Forget the History, Forget the Politics

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Vic, curious what you'd have to say regarding this clip at a workshop..." (JP)


***HERE'S what I have to say about that. Have attended countless William Cheung public seminars over the last 25+ years (as well as numerous private seminars, lunches, dinners, have had private lessons, etc.)...

and I can say categorically that 99% of William Cheung's seminars, lessons, etc. are spent actually doing wing chun.

Do I have a problem with the other 1%? Of course not. A certain amount of "history" is relevant.

But it's a question of how much, now isn't it?!

And the theme of this thread is that too many people spent an inordinate amount of time going over the history, and therefore, by necessity, the politics of wing chun. Around and around, again and again.

Instead of actually doing it.

[t_niehoff]

In my view, WCK history is not really a problem. The problem is that what is typically presented as "history" -- legends, stories, myths, marketing, etc. -- is not genuine history. So I think the answer should not be to "forget WCK history", but rather to concern ourselves with developing the discernment to separate true history from the rest. However, to do that requires education, critical thinking skills, etc.

But I do agree with Victor insofar as we need to keep history in its place. "History" -- whether genuine or not -- does not provide validation for one's theories (which is for the most part how WCK "history" is misused). The only validation for a fighting or training method is results.

[Vajramusti]

Agree with it as currently stated.

joy Chaudhuri

[JPinAZ]

and I can say categorically that 99% of William Cheung's seminars, lessons, etc. are spent actually doing wing chun.

Being that it's an 8:35 clip, if that's just 1% of the workshop, it must have been one heckova long workshop

Now, I'd agree with anyone that says you should spend a good amount of time training physically, that's a no-brainer. And it seems we both agree history has it's place, the question indeed is: how much?
Who's to say? Some people prefer just to train with the time they have, or they only have an hour a day, so that's all they even have time for. Good for them!
Then, there's some people that devote thier whole lives to MA's, WC or otherwise (meaning, it's thier only job). And some even go the extra mile to travel the world to learn everything they can about the art they loves. Who are we to say what is too much? From which perspective? Just yours? Just mine?

If someone has the recourses and time to train and teach full-time as well as research, write, visit with different lines, families, lineages, etc to both learn the physical as well as the history, stories, whatever, good for them too!

And the theme of this thread is that too many people spent an inordinate amount of time going over the history, and therefore, by necessity, the politics of wing chun. Around and around, again and again.

Instead of actually doing it.

Who are these 'too many people' you talk about anyway?

fwiw, I don't see history and politics necessarily going hand-and-hand unless one's ego gets involved. Say I go talk to person A from a never-heard-of line of WC and they give me a background story that is different or contradicts person B's. And person B gets all upset because I share the story. The problem isn't on me, and it's not on person A, it's on person B. Is B right and A wrong? Is the middle man at fault for sharing findings?

As I see it, the theme of this thread only promotes more politics. 'Specially if we think about the real reason this thread was created
Want to encourage positivity? I think that's going to happen when people let go thier egos and forget trying to say what's right/wrong, or who spends too much time doing what, and worrying about what everyong else is doing. IMO, that's politics!

[JPinAZ]

In my view, WCK history is not really a problem. The problem is that what is typically presented as "history" -- legends, stories, myths, marketing, etc. -- is not genuine history. So I think the answer should not be to "forget WCK history", but rather to concern ourselves with developing the discernment to separate true history from the rest. However, to do that requires education, critical thinking skills, etc.

Good point. Funny you use the words 'genuine' or 'true'. How do you plan to discern what is or isn't? Or even suggest one do that? please continue..

But I do agree with Victor insofar as we need to keep history in its place. "History" -- whether genuine or not -- does not provide validation for one's theories (which is for the most part how WCK "history" is misused). The only validation for a fighting or training method is results.

You're mixing several seperate things together and treating them as one. History is just that - history. Then you talk about validating theories. But then finish talking about fighting or training methods and results. Are you trying to say that the only way to validate history is through physical results? Historical topics (fact or otherwise) don't really have anything to do with results from training. Kinda sill if you ask me.

[t_niehoff]

Good point. Funny you use the words 'genuine' or 'true'. How do you plan to discern what is or isn't? Or even suggest one do that? please continue..

It's not "funny" (I suppose you mean in the "odd" sense) that I use such words -- how can something be called history that didn't genuinely happen or isn't true? My point is that calling something "history" doesn't make it so, and that it is all too common in WCK to call legends, stories, myths, etc. "history". The Ng Miu-Yim Wing Chun legend, for example, isn't history although it is often labelled as such. (Though as allegory it is useful IMO).

As I said, it takes education, critical thinking skills, etc. to discern what is historically true (factual). Before we call something history we should have compelling factual, independently verified, evidence that it is true. Lacking that, how can we say something is true?

You're mixing several seperate things together and treating them as one. History is just that - history. Then you talk about validating theories. But then finish talking about fighting or training methods and results. Are you trying to say that the only way to validate history is through physical results? Historical topics (fact or otherwise) don't really have anything to do with results from training. Kinda sill if you ask me.

You're missing my point: that history should be put in its proper place. Very often people in WCK try to use "history" (whether true or not) as a way to validate the effectiveness of their theories/teachings (especially for marketing purposes). And, I'm saying history can't do that; only results can validate the usefulness of training/fighting methods. For example, if someone says a certain practice/theory/etc. is good because it comes from Shaolin -- they are attempting to use "history" to validate some practice. My point is that whether true or not (whether it really comes from Shaolin or is just a story or legend), only results will validate the effectiveness of the practice.

You are quite right that results don't validate the history (whether it really came from Shaolin or not), and I never suggested so. To show the history of some particular practice/theory goes back to needing compelling factual, independently verified, evidence of what really occurred.

[Ultimatewingchun]

When I say 1% of the time I’m talking about the total picture, ie.- when I try to calculate how much time I’ve spent at William Cheung’s seminars, lessons, etc…yeah, it couldn’t possibly be more than maybe 1 or 2% of the time that I’ve actually heard him talking “history” – and oftentimes it was in response to someone’s questions to him about history, and not because he brought the subject up.

So you can't judge the 1-2% by one eight minute clip. And furthermore, sometimes his seminars would extend over a two day period (or perhaps even a week).

And like Joy, I also find myself in basic agreement with Terence’s post as it was stated. So let’s take a look at that:

“In my view, WCK history is not really a problem. The problem is that what is typically presented as ‘history’ -- legends, stories, myths, marketing, etc. -- is not genuine history. So I think the answer should not be to ‘forget WCK history’, but rather to concern ourselves with developing the discernment to separate true history from the rest. However, to do that requires education, critical thinking skills, etc.

But I do agree with Victor insofar as we need to keep history in its place. 'History’ -- whether genuine or not -- does not provide validation for one's theories (which is for the most part how WCK ‘history’ is misused). The only validation for a fighting or training method is results.” (T)


***FIRST of all, the problem is that we don’t know what’s genuine and what’s not, because there are so many conflicting stories and accounts – so I can’t fault Terence for starting out by saying that the legends and stories are not genuine. Maybe they are, and maybe they’re not.

And when he goes on to say that critical thinking skills are required – I would argue that the best way to use that critical thinking is to gauge any validity (historical or otherwise) by seeing WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T.

Now you might say that this is not actually a study of “history” per se – but rather a different issue, ie.- a study of wing chun fight efficiency…

BUT HERE’S THE PROBLEM: VARIOUS WING CHUN CLANS TRY TO CLAIM SOME SORT OF SUPERIORITY EITHER AS A FIGHTING METHOD AND/OR SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY RESULTING IN SUPERIORITY (and hence the politics)....

AND NOBODY CAN PROVE ANYTHING (concerning history).

So why continue with all the politics and history lessons? Where is all of this getting the wing chun world? Nowhere.

Let me put it another way: in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make exactly where and when various wing chun came from? Supposing it turns out the "oldest" and "most direct" and "most historically legitimate" line of wing chun is inferior to some other version of wing chun that's more modern?

So what difference would it make to constantly examine the "historical" roots of said alleged "more legitimate and authentic" wing chun system???

So again, returning to the theme of the thread: It's not about the roots - it's about the efficiency of the system(s)...and this can only be determined by constant pressure testing against (and in comparison to) the other top martial arts of the day.

Otherwise, wing chun will indeed become an "HISTORICAL" footnote.

[JPinAZ]

Vic, the 1% thing was more of a joke. You brought it up, but the clip showed otherwise, no big deal..

BUT HERE’S THE PROBLEM: VARIOUS WING CHUN CLANS TRY TO CLAIM SOME SORT OF SUPERIORITY EITHER AS A FIGHTING METHOD AND/OR SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY RESULTING IN SUPERIORITY (and hence the politics)....

AND NOBODY CAN PROVE ANYTHING (concerning history).

So, this thread is about politics..

So why continue with all the politics and history lessons? Where is all of this getting the wing chun world? Nowhere.

Exactly, yet here we are on yet another thread talking politics...

Let me put it another way: in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make exactly where and when various wing chun came from? Supposing it turns out the "oldest" and "most direct" and "most historically legitimate" line of wing chun is inferior to some other version of wing chun that's more modern?

So what difference would it make to constantly examine the "historical" roots of said alleged "more legitimate and authentic" wing chun system???

So again, returning to the theme of the thread: It's not about the roots - it's about the efficiency of the system(s)...and this can only be determined by constant pressure testing against (and in comparison to) the other top martial arts of the day.

Otherwise, wing chun will indeed become an "HISTORICAL" footnote.

I thought the original purpose of the thread was to say forget the history/politics and just train? I still say history and politics aren't the same thing (but one can decide to mix them together if they take the history personally, guess that's on them). Training methods and results are yet another subject unrelated to the first 2.
I still don't see any problem with digging into history and sharing findings, regardless who does it.. Just like I don't see any problem with not wanting too.

Now I agree with you - what difference does it make? none. History is just that - history. Results of what's most or more effective/efficient as a training method is something else. No argument there. It seems thought that the 2 seperate things are being mixed here. And I still say, if someone wants to study, research, talk, share what they find regarding history, and even come up to thier own conclusions - who cares? Obviously you do.
The world is not going to end, and WC isn't going to disappear into thin air because some people chose to do more than just train. I think you're taking this too seriously (and personally for that matter).

[bennyvt]

i think the only time history is good is when we can learn from it. Like, in the early days vt kept there hands lower due to kicks, wsl got smacked in the nuts in a fight went to yip man and yip said you should have done garn sao, wsl said you didnt show me that so he replied he learnt it off chan wah shun but leung bik thought the jum sao better as you could attack easier. So wsl and everyone the learnt after him learnt both. This teaches us stuff. History is not, there are two people made themself grand master then would not back it up. Thats just idiots looking like idiots.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Those that do not learn from History are bound to repeat it.

[TenTigers]

when were these "histories" actually created?
When did they start calling it Wing Chun, Hung-Ga, Choy Li Fut?
Certainly not when they were rebelling against the Ching.
During those times, nobody bothered to give their system a name. Many were simply called Siu-Lum, Fut-Ga, Lo Hon Kuen, etc or combinations of the same.
When is there a need to give something a name?
When you are marketing your product. It separates you from the other guys.
When is it neccesary to have a wonderful story?
When you are marketing your product. It lends credibility.
Westerners say, "New and Improved!"
Chinese say"From an ancient traditional formula"
Who would study from a guy who says,"I'm a nobody and just made this up!"
Rather than,"I am somebody because I come from a long line of MASTERS"

Sure, we can follow our lineages back a few generations. Wong Wah Bo, Luk Ah-Choy, Chan Heung, Wong Yun-Lum, etc. But after that,there are no records, and then of course, all the wondrous stories begin.
A Siu-Lum Nun witnessed a fight between a snake and a crane.
A Tibetan Monk witnessed a fight between a White Crane and a White Ape
A Taoist Priest witnessed a fight between a Snake and a Sparrowhawk
A Jewsih Rabbi witnessed an argument between a yenta and a kosher butcher...

when are people going to simply agree that most, if not all the stories are dubious, all the systems are good, they all work, and they all pretty much share common origins. Different styles were created by different fighters' personal preferences, based on their successes, or body type, or coordination, speed, or whatever.

My guess? Probably never. As long as we have schools, teach to the public, do demonstrations,promote our styles, there will be marketing.
The only ones that do not do this are whenthere is a small group of Martial Artists, sharing and training together on their own, with no agenda other than training and mutual improvement.
These guys have already reached these conclusions, and don't really care.

That being said, I have to work on my new brochure....
Kosher Kung-Fu!
Founded in the Shalom Temple Beth-Isreal

[sanjuro_ronin]

History is like my Johnson, it gets more impressive and important with age.

[bennyvt]

i thought you meant that the stories are exaggerated and over hyped.

[sanjuro_ronin]

i thought you meant that the stories are exaggerated and over hyped.

Someone has mastered the ancient art of "reading between the lines".

[AdrianUK]

UltimateWingChun

Excellent thread, if there was a club with your attitude near me I would still be in Wing Chun, all the clubs near me are the same, forms, no real sparring, delusional about there ability. I left the WT club I was with because

No sparring
No cardio
Forms over and over again
unrealistic drills

Wing Chun does need to step up to survive, if it can, it will be a shame if it fails

Final note
Bullshido

If you have gone there and got a rough ride for being Wing Chun, its easy to reverse that

post good sparring clips
hang in the CMA forums NOT YMAS !!
talk sense, if you admit you do Wing Chun because you like it and admit it has no ground game etc you will get treated like anyone else
READ THE STICKIES ! ignore them at your peril

Best regards to those able to train with quality