Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Was Wing Chun meant to be a complete system?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin73 View Post
    Just thought I would ask this question..

    Reading the history of Wing Chun, it was designed to be learned in a very short amount of time and was designed to help a person beat another specific person.

    The "founder" was trained in a southern style of kung fu and then distilled it to be learned in that one year time of hard training. Looking at other southern styles you see many of the same concepts there as well, although not as much time is spent on them in some cases.

    So do you think that Wing Chun, was a sort of "kung fu combatives" that was meat and potatoes of it's parent system of the easy to learn apply techniques, or do you think that it was designed to be a whole comprehensive system.
    Back in it's day it was indeed considered to be a complete system. These guys usually had to make it work a lot. Today maybe not so complete. In the hundreds of years that Wing Chun has been kept alive it might have lost a little of it's completeness, and of course there have evolved lots of other things that were not around at the time. Guns for one thing. And of course the legal end of it since there is law and order supposedly. We have sport fighting now, which tends to be specialized in several ways. Not wide ranging systems at all because they have rules of engagement. MMA, Judo, BJJ, and probably many other sport fighting systems exist today that did not exist back then. Each one has it's own set of rules to work by. It stands to reason that some of this would be difficult to fight against today even though it might have been a complete system at one time.
    Jackie Lee

  2. #62

    Was wing Chun meant to be a complete system ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin73 View Post
    Just thought I would ask this question..

    Reading the history of Wing Chun, it was designed to be learned in a very short amount of time and was designed to help a person beat another specific person.

    The "founder" was trained in a southern style of kung fu and then distilled it to be learned in that one year time of hard training. Looking at other southern styles you see many of the same concepts there as well, although not as much time is spent on them in some cases.

    So do you think that Wing Chun, was a sort of "kung fu combatives" that was meat and potatoes of it's parent system of the easy to learn apply techniques, or do you think that it was designed to be a whole comprehensive system.
    Kevin73 , ! Yeah ! To me wing chun was meant to be a complete system .

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,519
    Complete or not, I think it is closer to complete than most of what I have seen. Wing Chun is usually practiced and trained with and among other Wing Chun people, but it works way much better against people of other systems. I know I would spend several minutes in a rapid exchange with my brothers and not be able to score against one of them. 5 minutes of this would be like running up a really long flight of stairs and would wear me out. I have never had that kind of trouble with anyone outside the system. So I feel safe in stating that it does work better against non Wing Chun fighters. I think this was the whole idea from the beginning too. I have never personally met anyone outside my own family that did Wing Chun either. Except for the people on this forum, and I have never actually met any of them.
    Jackie Lee

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    Not the same way, and they all do not apply. But I would agree if you are saying having a good understanding and some experience of the ground game from another art's perspective is paramount in being able to deal with it. Otherwise it's just fantasy fu
    That's what I am saying.
    Sure, I understand them perfectly and IMO back mount is the work place I want to be caught in
    IMO there are 2-3 primary escapes from both mount and back mount that every martial artist should add into their bag of tricks.

    HFY does have take down defenses (kius sau training covers this pretty well indepth supported with things like with CL, box and gate theory concepts, gravity , leverage, etc), but this is different than 'counter grappling' as a grappler would impy if that makes sense. And I am not foolish enough to think I can deny everyone from getting in my space and/or taking me down - but that is the goal in theory

    And if I get taken down, I agree, I better have a decent understanding of what can happen there if I have any decent chance of safely getting back up.
    I think the last 3 years or so have empirically shown in the MMA world that it is a viable plan to stay on your feet and stuff takedowns. I do think the MMA standup has a clinch game like against the cage that is different. And if I am training denying entry into my space from standup I would practice at least some using a backstop like that. Most MMA guys are learning ground defense first - keep from getting submitted - get back to your feet, and also some great options striking in ground situations (like GNP in someone's guard). Those options are good to consider for well-roundedness sake.

    When I say complete, I am speaking of of concepts, as well as understanding principles that are universal vs. just what's in my tool box if this makes sense? Sprawl defence against a takedown works great, but imo it breaks even the basic WCK ideas of centerline, and is more of a counter grappling. So while it works, and to a high degree, IMO it's not really WCK if it breaks the basic ideas on centerline and gravity. So, just adding it to your toolbox doesn't make it WCK, and not having it doesn't mean WCK is incomplete either. Make sense?
    I can live with that definition of complete.

    I disagree on the sprawl however. To me it's just "feet follow hands" - in that the extremity of the pressure on the low bridge dictates where the feet have to land to deal with that pressure - IMO no violation of centerline, gravity, any other WCK principle.

    On adding things to your toolbox that aren't WCK, I think it's a good idea in like the above areas. I care less about esoteric arguments about completeness of WCK, I'm more concerned about completeness for myself as a martial artist.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayfaring View Post
    I care less about esoteric arguments about completeness of WCK, I'm more concerned about completeness for myself as a martial artist.
    If we can all look at from this angle, there ahould be nothing to argue about?
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 04-02-2012 at 10:06 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •