Principles and Concepts in WCK

[desertwingchun2]

From the LJ thread ....

IMO principles and concepts are at the core of and govern WCK. When someone goes outside those parameters one ceases playing WCK. Don't get me wrong, it may be effective. But, at that moment, when the principles and concepts are violated it is no longer WCK. - DWC2

Jim Roselando wrote:

Maybe this is a good way to start a new topic. Since the Leung Jan WC seems to be turning into this topic! We might as well allow for that to have its own place to blossom!

Second. The last post is on the money IMO. Thats why I would like to hear others thoughts?

Regards,


__________________
Jim

Is this what you had in mind Jim?

-David

[TjD]

i totally agree.

i would draw the line where once you stop using tan/fook/bong, or stop using the SLT method of power generation and structure, you're not doing wing chun.

IMHO, that is all we need.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

... it may be effective. But, at that moment, when the principles and concepts are violated it is no longer WCK. - DWC2

IMO, For Wing Chun to be Wing Chun, one's actions have to be harmonious. Killing a drunk in a bar fight may be an effective way to end the confrontation, but was it harmonious? Was there anything else that could have been done?
With moderate skill, quite probably. This means that the death was probably a violation of Wing Chun principles. With high-level skill, most probably. This means that the death was almost certainly a violation of Wing Chun principles. With no skill, it may have been a life or death situation, and the death may have been the necessary result for the victor's survival. This would not be a violation of Wing Chun principles - doing what needs to be done. In the other two examples, the death would be above and beyond what was necessary in that situation, and would therefore not be in accordance with the nature of the situation (a martial artist vs. a drunk.)

Efficiency implies the optimal use of resources. If I have 5 guys coming at me after a ball game and I sound my Compressed air horn, startling them, perhaps gaining the attention of onlookers (sometimes a deterrent, sometimes not - often depends on their level of intoxication), and gaining a momentary advantage in initiative from which to escape, take out the tough guy, reach for the fire hose, whatever. Many choices may be effective, but not all may be harmonious.

Harmony implies universal efficiency - efficiency based not around the speed at which a life is taken, but around the maintenance of balance with the universe and one's connection with reality, and if it requires that you put your 3rd knuckle through someone's temple, so be it. That's what had to be done. 95+% of the time it's not necessary.

No intention to harmonize = no Wing Chun.

Xiao3 Meng4

[canglong]

Good Idea Jim Roselando and David.

When thinking about principles and concepts I am reminded that we have all heard the wise, excellent and correct words of guidance from our sifu that goes...don't copy or mimic me but create and express your own wing chun identity. What does this mean?

Here goes...as students we need to be able to understand the concepts and principles that govern WCK thoroughly and completely. As a point of refernce lets visit the debate as to wether or not most practitioners are practicing enough against real resistance. Some have said the way to enlightenment as far as understanding WCK is to practice with real resistance and the more you do this the better your WCK will become. To think that when your unsuccessful application of your wing chun is only the result of not enough practice is more than misleading its wrong. If you take a senior student and a first day student and have the senior student demostrate the proper application of bong sau and then ask the first day student to execute the same procedure the differences should be glaring?
Then give the first day student the concept, principles and proper structure that govern bong sau and with that understanding the first day student should be able to properly execute bong sau. The point is that when we can think independtly of what has been shown to us and correctly reproduce what we know to be true then and only then are we expressing our own wing chun identity seperate and apart from our sifu. So in otherwords we are not failing in our application becuase of deficiencies
in our attributes alone but even before that we fail to understand the principles that govern the proper execution of wck. If you practice wck do you thoroughly and completely understand the nature, concept and principles of taan bong fuk? Or is that another thread

[anerlich]

I personally reject the notion of any moral, metaphysical, or spiritual dimension to Wing Chun.

Wing Chun is a set of tools for fighting. They can be used for good or ill. It's not a religion, system of physical culture or social program. It is has roots in Chinese culture and religion but is not bound or beholden to them.

To assign a moral or similar dimension to Wing Chun is IMO to abrogate or at least mitigate your personal responsibility for such.

IMO both holy man and psychopath (Q - can the two classes intersect?) both have the capacity to become excellent WC practitioners.

IMO WC is defined by the forms (including dummy and weapons) and the kuen kuit.

[kj]

Originally posted by anerlich
IMO both holy man and psychopath (Q - can the two classes intersect?)

If we're talking about classes of human beings, without doubt.

both have the capacity to become excellent WC practitioners.

Some would argue. (Not me though.)

IMO WC is defined by the forms (including dummy and weapons) and the kuen kuit.

Whose forms? Whose Kuen Kuit? When someone adds to, subtracts from, or modifies these, then what? Are all interpretations equally valid?

Age old questions, and without consensus, I know.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[desertwingchun2]

Yes and no, IMO. As I presently see it, the concepts and principles are not rules written in stone that one must strictly adhere to but rather are guidelines that generally best enable us to fight with WCK's approach (hence their value); and as with all guidelines, there are exceptions and situations where "breaking the rules" is the best thing to do. TN

Terence, As not to hijack the LJ thread, I shifted your comments to this thread. Hope you don't mind.

I agree that sometimes the best thing to do my be construed as outside WC concepts and principles. So, when you are "breaking the rules" are you still doing WCK? If so, will you please cite an example?

-David

[t_niehoff]

anerlich wrote:

Wing Chun is a set of tools for fighting. They can be used for good or ill. It's not a religion, system of physical culture or social program. It is has roots in Chinese culture and religion but is not bound or beholden to them. . . To assign a moral or similar dimension to Wing Chun is IMO to abrogate or at least mitigate your personal responsibility for such. AN

I completely agree. And this thinking is reflected in remarks by some of the art's best, like Wong Sheung Leung. TN

----------------


desertwingchun 2 writes:

I agree that sometimes the best thing to do my be construed as outside WC concepts and principles. So, when you are "breaking the rules" are you still doing WCK? If so, will you please cite an example? DW2

I don't look at it in those terms. For me, there is no such thing as "doing WCK" (such thinking is misguided IMO). We are training to fight; WCK is a training platform for a particular approach toward fighting (which has flexibility within that approach). The principles, tools, etc. of WCK are those things that help us implement that approach, not define that approach. I'm not suggesting an "anything goes" approach though -- I'm saying that conditions and situations are an important factor. For example, I heard of a time when Sum Nung had a fight against several people while on a crowded bus and he hung from the overhead handgrips while kicking his opponents -- no root, primarily kicking, etc. isn't what most people would think of WCK. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Hi,

"i would draw the line where once you stop using tan/fook/bong, or stop using the SLT method of power generation and structure, you're not doing wing chun."

I sometimes think WCK is all in the Chung Choi from Kim Yeung Ma, and everything else is there to help us make up for it taking a long time to get a darn good CC from KYM.

"IMO, For Wing Chun to be Wing Chun, one's actions have to be harmonious. Killing a drunk in a bar fight may be an effective way to end the confrontation, but was it harmonious? Was there anything else that could have been done?"

IMHO, that morality is imposed on WCK by the individual and is not part of WCK. Older WCK writing describes a vicious, merciless, application (some drawn from classics). However, there are many annectdotes of WCK masters being incredibly merciful during their fights (Yuen Kay-San especially). So, rather than a requirement for WCK to be WCK, I think this is rather a respect that develops from the ability to do great harm.

Anerlich - They intersect, unfortunately, all too often. Martial arts are also very appealing to some borderline or even presenting personality traits.

KJ -

"Whose forms? Whose Kuen Kuit? When someone adds to, subtracts from, or modifies these, then what? Are all interpretations equally valid?"

IMHO, this is the reason it transcends form, yet within the Cho SLT, the Sum Nung SLT, CK, & BJ, within the Fung's 12, etc. we can still find the same core, and it is that core, rather than any of the well thought out, progressive, and handy-reminder manifestations passed on to us, that help define us.

David - "So, when you are "breaking the rules" are you still doing WCK? If so, will you please cite an example?"

The exceptions that define the rules? 8) We are supposed to Mai Jarn, yet we have Bong Sao and Lan Sao. We are supposed to maintain specific alignments and measures, yet we have moves in BJ to recover them. We are supposed to follow specific paths but when our opponents apply other vectors, how do we cause the end resultant to still be on that path?

Terence - Sum Nung was stepping off a bus at the time, and made use of the conditions to gain a favorable result. Among YKS' writings are these gems "the method is from the ancestors", "the key is adapting to current conditions".

[TjD]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Me:"i would draw the line where once you stop using tan/fook/bong, or stop using the SLT method of power generation and structure, you're not doing wing chun."

I sometimes think WCK is all in the Chung Choi from Kim Yeung Ma, and everything else is there to help us make up for it taking a long time to get a darn good CC from KYM.

for the most part i agree - however, everything else is all fueled by that same KYM. the steps and turning with good power utilize the KYM and what it tells us. that energy gained from pushing the pelvis foward is required for a good wing chun step. its also required for a good wing chun turn. when its used, i dont view these as any different than SLT's KYM. in my mind (and as my goal), i think all movement should contain the KYM.

in other words, the stuff seem to be calling extraneous i think of as more of an extension to KYM because of its ability to dynamically create power and move while still being rooted.


however, you got quite a few more years of WC under your belt than me

[reneritchie]

for the most part i agree - however, everything else is all fueled by that same KYM.

Sure, just like tan, fook, bong, etc. can be feuled by that same Chung Choi. If it's intercepted, we have to change and ask again, if our opponent requires us to change our horse for positional advantage, we do so and ask again. But if they can't, we won't need to, and it goes back to minimalism again. Maybe like adding clay and then when it hardens, chipping it away again

that energy gained from pushing the pelvis foward is required for a good wing chun step.

I personally don't see turning or stepping as something energized by pushing the pelvis forward (in fact, I think its often over exagerated and has an inverse effect). Instead, I think the harmony of the legs, waist/hips, and arms energize the turn. The pelvis, IMHO, should be forward only enough to tuck it in, straightening the spine (whether you're using the hollow chest model, or the sternum equalized method).

[yuanfen]

Responses in brackets:
---------------------------------
kj sez-Are all interpretations equally valid?

((No way- relativism doesnt carry one too far in martial development. We couldnt even stand up straight if we respected everyones detailed description of their ygkym))

Age old questions, and without consensus, I know.

((Consensus from the banks dowsnt help when you are waist deep in alligators- hey- I have lived in north Florida and in the
everglades as well- once upon a time- before draining of swamps etc...)))
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rene sez:The exceptions that define the rules? 8) We are supposed to Mai Jarn, yet we have Bong Sao and Lan Sao. We are supposed to maintain specific alignments and measures, yet we have moves in BJ to recover them. We are supposed to follow specific paths but when our opponents apply other vectors, how do we cause the end resultant to still be on that path?

((I make distinctions between individual solitary developmental
rules and the application of angles in a context- for instance when two persons are alread engaged- the external appearance of a bong sao may look different but the principle is unchanged.
Or holding something can changethe appearance- when a bong sao becomes a bong do- the principles of motion are not abandoned. The natural principles dont change...and the predecessors in wing chun over centuries experimentally worked them out. They didnt write books about it but they taught it in their direct
teaching and pointed to them ina kuit here and a kuit there.
Our understanding of nature may fail us but nature is an everpresent mother. Wing chun is a deepeer way of capturing nature's rules than boxing or grappling- but natures rules are insecapable.
I was watching Sanders knock out Vladimir Klitchko. ...the fair haired boy of HBO and a cople of it's garrulous commentators(not Foreman). Sanders is a south paw- Vladimir a standard European
right hander. A lefty's greatest power is when he shifts right- a standard right hander more so when he is going lefr- as far the main power hand of each go.Vladimir hasa powerful right- Sanders a powerful left. Vladimir at the onset kept shuffling into the power hand of the leftie. Nature at work- weighting and leverage.
Vladimir inspite of his PE PhD(or perhaps because of it,<g> understood it less.))

[hunt1]

Joy - I truly enjoy your posts. Far better than on the WCML. Keep up the posting.

[yuanfen]

Hunt 1- Thanks much.
joy

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by anerlich
I personally reject the notion of any moral, metaphysical, or spiritual dimension to Wing Chun.

Oh bless you for stating this. Dressing up our fighting art in irrelevancies does nothing for our understanding of Wing Chun Kuen.

Wing Chun is a set of tools for fighting. They can be used for good or ill. It's not a religion, system of physical culture or social program. It is has roots in Chinese culture and religion but is not bound or beholden to them.

Exactly. Wing Chun is just a tool.

To assign a moral or similar dimension to Wing Chun is IMO to abrogate or at least mitigate your personal responsibility for such.

Another zinger. But, it is a way to control one's students, allowing empty teachers to pretend another expertise beyond the martial.

IMO both holy man and psychopath (Q - can the two classes intersect?) both have the capacity to become excellent WC practitioners.

IMO WC is defined by the forms (including dummy and weapons) and the kuen kuit.

Right on. IMHO, you cut to the core issue.

Regards,