Don't Be A Slave To Wing Chun

[hulkout]

I was having a discussion last night with some other students, so I thought I'd bring it up here to see what people think. I see some people who take some of the ideas a bit too literally and are therefore too rigid. Forcing your elbow in your centerline, obsessing about being completely square to your opponent all the time. It just doesn't work. It makes you too rigid. For example, when i fight, I prefer to be in a lead leg stance and slightly angled (just a bit). Then when I come in, I can take advantage of my hip power as I twist into the punch. It also is better for lead leg kicking as I can use a bit of pendulum footwork. There are other things like using different punches and kicks like hooks, uppercuts, and roundhouse kicks. The point is that there seem to be a lot of so-called purists who get ****ed off when you fight in a way that looks even a little different than the forms. I just can't accept that the true spirit of the art is to be so rigid. It has to be alive. What do you guys think?

[sanjuro_ronin]

It boils down to this, what does one believe WC to be/should be?
A)A principle based system of fighting
B)A fighting style of certain pre-defined technical characteristics.

If you choose A then as long as you adhere to said principles you are doing WC regardless of what it may look like technique wise.
If you choose B then it MUST look a certain way to be WC.

[jesper]

It boils down to this, what does one believe WC to be/should be?
A)A principle based system of fighting
B)A fighting style of certain pre-defined technical characteristics.

If you choose A then as long as you adhere to said principles you are doing WC regardless of what it may look like technique wise.
If you choose B then it MUST look a certain way to be WC.

type A fight
Type B drill

[EternalSpring]

My sifu said it an interesting way that I've always liked: "Dont be limited. Ving Tsun is about learning how to do things rather than learning how not to do things."

it may sound a bit silly but I feel that the point he was making was similar in that we shouldn't be a slave to the "tool/system" but rather let the system be our tool and a point for us to build off of.

[WC1277]

It boils down to this, what does one believe WC to be/should be?
A)A principle based system of fighting
B)A fighting style of certain pre-defined technical characteristics.

If you choose A then as long as you adhere to said principles you are doing WC regardless of what it may look like technique wise.
If you choose B then it MUST look a certain way to be WC.

A. ...the confusion about the so called "purists" which I guess I could fall under is that it's assumed that we're all technique based which is simply not true. Just because a guy is throwing a boxing type hook and we say it isn't WC doesn't mean we're dogmatic practitioners. It simply means, "hey, that's not principled based!". You can hook in WC and it's not specific in technique but it "should" be specific in body unity. As in, the three main structures are locked together. One should always fight freely in any fight, but don't claim everything you're doing in that fight is WC based because the chances are only a very small percentage of it is following actual "principles".

[LoneTiger108]

Forcing your elbow in your centerline, obsessing about being completely square to your opponent all the time. It just doesn't work. It makes you too rigid.

And what is this facing called exactly?

For example, when i fight, I prefer to be in a lead leg stance and slightly angled (just a bit). Then when I come in, I can take advantage of my hip power as I twist into the punch.

And to illustrate, what is this facing method called exactly?

BOTH are within good Wing Chun. BOTH have specific training drills and are represented in the forms and drills etc.

Once you can answer what they are called, you will understand more about their limitations and what to use them for, but it looks like you know some of this already from your explanations. Perhaps this is peoples frustration?

I just can't accept that the true spirit of the art is to be so rigid. It has to be alive. What do you guys think?

This is an excellent observation. Rigidness is caused by a lack of understanding Martial Arts (and sometimes from learning through writings and pictures rather than 'hands-on' training!)

[lance]

I was having a discussion last night with some other students, so I thought I'd bring it up here to see what people think. I see some people who take some of the ideas a bit too literally and are therefore too rigid. Forcing your elbow in your centerline, obsessing about being completely square to your opponent all the time. It just doesn't work. It makes you too rigid. For example, when i fight, I prefer to be in a lead leg stance and slightly angled (just a bit). Then when I come in, I can take advantage of my hip power as I twist into the punch. It also is better for lead leg kicking as I can use a bit of pendulum footwork. There are other things like using different punches and kicks like hooks, uppercuts, and roundhouse kicks. The point is that there seem to be a lot of so-called purists who get ****ed off when you fight in a way that looks even a little different than the forms. I just can't accept that the true spirit of the art is to be so rigid. It has to be alive. What do you guys think?

Okay hulkout , you right too , I agree with you too . Even we learn WC not all techniques may be suitable for us , so you need to modify the techniques and experiment to see if it ' ll work for us or not ? I would do the samething as you .
But there is another person who did the samething as you , let me give you a clue , he died in 1973 . It ' s true though , only you going use the stances , kicks punches you talking about so you have to experiment and analyze to see if those techniques going work for you or not ? Absorb what is useful , reject what is useless , and keep what specifically works for yourself .

Hulkout , what style do you really teach anyway ?

[wingchunIan]

I struggle with this one. The whole don't be a slave to the system, avoid the classical mess thing is valid but is often overplayed. In a classroom when drilling etc students should seek perfection in technique so that when it kicks off outside what comes out will be somewhere closer to perfection than garbage. If you already compromise your unpressurised positions then you can expect them to fall apart under pressure. As for introducing other techniques, I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe in the principles of the system and whether you deem the technique in question to fit within those principles. For me (and its only my opinion) Wing Chun is an all or nothing style. You either adopt the principles completely and trust in them or you ditch it completely and do something else instead like JKD.

[Lee Chiang Po]

I was having a discussion last night with some other students, so I thought I'd bring it up here to see what people think. I see some people who take some of the ideas a bit too literally and are therefore too rigid. Forcing your elbow in your centerline, obsessing about being completely square to your opponent all the time. It just doesn't work. It makes you too rigid. For example, when i fight, I prefer to be in a lead leg stance and slightly angled (just a bit). Then when I come in, I can take advantage of my hip power as I twist into the punch. It also is better for lead leg kicking as I can use a bit of pendulum footwork. There are other things like using different punches and kicks like hooks, uppercuts, and roundhouse kicks. The point is that there seem to be a lot of so-called purists who get ****ed off when you fight in a way that looks even a little different than the forms. I just can't accept that the true spirit of the art is to be so rigid. It has to be alive. What do you guys think?

Are you actually a Wing Chun student? I ask this simply because I am curious. Some of your statements do not seem to jib well with the concepts of Wing Chun. No trying to knock you here, just an observation.
Twisting into the punch means full blown commitment, and this is not the way of WC. You have to be able to uncommit instantly and withdraw from a punch if need be. This is why we do it like we do. Hooks and round house kicks are not really within the WC concepts either.
You don't have to be stiff and rigid in your Wing Chun, and you don't have to force the elbows in. I have a very wide chest and there is no way I can force my elbows in to center. Being a purest is not really a bad thing. In order to make Wing Chun work you have to adhere to the concepts of the system. When we chance to change these principals it begins to fail us. It is like a gun. You start taking out the bullets and eventually it stops shooting for you.

[Wu Wei Wu]

Hulkout - agree 100%

Those who think they can use "pure" Wing Chun principles tend to be academics more than fighters. Same with those who push you into describing what the meaning of forward facing is.

Suki