Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Can Wing Chun be defined?

  1. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by anerlich View Post
    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.
    I think that is a curriculum for teaching wing chun not wing chun itself. It is like saying boxing is jumping rope, hitting pads and bags, shadow boxing and so forth. Yes this is how it is trained but not what it is.

    When we see a person and we recognize that they are doing wing chun what are we seeing that tells us this? It is their movement because they are using the techniques or actions of wing chun things like the elbow down punch, tan, bong, fook, pak and so forth. I think then when we see people using the tools or actions of wing chun and we all know what those are we can safely say they are using wing chun. If we do not like how they are using them or we or not like the mechanics they use or so forth it is till wing chun since they are using the tools of wing chun. The question is then how well they can use them.

    When we see someone not using the technique or actions or tools of wing chun then that is easily recognized as well.

    The problem is with definitions is that some people want to tell others that they have to do things as the believe it should be done. I am saying recognizing wing chun has nothing whatever to do with how things should be used just that the common tools are used.

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    When we see a person and we recognize that they are doing wing chun what are we seeing that tells us this? It is their movement because they are using the techniques or actions of wing chun things like the elbow down punch, tan, bong, fook, pak and so forth. I think then when we see people using the tools or actions of wing chun and we all know what those are we can safely say they are using wing chun.
    Non of these hand shapes are unique to wing chun. Not even the combination is unique to wing chun. What is unique to wing chun is the body mechanic and the principles.

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by guy b. View Post
    Non of these hand shapes are unique to wing chun. Not even the combination is unique to wing chun. What is unique to wing chun is the body mechanic and the principles.
    They are not unique in themselves but the combination of them is. For example boxing has a pak sau like action cuffing but does not combine it with elbow down punching and tan sau.

    You can recognize what you call poor wing chun with mechanics you do not like right? Yet you still recognize the wing chun. How is that so?

    What principles or concepts do you think define wing chun? Can you list them? Are they unique to wing chun?
    Last edited by tc101; 07-15-2013 at 04:59 AM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    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.

    ---But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not referring to people doing a Southern Mantis Tonglong Ma as part of their Wing Chun. I'm talking about people doing YGKYM as most have done it for decades now. I'm talking about what has been "typical" YGKYM without the narrow stance, waving body, and "coiling snake" technology that you have been researching and describing lately.


    Just decade ago, sifu Robert Chu brought up the full body integration structure.

    ----Yes. But I don't recall Robert every telling anyone that they WERE NOT doing Wing Chun if they were not using his full body integration structure. Robert recognized that they were doing Wing Chun, but that they could make their Wing Chun better.



    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.

    ----That may be true. But that doesn't make what they are doing NOT Wing Chun.


    Without these two barrier cross, without the integrated and non stagnated characteristics, how will any wider rooted yjkym work properly?

    ----Again, it may not work properly or optimally, but that does not negate everything they are doing as Wing Chun. Someone may have a Tan Sao that goes forward but has the elbow flared out a bit too far. So their Tan Sao doesn't work properly. But that doesn't mean that they aren't doing Wing Chun!


    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?

    ---Maybe sub-optimal Wing Chun? But its still Wing Chun!


    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.

    ----I agree with you! But its all in how you present it. Rather than saying "if you aren't doing it this way you are NOT doing Wing Chun!", you could say "I think this will improve your Wing Chun and make it more optimal if you give it a try." That's just human nature. You can't beat someone over the head with an idea. You have to sell it to them. You can't tell someone that everything they have been doing for years is wrong and not even "real" Wing Chun and expect them to listen. That's YOU needing to be right. But if you tell someone that you have come across an older version of power generation that might help improve their Wing Chun, you might rouse some interest! Of course, then you have to convince them that it WILL improve their Wing Chun.


    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.

    ----Again, I agree with you! But the point is that people ARE making it work! So when you tell them that Wing Chun doesn't work without this ancestral "technology" and therefore what they are doing is NOT Wing Chun, they are going to completely disregard what you have to say! Don't you see that? But if you tell them that this ancestral "technology" might improve their Wing Chun, that's different!


    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.

    ----I'm not being biased or defensive. I'm just trying to point out the problem as I see it to help out everyone involved. I like a lot of what you have been writing lately. But I'm trying to get you to see that you cannot tell the people here that they are NOT DOING WING CHUN because they do not use this ancestral "technology" in their YGKYM and expect to get a positive response. How you present information matters!

  5. #20
    Very good post.

    Instead of seeing wing chun as having a very fixed and limited way of expression we can see it as having a range of possibilites open to us.

    I have heard different people say I am teaching exactly what Yip Man taught me. I think they are probably not lying but still they are doing things differently. This is because Yip Man does not teach just one way is the right way but there is a range of possiblities and you find which one works best for you.

    Hawkins Cheung has great old article about this during wing chun controversy years where he showed the controversy comes from Yip teaching differently but different people what he taught them as the only right way. My teqcher gave me a xerox copy when I asked him once why he taught my classmate differently than me.

    I think this went on from beginning of wing chun and leads to present day confusion.

    This is also why I call Hendrik cherry picking. He sees elements in YM that he says is original so counts those as defining but there are also many in YM who do not do that and he dismisses them as not doing wing chun or doing it wrong or whatever. Then he picks Ko Lo wing chun and finds people there doing what he thinks is original and so counts them in his thesis but ignores those doing it differently as doing it wrong or learning poorly or whatever. He misses the point that there is a range of possibilities and you will find that range. That range may not have been original or it may have who knows. It may been added to who knows. We can add to it today if we find a way to.

    The ancestors of wing chun did not define wing chun for today they defined it if you want to think of it that way for their day. There was a wing chun in 1850 just like there was boxing in 1850. That was how it was then but they do not get to define it for now. We define it for now. It is what it is now.

  6. #21
    1. The following is my exact word, it is a technical question, for me, it got nothing to do with telling anyone that they WERE NOT doing Wing Chun .

    But sure I cannot limit how you like to read into it. Because different people read different things.


    the answer of a question can be
    yes, because , no, because, partially no and yes, not relevant , ......etc.




    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by KPM View Post

    ----Yes. But I don't recall Robert every telling anyone that they WERE NOT doing Wing Chun if they were not using his full body integration structure. Robert recognized that they were doing Wing Chun, but that they could make their Wing Chun better.



    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.

    ----That may be true. But that doesn't make what they are doing NOT Wing Chun.

    How you present information matters!


    2.


    The following is your view.

    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.



    As. I have described in details above in my original post and continuous on to defined the Robert barrier and Kelvin barrier. It is distinguishing features in the body mechanics of Wck.
    And again, I question ,if the uniqueness is not present, will it still Wck. Instead of telling someone that that aren't really doing Wing Chun.









    But if you tell them that this ancestral "technology" might improve their Wing Chun, that's different! How you present information matters!


    Excellent point taken!
    Thanks!
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-15-2013 at 07:49 AM.

  7. #22
    One always can solve an iPad os and androids os incompatable engineering issue via politics.

    That doesn't solve the os issue but get those who doesn't want to face the issue happy.

    As I have presented, if one doesn't cross the Robert integration barrier and then Kelvin ground force dynamic barrier, how close or far it is from making Wck works?


    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post


    This is also why I call Hendrik cherry picking.

    He sees elements in YM that he says is original so counts those as defining but there are also many in YM who do not do that and he dismisses them as not doing wing chun or doing it wrong or whatever.

    Then he picks Ko Lo wing chun and finds people there doing what he thinks is original and so counts them in his thesis but ignores those doing it differently as doing it wrong or learning poorly or whatever.

    He misses the point that there is a range of possibilities and you will find that range. That range may not have been original or it may have who knows. It may been added to who knows. We can add to it today if we find a way to.

    The ancestors of wing chun did not define wing chun for today they defined it if you want to think of it that way for their day. There was a wing chun in 1850 just like there was boxing in 1850. That was how it was then but they do not get to define it for now. We define it for now. It is what it is now.
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-15-2013 at 07:59 AM.

  8. #23

    Pure Ving Tsun?!?!?

    Hendrik, it is silly to continue being stuck on this whole "pure" versus "impure" Wing Chun argument.

    If I decide to follow up my Wing Chun with a hook punch that knocks the guy out then what difference does it make that I contaminated my Wing Chun?

    Wong Shun Leung said we should be a master of the principles, not a slave to them. You, sir, seem to be stuck in 1850. That is textbook "slavery."

    Respectfully,
    Vernon

  9. #24
    1.I have NEVER mention Pure or impure. And have no interest in the original, oldest, pure Wck.


    2. Common denominators and Technical details supporting how things work in wck is my focus.

    3. Two barriers I have brought up yesterday are from Robert and Kelvin, they are real people in 2013 and different Wck lineage. And the question I have asked is, if those two barriers are not cross , how far or close or well does ones Wck work ?

    4. One can't say one is playing beetovern music if one playing Chinese music isn't it?
    Dont t a beetovern music has to atleast sound the following way even it is rock version
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytyq3wydqCY


    Quote Originally Posted by Vernon View Post
    Hendrik, it is silly to continue being stuck on this whole "pure" versus "impure" Wing Chun argument.

    If I decide to follow up my Wing Chun with a hook punch that knocks the guy out then what difference does it make that I contaminated my Wing Chun?

    Wong Shun Leung said we should be a master of the principles, not a slave to them. You, sir, seem to be stuck in 1850. That is textbook "slavery."

    Respectfully,
    Vernon
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-15-2013 at 10:03 AM.

  10. #25
    Yes that is the whole problem with you thinking in terms of definition. A definition is fixed static and you hold things up to definition to see if they match. You think wing chun is like the formula for coca cola it either is or isn't coke. Martial arts including wing chun are not like that thy are constantly changing and evolving and adding and subtracting. Wing chun in the 1850is not wing chun today yet both and everything in between is wing chun. This is not saying you can do anything. But if what you are doing retains enough characteristics to be identified as wing chun then it is wing chun. If Yip Man's teacher saw what he was teaching in Hong Kong he might say this is not what I teach you. But it is still wing chun.

  11. #26
    Hendrik, yesterday you wrote:

    "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."

    Virtually every time I go into a sparring match I try to employ Ving Tsun principles along with other stuff such as boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ (if we are including grappling into the mix). Ving Tsun is my favorite part of my JKD, and I plan on working on VT for the rest of my days. So for anybody to find "trouble" with a mixed approach of employing Ving Tsun principles with other techniques/strategies/principles seems short-sighted. Or perhaps I was misinterpreting your sentiments.

    Best,
    Vernon

  12. #27
    The issue I brought up is, if one doesn't learn Wck properly, one really doesn't see how the art of wck work.



    As any technology, there are always, concept, platform , and basic building block. All are needed to have complete technology. IMO, same with Wck. It cannot have a Wck principle, spm platform, karate building block. Because when things mix this way the tehnology doesn't work effectively.

    Not to mention, if we don't know the existence of concept, platform, and building blocks. To carry idea to physical world, we might end up with a collection of concept but no basic building blocks, a collection of mix building blocks from different opposite technology, .....etc so that is what happen , IMO.


    For example, Bruce lee doesn't call his art Wck but Jkd. Because it is a different art he created core on different principle instead of Wck. He is very specific. Otherwise he would not called it JKD.
    Bruce concept philosophy, platform to support the concept, and building blocks based on the platform to realized his concept are defined by him.

    So, if I want to learn JKD as Bruce created, I need to go learn from sifu like Dan inosanto. Otherwise, I am guessing. I sure can read Bruce Dao of JKD, but that is I think I know but I don't.

    So, it is not a pure, oldest.....my lineage is best....etc. as in the Bruce lee and Dan Inosanto case, I can read the Dao of JKD x 10000 times but I still guessing. Sure I can argue with in Dan Inosanto with Bruce lee Dao of Jkd qoute. But what good is that? I don't know JKD. Dan knows.



    Thus, I am not here to get into pure, oldest, my lineage is better then you.....etc stuffs.
    I raise technical questions, as in the movie Appolo13, " Huston, we have a problem". And Huston has to think how to get all the boys back home safe. Is what I expected. I am not Huston. There are plenty of Wck Gm who knows the issues but not speak up. Those Gm are Huston. Even in Gm Ipman generation, Gm Ipman speak up, see his interview, he did define Wck in black and white. As in the attach scan. The uniqueness of wck which I post in this thread is in fact support by the Gm Ipman definition in this scan. Thus, we do know the common denominator or DNA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vernon View Post
    Hendrik, yesterday you wrote:

    "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."

    Virtually every time I go into a sparring match I try to employ Ving Tsun principles along with other stuff such as boxing, Muay Thai, and BJJ (if we are including grappling into the mix). Ving Tsun is my favorite part of my JKD, and I plan on working on VT for the rest of my days.

    So for anybody to find "trouble" with a mixed approach of employing Ving Tsun principles with other techniques/strategies/principles seems short-sighted. Or perhaps I was misinterpreting your sentiments.

    Best,
    Vernon
    Last edited by Hendrik; 07-15-2013 at 11:26 AM.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hung Fa Yi Club of Gilbert
    Posts
    661

    re: Can Wing Chun be defined, part 1

    KPM, your original question is intriguing upfront and thought-provoking on deeper levels of consideration. It is a potentially good opportunity to shed light into areas of Wing Chun discussion not often explored enough. You highlight various degrees of definitions in relation to particular aspects like an individual or lineage (specific), and the art (generic). You also present interesting theories on how things could play out. This forum is a prime example as a window into our world of Wing Chun being defined and redefined on a regular basis. What that can indicate is one possibility… that the art has been in a continuous state of flux as far back as the mid 1800’s. Some could argue evolution and others might argue regression, which is both relative and subjective. The short answer to your question is yes it can be defined, as you have stated. The long answer requires a lot more areas to be discussed by many people. A more challenging question should be “How should Wing Chun be defined?”

    What I think should be noted as points of consideration for all of us to discuss are to what standard level(s) should the integrity of the art be applied? Should the standard be Individualism “if it works for ME then that is all that matters”? Whereas there could then be as many different versions of Wing Chun as there are practitioners, because what works for one person might not work for another. The definition of Wing Chun at this level begins and ends with the person, and will change with the next person and the next.

    If the person; the individual, becomes the standard for what is/not, what happens to history? What happens to (kung fu) culture? What happens to the philosophy(ies) of Wing Chun? ALL open to interpretation. By blurring the connections to Wing Chun’s past evermore so, well, I can’t imagine this kind of impact to be honest. Wing Chun would continually be REDEFINED.

    On the other side of the coin is the “What can I do for you?” type of people. Things at this level are more widely/uniformly practiced in particular groups as to what is and what is not Wing Chun. Qualified typically by adding a person’s name or symbolic phrase to the expression of the art being practiced, lineage is more easily distinguishable in separating a group’s traditions and uniqueness from others. Here history culture and philosophy tend to have greater longevity and importance in the survival of the art.

    To define it, one should take into great consideration an anthropological approach as well. Why? Well for one, the art isn’t just a ‘thing’ like some modern day convenience device; fully customizable and made to tailor to everyone’s preferences. How and why have things come to be what they are today?

    When it comes to consistency on a systematic level – inside and out – of the art we practice, this has to be non-negotiable. How do you define maximum efficiency, and how are each and every minute part of the art supportive of this ideal? How about defining it through its principles, concepts, and theories? What constitutes each component, and how cohesive should each idea and aspect be in relation to each other?

    If we simply removed all lineage/group/personal labels and looked at the collective knowledge of all lineages and groups it does not necessarily reveal just the commonalities and differences across the board. This is of course, looking beyond having the three core forms, Chi Sao, wooden dummy, pole and butterfly knives. Moreover, in defining what is Wing Chun in this way there is a great probability in finding many contradictions on a scientific level amongst the groups. One concept from a particular group may violate the concept of another group. In addition, certain ideas found in one group may be completely foreign to another. And yet there are also other martial arts greatly influenced by Wing Chun like JKD. Because Wing Chun is a concept driven art based on unchanging principles. How unchanging should the system’s hardware (structures and mechanical properties) be until it is no longer to be qualified as Wing Chun in signature? What’s the tolerance scale for deviation?

    Now we can tackle the question of what is right and wrong scientifically. If this is the endeavor, however, the challenge then is quite great. Who out there can clearly distinguish between their skills and the system to make such an assessment? Does a person equate a “win” or “loss” to the application of Wing Chun or their personal skill and abilities? Unless there are qualified people from different groups who are genuinely open to testing ideas and concepts and coming to agreement on how things should be defined, we may never get to a widespread acceptable definition due to this disparity and the fact that many groups are set in their own methods. This doesn’t mean cross examination is fruitless! We can all learn something from each other, especially if we are to be truly scientific in our approach.

    If we look at some technical examples to illustrate differences, let’s take a look at Bong Sao. In Moy Yat VTK I learned to keep the hand light and loose. The wrist was to be lower than the elbow aligned to the centerline. The elbow is held at shoulder height, and the forearm was used as an off-center deflection accompanied by a slight bracing of the horse.

    From what I have seen and read of TWC, the Bong Sao is done with a straight wrist instead. My details may be inaccurate but I do believe the TWC Bong Sao also has the elbow rise up to the eye level. This is a large contrast to the Moy Yat method, and is just as valid a contribution to the WC community.

    In HFY, therein exist three distinct Bong Sao – each with its own unique function, and all of which are consistent with the system’s logic. One resembles what I learned in MYVT, albeit the focus and energy is very different. This one is called HFY Hok Bong Sao (Crane Bong Sao). A second type structurally resembles the TWC Bong Sao. Utilizing the straightened wrist, HFY’s Ying Bong Sao (Eagle Bong Sao) serves a different function with different energy from the HFY Hok Bong Sao. The last of the three shares some common ground with Laan Sao but still functions as Bong Sao concept. It is the HFY Laan Bong Sao.

    Why does HFY have three different Bong Sao? Three exist to address the spatial construct for which HFY is designed. Structural energy is just as important to understand too, and the three tools of Bong Sao address different areas/dimensions of space through appropriate structural energetics. The point though is not that “more” is better or worse. The point is where one group may say the other is “wrong”, another way to look at it would be each is right in relation to its intended application. In other words each has its own time space and energy.

    Here is another point to consider. Different Wing Chun groups also define the shape of space differently. In turn, this directly impacts how one behaves and moves in those defined spaces. How does this affect the definition of Wing Chun from group to group? Is that considered a difference in principle, concept, or theory? The use of technique is directly influenced by how it deploys into spaces. How does that play into the definition of Wing Chun?

    Let’s look at another interesting aspect. There are two different kung fu systems which reference a common concept, known as Tien Yan Dei (Heaven Human Earth), but each system uses the terms and applies the concept in very different fashions.

    —continued
    World Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu Association

    "Obey the natural laws and principles of the universe." ~ Grandmaster Garrett Gee

    "Education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society... We must remember intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education.” ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hung Fa Yi Club of Gilbert
    Posts
    661

    re: Can Wing Chun be defined, part 2

    Chi Sim Weng Chun Kuen has this concept to define distance in three segments and also designates the major body joints accordingly where Heaven is furthest out and Earth is nearest towards. This is based on the common trait of animal style kung fu mechanics. HFYWCK also has the Tien Yan Dei concept, but is very much different. HFY’s Tien Yan Dei concept has 6 layers to it, and whilst it addresses space and body designations, its application is incomparable to the latter. The mapping of the human form and framework of space in HFY do not share common ground with Chi Sim Weng Chun. Here is a letter from a Chi Sim proponent who wrote to GM Garrett Gee after meeting with him during his latest Hong Kong trip (and his reply) and experiencing HFY directly:


    “Grandmaster Gee,
    It was very good to see you during your visits to China. I do appreciate your sharing of this great knowledge of Kung Fu. I found you...r expression of Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Tien Yan Dei and Kiu Sao technology to be quite interesting and very intricate. Hung Fa Yi is proving to be more sophisticated than the art I previously experienced learning from my uncle. HFY presented a more influential and dimensional Wing Chun TYD than Shaolin animal style Weng Chun TYD technology. After directly experiencing the HFY Kiu Sao Chi Sao from you, I can easily see there are many layers and differences between these two great kung fu systems. My uncle had over thirty some years Shaolin Chi Sim Weng Chun experience under Grandmaster Wai Yan. After I told him about my Kung Fu experience with you, he is very eager to meet you on your next visit.
    Best Regards,
    Chuck

    Hello Chuck,
    It was my pleasure meeting with you and the other Kung Fu Masters in the Hong Kong Kung Fu community. I look forward to meeting your uncle when I am able to visit Hong Kong. As a life long martial artist, I appreciate all martial art styles and always enjoy discussion with those true practitioners of the arts. As a representative of the Kung Fu Tong Project, I appreciate any opportunities to research and verify the history of different martial arts lineages. Your contributions in clarifying the relationships between Yip Man and Chu Chong Man as well as the account of Leung Bik from Wai Yan are a great boon for the Kung Fu community. The members of the Kung Fu Tong project all appreciate your contributions as you are someone with special insight in to your lineage's technology and history.
    Until we meet again.”

    It is very commonplace for GM Garrett Gee to meet and exchange with many different martial artists on his frequent travels, and one thing has proven to be most certain over the last three decades: people around the world seek him out and are very much engaged by his rich knowledge of martial arts inside and outside of Wing Chun. I find that direct experience with qualified representatives in their arts meeting and exchanging kung fu is the most efficient path to travel. When anerlich of TWC and duende of HFY met up in Australia for a bit and shared their kung fu, their testimony carried so much more weight and gravity than any post online not based on direct person-to-person interaction.

    To define the art of Wing Chun, one must have intimate knowledge of the art's system logic AND what its designed intention is supposed to do and handle. Moreover, and probably the greatest question that might (or might not) be impossible to answer is “How and where does Wing Chun begin?” Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote a few months back:


    “The art of Wing Chun was designed as a vehicle to experience a specific idea, and more importantly, a universal truth. In terms of purpose and function, the idea for the creation of Wing Chun was to offer a means for its seekers to express themselves in combative form, and with all of one’s integrity intact, through the achievement of maximum efficiency. In order to accomplish this monumental idea in such a way as no other has devised before, many philosophical factors of human nature also became fundamental considerations in designing the art.

    Combat, and the potential consequences that come with it, is a true test of one’s spiritual fortitude. The specific truth we all try to experience as genuine martial artists of the Way is to ultimately be in total harmony with our surrounding universe. Harmony was to be achieved via the idea of Maximum Efficiency. This is not to be taken as a fleeting moment in time; rather, it is to cultivate our total awareness in every moment of our human and spiritual experiences in life.

    Wing Chun Kuen was ingeniously designed for both leader warriors and fighters of the Martial Path. In order for both classes to experience and use the art of Wing Chun Kuen, two approaches were crafted to facilitate their journeys. This was done out of necessity. One track was developed for wider spread use and to train skilled Wing Chun fighters in relatively quick fashion, which is called Siu Lien Tao (詠春拳小練頭, Little Drilling Beginning). The second track containing the combat training of its counterpart Siu Lien Tao has many more stipulations to abide by. This track is not compatible for wide spread exposure due to its complex nature. Wing Chun's core technical knowledge, with its original formulaic constructs, gives it rise governing all aspects of this training approach. These genetic components enable the art’s replication, and is called Siu Nim Tao (詠春拳小念頭, Little Idea Beginning).

    The Drilling Method

    Siu Lien Tao is a combat technique applications-oriented track, and carries the general signature of the fighting art along with a conceptual framework functionally sufficient for fighters. This method is a self containing (and fully) operational construct of Wing Chun. Furthermore, Siu Lien Tao is engineered to be very flexible. It could be tailored to meet the practitioner at his/her developmental stage provided the methods remain oriented upon achievable accelerated combative competency.

    Siu Lien Tao is designed for leader warriors to train their fighters easily and quickly, without any great or extensive demand on a fighter’s restricted time to becoming efficient in combat. Fundamental concepts and theories concerning triangulated body structures and basic strategy and tactic were included so that each fighter would be combat knowledgeable enough to self-correct in action. Weapons training, individual and group training, routines and live combat, are all a part of the Siu Lien Tao. Much of a practitioner’s success is highly dependent upon his/hers experience and overall prowess. Yet, for its intended reality, this method is designed to be drilled inside and out then executed in battle.

    The Conceptual Method

    The composition of the Siu Nim Tao nucleus is based upon the synthesis of various multi-layered concepts that address the factors of Time Space and Energy. This track was never intended for average folks, as it requires an extensive intellectual capacity in addition to highly demanding and disciplined combat training. There are extensive requirements and elaborate combat progressions that come with this training. In contrast to the Siu Lien Tao method, Siu Nim Tao is intensely more demanding on one’s qualities and resources.

    The core technical and philosophical information of Wing Chun is ultimately required to precisely replicate the art of achieving Maximum Efficiency. By the very nature of Maximum Efficiency there is nothing that can be added, subtracted, or altered. It was discovered as a principle within this reality, and just as all truths in the universe it exists in spite of anything else. It requires no “operator” to exist or function.

    Yet, as this principle (Universal Truth) pertains to our physical form and our three dimensional reality plus the fourth dimension of Time, formulas and equations become paramount with respect to Maximum Efficiency. This is a part of the considerations for the Siu Nim Tao path of Wing Chun. It is an exceedingly scientific method of combat.

    Philosophical Considerations

    In order to manage one’s harmony with the universe one cannot deny the reality and relationship of balance and chaos. The natures of all forms of energy (internal and external) we experience are in a constant flux, and therein lay the challenge of our existence. How does one get to the embodiment of truth through a world of constant fluctuation? The path requires the most dedicated of persons due to the scientific nature of the journey and its profoundly philosophical underpinnings.

    Wing Chun’s potentially existential achievement had to compliment the nature of the human experience as well, which we refer to as “seasons of growth” or Saam Mo Kiu (三摩橋, three connecting bridges). Saam Mo Kiu methodology addresses all the needs of our psychological, physical, and spiritual awareness. This means that all realities of combat must be given rise through the lens of Maximum Efficiency. Everything must be subject to the logic of causes, effects, and consequences. What is correct and incorrect based on the science? Wing Chun takes no exception in the extension of knowledge through the investigation of all things. These points are exemplary artifacts of the Confucian influence from the scholar and philosopher Chu Hsi (朱熹), who was a teacher of many things including Greater Learning (格物致知). In the course of our contemplations regarding our own inner nature, the principles of our reality, and our relationship to things, all have its place and time in what we do in life.”
    Regards,
    Savi.
    World Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kung Fu Association

    "Obey the natural laws and principles of the universe." ~ Grandmaster Garrett Gee

    "Education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society... We must remember intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education.” ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by tc101 View Post
    They are not unique in themselves but the combination of them is.
    The combination of hand shapes you listed is not unique to wing chun

Posting Permissions

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