dennis Miller
www.pressurepointfighting.com (http://www.pressurepointfighting.com)

[[Censored]]

The theory I was referring to was that your hand would be on my jaw. A specific theory not a general one.

I was actually referring to the relative pragmatism of Wing Chun, not to a specific "Kevin vs. Chris" match.

um....NO!!!!

So name these supposed principles which are not manifested, in any way, in any lineage of Wing Chun.

Of course, after I provide the counter-examples, you will say "that isn't pure and true Wing Chun", or "that is X, not Wing Chun", or some other such nonsense which actually proves my earlier point.

Tai Chi stole WC sticking and corrupted it.
Hsing-I stole the WC punch and degraded it.
Bagua stole the WC turn and perverted it.
This is all crazy talk.

[gazza99]

"Tai Chi stole WC sticking and corrupted it.
Hsing-I stole the WC punch and degraded it.
Bagua stole the WC turn and perverted it.
This is all crazy talk. "

You must have tried all these arts for many years to be so wise as to how WC is better in these aspects?
I have yet to meet a WC guy who could stick better than TC, and could even outpunch taiji, and bagua! In fact the last WC guy I trained was very good by any standard( I respect WC as a whole, its better than many arts), he had 11 years in WC, but in one training session I taught him how to improve his punch , and his power doubled, to bad he moved oversees (USAF), he was a fast learner, so I wonder how after 11 yrs of WC he didnt learn how to punch?
Also he was easily beaten in a freindly sparring match even when I put one hand behind my back, sounds to me the principles you speak of you do not even understand, or at least even know how to apply? But Ive only met a dozen or so WC guys so I cannot generalize everyone.


"So name these supposed principles which are not manifested, in any way, in any lineage of Wing Chun."
1.Fa-jing
2 An-jing
3Chan siu jing
4 see list of jings on cyberkwoon, youll find many more.
5. A good root
6 Using adverse Qi
7 Using Qi in general
8 Stucture (six harmonies, etc..)
Im sure others here could can name some more..but I have not spent long in WC, so perhaps SOME internal principles are presant in a small way? But it has not been seen in any of the advanced practictioners I have met and touched hands with.

"Of course, after I provide the counter-examples, you will say "that isn't pure and true Wing Chun", or "that is X, not Wing Chun", or some other such nonsense which actually proves my earlier point."

Accually not having trained extensivley in WC I would have no place to say what is and what is not true WC, I can only base my opinion on what I have seen/heard/felt. So if you can provide information to the contrary great!! Ill take your word for it, but I wont consider it fact until I accually meet a WC guy who can manifest some degree of skill using internal concepts from WC. As to nonsense- your first quote I posted on this response is complete nonsense.

But for a non-internal art, or "internal/external hybrid" its a very good art, in fact I recommend it to students who move if they cannot find a good internal teacher.
Gary

"Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong"-Dennis Miller
www.pressurepointfighting.com (http://www.pressurepointfighting.com)

[CanadianBadAss]

Gary :""So name these supposed principles which are not manifested, in any way, in any lineage of Wing Chun."
1.Fa-jing
2 An-jing
3Chan siu jing
4 see list of jings on cyberkwoon, youll find many more.
5. A good root
6 Using adverse Qi
7 Using Qi in general
8 Stucture (six harmonies, etc..)"

Well... I was going to get all ****ed off, but I forgot my sifu also teaches me tai chi and baugwa(spelling?) along with wing chun. So maybe all those internal aspects of my wing chun come from tai chi and baugwa training we do...

|) /- | | |
| / |_| |__

[Nexus]

Internal arts are boring and slow, wing chun is fast and exciting. Oh wait, I do taijiquan, reverse that! No wait, reverse it once more then double it and subtract the first statement from the second reversed statement. Then divide that by kenpo and add aikido, and then set it all equal to BJJ and solve for Judo.

Where is Newton when you need one!?

- Nexus

[CanadianBadAss]

hmmm... You have insulted my honor?
Now I must send my buddy rolls (aka the "Grand ultimate fist") after you. Yes, that’s right, I said rolls. I believe he has become quite feared among the taichi community after his recent victory at the community center. And any one who underestimates the power rolls will be in for a rude-awakening. MHAhahahahahaHAhahhhhaahahhaahaaaaaaaaaaa

|) /- | | |
| / |_| |__

[[Censored]]

"Tai Chi stole WC sticking and corrupted it.
Hsing-I stole the WC punch and degraded it.
Bagua stole the WC turn and perverted it.
This is all crazy talk. "

You must have tried all these arts for many years to be so wise as to how WC is better in these aspects?

You miss the point. I will try to provide a simpler explanation:

My great-grandmother was walking and talking before you were even born. Why did you steal her moves?

...Also he was easily beaten in a freindly sparring match even when I put one hand behind my back, sounds to me the principles you speak of you do not even understand, or at least even know how to apply? But Ive only met a dozen or so WC guys so I cannot generalize everyone.

I didn't repeat the story of the Tai Chi teachers whom I beat with one hand behind MY back, because it is irrelevant. :)

I know that, if I want to comprehend the essence of Tai Chi, I must look at the world's BEST exponents of this art, not the dilettantes. Then, I can speak the truth with confidence, and without relying on buzzwords like "internal/external" and "jing".

[gazza99]

Your ignorance is comical,

"My great-grandmother was walking and talking before you were even born. Why did you steal her moves? "

Your attempt at an analogy is terribly inadequate, and it holds no relevance to the previous points you attempted to make, the failed points you have now abandoned for your vague comments become even more apparent.

Saying something like Jing is a "buzzword" only makes clear that you think of it as only a buzzword, which proves the point of WC not being an internal art. I was hoping you could provide some insight into something here, but obviously not. Thanks anyway......
Gary

PS : You did imply that WC has a better understanding of sticking, punching, and the "WC turn" I dont think its too much to ask for details of your exp. in each of these arts since you offer such a degrading comparison?

"Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong"-Dennis Miller
www.pressurepointfighting.com (http://www.pressurepointfighting.com)

[[Censored]]

I haven't given up on you yet, though my patience is wearing thin...

Tai Chi stole WC sticking and corrupted it.
Hsing-I stole the WC punch and degraded it.
Bagua stole the WC turn and perverted it.
This is all crazy talk.

If you can understand why this is wrong, you should also understand why the opposite is wrong. If not, God help you.

Bagua did not invent turning, nor did Wing Chun. They give different forms to the principles which have proven themselves over centuries of application and refinement. The same is true for every collection of training methods (martial art). What I can do, what you can do, has nothing to do with it.

Tai Chi did not invent root, Qi, Jing, or anything else, nor does it hold a copyright. Any Golden Retriever can fajing, so what? Thai boxers can align internally, but how many of them brag about it? Some people use their tools, others just sit around and shining and admiring them.

Shiny, but a little dull, I'd say. ;) And lest you forget, I came onto this thread to talk about all the BAD aspects of Wing Chun. You're making it very hard. :)

[gazza99]

Ok, I see where you are coming from now :)


" I came onto this thread to talk about all the BAD aspects of Wing Chun. You're making it very hard. "
Thats great!!! I help anyway I can!!!!!!
Gary

"Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong"-Dennis Miller
www.pressurepointfighting.com (http://www.pressurepointfighting.com)

[Braden]

Censored - although "on the surface," you're right about all styles dealing with root, turning, internal alignment, whatever; it has been my experience that the so-called chinese internal styles do, nonetheless, do things differently than other styles.

Perhaps "internal" is a bad name for them, but they are nonetheless different.

The differences are very foundational "principles," and are what has been alluded to here.

So-called external stylists often claim they learn the same principles as so-called internal stylists. This doesn't make much sense to me. If you train differently, you'll develop different skills. Of course, the converse must be true as well.

I've heard endless claims from so-called external stylists saying they understand principles such as rooting, but I've not encountered a single stylist that could demonstrate such principles; nor even a pure external stylist that could even adequately describe them in words. Maybe they understand rooting according to their definition, but not according to ours. So they are different - which is all I'm saying; certainly not inferior.

To use one example, so-called external styles develop skills based upon some combination of the natural "resist" or "yield" reflexes the body has when it encounters force. The so-called internal styles train to replace these fundamental reflexes with an entirely different mechanism, "accepting" the force with neither resisting nor yielding. The ability to do this if foundational for all of the advanced "internal style" skills including yielding the internal way.

Of course, my experience is limited as is everyone's; a fact which I fully acknowledge. If you disagree with me, I would be interested in hearing your elaborations upon this or other principles.

[gazza99]

Braden is correct.... :)

"Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong"-Dennis Miller
www.pressurepointfighting.com (http://www.pressurepointfighting.com)

[Harlequin]

Hi, i have trained in wing chun for the last three years and am myself looking for a good taiji, bagua school to cross train in. I love wing chun but also believe as many have pointed out it's 'internal' training is not in my opinion very good. But the system was not designed for that purpose. Wing Chun was designed (as i have been taught) to be fast and effective and easily taught over 5-7 years, rather than 15-20 (i.e the whole system). wing chun was designed to be taught to rebels to fight the Man Chu's (Spelling). I was also taught that it was designed to defeat other styles, that is why you rarely if ever see any flowery energy wasting moves in WC (i take this with a grain of salt, as anyone can claim to be 'designed' to beat other systems, but i can see where my teacher was coming from).
While i agree that wing chun is mainly an linear art, there are plenty of circular movements and techniques that are used, just not at a junior level (well not easily interpretted by a juniour practitioner). To develope our internal power we really on have one form for this purpose and that is our first and most important form, Shil lim tao.
Chi Sao vs. Pushing hands, i am not so sure about, i have never touched hands with a taiji stylist so i cann't compare. Chi Sao, at it's basic level developes touch reflexes as opposed to chi interpretation, this is developed later. I want to close the distance on you with my bridgeing techniques and trapping hands and when i am there i don't want to be chasing your hands with my eyes, just reacting to your touch. Through chi sao i learn to develope and interpret my touch reflexes. What happens when i have a long sleave shirt or a jumper on though???? These touch reflexes are dulled, thats where i need to be able to interpret chi (hope i am making sense here). In my training i am starting to do this but i would like to improve it and i am not sure if i will be able to within wing chun. Basically as a juniour touch reflexes are taught to a new student like this. You put your hand on a hot stove and intstictively you pull it away, you didn't have to think about it did you? With chi sao this is how you want to be able to react, without thinking about it just doing it. Just like Bruce lees don't think about it, feeeeelllllll :) .
Hope this has been of some help.

Matt.

[dedalus]

The great thing about having put so much time into wing chun is that you already know something of fighting. Dong Haichuan was said only to train experienced fighters in bagua, and I think I can see the wisdom of his policy.

I myself moved to bagua after several years in wing chun, and the difficulty I faced was that I couldn't find much common ground. I had to part with a lot of the wing chun philosophy (which up to that time I had held dearly and believed deeply), and it was even more difficult to break the habits of movement. There was something beneficial retained, but it is difficult to characterise. The process seems to me a bit like burning down a city and building something even greater on its site. The second edifice owes its new glory in part to the example set by the first.

If you find what you're looking for, let us know how you cope with the transition :)

[dre_doggX]

I decided Chen style tai chi would be best
I do know alot of wing chun fighting skills even though I never had a teacher.
I will still do sil lum tao as a qi -gong excerise.
but Tai chi chuan is best when you see it as a philosophy not a style.
you see what set chen style tai chi apart is that it came from external styles like cannon fist and long fist so it style has some of its flying kicking movement hard blocks and what not.
however it has been develop under Daosim like Bagua and Hsing-i.

look at the philosophy behind it.
I have found the wing chun in Chen STyle so thats it for now.
I will style try to learn more on the skills of wing chun form a teacher this time but for now tai chi (I have only studied for books and videos but me and a freind spar almost every mornig mostly spar)
I believe that I should search ninjutsu teacher
cause wing chun was able to be incorporated in my tai chi. and i know the theories of ninjutsu and the theories of tai chi have the same root somewhere. the are probably one in the same.only emphasiveing something different I intend to find out.

I still try to do sil lum tao qi tell I can do it for yes
you got
4 hours like Yip Man.
(I know its crazy)
one of the good things thought is SLT teaches excerise and fighting very quickly. just do it slow
the horse stance(martial arts in general) can build qi just be being in it.
I must study ninjutsu under a master.

tell I find the link between its abilities and tai chi's

Andre Lashley

[Miles Teg]

Ok Im a WC practitioner and I want to make some points

Dont base Wing Chun on Bruce Lee, he didnt actually get very far in Wing Chun.

Now I havent been doing WC for very long and the only Tai Chi knowledge I have is from books, so obviously I am in no postion to talk to you about which is better as I honestly dont what you guys do. It might be much better than WC, as I said I dont know. The only thing I can do is tell you my experience with WC.

Now down to business. I trained in the Ling Ting style of WC for 1.5 years. THen I changed to Chu Shong Tin style W.C. (both are yip man exponents).

In my experience in this art there is a world of difference between the different lineages in WC.
From what i gather, the majority of WC schools and the most popular schools are run by people who like Bruce Lee didnt learn WC for very long. Most of these peopole have changed it or focussed purely on the fighting part of it.

When I changed schools I noticed a big difference. I have seen 5 other types of WC and they were also extemely shallow.
Now one of you wanted to know exactly what aspects of WC resemble Tai Chi. Well bare with me as I am only familar with a few Chinese terms so I will explain what I have picked up on this new style using English- keep in mind I have only been practising this Chu Shong Tin style for 7 months.

We use circular movement for attack and defense. So we imagine we have a big ball in front of us and most of our movements move along this ball.
In other words we use move our arms in a circular fashion, but when I say circular I mean 3 dimensionally circular. Small circles or big circles.
After a short time of practising Chi Sao in this style I developed springy resistance in my elbows to incoming pressure this is completely different to most other WC styles which dont have any resistace at all, the only thing they seem to be able to do is redirect incoming force. This springy force will spring back and can sometimes results in a strike.
The feeling I was getting from you guys was that we try to be clever and use fancy hand traps. This is not true we dont deliberately try to put people in hand traps it is just something that sometimes naturally occurs.
What we do is very simple. We also use the power of a cone shape or a three dimensional triangle.
Our soulders must be completely relaxed we imagine our arm is like a hanging piece of wood and our shoulder is simply a nail stuck through the board.
Unlike most WC we do not try to put our elbows as close to our center line as possible as this creates tension in our shoulders.
We use Daikon to feep our body upright(slightly contracted anus) this stops our body from folding.
When I practice the form it is as if my arms are gliding of their own free will to where my mind wants them to go. I never had that feeling in the other WC school I studied at.
We are supposed to gather our energy from the dan tien but to be honest Im not up to that level yet.
We do use rooting. When somebody pushes against my structure I am able to direct that force to the ground and that makes me heavier and harder to move.
There is a picture on the web of Chi Shong Tin being pushed by a very big fat man while standing on one leg on a set of scales. He could not be moved and the scales went up alot(cant remember how much).
You guys were talking about technique being the most important thing in WC, thats not true. It doesnt matter if our arms are in a certain position, we do the form based on our own personal experience from Chi Sao, unlike other schools there is no right or wrong technique.
Most WC schools are technique orientated but not the good ones.
We dont do push ups or anything like that. Its the from and then about 90% chi sao. Every part of our body is relaxed.

Now I went to check out a Chen Tai Chi school the other day and like WC I guess there are good ones and bad ones. In this one I watched people do the form and it looked pretty, but can the form be applied.
The teacher did a kick that was quite high it came from the inside and circled around hit the hands and finished on the outside-I do not know if all Chen Tai Chi schools are the same, do you all do this? It doesnt seem practical to me.

Like tai chi 95% of teachers and schools are **** and a few are good.
If you want to practise with a WC guy try doing it with a Chu Shong TIn stylist. Chu Shong TIn is one of the 4 students that Yip Man taught the full system to and he is the only one left alive. The others were Leung Shun, Lok Yu and Wong Shun Leung.
All wc lineages have a different focus, but Chu Shong Tin's one is focussed on internal energy. He has aparently had many successful challenges with Tai Chi masters(I know I cant put any faith in rumors).
Although the internal energy may be more primative than that of Tai CHi has anyone trained or trained with anyone from this style?
From the books I have read on Tai Chi the principles are similar.
Actually I am very interested in taking up Tai Chi but have no idea what to look for in a good school.

Sorry for the long entry

PS Andre Im sorry but there is absolutely no way you can have an opinion on WC if you have never had a teacher, did you learn from a video tape or a friend that does it? SNT isnt qigong either. Get a good teacher and then make an opinion.

[dedalus]

Miles,

That description of your style is fascinating, especially the bit about imagining the lines of a ball during chi sau :). I've never come across anything like that in the wing chun I've been exposed to, although the ball metaphor does appear frequently in the internal arts... as does the idea of focussing the intent on the limbs in the manner you described.

Are there any websites or references you can post so that I can look into your style? I don't intend to practice it, but I've always felt that wing chun was a good system and I'd like to know more about the best it has to offer.

[dedalus]

I just did a google search and found a few articles by Chu Shong Tin (http://www.vingtsun.com.hk/Article.HTM). He sounds like a rather humble and dedicated guy - another departure from my experience of wing chun! He writes with an appealing simplicity, too.

[Miles Teg]

Unfortunately it is hard to find stuff about him on the net and from what I hear he cant speak English so that could be one reason why.He doesnt market himself. He teaches from his apartment, and there are no uniforms in this style. Hes an oesteopath aswell.
Thre are several ways his name seems to be spelt on the net: TSUI SEUNG TIN
CHOI SONG TIN
CHU SHUN TIN
" SHON "
" SHUNG "
and different combinations of them all. Annoying isnt it.

[boy_analog]

Dedalus:

It truly is a small world, and the world of martial arts is all but microscopic. Tsui Sung Tin (I think that's the way we used to spell it) happens to be Jim Fung's teacher. So you can see some Tsui Sung Tin-style WC any time by dropping into one of Jim Fung's schools. I know that there's several in Adelaide.

Miles:

I used to do WC at one of Jim Fung's Sydney school. I liked it, and was proud of the lineage, but I wasn't aware that the qualitative differences between our school and others was so profound.

That said, it sounds like there are some differences in the way that you and I were taught. When it came to questions about "chi", these were gently deflected by saying that we focus on "determination force". In addition, we did do pushups and other calisthenics. But we were told that the traditional way of learning the style was more-or-less as you said: one year of Sil Lum Tao before you do anything else.

[dedalus]

Howdy Boy_A.

On the topic of small worlds, I have in fact trained in a Jim Fung school and I was never aware of the lineage to Chu Shong Tin - well, I probably heard about it, but its significance didn't compute.

Nevertheless, have there not been some doubts cast over how long Jim learnt from him? I don't have any information on which to base an opinion (and maybe someone can dispel this hearsay), however I never encountered anything like the stuff described by Miles. The fact that you didn't either suggests to me that there is indeed an important difference between the stuff taught by Jim Fung and the stuff taught by Miles' teacher (who seems more faithful to what I've read - today - of Chu Shong Tin).

I dunno. Miles?

[boy_analog]

I'm pretty sure that Jim Fung received the full transmission from Tsui Sung Tin. JF brought TST over to our school while I was there: presumably only something that a full student could do. So I've met the man, but I was too junior at the time to get much out of it. TST corrected something in my single-arm sticking hands -- I forget what now.

FWIW, I do recall that TST had a very hard forearm!

Apparently, at another session on that same visit, a large (i.e. 6ft-ish) senior student charged TST holding a kicking pad. And he was kicked back about 10ft with just a tiny motion from TST. It's a shame I didn't see it!

[Miles Teg]

Like I said I have only been doing it for 7 months.
But from what I hear Jim Fung is one of his longest training students.
Although I have heard he has adapted his WC to suit big classes and he has added levels or grades or whatever with uniforms.
Chu Shong Tin doesnt use grades or have gradings. Teachers of this style just sort of know when to teach you more by how you feel during Chi Sao.
It takes most people 4-5 years before they learn Chum Kiu (the 2nd form). For most other styles it takes 1 year.
If you guys have trained in it then you will know more than me. I guess you guys are from Sydney.
If you are from Sydney, Suzanna Ho teaches Chu Shong Tin WC there and aparently she is quite good. Aparently she teaches it exactly the way it was taught to her. I have heard of a lot of Jim Fung students chage to her style.
My teacher told me he came across a Jim Fung teacher and did Chi Sao with him but said he was missing the internal side of it.

So tell me didn't you like Jim Fungs style? As a practitioner he is supposed to be quite good.

I want to know more about Tai Chi. It sounds to me like Tai Chi does go deeper than WC. I really want to get into Tai Chi but there seems to be so many Tai Chi schools that only teach the dance where I come from. Im interested in Tai Chi with a little application.
Chu SHong Tin did tai chi for quite a while when he was young before he started WC, so I wonder if he developed his WC based on that.
Tai Chi is probably more internal, all Im saying is that this seems to be the most internal WC.

[dedalus]

One of the things I like about your description of Chu Shong Tin is his informality. I'm a big believer in the theory that you need personal instruction for optimum transmission, especially in something so touch-sensitive as wing chun or taiji. I guess that's what I didn't like about Jim Fung's school - I trained under him in name, but not in person. The whole wing chun franchise idea bothers me. I also felt that my desire to learn was not matched by my instructor's desire to teach.

Anyhow, I changed to a more steet-orientated school for a while and learned how to fight somewhat better, but dropped the system altogether when a bagua student of similar training years ripped me to shreds in some friendly hand-sparring. Besides being incredibly impressed by the power this little guy could issue - way more than *anyone* I'd ever met in wing chun - I was stunned by the effectiveness of movements that were heresy to wing chun. That's the short story, anyhow.

I now have a teacher who trains me hand-to-hand, and there's no bull**** ceremony, club fees, uniforms, shrines... Best of all, my skill level has shot up like I couldn't have imagined, and I'm always taught everything my teacher has to offer. I'm like a pig in mud, I guess - and I can see no end to the depth of what I'm learning.

Now as far as taiji goes, there's definitely good martial stuff out there if you know where to look and have the good sense to recognise it when you see it. It sounds to me like you're on to a good thing as you are, though, and it might be premature to end your wing chun training. I am suggesting it would indeed end, because I don't really believe that you can mix wing chun and taiji and still get the best out of either. Just the training time required for good taiji is prohibitive!

Well - I need to sleep. So far this has been a very interesting exchange :)

[dedalus]

Oh yeah - the reason I mentioned Jim Fung's experience to Boy_A was not that I felt he wasn't endorsed by Chu Shong Tin, but rather that he arrived in Australia at a fairly young age and must therefore must have been taught at a young age. It's irrelevant, really - it seems safe to say that his outlook on teaching is different, whatever his skill (surely high) or training.

Or...

Maybe we both would have found otherwise if we'd stayed long enough to become seniors.

[Miles Teg]

Yeah maybe I should stick to one thing for a while.
It would be good to meet some Tai Chi guys though.

[dedalus]

Miles, where do you actually live country-wise? Can you post an email address where I could reach you?

[beaudacious]

my experience and teahcers have told me that pa kua wich is where most of my time has been spent has a wide variety of linear methods. Hsing i although mostly linear has many circular aspects and yes tai chi also has elements of both. I am surprised to see that nobody mentioned the differences in footwork and where the energy eminates form in all three styles. As for wing chun no comment its mixed reviews all around it depends on what teacher you get

[Miles Teg]

Auckland, NZ. So there isnt much variety in Martial Atrs down here.
e-mail-graymasako@hotmail.com

[Tomhands]

Wing chun is not an internal art in that it does not explicitly conceptualize the cultivation of chi for specific therapeutic or martial application. In this discussion there has been confusion about "internal" as a level of biodynamic analysis and martial training, and "internal arts" as particular traditions employing "internal" concepts.

Because Chinese Martial Arts is splintered by vanity and by the need for teachers to make a living, we often exaggerate the divisions between the conceptual material of the different arts. We fail to see the complex of the arts as a tree with root, trunk, and branches--where ideas are connected at different levels, and time and place create division or growth. Our arts are not arrayed against one another, each unique in idea and technique, as kung fu movies would have us believe. It is important to realize the differences in the relation of attitudes and principles to knowledge of the body; in the Chinese tradition, some of this knowledge is structured by broadly shared concepts, while other knowledge becomes specialized by the conceptual ordering and accrued experience of individual styles.

It is often said that wing chun is less formalized than some arts--in essence, a set of principles and techniques policed by an ethic of skepticism. The palm strike that curves upward as the elbow moves straight, a palm strike that moves parallel to the ground, and a palm strike down to the bladder may have different names in some styles of kung fu, where wing chun may not give them different names. This also applies to the way we stand, move, deliver or receive force, and use circle- and line-thinking. What has resulted is an incredibly variable and upredictable (perhaps fragmented and contradictory) body of knowledge and training methods, and, in the last few decades, a lot of b.s. about scientific superiority and invincibility. Internalists and wing chun people should resist making essentialist statements about wing chun for this reason.

I imagine that some of you t'ai chi practitioners can relate to the wildly different levels of expertise and knowledge present in what are supposed to be "systems"; wing chun differs in that internal orientation and thinking has not been formalized, written down, and made an explicit pedagogical center of our art to the extent that it has in the t'ai chi tradition. Sometimes in wing chun these ideas are taught and applied crudely and unsuccessfully, sometimes quite well, and sometimes not at all.

But why count it against us that we have not produced the Classics, when we can buy them at the bookstore? Tai chi--as a scientific and intellectual effort--has done a lot of the work for us. Wing chun has an ethic that allows me to appreciate this, and make my training effort a small part of the grand tradition.

I am in the interesting position of studying wing chun with a great teacher who is a few months away from being a licensed traditional chinese medicine practitioner. He has direct and scholarly experience in tai chi, and uses basic or general concepts of energy and structure to understand and explore what our bodies should do stay healthy and box well. (He understands that this is different from immersion in the lifelong process of internal training.) Additionally, I get to push hands with my brother, formerly jujitsu, now 2 years into yang style.

Some lucky (from my point of view) wing chun practitioners are able to train with individuals who have studied, practiced, and developed their art in a way that is informed by and immersed in the conceptual framework of Chinese biodynamics. This type of conceptual orientation often means the difference between those who revere specific techniques ("wing chun" yielding, "wing chun" rooting, "wing chun" power, versus "just plain" yielding, rooting, and power!) and those who are able to feel, analyze, and improve the connection between mind, body, ground, and opponent.
Bone structure vs. muscular tension, for example, and the compression-expansion of specific parts and the whole of this structure, take one far beyond the foolish belief, often associated with wing chun, that geometry (optimum angles of coverage and attack) is the be-all and end-all. A wing chun teacher or lineage that realizes this will have strict ideas about spine, tailbone, and crown-top; the alignment of shoulders-hips-heels; the way the foot should be lifted, replaced, and stood upon; the interchangeability of stepping and kicking; and the optimization of root-power in the sequencing of step and strike. The first time I read the Classics, I was shocked by the similarities.

[dedalus]

Another cool and interesting post. I really didn't know there were people approaching wing chun in this way :)

[Tomhands]

...if you can find us. Suffice it to say, we keep a lower profile than some of our fellows. But it is with good reason that people sometimes say: if there is no authentic tai chi teacher in your area, find a good wing chun teacher--their approach to boxing might surprise you. Then again, it might be full of sh*$...you are never free of the burden of individual judgment. (Another one of our wing chun philosophies often practiced, some would say, with more enthusiasm than wisdom.)