Ip Man Wing Chun?

[Paddington]

What? Really? You are actually asking me how many HOURS? You are a strange fellow Paddington

I have been practising PB's method since 2008 and practising Ving Tsun since 1996. That's all you need to know poppet.

I wish you luck in your PB journey

Hello Graham. I was not trying to insult you there. The thing is you have put much effort, in the past, to distinguishing between those that spent or had a lot of direct contact hours with WSL and those that did not. Further, you cite PB as having a great number of contact hours with WSL and that this is one of the main reasons why you believe PB has the better understanding of the WSL method.

So, given your already stated logic I just thought I would ask you about your contact hours. If I am going to go find out more about the wing chun PB teaches and if he is indeed not available to me, then I would then seek out those that have had the greatest amount of contact time with him. I am not trying to catch you out here Graham.

I did have one of PB's students say to me last year that he didn't want to waste my time given that I was going to travel 6 hrs to roll and to talk about PB's system with him; that screamed out to me that perhaps there had not been that much contact time and that like me, we were both more at the student than Sifu level. That said when we both get the time I still think it will be worth while to take a trip to meet him, perhaps he self depreciates too much!

On the Sifu or student level, the same could be said of Kevin I guess. Graham, who has had more contact time with PB, you or Kevin?

[Paddington]

[...] That said, anyone that implies that ANYONE (including WSL) would knowing give false information in a seminar or video is simply stating that WSL ( or anyone else in similar circumstance) is a liar and purposeful manipulative.

Yep, I agree with you 100%

[Paddington]

[...]

There is no substitute for top quality instruction, practice, application and experience.

The differences in approaches among those you mention are IMO considerable.
.

I agree, that is why I was asking Graham about how much actual contact and teaching time he has had and if it is the case of going across and meeting PB occasionally and then training by himself.

EDIT: I would also add, Joy, that top quality instruction, practice, application and experience in wing chun is incredibly rare! It is a right bugger to find!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yep, I agree with you 100%

When I hear about those people that, according to their own students at times, showed FALSE moves or gave out incomplete or false information in public, it shocks me quite a bit.
I have been to a few seminars in my time, I am talking BJJ, Submission grappling, MT, MMA, judo and even koryu systems of Japan and never ONCE did I see ANY false information or incomplete ones being given.
EVER.
I even recall some high ranking BJJ guys telling us that we were getting pure gold, stuff they worked years to get and they were more than happy to share.
It is a sad statement on the character of these so called masters that they would knowingly mislead the public.
Which begs the question WHY are they doing it IF they are doing it and if they are, why should ANYONE believe they have the real WC at all ??

[Vajramusti]

I agree, that is why I was asking Graham about how much actual contact and teaching time he has had and if it is the case of going across and meeting PB occasionally and then training by himself.

EDIT: I would also add, Joy, that top quality instruction, practice, application and experience in wing chun is incredibly rare! It is a right bugger to find!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top quality wing chun instruction is indeed hard to find.
While many people attended IP Man's public classes few came regularly for 6-7 years, and paid careful attention.

Sheer chance that I lived in Tucson when I did.

I hang around out of curiosity and often for reminders on how not to do a motion.

[Grumblegeezer]

It is a sad statement on the character of these so called masters that they would knowingly mislead the public.
Which begs the question WHY are they doing it IF they are doing it and if they are, why should ANYONE believe they have the real WC at all ??

Sanjuro, I too believe it to be a sad statement, but nevertheless true. Perhaps it is a cultural thing. As a westerner and an educator by profession, I believe that any teacher is ethically compelled to teach honestly and straightforwardly. Not everyone shares this belief. Some (and not just martial arts instructors) believe that you always keep some things back for yourself, and perhaps also for a few select family members and friends. This may even imply misleading those you teach publicly to some degree.

Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example from outside of the martial arts. Many years ago when I was freshly out of graduate school with my MFA in sculpture, I briefly worked for another artist and friend helping him fabricate bronze casting for a large commission. We built a small sand foundry to complete the work and developed a stream-lined and technically simplified process for quickly making castings.

When the commission was completed and there was no more work (or money) coming in for a spell, I suggested that we contact our friends on the faculty at the local university and give a workshop demonstrating the techniques we were using. As a person with a life-long calling to teach, it seemed a natural thing to do. But my friend was appalled by the idea. Coming from a family of tradesmen, he saw this as "giving away hard-earned trade secrets to our future competitors".

Similarly, my old sifu knowingly held back certain information and even made minor mis-representations of some of the movements in his version of the forms as published in his books and posters sold to the public. Like my sculptor friend, my sifu felt that just "giving away" such hard-earned information to future competitors was naive and, in his own words, "breaking your rice-bowl". In fact he felt that the minor errors published in his books (including one co-authored with Yip Chun) were "very clever", since they were like a signature that could be used instantly to tell who had the real training. He pointed out that all the really clever masters (including by inference, Yip Man) did the same. Only a stupid person wouldn't understand this. Clearly those few of us present to hear this were meant to be flattered since we were part of the "inner circle" getting the real stuff.

Unfortunately I'm a "stupid person" who ultimately could not accept that way of thinking and now train independently with a man of perhaps less skill but ethics more in line with my own.

[Grumblegeezer]

I don't need to open my mind! Your thinking ...is wrong. Simple as that!

KPM, Paddington, et al. Haven't you heard the old saying? Never waste your time discussing with a man whose mind is made up. The following remarks are not directed at Graham.

The wooden dummy is obviously an abstraction originally derived from the human form (that originally would have been an opponent or training partner). It is also obviously no longer a human form. Like others LT also said that that it functions as a "protractor" that properly understood allows the practitioner to correct his movements and structure. It teaches many other things too. But to say that it isn't derived from the human form is simply being dogmatic.

[BPWT..]

@ Grumblegeezer

I couldn't agree more. It is really stupid, rather than being very clever. The real learning is the details - no book or poster can ever really give you that.

I sometimes wonder if this is a cultural difference. On one of the German forums recently this video of SNT was posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxh5bMKX7IQ

Someone posted to say that they'd met this Sifu a few times, and that the form shown was really just the form he shows at public demos - he doubted whether this version of the form was something seriously taught in lessons - presumably where the man shows the form as he wants it learned by his actual students (as opposed to Joe Public watching at an event).

[Vajramusti]

Sanjuro, I too believe it to be a sad statement, but nevertheless true. Perhaps it is a cultural thing. As a westerner and an educator by profession, I believe that any teacher is ethically compelled to teach honestly and straightforwardly. Not everyone shares this belief. Some (and not just martial arts instructors) believe that you always keep some things back for yourself, and perhaps also for a few select family members and friends. This may even imply misleading those you teach publicly to some degree.

Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example from outside of the martial arts. Many years ago when I was freshly out of graduate school with my MFA in sculpture, I briefly worked for another artist and friend helping him fabricate bronze casting for a large commission. We built a small sand foundry to complete the work and developed a stream-lined and technically simplified process for quickly making castings.

When the commission was completed and there was no more work (or money) coming in for a spell, I suggested that we contact our friends on the faculty at the local university and give a workshop demonstrating the techniques we were using. As a person with a life-long calling to teach, it seemed a natural thing to do. But my friend was appalled by the idea. Coming from a family of tradesmen, he saw this as "giving away hard-earned trade secrets to our future competitors".

Similarly, my old sifu knowingly held back certain information and even made minor mis-representations of some of the movements in his version of the forms as published in his books and posters sold to the public. Like my sculptor friend, my sifu felt that just "giving away" such hard-earned information to future competitors was naive and, in his own words, "breaking your rice-bowl". In fact he felt that the minor errors published in his books (including one co-authored with Yip Chun) were "very clever", since they were like a signature that could be used instantly to tell who had the real training. He pointed out that all the really clever masters (including by inference, Yip Man) did the same. Only a stupid person wouldn't understand this. Clearly those few of us present to hear this were meant to be flattered since we were part of the "inner circle" getting the real stuff.

Unfortunately I'm a "stupid person" who ultimately could not accept that way of thinking and now train independently with a man of perhaps less skill but ethics more in line with my own.

------------------------------------------------


Good post. However "ethiics" is a complicated subject and bad examples abound in student behavior as well.. Folks misrepresenting who they learned from and how long they learned from their teacher
and what they learned.

[Hendrik]

1， it is very obvious the form shown in the YouTube is a Ipman lineage form with Ipman signature.

2. In the ancient , a set learning comes with the kuen kuit. Thus, the main key concept and details will be clearly point out. Not up for personal intepretation. Demo or not demo, when one perform the set, one can read the signature of the training via ie : the seven bows, six core elements.

Reading the signature in the seven bows and six core elements handling be able to tell what it is as it is perform.

@ Grumblegeezer

I couldn't agree more. It is really stupid, rather than being very clever. The real learning is the details - no book or poster can ever really give you that.

I sometimes wonder if this is a cultural difference. On one of the German forums recently this video of SNT was posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxh5bMKX7IQ

Someone posted to say that they'd met this Sifu a few times, and that the form shown was really just the form he shows at public demos - he doubted whether this version of the form was something seriously taught in lessons - presumably where the man shows the form as he wants it learned by his actual students (as opposed to Joe Public watching at an event).

[Paddington]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top quality wing chun instruction is indeed hard to find.
While many people attended IP Man's public classes few came regularly for 6-7 years, and paid careful attention.

Sheer chance that I lived in Tucson when I did.

I hang around out of curiosity and often for reminders on how not to do a motion.

Lucky git indeed Joy! Perhaps some day I will also luck out but until then, all I can do is train hard and as best I can with the information I have at hand.

Just to pass comment on what SR said. WSL's generation and the old(er) masters of the VTAA seemed to be able to get on with one another, for the most part, and even host joint seminars and acknowledge their differences without all of the antagonisms that we see in the current generation. Wing chun has definitely gone through a huge surge in popularity and its over commercialisation is half the bloody problem, IMO. Most of the friction and fractures seem to map in a one-to-one fashion onto the social dynamics that operating in a competitive market place encourages. Maybe I overstate the issue of over commercialisation.

Great post Grumblegeezer! A dear friend of mine also councils me not to pander to my negative traits to bicker and argue and yes, it is a weakness of mine. I'll try to do better. I agree with you, for me ethics and integrity are everything and it requires much sacrifice to maintain them.

[Hendrik]

Woodern dummy form is to train

1. Technics of different momentum and force flow handling

2. HAndling action reaction force at every moment. Yes, wooden dummy "hit back" because in the physical world every action force applied to the dummy has a reaction force in return

KPM, Paddington, et al. Haven't you heard the old saying? Never waste your time discussing with a man whose mind is made up. The following remarks are not directed at Graham.

The wooden dummy is obviously an abstraction originally derived from the human form (that originally would have been an opponent or training partner). It is also obviously no longer a human form. Like others LT also said that that it functions as a "protractor" that properly understood allows the practitioner to correct his movements and structure. It teaches many other things too. But to say that it isn't derived from the human form is simply being dogmatic.

[Jimbo]

Sanjuro, I too believe it to be a sad statement, but nevertheless true. Perhaps it is a cultural thing. As a westerner and an educator by profession, I believe that any teacher is ethically compelled to teach honestly and straightforwardly. Not everyone shares this belief. Some (and not just martial arts instructors) believe that you always keep some things back for yourself, and perhaps also for a few select family members and friends. This may even imply misleading those you teach publicly to some degree.

Perhaps I can illustrate this with an example from outside of the martial arts. Many years ago when I was freshly out of graduate school with my MFA in sculpture, I briefly worked for another artist and friend helping him fabricate bronze casting for a large commission. We built a small sand foundry to complete the work and developed a stream-lined and technically simplified process for quickly making castings.

When the commission was completed and there was no more work (or money) coming in for a spell, I suggested that we contact our friends on the faculty at the local university and give a workshop demonstrating the techniques we were using. As a person with a life-long calling to teach, it seemed a natural thing to do. But my friend was appalled by the idea. Coming from a family of tradesmen, he saw this as "giving away hard-earned trade secrets to our future competitors".

Similarly, my old sifu knowingly held back certain information and even made minor mis-representations of some of the movements in his version of the forms as published in his books and posters sold to the public. Like my sculptor friend, my sifu felt that just "giving away" such hard-earned information to future competitors was naive and, in his own words, "breaking your rice-bowl". In fact he felt that the minor errors published in his books (including one co-authored with Yip Chun) were "very clever", since they were like a signature that could be used instantly to tell who had the real training. He pointed out that all the really clever masters (including by inference, Yip Man) did the same. Only a stupid person wouldn't understand this. Clearly those few of us present to hear this were meant to be flattered since we were part of the "inner circle" getting the real stuff.

Unfortunately I'm a "stupid person" who ultimately could not accept that way of thinking and now train independently with a man of perhaps less skill but ethics more in line with my own.

Excellent post.

The big difference between your sculptor friend and a MA teacher, however, is that the latter is representing himself to teach what he knows, while the former is not. I have seen this attitude among some Chinese MA teachers, whereas I've never seen this attitude among teachers of non-Chinese MA (doesn't mean there aren't some that are that way, however).

Vajramusti is also correct in that there are some students or outside people who will misrepresent what and who they learned from. When giving public demonstrations, my CLF sifu puts in some alterations if he's doing certain forms, for instance (i.e., 'marking' it). When I still assisted in demos, I did the same. Because anybody can record it and falsely say they learned it from him or whoever else...especially nowadays. There is merit to doing that, because when demonstrating publicly, you're not instructing students. When he's actually teaching his students, he teaches how it should be taught. Of course, forms are only a fraction of what we do, but that's one tradition I see nothing wrong with.

But if a teacher is holding a seminar, for example, and they are telling students they are learning XYZ material, then that's what it should be. Unfortunately, I'm aware of at least one very well-known CMA teacher (who will go unmentioned) who knowingly teaches material incorrectly during seminars. If I know or learn that character trait about a certain teacher, I stay as far away from him as possible, regardless of how good at his art he may be. Because I could never really trust such a teacher.

[GlennR]

Lucky git indeed!

Just to pass comment on what SR said. WSL's generation and the old(er) masters of the VTAA seemed to be able to get on with one another, for the most part, and even host joint seminars and acknowledge their differences without all of the antagonisms that we see in the current generation. Wing chun has definitely gone through a huge surge in popularity and its over commercialisation is half the bloody problem, IMO. Most of the friction and fractures seem to map in a one-to-one fashion onto the social dynamics that operating in a competitive market place encourages. Maybe I overstate the issues over commercialisation.

FWIW, TST and WSL were in Australia on at least one occasion and did some joint seminars together (early 90's from memory)

[LFJ]

For sure, they might not refer to the same thing - it is why I said 'perhaps'. What is your definition of recovery (in a VT sense)?

Regaining the upper hand.