What do you think is unique to wing chun

[stricker]

Well, there's the question: what do you think is unique about wing chun. What does it have or do that no other martial art does?

[KimWingChun]

It's strategy.

[Liddel]

ME

:cool:
DREW

[Wu Wei Wu]

Theoretical non-fighters.

[anerlich]

And grandmothers.

[k gledhill]

Terence and Dale

[Ozzy Dave]

well, WC's expression of the so called "elbow force" is IMO unique.

Other Southern systems use the concept but I haven't encounted the same expression, specifically the way the stance is used in WC to support the elbow force.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Real high quality close quarter striking and blocking done virtually simultaneously.

Oh, and yeah....Terence and Dale. :cool:

[Liddel]

IMHO the use of wrist (inch) power in attack and defencive actions and what i call 'multi point touch' (just a name guys :rolleyes:) which is actions with rotating limbs- leading force away...is unique to VT.

Many other styles have similar type mechanics but IME our use is different therefore unique from that POV.

With regard to my personal VT style its what makes my actions sharp as well as heavy.

DREW

[LoneTiger108]

The system. The style. The Perpetual Interpretations.

Wing Chun has simple, direct and tangiable theories at its core which some may view as being enough to get on with for more than one lifetime.

[air]

I think one of wing chuns uniqueness is it teaches a person to use both sides of the body equally.

[Dan_chi_sau]

not saying it's unique, but i cant think of too many other styles (in my limited knowledge) that have hips 'square on' to your opponent.

[sihing]

IMHO the use of wrist (inch) power in attack and defencive actions and what i call 'multi point touch' (just a name guys :rolleyes:) which is actions with rotating limbs- leading force away...is unique to VT.

Many other styles have similar type mechanics but IME our use is different therefore unique from that POV.

With regard to my personal VT style its what makes my actions sharp as well as heavy.

DREW

I like Drew's statement of leading force away using rotating limbs.

IMO what is unique about WC is the body mechanics and structure we use to develop our body engine. How we use that engine is up to us depending on the situation, but I see WC now as a training method instead of a strict style of Martial Art, because in the end you use from it what you need. All the nuances of facing, hips mechanics, concepts like using the ground as a power base, elbow in, etc...may not be absolutely unique to WC, but WC trains these things to a highly developed level, giving one a very effective base or foundation to control someone physically while standing up (controlling someone is relative of course, depending on their skills as well as a athlete or fighter, the higher their skills are the harder it gets to control them). Another unique thing is that once the tools are sharpened and developed, I find that they are easily maintained, because WC is concept based, not technique based. Concepts allow you to adapt to various situations and usage (only when you have the tools to use them properly), and gives you almost limitless versatility in execution. Also, you can think about this stuff (visualization) and maintain skill level. Many times within my years of involvement with WC has this point been proven to me, through my own personal experience and that of others. When you physically master a movement, your brain knows how to do it. The brain does not know the difference between something vividly imagined or real, so therefore when you get skilled in Wing Chun and absorb it within your neurological system, you are practicing when thinking about it. I don't recommend that you rely on visualization totally as a way to maintain effectiveness with the system, but it can help when you are unable to practice for a period of time.

All of the above is only a reflection of what the potential of the art is for a someone, not a guarantee of success in a fight, as no MA can do that. Only individuals make it alive and useful, and it is in this area that there is allot of grey shades. All of us have different reasons and motivations for doing what we do, therefore our skills, abilities, understanding regarding WC will vary to high degrees.

James

[t_niehoff]

Real high quality close quarter striking and blocking done virtually simultaneously.

Oh, and yeah....Terence and Dale. :cool:


Too bad we never see any of that in the TWC sparring clips. :)

[t_niehoff]

It's strategy.


Nailed it.

[Graychuan]

Wooden Man.


There are all kinds of peeps that use or say they use wooden man to compliment their training. Ive even seen karate people try to incorporate it into their stuff.But I think a lot of this is motivated by the old kung fu theater movies and such. Im also aware of wooden man training in Shaolin traditions and some of the other Fon Keun arts of southern China. But since praticing WC I have never actually seen a method of training with the WM that is actually based on concepts that are consistent throughout the art like it is with WC. But again, I have no experience in other arts like Choy Li Fut that may use the wooden man as a training tool.
I am taught that SLT and Chum Kil come together in WM. It works for me and thats enough for me.

~Cg~

[YungChun]

Close range, multiple movements, use of center space is not unique to WCK..

What makes WCK unique IMO is what WCK means, as I was taught it..

The meaning or goal of WCK being to find/strive for the most economical fighting solution in combat, in terms of motion, energy and time to finish.

"If we find a way that is more economical and more efficient we don't say, we will add that to WCK, we say, that is WCK"--Moy Yat

Oh yeah, and this nutty board.. :)

[CFT]

The meaning or goal of WCK being to find/strive for the most economical fighting solution in combat, in terms of motion, energy and time to finish.That is not unique to WCK either.

[YungChun]

That is not unique to WCK either.
To what other art are you referring to?

As I said I was taught and agree with the idea that WCK means the utmost in economy..

This can be seen in the movements and tactics that run all through the system..

[t_niehoff]

That is not unique to WCK either.

Of course not. And, you can't *begin* from the position of trying to do what is most efficient, most economical, etc. -- that is starting from theory. And that is all nonsense anyway. How can you measure efficiency and effectiveness? What makes WCK more efficient than boxing or MT?

Instead, you have to begin with finding what works to solve a particular combative problem you are facing and from there try to make it more efficient, more effective.

[YungChun]

Of course not. And, you can't *begin* from the position of trying to do what is most efficient, most economical, etc

Of course you can, just like you can do the reverse.. When you design something you draw up plans first and then work the bugs out later..


And that is all nonsense anyway. How can you measure efficiency and effectiveness?

By looking at the techniques in the system or art.. It's plain as the nose on your face, er, keys on your keyboard.

When you look at different techniques from all different systems--some techniques are more efficient than others, in terms of time, energy and motion... These are the basics of the system, which you clearly don't get, or don't agree with.

[Mr Punch]

To what other art are you referring to?Yeah Chee, sheesh. We all know boxing is based on dancing around for as many rounds as you can to provide a good show, and muay thai is just slap tag and wastes loads of energy and time with flash high kicks and blocks with your head to your opponents' knees, and judo and jujutsu are just about prolonged deep sweaty manlove and not interested in finishing fights, just holding men's precious bits between your manthighs...

only wing chun is interested in finishing a fight quickly...!

Anyway, back on Earth: elbow energy. IMO most other arts link carefully all the joints for a strike, but go direct from torque to the hand whereas chun also focuses specifically on what the elbow's doing and more carefully on the position of the arm.

For those of you who think so, what is unique about the strategy?

[CFT]

To what other art are you referring to?

As I said I was taught and agree with the idea that WCK means the utmost in economy..

This can be seen in the movements and tactics that run all through the system..Alright then ... what do you feel is inefficient with Western boxing or Muay Thai, as prime examples of striking systems.

Doh, Mr. P beat me to the punch, lol ! I bow down to your Web Chun :D

I was going to say the elbow too, but you put it much better than me. But again is this unique to WCK?

I would have said the training/development system, but then everyone has their own take on this.

[YungChun]

Yeah Chee, sheesh.
{snip}
only wing chun is interested in finishing a fight quickly...!

Well golly gee wiz...

I love the way folks toss strawmen around here like they were ninja throwing stars and make wize azz remarks..

I said economy, of time, motion and energy... I see this waaay more in WCK than in most other system and styles and it is how I see the system.. All you have to do is look at the punch and then compare it to these other arts to see that IMO..

If you guys don't see this in the system, as the core of the system then that's just fine and dandy with me.. Pardon me for trying to answer the question as I see it..

[Graychuan]

Yeah Chee, sheesh. We all know boxing is based on dancing around for as many rounds as you can to provide a good show, and muay thai is just slap tag and wastes loads of energy and time with flash high kicks and blocks with your head to your opponents' knees, and judo and jujutsu are just about prolonged deep sweaty manlove and not interested in finishing fights, just holding men's precious bits between your manthighs...

only wing chun is interested in finishing a fight quickly...!

Anyway, back on Earth: elbow energy. IMO most other arts link carefully all the joints for a strike, but go direct from torque to the hand whereas chun also focuses specifically on what the elbow's doing and more carefully on the position of the arm.

For those of you who think so, what is unique about the strategy?


Elbow energy is very important when brigdewalking and maintaining a defensive structure while attacking at close range. Bridgewalking lets you intercept strikes with strikes and the elbow energy allows for power in a short range since in wing chun you dont rechamber strikes like karate or boxing. Unless of course some of those Thomas Hearns jabs just happen to come out. I know Im guilty of it. lol

~Cg~

[t_niehoff]

Of course you can, just like you can do the reverse.. When you design something you draw up plans first and then work the bugs out later..


Fighting or any athletic competivie activity is not like engineering a bridge.



By looking at the techniques in the system or art.. It's plain as the nose on your face, er, keys on your keyboard.

When you look at different techniques from all different systems--some techniques are more efficient than others, in terms of time, energy and motion... These are the basics of the system, which you clearly don't get, or don't agree with.

It's not that clear or simple. First of all, before we can even begin to discuss efficiency (time, energy, motion), we need to address how effective it is. IOWs how well and likely we are to get our desired result. Because obviously if you perform soemthing with little energy, movement, etc. but it doesn't work, you can't say it was efficient!

You can't determine effectiveness or whether something is high/low percentage except through doing it, through seeing actual results. And you can't even really look at it except through a overall game perspective.

I think this whole effective/efficiency in MAs is nonsense. Every MA tries to make what they do most effective and efficient.

[t_niehoff]

only wing chun is interested in finishing a fight quickly...!


Every MA is interested in finishing a fight quickly. Boxers would love to knock out their opponent with one punch. BJJ fighters would love to engage and immediately choke their opponent out. And you can see examples of that in action -- when an opponent makes a mistake (or is very poorly skilled) you will see them get nailed right off the bat. But when facing other good fighters, fights don't end quicky.



For those of you who think so, what is unique about the strategy?

The fundamentals for stand-up, clinch, and ground are pretty much universal. So the movements, techniques, etc. of any MA will never be unique. The uniqueness comes in how those same fundamentals are used -- the strategy and tactics.

[Dan_chi_sau]

the quantity of in house *****ing? (hope i'm wrong...)

[sihing]

Fighting or any athletic competivie activity is not like engineering a bridge.



It's not that clear or simple. First of all, before we can even begin to discuss efficiency (time, energy, motion), we need to address how effective it is. IOWs how well and likely we are to get our desired result. Because obviously if you perform soemthing with little energy, movement, etc. but it doesn't work, you can't say it was efficient!

You can't determine effectiveness or whether something is high/low percentage except through doing it, through seeing actual results. And you can't even really look at it except through a overall game perspective.

I think this whole effective/efficiency in MAs is nonsense. Every MA tries to make what they do most effective and efficient.

Your correct in the fact that you can't find out if something is "Efficient", unless you do it and it works at some level. I disagree that you can't start with something as a theory and then work it out as a fact later on. I heard Vunak say once, that you don't necessarily have to take a technique or drill from a system but rather you can borrow/steal a concept or theory, and he then related how you can combine the concept of Wing Chun's efficiency with Muay Thai brutality to come up with something slightly different than the two wholes by themselves. He combines FMA (give centerline) with WC (protect centerline), which in his own words develops a whole new animal in a fighter. Of course you have to train in both systems a bit to learn the mechanics but someone trained in both well, would produce a different effect in someone, since the ideas and concepts/principles are different from one another, as compared to someone that strictly trained in one or the other. Whether or not this is a effective training system is more up to the individual and their ability to absorb what it gives them, which prevents us from looking at it from the outside and saying "Yes it can work, or, No that doesn't work".


James

[CFT]

the quantity of in house *****ing? (hope i'm wrong...)Nope not unique in this respect either. Just check out some of the other sub-forums here.

[sanjuro_ronin]

... and judo and jujutsu are just about prolonged deep sweaty manlove and not interested in finishing fights, just holding men's precious bits between your manthighs...



I don't know why, but I am all excited now :D

[t_niehoff]

Your correct in the fact that you can't find out if something is "Efficient", unless you do it and it works at some level.


Let's look at it from a task-oriented POV. If you take any task, your skill in performing that task - in motor skill parlance - is your ability to bring about a desired result with max certainty (effectiveness) and min time/effort (efficiency). So skill is in itself effectiveness and efficiency. If you are more skillful than me, regardless of our different MAs, then you are more effecitve and efficient.



I disagree that you can't start with something as a theory and then work it out as a fact later on. I heard Vunak say once, that you don't necessarily have to take a technique or drill from a system but rather you can borrow/steal a concept or theory, and he then related how you can combine the concept of Wing Chun's efficiency with Muay Thai brutality to come up with something slightly different than the two wholes by themselves. He combines FMA (give centerline) with WC (protect centerline), which in his own words develops a whole new animal in a fighter. Of course you have to train in both systems a bit to learn the mechanics but someone trained in both well, would produce a different effect in someone, since the ideas and concepts/principles are different from one another, as compared to someone that strictly trained in one or the other. Whether or not this is a effective training system is more up to the individual and their ability to absorb what it gives them, which prevents us from looking at it from the outside and saying "Yes it can work, or, No that doesn't work".


James

The fundamentals of fighting, stand-up, clinch, and ground, are universal. And that's because our bodies can only move at intensity (100%) in very limited ways. This is why all ground methods, BJJ, sambo, judo, catch, etc. "look" very similar -- they all use the same fundamentals of the ground. It's the same with clinch and stand-up. Different arts have different ways of using (strategies/tactics) those fundamentals. This is why it is silly IMO to talk about some art being more effective/efficient -- on a fundamental level, all functional arts will do the same things. I agree with you that we can take strategies/tactics from other arts. Personally, I think most MAs were some person's personal approach (strategy/tactics) that drew on some subset of universal fundamental skills, that they found successful, and this was just passed down.

[YungChun]

I think this whole effective/efficiency in MAs is nonsense. Every MA tries to make what they do most effective and efficient.
Yes you can certainly make that spinning wheel kick as efficient as possible.. :)

Yes you can certainly make that take down and armbar as efficient as possible.. :)

Yes you can certainly make wide swinging punches as efficient as possible.. :)

And yes we can certainly make our deem jong as efficient as possible.. :D

[LoneTiger108]

Fighting or any athletic competivie activity is not like engineering a bridge...

...I think this whole effective/efficiency in MAs is nonsense. Every MA tries to make what they do most effective and efficient.

Firstly, the 'engineering' principle will relate to anybody who feels like an architect, so IMO Wing Chun IS like engineering a bridge, as this is exactly what we do in combat! Sheesh T! Even you should have heard the term 'Bridge Arm'!

Second, if 'every MA tries to make what they do most effective and efficient', and you understand what YungChun is saying, then everybody is already doing Wing Chun!

Funny how we have influenced the masses over the years isn't it?

[sanjuro_ronin]

one thing that I see as "unique" to WC, to much theory and debating thereof.

[t_niehoff]

one thing that I see as "unique" to WC, to much theory and debating thereof.

That's not unique at all -- it is common in all fantasy-based MAs.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's not unique at all -- it is common in all fantasy-based MAs.

Hence the quotations...and there you go with "fantasy based MA".

[t_niehoff]

Hence the quotations...and there you go with "fantasy based MA".

I know you don't like that term, so let me try to make my POV more clear:

WCK can be a reality-based MA or a fantasy-based MA (so can anything, I suppose). The TMAs are more inclined toward being fantasy-based because their training methodology (forms, unrealistic exercises) supports fantasy. Whereas functional martial arts incline strongly toward reality-based because their training methodology (making sparring the core of their training) tends to extinguish any fantasy. I generalize that WCK is fantasy-based since most people practice WCK that way.

[sihing]

one thing that I see as "unique" to WC, to much theory and debating thereof.

Then there is no need for forums like this, and threads started on forums like this, and people answering those threads on forums like this. Personally I don't mind the debates and discussions, as long as people are civil and there are a variety of POV.

We are human, therefore we like to express ourselves and have our names in the spotlight for a millisecond, and acknowledged for the fact that we are not primates and have intelligence, plus the simple and basic human need for recognition and that we are alive and important.

James

[sanjuro_ronin]

I know you don't like that term, so let me try to make my POV more clear:

WCK can be a reality-based MA or a fantasy-based MA (so can anything, I suppose). The TMAs are more inclined toward being fantasy-based because their training methodology (forms, unrealistic exercises) supports fantasy. Whereas functional martial arts incline strongly toward reality-based because their training methodology (making sparring the core of their training) tends to extinguish any fantasy. I generalize that WCK is fantasy-based since most people practice WCK that way.

See, I have no problem with what you wrote there, though you still need to understand the difference between "combat oriented" TMA and the pseudo-stuff that most train in.
From what I have seen though, you are more correct than you are wrong.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Then there is no need for forums like this, and threads started on forums like this, and people answering those threads on forums like this. Personally I don't mind the debates and discussions, as long as people are civil and there are a variety of POV.

We are human, therefore we like to express ourselves and have our names in the spotlight for a millisecond, and acknowledged for the fact that we are not primates and have intelligence, plus the simple and basic human need for recognition and that we are alive and important.

James

I like forums too, or couldn't you tell ? :D
I just think that, and WC is not alone here, many people debate the most pointless things in regardless to the theory of their given systems.
Perhaps years ago when the medium was SOLELY the written word, there was a reason for this, nowadays with video a click a way and posting one the same thing, it far more logical to show it and then debate it, rather than just debate the abstract.

[sihing]

I like forums too, or couldn't you tell ? :D
I just think that, and WC is not alone here, many people debate the most pointless things in regardless to the theory of their given systems.
Perhaps years ago when the medium was SOLELY the written word, there was a reason for this, nowadays with video a click a way and posting one the same thing, it far more logical to show it and then debate it, rather than just debate the abstract.

True, as one picture is worth a thousand words, so the moving picture or direct contact with one another is even better. I love to learn from both avenues, each with their own advantages. But I get your meaning, the problem I find with some of the vid's (like the one from the Mirror'd thread), they are stacked in favor of one way or another. But that can be dealth with, when someone just goes out and spars with it, the thing here is that you can't show details or even stay on the subject you are trying to discuss because the sparring session might not even allow that to come out (since you are expressing the system against a resisting opponent, not trying to demonstrate or prove a point). Person to person is always the best, and I've come to the conclusion that forums like this limit what and how we discuss things.

James

[YungChun]

I like forums too, or couldn't you tell ? :D
I just think that, and WC is not alone here, many people debate the most pointless things in regardless to the theory of their given systems.
Perhaps years ago when the medium was SOLELY the written word, there was a reason for this, nowadays with video a click a way and posting one the same thing, it far more logical to show it and then debate it, rather than just debate the abstract.
Folks have done that.. Can you guess what happend?:rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

True, as one picture is worth a thousand words, so the moving picture or direct contact with one another is even better. I love to learn from both avenues, each with their own advantages. But I get your meaning, the problem I find with some of the vid's (like the one from the Mirror'd thread), they are stacked in favor of one way or another. But that can be dealth with, when someone just goes out and spars with it, the thing here is that you can't show details or even stay on the subject you are trying to discuss because the sparring session might not even allow that to come out (since you are expressing the system against a resisting opponent, not trying to demonstrate or prove a point). Person to person is always the best, and I've come to the conclusion that forums like this limit what and how we discuss things.


Folks have done that.. Can you guess what happend?

I think doing it like "lamapaisifu" has done in his CLF thread is a step in the right direction.

[YungChun]

I think doing it like "lamapaisifu" has done in his CLF thread is a step in the right direction.
Got link???

[sanjuro_ronin]

Got link???

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48936

[YungChun]

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48936

Very informative videos.. Good example of a system that has some techniques in common with WCK but clearly does not emphasize economy of motion like WCK does.. Personally, I like his boxing better..

Love the 'this is a bb school' sign..:eek:

[YungChun]

Here's a clip for you Paul..

A "Uechi" technical demo... HFS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpdp7bE8J2Y

Whaddya make of that?

See T we ain't the only one's with GMs.. ;)

And rarely are even we that 'grand'..

[Askari Hodari]

Theoretical non-fighters.

Regrettably this is true of many arts these days.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here's a clip for you Paul..

A "Uechi" technical demo... HFS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpdp7bE8J2Y

Whaddya make of that?

See T we ain't the only one's with GMs.. ;)

And rarely are even we that 'grand'..

Nothing wrong with that clip, many Uechi stylists advocate seppuku :D

[YungChun]

Nothing wrong with that clip, many Uechi stylists advocate seppuku :D
You had me for a sec..

LOL :cool:

[sanjuro_ronin]

You had me for a sec..

LOL :cool:

My subterfuge skills are honed to a fine edge due to my intense training in Tokeaserioussmoke Ninjiutsu.

[Phil Redmond]

Too bad we never see any of that in the TWC sparring clips. :)
¿Estas ciego?
Here are some principles used against resisting opponents including simultaneous blocking and striking at about 8 secs into the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0dQGkPaoKA

And this was their very first fight. They will get better.

[anerlich]

and acknowledged for the fact that we are not primates

I think we ARE primates. Unless you are a GM'ed giraffe or something ....

[t_niehoff]

¿Estas ciego?
Here are some principles used against resisting opponents including simultaneous blocking and striking at about 8 secs into the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0dQGkPaoKA

And this was their very first fight. They will get better.

Are you serious?

[Phil Redmond]

Are you serious?
Sloooooooooow moooooootion. ;)

[Ali. R]

¿Estas ciego?
Here are some principles used against resisting opponents including simultaneous blocking and striking at about 8 secs into the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0dQGkPaoKA

And this was their very first fight. They will get better.


Are you serious?

OOH! That’s tight!!! :):cool::D


At our school we fight using a parallel and cross stances. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

From “Scar Face” The burrito stand scene:

We got a lot of work to do… :D;)


Ali Rahim.