Hmm where to start
Three caveats before I respond:
1) talking up your own lineage is a common thing in wc - everyone thinks the wc they do is the best/most original etc. No one thinks they are doing sub standard wc.
2) Anything I say will probably sound like marketing hyperbole/commercial puff - so sorry if it does
3) - I can only speak from my own experience in wing chun and although I have seen and touched hands with a lot of branches I can obviously not comment on all the wing chun out there
so with that said plus the standard IMO, AFAIK, IM(limited)E etc. etc. here goes
- The body structure taught in CSLWCK is both complete and systematised. By this I mean that some other WC has body structure but it is not complete (they only have part of the structure picture so to speak) or they do not have it systematised (they dont have the forms or drills or understanding to pass it on effectively) - of course being complete and being systematised are closely related to one another.
- Structure in essence is how we recieve force and how we issue force - If I have structure and you dont have structure you should be unable to break my structure whilst I should be able to break yours easily..... Once you have broken someones structure hitting then becomes the easy part. A common mistake is to try and hit someone before their structure is broken or to break your own structure in the process of trying to hit(for example by overextending). Therefore, In CSL WCK we always try to maintain our own structure whilst attempting to break our opponents. This IMO is the true function of chi sau and why it so misinterpreted by many (since neither they nor their partner have structure).
- good structure is not a fixed form (i.e. one static stance or position that can be frozen in time) but something we can dynamically adjust and functionally adapt to the situation we find ourselves in. This is why people look at our body structure and express concern that it doesnt look like wck - what this reveals is that they are looking at the external form and not the function (which is putting the proverbial cart before the horse IMO). Another thing they say is that we are simply collapsing our bridge and leaning on our opponent - neither are correct although someone with a low level of structural understanding may think this.
-One good way of understanding structure are the structure tests that sigung Robert Chu devised. There is an article on this on his web site plus another excellent article by the much maligned Terence Niehoff called 'what drives us'. I cant put it any better than Terence has put it there so go and read those two articles.
- Speaking of Terence - Structure alone isnt enough - you obviously need sparring and conditioning to be functional - but structure will give you confidence in sparring and against other fighters (e.g. boxing or wrestling). IMO without structure you are better off doing another martial art.
- As the story goes when you would chi sau with Yip man 3 things would happen - 1) he would never step back, 2) he would never hit you 3) you would always be off balance i.e. either on your toes (falling forward) or on your heels (falling back). Thats a big hint right there. This tells you that Yip man had structure as these are the three big give aways.
- If you really want the information either get the dvds, or come and train with us. Or did you think people just give valuable information away for free? If learning correct structure was to radically improve your wing chun wouldnt it be worth the money? Whats the alternative - to spend the rest of your life doing crappy wc? It takes a lot to empty your cup especially when you have made a large emotional, financial and temporal effort in something else.
'In the woods there is always a sound...In the city aways a reflection.'
'What about the desert?'
'You dont want to go into the desert'
- Spartan