Who has the right to say what is and what isn't Wing Chun?

[tc101]

Well when I studied with LT he was only a mere "10th Level Master of Comprehension". Humility was never his strong point. But for all that, he didn't go around defining what was genuine WC. He simply named what he taught as "WT" and didn't worry about the rest ...unless they tried to mess with his business interests, like William Cheung did in Germany.

Leung Ting was a great popularizer of wing chun throughout the world. He produced many very good wing chun practitioners. Yes he has his comical side but we can also say that about many many others. He is a ruthless businessman. He is like the Don King of wing chun.

[Grumblegeezer]

Leung Ting was a great popularizer of wing chun throughout the world. He produced many very good wing chun practitioners. Yes he has his comical side but we can also say that about many many others. He is a ruthless businessman. He is like the Don King of wing chun.

That sums it up pretty accurately.

[lance]

Certain individuals continue to post over and over again about what is and what isn't Wing Chun. It get's pretty tiresome. What gives them, or anybody else, the right to say if my kung fu is WCK or not? Really! I mean if someone does crappy WCK diluted with other styles... OK say that. But as long as it has some connection to WCK, what you call your art is your own darned business.

When I started training WC in the late 70s, all WC was Ip man WC (as far as any of us knew). So, if we saw something that wasn't of Ip Man lineage maybe we would have said it wasn't real WC. Well now we know better. There are many lineages and even within lineages, so many variations.

Now of course, not all are WC systems equally effective. And separate from that issue, not all are equally "pure". Some blend in other systems ...pak mei, spm, 18 lo han, long fist, grappling and so forth. If they blend in too much outside stuff, maybe in the interest of accuracy they really should call themselves by another name, like Bruce Lee's JKD. But that's their business.

Honestly, the way some here carry on about WC "DNA" it almost reminds me of a racial purity thing! Purebred or mutt, I'll take what works. Like I said if you think your WC is better (Hi Kevin!) good for you. If you adapt your WC for sport fighting in the ring, OK. That's your right. And however it turns out, if you still call it WC, I may critique it, but you can call it WC/WT/VT or whatever the heck you want.

--Any thoughts?

grumblegeezer , I know what you mean , and I really don ' t blame you about what you wrote on your topic post . Well , when people say it ' s wing chun when it ' s really not ? It does get confusing does ' nt it ? So people really need to do their own research on the different versions and lineages of wing chun , and what other system of kung fu look like . Well people make things confusing , so that ' s why people get confused about what is WC and what is not ? Wing Chun and other styles of kung fu , is right now all over the internet and you tube , so really no excuse to really know what other system of kung fu look like example Hung Gar , Choy li fut , and the list of kung fu styles can go on and on .

And if people going to mix in WC with other styles of kung fu , then they should call it mix chinese kung fu or combination kung fu , or whatever you yourself want to call it . Even the first form in Hung Yi WC is similar to sil lum tao in the Ip Man wing chun lineage , but still it looks different . But the way they apply the techniques is similar to Ip Man wing chun lineage , but it ' s just my own opinion .
And that ' s what really is going on right now .

[tc101]

grumblegeezer , I know what you mean , and I really don ' t blame you about what you wrote on your topic post . Well , when people say it ' s wing chun when it ' s really not ? It does get confusing does ' nt it ? So people really need to do their own research on the different versions and lineages of wing chun , and what other system of kung fu look like . Well people make things confusing , so that ' s why people get confused about what is WC and what is not ? Wing Chun and other styles of kung fu , is right now all over the internet and you tube , so really no excuse to really know what other system of kung fu look like example Hung Gar , Choy li fut , and the list of kung fu styles can go on and on .

And if people going to mix in WC with other styles of kung fu , then they should call it mix chinese kung fu or combination kung fu , or whatever you yourself want to call it . Even the first form in Hung Yi WC is similar to sil lum tao in the Ip Man wing chun lineage , but still it looks different . But the way they apply the techniques is similar to Ip Man wing chun lineage , but it ' s just my own opinion .
And that ' s what really is going on right now .

In the old days the pole in wing chun comes from outside wing chun right? Is that not the story anyway? Yuen Kay San adds weng chun into his wing chun. Leung Jan teaches wing chun in different curriculums one with forms one without. Yip Man teaches different forms and differently in Fatshan and Hong Kong. I am saying things have always been in flux. This is a good not bad thing in my view.

I think why gets confusing is when people start trying to tell others what is wing chun or how what they have is original or best and that what you have is diluted mess.

[Vajramusti]

[QUOTE=tc101;1239542]In the old days the pole in wing chun comes from outside wing chun right? Is that not the story anyway? Yuen Kay San adds weng chun into his wing chun. Leung Jan teaches wing chun in different curriculums one with forms one without. Yip Man teaches different forms and differently in Fatshan and Hong Kong. I am saying things have always been in flux. This is a good not bad thing in my view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Confusing the subject with the text or a method of teaching.

[duende]

Imo, it boils down to the logic flow of concepts and principles within a system. And the consistency of how this logic is expressed.

Often you will find that the logic flow falls apart due to:

- Personal interpretation and style
- mixing in of other MA techniques and elements.

Certain folk's time here would be better spent questioning and testing their own lineage's inconsitantcies. (IE slt one way, dummy another) instead of disrespecting other lineages and questioning their validity.

WC spent most of its life in secret and out of the public's eye. No one person can speak for it all. No matter how over-inflated their self perceptions of themselves are.

Yip Man, YKS, etc each on their own simply represent one path up the WC mountain.

[tc101]

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1239563]

In the old days the pole in wing chun comes from outside wing chun right? Is that not the story anyway? Yuen Kay San adds weng chun into his wing chun. Leung Jan teaches wing chun in different curriculums one with forms one without. Yip Man teaches different forms and differently in Fatshan and Hong Kong. I am saying things have always been in flux. This is a good not bad thing in my view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Confusing the subject with the text or a method of teaching.

How is adding a weapon to your system confusing subject with teaching method? Or YKS adding weng chun techniques into his system confusing subject with text. Yes LJ and YM change how they teach but this goes along with what I am trying to say. Everything including how wing chun is taught to its weapons to its technical repertoire has been changed over time. Change or evolution or growth is a good thing and has always been with us. If our past masters refused to change and were stuck in time none of these things would have happened.

[Phil Redmond]

http://youtu.be/bTJ3p__IaOc
( I know you like the music ; ) )

http://youtu.be/0YnEm1zaUyE
( of course )

http://youtu.be/8AIAStBcP04
( cham Kim man )

http://youtu.be/lFTnWelknXM
( Chu Hok yin ) the guy on the right could kill you with one punch !

http://youtu.be/guWUo8qS53U
( WZP )



There's more ....

You have been absolved. LOL

[k gledhill]

You have been absolved. LOL

Thank you ; )