a reason for arguments

[JPinAZ]

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:

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

[wingchunIan]

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)

[JPinAZ]

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

[YouKnowWho]

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.

[wingchunIan]

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

[tc101]

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.

[jesper]

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

[Ozzy Dave]

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

[JPinAZ]

Hello JPinAZ,
I think part of the reason for all the drama is, partly, because of language barriers.
Example: recently someone asked about the name of a motion(s) from 2nd form. Several answers were given...none of which I've even heard of. Doesn't mean they are right or I'm right/wrong, etc it just illustrates the language barrier issue.

This is further compounded by a lack of face-to-face meetings to physically "discuss" the variances you speak of. Application is the only way to compare and therefore verify "who got what and does their stuff work". Etc.

And to add to this even more: in WC, you have rule followers, rule benders, and rule breakers...with each group believing they are right. This stems from peoples' interpretation of the major theories of WC... for example, you mentioned 'centerline'. Your ability and willingness to "use" that principle may differ from mine.
And then, extend that example to the rest of the theories and principles and applications of all of WC's tools, and presto...confusion and "he said/she said".
Another example, you recently asked for input about the above mentioned 2nd form motions. If I responded with my applications for those, it may drastically differ from yours and your overall view of what looks "right" for HFY WC. Now, you could also call me a "rule bender" and "your applications are not WC". Great. And so we'd agree to disagree perhaps 59 forum pages later.
Sorry for the rant...just typing out what my mind is telling me as I was reading your original post.
I agree it should generate some very interesting discussion!

I agree, up to a point! While language can surely be an issue today, back when Ip Man was teaching his students it wasn't an issue since the language was common to all. Yet they all still seem to have gotten different things & understanding and taught differently from one another even in that first generation. Which is where my theory on quality control and no successor makes a lot of sense.

As for rule breaking, I think this is a great point as well. The issue I see is the rules should be the same across the board for WC practitioners, since the art is really about physics, laws of nature witht he goal being fighing as efficiently and closest to maximal efficiency as possible.
But then I guess it depends on how we define the actual 'rules'. For me, they are the principles/concepts that we operate under. Shortest distance to target, only one object can occupy one space at one time, self centerline for self gravity, a-to-b centerline, leverage and position, etc. IMO, these things should be constant for any WC practitioner since they should be based on physics, but somewhere along the way definitions and understanding of these things have changed.
And this IMO is what causes all the differing ideas at the technique level - the rules are not the same when they should be.

Of course, this is all based on 'my' understanding of the rules But at one point all WC had the same common rules. The question I pose is where and why did these changes, misunderstandings, etc start happening..

[tc101]

I agree, up to a point! While language can surely be an issue today, back when Ip Man was teaching his students it wasn't an issue since the language was common to all. Yet they all still seem to have gotten different things & understanding and taught differently from one another even in that first generation. Which is where my theory on quality control and no successor makes a lot of sense.
.

Boxing bjj mt mma and the rest if the combative sports do not have a successor and the only quality control is performance itself and they seem to be doing just fine. I think when people see that there can really be no such thing as a successor and why there can't and how having a successor and wanting a successor is all wrapped up together it changes their whole way of thinking.

[tc101]

Of course, this is all based on 'my' understanding of the rules But at one point all WC had the same common rules. The question I pose is where and why did these changes, misunderstandings, etc start happening..

I have to give you credit for being very thought provoking.

How can we say at one time that all wing chun had the same common rules as you put it? What if wing chun was developed by a group over the course of time?

Change is natural when we put the individual and his performance above preserving in stone the system itself. The changes, misunderstandings and the rest is not the sign of a problem it is a good sign. Boxing is a perfect example of how these are strengths not weaknesses.

[JPinAZ]

I have to give you credit for being very thought provoking.

How can we say at one time that all wing chun had the same common rules as you put it? What if wing chun was developed by a group over the course of time?

Change is natural when we put the individual and his performance above preserving in stone the system itself. The changes, misunderstandings and the rest is not the sign of a problem it is a good sign. Boxing is a perfect example of how these are strengths not weaknesses.

I probably wasn't clear in my point. I agree, WC was surely developed by a group over time and not just by a girl watching some animals fight. And it most likely wasn't developed by 3 separate groups in different locations.
So, that 1 group most likely understood WC all the same way because they were all there. And during that time, it's more than safe to say WC rules were probably all the same, even if they were still being refined, discovered, etc during the developmental stage of the art, yeah? Another way to look at it, it's probably safe to Ip Man's 'version'/system of WC was constant after his own learning of the system was complete. Sure he might have refined his usage of the art, as well as approaches to teaching, but that's no the system. That's personal art and curriculum.

And look how many 'versions' we have today of that one man's system. Something's changed. While change is natural, but not all change is 'good' either. IMO, WC is a complete art and only change will degrade it today. And I'm not talking about curriculum or teaching approaches or which technique someone prefers better..