WC ...NOT a thinking man's martial art?

[Grumblegeezer]

This is my own take on the question as to whether VT/WC/WT has a special appeal to intelligent, thoughtful individuals. In other words is it a thinking man's martial art?

In my experience, no. Like many other TCMA it is based excessivly on faith and doing "What Sifu says". How often do you hear someone declare that their branch of WC is right and others are wrong. Too many of turn off our brains and just repeat what sifu says. By contrast, thinking individuals question, experiment and invent new solutions to problems. Then they test their solutions against resistance.

Look at any evolving, competitive sport or activity. It's not a matter of right or wrong, or of "what coach says", it's a matter of what you can make work best for yourself. In any sport, different competitors often develop different personal styles that capitalize on their individual abilities. What works for one champion is not "the right way", just because at one given point in history he wins the title, the "gold", first place, or whatever. Why? Because the same approach may not help another competitor to reach his own potential.

Think about it. Every variation of technique or movement needs to be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. I've been involved with a couple of different WC groups. Both are legitimate Yip Man lineage WC taught by competent and well known Sifus. One of many things they differ on is stance. Objectively, I can see advantages and disadvantages to each approach. So which one right?

An unthinking man simply says that his sifu is right. A thinking man can weigh the costs or risks vs. the benefits of each approach, and choose the one that works for him without denigrating what others choose. Which works best for most people can be tested by sparring, sharing ideas and over time, a consensus emerges. At least that's how it works in other sports and activities. But generally not in VT/WC/WT. We are apparently NOT a thinking man's art at all. We act more like sectarian religious fanatics. Especially on this forum. Any thoughts?

[Grumblegeezer]

OK here's a specific example of what I'm talking about. In the first clip, Alex Richter shows the way stance turning is taught by people coming from the WT branch. I give this guy some credit, not only for a clear, concise presentation, but also for acknowledging that there are other legitimate approaches to this movement which do not shift weight (and vertical mid-line) from side to side. Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNNNDPJyI7k


Now here is Alan Orr giving a great explanation of how he applies stance turning without the lateral weight shift. Moreover, he gives a very clear demo of why he prefers this approach. And, he and his guys really test their stuff. So I'm pretty sure it's not wrong. But neither is the WT approach above. It really depends on so much more... the individual fighter, the situation, the pressure given and received...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTEy-yMEv0Y


Anyway, IMO a thinking man should have no trouble considering the possibility that there is more than one way to skin a cat. And ultimately, if one approach is proven "better", that can be arrived at by testing the different approaches, not by quoting "authories" or by insulting the other side of the argument!

[anerlich]

If being a thinking person is something like being a scientist and arriving at conclusions and judgements using the scientific method, then WC and most of TCMA are not thinking persons' arts.

There is not enough testing of hypotheses and theories via experiment.

WC and TCMA do not follow the paths by which other disciplines and activities progress. there is no evolution or continuous improvement.

If things really were better and more sophisticated in 1850, then WC fails the test of the thinking person's MA, and all its "lineage holders" were concerned with stuff other than the art's development.

Or they were idiots, depending on your POV.

The concusion regarding the confederacy of idiots relies on the premise that WC reached its zenith in 1850 .... which I think is horsesh*t, and have yet to see a 30 minute video to convince me otherwise.

[tc101]

If being a thinking person is something like being a scientist and arriving at conclusions and judgements using the scientific method, then WC and most of TCMA are not thinking persons' arts.

There is not enough testing of hypotheses and theories via experiment.

WC and TCMA do not follow the paths by which other disciplines and activities progress. there is no evolution or continuous improvement.

If things really were better and more sophisticated in 1850, then WC fails the test of the thinking person's MA, and all its "lineage holders" were concerned with stuff other than the art's development.

Or they were idiots, depending on your POV.

The concusion regarding the confederacy of idiots relies on the premise that WC reached its zenith in 1850 .... which I think is horsesh*t, and have yet to see a 30 minute video to convince me otherwise.

The way I learned is that there is a 4 step process to increasing skill. 1 you have an idea or are shown how to do something. 2 you practice trying to do it. 3 you get feedback including results, input from coaches. 4 you reflect on your performance in light of the feedback then back to 1 you have a modified idea of how to do something and so on and on. Performance and reflection go hand in hand. Performance without reflection is a slow road. Reflection without performance is the arm chair way.

[Paddington]

When I read Keith's thread arguing and implying that wing chun is the thinking mans martial art, I did wince. Does wing chun appeal more to intelligent people? Like Grumblegeezer I have to answer no.

I can see why people might think differently to myself. The use of the words 'science', 'scientifically proven' and 'scientific method' in marketing material and books about wing chun, seem more rhetorical devices in the aid of marketing the respective sifu. This is particularly true when one looks at the content of said books and the syllabuses taught by well known sifus out there.

Much like an advert for toothpaste where the actor wears a white coat and pretends to be a dentist to lend authority to the product, the use of the term 'scientific' and its derivatives in the wing chun community, has always annoyed me.

[chaotic2k]

When I read Keith's thread arguing and implying that wing chun is the thinking mans martial art, I did wince. Does wing chun appeal more to intelligent people? Like Grumblegeezer I have to answer no.

I can see why people might think differently to myself. The use of the words 'science', 'scientifically proven' and 'scientific method' in marketing material and books about wing chun, seem more rhetorical devices in the aid of marketing the respective sifu. This is particularly true when one looks at the content of said books and the syllabuses taught by well known sifus out there.

Much like an advert for toothpaste where the actor wears a white coat and pretends to be a dentist to lend authority to the product, the use of the term 'scientific' and its derivatives in the wing chun community, has always annoyed me.

Haha or like claiming to have a big one but when it comes down to jiggy jiggy the Magnum keeps slipping off the mushroom stump....

[LaRoux]

Wing chun is a theoretician's martial art. Long on theory, short on real world application.

[JPinAZ]

The answer depends on your intent - are you are learning WC only to fight (san sau - less thinking, a lot of doing), or you are going to be a teacher and pass on the art (system - needs a bit more brainzez along with the above).

[KPM]

When I read Keith's thread arguing and implying that wing chun is the thinking mans martial art, I did wince. Does wing chun appeal more to intelligent people? Like Grumblegeezer I have to answer no.

Despite what many here seem to think, most of the prominent WCK Sifus have said that Wing Chun is based on principles and concepts. You can't simply copy your teacher's moves and expect to have success. You have to understand what he or she is doing and be able to apply it in multiple situations to really make any progress. This obviously is true for other martial arts as well, but not so much in some martial arts that I will not bother to name. So it seems to me that a little thought is involved in getting good at Wing Chun. We don't prance around imitating a Tiger, or a Crane, or a Praying Mantis. Wing Chun was designed to make use of human biomechanics. That seems pretty rational to me. Being a "thinking man" doesn't mean you have to be a Scientist, Doctor, or CPA. It just means you have to be able to analyze what you are learning and understand why we do what we do. People have blown this whole idea of the "thinking man's art" way out of proportion.

Does it appeal to more intelligent people? It depends on how it is presented, but I think so. When I've given people an overview or introduction to WCK and explained how triangles are used, ideas like attacking & defending simultaneously, not meeting force with force, using angles to best advantage, etc.....people with an eye to what makes good rational sense are impressed. The hot-head who only wants to learn how to bang....maybe not so much.

Being a "thinking man" doesn't mean one is expected to challenge and question every single thing that is taught. If you want an open-ended martial art where you can do anything you want go study JKD or MMA. Wing Chun has certain defining characteristics which makes it Wing Chun. We work within those parameters, just as a "thinking" military strategist will work within the parameters of the situation he is addressing. Being a "thinking man" doesn't mean you are a martial scientist trying to derive a brand new martial art every time you take the floor to spar.

As far as using this forum as an example...well, yeah....there is often very little "thought" displayed! But then again, heated arguments about how things are done shows that the people involved ARE thinking about how they do their Wing Chun and how it should work. This is healthly. I don't do things today exactly as I originally learned them. I've made quite a few changes over the years based on discussing with others how they do things, trying it out for myself to see what works best, deciding they had a good idea about it, and being willing to make a change. Heck, I've even learned a thing or two from Hendrik!

But if there are those amongst you who want to say Wing Chun is not principle-based, doesn't require any thought to master, and only requires one to go out and "bang", then more power to ya! But I'll continue to follow the advice of men I respect such as Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung, Robert Chu, and Augustine Fong.

[Hendrik]

IMHO,

A history fact is


If you take a look at white crane of fujian. It is a military art of Ming general.
So, when it migrate to Taiwan. Taiwan today still perverse a big part of past data and lineage direct link to the Ming general.

So, what happen is at that time, mid 1600, the Art the general and official practice art a softer version with fighting theory such as nomentum ...etc handling, while the lower class army practice are a hard version on mainly physical without the sophisticated of the general class version.


Wck, as we know today of 1850, we know those people like lee man mau , Leung LAN Kwai, yik kam are people who is capable of fighting the Qing official or general class. However, after 1855 the burning of fine jade, Wck is propagate to a different class of executioners by Leung LAN Kwai. We know, since then the art evolve into not as sophisticated but fighting effective.

If one take a look at the different between the yik kam classical and the snake crane wck lineage notebook, one can see the pre 1855 yik kam classical is more into sophisticated details while the snake crane notebook recorded programs steps of how to handle fight cases. Thus, we know the pre and post 1855 train two different class of wcners.


Thus, it is absurd to think the Wck ancestors are illiterate , as we see from Chinese official history, these up risers like lee man mau are highly educated and skill, otherwise they cant fight the Qing general for almost a decades. Even the cho gar ancestors who join the uprising are passing Qing official examination of martial and combat skill. Also, the story we heard today are mostly from post 1855 wcners where they learn a different version . Because most high hand or elite of Wck were wipe out in the uprising battle from 1854 to 1862. And from 1840 to 1862 there is no education in those chaos war time for the younger age group who was born in 1840 , just canton alone in the year of 1855 itself one million people were kill because of the uprising. But the generation before that are well educated because Qing still are at peace before the British brought in opium.


So, that is history fact. What to argue? Wck is a technology , as in all technology, there are operation workers and design engineers. Design engineers handle the technology , operation worker doesn't handle the design engineers type of technology. White crane of fujia or Wck are just war technology.


It is not a sport, tents of million people die in 1854 to 1862. As I have told a few wcners, you think dr,Leung jan is king of Kung fu? Read the Chinese history of that uprising era, that is the era of hundreds of highly skill generals from different opposition parties, engage in a decade long war which end up tents of millions kill and they gamble their life. Lee man mau army totally get wipe out by 1862, thousand of red boat members go with him wipe out. Yik kam my ancetor escape but there on lay low in village not talking. So, there is no king of Kung fu in a war era. Even the chief trainer of the taiping heavenly kingdom army , the founder of clf, chan heng has to fleet to San Francisco in 1860s to avoid the Qing track down. All these people are killing machine, not kungfu npt sport ,but survival game to take the enemy down at all cost. Those are premeditative military operation technology. You think those who has no brain can lead?

Despite what many here seem to think, most of the prominent WCK Sifus have said that Wing Chun is based on principles and concepts. You can't simply copy your teacher's moves and expect to have success. You have to understand what he or she is doing and be able to apply it in multiple situations to really make any progress. This obviously is true for other martial arts as well, but not so much in some martial arts that I will not bother to name. So it seems to me that a little thought is involved in getting good at Wing Chun. We don't prance around imitating a Tiger, or a Crane, or a Praying Mantis. Wing Chun was designed to make use of human biomechanics. That seems pretty rational to me. Being a "thinking man" doesn't mean you have to be a Scientist, Doctor, or CPA. It just means you have to be able to analyze what you are learning and understand why we do what we do. People have blown this whole idea of the "thinking man's art" way out of proportion.

Does it appeal to more intelligent people? It depends on how it is presented, but I think so. When I've given people an overview or introduction to WCK and explained how triangles are used, ideas like attacking & defending simultaneously, not meeting force with force, using angles to best advantage, etc.....people with an eye to what makes good rational sense are impressed. The hot-head who only wants to learn how to bang....maybe not so much.

Being a "thinking man" doesn't mean one is expected to challenge and question every single thing that is taught. If you want an open-ended martial art where you can do anything you want go study JKD or MMA. Wing Chun has certain defining characteristics which makes it Wing Chun. We work within those parameters, just as a "thinking" military strategist will work within the parameters of the situation he is addressing. Being a "thinking man" doesn't mean you are a martial scientist trying to derive a brand new martial art every time you take the floor to spar.

As far as using this forum as an example...well, yeah....there is often very little "thought" displayed! But then again, heated arguments about how things are done shows that the people involved ARE thinking about how they do their Wing Chun and how it should work. This is healthly. I don't do things today exactly as I originally learned them. I've made quite a few changes over the years based on discussing with others how they do things, trying it out for myself to see what works best, deciding they had a good idea about it, and being willing to make a change. Heck, I've even learned a thing or two from Hendrik!

But if there are those amongst you who want to say Wing Chun is not principle-based, doesn't require any thought to master, and only requires one to go out and "bang", then more power to ya! But I'll continue to follow the advice of men I respect such as Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung, Robert Chu, and Augustine Fong.

[LaRoux]

White crane of fujia or Wck are just war technology.

Not even close. War technology is about co-ordinated weapon fighting with groups.

[Hendrik]

White crane of fujian is a complete technology.
Check into the art preserve in Taiwan today fom that era.


Here is a part of it which has become a parade after the Japanese government band martial art teaching in Taiwan


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D3oNC_A...%3DD3oNC_AnM3Y

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFwS0U...eature=related

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=r...&v=X-s_TOUaVG4



Here is the pole set from the oldest hung mun group brought by Ming general to Taiwan

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-AhPHI6...%3D-AhPHI6mGXk

Not even close. War technology is about co-ordinated weapon fighting with groups.

[Wayfaring]

Hendrik reminds me of a "bubble boy". You know, one who has a completely separate reality all within his own little bubble. He just doesn't get that it's just his lineage that is all, yet he tries to ascribe peculiarities of it like snake / crane animal kung fu or his standing meditation snooezefest to ALL WCK in general.

What he doesn't realize is many among us like myself have studied 5 animal kung fu styles in our backgrounds, thus are well aware of the vast differences between this type of expression and true WCK. To me the weng chun of Hoffman has far greater animal type similarities than the WCK I've seen.

[anerlich]

You think those who has no brain can lead?

You should come visit my workplace.

And George W. Bush seemed to muddle through for a fair while.

[Hendrik]

Tell that to late Gm Ipman.

In the following article on Gm ip interview, he asked the writer to tell the world, wing chun is not weng chun.

I am just showing evidence which support Gm Ipman.

If you are doing weng chun, great. But that is not wing chun. Gm Ip man put it black and white in the following article scan.

Hendrik reminds me of a "bubble boy". You know, one who has a completely separate reality all within his own little bubble. He just doesn't get that it's just his lineage that is all, yet he tries to ascribe peculiarities of it like snake / crane animal kung fu or his standing meditation snooezefest to ALL WCK in general.

What he doesn't realize is many among us like myself have studied 5 animal kung fu styles in our backgrounds, thus are well aware of the vast differences between this type of expression and true WCK. To me the weng chun of Hoffman has far greater animal type similarities than the WCK I've seen.