Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 32

Thread: Can Wing Chun be defined?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662

    Can Wing Chun be defined?

    This has come up as a point or an issue on several threads recently. So I thought I'd give the topic its own thread and put in my 2 cents.

    First off, just giving something a name is starting to define it. If you tell someone "I do Wing Chun", they may very naturally ask..."what's that?" What are you going to tell them? Your answer is one definition (however succinct or limited) of Wing Chun. You might tell them it is a southern Chinese martial art and then describe some of its distinguishing characteristics that set it apart from other southern arts....like a higher stance with knees slightly in, use of the centerline to attack and defend, use of both hands at once, etc.

    Any martial art is "defined" to an extent by its distinguishing characteristics. Its how we describe a physical activity that "defines" that activity. Just look up the definition of "football" in the dictionary and it says:
    an American game played between two teams of 11 players each in which the ball is in possession of one side at a time and is advanced by running or passing

    But we have to be careful what "football" we are referring to, because we discover that the dictionary also says:
    any of several games played between two teams on a usually rectangular field having goalposts or goals at each end and whose object is to get the ball over a goal line, into a goal, or between goalposts by running, passing, or kicking
    So we have to qualify our definition as "American Football" some of the time, depending on the context.

    Its the same with Wing Chun. We have a general definition of Wing Chun, just as there is a general definition of Football. But we also have specific definitions of Wing Chun, just as there is a difference between American Football and British or South American Football. So we typically further qualify our definition of Wing Chun by giving the lineage designation, saying "Yip Man Wing Chun" or "Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun."

    But what seems to be debated is that general definition. What distinguishing characteristics can be changed and suddenly the activity stops being "Wing Chun"? What if low extended stances were used as in "Shaolin Weng Chun"? What if punches were thrown from the shoulder instead of along the centerline? What if lots of spinning techniques were used? At what point does Wing Chun become altered to the point that it can no longer be considered "Wing Chun"? That is a tough question to answer! But I do believe there is a point where something is no longer "Wing Chun" in a generic sense.

    But I think it should be clear that Wing Chun CAN be and IS "defined" all the time. Now that definition can be rather generic, somewhat like the definition of football. But that definition can also be refined a little more by including the distinguishing characteristics from a specific lineage of teaching. However, there is also another way of refining the definition beyond the various lineages. This happens by examining the basic distinguishing features common to all lineages and looking for better ways to describe them or "flesh them out" a bit. To an extent, I think this is what Hendrik has been doing. The problem here is that with time, some lineages may have forgotten or lost some of these characteristics. Can bringing them back help that lineage of teaching? That is what is open to debate. However, I see no harm in looking for some of those original features just to see what they were. The problem is when people say that one way is "right" and the other is "wrong." Or one way is "real Wing Chun" and the other is not. That can only bring hard feelings and offense. One way may be more "original", but whether it is a "better" way remains to be proven.

    So just because someone does not understand or use the "original" way of developing power in their YGKYM does not mean that they are not doing Wing Chun. Maybe they have found a better way to use the YGKYM structure! Or maybe not and their power generation would increase if they learned the "original" way!

    The bottom line for me: I think Wing Chun can be and IS defined. But its distinguishing features have to be altered in a very recognizable way for it to stop being defined as Wing Chun. Most of the things debated here are not large enough changes to make something "not Wing Chun."

  2. #2
    General Wck is defineable with the following general signatures, which embedded in the sets across Wck lineages.


    1. Wck technics are based on operate within The triangle power zone and the outward and inward center line tracking action.

    2. Wck timing is one count for a receiving and sending.

    3. Wck power mechanics is force line or ground reaction force type with a seven joints alignment handling.

    4. Wck strategy and momentum is capture center guarding center, or thrust forward into center line and let the outcome shape the next step automatically into continuous direct trust, roundabout, or recovery toward the center line.




    Evolution or improvement is a natural of human, however , the evolution or improvement divert away too far from the above which make it not function as wck It is no longer Wck. Not function means no longer work or no longer work like Wck. Which is different with less or more effective due to evolution.

    Not function means Ie, not stay within triangle power zone, operate sideward, .......etc.


    The definition is needed due to It is not about who is best or oldest or original, but will the art function properly within the envelope of Wck concept principle. and accord to the sets. Or make the sets work as they were designed to be. Or really develop the Wck skill within the range .


    Ie ,

    As in ygkym, since the wck power support is to manipulate the force flow from ground within mobility or dynamic.

    holding structure in stationary like a water tower, or fixing knees , or keep constant force downward to feel powerfull to hold structure as the souhten fist , are actually blocking and jamming or cause stagnation for the force flow. Which is the opposite of Wck development.

    Using that stagnation type of yjkym to perform snt is as using a androide operating system to power iPad which needs apple os. Thus, it doesn't work and not going to produce expected Wck skill development result . Thus, is that still Wck?
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-14-2013 at 07:23 AM.

  3. #3
    There is chaos in the world of "wing chun". And this forum is hopelessly bogged down by a few frequebt posters who recite their own catechism and trolls.

    A simple definition is not easy

    So, an opinion or perspective- the best of Ip Man's teachings with good instruction, understanding and regular practice points towards good wing chun. Just "observing" the films made by Ip Man just before his death is not enough.

    Wing chun shares some things with other Chinese martial arts, specially some Southern arts-- but over 3 centuries in the transmission of the system wing chun has developed it's own unique synthesis of various elements-

    the vertical gravitational axis, the horizontal axial balancing, developing from energy running through the balanced unified skeletal structure- outward through ligaments, tendons and flesh,
    understanding the lines for issuing force, timing,reflexively dealing with points of contact, turning joints within their natural ranges, understanding the dynamic geometry of structures, understanding the tensegrity of properly developed body structure as a pre-requiste of motion, using coordinated breathing and knowing one's target, remaining focused, not being obsessed with technique and remaining self controlled are part of the core of wing chun.

    Other arts may share some of these things but not necessarily all at a given time.

    The proliferation of wing chun even in Ip Man's Hong Komg days has added to much confusion .

    I am NOT trying to debate about the art or preach .There are many other opinions worth considering..

  4. #4
    Analog to the solution in differential equation,
    Wck has two solutions, the general and the particular solution. The general solution is the solution for Wck generic, while the particular is the solution for the particular lineage on top of the general solution. The particular solution will further define the specialty but within the general solution.


    Saying these above , one can see say Wsl Wck of Jerry , Csl Wck of Allan Or they both inherit the capture center signature of Wck, but the handling of momentum are different.

    Trouble comes when people just mimic Wck technics without leaning the core principle practice of Wck from a proper teacher such as Wsl or Ho kam Ming ,..Sung Num ....ect then continuous to mix in some, BM, southern fist, taiji, mma, boxing ....etc . They never see what is Wck but inteprating Wck as they think. Falling into the mind trap of I think I know but I really don't know.
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-14-2013 at 07:42 AM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Analog to the solution in differential equation,
    Wck has two solutions, the general and the particular solution. The general solution is the solution for Wck generic, while the particular is the solution for the particular lineage on top of the general solution. The particular solution will further define the specialty but within the general solution.


    Saying these above , one can see say Wsl Wck of Jerry , Csl Wck of Allan Or they both inherit the capture center signature of Wck, but the handling of momentum are different.

    Trouble comes when people just mimic Wck technics without leaning the core principle practice of Wck from a proper teacher such as Wsl or Ho kam Ming ,..Sung Num ....ect then continuous to mix in some, BM, southern fist, taiji, mma, boxing ....etc . They never see what is Wck but inteprating Wck as they think. Falling into the mind trap of I think I know but I really don't know.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hendrik- people claim lineages sometimes just because they attended some classes sometimes.
    But I know of no serious student of Ho Kam ming who mixes wing chun with "BM, southern fist, taiji, mma, boxing ....etc ." although they do some bm-s. As a teacher Ho Kam Ming has always been very precise in his teachings. Unfortunately, the meaning of lineage in wing chun is often lost.

  6. #6
    Joy,

    I agree with you.



    My intention of presenting the DNA of Wck 1850 is not to make anyone wrong, but to present a reference for the art of Wck. I think wcner deserve to know the facts on the art they invest to train in. They deserve to know what it is and what is expected.

    Either. Yik kam Wck, or Yks wk or ipman or other lineages of Wck, for me, I see the general solution and particular solution because those solutions or definition are the identity. They all can be different in presentation but within the general solution.

    As we know today, the 1850 red boat era Wck general solution or DNA are still very much present within the proper Wck lineages.







    As you know, I personally practice different type of art , my cho gar lineage offer different type of art, but it is clearly isolate from Wck I practice.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rx-ZgFI...%3Drx-ZgFIhL8g

    If I don't keep these arts isolated, as my sifu taugh me, I will no longer do Wck but mixing different art and default to a southern fist but not Wck. Often people in the same lineage with me don't like me saying this, and thinking that mixing is Wck. Well, for me, that is just wipe out Wck. And they don't know the serious consequence of such act will cause the Wck in the lineage to extinct within one generation.




    The following are a mistake where people called it Wck from my sifu chogar wck lineage, they are not Wck.

    The following clip is put up not by my siheng but someone else got nothing to do with my siheng but label it as Wck.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMVsWwjcOAQ

    The following clip is an off range evolution, my sifu never teaches ck set because chogar is a one set system. This is hung gar more then Wck.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XvSnKa3kv0


    Again, I am not presenting these to make anyone wrong, but wcner deserve to know the truth of what is it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajramusti View Post
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hendrik- people claim lineages sometimes just because they attended some classes sometimes.
    But I know of no serious student of Ho Kam ming who mixes wing chun with "BM, southern fist, taiji, mma, boxing ....etc ." although they do some bm-s. As a teacher Ho Kam Ming has always been very precise in his teachings. Unfortunately, the meaning of lineage in wing chun is often lost.
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-14-2013 at 09:35 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Using that stagnation type of yjkym to perform snt is as using a androide operating system to power iPad which needs apple os. Thus, it doesn't work and not going to produce expected Wck skill development result . Thus, is that still Wck?

    I agree with your list of "distinguishing features" in your post. That is a good description of core characteristics of all Wing Chun. But I think you have to be careful with the statement above. This is what has turned many people off here in the forum. Plenty of people use a wider YGKYM with a bit more "rooting" than what you recommend or demo'd in your youtube video. They make it work just fine. Could it be better? Maybe. But its still Wing Chun. To anyone watching them move, it still looks like Wing Chun. The difference between your "android os" and your "apple os" is subtle. So you can't expect to tell those people they are not really doing Wing Chun based upon this and not expect them to be ticked off!!!! If they were doing a low square horse stance and calling it YGKYM, that would be different! As I said in my original post, I think you have to change the distinguishing features that define Wing Chun pretty distinctly and dramatically in order for something to no longer be Wing Chun. I think those videos you posted of people from your lineage that have "mixed" things in are a good example of that. Here's another one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=7exQZ1UeL9w

    But your "operating system" idea for YGKYM is a subtle thing and not enough to tell people that they aren't doing Wing Chun. They will just stop giving you any relevance when you post other things that are good. This is what we see happening here in the forum. So please do keep up your research and idea development. But unless they have significantly altered the distinguishing features that we have all come to recognize as Wing Chun, be careful when telling someone that that aren't really doing Wing Chun.
    Last edited by KPM; 07-14-2013 at 01:59 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    5,714
    Usually 3 empty hand forms (or points in the case of Gu Lao, etc.)

    butterfly sword and 6.5 point pole forms

    108/116 wooden dummy techniques.

    Chi sao.

    There are exceptions but this is pretty much the core of WC training. If your practice doesn't have a significant number of those, it ain't Wing Chun IMO.
    "Once you reject experience, and begin looking for the mysterious, then you are caught!" - Krishnamurti
    "We are all one" - Genki Sudo
    "We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion" - Tool, Parabol/Parabola
    "Bro, you f***ed up a long time ago" - Kurt Osiander

    WC Academy BJJ/MMA Academy Surviving Violent Crime TCM Info
    Don't like my posts? Challenge me!

  9. #9
    I do sincerely apology if I tick off anyone un intentionally.


    For technical discussion, got nothing to do with better , worst, best , all those ego stuffs, but see things as what it is.



    Plenty of people use a wider YGKYM with a bit more "rooting" than what you recommend or demo'd in your youtube video. They make it work just fine. Could it be better? Maybe.


    As soon as yjkym become southern fist rooting, it might work, but is that still developing what suppose to be develop as intended in snt ? The key word of my post is Stagnated yjkym.


    Lets, take a look at the history,

    Just decade ago, sifu Robert Chu brought up the full body integration structure. At that time, many has been using rooted wide stance. But it becomes a limbs art where the rooted lower part of the body break Apart with the upper body. So, one is actually only using shoulder power. That is before Robert brought up one must have an integration body structure and structure test.


    Today,

    Many has adapter Robert structure , but didn't proceed to the dynamic force handling as Kelvin did a great job explaining the force vector in the other thread. This is describing a non stagnated practice compare with a stagnated practice due to rooting.

    http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...&postcount=221


    Now, how is the southern fist wider rooted stance work in reality of snt in the history as these above evidence?

    Obviously, there are Robert integrated structure barrier and Kelvin force line barrier are not cross. Without these two barrier cross, without the integrated and non stagnated characteristics, how will any wider rooted yjkym work properly?

    It takes a decade for us wcner to cross Robert barrier, and how many more decade do we need to cross the Kelvin barrier? And all these time of decade and decades what are we wcners practicing?



    But its still Wing Chun. To anyone watching them move, it still looks like Wing Chun.


    It might look like Wck, but is it function and operate as one?
    a karate side outward block look like Wck tan sau too, but it is a million miles away. Because Wck doesn't do side outward block.




    The difference between your "android os" and your "apple os" is subtle.

    If you get well train people like Kelvin, he will spot it the first instance on what it is.
    But to untrained , a karate side block is taken as a tan sau. No different.
    Going further to support that side outward block, how is a yjkym going to support a side outward block? It can't because yjkym is not design for that.

    And if we want to brute force power the side outer block which is not there in the first place , then it is a natural evolution that people is going to evolve into wider rooted stance. And at that point, the evolution has been tan sau is a side outward block and the stance is wide rooted stance . So, is that still Wck? This above type of evolution actually happen in real life. That is why lots of Wck offspring evolve into that.

    But if one follow the ancestors , don't even have to go to 1850, just read Gm Ipman interview, he clearly state, Wck is forward art. And by examine yjkym, one will know , yjkym is good at forward force , not side. The power zone of yjkym is that triangle power zone. Thus, it is by design.





    So you can't expect to tell those people they are not really doing Wing Chun based upon this and not expect them to be ticked off!!!!


    This is the issue. When we take technical fact is not as important as I need to be right. Instead of looking into the technical.

    As the above, when tan sau become side outward block, yjkym become rooted wider stance, how is that suppose to work with the Wck momentum of capture center and angling....and mobility...etc?

    Saying the above, sure I am guilty of bring up the topic and certainly , we are sentiment beings where we first will take things into personal before see things as it is.


    If they were doing a low square horse stance and calling it YGKYM, that would be different! As I said in my original post, I think you have to change the distinguishing features that define Wing Chun pretty distinctly and dramatically in order for something to no longer be Wing Chun. I think those videos you posted of people from your lineage that have "mixed" things in are a good example of that. Here's another one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&fe...&v=7exQZ1UeL9w



    When this YouTube was posted a few years ago, I am the first one in the public to say it is not Wck. People don't like what I say and in fact hated me.

    I say it for a few reasons.

    1. Do not make the cho family ancestors ashame, they didn't teach this as Wck.
    2. Do not make other Wck lineages sifu laught at it because they just give face to not say it is not Wck.
    3. Do not mislead the cho family decendent to take that as Wck and fall into a dead trap of misleading and thirty years later find out it is totally mislead.

    Politically, I am totally incorrect. But should I leave it alone ? Because I do tick off lots of people.




    But your "operating system" idea for YGKYM is a subtle thing and not enough to tell people that they aren't doing Wing Chun.



    Actually, the above robert barrier and kelvin barrier re not that subtle at all but it is a uniqueness one needs to know if practice Wck properly.

    Ie. if one go learn from WSL and Hawkin of ipman wck. Wayne from snake crane WC, Gm Fung chun of gulao...etc just to name a few across Wck lineages, one will know it.

    It is just a few weeks ago I saw a private Gm Fung Chun clip from Jim Rosalendo, where Gm Fung clearly instructed how the Wck stance has to be. I ask Jim to release that to the public if possible.

    See, I am not against people, I don't know it all, but how is Wck suppose to work if it no longer follow what the past teaching is, the ancestor use it in the battle field, but none of us has today. Don't we want to know what is going on? I love evolution I myself practice different arts , but I like to find out what is it.

    As above, there is Robert barrier and kelvin barrier needs to cross. If we don't cross these barrier, the everything is subtle. Imagine if we go back to two decades ago before Robert brought up the integrated structure , there are two barriers there, people will not be able to imagine what it is like beyond these two barriers.




    They will just stop giving you any relevance when you post other things that are good.

    This is what we see happening here in the forum. So please do keep up your research and idea development. But unless they have significantly altered the distinguishing features that we have all come to recognize as Wing Chun, be careful when telling someone that that aren't really doing Wing Chun.


    If you read my post carefully, without bias and defensive , all my post is about what it is and what not it is. Sure I have to be careful on wording because English is my third or four language.

    People don't have to agree with me. And I don't know it all. I am open and accept reason,

    However, there are Robert and kelvin barrier exist solidly and real in this topic, thus, there is no subtle ness but well define and differentiate.
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-14-2013 at 05:14 PM.

  10. #10
    Some parts related to the topic, some parts just fascinating. Joy, this is a great article you wrote full of gems and some WC principles well described. Well written and hope it's ok to share!

    http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/a_..._wing_chun.pdf
    Last edited by WC1277; 07-14-2013 at 04:36 PM.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by WC1277 View Post
    Some parts related to the topic, some parts just fascinating. Joy, this is a great article you wrote full of gems and some WC principles well described. Well written and hope it's ok to share!

    http://www.tempewingchun.com/docs/a_..._wing_chun.pdf
    -------------------------------------------------WC1277--Thank you

    joy

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    [...] Plenty of people use a wider YGKYM with a bit more "rooting" than what [Hendrik] recommend or demo'd in [his] youtube [videos] [...].
    I guess this comment is more directed at Hendrik, Keith. The problem is when I have chatted to Hendrik, watched his videos and explored YGKYM in his sense, well, at one point he advises the feet to be turned out ever so slightly (as evident in photos too), and then else where says the feet should be turned in ever so slightly. Granted, this example could have just been a 'translation' error but this contradiction is not an isolated incident.

    Great thread title BTW Keith -- Can wing chun be defined? -- I think yes but not until this claim to be a 'scientifically derived system' is properly addressed in this modern age; the tools and equipment are there to measure stress through the skeletal structure, map the motion of 'the 7 bows', measure force generation (of different force types). Pedagogical claims are perhaps a little more difficult to asses given the 'lead time' required.
    Last edited by Paddington; 07-14-2013 at 11:11 PM.

  13. #13

    Can Wing Chun be defined ?

    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post
    This has come up as a point or an issue on several threads recently. So I thought I'd give the topic its own thread and put in my 2 cents.

    First off, just giving something a name is starting to define it. If you tell someone "I do Wing Chun", they may very naturally ask..."what's that?" What are you going to tell them? Your answer is one definition (however succinct or limited) of Wing Chun. You might tell them it is a southern Chinese martial art and then describe some of its distinguishing characteristics that set it apart from other southern arts....like a higher stance with knees slightly in, use of the centerline to attack and defend, use of both hands at once, etc.

    Any martial art is "defined" to an extent by its distinguishing characteristics. Its how we describe a physical activity that "defines" that activity. Just look up the definition of "football" in the dictionary and it says:
    an American game played between two teams of 11 players each in which the ball is in possession of one side at a time and is advanced by running or passing

    But we have to be careful what "football" we are referring to, because we discover that the dictionary also says:
    any of several games played between two teams on a usually rectangular field having goalposts or goals at each end and whose object is to get the ball over a goal line, into a goal, or between goalposts by running, passing, or kicking
    So we have to qualify our definition as "American Football" some of the time, depending on the context.

    Its the same with Wing Chun. We have a general definition of Wing Chun, just as there is a general definition of Football. But we also have specific definitions of Wing Chun, just as there is a difference between American Football and British or South American Football. So we typically further qualify our definition of Wing Chun by giving the lineage designation, saying "Yip Man Wing Chun" or "Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun."

    But what seems to be debated is that general definition. What distinguishing characteristics can be changed and suddenly the activity stops being "Wing Chun"? What if low extended stances were used as in "Shaolin Weng Chun"? What if punches were thrown from the shoulder instead of along the centerline? What if lots of spinning techniques were used? At what point does Wing Chun become altered to the point that it can no longer be considered "Wing Chun"? That is a tough question to answer! But I do believe there is a point where something is no longer "Wing Chun" in a generic sense.

    But I think it should be clear that Wing Chun CAN be and IS "defined" all the time. Now that definition can be rather generic, somewhat like the definition of football. But that definition can also be refined a little more by including the distinguishing characteristics from a specific lineage of teaching. However, there is also another way of refining the definition beyond the various lineages. This happens by examining the basic distinguishing features common to all lineages and looking for better ways to describe them or "flesh them out" a bit. To an extent, I think this is what Hendrik has been doing. The problem here is that with time, some lineages may have forgotten or lost some of these characteristics. Can bringing them back help that lineage of teaching? That is what is open to debate. However, I see no harm in looking for some of those original features just to see what they were. The problem is when people say that one way is "right" and the other is "wrong." Or one way is "real Wing Chun" and the other is not. That can only bring hard feelings and offense. One way may be more "original", but whether it is a "better" way remains to be proven.

    So just because someone does not understand or use the "original" way of developing power in their YGKYM does not mean that they are not doing Wing Chun. Maybe they have found a better way to use the YGKYM structure! Or maybe not and their power generation would increase if they learned the "original" way!

    The bottom line for me: I think Wing Chun can be and IS defined. But its distinguishing features have to be altered in a very recognizable way for it to stop being defined as Wing Chun. Most of the things debated here are not large enough changes to make something "not Wing Chun."
    KPM , you ' re right about Wing Chun ? To me it ' s up to the people who talk about WC itself do their own individual research on WC and the different versions , lineages and the various systems of WC itself for example IP . Hung Yi , Shaolin , Weng Chun , and the other versions of WC it self .

    And the other kung Fu system which sets itself apart from WC like Hung Gar , Choy Li Fut , Bak Mei , Shaolin Long Fist and the list goes on and on . The different version and lineages of WC itself is now on Youtube and so as the other system and styles of kung fu the ones I ' ve mentioned in my topic post reply to your topic post . If people do their own research then they can defined what is WC and what is not WC . It ' s people who get people confused about what WC itself is and what is not WC ?

  14. #14
    The key of yjkym according to ancient is the body weight distribution is toward the out side of the feet. That way the body can stand in a loose and stable state , one can practically sleep in that loose state feeling light weight. The inner tight is loose so that the legs three yin medirians can flow upward into chest freely. Kam young of yjkym means clamping yang, weight on the yang side is clamping yang.

    In order to have very efficient Jin path and jin flow , the above has to be first achieve.


    As for feet to be turned either slight out or slight in, that depend on person legs condition, the goal is to achieve the above goal of weight toward the yang side with ease. It is not a one size fit everybody type of thing. It is not a physical fixing joints angle deal. And often due to different state of training one needs to keep adjusting that slight in or out depend on how loose one can be to achieve clamping yang. It depends on how comfortable is one .








    Quote Originally Posted by Paddington View Post
    I guess this comment is more directed at Hendrik, Keith. The problem is when I have chatted to Hendrik, watched his videos and explored YGKYM in his sense, well, at one point he advises the feet to be turned out ever so slightly (as evident in photos too),

    and then else where says the feet should be turned in ever so slightly.

    Granted, this example could have just been a 'translation' error but this contradiction is not an isolated incident.
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-15-2013 at 12:46 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Newcastle upon tyne, UK
    Posts
    422
    I was thinking of the same thing over the weekend but did not write my thoughts downa t the time so here is a brain dump.


    to me wing chun should include these characteristics.

    More close range than long
    More sticking than run and hit tactics
    forms including siu nim tao, chum kiu and bui tse
    some dummy work
    some pole work
    nautral movement based on less strength overcoming more
    softness more than hardness (less about conitioning and muscle strength)
    The idea of reducing rather than gathering technqiue (simplify)

    ------------------------

    to me you can have more but its going agianst the core ideas

    Chi Sau is not a pre-requistite but it should be if it comes from ip man and his friends such as YKS

    Knives,not sure about (Most sourthern styles have then so have wing chun just adopted them

    The form names seem to exist even when the routines don't share any pattern.

    I did not insclude economy of motion, centreline etc as every style has or should have these.

    Paul
    www.moifa.co.uk

Posting Permissions

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