What is wing chun?

[wahh]

Hi all,

i haven't been on the forum in a long time, but i have a question and want to see what peoples thoughts are.

Okay, so here we are plenty of people learning different styles of wing chun. And occasionally people will get into arguments over branches and lineage and all that stuff. But here's a different question, what is the point of wing chun?

What i mean is, wing chun is a martial art that focuses a lot on sensitivity and striking. Isn't that what taiji is? Taiji can hit really realyl hard but also be sensitive and be calm/relaxed. Isn't this what we want?

Theres also some branches that really emphasize punching, and all it seems they do is chain punch there way out of any situation. But if all you want to do is punch, why not learn boxing where you refine several punches and get good at using them? Boxers are conditioned to be agile, quick, and train to take a few punches. What about the wing chun man which trains using tansau fooksau and all these, but tend to just chain punch someone to death.

Doesn't Choy Lay Fut work better than WC when you fight more than one person at a time? most branches only have that straight punch where as CLF has alot of strikes which attack from all directions.

So i guess in conclusion what i'm saying is, that if you want to be soft then taiji is the way to go, and if you want to be hard, boxing is the way to go. And if you watn to fight more than one person, or want to look good while beating people up, CLF is better. and if you want to be really effective, thai kick boxing could work too.

if you're talking about survival, compared to just 4 martialarts out of a few hundred, how does wingchun compare? wing chun is both soft and hard, but doesn't it end up more like... you force yourself to be superficially soft or hard as opposed to being really soft or really hard?

they say wing chun is practical, but isn't it more practical in a situation to run away and avoid an unneccessary confrontation and not have a false sense your tansau bongsau and chain punches will make you superman, or atleast wong fei hong.

Someone please enlighten me, i'd liek to hear what other people's views. please correct my faulty thinking.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by wahh
Hi all,


Someone please enlighten me, i'd liek to hear what other people's views. please correct my faulty thinking.

There is no Wing Chun in restless struggle suffering mind.


And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon god they made.
And the sign flashed out its warning,
In the words that it was forming.
And the signs said, The words of the prophets
are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls.
And whisper'd in the sounds of silence.

[l@zylee]

S**t wahh, you're right! I don't know what I have been wasting my time with for the last 3 years! Wing Chun sucks!, I'm off to boxing this wednesday, CLF on Thursday and Taiji on Friday, I'll be a right hard bast**d then! who needs chain punches!

[ducksrule]

Your question is legitimate, so I'm going to try and give you a real answer. To me wing chun is a very natural approach to cambat training, and very efficient. I will start with your comment/question "you force yourself to be superficially soft or hard as opposed to being really soft or really hard?" you should use the appropriate energy for the given time-frame. If you are going to destroy an arm bridge then your energy is hard, or "fire". In other time-frames you may be soft and flowing, like water. So you don't force anything, you merely use hard or soft as the situation dictates.

In the same wing chun approaches combat differently than many other systems. Instead of saying "I like a poweful roundhouse" or "my favorite technique is a feint and left jab" wing chun looks at what is appropriate for any given time-frame, at any range of combat. So while a thrusting kick may be appropriate for long range or chasing, a punch isn't. Likewise at a trapping range, elbows, knees, traps, etc. are appropriate. We try not to use favorite techniques. Wing chun also teaches all ranges of combat, from long kicking to grappling. You know, jiu jitsu is a strong grappling art, but not good for striking or kicking. Likewise a TKD guy is a very dangerous kicker, but has little knowledge of close range fighting

At the heart of wing chun is the concept of controlling space and time. For example, if you throw a punch between by diaphram and nose I merely bring my hand to center with the striking point at nose heigth. So long as I am covering center and am not jammed I control space in that time-frame. It doesn't matter where my arm connects with the punch, I don't chase hands, I chase space. If a hook is thrown it is a different time-frame and I will go to cover specific space. There is an incredible amount of depth to the time-space-energy paradigm of wing chun, this is just a small example. Remember, there is no unaswerable move, the loser in a fight is the one that runs out of space, and out of time.

With chain punching each punch should be thrown with maximum power. A trained puncher should be able to throw three punches in 1/2 a second or less a full power. Many people point out that the opponent isn't going to just stand there and let you chain punch him, a legitimate criticism. However, if done correctly you should throw several punches in very little time. Ranged and thrown correctly one punch should break a jawbone, the rest can be thought of as an insurance policy.

Many techniques and concepts in wing chun are very natural to me. When someone punches the response is, at its most basic level, "get your hand in the way!" A very basic defense against a long range kick - when you see that knee go up, immediately close the gap. At a more sophisticated level you should pok or intercept with your foot, but just closing to gap with what amounts to a quick charge will jam the kick or at least take most of its power, because the opponent now has a range problem - he doesn't have the space to execute his long range kick.

Every movement in the wing chun forms also have a combat application, sometimes several. I haven't seen this in many karate katas, etc.

Phew, okay, thats enough for now. If you want I'd love to talk more about this. I study hung fa yi wing chun, and have some knowledge of the yip man system. Many other systems are effective, but to me wing chun is just the most natural and effective.

[old jong]

Good post and welcome to the forum!...

[foolinthedeck]

there is no seperation
we are all learning the same thing
all 'styles' of wing chun are equal, as is taiji and boxing.
its all the same thing and all has the same purpose.
whatever you say the purpose is, they all do it. and they all dont do it.
look beyond the words and styles and look at what the point of yourself is.

the best i can say in mere words is 'proceeding towards dynamic quality'... but even this misses the sound of silence

[Nick Forrer]

Foolin the deck says:

'all 'styles' of wing chun are equal'

Yes but to paraphrase Eric Blair

'some are more equal then others'

[Gangsterfist]

What i mean is, wing chun is a martial art that focuses a lot on sensitivity and striking. Isn't that what taiji is? Taiji can hit really realyl hard but also be sensitive and be calm/relaxed. Isn't this what we want?
------------------------------------------
First off I would like to say that IMHO (this is my opinion) WC is neither internal nor is it external it is nuetral.

Ever train taiji? I do every week, Yang family Taiji. I don't see any roll back, push offs, or ward offs in WC. Wing Chun is much more direct, and much more about devastating your opponet that taiji is. I am not saying Taiji is less of a MA than WC. Taiji definately is way harder to master IMO compared to WC. Taiji is deadly but a lot of applications you learn are rolling back and warding off your opponet. Wing chun has none of that. Its all about pummelling you opponets center from straight on or at angles, and trapping their limbs so they can't use them. Constantly switching hands, simultaneos attack and defense. Also When comparing my style of Taiji foot work and my lineage of WC foot work its completely different. Taiji says never even weight yourself, never 50/50. WC principals say always fight 50/50 triangle foot work. There are tons of obvious differences.

Theres also some branches that really emphasize punching, and all it seems they do is chain punch there way out of any situation. But if all you want to do is punch, why not learn boxing where you refine several punches and get good at using them? Boxers are conditioned to be agile, quick, and train to take a few punches. What about the wing chun man which trains using tansau fooksau and all these, but tend to just chain punch someone to death.
------------------------------------------

If it works it works. I once saw a sparring match between a Muy Tai guy and a WC practioner. All the WC practioner was using is tan sao/qwan sao then chain punch. It was working. Obviously chain punching won't work all the time it depends on who you are fighting, but if you can get 4 punches off in nearly a second and land them you opponet is gonna be in trouble. I am not saying that chain punching is the ULTIMATE way to win a fight, but its definately a start. I do 1000 chain punches a day in my training. It only takes a few minutes to do and builds up muscle memory. I think you might be confusing training drills with actual techniques used in a combat situation.

Doesn't Choy Lay Fut work better than WC when you fight more than one person at a time? most branches only have that straight punch where as CLF has alot of strikes which attack from all directions.
________________________

This I think is a good question. My answer is no. Neither WC or CLF is better for mutliple attackers. I think CLF is a great system and is way different than WC. I remember the frist time I sparred a CLF practioner. They are known for upper cuts and windmill strikes ( I have no idea what they actually call them - I don't train CLF). To break it down its like their arm is a piece of rope, their shoulder is the anchor and their fist is a piece of iron attacked to the rope. I saw one of these big swinging attacks coming in and I immediately bui sao'd it and tried rushing the center to end the match right then. Well his arm just bent right over my bui sao (since their arms are like rope - no tension) and wacked me across the jaw pretty darn hard. However I have gotten off topic. To be a bit more specific WC has mutliple attacker training and technique. When you have multiple attackers there is no center anymore, or you can look at as X amount of individual centers. So you may do some non WC minded things in a mutliple attacker situation. That is what WC does though, after you learn a lot from it and take in a bunch of WC principals you later learn to go against them. WC is one of the very few Martial arts that does this. You eventually learn to go against what you have learned that no style is absolute. No technique is unstoppable. Chasing a limb might be more advantageous in multiple attackers.

So i guess in conclusion what i'm saying is, that if you want to be soft then taiji is the way to go, and if you want to be hard, boxing is the way to go. And if you watn to fight more than one person, or want to look good while beating people up, CLF is better. and if you want to be really effective, thai kick boxing could work too.
----------------------------------
I would worry about finding a good teacher, rather than a good style. Okinawan karate, BJJ, CLF, Boxing, some street punk with no training can all beat a WC practioner. Fighting is not a concept nor an exact science. You will never have the same fight twice. Its total chaos. There is no greater style of Martial arts, only greater teachers and better fighters. If you train hard everyday to be really good at kung fu, you will be really good reguardless of your style, and you will have the upper hand versus almost any other style practioner who does not train as hard as you do.

[JAFO]

In my mind, what distinguishes Wing Chun from most of the other styles of fighting are the theories and applications of the center line and gates. Many styles also claim their own versions of these - often basically derived from Wing Chun - but to my knowledge, no other style defines what they're doing on that basis as does Wing Chun. Elbow theory, sensitivity, simultaneous offense/defense, conservation of energy are all concepts we share in verying degrees with other styles of fighting, but no other style defines itself by how strictly they adhere to them the way that Wing Chun does.

I don't think people are attracted to WC because of the beauty of the forms (good thing, too), or to the learning curve necessary to become competent, or the uniforms, or the gender tolerance aspect, or some of the other aspects that draw people to the different MA styles. I think what attracts most people to WC is when they see how much they can accomplish with whatever they have in the way of physical attributes.

[wahh]

thanks everyone for your replies,

good point about taiji. When i meant they were similar i meant that both are developed on the principle of being weak/supple to defeat the strong/rigid. as a result both deflect or redirect an attack. sure many other styles do the same, but isn't this what both taiji and wc based on? isn't this why in the SNT a lot of the moves are used to deflect (i.e bongsau) or redirect (i.e paksau). of course i guess this depends on the branch, but the general idea is there. As for ward off, roll back and those taiji movements, although there are practical applications, I thought (i may be wrong) they were used to reinforce principles, that will in the end show itself in your strikes? maybe too much kf movie i watch.

okay hwo about another question.

so if they are based on very similar principles, then what makes them different? one is internal, while the other is more external and emphasize principles over techniques? what are these principles and how do we know they are right?? if wc's forms are more for principles, then aren't we in trouble if someone doesn't pass on all his knowledge and keeps a few things to himself? if the forms are like textbooks then we have a very difficult textbook since it teaches a lot in only a few pages, and all branches have different textbooks. the words may seem similar but subtly but imporant meanings

if none of us know for sure whether we 'really' know wc, then whats teh point? okay so you could say this for any martial art, but i think its especially applicable to wc since it seems the thing to do is to step on other branches and stuff.

just some stuff to think about taking a long busride or something.

[l@zylee]

if the forms are like textbooks then we have a very difficult textbook since it teaches a lot in only a few pages, and all branches have different textbooks

I have practised WC for nearly 3 years and this is the way I use the 1st form: I actually refer to SNT mentally to see if when I practise and spar that I am utilizing as many of the techniques within it and I notice that I can get lazy from time to time and just throw bong sau's and tan sau's to everything that comes. So it is to me a dictionary of techniques that can be used for a variety of situations and I can refer to it whenever I want.

if none of us know for sure whether we 'really' know wc, then whats teh point? okay so you could say this for any martial art, but i think its especially applicable to wc

Well I would say you definetely could say this for any Martial Art and I don't agree that it is especially applicable to WC at all. I know FOR SURE in my mind that what I have learnt so far is Wing Chun.

since it seems the thing to do is to step on other branches and stuff.

Again I can't agree it's really not the case in my "branch". From what I have seen all lineages of WC go in very very similar directions people will disagree with that but it's my personal view and I'm comfortable with it. In my school each branch of Wing Chun is respected as much as the other.

Lee