a reason for arguments

[JPinAZ]

I took this reply from another thread and started a new one with it. Hopefully it will spark some good discussion.

This quote was in regards to the bickering and in-fighting that goes on with regularity on WC forums, and in the WC 'community; in general, over who's WC is more right/wrong:


This just doesn't happen in the discussion of other systems. I have not heard any Judo guy said that his way is right and all other ways are wrong.

Why do you think this only happen in the WC discussion?

I've wondered this myself. I have a theory, and hopefully it is accepted as just that. IMO, it stems partially from people not getting the system from their teacher in it's entirety at some point yet still trying to protect their pot of gold (and maybe not even being able to realize what they do and don't have). How I see it, the system of WC should be the same across all lineages. Of course we see similarities among all branches/lineages to various degrees - because it is all WC! But even with an important concept as centerline, there are so many variations of understanding and misunderstanding. And IMO, this stems from the personal takes, interpretations and personal styles/preferences that get passed along as 'the system' when the system itself shouldn't change at all.

Now, if we look at the most popular version of WC with the largest student base, it would clearly be that from Ip Man – who ultimately put WC on the map and caused the large popularity we see today! But, within the various Ip Man lineages, we all-to-often often see people arguing over who got the 'real stuff' from him and who didn't. Who trained with him longer and when. Who lived with him and when and for how long. What's more 'correct' - the early years of hist teaching, the mids, or the end. And that's just his direct students (first generation). Unfortunately, this isn't something hard to miss.

Now, after a few more generations, what do we see today? Even more infighting which now include arguing within the separate branches and sub-branches that stem from his students. Even his own son's students argue that those from Ip Ching have it more correct than those form Ip Chun and visa versa. And on this forum we can see guys from within the WSL sub-branch doing things differently and occasionally arguing over what's really 'WSL wing chun'. Same with LT lines and sub branches, etc. Does anyone besides IM really know the answer? Probably not - but you'll get a lot of people telling you they do ;)

Now, I'm not saying one way or the other in regards to Ip Man having or not having a complete system, I wasn't there so I don't know and is really beside the point. What I am saying is, it's clear not everyone got the same version of the ‘system’ from him. Which tends to bring in personal interpretations, styles and flavors, prefered fighting methods & techniques, etc as a result. And these things can get passed down as 'the system' even when they're really not. Which also results in people not calling it 'ip man wing chun' anymore and having a different students/grand-student's name on it. And that's fine, but the question is about all the right/wrong arguing that goes on in WC.

In the end, I think the above example results in everyone's ego and/or insecurities driving their unwillingness to admit they still might have more to learn and approaching things with an open mind. Example: If Sifu X goes around for 15 years saying they have the goods because their Sigung spent more time with GM Z in his later years (aka better years) of his teaching than any of the other students of GM Z, why would Sifu X then be open to admitting maybe he didn't? That wouldn't make him look too good eh?

Now to the point: Without safeguards to protect the technology of the actual WC system (not just a curriculum), you're going to get what I listed above. After training in Ip Man WC for a bit and then training HFY for many years now, I have found there are actual safeguards, checks & balances built into the system that help avoid this type of thing from happening (at least in HFY lineage). And before anyone misconstrues what I'm saying, I'm not saying that HFY is any better/worse than another lineage either. My point is, it's these safeguards that help preserve the actual concepts & principles of the HFY WC system from changing thru the generations. Of course it doesn't work if a student doesn't complete their training and then goes out on his own and starts teaching. You'd have the same thing all over again that I listed above. And that's where lineage and naming of successor(s) comes into factor. Only the Buhn Jyun of the HFY system can name successors based on several levels of qualifications and the student's understanding & demonstration of the core principles of the system. And we still go by this within the our lineage as a safeguard for preserving HFY for future generations

So, it makes me wonder if it's true when people say Ip Man didn't really want to teach and only did so out of necessity. If that's so, maybe he wasn't fully interested in passing on the system in it's entirety to just one person, but more just giving people what he felt they needed at the time. Maybe he wasn't interested in preserving the system or a lineage. And probably why he never openly named a successor.... But it sure has caused a bit of a mess that we see today :(

[wingchunIan]

A couple of points from my perspective. Firstly your perception of IP chun and IP ching claiming to be better than each other is off base, they actually have mutual respect and recognise each others strengths and weaknesses, the same is true of TST and also the late WSL. They all frequently taught alongside each other and most of the politics only surfaces in subsequent generations. As for other arts having more or less in fighting there are a couple of aggravating factors. Firstly as wing chun has no competition element claims of superiority go untested whereas in judo, tkd, MT etc the proof is in the competition results. Secondly as wing chun is so popular there is money to be made and so aggressive marketing is common ( karate went through exactly the same thing in the eighties)

[JPinAZ]

A couple of points from my perspective. Firstly your perception of IP chun and IP ching claiming to be better than each other is off base, they actually have mutual respect and recognise each others strengths and weaknesses, the same is true of TST and also the late WSL. They all frequently taught alongside each other and most of the politics only surfaces in subsequent generations. As for other arts having more or less in fighting there are a couple of aggravating factors. Firstly as wing chun has no competition element claims of superiority go untested whereas in judo, tkd, MT etc the proof is in the competition results. Secondly as wing chun is so popular there is money to be made and so aggressive marketing is common ( karate went through exactly the same thing in the eighties)

I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to the STUDENTS of the son's that argue this (Ip Ching and Ip Chun's downlines): "Even his own son's students argue that those from Ip Ching have it more correct than those form Ip Chun and visa versa. ".
This has even played out here on this form on occasion.

But I do agree with your other 2 reasons as well, and they go hand in hand - If you don't compete, no one can call you on any BS you might be selling :)

[YouKnowWho]

The dragon has 9 kids. They all look different. One of the dragon's kid is a turtule. I have always believed that technique has no standard. It all depends on how your opponent may react to it.

[tc101]

Arguments over what is right or what is good or what is bad either take place in the ring or on the mat for arts like bjj boxing mma or through words for people who do not get in the ring or out on the mats since that is their only venue for argument.

[jesper]

this isnt just going on in WC community. I have heard these types of arguments in both tkd and karate.

[Ozzy Dave]

True but I think WC is actually a victim of its own (modern?) emphasis on concepts. Styles that are more balanced in their emphasis of concept v’s technique are more forgiving of variations between different teachers whatever generation.

IMO the inevitable result of over emphasis on concepts makes an art more abstract, attractive to intellectuals and more an ideology than a martial art.

Dave

[YouKnowWho]

WC is actually a victim of its own (modern?) emphasis on concepts.

Agree! In the throwing art, if you can take your opponent down, nobody will say that your "structure", "alignment", "angle", or "engine" is not correct. When you can see the end result, there isn't much to argue about.

[wingchunIan]

Agree! In the throwing art, if you can take your opponent down, nobody will say that your "structure", "alignment", "angle", or "engine" is not correct. When you can see the end result, there isn't much to argue about.

not true at all mate that's like saying if I attend a judo class pick up the smallest guy in the room \ a kid and throw him \ her to the ground then I have nothing else to learn. This of course is not true and my lack of structure , alignment, angle, "engine" or any other element of good technique would lead to my attempts proving futile against anyone bigger, stronger or more experienced than me

[wingchunIan]

I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to the STUDENTS of the son's that argue this (Ip Ching and Ip Chun's downlines): "Even his own son's students argue that those from Ip Ching have it more correct than those form Ip Chun and visa versa. ".
This has even played out here on this form on occasion.

But I do agree with your other 2 reasons as well, and they go hand in hand - If you don't compete, no one can call you on any BS you might be selling :)

can you underline key points in the original post next time to avoid the confusion for people reading late at night :p

[YouKnowWho]

not true at all mate that's like saying if I attend a judo class pick up the smallest guy in the room \ a kid and throw him \ her to the ground then I have nothing else to learn. This of course is not true and my lack of structure , alignment, angle, "engine" or any other element of good technique would lead to my attempts proving futile against anyone bigger, stronger or more experienced than me

Of course I'm not talking about the smallest guy in the class. If you can walk into a Judo school and be abe to throw all the students there, you can just walk out because that Judo teacher will have nothing to teach you.

Some system such as Judo doesn't teach structure/alignment/engine/ ..., their structure/alignment/engine/... are developed from their partner drills and wrestling.

The structure/alignment/engine/... are relative and not absolute. It's very difficult to say whether your structure/alignment/engine/... is better than your opponent's or the other way around unless you two have a physical match.

If 2 Judo guys both have trained for 10 years. It's difficult (if not impossible) to say which one has better structure/alignment/engine. If we can stay away from talking about those abstract terms, there will be less argument for sure.

Someone made comment that my "6 harmony" is not perfect. I had nothing to argue with him. What can I argue if someone says that I'm not handsome enough?

[GlennR]

True but I think WC is actually a victim of its own (modern?) emphasis on concepts. Styles that are more balanced in their emphasis of concept v’s technique are more forgiving of variations between different teachers whatever generation.

Thats a great poinr youve made about balance Dave. Everyone goes on about WC concepts but there is real technique that is often pushed to one side.


IMO the inevitable result of over emphasis on concepts makes an art more abstract, attractive to intellectuals and more an ideology than a martial art.


Beautifully put.

[wingchunIan]

Some system such as Judo doesn't teach structure/alignment/engine/ ..., their structure/alignment/engine/... are developed from their partner drills and wrestling.


again I would disagree, the terminology used may be different but the notion of constantly reflecting on and improving the core elements that make the techniques work is there in every art including grappling of all kinds. In wing chun if a person's structure is poor then there is an area that can be improved to make what they are doing more effective (even if it already works) similarly in grappling arts such as Judo positioning of the fulcrum, amount of drive, position of COG, hand position, type of grip etc etc can be and are analysed by coaches to help improve students / competitors. At higher levels all of these things should already be in place and experience then tells the practitioner how far away from perfect they can deviate if needs be to still be effective. When analysing a grappling match after the event a coach will always be looking for reasons why certain things didn't work, much of the time this will highlight something the opponent did to negate the move in question or will show that timing was wrong etc but if there are flaws in execution identified you can put money on the fact that the fighter in question will be drilling the move identified to put things right.
As an aside I have a friend who plays Judo at a high level (just missed out on the British Olympic team), watching Judo with him is a whole different ball game and his commentary often includes pointing out why something didn't work or why it wont work (whilst the person's trying for it) based on the body structure, foot position, hand position, hip position etc or the person needing to drive more through the legs. Things that I just nod at and smile as although I find it fascinating I have to watch back in slow mo' to even have a chance of seeing what he's on about.

[Ozzy Dave]

...the notion of constantly reflecting on and improving the core elements that make the techniques work...

Can unfortunately become an end in itself and for the discussion at hand a source of argument between WC players that bemuses, and with a good dose of superiority complex, irritates other MAists.

I think you are reading more into YouKnowWho's comments than was meant.

The point is that the ends simply justify the means and concepts are only validated by ends not by focusing on the means.

Dave

[YouKnowWho]

if a person's structure is poor then there is an area that can be improved to make what they are doing more effective ...

Let's just assume this is a general TCMA issue. How will you help your students to improve their "structure"?

I'll use the following methods.

1. equipment training:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwSS8FmgJ3c

2. partner training:

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

[JPinAZ]

Agree! In the throwing art, if you can take your opponent down, nobody will say that your "structure", "alignment", "angle", or "engine" is not correct.

Ahh, but they may argue as to why the guy that was thrown had bad structure, alignment, angle, etc which lead to him being thrown. ;)

[YouKnowWho]

Ahh, but they may argue as to why the guy that was thrown had bad structure, alignment, angle, etc which lead to him being thrown. ;)

If

- you kill your opponent, everything that you did wrong won't matter.
- your opponent kills you, everything that you did right won't matter either. :D

[JPinAZ]

Let's just assume this is a general TCMA issue. How will you help your students to improve their "structure"?

I'll use the following methods.

1. equipment training:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwSS8FmgJ3c

2. partner training:

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

Hi John,

While I regularly enjoy your POV on things, WC 'structure' is very specific. So general TCMA's issues for improving structure don't mean much for a WC discussion.

WC structure is based of key positions of body parts: Elbow position (height, width depth), body connection (elbow to hip, to knee, to heel), etc. IMO, there isn't much equipment training that can 'improve' this besides hitting mitts and wall bags.
Now, TESTING of WC structure can be done anywhere from simple static structure tests to fixed partner drills and up to live sparring. But there's a lot that also needs to be looked at in order to have this 'good structure' to be applicable during the more live testing. (things like facing, spacial awareness, position, contact & leverage points, etc)

But this is getting a bit off subject yeah?

[YouKnowWho]

But this is getting a bit off subject yeah?
Are we still talking about a reason for arguments? One of the arguments is "WC is different from other TCMA systems". :D

I don't think WC structure is any different from other TCMA systems. When you stand in the posture of "left Tan Shou, right vertical punch", if your opponet rushes into your front or into your side, and be able to modify your body alignment, you will have general structure issue no matter what style that you may train. If your body just absorb the impack and then bounce back to your original body alignment, you will have good structure. Different TCMA system may like to use different posture to test it.

If you have "structure" you should be able to apply in whatever the style that you are training. Should you have your "structure" before your style, or the other way around? That can be another interest discussion.

[JPinAZ]

Hello JPinAZ,
I think part of the reason for all the drama is, partly, because of language barriers.
Example: recently someone asked about the name of a motion(s) from 2nd form. Several answers were given...none of which I've even heard of. Doesn't mean they are right or I'm right/wrong, etc it just illustrates the language barrier issue.

This is further compounded by a lack of face-to-face meetings to physically "discuss" the variances you speak of. Application is the only way to compare and therefore verify "who got what and does their stuff work". Etc.

And to add to this even more: in WC, you have rule followers, rule benders, and rule breakers...with each group believing they are right. This stems from peoples' interpretation of the major theories of WC... for example, you mentioned 'centerline'. Your ability and willingness to "use" that principle may differ from mine.
And then, extend that example to the rest of the theories and principles and applications of all of WC's tools, and presto...confusion and "he said/she said".
Another example, you recently asked for input about the above mentioned 2nd form motions. If I responded with my applications for those, it may drastically differ from yours and your overall view of what looks "right" for HFY WC. Now, you could also call me a "rule bender" and "your applications are not WC". Great. And so we'd agree to disagree perhaps 59 forum pages later.
Sorry for the rant...just typing out what my mind is telling me as I was reading your original post.
I agree it should generate some very interesting discussion! :)

I agree, up to a point! While language can surely be an issue today, back when Ip Man was teaching his students it wasn't an issue since the language was common to all. Yet they all still seem to have gotten different things & understanding and taught differently from one another even in that first generation. Which is where my theory on quality control and no successor makes a lot of sense.

As for rule breaking, I think this is a great point as well. The issue I see is the rules should be the same across the board for WC practitioners, since the art is really about physics, laws of nature witht he goal being fighing as efficiently and closest to maximal efficiency as possible.
But then I guess it depends on how we define the actual 'rules'. For me, they are the principles/concepts that we operate under. Shortest distance to target, only one object can occupy one space at one time, self centerline for self gravity, a-to-b centerline, leverage and position, etc. IMO, these things should be constant for any WC practitioner since they should be based on physics, but somewhere along the way definitions and understanding of these things have changed.
And this IMO is what causes all the differing ideas at the technique level - the rules are not the same when they should be.

Of course, this is all based on 'my' understanding of the rules :) But at one point all WC had the same common rules. The question I pose is where and why did these changes, misunderstandings, etc start happening..

[JPinAZ]

a reason for arguments

I don't think WC structure is any different from other TCMA systems. When you stand in the posture of "left Tan Shou, right vertical punch", if your opponet rushes into your front or into your side, and be able to modify your body alignment, you will have general structure issue no matter what style that you may train. If your body just absorb the impack and then bounce back to your original body alignment, you will have good structure. Different TCMA system may like to use different posture to test it.

If you have "structure" you should be able to apply in whatever the style that you train.

Well yeah, at some application level sure, you are right. If we look at things from leverage, COG, postion, etc, I agree in some cases. But again, you use the word 'general'. Once you move past generalities, the concepts and principles of WC are far different from those of, say, karate or judo. And this dictates structure usage. But really, if there is no differences, why are there so many arts? ;)

Again, this is getting off topic. Let's try to stick to the topic at hand, or maybe move this discussion to another thread? thanks!

[tc101]

I agree, up to a point! While language can surely be an issue today, back when Ip Man was teaching his students it wasn't an issue since the language was common to all. Yet they all still seem to have gotten different things & understanding and taught differently from one another even in that first generation. Which is where my theory on quality control and no successor makes a lot of sense.
.

Boxing bjj mt mma and the rest if the combative sports do not have a successor and the only quality control is performance itself and they seem to be doing just fine. I think when people see that there can really be no such thing as a successor and why there can't and how having a successor and wanting a successor is all wrapped up together it changes their whole way of thinking.

[tc101]

Of course, this is all based on 'my' understanding of the rules :) But at one point all WC had the same common rules. The question I pose is where and why did these changes, misunderstandings, etc start happening..

I have to give you credit for being very thought provoking.

How can we say at one time that all wing chun had the same common rules as you put it? What if wing chun was developed by a group over the course of time?

Change is natural when we put the individual and his performance above preserving in stone the system itself. The changes, misunderstandings and the rest is not the sign of a problem it is a good sign. Boxing is a perfect example of how these are strengths not weaknesses.

[JPinAZ]

I have to give you credit for being very thought provoking.

How can we say at one time that all wing chun had the same common rules as you put it? What if wing chun was developed by a group over the course of time?

Change is natural when we put the individual and his performance above preserving in stone the system itself. The changes, misunderstandings and the rest is not the sign of a problem it is a good sign. Boxing is a perfect example of how these are strengths not weaknesses.

I probably wasn't clear in my point. I agree, WC was surely developed by a group over time and not just by a girl watching some animals fight. And it most likely wasn't developed by 3 separate groups in different locations.
So, that 1 group most likely understood WC all the same way because they were all there. And during that time, it's more than safe to say WC rules were probably all the same, even if they were still being refined, discovered, etc during the developmental stage of the art, yeah? Another way to look at it, it's probably safe to Ip Man's 'version'/system of WC was constant after his own learning of the system was complete. Sure he might have refined his usage of the art, as well as approaches to teaching, but that's no the system. That's personal art and curriculum.

And look how many 'versions' we have today of that one man's system. Something's changed. While change is natural, but not all change is 'good' either. IMO, WC is a complete art and only change will degrade it today. And I'm not talking about curriculum or teaching approaches or which technique someone prefers better..:)

[tc101]

I probably wasn't clear in my point. I agree, WC was surely developed by a group over time and not just by a girl watching some animals fight. And it most likely wasn't developed by 3 separate groups in different locations.
So, that 1 group most likely understood WC all the same way because they were all there.


I don't know what you mean by understood wing chun the same way.



And during that time, it's more than safe to say WC rules were probably all the same, even if they were still being refined, discovered, etc during the developmental stage of the art, yeah?


If by rules you mean general guidelines I can agree with you. I see wing chun just like boxing bjj and so on as still and always in the developmental phase as you call it.



Another way to look at it, it's probably safe to Ip Man's 'version'/system of WC was constant after his own learning of the system was complete. Sure he might have refined his usage of the art, as well as approaches to teaching, but that's no the system. That's personal art and curriculum.

And look how many 'versions' we have today of that one man's system. Something's changed. While change is natural, but not all change is 'good' either. IMO, WC is a complete art and only change will degrade it today. And I'm not talking about curriculum or teaching approaches or which technique someone prefers better..:)

I do not think Yip Man's art was ever constant or complete but that he was continually tinkering with the art and his curriculum and so forth. I do not think wing chun is a complete art because there is no such thing as a complete art. I learned and my experience so far has confirmed that wing chun has some general guidelines or concepts or principles that can be widely expressed and that is what makes the art adaptive and allows it to be tailored to the individual. We just have a very different view of the art.

[EternalSpring]

It all comes down to one thing:

The reason for arguments amongst any martial artists stems from wanting to talk more than wanting to fight/train or otherwise prove the stuff being discussed.

This also touches on the second law of the universe: If you cant prove/demonstrate the thing you're arguing about with your own body and ability, you really shouldn't be one of the apologists for that specific topic/issue.

[WC1277]

I think it comes down to something already very prevalent in the Human Condition. Take the Bible for example. There's literalists. There's those who consider "the law" as in organizations like the Catholic church, and then there's "jack christians", so to speak. There's also those who just appreciate the overall message.

Wing Chun is no different. We have this great body of knowledge that all involved recognize as very important and the Human Condition just follows...

[k gledhill]

Agree, those who drink nearer the source can see dilution clearer in those drinking further away. Some are happy to drink their " flavor " , while the undiluted scream heresy. Lilliputian issues come to mind ; ), storm in a tea-cup....

[Wayfaring]

Agree, those who drink nearer the source can see dilution clearer in those drinking further away. Some are happy to drink their " flavor " , while the undiluted scream heresy. Lilliputian issues come to mind ; ), storm in a tea-cup....

This is the kind of viewpoint competition and realistic testing eliminates as hogwash. For a while there was talk in BJJ about "pure water" being taught by a certain group. That lasted until they got smoked the next year in a local competition. Then that talk kind of died out.

Unfortunately, that kind of thing doesn't happen in the WCK world. So what you wind up with is widespread mediocrity, and a few pockets of delusional "pure water".

[k gledhill]

This is the kind of viewpoint competition and realistic testing eliminates as hogwash. For a while there was talk in BJJ about "pure water" being taught by a certain group. That lasted until they got smoked the next year in a local competition. Then that talk kind of died out.

Unfortunately, that kind of thing doesn't happen in the WCK world. So what you wind up with is widespread mediocrity, and a few pockets of delusional "pure water".

Agree again ! Without testing your stuff with others it's easy to isolate your ideas in a closed club house, room without any resisting ideas. Or make unfounded assumptions based on " sifu said " cra p.

[Yoshiyahu]

I remember my sifu's teacher use to have his students challenge other martial schools...it didnt matter if you were chinese, korean, american, or japaneses...if you did wing chun in his kwoon you had to fight...if you won the match against visitors or other schools you would be giving a break from hard conditioning training...if you loss you had do conditioning until your arms locked up.

Basically people who never touched hands with them will say there wing chun is crap...but at the end of the day those they fought would agree they had real gung fu!!!

An thats what matters...NOT lineage or some strange history...But who wins the fights...

An thats how todays present legends became pedigree lineages...by winning fights...not by how traditional their wing chun was!

[JPinAZ]

I remember my sifu's teacher use to have his students challenge other martial schools...it didnt matter if you were chinese, korean, american, or japaneses...if you did wing chun in his kwoon you had to fight...if you won the match against visitors or other schools you would be giving a break from hard conditioning training...if you loss you had do conditioning until your arms locked up.

Basically people who never touched hands with them will say there wing chun is crap...but at the end of the day those they fought would agree they had real gung fu!!!

An thats what matters...NOT lineage or some strange history...But who wins the fights...

An thats how todays present legends became pedigree lineages...by winning fights...not by how traditional their wing chun was!

IMO, this is a perfect example of issues with WC today.
Isn't your teacher's teacher Robert McField? From everything that can be found about him, he promotes peace and the word of God, not going out challenging or picking fights with other schools...

Is this what you mean by the 'fighting' and real gung fu they do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSkHNxuyWkQ

[JPinAZ]

Sorry, missed this :)


I don't know what you mean by understood wing chun the same way.

Same undestanding of the core principles and concepts of WCK. And it's pretty safe to assmue the founders of WC were all on the same page at the time.


If by rules you mean general guidelines I can agree with you. I see wing chun just like boxing bjj and so on as still and always in the developmental phase as you call it.

By 'rules, I was using it as a loose term again for the concepts/principles of the WCK system.

I think we disagree here regarding the WCK system being like boxing and BJJ. Yes, I agree that your own personal skill level will always be developing, but the system itself has been 'set' for quite some time, at least in my experience and understanding. And, some of the evolution seen with BJJ, Boxing MMA, etc has been driven partially by rule & equipment changes simply because they are more sport driven styles or arts. Not saying they aren't also good forms of self defense, but MMA's creation was because of sporting events, so it's a bit different than the system of WCK's creation and initial usage yeah?


I do not think Yip Man's art was ever constant or complete but that he was continually tinkering with the art and his curriculum and so forth. I do not think wing chun is a complete art because there is no such thing as a complete art. I learned and my experience so far has confirmed that wing chun has some general guidelines or concepts or principles that can be widely expressed and that is what makes the art adaptive and allows it to be tailored to the individual. We just have a very different view of the art.

Again, art & curriculum are seperate from WCK system from my POV. I agree that curriculum can change and vary on any number of factors (student's given skill level, time necessary for training, etc). But things like principles shouldn't, and IMO , can't change. How can you change the laws of nature? Things like shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, or 2 objects can't occupy the same space at the same time are constants yeah?

Anyway, thanks for the good discussion and I appreciate your POV, even if we might not agree on everything :)

[Yoshiyahu]

YES HE IS A CHRISTIAN TODAY...an feels that WC is should be use for health...he also trying to advocate tai chi and proper nutrition...He is over 50 now...but when he was in his 30's his wing chun was all about the fight...When you been fighting hard for ten to 15 years an get older you do the WC for other reasons not the fight!!!!



IMO, this is a perfect example of issues with WC today.
Isn't your teacher's teacher Robert McField? From everything that can be found about him, he promotes peace and the word of God, not going out challenging or picking fights with other schools...

Is this what you mean by the 'fighting' and real gung fu they do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSkHNxuyWkQ

[Eric_H]

Ali i dont know...maybe he is a hater...or maybe he is a fake WC guy who hates wing chun that actually works in a fight!!!

Is there any evidence beyond biased testimony that your grandteacher's WC "works in a fight?"

I wasn't there during his 30's, but if what he shows today is representative, I can see where some things might work and some things might not.

What does this have to do with the thread topic other than being an example of fanboyism?

[JPinAZ]

YES HE IS A CHRISTIAN TODAY...an feels that WC is should be use for health...he also trying to advocate tai chi and proper nutrition...He is over 50 now...but when he was in his 30's his wing chun was all about the fight...When you been fighting hard for ten to 15 years an get older you do the WC for other reasons not the fight!!!!

Sure, he probably got into fights himself back in the day, and it's good that he is looking to advocate good health and well being for his students.

But, you were talking about him requiring all of his studentsto fight and also to go challenge other schools, regardless of the color of their skin (which has nothing to do with anything:rolleyes:) . And, if they lost, you did more training until your arms locked up'.
But in the clip, he talks about finding God BEFORE he opened his school in 1997, and that it exactly this reason that lead lead him to open a school in which he promotes peace. So can you see why none of this adds up at all?
Listen @1:25 http://www.lcmakc.com/videos.htm

[guy b.]

I think we disagree here regarding the WCK system being like boxing and BJJ. Yes, I agree that your own personal skill level will always be developing, but the system itself has been 'set' for quite some time, at least in my experience and understanding. And, some of the evolution seen with BJJ, Boxing MMA, etc has been driven partially by rule & equipment changes simply because they are more sport driven styles or arts.

Bjj is possibly the most principle driven martial art in the world

[guy b.]

The reason for arguments here is that most people are not satisfied with their wing chun and so we have this odd Stockholm syndrome thing where the MMA crew stalk around the forum abusing everything to do with wing chun while the wing chun people do not have the confidence to stand up for themselves and so look to belittle each other to make themselves feel better.

[PalmStriker]

If that were the case, everyone on the WC forum would have their heads up their assets. :D No truth in what you posted. Funny, though. :) https://www.google.com/search?q=pictures+of+wing+chun+kungfu+masters,+chi na&client=firefox-a&hs=dun&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=y0WxUdnuJ4HhygHeiICgCg&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1440&bih=807#facrc=_&imgrc=KFNcFHKQOJQ_QM%3A%3BtRytfq2GZYPRZM%3Bhttp%25 3A%252F%252Fi46.tinypic.com%252F9qibk4.jpg%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fold.tactools.org%252F116-dummy-techniques-wing-chun-kung-fu-training-dvd%252F%3B500%3B300

[PalmStriker]

The real reason is: If we weren't arguing about kungfu stuff, we wouldn't have much to say at all. Get over it or practice something else. It's a given, part of TCMA. :)

[anerlich]

WC arguments were well established way before MMA or this forum were conceived.

[anerlich]

A few posts got deleted from this thread.

[guy b.]

A few posts got deleted from this thread.

why, was there some kind of argument?

[JPinAZ]

A few posts got deleted from this thread.

Some of mine included, but you'll get no complaints from me!


Bjj is possibly the most principle driven martial art in the world

Even from my limited understanding I woulnd't disagree, and never intended to say otherwise. But, I'd say it's probalby the second most principle driven art, I'll let you guess at which I would say is the first :p

[guy b.]

Even from my limited understanding I woulnd't disagree, and never intended to say otherwise. But, I'd say it's probalby the second most principle driven art, I'll let you guess at which I would say is the first :p

Actually I think you are correct!

[anerlich]

why, was there some kind of argument?

I doubt it, they weren't overly contentious IMO and there was no argument that I saw. Probably some technical glitch or similar.

[PalmStriker]

I removed my "Cantoneezy" Opera posts. :D Encore, anyone? http://www.priscillapresleyng.com/unique-website-design-cantonese-opera-culture/