Wing Chun System or Style?

[LoneTiger108]

The 'System' of Wing Chun is very specific. It has structure, literature (kuit) and a braod curriculum that gives an overview of the initial idea of Wing Chun Martial Art.

The 'Style' of Wing Chun is personal. It may have influences from other arts, your own life circumstance and may only cover a parts of the 'System' due to an individuals experience with one or many Wing Chun teachers.

So, what are your thoughts?

Personally, I have my own style of teaching but I do like to keep to the curriculums of the system I was taught.

[YouKnowWho]

Personally, I have my own style of teaching but I do like to keep to the curriculums of the system I was taught.

The day that you have passed your 60 years old birthday, the day that "style" and "system" will make no difference to you. It's you that's more important than your "system" or "style". You are the master. System or style are all your slaves.

[chusauli]

You do your own style (personal expression), you can have your own teaching methodology (way of teaching), you can have your own curriculum (order of teaching). But ultimately, it is a system (of tools) you learn to use.

[Dantien]

It is a number of concepts which are based around using body mechanics, physics, geometry and efficiency, which therefore makes it a system. But the system makes it a unique style, if that makes any sense.

[YouKnowWho]

Sometime we should not only consider what a system can give to you but what contributation that you can give back to your system. If you just pass down exactly what you have learned from your teacher to your students, you are just a good "copy machine", no more and no less.

[Phil Redmond]

I was taught that a "Pai" (style) as in Ying Jow Pai,Fu Jow Pai has fixed forms, techniques with no room for innovation of changes. A "Do" as in Jeet Kuen Do is more philosophical. A "Kuen" (fist) as in Wing Chun Kuen is more open to practical changes or innovations. The pole wasn't part of WCK but was added later.
I got this information from two well known Kung Fu Sifus. One of whom has passed on. Now just because I heard that doesn't make it correct. I'm just tossing in my '3' cents. ;)

[Grumblegeezer]

My old Chinese sifu used to equate the term "style" with mannerisms, fashion, or other superficial manifestations of a fighting art. He felt that the term "system" implied an essential, functional integration of all the techniques, like parts of a well designed machine. Everything served an indispensible purpose, nothing should be there just for looks or flair. In that sense, the term "system" is an apt description of what we strive for in WC, although as humans, it is always in our nature to interject a bit of personal style. Differentiating betweeen the two is important if we want to keep our art as efficient and free of ornamentation as possible. When we pass the system on, we may wish to make "contributions" as YouKnowWho suggested, but in so doing, we need to be careful not to weaken the "system" by passing on elements of mere "style".

BTW, after lurking a long time, it's good to actually start posting on this forum!

[ShortBridge]

I was thinking about this recently in terms of accents. I've moved around a bit and people back home say that I lost my accent, but people elsewhere say that it's still there. I think in fact, I'm influenced by everywhere I've lived, just like my positions on issues is influenced by books I've read and experiences I've had.

But, I haven't become those things. I try to be very true to Wing Chun. For me that means looking back at how I think it might have been taught, being very faithful to the way I was taught and being comfortable making choices about what I think would help my own training and anyone who I'm working with. I want to be both traditional and relevant (which, I sort of believe was the tradition).

People who I've come up with and have the same teaching as me, we're the same, but we're not. No major differences in what we think the system is, but our hands feel different. Personally, I think that's okay. Good even.

Very interesting thread. I'm interested in everyone's responses.

[couch]

Wing Chun isn't a style to me. Perhaps a system. More like a systematic approach to getting the core ideas across.

If I wanted to teach someone what Wing Chun was about (theory, etc), I would create such drills that are contained in the system. I would create forms to showcase Wing Chun. That way, when it was passed down, the core ideas of the system would never be lost.

Problem would be...if people confused the system/shell for the real thing...but that's for another time, perhaps.

[YouKnowWho]

Will you call boxing or Judo a style or system? IMO, a style or system should contain kick, punch, lock, and throw. Today, the ground game should also be included as well.

Many years ago I was only interested in how to use my "head lock" in stand up game. Today, I have more interest in how to use my "head lock" in ground game. The reason is simple. 30 years ago I didn't have to deal with BJJ guys. But today I have to.

[anerlich]

Definitions are necessary.

From Dictionary.com (selected)

System: an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought; any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure

Style: a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode of action or manner of acting; a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode or form of construction or execution in any art or work

WC as a whole is much more system than style IMO. You could argue about whether the offerings of individual lineages are different systems or stylistic expressions of the same system.


Will you call boxing or Judo a style or system? IMO, a style or system should contain kick, punch, lock, and throw. Today, the ground game should also be included as well.

A "system of complete fighting" might want to include kicks, punches, locks and throws. Judo doesn't but is certainly a "system of grappling with the gi". It's highly debatable whether WC qualifies as a "system of complete fighting". Arguably no such thing currently exists and many guys train in multiple systems.

Will answering this question make you better at whatever your goals are with WC? Probably not, unless you want to become a dictionary pundit.

[LoneTiger108]

System: an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought; any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure

Style: a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode of action or manner of acting; a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode or form of construction or execution in any art or work.

Sums it up nicely, so thanks for posting.

[GlennR]

Id be voting it as a style.

But here's another question.... Sport or hobby?

GlennR

[LoneTiger108]

But here's another question.... Sport or hobby?

Personally I would answer neither! :D

Form me, Martial Art is a Way Of Life and Wing Chun should also be viewed as such.

[GlennR]

Personally I would answer neither! :D

Form me, Martial Art is a Way Of Life and Wing Chun should also be viewed as such.

Mmmmm, never quite yook to that idea..... but to each his own

Oh, and sport for me if i had to choose

[YouKnowWho]

Personally I would answer neither! :D

Form me, Martial Art is a Way Of Life and Wing Chun should also be viewed as such.
Agree with you on this. If you take Differential Equations, Modern Algebra, Category Theory, Nonparametric Statistics, Real Analysis, ... in college. Any particular class will be hardly to make you a "mathematician", but a combination of your 160 hours (120 hours undergraduate + 40 hours graduate school) total class credit plus your graduate school research will.

[GlennR]

Agree with you on this. If you take Differential Equations, Modern Algebra, Category Theory, Nonparametric Statistics, Real Analysis, ... in college. Any particular class will be hardly to make you a "mathematician", but a combination of your 160 hours (120 hours undergraduate + 40 hours graduate school) total class credit plus your graduate school research will.

Wow... i dont even understand that! :)

[backyard1]

I started studied wing chun as a teenager. Now Im in my late 30s and I dont actually get to see my teacher anymore - I bought a house in the country, too far to travel. For me though, I will always think of myself as a wc guy no matter what other sports I do (mountain bike riding being my thing now). I think its by throwing out wc techniques when Ive nothing better to do that keeps me switched on. Not to mention the way it changes even the simple act of walking. I cant imagine life without wc and I know that it will be with me until the day I die. I know that this is true of a lot of people, no matter what style you practice. I thin its about style

[LoneTiger108]

Thanks for all your opinions so far, but don't forget to vote!

At this stage we can see that most favour The System of Wing Chun over The Style.

Here's the definition of System supplied by anerlich:

"System: an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought; any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure"

So I ask you what do you feel is a good representation of the Wing Chun System?

[anerlich]

So I ask you what do you feel is a good representation of the Wing Chun System?

Iyiyi.

What I do, obviously.

I see this as another potential flamewar in the offing.

[Vajramusti]

Iyiyi.

What I do, obviously.

I see this as another potential flamewar in the offing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
agree!! With a different "I".


Let's not argue on this one.


joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

Iyiyi.

What I do, obviously.

I see this as another potential flamewar in the offing.

:eek: Now now! I can't see why you would think that?

But please, explain further how what you do can be viewed as the Wing Chun System?

[Vajramusti]

:eek: Now now! I can't see why you would think that?

But please, explain further how what you do can be viewed as the Wing Chun System?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not me.No thank you.Sounds like the making of a long zig zagging thread- traveling over a long waterfront longer than the Somali coast with pirates darting in and out.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

Not me.No thank you.Sounds like the making of a long zig zagging thread- traveling over a long waterfront longer than the Somali coast with pirates darting in and out.

:eek: Wow Joy! I thought the answer to that question was quite simple and many have already posted their opinions here. Why don't you?

Style or System? Why?

All in good spirit too, from myself anyhow...

[Vajramusti]

:eek: Wow Joy! I thought the answer to that question was quite simple and many have already posted their opinions here. Why don't you?

Style or System? Why?

All in good spirit too, from myself anyhow...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have two somewhat different questions-related but different. #1 is temptingly simple.
#2 would require a longer answer- if it's a serious question

1.Style or system




2.But please, explain further how what you do can be viewed as the Wing Chun System?

The strings running through concepts gives wing chun characteristics of a system. But wing chun is also an art- so competent wing chun people will have their own heightened awareness and approach.

joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

The strings running through concepts gives wing chun characteristics of a system. But wing chun is also an art- so competent wing chun people will have their own heightened awareness and approach.

I totally agree Joy, but would add here that when the competent individual starts to express things he/she has 'found' themselves or not been directly taught, then this is the birth of personal Style imho.

The System is fixed and this should be common to all of us. These days this 'System' has become a collection of terms, form images and sansau techniques. That imho is NOT the System I refer to. Unfortunately what I have seen and read here, along with what is generally taught around the World, is more personal style and interpretation than system. The system is somewhat missing imho due to far too much self exploration/indulgence within our Art, even by the founding Sifus of our time which includes anyone who learnt from Ip Man! And even Ip Man himself!

What interests me most is the System itself and I'm looking for people who have it (or claim to have it) so I can compare what I have experienced. The System is not what Ip Man taught publically in Hong Kong from my research.

Okay. Must stop now coz I will confuse myself :D:eek:;)

[LoneTiger108]

Thanks for everyones input and votes! Time to draw this poll to a close...

... but before we do, I have explained what I have experienced and why I feel that the system is what it is, but what about you??

What is 'your' idea of the Wing Chun System?

[kung fu fighter]

wing chun is a system of training methods to enhanced a fighter's natural attributes, instincts, and efficient bio-mechanics, but can only be preserved passed down and through a style.

[Lee Chiang Po]

Wing Chun is a fighting system that will not tolerate alteration and still remain Wing Chun. The way this simple and basic system is practiced individually will represent an individual style. We stylize our own Wing Chun, which is our choice of fighting system.
The only style of the Wing Chun system that I recognize is the Lee Chiang Hung Fa style. It preceeds Ip Man and others that are common today. I say this simply because I have not studied any other style of Wing Chun. In fact, I was not really aware of the many different lineages out there until just a few years ago.

[Grumblegeezer]

The System is fixed and this should be common to all of us....

What interests me most is the System itself and I'm looking for people who have it (or claim to have it) so I can compare what I have experienced.


Wing Chun is a fighting system that will not tolerate alteration and still remain Wing Chun.

Both of the quotes above seem to display a certain rigidity of outlook that I find misguided. Do you really think that there is "one true system" out there, perhaps an "original" or "authentic" version that has been diluted and distorted over the generations? That is the kind of dogmatic thinking often associated with religious cults. It's natural to try to seek the most efficient system possible, but to believe that there can only be one, true way, unchanging and eternal? Well, that sounds far fetched to me.

I already weighed in on the original question about "style" vs. "system". I firmly believe that WC is essentially a system. Each technique or movement should be part of an integrated "clockwork" that functions as efficiently as a well oiled machine. To use the automobile as an analogy, some cars are obviously very functional and efficiently designed to do a specific job. That job may be to be a work vehicle, a racing sports car, a family transporting mini-van, or whatever. Regardless, to the degree which all the parts of each particular auto are designed to work together to achieve maximum efficiency in executing the car's designated function is what I'm understanding as the essence of what we mean by "system". "Style" to me implies "adornment", that is to say things like the pin-striping and hood ornament on an otherwise efficient and practical automobile. But any way you look at it, systems are not fixed. And there is no "perfect system" such as a "perpetual motion machine". And, systems evolve and change over time as do the functions they serve.

I guess what I'm getting at is that we probably agree that certain things can't be grafted onto WC without destroying it's systemic integrity. For example, a friend of mine from an MMA/boxing background tried to convince me that WC would be a better "style" if we just adopted a boxer's guard, forward crouch and lifted our shoulders to protect against punches, like he did. He didn't understand that our posture, structure and techniques are part of an integrated whole. You can't just tack on some boxing moves and expect positive results any more than you can casually swap engine parts from two radically different makes of car and get them to run. But, on the other hand, you can see one root branch of WC gradually give rise to distinctly different sub-branches which each have their own systemic integrity. This is not unlike what happens in biology or engineering as one source or "parent" eventually gives rise to diverse forms... each of which may serve it's own distinct function with greater efficiency than the parent form. Each is a "system", but now a different system from it's ancestors or cousins.

[LoneTiger108]

Both of the quotes above seem to display a certain rigidity of outlook that I find misguided. Do you really think that there is "one true system" out there, perhaps an "original" or "authentic" version that has been diluted and distorted over the generations? That is the kind of dogmatic thinking often associated with religious cults. It's natural to try to seek the most efficient system possible, but to believe that there can only be one, true way, unchanging and eternal? Well, that sounds far fetched to me.

Far fetched it may be, but I have to ask you this: Do you really believe that 'if' there is a system to Wing Chun, a formula if you like, that Ip Man passed it to all of his students?

And do you think for one moment that this said system would never have been written down at all?

This is what I mean by system. It's simple, direct and totally makes sense to me. If you have only learnt Ip Mans Wing Chun from 'memory' have you really got the system? Or are you practising Ip Mans 'style' interpreted by whoever you learnt from? That's a pretty 'open book' which I see often, but left unchecked for so many years only causes stagnation and confusion fme.


I already weighed in on the original question about "style" vs. "system". I firmly believe that WC is essentially a system. Each technique or movement should be part of an integrated "clockwork" that functions as efficiently as a well oiled machine.

So please explain this 'clockwork' machine in terms that don't rely on us knowing about 'cars'. This is all I'm asking from anyone here. :(

Tell me what your 'system' is and how that reflects your English explanation. But be warned, if all you're going to do is list the forms, sandbag, wooden man, pole and knives then you're missing my point! I KNOW that these areas of training make our system a whole, but exactly what is the Wing Chun system itself?

I have already tried to describe how I have been taught and how I coach. Being a student from a direct descendant of Lee Shing, I have a certain 'cultural' element to my training that many criticize and even disagree with comlpletely! I group my practise into areas/modules like Form, Equipment, Weaponry and Interaction as I feel this helps to promote a 'system'.

Is it the same as Ip Mans personal 'style' or approach to teaching??

Or is it a different animal altogether?

So, what is The Wing Chun System exactly??

Everyone talks about it but I have not seen much evidence of it's existence yet, especially here within this forum! ;)

[Grumblegeezer]

Spencer, there was a thread on here the other day where two seemingly intelligent posters went on for several pages arguing over whether the Chinese term "dao" (as in bart cham dao) should translated into English as "knife"or also as "sword". Another thread went on for pages debating wheteher or not it was ever permissable to "flip" and invert the bart cham dao back along the fore-arm. If presumably well informed, experienced Sifus can't agree over such simple topics, it would be really absurd for me, with my limited comprehension, to further expound upon the systemic nature of Wing Chun on this forum. Maybe someone else would care to give it a try. Sorry. --Steve

[couch]

Far fetched it may be, but I have to ask you this: Do you really believe that 'if' there is a system to Wing Chun, a formula if you like, that Ip Man passed it to all of his students?

Who cares if he did or didn't? We all just have to make do with what we've got and do our thing.



Is it the same as Ip Mans personal 'style' or approach to teaching??

Or is it a different animal altogether?

So, what is The Wing Chun System exactly??

Everyone talks about it but I have not seen much evidence of it's existence yet, especially here within this forum! ;)

Of course what he passed down was his personal 'style' of the teaching. WSL passed down his. Moy Yat his. They all gave it their own personal flavour/culture/experience. What I *really* wonder about is when WSL/Ip Man/Moy Yat/Lee Shing/etc realized that it was about THEM and why that part of Kung-Fu has been lost. We're all just clones nowadays, trying to duplicate the past-masters in hopes that we'll be able to say we have the real kung-fu of then - instead of doing the kung-fu of now.

You haven't seen much evidence of Wing Chun in existence? I don't understand. It's everywhere...all sorts of interpretations all across the globe.

[LoneTiger108]

We all just have to make do with what we've got and do our thing.

Why is that?

And why is it that this poll suggests the majority thinks Wing Chun is a System, but nobody can tell me exactly what that means or what the system 'is'?


What I *really* wonder about is when WSL/Ip Man/Moy Yat/Lee Shing/etc realized that it was about THEM and why that part of Kung-Fu has been lost. We're all just clones nowadays, trying to duplicate the past-masters in hopes that we'll be able to say we have the real kung-fu of then - instead of doing the kung-fu of now.

This is exactly my point. Do you think that the Sifus you mentioned actually 'knew' what you suggest? That all they were doing was promoting themselves?

FWIW Lee Shing did know this from what I have been told and it was one of his reasons for not teaching publically and not charging fees. He felt he was just representing Ip Man and his own opinions and 'flavours' were not taught until much later. He propogated Ip Mans Wing Chun knowing that Wing Chun is Wing Chun without Ip Man (if that makes any sense!) because he had curriculums and a 'system' he taught. His respect for Ip Man was huge as he had first hand experience of his personal methods too.


You haven't seen much evidence of Wing Chun in existence? I don't understand. It's everywhere...all sorts of interpretations all across the globe.

I understand what you mean, but I'm referring directly to the system itself. The written references to exactly what Wing Chun 'is'. This is why I feel that everyone has their own independent views on 'what a bong sau is' etc because they haven't been taught the system, they've been taught someones own idea on what they think the system is!

Until that issue is cleared, especially for Ip Family practitioners, we will always be in a bit of a mess. And this mess has grown over forty years being in the West already so I also see the frustration in many elder practitioners I have met.


If presumably well informed, experienced Sifus can't agree over such simple topics, it would be really absurd for me, with my limited comprehension, to further expound upon the systemic nature of Wing Chun on this forum. Maybe someone else would care to give it a try. Sorry. --Steve

No problem Steve. I feel your pain! I'm actually not looking for 'opinions' on what they think the system is, I'm looking for people who 'have it' and I guess I may be waiting for much longer than I anticipated :o

[anerlich]

And why is it that this poll suggests the majority thinks Wing Chun is a System, but nobody can tell me exactly what that means or what the system 'is'?


We could tell you. We just don't want to tell you because getting browbeaten by a junior on a fairly inconsequential question is annoying.


Do you really believe that 'if' there is a system to Wing Chun, a formula if you like, that Ip Man passed it to all of his students?

I don't care either way, it's ancient history, but if he did pass it down he did a very patchy and inconsistent job.

[LoneTiger108]

We could tell you. We just don't want to tell you because getting browbeaten by a junior on a fairly inconsequential question is annoying.

Nice attitude to have :rolleyes: considering you think that 1. You're my elder and 2. Questioning exactly what the system is is 'inconsequential'.

Funny. :D


I don't care either way, it's ancient history, but if he did pass it down he did a very patchy and inconsistent job.

Okay. Each to their own

[Vajramusti]

"And why is it that this poll suggests the majority thinks Wing Chun is a System, but nobody can tell me exactly what that means or what the system 'is'?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that you expect too much from a chat list. The question deserves a systematic answer- not really possible on a chat list where attention spans are often short and sarcasm abounds

I can't speak for anyone but myself.Wing chun to me is both a system and an art. Bifurcation of science versus art misses the mark..Ip man's wing chun is quite deep..but as we know he taught unevenly-but that does not mean that he didn't know or that he always taught badly.

After all these years(since 1976) my fascination with the depth of the art continues-not based on dogma or blind faith or mechanical imitation.

As a system--it is not clf, hung gar, boxing or wrestling- it is about control- yourself and your opponent(s) or situation or challenge-it has it's approach to stance, balance, stability and motion, coordination of upper, middle and lower body , handwork and footwork, power, timing,
distance and target control, focus,strategy and tactics. As an art-it points towards proper feeling,spontaneity, creativity, connection with nature, understanding the deliverances of the senses, training the senses,proper breathing and self control.

But opinions can vary...understandable ona chat list.No worries. Chat lists are not serious things.Ok for listening and gabbing.


Gotta go to get some work done.
joy chaudhuri

[LoneTiger108]

Thanks for your reply Joy. This is the part that interests me...

"it has it's approach to stance, balance, stability and motion... etc"

In effect, what is 'it's approach' then?

I understand that you feel that the system itself is deep, but how do you understand that? What has shown you that it is?

I personally have had this chat previously through other threads, but still I have found no solid answers to a very simple question. Some lead the way for a sound answer but just don't get there imho.

A great article in KFM this month "The Primary Fighting Techs of Any Style" where it talks of four 'skills' that are universal to all Martial Arts: Throwing, Kicking, Controlling and Striking. And from what you're saying Wing Chun has 'it's own' approach to this, which I presume you refer to as The System (?)

This is not the System I am thinking about. I'm thinking about what makes Wing Chun Wing Chun y'know? What is unique about the System? How is a System learnt?

Food for thought and I'm still open to suggestions...

[Vajramusti]

Thanks for your reply Joy. This is the part that interests me...

"it has it's approach to stance, balance, stability and motion... etc"

In effect, what is 'it's approach' then?

(((Can't selectively cherry pick bits and pieces- if it's a "system". Understanding and being aware of the dynamics of gravity in every aspect of ygkym and slt is a start. YGKYM and slt is part of WC and not clf , karate etc))

I understand that you feel that the system itself is deep, but how do you understand that? What has shown you that it is?
((proper practice and experience and experimentation..not just solo practice))

I personally have had this chat previously through other threads, but still I have found no solid answers to a very simple question. Some lead the way for a sound answer but just don't get there imho.

((I don't follow you-your perception is your own))

A great article in KFM this month "The Primary Fighting Techs of Any Style" where it talks of four 'skills' that are universal to all Martial Arts: Throwing, Kicking, Controlling and Striking. And from what you're saying Wing Chun has 'it's own' approach to this, which I presume you refer to as The System (?)

((Nope. Of course as I have often pointed out wc is not the only way to self defense. I don't easily cater to someone's definition of "universalism"..you often end up with the lowest common denominator of things..
Ip man's system is really outstanding. Even getting bits and parts of it can be informative.The problem is that very very few people received sustained, paid long term instruction from him..
picnics and dim sum and episodic and short term visits don't count. Any deep art requires sustained attention to good teaching and practice.))

This is not the System I am thinking about. I'm thinking about what makes Wing Chun Wing Chun y'know? What is unique about the System? How is a System learnt?

((Sustained good teaching, practice, learning and experience.))

Food for thought and I'm still open to suggestions...

((I get into trouble from time to time here but I am not running for election for the snake and crane catcher. Open minded?You say so. But many of your posts are primarily efforts to make the world remember Lee Shing. Yik Kam for Hendrik etc. Some others just have chest beating
or advertising. Now...I duck....))

joy chaudhuri

[couch]

This is not the System I am thinking about. I'm thinking about what makes Wing Chun Wing Chun y'know? What is unique about the System? How is a System learnt?

Food for thought and I'm still open to suggestions...

First problem: I can only give you my viewpoint/opinion/outlook/whatever.

Second problem: If this viewpoint doesn't match up with what you feel (not you as in YOU, but in everyone who wants Wing Chun to be what THEY want it to be), it will be discounted.

Ergo, I'm taking my Wing Chun and running with it in the direction I want to see it go.

[couch]

This is exactly my point. Do you think that the Sifus you mentioned actually 'knew' what you suggest? That all they were doing was promoting themselves?

I understand what you mean, but I'm referring directly to the system itself. The written references to exactly what Wing Chun 'is'. This is why I feel that everyone has their own independent views on 'what a bong sau is' etc because they haven't been taught the system, they've been taught someones own idea on what they think the system is!

We can't have it any other way.

Nor should it be any other way.

This is the essence of Kung-Fu: self-expression.

[Grumblegeezer]

"And why is it that this poll suggests the majority thinks Wing Chun is a System, but nobody can tell me exactly what that means or what the system 'is'?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that you expect too much from a chat list. The question deserves a systematic answer- not really possible on a chat list where attention spans are often short and sarcasm abounds

I can't speak for anyone but myself.Wing chun to me is both a system and an art. Bifurcation of science versus art misses the mark..Ip man's wing chun is quite deep..but as we know he taught unevenly-but that does not mean that he didn't know or that he always taught badly.

After all these years(since 1976) my fascination with the depth of the art continues-not based on dogma or blind faith or mechanical imitation...

But opinions can vary...understandable ona chat list.No worries. Chat lists are not serious things. Ok for listening and gabbing .

joy chaudhuri

Actually, this is a serious answer... and a very good one. Thanks Joy. --Steve

[Grumblegeezer]

Why is that?

And why is it that this poll suggests the majority thinks Wing Chun is a System, but nobody can tell me exactly what that means or what the system 'is'?

...I'm referring directly to the system itself. The written references to exactly what Wing Chun 'is'.

Spencer, the problem is that you are looking for one specific system... that is one "right way" to do things, with all other interpretations being considered "erroneous". I suggest you read Joy's response carefully. Wing Chun is both science and art. As a science, Wing Chun is logical and systemic.... and evolving! Science never reaches perfection nor stands still. And Wing Chun as art will be interpreted differently by each practitioner, just as a musical score, even if carefully written and annotated by the composer, will be interpreted differently by the musician that performs it.

Here's another way to look at it. When you ask those of us who practice a branch of Yip Man's WC to provide you with "the written system" you remind me of a story a rabbi once told me about the great Jewish scholar Hillel, who lived shortly before Jesus. As the story goes, Hillel was once confronted by a couple of troublesome, fault finding rabbis looking to catch him up. They began by asking him to summarize Torah "while standing on one foot" (i.e. "in a few words"). According to tradition, he responded by saying, "Be Loving to your neighbor as you would be to yourself, the rest is all just details".

Now you are asking us to summarize the varying systems (note the use of the plural) of Yip Man's WC "while standing on one foot". I'm no Hillel, but my response would be:

"Spring forward, Stick with what comes, Follow as it retreats, and thrust forward when the way is free". The rest is all just details.

Good luck in your further studies. --Steve