Wing Chun and Body Type?

[D-FENS]

Hello all,

this is something that has had me curious for a while, but since Wing Chun is supposed to be a system designed specifically with the needs of women and smaller people in mind, do you think it is naturally more geared toward those types of people (i.e. short, wiry people with good hand speed) or is there a lot of room for individual expression within the style? In other words, would someone who is short and stocky, or strong but not very fast be better suited for, say, Hung Gar or Ba Ji? Or does it contain ways of capitalizing on your natural advantages to cancel out those of others?

Just some things that have been making me go 'hmmm' this past few weeks.

Any thoughts?

[YungChun]

I don't see WCK as designed for any particular body type.. There are advantages to being big, strong, loose and fast...in any art. The myth of WCK being for "smaller" or "weaker" people IMO, besides acting as a sales pitch, it is really intended to stress the idea of using WCK "concepts"—correct position, timing, economy, energy, etc, to enhance whatever raw speed, power—natural attributes you already have.

In reality it's also good to train to have good raw speed and power... So, I think the point is to strive for overall fitness as you would in any physical activity and that WCK can work with a variety of body types.

[k gledhill]

The system is devoted to conecting the leg force of our quadriceps to the alignment of the strikes ...SLT teaches the arms never to be a platform for force /energy to be used against them. The height disadvantage is evident when someone is trying to use force from a greater height to the recipient who is extending 2 legs into the action upwards....the timing of strike and leg are critical and often ovrlooked for a 'tag' preceeding the leg.
The system is also teaching u to never face force squarely as chi-sao, this is just an equal point we face each other in before starting exercises to angle out and strike a charge of force. Some dont do this and it leads to a sumoesque transfer of energy like pushing hands . I have small students to me [ 6' 1" ] who easily fight me agressively and with ample force because they are maneuvering to my attaempts to go at them in a charging attack ...like many MA's we try to get to a weakside by either movement with or combinations of focused 'blasts' of short energy , like billiard balls striking each other to transfer energy to the other while the 1st ball stays at the point it contacted the other [ holding the line ] ->O------->OxO-------->O.
The tactical directions to fighting come from the weapons , primarily the knife , and how to approach a person equally armed...a small person with 2 large machettes is no push over :D
Think weapons first, then bare hands .
One particular fighter in the VT family was 5' 6" he was the best fighter of the system ...it wasnt because he was 'arnold' .

[Xiao3 Meng4]

I think the basic requirement is Bipedalism.

CSP

[southernkf]

Hello all,

this is something that has had me curious for a while, but since Wing Chun is supposed to be a system designed specifically with the needs of women and smaller people in mind, do you think it is naturally more geared toward those types of people (i.e. short, wiry people with good hand speed) or is there a lot of room for individual expression within the style? In other words, would someone who is short and stocky, or strong but not very fast be better suited for, say, Hung Gar or Ba Ji? Or does it contain ways of capitalizing on your natural advantages to cancel out those of others?

Just some things that have been making me go 'hmmm' this past few weeks.

Any thoughts?

Hung Gar isn't for the stock or short. Many great Hung Gar practicioners where quite thin, look at many of the old photos. Though I do acknowledge many of them are in great shape so perhaps strong was the words you meant?

As for wing chun, I don't think wing chun typically has a perference towards body type, though there may be a relationship. Leung Sheung was larger as was Chung Bo. In Cheung Bo's case it is said he modified the system. Perhpas Leung Sheung wasn't as big as Chueng Bo because he isn't noted as changing the system. Ihave seen plenty of larger stockier practioners that do quite well.

I have heard a couple of sayings that suggest longer arms are better if all else is equal. I have heard stronger is better if all else is equal. But if I use this idea, perhaps ANYTHING is better if all else is equal. LOL.

I think what MAY be important is what goes with body types. Perhaps, those that are bigger and larger may not fully trust in the system and tend to fight the tendencies to relax and not use muscles to overpower rather than proper technique. A smaller person may not have much choice if they can not over power their training partners. Of course this doesn't imply larger people are discouraged or can't get good, look at the aforementioned Leung Sheung and Chueng Bo.

Another issue might come into play with larger people though. Proper placement of the arms. Some large people have an issue getting the elbow into correct position. If this is true, then perhaps this would be a concern. However I think this is not very common and it seems a lot of people might actually suffer from this trait who may not be as large.

[t_niehoff]

Hello all,

this is something that has had me curious for a while, but since Wing Chun is supposed to be a system designed specifically with the needs of women and smaller people in mind, do you think it is naturally more geared toward those types of people (i.e. short, wiry people with good hand speed) or is there a lot of room for individual expression within the style? In other words, would someone who is short and stocky, or strong but not very fast be better suited for, say, Hung Gar or Ba Ji? Or does it contain ways of capitalizing on your natural advantages to cancel out those of others?

Just some things that have been making me go 'hmmm' this past few weeks.

Any thoughts?

I think the Ng Mui-Yim Wing Chun story is an allegory (and not factual history) that suggests that our method is not one that relies on physical superiority to defeat our opponents but is one that "uses smart force to overcome a dumb force" and seeks to "get twice the results with half the effort". And this suggests the difficulty in developing skill in WCK (Wong's "it is a good horse but few can ride her").

And from my perspective, while WCK is a specific approach to fighting (just as boxing or BJJ are approaches to fighting), there is no one right or correct way to use your WCK (just as there is no one right or correct way to box or fight with BJJ) -- your WCK will be your own individual expression. It has to be. Just like how you box or groundfight will be uniquely your own. It will need to take into account your strengths, weaknesses, natural proclivities, build, etc. No one can tell you how you should box or how you should groundfight or how you should do WCK -- they can't. Just like they can't tell you how to do any open skill athletic activity. All that can happen is that you get the fundamentals, you adapt them to suit you, and you "play the game" to develop **your game**.

[k gledhill]

One of the aims of the system is to teach symetry in our ability to use 2 arms at all times in rotation [ one behind the other not 2 extended as chi-sao] against whatever side we are presented with , given tactical guidelines . This allows a superior force of our 2 arms and a leg to attack a relatively weakened or untrained side ,beyond jab & or grab . Developing your abilities for each arm can give you a distinct edge against untrained force delivery [ levers, etc...] its hard to change course of a forcefull action unless its trained to do so [elbows] , in real time,....simple ideas trained over and over to become natural ....freefighting ring match with VT shouldnt look much different than 2 boxers facing off , circling back forth to feint draw etc... mind games , freedom to be oneself and not a slave to a pose or an arm gesture.Many attempt to straight line blast
like a bull at a matador, as the 'be all, end all', but this is from role playing gone wrong in chisao.
The concepts simply guide us in what to do for the purpose of a fast aggressive end , while maintianing a perpetual line of force, behind arms that are capable of individually deflecting and striking in rotation, along our non-facing centerlines and simple 'removal' actions to facilitate an unbroken attack...to put these actions together is the aim of the system ...these actions dont require great strength or body type. Your training to fight force with acute angles and angling in a reletnless manner that is a standing equivalent of bjj , smother on the run. Its very har to fight a skilled VT fighter who simply lets you move while he shoots on an unbroken line you cant face equally to use your 2 hands against....his 1 arm feels like 2 against yours.....the techniques dont require much force at all, just knowledge of alignment relative to your centerlines and the 'given' line of forcefull entry...., and is quite at home recieving it :D

[russellsherry]

hi d-fens as a slightly disabled person it took me a long time to get any good at wing chun i was in leg irons untill thirteeen i started tae kwon do at 16 wing chun and choy lay fut at 18 , the main thing is patience wing chun stess, sil lim toa first my good training at first form level and staying there helped me improve just remember what bruce lee said about your limations and knowing them thats the key peace russellsherry