What are the pillars of Wing Chun ?

[stonecrusher69]

What would you consider to be the Pillars of the Wing Chun system? Is there consensus among all lineages?

[Vajramusti]

What would you consider to be the Pillars of the Wing Chun system? Is there consensus among all lineages?
---------------------------------------------------


A tower of Babel- much noise most of the time.

[David Jamieson]

What would you consider to be the Pillars of the Wing Chun system? Is there consensus among all lineages?

"Pillars" is a term I've only heard in context to Hung Gar.

To that end, Wing Chun that isn't modified, adapted, etc has:

Siu lin Tao
Chum Kiu
Biu Tze
6.5 Dragon Pole
8 cut knives


Those are the "pillar"s that do not include supplemental training such as sticky hands,108 wooden dummy, ring training etc.

[stonecrusher69]

"Pillars" is a term I've only heard in context to Hung Gar.

To that end, Wing Chun that isn't modified, adapted, etc has:

Siu lin Tao
Chum Kiu
Biu Tze
6.5 Dragon Pole
8 cut knives


Those are the "pillar"s that do not include supplemental training such as sticky hands,108 wooden dummy, ring training etc.


I was thinking more like the Centerline, and economy of motion would be 2 pillars.

[deejaye72]

Tan, Bong, and Fuk sao

[PalmStriker]

:) Yes. There are only 3 WingChun pillars. Here is a picture of them. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/carved-pillars-golden-dragon-chinese-temple-44049027.jpg

[stonecrusher69]

Tan, Bong, and Fuk sao


Pillars should be principles the systems is built on. Tan bong and fuk. Are not principles but techniques

[dlcox]

Pillars should be principles the systems is built on. Tan bong and fuk. Are not principles but techniques

I don't completely agree. Like the 12 Bridges of Hongjia, Tan (Spread), Bang (Wing) & Fu (Subdue) are conceptual and do not have to be confined to the restraints of a particular technique. I view them more as "Key Words" as opposed to any particular physical movement. That being said I don't necessarily agree that they are "Pillars" either.

[LFJ]

What would you consider to be the Pillars of the Wing Chun system? Is there consensus among all lineages?

First of all, I don't consider them different lineages of "the Wing Chun system". They've evolved into their own systems and some times only bear resemblance in forms, but much less in fighting or even fight theory.

That aside, what I would consider the "pillars" of the system I train would be "Simplicity, Directness, & Efficiency". All your centerline and economy of motion stuff should fit under these.

But then, I've seen people talk about these in other systems and actually not be direct or very efficient at all. So without examples, we could be saying the same thing while talking about something else. But for brevity sake, "Simplicity, Directness, & Efficiency".

[dlcox]

First of all, I don't consider them different lineages of "the Wing Chun system". They've evolved into their own systems and some times only bear resemblance in forms, but much less in fighting or even fight theory.

That aside, what I would consider the "pillars" of the system I train would be "Simplicity, Directness, & Efficiency". All your centerline and economy of motion stuff should fit under these.

But then, I've seen people talk about these in other systems and actually not be direct or very efficient at all. So without examples, we could be saying the same thing while talking about something else. But for brevity sake, "Simplicity, Directness, & Efficiency".


"Pillar" is certainly an ambiguous word to define and explain according to one's understanding of not only the methods employed but also, as LFJ said, the theory. I think it largely lays on one's personal focus, for instance I look upon "Simplicity, Directness & Efficiency" as general "Foundational Theory" not as "Pillars" even though they may be looked upon as standards. I tend to agree with David Jamison:


"Pillars" is a term I've only heard in context to Hung Gar.

To that end, Wing Chun that isn't modified, adapted, etc has:

Siu lin Tao
Chum Kiu
Biu Tze
6.5 Dragon Pole
8 cut knives


Those are the "pillar"s that do not include supplemental training such as sticky hands,108 wooden dummy, ring training etc.

Good topic, but I'm pessimistic as far as anyone coming to a general consensus, too much variation amongst the various branches in techniques, usage, theory etc.

[stonecrusher69]

I don't completely agree. Like the 12 Bridges of Hongjia, Tan (Spread), Bang (Wing) & Fu (Subdue) are conceptual and do not have to be confined to the restraints of a particular technique. I view them more as "Key Words" as opposed to any particular physical movement. That being said I don't necessarily agree that they are "Pillars" either.


Tan, Bong and fuk for example are found in other systems so that Imo could not be a pillar. Otherwise and style that was those techniques could say they are doing wing chun. Wing chun should mean something more then a name. I agree that wing chun has evolved and changed but if it still retains its core it's still wing chun imo.

[LFJ]

"Pillar" is certainly an ambiguous word to define and explain according to one's understanding of not only the methods employed but also, as LFJ said, the theory. I think it largely lays on one's personal focus, for instance I look upon "Simplicity, Directness & Efficiency" as general "Foundational Theory" not as "Pillars" even though they may be looked upon as standards.

Honestly, "pillars" is not a word I use and don't really know exactly what it refers to, but I was going by the OP's definition; "principles the system is built on".

The "Foundational Theory" is also the overall approach to combat, the principles (strategy). It's possible other MAs could share these principles (strategy) but what would set WC apart would be the concepts (tactics) for carrying out the strategy. In my VT, it's based around the use of the elbow.

[dlcox]

Tan, Bong and fuk for example are found in other systems so that Imo could not be a pillar. Otherwise and style that was those techniques could say they are doing wing chun. Wing chun should mean something more then a name. I agree that wing chun has evolved and changed but if it still retains its core it's still wing chun imo.


I agree, and think that is why the forms are the "Pillars". The forms are a recipe and contain all the necessary ingredients that constitute what is "your" Wing Chun. Unfortunately over the years the recipe has been tweaked to the taste of various individuals and no one can agree on the correct cooking time or flavor. Going backwards to compare common ingredients in order to rebuild the recipe has proven time and again futile.

[simondo]

Dan chi sau drills
Lok sau drills
Pak sau drils
Lap sau drills

[LFJ]

I think we should rephrase the OP's question with his own definition of "pillars"...

What are the main principles your Wing Chun system is based on?

[T.D.O]

What are the main principles your Wing Chun system is based on?


Structure and energy....

[deejaye72]

on further thought; i'm thinking a pillar of the system would be facing. facing would reflect centerline theory. without the centerline we're not doing wing chun, is that not the first thing we learn?, we stand facing even before we get into yim yeung ma, when we learn siu nim tao. anyhow, good discussion!!

[BillC.]

Tan (Spread), Bang (Wing) & Fu (Subdue) are conceptual and do not have to be confined to the restraints of a particular technique

Yes, I'd agree with that! They are not techniques.
They are not hand or arm shapes or the movements made with them.
They are concepts, so how they are applied is purely down to circumstance.