Structure Study Project -History

[Alan Orr]

Structure Study Project -History

Hi Guys

I am working of a study project at this time as you may know from my last thread.

I looking at the structural development of Wing Chun.

Also an indepth look at the structure system of Chu Sau Lei wing chun.

Within this study I will look at the structure of many different martial arts as well.

For this part I'm looking at the development of wing chun's body frame. I need to look at why Wing Chun has many structural frames.

Example:

Looking at older frames of the system we see a lot more slant body and 70/30 or more. Also turning is bigger and so on. In some of the more modern systems of wing chun you see 50/50 stances etc.

HFY guys have 50/50 and say it is the original wing chun, others say different. I not trying to workout whos right. What are looking at is your opinons and reason to why, this is not a debate. It is only for each of you to write and share your research. So, all ideas on structural development are welcome.

Chu Sau Lei is 50/50 but that is from a Yip Man branch and we have added to it as such.

TWC - is 50/50 is that modern development or not? Victor maybe you are the best guy on this forum to answer ideas on that.

I would think that weapon defence played a big part in wing chun and the body movement would have had more turning and avoiding pressure due to that. Therefore more modern wing chun has become more 50/50 as we use it as a hand fighting art. But then where does HFY fit in. Did we change and then change back?

Again, no answer is correct and this is not a debate. I'm just collecting views points from different people.

Answers on the history of frame development and ideas of 'why' would be of great interest.

Question:

It terms of the art's development, why has the stance changed or not at different times over the many years?


Part of this study requires open debate on these points. This will happen more once I have produced more work to show.

To start with I would like people views on a few topics.


PLEASE NOTE.

ONLY POST - if you can give your full name and short background of which arts you train in.

and

please note any posts may or may not be used within my project. If so your name will be quoted. If you do not want that to happen, then please do not post. This will be a published work at some point.

All view points are important and will be welcome.

If you want to add random comment, then please don't waste your own time.

Many thanks

Alan

www.alanorr.com

[Liddel]

Name : Drew Watkin
Nationality : New Zealander (Kiwi)
Lineage : GM Ip - Lok Yiu - Yau Soong Ying (my Sifu)

Although formally my Sifu learnt under Lok Yiu and then under Gm Ip he was very good friends with WSL and close with TST, both of whom had varying influences on my masters "style", amoung others.

In the Mid 50's my Sifu was taught VT with the 70/30 weight distribution. This was present in the CK form he was taught (as SLT has a 50/50 static horse) and was present in every VT related H2H endeavour .
As the head assistant to Lok Yiu he taught the basics to many of Sifu Lok's students, including Sifu Lok's two sons and notable people like Sifu Gary Lam (prior to moving under WSL) with this same attribute of VT horse.

In his case, this horse was also reinforced when he got personal tuition from GM Ip later on in his learning.

Ive asked many times on the differences of horse between lineages and have got many answers with regard to the individuals my master knows personally, most of which fall into one of the following categories.

1 - An individual only learnt SLT which has a 50/50 static horse, after which they applied this to the other forms dynamic horse due to #4's influence.

2 - Changes in (H2H) horse occured after an individual learnt either of the wepons.

The weapons require a different approach respectivly with regard to horse structure and behaviour, which spread to use in H2H behaviour.

3 - They way an individuals pesonall attributes melded with the style.

Some just suited a particular way well.

4 - The individual was not taught the techniques traditionally by a Sifu or assistant to Gm Ip, but rather looked and learnt.

Either because they were not liked, therefore not taught. Because they could no longer afford VT, it was about 23 bucks a month compared to other kung fu styles around 1 buck a month. They were impatient, wanting to progress prior to having the skills required as seen by thier teacher. (standards were quite high for some masters)

5 - They were wealthy people who just forked over money paying 'per action' not really making the actions habbit nor second nature. Refeinments were not made to differences due to the learning timeframe.

Alot of opinions out there place blame on the differences in VT today, seen as good or bad, on GM Ip.

However it is my belief passed on to me by my Sifu, that if you were a good person who trained hard with an open mind. Were smart and had honour and respect towards yourself and others the training was VERY similar.

Hope this helps Alan, i really had to think if id bother with this thread but i respect your reputation and attitude here. So i offer you MY OPINION. :)
DREW

[Alan Orr]

Hi Drew

Thanks for your views, it is all helpful.

Side note - which part of NZ are you in? I will be out in NZ again next year.

My best

Alan

Hi Victor

Again, thanks for taking time to add your opinons as well.

My best

Alan

www.alanorr.com

[monji112000]

This is just a opinion, but it is based on my discussions with people(some of home were their in HK).

Its not that the 70/30 or 50/50 is a older vrs modern idea.

It would be a more accurate statement to say that the argument is more based on lack of exactly explicitly stating to everyone his complete opinion about the idea of structure. JMO

Based on my research I have come to the conclusion that like many things in Wing Chun Ip Man believed in the general idea and showed incarnations of that idea depending on the situation.

What is the idea? To drive with you heel (or ball of the foot) and sink as much of the forward energy down through your body. I currently only use the 50/50 way of distributing your weight. I believe this gives you the “best” possible scenario.
The ball/heel are used respectively depending on the direction you are moving and the direction of the force. So If you move backwards you push off with your ball of your foot.
We have a drill that checks your horse, you basically give pushing a pulling force to the other person to help him to feel if the pressure is going to his calf muscles.

I have been told many times to put a little more weight on the back foot. it was shown to me that 70/30 does work especially in the “shifting” horse.. if you alighn your body and legs correctly. I still use the 50/50 in my shifting horse.

my horse is as far as I can tell is very similar to your horse, Sifu Orr.

Its a abstract idea, direct as much of the force to the ground , sinking it. Thats the true answer, if you want to ask why so many people do things differently and some can't prove what they say.. thats a whole issue alone...

50/50 with proper structure benefits == not too much weight on both foot so you are fast in both directions and your body weight is evenly distributed so you can't be leaning any direction.

Again I have heard many times from many people that putting just a little more weight on the back foot is the best idea. I testing this many times and 50/50 seems to be the best for me(at this moment maybe I will change my mind).

I would look into the hips more than the body weight distribution. If you push your hips too forward like many people do (me included for too long) you loose your whole structure. If you lean too far back you also loose the whole structure.

I have found that some people use a wider horse or something else that I don't exactly do. If they can use it, then if you really want to understand you need to clearly look at why they are able to handle so much energy. Allot of people are able to muscle through a great deal things. Who am I to say they are wrong?

I am not a Sifu nor do I speak for anyone but myself. My Sifu would say try out both ideas and see what works for you.

Brian lipp
Gorden Lu ( (his father)Lo Man Kam Wing Chun / Applied Wing Chun Duncan Leung)

[aelward]

I wonder if historically, our Wing Chun ancestors were so dogmatic about whether someone's stance was 50-50, 60-40, 70-30, or whatever?

If we are to believe Wing Chun was mean to be a practical style that could be learned quickly, then I doubt our ancestors would be quibbling over weight distribution as much as worrying about what worked in different individuals and circumstances. So I don't know if we will see an evolutionary trend in weighting distribution; but then again, I'm no scholar so I could be wrong :P

[Alan Orr]

Hi Guys

Re:

wonder if historically, our Wing Chun ancestors were so dogmatic about whether someone's stance was 50-50, 60-40, 70-30, or whatever?

If we are to believe Wing Chun was mean to be a practical style that could be learned quickly, then I doubt our ancestors would be quibbling over weight distribution as much as worrying about what worked in different individuals and circumstances. So I don't know if we will see an evolutionary trend in weighting distribution; but then again, I'm no scholar so I could be wrong

Alan: Yes, this may have been the case. This is more a look at the forms.

They may gives us idea to the understanding of development. It may in fact be that older systems of wing chun where in fact 50/50 in form training.

Just as a reference in teaching - it is required in form movement to have a weight distribution. That is the area I am looking at for peoples idea why, when, how.

In application your weight distribution will depend on the pressure you are given.

Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun as an example is 50/50, as we see that as being 'netural', waiting to be used. If we receive pressure we load or move weight. Therefore at times in use all different weight positions

So lets look at the second form turning and where the weight is. Maybe if we can get lots of feedback we may see some picture of change or development. We may just find wing chun has not changed much. Its just reseach information.

My best and thank you all again for your ideas and insights.

Alan

[drleungjohn]

-From what we see in "Cousin" systems of Fukien White Crane,Southern Praying Mantis and Dragon,Bak Mei-their major horse is a 50/50 base-

Moy Yat version that I learned originally "said " 60/40"-but they applied it in 50/50-

There is no sport today that says other then 50/50 if you want to move in any direction quickly

Both Boxing and Football both use the expression"Caught him on his heels"-when something bad happens as to the inability for the fighter to move

Power transfer-biomechanically-is incredibly hard to do other then 50-50-but not impossible since you have to try and create a closed kinetic chain from a moving -shifting center of gravity

Shifting uneven-in my observations over the years-is actually more due to lack of ankle flexibility then anything else-to get a good 50/50 with heels down-the achilles tendon, gastrocs and soleus really have to be stretched before you can get a good grounding shift and drive into the point of contact- and into the center/spine

Just based on my years with exercise phys-I saw things in WCK that I was taught that were right and wrong biomechanically and changed them to fit-reality and planet earth as far as "structure and usage"-

Just because sifu A could do it and taught it like that-did'nt make it right for everyone

The good news is that I can do both and use them at will when need to and for teaching--but I primarily believe in breaking structure thru the horse,even if I step off line to do it

[stonecrusher69]

I was taught many years ago under the Yip Man lineage to use 60/40 and used it that way for a very long time,but in the FutSAo linage there really is no absolute 60/40 70/30.. you can use what ever you like at that moment.Say for example you start out with 60/40 then when you hit your opponent you can ttransfer your weight to 40/50(more weight on the front leg)generaly we use 50/50 most of the time which I find works best for movement and root.

[Vyvial]

Mr Orr's question was about Forms. Are any of you actually gonna address that?

[anerlich]

"TWC - is 50/50 is that modern development or not? Victor maybe you are the best guy on this forum to answer ideas on that." (Alan)

***WELL certainly I wouldn't mind in the least if Andrew Nerlich (Anerlich), Phil Redmond, John Crescione, or anyone else who's been involved in TWC has something to say about this, but here's my take on your question, Alan...

The history behind Traditional Wing Chun (TWC) pre-William Cheung is a murky subject. But here's what we do know for sure: William Cheung unveiled TWC to the general public world wide in 1982 - but started teaching it to his students in Australia right after Yip Man's passing in December, 1972.

And from day one of William teaching TWC it's always been a 50/50 weight distribution. But William was already doing that since the COM (center-of-mass) wing chun he learned from Yip Man (before he learned TWC) was also a 50/50 weight distribution.

There was never any 70/30...90/10, etc.


Victor is correct. Just to add my impressions:

According to the TWC origin legends, Leung Jan taught Leung Bik and Leung Chun the "original" WC, TWC. He taught Chan Wa Shun the modified version. Both Chan and Leung Bik taught Yip Man the different versions, Leung Bik's being TWC. TWC was passed unsullied from Yip Man to William Cheung.

Therefore, suspending scepticism about a whole host of issues, TWC was 50/50 since Leung Jan at least.

Andrew Nerlich

Traditional Wing Chun: Leung Jan -> Leung Bik -> Yip Man -> William Cheung -> Rick Spain

Machado BJJ and Shootfighting: Anthony Lange / Rick Spain

[anerlich]

Mr Orr's question was about Forms. Are any of you actually gonna address that?

It was actually about body structure, not forms. Read it again.

Probably the reason why no one has addressed forms.

If you have an opinion, go for it, rather than lecture us incorrectly on how to respond.