Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

Thread: a reason for arguments

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781

    a reason for arguments

    I took this reply from another thread and started a new one with it. Hopefully it will spark some good discussion.

    This quote was in regards to the bickering and in-fighting that goes on with regularity on WC forums, and in the WC 'community; in general, over who's WC is more right/wrong:

    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    This just doesn't happen in the discussion of other systems. I have not heard any Judo guy said that his way is right and all other ways are wrong.

    Why do you think this only happen in the WC discussion?
    I've wondered this myself. I have a theory, and hopefully it is accepted as just that. IMO, it stems partially from people not getting the system from their teacher in it's entirety at some point yet still trying to protect their pot of gold (and maybe not even being able to realize what they do and don't have). How I see it, the system of WC should be the same across all lineages. Of course we see similarities among all branches/lineages to various degrees - because it is all WC! But even with an important concept as centerline, there are so many variations of understanding and misunderstanding. And IMO, this stems from the personal takes, interpretations and personal styles/preferences that get passed along as 'the system' when the system itself shouldn't change at all.

    Now, if we look at the most popular version of WC with the largest student base, it would clearly be that from Ip Man – who ultimately put WC on the map and caused the large popularity we see today! But, within the various Ip Man lineages, we all-to-often often see people arguing over who got the 'real stuff' from him and who didn't. Who trained with him longer and when. Who lived with him and when and for how long. What's more 'correct' - the early years of hist teaching, the mids, or the end. And that's just his direct students (first generation). Unfortunately, this isn't something hard to miss.

    Now, after a few more generations, what do we see today? Even more infighting which now include arguing within the separate branches and sub-branches that stem from his students. Even his own son's students argue that those from Ip Ching have it more correct than those form Ip Chun and visa versa. And on this forum we can see guys from within the WSL sub-branch doing things differently and occasionally arguing over what's really 'WSL wing chun'. Same with LT lines and sub branches, etc. Does anyone besides IM really know the answer? Probably not - but you'll get a lot of people telling you they do

    Now, I'm not saying one way or the other in regards to Ip Man having or not having a complete system, I wasn't there so I don't know and is really beside the point. What I am saying is, it's clear not everyone got the same version of the ‘system’ from him. Which tends to bring in personal interpretations, styles and flavors, prefered fighting methods & techniques, etc as a result. And these things can get passed down as 'the system' even when they're really not. Which also results in people not calling it 'ip man wing chun' anymore and having a different students/grand-student's name on it. And that's fine, but the question is about all the right/wrong arguing that goes on in WC.

    In the end, I think the above example results in everyone's ego and/or insecurities driving their unwillingness to admit they still might have more to learn and approaching things with an open mind. Example: If Sifu X goes around for 15 years saying they have the goods because their Sigung spent more time with GM Z in his later years (aka better years) of his teaching than any of the other students of GM Z, why would Sifu X then be open to admitting maybe he didn't? That wouldn't make him look too good eh?

    Now to the point: Without safeguards to protect the technology of the actual WC system (not just a curriculum), you're going to get what I listed above. After training in Ip Man WC for a bit and then training HFY for many years now, I have found there are actual safeguards, checks & balances built into the system that help avoid this type of thing from happening (at least in HFY lineage). And before anyone misconstrues what I'm saying, I'm not saying that HFY is any better/worse than another lineage either. My point is, it's these safeguards that help preserve the actual concepts & principles of the HFY WC system from changing thru the generations. Of course it doesn't work if a student doesn't complete their training and then goes out on his own and starts teaching. You'd have the same thing all over again that I listed above. And that's where lineage and naming of successor(s) comes into factor. Only the Buhn Jyun of the HFY system can name successors based on several levels of qualifications and the student's understanding & demonstration of the core principles of the system. And we still go by this within the our lineage as a safeguard for preserving HFY for future generations

    So, it makes me wonder if it's true when people say Ip Man didn't really want to teach and only did so out of necessity. If that's so, maybe he wasn't fully interested in passing on the system in it's entirety to just one person, but more just giving people what he felt they needed at the time. Maybe he wasn't interested in preserving the system or a lineage. And probably why he never openly named a successor.... But it sure has caused a bit of a mess that we see today
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  2. #2
    A couple of points from my perspective. Firstly your perception of IP chun and IP ching claiming to be better than each other is off base, they actually have mutual respect and recognise each others strengths and weaknesses, the same is true of TST and also the late WSL. They all frequently taught alongside each other and most of the politics only surfaces in subsequent generations. As for other arts having more or less in fighting there are a couple of aggravating factors. Firstly as wing chun has no competition element claims of superiority go untested whereas in judo, tkd, MT etc the proof is in the competition results. Secondly as wing chun is so popular there is money to be made and so aggressive marketing is common ( karate went through exactly the same thing in the eighties)
    A clever man learns from his mistakes but a truly wise man learns from the mistakes of others.


    Wing Chun kung fu in Redditch
    Worcestershire Wing Chun Kuen on facebook

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,781
    Quote Originally Posted by wingchunIan View Post
    A couple of points from my perspective. Firstly your perception of IP chun and IP ching claiming to be better than each other is off base, they actually have mutual respect and recognise each others strengths and weaknesses, the same is true of TST and also the late WSL. They all frequently taught alongside each other and most of the politics only surfaces in subsequent generations. As for other arts having more or less in fighting there are a couple of aggravating factors. Firstly as wing chun has no competition element claims of superiority go untested whereas in judo, tkd, MT etc the proof is in the competition results. Secondly as wing chun is so popular there is money to be made and so aggressive marketing is common ( karate went through exactly the same thing in the eighties)
    I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to the STUDENTS of the son's that argue this (Ip Ching and Ip Chun's downlines): "Even his own son's students argue that those from Ip Ching have it more correct than those form Ip Chun and visa versa. ".
    This has even played out here on this form on occasion.

    But I do agree with your other 2 reasons as well, and they go hand in hand - If you don't compete, no one can call you on any BS you might be selling
    What chi sau is, or isn't, or is, or wait, what is it..: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...2&postcount=90

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    The dragon has 9 kids. They all look different. One of the dragon's kid is a turtule. I have always believed that technique has no standard. It all depends on how your opponent may react to it.
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 05-30-2013 at 03:33 PM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  5. #5
    Arguments over what is right or what is good or what is bad either take place in the ring or on the mat for arts like bjj boxing mma or through words for people who do not get in the ring or out on the mats since that is their only venue for argument.

  6. #6
    this isnt just going on in WC community. I have heard these types of arguments in both tkd and karate.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    126
    True but I think WC is actually a victim of its own (modern?) emphasis on concepts. Styles that are more balanced in their emphasis of concept v’s technique are more forgiving of variations between different teachers whatever generation.

    IMO the inevitable result of over emphasis on concepts makes an art more abstract, attractive to intellectuals and more an ideology than a martial art.

    Dave

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozzy Dave View Post
    WC is actually a victim of its own (modern?) emphasis on concepts.
    Agree! In the throwing art, if you can take your opponent down, nobody will say that your "structure", "alignment", "angle", or "engine" is not correct. When you can see the end result, there isn't much to argue about.
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 05-30-2013 at 10:57 PM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    Agree! In the throwing art, if you can take your opponent down, nobody will say that your "structure", "alignment", "angle", or "engine" is not correct. When you can see the end result, there isn't much to argue about.
    not true at all mate that's like saying if I attend a judo class pick up the smallest guy in the room \ a kid and throw him \ her to the ground then I have nothing else to learn. This of course is not true and my lack of structure , alignment, angle, "engine" or any other element of good technique would lead to my attempts proving futile against anyone bigger, stronger or more experienced than me
    A clever man learns from his mistakes but a truly wise man learns from the mistakes of others.


    Wing Chun kung fu in Redditch
    Worcestershire Wing Chun Kuen on facebook

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by JPinAZ View Post
    I think you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't clear. I was referring to the STUDENTS of the son's that argue this (Ip Ching and Ip Chun's downlines): "Even his own son's students argue that those from Ip Ching have it more correct than those form Ip Chun and visa versa. ".
    This has even played out here on this form on occasion.

    But I do agree with your other 2 reasons as well, and they go hand in hand - If you don't compete, no one can call you on any BS you might be selling
    can you underline key points in the original post next time to avoid the confusion for people reading late at night
    A clever man learns from his mistakes but a truly wise man learns from the mistakes of others.


    Wing Chun kung fu in Redditch
    Worcestershire Wing Chun Kuen on facebook

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by wingchunIan View Post
    not true at all mate that's like saying if I attend a judo class pick up the smallest guy in the room \ a kid and throw him \ her to the ground then I have nothing else to learn. This of course is not true and my lack of structure , alignment, angle, "engine" or any other element of good technique would lead to my attempts proving futile against anyone bigger, stronger or more experienced than me
    Of course I'm not talking about the smallest guy in the class. If you can walk into a Judo school and be abe to throw all the students there, you can just walk out because that Judo teacher will have nothing to teach you.

    Some system such as Judo doesn't teach structure/alignment/engine/ ..., their structure/alignment/engine/... are developed from their partner drills and wrestling.

    The structure/alignment/engine/... are relative and not absolute. It's very difficult to say whether your structure/alignment/engine/... is better than your opponent's or the other way around unless you two have a physical match.

    If 2 Judo guys both have trained for 10 years. It's difficult (if not impossible) to say which one has better structure/alignment/engine. If we can stay away from talking about those abstract terms, there will be less argument for sure.

    Someone made comment that my "6 harmony" is not perfect. I had nothing to argue with him. What can I argue if someone says that I'm not handsome enough?
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 05-31-2013 at 01:31 AM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,252
    True but I think WC is actually a victim of its own (modern?) emphasis on concepts. Styles that are more balanced in their emphasis of concept v’s technique are more forgiving of variations between different teachers whatever generation.
    Thats a great poinr youve made about balance Dave. Everyone goes on about WC concepts but there is real technique that is often pushed to one side.

    IMO the inevitable result of over emphasis on concepts makes an art more abstract, attractive to intellectuals and more an ideology than a martial art.

    Beautifully put.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by YouKnowWho View Post
    Some system such as Judo doesn't teach structure/alignment/engine/ ..., their structure/alignment/engine/... are developed from their partner drills and wrestling.
    again I would disagree, the terminology used may be different but the notion of constantly reflecting on and improving the core elements that make the techniques work is there in every art including grappling of all kinds. In wing chun if a person's structure is poor then there is an area that can be improved to make what they are doing more effective (even if it already works) similarly in grappling arts such as Judo positioning of the fulcrum, amount of drive, position of COG, hand position, type of grip etc etc can be and are analysed by coaches to help improve students / competitors. At higher levels all of these things should already be in place and experience then tells the practitioner how far away from perfect they can deviate if needs be to still be effective. When analysing a grappling match after the event a coach will always be looking for reasons why certain things didn't work, much of the time this will highlight something the opponent did to negate the move in question or will show that timing was wrong etc but if there are flaws in execution identified you can put money on the fact that the fighter in question will be drilling the move identified to put things right.
    As an aside I have a friend who plays Judo at a high level (just missed out on the British Olympic team), watching Judo with him is a whole different ball game and his commentary often includes pointing out why something didn't work or why it wont work (whilst the person's trying for it) based on the body structure, foot position, hand position, hip position etc or the person needing to drive more through the legs. Things that I just nod at and smile as although I find it fascinating I have to watch back in slow mo' to even have a chance of seeing what he's on about.
    Last edited by wingchunIan; 05-31-2013 at 03:49 AM.
    A clever man learns from his mistakes but a truly wise man learns from the mistakes of others.


    Wing Chun kung fu in Redditch
    Worcestershire Wing Chun Kuen on facebook

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by wingchunIan View Post
    ...the notion of constantly reflecting on and improving the core elements that make the techniques work...
    Can unfortunately become an end in itself and for the discussion at hand a source of argument between WC players that bemuses, and with a good dose of superiority complex, irritates other MAists.

    I think you are reading more into YouKnowWho's comments than was meant.

    The point is that the ends simply justify the means and concepts are only validated by ends not by focusing on the means.

    Dave
    Last edited by Ozzy Dave; 05-31-2013 at 06:26 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Shell Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    6,664
    Blog Entries
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by wingchunIan View Post
    if a person's structure is poor then there is an area that can be improved to make what they are doing more effective ...
    Let's just assume this is a general TCMA issue. How will you help your students to improve their "structure"?

    I'll use the following methods.

    1. equipment training:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwSS8FmgJ3c

    2. partner training:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogzjjWsXwYA
    Last edited by YouKnowWho; 05-31-2013 at 09:48 PM.
    http://johnswang.com

    More opinion -> more argument
    Less opinion -> less argument
    No opinion -> no argument

Posting Permissions

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