What would you consider to be the Pillars of the Wing Chun system? Is there consensus among all lineages?
What would you consider to be the Pillars of the Wing Chun system? Is there consensus among all lineages?
http://www.facebook.com/sifumcilwrath
http://www.youtube.com/user/sifumcilwrath
There is no REAL secrets in Wing Chun, but because the forms are conceptual you have to know how to decipher the information..That's the secret..
"Pillars" is a term I've only heard in context to Hung Gar.
To that end, Wing Chun that isn't modified, adapted, etc has:
Siu lin Tao
Chum Kiu
Biu Tze
6.5 Dragon Pole
8 cut knives
Those are the "pillar"s that do not include supplemental training such as sticky hands,108 wooden dummy, ring training etc.
Kung Fu is good for you.
http://www.facebook.com/sifumcilwrath
http://www.youtube.com/user/sifumcilwrath
There is no REAL secrets in Wing Chun, but because the forms are conceptual you have to know how to decipher the information..That's the secret..
Tan, Bong, and Fuk sao
sincerly, eddie
Yes. There are only 3 WingChun pillars. Here is a picture of them. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/carve...e-44049027.jpg
http://www.facebook.com/sifumcilwrath
http://www.youtube.com/user/sifumcilwrath
There is no REAL secrets in Wing Chun, but because the forms are conceptual you have to know how to decipher the information..That's the secret..
I don't completely agree. Like the 12 Bridges of Hongjia, Tan (Spread), Bang (Wing) & Fu (Subdue) are conceptual and do not have to be confined to the restraints of a particular technique. I view them more as "Key Words" as opposed to any particular physical movement. That being said I don't necessarily agree that they are "Pillars" either.
First of all, I don't consider them different lineages of "the Wing Chun system". They've evolved into their own systems and some times only bear resemblance in forms, but much less in fighting or even fight theory.
That aside, what I would consider the "pillars" of the system I train would be "Simplicity, Directness, & Efficiency". All your centerline and economy of motion stuff should fit under these.
But then, I've seen people talk about these in other systems and actually not be direct or very efficient at all. So without examples, we could be saying the same thing while talking about something else. But for brevity sake, "Simplicity, Directness, & Efficiency".
"Pillar" is certainly an ambiguous word to define and explain according to one's understanding of not only the methods employed but also, as LFJ said, the theory. I think it largely lays on one's personal focus, for instance I look upon "Simplicity, Directness & Efficiency" as general "Foundational Theory" not as "Pillars" even though they may be looked upon as standards. I tend to agree with David Jamison:
Good topic, but I'm pessimistic as far as anyone coming to a general consensus, too much variation amongst the various branches in techniques, usage, theory etc."Pillars" is a term I've only heard in context to Hung Gar.
To that end, Wing Chun that isn't modified, adapted, etc has:
Siu lin Tao
Chum Kiu
Biu Tze
6.5 Dragon Pole
8 cut knives
Those are the "pillar"s that do not include supplemental training such as sticky hands,108 wooden dummy, ring training etc.
Tan, Bong and fuk for example are found in other systems so that Imo could not be a pillar. Otherwise and style that was those techniques could say they are doing wing chun. Wing chun should mean something more then a name. I agree that wing chun has evolved and changed but if it still retains its core it's still wing chun imo.
http://www.facebook.com/sifumcilwrath
http://www.youtube.com/user/sifumcilwrath
There is no REAL secrets in Wing Chun, but because the forms are conceptual you have to know how to decipher the information..That's the secret..
Honestly, "pillars" is not a word I use and don't really know exactly what it refers to, but I was going by the OP's definition; "principles the system is built on".
The "Foundational Theory" is also the overall approach to combat, the principles (strategy). It's possible other MAs could share these principles (strategy) but what would set WC apart would be the concepts (tactics) for carrying out the strategy. In my VT, it's based around the use of the elbow.
I agree, and think that is why the forms are the "Pillars". The forms are a recipe and contain all the necessary ingredients that constitute what is "your" Wing Chun. Unfortunately over the years the recipe has been tweaked to the taste of various individuals and no one can agree on the correct cooking time or flavor. Going backwards to compare common ingredients in order to rebuild the recipe has proven time and again futile.
Dan chi sau drills
Lok sau drills
Pak sau drils
Lap sau drills
I think we should rephrase the OP's question with his own definition of "pillars"...
What are the main principles your Wing Chun system is based on?