Hi,
You are right regarding the tennis example, in that it impossible to always hit a perfect/textbook backhand all of the time (though Roger Federer comes pretty darn close).
However, looking at a backhand: You can hit it with slice, topspin or hit it flat. Federer's topspin backhand is different to, say Nadal's... but they both follow the '
concepts' as it were. Start low, hit over the ball. And they both have the correct '
technical' attributes too: plant the foot, bend the knee, particular grip (though Nadal's is typically more exaggerated), use of the shoulder, etc. And they both have the same '
result' (the ball rapid dips down when it reaches a certain part of its path/flight). Also, typically, they are both employing the same '
strategy' too when they use the backhand.
You can tell both are playing a backhand because of the above - you wouldn't confuse it with the swing of baseball bat, or a golf club.
Even someone like McEnroe, who appeared to be the exception to the rule in terms of having really unorthodox ground stokes, was still following the same conceptual, technical and strategic "rules". Tennis players
are bound by them, even if we can see differences in style and tactics when the game is played.
Is Wing Chun the same? I would say yes. No two people will move exactly the same, no one can perform something perfectly all of the time (rarely once
) and different lineages might have a different style or flavour to the system... but regardless, I would argue that whatever lineage you're from, you should be sticking to the concepts, strategy and technical requirements as much as you can (to me, all
three of these things are the 'model').
If you don't follow these three things, can you say you are doing Wing Chun? Someone just scrapping in the street using whatever they can in the moment is also not following these three things - are they doing Wing Chun too? If particular concepts, strategy and technical requirements don't make Wing Chun what it is... then what does?
This is the point exactly. Those of us who can't see Wing Chun here are all
happy to admit we are wrong if the CSL WCK guys, or others, can explain how the above 5 points fit with their Wing Chun. Every martial art has concepts and strategy, and all have some technical requirements too (if not, every style would look the same in the classroom). Alan, in his various clips, has spoken about why they do certain things as opposed to doing other things - that is an indication that their style/method does have concepts, strategy and technical requirements - and that is why Alan has talked about body mechanics and body methods, etc, positioning and timing, etc... because CSL WCK clearly has a model too, just like all arts do.
How do you (anyone reading who clearly sees Wing Chun in that sparring clip) explain the 5 points in relation to the CSL WCK or their own lineage of Wing Chun?
Many people have posted many times on this thread, so people are clearly willing to invest some time into it - why not invest a little more to explain detailed answers to the above 5 points?
It is surely worth it, if only for the satisfaction of having KPM and myself say, "Sorry guys. I was wrong and you were right. You've now explained it, it makes sense and I fully admit that yes, I wasn't able to see what you were saying - but now I can. Again, my apologies."
But I think it should be possible to explain in some detail. To just say "We train Wing Chun, we use it, and it works and so that is your explanation," doesn't really help get everyone on the same page.
I decided to leave the thread as I was the main person objecting to what others were saying, so I figured if I bow out then the thread can just slide down the list, but seeing as people are still talking about it anyway...
Originally Posted by PalmStriker
Reply With Quote
And really...."heightened emotional state"??? Does anyone find that rather ironic besides me? 
