Is WCK a System or a Style?

[HumbleWCGuy]

I know that we have had this debate before, but I think that Dale's posts really highlight something that I have been thinking about for a while. Dale's posts show guys doing some things that are certainly good fighting but lack a distinctive flair so that everyone agrees that the figher is exemplifying WCness. To me, that sounds like a style because there is really only one way to do it.

To me a system is characterized by this statement, "You may only really use about 50% of what I am going to teach you, but we can't know which 50% so I have to show you the whole thing." So in part, I think that the term system is way over used. I have been thinking that many people feel that they can't make their WCK work, and go out and seek other arts to feed back into their WCK. While not proof positive of a style, it is certainly very indicative of one.

A good example of a system would be Bando. Bando has kickboxing, middle style which is your typical traditional, Animal styles, and grappling. All of these styles are based on core beliefs and practices and the Bando practitioner has many methods to choose from.

[Phil Redmond]

I know that we have had this debate before, but I think that Dale's posts really highlight something that I have been thinking about for a while. Dale's posts show guys doing some things that are certainly good fighting but lack a distinctive flair so that everyone agrees that the figher is exemplifying WCness. To me, that sounds like a style because there is really only one way to do it.

To me a system is characterized by this statement, "You may only really use about 50% of what I am going to teach you, but we can't know which 50% so I have to show you the whole thing." So in part, I think that the term system is way over used. I have been thinking that many people feel that they can't make their WCK work, and go out and seek other arts to feed back into their WCK. While not proof positive of a style, it is certainly very indicative of one.

A good example of a system would be Bando. Bando has kickboxing, middle style which is your typical traditional, Animal styles, and grappling. All of these styles are based on core beliefs and practices and the Bando practitioner has many methods to choose from.

In Cantonese system is "Pai". WC is a "Kuen"

[chusauli]

In Cantonese system is "Pai". WC is a "Kuen"

Pai is a system that is passed down. Kuen is a boxing method. But WCK could also be called Wing Chun Pai. In Cantonese, it is a "Mun Pai" (Door Tributary) or "Men Pai" in Mandarin.

If you call it Wing Chun Kuen, you refer to the boxing method - and it is referred to as the "Kuen Faat/Quan Fa" (Fist Method), or "Kuen Shut/Quan Shu" (Fist Art).

In modern day Chinese lingo, martial arts are called "Mo Shut/Wu Shu" (Martial Arts) in China, and "Kok Shut/Guo Shu" (National Art) in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

It doesn't have the same connotation as in English. The words are sometimes interchangeable.

[sandman]

We like to say Ving Tsun is a system wherein you learn your own kung fu. To me, the system is in the training. It's the path. SNT, CK, BJ, Pak Sao, Pak Dar, Lap Dar, etc... Your sifu shows you that path, and gives you the guiding principles, but while you learn some kung fu from your Sifu and your sihingdai, most should be learned from the system itself.

The problem with VT being a style, is that everyone has their own style. Let's say my Sifu is 100% accurate in his application of the Ving Tsun Style. Well, we all have our quirks, so say I'm only 95% correct, and have 5% that is my quirks. My students will get that 5% and say another 10% of their own quirks, so they are only 85% accurate, and so on. And my grand-students will think my quirks are gospel because their sifu and sigung both do them.

The only thing we can accurately pass down is the system itself. A truly good Sifu's students should all look different in their application. Hence, the variety in Sitai-gung Yip Man's students.

Of course, I'm the first to admit, this is a very hard way to learn, and there are plenty of people who won't get it.

[sandman]

For you guys who speak better Chinese than I, isn't Kuen also commonly used to delineate a single form? At least that's the impression I get from the names of forms refered to in the book "American Shaolin"

[chusauli]

For you guys who speak better Chinese than I, isn't Kuen also commonly used to delineate a single form? At least that's the impression I get from the names of forms refered to in the book "American Shaolin"

That would be a "Kuen Tou/Quan Tao" (Fist Set) - but often it is shortened to be "Kuen/Quan".

[LoneTiger108]

We like to say Ving Tsun is a system wherein you learn your own kung fu. To me, the system is in the training. It's the path. SNT, CK, BJ, Pak Sao, Pak Dar, Lap Dar, etc... Your sifu shows you that path, and gives you the guiding principles, but while you learn some kung fu from your Sifu and your sihingdai, most should be learned from the system itself.

The problem with VT being a style, is that everyone has their own style...

Following on from what is said here, wouldn't we be more honest to say Wing Chun as a bit of both?

Fact is, yes, there's a strict system to the core training but we also have the freedom to make it our own, hence it becomes an individual style (with time!)

[HumbleWCGuy]

My point is that system might be a misnomer. We say one thing but do something else in practice. I don't think that the debate over the Chinese clarifies anything. Although, it is an interesting thought.

[SAAMAG]

A system is a set way of doing things. A style is the manner in how you go about doing them (an expression). Wing chun is both.

[t_niehoff]

The original question is meaningless.

WCK is an approach to fighting and a means of learning/training that approach.

[HumbleWCGuy]

The original question is meaningless.

WCK is an approach to fighting and a means of learning/training that approach.

You don't get much training done with an average of 30 posts per day.

[Matrix]

WCK is an approach to fighting and a means of learning/training that approach.

Spot on. IMO. Precise, concise to the point.


In response to the original post:
Since they are not mutually exclusive characteristics, you could call it a Systemized Style or some such thing, but the label is an abstraction. Call it a Style or a System, it doesn't matter. If you were able to determine whether it was one or the other what difference would it make?

[t_niehoff]

You don't get much training done with an average of 30 posts per day.

For the most part, I do my posting in the early morning hours (I typically get up at 5), when - except for my morning run - I don't train. And it doesn't take long. I train/go to the gym in the evenings. In any event I don't post anywhere near 30 posts a day. But I thank you for your concern.

[Vajramusti]

So many repetitive posts and threads going in different directions. I don't pay attention to "defend" wing chun against the folks who criticize but really don't know much wing chun. MA is not a popularity contest.

I for one don't think that there is a common WCK- far too many diversities.

BUT, IMO FWIW---I don't worry about verbiage whether it's a pai or a kuen or a style- all can be empty labels. What matters is what you are doing and practicing.
Lots of folks just repeat themselves- so here is some repeat--

inside, outside, boxing range, clinging..etc are all verbal limitations on what someone can do with wing chun if one learns well. It's upto each individual to decide what they want to do withe art.
There are many ways to fight and wc usage is not limited to fighting.There are various ways to check on the effectiveness of one's art...you tube and the cage are not the only proofs.And,one don't have to satisfy a net discussion list- which is basically all theory despite claims to the contrary.

Some opinions before going to actually doing some wing chun.Cheers.

joy chaudhuri

[chusauli]

System is the training - an ordered to teaching to take you from knowing nothing to learning about the craft.

Style is personal expression.

Curriculum is the order in which it is taught.

Teaching methodology is the way it is taught.