a reason for arguments

[JPinAZ]

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.

Ahh, but they may argue as to why the guy that was thrown had bad structure, alignment, angle, etc which lead to him being thrown.

[YouKnowWho]

Ahh, but they may argue as to why the guy that was thrown had bad structure, alignment, angle, etc which lead to him being thrown.

If

- you kill your opponent, everything that you did wrong won't matter.
- your opponent kills you, everything that you did right won't matter either.

[JPinAZ]

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

Hi John,

While I regularly enjoy your POV on things, WC 'structure' is very specific. So general TCMA's issues for improving structure don't mean much for a WC discussion.

WC structure is based of key positions of body parts: Elbow position (height, width depth), body connection (elbow to hip, to knee, to heel), etc. IMO, there isn't much equipment training that can 'improve' this besides hitting mitts and wall bags.
Now, TESTING of WC structure can be done anywhere from simple static structure tests to fixed partner drills and up to live sparring. But there's a lot that also needs to be looked at in order to have this 'good structure' to be applicable during the more live testing. (things like facing, spacial awareness, position, contact & leverage points, etc)

But this is getting a bit off subject yeah?

[YouKnowWho]

But this is getting a bit off subject yeah?

Are we still talking about a reason for arguments? One of the arguments is "WC is different from other TCMA systems".

I don't think WC structure is any different from other TCMA systems. When you stand in the posture of "left Tan Shou, right vertical punch", if your opponet rushes into your front or into your side, and be able to modify your body alignment, you will have general structure issue no matter what style that you may train. If your body just absorb the impack and then bounce back to your original body alignment, you will have good structure. Different TCMA system may like to use different posture to test it.

If you have "structure" you should be able to apply in whatever the style that you are training. Should you have your "structure" before your style, or the other way around? That can be another interest discussion.

[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..

[JPinAZ]

a reason for arguments

I don't think WC structure is any different from other TCMA systems. When you stand in the posture of "left Tan Shou, right vertical punch", if your opponet rushes into your front or into your side, and be able to modify your body alignment, you will have general structure issue no matter what style that you may train. If your body just absorb the impack and then bounce back to your original body alignment, you will have good structure. Different TCMA system may like to use different posture to test it.

If you have "structure" you should be able to apply in whatever the style that you train.

Well yeah, at some application level sure, you are right. If we look at things from leverage, COG, postion, etc, I agree in some cases. But again, you use the word 'general'. Once you move past generalities, the concepts and principles of WC are far different from those of, say, karate or judo. And this dictates structure usage. But really, if there is no differences, why are there so many arts?

Again, this is getting off topic. Let's try to stick to the topic at hand, or maybe move this discussion to another thread? thanks!

[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..

[tc101]

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.

I don't know what you mean by understood wing chun the same way.

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?

If by rules you mean general guidelines I can agree with you. I see wing chun just like boxing bjj and so on as still and always in the developmental phase as you call it.

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..

I do not think Yip Man's art was ever constant or complete but that he was continually tinkering with the art and his curriculum and so forth. I do not think wing chun is a complete art because there is no such thing as a complete art. I learned and my experience so far has confirmed that wing chun has some general guidelines or concepts or principles that can be widely expressed and that is what makes the art adaptive and allows it to be tailored to the individual. We just have a very different view of the art.

[EternalSpring]

It all comes down to one thing:

The reason for arguments amongst any martial artists stems from wanting to talk more than wanting to fight/train or otherwise prove the stuff being discussed.

This also touches on the second law of the universe: If you cant prove/demonstrate the thing you're arguing about with your own body and ability, you really shouldn't be one of the apologists for that specific topic/issue.

[WC1277]

I think it comes down to something already very prevalent in the Human Condition. Take the Bible for example. There's literalists. There's those who consider "the law" as in organizations like the Catholic church, and then there's "jack christians", so to speak. There's also those who just appreciate the overall message.

Wing Chun is no different. We have this great body of knowledge that all involved recognize as very important and the Human Condition just follows...

[k gledhill]

Agree, those who drink nearer the source can see dilution clearer in those drinking further away. Some are happy to drink their " flavor " , while the undiluted scream heresy. Lilliputian issues come to mind ; ), storm in a tea-cup....

[Wayfaring]

Agree, those who drink nearer the source can see dilution clearer in those drinking further away. Some are happy to drink their " flavor " , while the undiluted scream heresy. Lilliputian issues come to mind ; ), storm in a tea-cup....

This is the kind of viewpoint competition and realistic testing eliminates as hogwash. For a while there was talk in BJJ about "pure water" being taught by a certain group. That lasted until they got smoked the next year in a local competition. Then that talk kind of died out.

Unfortunately, that kind of thing doesn't happen in the WCK world. So what you wind up with is widespread mediocrity, and a few pockets of delusional "pure water".

[k gledhill]

This is the kind of viewpoint competition and realistic testing eliminates as hogwash. For a while there was talk in BJJ about "pure water" being taught by a certain group. That lasted until they got smoked the next year in a local competition. Then that talk kind of died out.

Unfortunately, that kind of thing doesn't happen in the WCK world. So what you wind up with is widespread mediocrity, and a few pockets of delusional "pure water".

Agree again ! Without testing your stuff with others it's easy to isolate your ideas in a closed club house, room without any resisting ideas. Or make unfounded assumptions based on " sifu said " cra p.