# Does Wing Chun train to Fight?



## Yoshiyahu (Aug 24, 2019)

Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu.

Do you train for a work out or to fight?

I think people take up martial arts for different reasons. It can be same thing about boxing. You can punch the heavy bag every day, you can shadow box, You can jump rope and hit focus mitts and even Run three miles and lift Weights. But until you actually Spar your Boxing is not fighting. 

When i learn WC we practice 
1.Solo Punches and Kicks
2. Partner reflex drills
3. Free still Sanshou drills with a partner
4. Chi Sau (Sensitivity Training)
5. Kicking and Defending against a kick
6. Gor Sau ie structured sparring
7. Free sparring

We also practiced conditioning and strength training from simple things to pull ups, push ups, wrist rollers and some traditional stuff, As yes we practice Chi Cultivation too. In our system there are forms of Chi Kung. 

How Ever the key was fighting Non-Wing Chunners. We would spar different people and learn from fighting others how to use our WC. What worked and what didn't worked. How to move. Standing still like your doing a First form will not work against an active and mobile opponent. Moving around with out intent or purpose won't work well against a counter fighter. 

A teacher can teach you fight theory but you learn fighting by actually fighting. Same With the WC form. I can teach you Sim Lien Tao. But you will only learn it by doing it! Same goes with fighting. Until you fight you won't know to fight.


----------



## Headhunter (Aug 24, 2019)

Oh boy this is gonna be interesting


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 24, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> A teacher can teach you fight theory but you learn fighting by actually fighting. Same With the WC form. I can teach you Sim Lien Tao. But you will only learn it by doing it! Same goes with fighting. Until you fight you won't know to fight.


Apparently on Martialtalk, the martial Arts are not about fighting. You do not need to know how to defend yourself to be a Martial artist.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 24, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Apparently on Martialtalk, the martial Arts are not about fighting. You do not need to know how to defend yourself to be a Martial artist.


Is that your oversimplified takeaway?  That’s unfortunate for you.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Aug 24, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu.
> 
> Do you train for a work out or to fight?
> 
> ...


Pretty much how I understand my training


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 24, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Is that your oversimplified takeaway?  That’s unfortunate for you.


It's an observation. No need for meaningless self serving long comments.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 24, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> It's an observation. No need for meaningless self serving long comments.


Yeah, I’ll stand by my comment.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 24, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I’ll stand by my comment.


Great!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 24, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> the martial Arts are not about fighting.


MA is as simple as:

fist meets face,







or, head meets ground.


----------



## jobo (Aug 24, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Apparently on Martialtalk, the martial Arts are not about fighting. You do not need to know how to defend yourself to be a Martial artist.


That's not what anyone s3ad on the other thread, you set a standard that you can only call yourself a ma , when you have used ma to save your life, which is a bizarre standard to set. You could go your whole life and never have anyone try to kill you


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Aug 24, 2019)

It is not really bizarre, what is incredibly bizarre and ridiculous, is thinking that a person who has never actually had to do that, teaches others how to defend themselves. That is incredibly weird.

And extremely dangerous for the student. Train them for sport, but fooling them into thinking that what they are being taught will help them in reality, is a con plain and simple. 

We can disagree on that fact till the cows come home.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 24, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> Apparently on Martialtalk, the martial Arts are not about fighting. You do not need to know how to defend yourself to be a Martial artist.



So long as you are happy.

Same with diabetes if salads make you sad. Eat hamburgers.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 24, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> It is not really bizarre, what is incredibly bizarre and ridiculous, is thinking that a person who has never actually had to do that, teaches others how to defend themselves. That is incredibly weird.
> 
> And extremely dangerous for the student. Train them for sport, but fooling them into thinking that what they are being taught will help them in reality, is a con plain and simple.
> 
> We can disagree on that fact till the cows come home.


So do you feel there ought to be a credential, based on the number of “fights” you’ve had, as to whether you are qualified to teach a martial system and dare to suggest that it might be useful in defending oneself?

What kind of fight qualifies?  Does the schoolyard prior to age 10 qualify?  

The thing is, for most reasonable people in many parts of the world, it is pretty easy to get through life without getting into fights, especially once one leaves the blistering stupidity of adolescence behind.  As an adult, if one continues to get into fights on a regular basis, the problem may be that person.  For most people, there is no excuse for that.  It is sheer stupidity and easily avoided.  Now, I read what you posted a while back about your history and I am not pointing a finger at you.  There are people who experienced circumstances that were beyond their control and I understand that and I don’t judge someone based on that.  But most people do not have that background.

So I can imagine all kinds of people teaching martial arts without having had a “real fight”, at least not since youthful stupidity.  And I would be nonplussed if they suggested that what they were teaching is useful in self defense.  Doesn’t bother me in the least.  There are all kinds of people who have no business teaching martial arts, for all kinds of reasons.  But having never been in a “real fight” is at the bottom of the list for me.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 24, 2019)

I've had plenty of "real fights", depending what you consider a real fights, when I was a teenager. Not going to go into detail on them since this is a public forum. If I didn't get into another fight for the rest of my life, I'd be happy,  Two things that I think of now, thinking back on it. 

First: despite my martial arts instructor not having experience in fighting (or at least not sharing it/using that experience to teach), I "won" largely due to a combination of martial arts training and aggression. 

Second: Those fights would have no impact on me teaching martial arts, or self-defense, with the exception that I would try to teach people not to do that, and focus more on verbal de-escalation. 

So, really, I don't think it's necessary to get into fights before you teach martial arts.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 24, 2019)

Guthrie said:


> It is not really bizarre, what is incredibly bizarre and ridiculous, is thinking that a person who has never actually had to do that, teaches others how to defend themselves. That is incredibly weird.
> 
> And extremely dangerous for the student. Train them for sport, but fooling them into thinking that what they are being taught will help them in reality, is a con plain and simple.
> 
> We can disagree on that fact till the cows come home.



Something else to add here: I'm an addictions counselor and therapist. In a previous job I worked as an addictions counselor in an outpatient setting, helping people learn to stop whatever drug they were using, and enter recovery. I was never addicted to any substance, and have not tried any hard drugs-I don't know personally what cocaine or heroin feel like, or what it's like to have withdrawals from alcohol. I also don't know what it's like personally craving them. Some of my coworkers were in recovery, and had experienced some or all of those things.

Just based on how our clients did comparatively (and compared to the other non-recovery counselors at the clinic), there didn't really seem to be a difference. And most clients would try to guess who was in recovery, based on our counsel, teachings, etc., and who wasn't. They got it wrong more often than not, so clearly that was not the important thing there. 

So, things can be taught without having been personally experienced. So long as the information that the teacher got is correct.


----------



## drop bear (Aug 25, 2019)

kempodisciple said:


> Something else to add here: I'm an addictions counselor and therapist. In a previous job I worked as an addictions counselor in an outpatient setting, helping people learn to stop whatever drug they were using, and enter recovery. I was never addicted to any substance, and have not tried any hard drugs-I don't know personally what cocaine or heroin feel like, or what it's like to have withdrawals from alcohol. I also don't know what it's like personally craving them. Some of my coworkers were in recovery, and had experienced some or all of those things.
> 
> Just based on how our clients did comparatively (and compared to the other non-recovery counselors at the clinic), there didn't really seem to be a difference. And most clients would try to guess who was in recovery, based on our counsel, teachings, etc., and who wasn't. They got it wrong more often than not, so clearly that was not the important thing there.
> 
> So, things can be taught without having been personally experienced. So long as the information that the teacher got is correct.



Yeah but there is no standard on the information.

There is still probably a necessary background of study required somewhere.

I have not been to war but I was trained by the army vs I have not been to war but my mate who says he is a navy seal has trained me.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Aug 25, 2019)

Head Hunter why is that?


Headhunter said:


> Oh boy this is gonna be interesting




Can you explain more? Do you practice WC?



JowGaWolf said:


> Pretty much how I understand my training



I some what agree. I love Mike Tyson as a fighter. But if i was a beginner. I would want those Italians who train him to train me not Mike Tyson. Not to say his trainers were fighters per se. I dont recall any of them being boxing champions ever. But Mike Tyson is revered for his skill. Now as for him training me in his hay day. I dont think i would learn all i could from him. Plus I am sure Mike Tyson training prepared him for the fight. But it was the sparring he did that allowed him to learn how to use the conditioning, drills and training. Its the constant sparring that gave him the understanding. Not his trainers ability to fight or past fast. 




Guthrie said:


> It is not really bizarre, what is incredibly bizarre and ridiculous, is thinking that a person who has never actually had to do that, teaches others how to defend themselves. That is incredibly weird.
> 
> And extremely dangerous for the student. Train them for sport, but fooling them into thinking that what they are being taught will help them in reality, is a con plain and simple.
> 
> We can disagree on that fact till the cows come home.




Flying Crane. You can have muhaamd Ali train you to be fighter. But if you never spar. All of that training, from jumping rope, hitting focus mitts, hitting the heavy bag, or even shadow boxing will go out the window the moment someone is hurling attacks with you. Until you spar no level of training is adequate to use. For instance i can show you how to hold your breath, How to kick your legs, and how to float. But you won't become a good swimmer until you actually practice swimming. I can tell you how to ride a bike but you first have to get on and pedal it yourself. My ability to ride a bike has nothing to do with it. 




Flying Crane said:


> So do you feel there ought to be a credential, based on the number of “fights” you’ve had, as to whether you are qualified to teach a martial system and dare to suggest that it might be useful in defending oneself?
> 
> What kind of fight qualifies?  Does the schoolyard prior to age 10 qualify?
> 
> ...







kempodisciple said:


> I've had plenty of "real fights", depending what you consider a real fights, when I was a teenager. Not going to go into detail on them since this is a public forum. If I didn't get into another fight for the rest of my life, I'd be happy,  Two things that I think of now, thinking back on it.
> 
> First: despite my martial arts instructor not having experience in fighting (or at least not sharing it/using that experience to teach), I "won" largely due to a combination of martial arts training and aggression.
> 
> ...




Good Point, But i think OP SA clinician counselors are is vast dichotomy on your part. The two are not mutually exclusive. Fighting is like having SEX you can only be good at by doing it. You can practice stroking the air all day. But you need a live person to practice on before you can actually become an expert. 




kempodisciple said:


> Something else to add here: I'm an addictions counselor and therapist. In a previous job I worked as an addictions counselor in an outpatient setting, helping people learn to stop whatever drug they were using, and enter recovery. I was never addicted to any substance, and have not tried any hard drugs-I don't know personally what cocaine or heroin feel like, or what it's like to have withdrawals from alcohol. I also don't know what it's like personally craving them. Some of my coworkers were in recovery, and had experienced some or all of those things.
> 
> Just based on how our clients did comparatively (and compared to the other non-recovery counselors at the clinic), there didn't really seem to be a difference. And most clients would try to guess who was in recovery, based on our counsel, teachings, etc., and who wasn't. They got it wrong more often than not, so clearly that was not the important thing there.
> 
> So, things can be taught without having been personally experienced. So long as the information that the teacher got is correct.




I agree we can learn an art from anyone. An its up to use to learn to fight with it.



drop bear said:


> Yeah but there is no standard on the information.
> 
> There is still probably a necessary background of study required somewhere.
> 
> I have not been to war but I was trained by the army vs I have not been to war but my mate who says he is a navy seal has trained me.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Aug 25, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Yeah but there is no standard on the information.
> 
> There is still probably a necessary background of study required somewhere.


I agree. Just saying that fighting is not necessarily the only study for that (and it may not even be a good one. I could have fought against a bunch of idiots-just with that I shouldn't assume i know how all fighting works).


> I have not been to war but I was trained by the army vs I have not been to war but my mate who says he is a navy seal has trained me.


True in terms of preparing for war. Not necessarily true for hand to hand fighting since they dont focus on it as fully. At least in the USA. I say that as a result of training with former members of the airforce and army. 

If the focus is hand to hand fighting, I'd rather be trained by either a former ufc champ or a ufc champs coach, if I really had the option.


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 25, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Flying Crane. You can have muhaamd Ali train you to be fighter. But if you never spar. All of that training, from jumping rope, hitting focus mitts, hitting the heavy bag, or even shadow boxing will go out the window the moment someone is hurling attacks with you. Until you spar no level of training is adequate to use. For instance i can show you how to hold your breath, How to kick your legs, and how to float. But you won't become a good swimmer until you actually practice swimming. I can tell you how to ride a bike but you first have to get on and pedal it yourself. My ability to ride a bike has nothing to do with it.


I don’t buy into your position.  Sparring is not fighting, I was asking if there needs to be a credential for teaching based on experience in fighting (not sparring) because that is what Guthrie seemed to be saying.  

At any rate, sparring CAN be a useful tool.  Not all sparring is equal, so it depends on how the sparring is done.  But it is not a necessity, there are other methods to develop the application of skills.  Sparring is often overrated as a training method.  It can be useful, but it is far from being the pinnacle of training.  Seems to me that a lot of people give it more weight than it deserves.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Sep 18, 2019)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t buy into your position.  Sparring is not fighting, I was asking if there needs to be a credential for teaching based on experience in fighting (not sparring) because that is what Guthrie seemed to be saying.
> 
> At any rate, sparring CAN be a useful tool.  Not all sparring is equal, so it depends on how the sparring is done.  But it is not a necessity, there are other methods to develop the application of skills.  Sparring is often overrated as a training method.  It can be useful, but it is far from being the pinnacle of training.  Seems to me that a lot of people give it more weight than it deserves.




You have light sparring and hard sparring. Until you can do both effectively you will be a fish out of water when it comes to using your wing chun in a real fight. Until you hone using your WC at high level of intensity with a resisting opponent who is freely striking as they light. You will not be ready for actually fighting.


----------



## Encho (Sep 18, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> You have light sparring and hard sparring. Until you can do both effectively you will be a fish out of water when it comes to using your wing chun in a real fight. Until you hone using your WC at high level of intensity with a resisting opponent who is freely striking as they light. You will not be ready for actually fighting.


Sometimes in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run, use a weapon things often not trained in sparring. As for your fish out of water comment, the beta fish often jumps from his puddle to find another puddle one of the reasons they are tough. It has been a while Yoshi I remember a while back with your wing Chun is an internal art discussion


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 18, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> You have light sparring and hard sparring. Until you can do both effectively you will be a fish out of water when it comes to using your wing chun in a real fight. Until you hone using your WC at high level of intensity with a resisting opponent who is freely striking as they light. You will not be ready for actually fighting.



You are making declarative statements and I can't help but wonder what your credentials for making them are. Have you trained to an advanced level, done light sparring, then found yourself unprepared when you experienced a real-world fight/assault(s), then changed your training to include free sparring, found yourself again a street fight/assault and then you were successful?

Or are you doing exactly what you are critising: asserting knowledge that is either speculation or regurgitation of things you have heard or read other people say?


----------



## Flying Crane (Sep 18, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> You have light sparring and hard sparring. Until you can do both effectively you will be a fish out of water when it comes to using your wing chun in a real fight. Until you hone using your WC at high level of intensity with a resisting opponent who is freely striking as they light. You will not be ready for actually fighting.


I don’t train wing Chun, so that part is moot.

Regarding the rest...nah.
I would not be prepared to enter an MMA competition, and I never claimed that I would be.
I disagree with the rest.


----------



## snake_monkey (Sep 19, 2019)

There is a huge rift in schools of thought. Traditional martial artists should not be divided in this. Think of it contextually and realize that TMA with roots in Buddhism / Taoism may not spar or fight but it doesn’t mean that the school’s students can’t fight (this is extremely important to note that this is on a case by case basis) . Training should do a number of things to increase an individual’s fighting ability whether you actually fight or not. Think about it - the ‘little idea’ sets the stage for all further actions and experiences.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 19, 2019)

Encho said:


> Sometimes in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,


You can't do that if you need to protect your family members or your love one.

If a girl has 2 boy friends, during the girl needs protection,

- boyfriend A will run and leave his girl in dangerous.
- boyfriend B will stand in front of that girl and protect her.

Which boy friend will that girl to choose to be her future husband?


----------



## Encho (Sep 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can't do that if you need to protect your family members or your love one.
> 
> If a girl has 2 boy friends, during the girl needs protection,
> 
> ...


Did you not see the word "*SOMETIMES"*

Here since you have difficulty reading
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes* in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes* in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes* in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes *in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,
*Sometimes* in a real fight it's better not to fight but to run,


----------



## Encho (Sep 19, 2019)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can't do that if you need to protect your family members or your love one.
> 
> If a girl has 2 boy friends, during the girl needs protection,
> 
> ...


By the way I put you on ignore, as I hate to see what other naive things you have to say


----------



## Danny T (Sep 19, 2019)

Encho said:


> By the way I put you on ignore, as I hate to see what other naive things you have to say


Wow!


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 20, 2019)

Does wing chun train to fight?

It’s a question I’ve put a lot of thought into, and it’s hard to quantify. First of all Wing Chun isn’t some united art - there are what, 30 recognized variants of it? Many don’t even share basics in stance and strategy. This makes picking a 'Wing Chun' to measure against an already biased outcome.

Second what does one mean by “fight?”

Again, a “fight” is a shorthand way to describe many different situations - an unexpected attack by an untrained but unknown assailant, a known combative test against an opponent skilled or unskilled, survival against odds unfavorable by way of numbers or force multipliers… the list goes on.

The best we can do in this situation is try and get to an average.

I haven’t trained at 32+ schools, I have touched hands with people from probably 20 or so. Not enough for a statistically significant sample, but hey, I’m just one guy. My numbers might be a bit fudged due to memory, but I’m relatively certain they’re accurate-ish.

0 / 20 did sparring as part of their main curriculum
19 / 20 think chi sao isn’t for fighting, but spend most of their time there
0 / 20 did reality based self defense drills or scenario training
2 / 20 did modern weapon work
6 / 20 had any sort of fitness training
1 / 20 had other styles in the same gym to train with
4 / 20 had competitors in anything resembling fighting (light sparring or full contact)

Doesn’t look very promising, does it?


----------



## snake_monkey (Sep 20, 2019)

Eric_H said:


> Does wing chun train to fight?
> 
> The best we can do in this situation is try and get to an average.
> 
> ...



There are a few things that you didn’t account for which make for increased fighting ability (or self defense in some cases); Perception, Sensitivity, Relaxation, Conditioning, and more which may be a result of ‘Wing Chun’ training.


----------



## MetalBoar (Sep 20, 2019)

Eric_H said:


> Does wing chun train to fight?
> 
> It’s a question I’ve put a lot of thought into, and it’s hard to quantify. First of all Wing Chun isn’t some united art - there are what, 30 recognized variants of it? Many don’t even share basics in stance and strategy. This makes picking a 'Wing Chun' to measure against an already biased outcome.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure *this part* is necessarily a criticism. Strangely enough, I generally don't want my MA school to do much fitness training. Many of those that do aren't great at it, and even if they are it takes time away from skill acquisition which is what I'm there to get. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled to do drills, spar, or train in ways that challenge and improve my fitness, but I'd rather not pay for or waste time on mediocre general fitness instruction when I can do it on my own, usually better, at a time that's convenient.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 20, 2019)

snake_monkey said:


> There are a few things that you didn’t account for which make for increased fighting ability (or self defense in some cases); Perception, Sensitivity, Relaxation, Conditioning, and more which may be a result of ‘Wing Chun’ training.



Which is the results that come from sparring.

The ability to basically dial in your martial arts to meet that specific environment of someone who wants to take your head off.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 20, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> I'm not sure *this part* is necessarily a criticism. Strangely enough, I generally don't want my MA school to do much fitness training. Many of those that do aren't great at it, and even if they are it takes time away from skill acquisition which is what I'm there to get. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled to do drills, spar, or train in ways that challenge and improve my fitness, but I'd rather not pay for or waste time on mediocre general fitness instruction when I can do it on my own, usually better, at a time that's convenient.



I disagree. Fitness should be fundamentally part of martial arts because it is a major component to being a practical martial artist.

Otherwise this notion springs up that there are these somehow magically fitter stronger guys who can fight and these weak anemic martial artists who can't and have to make excuses why they get beat up all the time.


----------



## snake_monkey (Sep 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Which is the results that come from sparring.
> 
> The ability to basically dial in your martial arts to meet that specific environment of someone who wants to take your head off.



I had mentioned that these are a result of ‘Wing Chun’ training. Sparring or not. I’m not challenging anyone to a fight here and I won’t be butt sore if I don’t win a fight that I have agreed to. I fly I ever find myself in a ring it’s as the saying goes ‘may the best man win’. No judgement it’s just how it goes.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 20, 2019)

snake_monkey said:


> I had mentioned that these are a result of ‘Wing Chun’ training. Sparring or not. I’m not challenging anyone to a fight here and I won’t be butt sore if I don’t win a fight that I have agreed to.



Are they the results of wing chun training?

And how would you know?

Where as do the concepts we train work?





There is definitely evidence to suggest it does.


----------



## snake_monkey (Sep 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> Are they the results of wing chun training?
> 
> And how would you know?



I haven’t been in a fight but I have sparred a bit outside my school. I know my abilities and my limits, and that’s about all I know. I’m not interested in proving anything about ‘Wing Chun’ just trying to give some additional perspective. If you are interested I can DM you some info or clips, but I typically don’t because they are old clips and I don’t want anyone sharing them without my permission.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 20, 2019)

Eric_H said:


> Does wing chun train to fight?
> 
> ...First of all Wing Chun isn’t some united art - there are what, 30 recognized variants of it? Many don’t even share basics in stance and strategy. This makes picking a 'Wing Chun' to measure against an already biased outcome.



Agreed. It's a decentralized art. You can't really generalize. Though every Wing Chun thread here goes right to generalization. 

I don't really like to talk too much about what we do and how we do it, but I'll take the quiz:


*0 / 20 did sparring as part of their main curriculum*
the word "sparring" is kind of tainted at this point for me. Hard contact against non-compliant opponents. yes. Maybe not "main curriculum", but when practitioners are ready, then yes.


*19 / 20 think chi sao isn’t for fighting, but spend most of their time there*
I actually think that chi sao is somewhat relevant to fighting skills, but we actually don't spend all the much time on it. Probably not as much as we should. It's just one of the things that we do, depending on what we're working on. 
*
0 / 20 did reality based self defense drills or scenario training*
Yes, definitely. 

*2 / 20 did modern weapon work*
A bit. I'm not the most qualified to teach modern weapons and I don't personally advocate the use of weapons in every day self-defense scenarios. But a student of mine used to be a firearms trainer for a federal LEO agency and we certainly try to relate what we do to the world that we live in without pretending to be something that we are not. 

*6 / 20 had any sort of fitness training*
We do a bit, but I try to make it specifically relevant to what we do. My SiFu does more in his club. Most of my students are involved in other athletic entanglements and get our conditioning in outside of class time, but we do a bit.

*1 / 20 had other styles in the same gym to train with*
We do not. 


*4 / 20 had competitors in anything resembling fighting (light sparring or full contact)*
I don't consider "light sparring" competition and I thought that we covered sparring in the first bullet point, but we do participate in tournaments. There are better places to train if that is your interest, no doubt.


----------



## MetalBoar (Sep 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I disagree. Fitness should be fundamentally part of martial arts because it is a major component to being a practical martial artist.
> 
> *Otherwise this notion springs up that there are these somehow magically fitter stronger guys who can fight and these weak anemic martial artists who can't and have to make excuses why they get beat up all the time.*


Fitness should be a fundamental part of martial arts if you want to be good at them, sure, but most martial arts instructors don't or can't do a good job of helping people achieve it. Why should I waste my time and money doing calisthenics and mediocre body weight exercises for 20-30 minutes of every class that are only going to be indirectly beneficial for my art anyway. Especially when there are _much_ better ways to use that time?

Let's take BJJ or grappling in general as an example. Rolling hard for an appropriate period of time is the most efficient way to develop endurance for grappling, anything else is a less direct way to try to inroad those metabolic pathways. I'm sure there are grappling specific drills that are a good second best. Skipping rope, doing calisthenics or running can be helpful for developing that endurance if it's done at the appropriate level of intensity but it's not as efficient as just doing the thing and you're only getting more skilled at skipping rope or whatever. Body weight exercises will develop strength to a point but they aren't nearly as efficient as weight training. These seem to be the sort of thing a lot of MA gyms do for fitness and it makes sense because they're easy to do with a room full of people. You can do that at home to maintain your fitness between classes but it's a poor use of time in class in my opinion.

Going further, I think it's most useful to focus on your weakest link, and if you can't roll hard for any length of time without getting totally winded then you need to spend more time rolling to condition yourself to it and work on developing the skills to grapple efficiently so as not to tire yourself out fast. I've provided strength training to a number of BJJ players ranging from white to black belt, mostly in the blue/purple range. The thing that stands out for me is that they are almost universally relatively weak if they haven't been doing strength training already and it's their weakest link by far by the time they've reached blue belt. Most body weight exercises aren't going to do a lot for them because they're strong enough that it takes a greater level of effort to significantly trigger an adaptive response. When they start lifting weights they universally tell me that it's a lot easier to submit people.

I know some MMA and BJJ gyms have weight lifting equipment but I'm not sure it's the majority. Even if it was, how many of the instructors are qualified and want to be strength coaches, how many students do they have time to do strength training with? Besides that, lifting weights isn't the best activity to combine in the same session with trying to learn a physical skill like BJJ. If you're going to have to come in on a separate day to do the weight lifting it probably makes more sense to do that somewhere else and not waste the space in your BJJ gym.

I care about this because I don't have much time to train in the evening when most of the MA classes take place. I don't want to waste it on things I can do when I've got openings in my schedule. I don't _care_ if someone else is mistaken about *this,* what other people think has no impact on my training. I _do_ care if instructors start including a lot of less relevant fitness instruction in their classes to meet the requirements of someone's check list.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 20, 2019)

I can't edit my post, but noticed a typo.

We do NOT participate in tournaments. That sentence in my last paragraph omitted the "not".


----------



## drop bear (Sep 20, 2019)

snake_monkey said:


> I haven’t been in a fight but I have sparred a bit outside my school. I know my abilities and my limits, and that’s about all I know. I’m not interested in proving anything about ‘Wing Chun’ just trying to give some additional perspective. If you are interested I can DM you some info or clips, but I typically don’t because they are old clips and I don’t want anyone sharing them without my permission.



But I think a perspective needs proof. 

Someone does this, and this happens. 

Anyone can say their method builds sensitivity. But without any sort of quantifying element I don't know what that really means. 

It is the sort of non existent statements that prevents arts like Kung Fu from being able to train to fight as there is no data on what is working for them.


----------



## drop bear (Sep 20, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> Fitness should be a fundamental part of martial arts if you want to be good at them, sure, but most martial arts instructors don't or can't do a good job of helping people achieve it. Why should I waste my time and money doing calisthenics and mediocre body weight exercises for 20-30 minutes of every class that are only going to be indirectly beneficial for my art anyway. Especially when there are _much_ better ways to use that time?
> 
> Let's take BJJ or grappling in general as an example. Rolling hard for an appropriate period of time is the most efficient way to develop endurance for grappling, anything else is a less direct way to try to inroad those metabolic pathways. I'm sure there are grappling specific drills that are a good second best. Skipping rope, doing calisthenics or running can be helpful for developing that endurance if it's done at the appropriate level of intensity but it's not as efficient as just doing the thing and you're only getting more skilled at skipping rope or whatever. Body weight exercises will develop strength to a point but they aren't nearly as efficient as weight training. These seem to be the sort of thing a lot of MA gyms do for fitness and it makes sense because they're easy to do with a room full of people. You can do that at home to maintain your fitness between classes but it's a poor use of time in class in my opinion.
> 
> ...



I might get my fitness coach to handle this.


----------



## snake_monkey (Sep 20, 2019)

drop bear said:


> But I think a perspective needs proof.
> 
> Someone does this, and this happens.
> 
> ...



I have stated that I have proof for myself and that I might be willing to share the clips that I have as well. Would anybody recommend sharing a clip to this website and if so where?


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 20, 2019)

snake_monkey said:


> There are a few things that you didn’t account for which make for increased fighting ability (or self defense in some cases); Perception, Sensitivity, Relaxation, Conditioning, and more which may be a result of ‘Wing Chun’ training.



These things are not equal, and I touched on conditioning in the fitness area. You can be perceptive and relaxed in training and have none of those attributes in a combat situation. The flight or fight response is a real thing, particularly when engaged with a situation you are not used to or prepared for. 

I'm not disagreeing that these things can be built, and can be valuable - but I can argue that they won't actually be there for the average case when in combat unless you've practiced having them in combat like situations. This involves the engaging the stress reflex. I don't have a better tool to do that than sparring/resistance training - if you have one that's working for you, please share it.



drop bear said:


> I disagree. Fitness should be fundamentally part of martial arts because it is a major component to being a practical martial artist.
> 
> Otherwise this notion springs up that there are these somehow magically fitter stronger guys who can fight and these weak anemic martial artists who can't and have to make excuses why they get beat up all the time.



Ideally, it should be gained from training, not as was said elsewhere in this thread a mediocre fitness program bolted on top of a martial arts curriculum. I think the comparison to sparring or BJJ rolling is an apt one. 



snake_monkey said:


> I had mentioned that these are a result of ‘Wing Chun’ training. Sparring or not. I’m not challenging anyone to a fight here and I won’t be butt sore if I don’t win a fight that I have agreed to. I fly I ever find myself in a ring it’s as the saying goes ‘may the best man win’. No judgement it’s just how it goes.



I'm not sure what the thrust of this post is. Nobody here is challenging you to anything as far as I read. You are entitled to an opinion, and we are entitled to agree and disagree with it. This is a relatively friendly martial arts forum, no harm no foul here.



ShortBridge said:


> Agreed. It's a decentralized art. You can't really generalize. Though every Wing Chun thread here goes right to generalization.
> 
> I don't really like to talk too much about what we do and how we do it, but I'll take the quiz:
> 
> ...



Thanks for your response, I appreciate you answering these points honestly though I didn't really intend it as a quiz . I can see where the term sparring might not set well with some, would "training against heavy active resistance" be any better?

I had picked light sparring/full contact because those are the competitions I've seen/been in at kung fu tournaments. I consider them separate as people can not spar in their own curriculum but still go and compete in those arenas - I've been/met people like that. It usually doesn't end well, but there are exceptions.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 20, 2019)

I boxed in my teens and did Muay Thai in my early 20s and sparring is de rigor there of course. That's not the way that I teach or practice Wing Chun, but I do stress and test my students in a way that works for us. Someone might call that "sparring", but it's different than my context for it.


----------



## snake_monkey (Sep 20, 2019)

Eric_H said:


> I'm not sure what the thrust of this post is. Nobody here is challenging you to anything as far as I read. You are entitled to an opinion, and we are entitled to agree and disagree with it. This is a relatively friendly martial arts forum, no harm no foul here.



Sure, I agree this is a friendly martial arts forum. My response was to the Xu Xaiodong clips posted as I believe there is a lot of controversy for nothing (I.e. show business). I think a bit of sparring such as in the higher levels of Wing Chun drills is totally sufficient to train a person in fighting. I am not on that level in my school but the sparring experience I do have has shown me what my strengths are and my weaknesses. (I’m not going to front like my style of MA is better than any other style but you know I am confident in my abilities).


----------



## drop bear (Sep 20, 2019)

snake_monkey said:


> I have stated that I have proof for myself and that I might be willing to share the clips that I have as well. Would anybody recommend sharing a clip to this website and if so where?



I just have a crappy dump file on YouTube and just link them. 

My view is there isn't really enough people interested in my rubbish to out anybody. 

I think I have about 2 subscribers.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> I'm not sure *this part* is necessarily a criticism. Strangely enough, I generally don't want my MA school to do much fitness training. Many of those that do aren't great at it, and even if they are it takes time away from skill acquisition which is what I'm there to get. Don't get me wrong, I'm thrilled to do drills, spar, or train in ways that challenge and improve my fitness, but I'd rather not pay for or waste time on mediocre general fitness instruction when I can do it on my own, usually better, at a time that's convenient.


One of the values of having some level of fitness training in the classes (even if it's just some moderately extended periods of fairly intense movement drills) is it sets a level for students to be at. If students struggle at that level, they're likely (if they want to hang around) to do at least a little about it outside of class. Nobody really wants to be the first person to gas out during drills, or to be the one who can't finish the warm-up.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2019)

drop bear said:


> I might get my fitness coach to handle this.


If you can get them to provide input on that, it would be much appreciated.


----------



## MetalBoar (Sep 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> One of the values of having some level of fitness training in the classes (even if it's just some moderately extended periods of fairly intense movement drills) is it sets a level for students to be at. If students struggle at that level, they're likely (if they want to hang around) to do at least a little about it outside of class. Nobody really wants to be the first person to gas out during drills, or to be the one who can't finish the warm-up.


Oh yeah I agree, as I said in my first response on the topic I think that MA training sessions should regularly contain drills or sparring that really challenge the students' endurance. I think that's the best way to develop endurance for your art and that everything else is less direct and less efficient and once it's at sufficient remove (say long duration, slow paced jogging for someone who only cares about endurance for 3 minute boxing rounds) it becomes pointless. I also think warm ups are important, but they can be pretty brief and still be effective, especially if followed by drills that are increasingly challenging in terms of effort and/or range of motion. Along these lines, I think that it's possible to sequence drills in ascending difficulty and not have a dedicated warm up at all, though I don't think it's necessary or always desirable.


----------



## MetalBoar (Sep 21, 2019)

gpseymour said:


> One of the values of having some level of fitness training in the classes (even if it's just some moderately extended periods of fairly intense movement drills) is it sets a level for students to be at. If students struggle at that level, they're likely (if they want to hang around) to do at least a little about it outside of class. Nobody really wants to be the first person to gas out during drills, or to be the one who can't finish the warm-up.


Oh, I should add that there are going to be students who start off so deconditioned that they're effectively unable to reach the fist rung on the ladder, so to speak. This sort of outlying case might indeed need some help with simple, basic fitness just to come up to speed and I'm an enthusiastic supporter of making martial arts accessible to people who really need and want to get in better shape. I'm not sure how a small school with limited time and resources can best address these cases but I guess if it were my school I'd want to try.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> Oh yeah I agree, as I said in my first response on the topic I think that MA training sessions should regularly contain drills or sparring that really challenge the students' endurance. I think that's the best way to develop endurance for your art and that everything else is less direct and less efficient and once it's at sufficient remove (say long duration, slow paced jogging for someone who only cares about endurance for 3 minute boxing rounds) it becomes pointless. I also think warm ups are important, but they can be pretty brief and still be effective, especially if followed by drills that are increasingly challenging in terms of effort and/or range of motion. Along these lines, I think that it's possible to sequence drills in ascending difficulty and not have a dedicated warm up at all, though I don't think it's necessary or always desirable.


I like a dedicated warm up, in principle, because it lets me work specific areas I find commonly lacking. Some basic bodyweight exercises will help strengthen those who are below the baseline, and be an easy warm-up for those who already have that strength. It also gives me a chance to see what students are struggling with (who has an achy shoulder, etc., that they haven't mentioned). But I incorporate some of the actual drills as early as I can. Falls and rolls can make a moderate-intensity drill. Forms get folks focusing on balance while warming up their bodies, etc.

And sometimes, I just get impatient and go straight to work, using the ascending intensity approach you refer to.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 21, 2019)

MetalBoar said:


> Oh, I should add that there are going to be students who start off so deconditioned that they're effectively unable to reach the fist rung on the ladder, so to speak. This sort of outlying case might indeed need some help with simple, basic fitness just to come up to speed and I'm an enthusiastic supporter of making martial arts accessible to people who really need and want to get in better shape. I'm not sure how a small school with limited time and resources can best address these cases but I guess if it were my school I'd want to try.


One of the things I use my dedicated warm-up time for is to teach some exercises they can use later. I randomly use a few variations of push-ups, mountain climbers, planks, etc. When classes are small enough, I'll even break out whatever equipment is at hand and teach exercises with those.


----------



## snake_monkey (Sep 21, 2019)

Light Sparring Highlights 2017


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 22, 2019)

I agree thenTKD practioners are generally better at TKD than WC players.


----------



## Poppity (Sep 23, 2019)

I don't know about this. Back in the the 90s as a young cocky 18 year old, I competed in taekwondo events. Fitness was a massive part of the training, to the point we had a sick bucket outside the door, for people to be sick in and then come in and continue training. The place I learnt taekwondo also did wing chun and had some ex army guy teaching self defence. I cross trained with one of the wing chun instructors one weekend and was repeatedly shut down. I didn't join his class and later moved out of town but it stuck with me until I found a teacher later on.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 23, 2019)

Snark said:


> I don't know about this. Back in the the 90s as a young cocky 18 year old, I competed in taekwondo events. Fitness was a massive part of the training, to the point we had a sick bucket outside the door, for people to be sick in and then come in and continue training. The place I learnt taekwondo also did wing chun and had some ex army guy teaching self defence. I cross trained with one of the wing chun instructors one weekend and was repeatedly shut down. I didn't join his class and later moved out of town but it stuck with me until I found a teacher later on.


Throwing up during exercise isn't at all about fitness.


----------



## Transk53 (Sep 23, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu.h you fight theory but you learn fighting by actually fighting. Same With the WC form. I can teach you Sim Lien Tao. But you will only learn it by doing it! Same goes with fighting. Until you fight you won't know to fight.





Yoshiyahu said:


> Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu.
> 
> Do you train for a work out or to fight?
> 
> ...



You learn fighting by fighting? No you would learn how to get your **** kicked pretty quickly.

An instructor can give you the skills to defend yourself, teach you an art and discipline to succeed in said art, not to mention proper conduct and respect etc.. 

No instructer can give you theory on how to fight, that would just result in you getting hurt. More than that, the instructor shouldn't be teaching if his students are leaving class and going to find people to pick on. 

You don't train any martial art with a view to fighting, that just isn't the point to it.


----------



## Poppity (Sep 23, 2019)

I guess not, it was more about over exertion during high intensity workouts. It was a lot of machismo, no one was allowed to stop, if you couldnt keep up everyone in the class had to do more of the exercise until you caught up. Etc. Exercise-induced nausea - Wikipedia.

The instructor would get us to lie down and run across our stomachs, a couple of people took time off from bruised ribs during sparring, one guy actually cracked his ribs. Short of it is, I was the fittest I have ever been in my life and won a couple of full contact events, and I still got shut down.


----------



## Willzzz (Oct 14, 2019)

The brutal truth is that wing chun is just not as good as other martial arts that make up MMA, and that the fighters that wing chun schools produce are not as good as fighters that your average MMA school would produce. Compared to the talent that pervades the modern scene of martial arts, an "excellent" chunner tends to just end up being on the same level as an "average" MMA guy.

It's a hobby for me that I train on the side, and it somewhat helps me gain grips and positions in no-gi grappling. There's a few tricks in chun that can surprise a few guys that are not used to dealing with another person's arms in the way chi sao teaches you, but it is by no means dominant. Fighters will adapt and compensate to your tactics fairly quick, so the chun only really provides you a split-second of advantage. Usually just boils down to mind games that makes your opponent second guess your grip fighting proficiency. Other than that very nuanced aspect in grappling only tournaments, I would not devise a game around the skills I learned in wing chun.


----------



## geezer (Oct 16, 2019)

Willzzz said:


> The brutal truth is that wing chun is just not as good as other martial arts that make up MMA, and that the fighters that wing chun schools produce are not as good as fighters that your average MMA school would produce.



I would agree that Wing Chun, as it is typically being taught and trained today does not produce many fighters, and would not be a good foundation art  for MMA. I would _not_ agree that it "is not as good as other martial arts that make up MMA". Let me clarify:

 Wing Chun does _not _have a well developed ground game, or even highly effective defenses against trained grapplers. But that doesn't make it a bad martial art. Boxing and Muay Thai don't have ground games either.

On the other hand, even as a_ striking_ art, commonly trained Wing Chun lacks some of the essentials for the octagon: evasiveness, like the footwork to head movement  found in boxing, and the powerful smashing kicks of Muay Thai. Some of WC's best kicks are straight stomping knee and groin attacks. The groin attack is out, and the knee attack like the "oblique kick" is effective but controversial.

Still, I believe that Wing Chun _does_ bring useful elements to the MMA table, not as a replacement for other arts, but as _another adjunct_. A friend of mine and local MMA trainer agrees. But he points out that the end product is not majority WC. It is MMA and will look like MMA. It is just informed by some WC concepts. Alan Orr's lads, the "Iron Wolves would be an example:






Beyond that, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a lot of WC informed MMA fighters to suddenly start emerging. People with potential who want to compete in MMA don't train at your neighborhood WC kwoon playing the chi-sau game. They go to a good tough MMA gym for proven, well rounded training. And with the poor rep that WC has, I can't see too many MMA gyms adding a WC coach to their staff. Heck, where would you even find a qualified WC coach for MMA these days? I couldn't handle that. There are a few guys who could, but they're the exception.

Still, I'd like to see a few more guys like Alan Orr give it a try.


----------



## wayfaring (Oct 25, 2019)

Does Wing Chun train to fight?

Off the top of my head, who do you mean by Wing Chun?  The nun?  LOL.  It seems the noun here is sorely lacking in accountability.

You train to fight.   Or you don't.

What kind of fight?  Well, what kind are you likely to face?  What kind are you seeking?   I suppose you should train for that.  Seek a scenario for training that.  Or don't.  Bury the head in the sand like an ostrich.

That's kind of the choice here people make.  I do admit I like to punch people in the face, with varying amounts of gloved coverage, and don't mind getting punched either.  At a less than concussion pace.  And yes, I do like to choke ninjas also.  

Do my Wing Chun students?  

Not all of them.  Some do, some don't.  They have a root and foundation in structure and movement that they can take with them to any endeavor.  Along with confidence.  I do like to get them comfortable with contact at a very light introduction pace, including gloves.  Just so they don't tense up like a frozen squirrel when they get hit LOL.


----------



## geezer (Oct 25, 2019)

What? Does Wing Chun fight trains?  See 3:30 - 3:45 in the clip below.






...er, that was what you were _saking?  _


----------



## yak sao (Oct 25, 2019)

geezer said:


> What? Does Wing Chun fight trains?  See 3:30 - 3:45 in the clip below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No no, not does WC fight trains, I believe the question is. 'does WC fight on trains'.


----------



## Dominic82555 (Nov 20, 2019)

Yoshiyahu said:


> Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu.
> 
> Do you train for a work out or to fight?
> 
> ...


----------



## Dominic82555 (Nov 20, 2019)

I've seen a lot of videos of WC vs WC and WC vs other martial arts and what quickly catches my attention (now school me if I'm wrong). WC vs WC, all I see is front kick followed by chain punching and attempted take downs. Now where's all the other techniques that come with the system?????   Now, with that said WC vs other martial arts I believe is at a severe disadvantage with those gloves on and once again there's the front kick chain punching. Is this a training flaw?     Let me add this last observation: Do WC practitioners need to  participate in tournaments (ie if you're gloved and there's no punches to the face, how do you handle someone like a kyokushin fighter? If basically your target is body mass, you can forget it because they train to pound their bodies day in and day out were as maybe WC students need to had that kind of physical regimen to their training. Idk


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 22, 2019)

Here is a lot of good articles about wing chun (the full list of articles is on the right side broken down by the months "
*Aрхива чланака" *
:
Penglai Martial Arts : Why Wing Chun fails in real fight?

enjoy


----------



## geezer (Nov 22, 2019)

Cynik75 said:


> Penglai Martial Arts : Why Wing Chun fails in real fight?



That article accurately points out that, as far as TCMA go,  Wing Chun is especially well adapted for training stand-up fighting in very tight quarters. Also the author correctly notes that the way Wing Chun is often taught and practiced neglects certain necessary aspects of fighting such as physical conditioning and sparring against diversely trained, resisting opponents. He further notes that Wing Chun can be effectively augmented  by the addition of other methods that address it's weaknesses.

Excuse me, but isn't all that pretty _obvious?_  The rest of what the author has to say about Wing Chun being exclusively developed to practice on the Red Boats strikes me as pure speculation, and as equally unlikely as all the other origin stories used by various WC lineages ...and by other TCMA. 

In short, I see a lot of _sweeping generalizations_ and an effort to replace dubious history with _more dubious history. _


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 23, 2019)

Personally i think those two articles below and 1 above can explain why contemporary WC cannot produce fighters:
1. Yip Man was a fraud without idea about fighting: Penglai Martial Arts : Yip Man a master or something else
2. WC become (mostly) a cult: Penglai Martial Arts : Wing Chun ,martial art or religion


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 23, 2019)

*Note to all users:*

MartialTalk guidelines specifically prohibit fraud-busting.
____________
*Gerry Seymour*
MartialTalk Moderator
@gpseymour


----------



## geezer (Nov 23, 2019)

Cynik75 said:


> ...Wing Chun cannot produce fighters:
> 
> 1. Yip Man was a fraud without idea about fighting
> 2. WC become (mostly) a cult:



I’m traveling and on my phone —with a messed up keyboard— so I won’t say much now, but the articles referenced have a bit of truth mixed with a lot of over-the-top mis-information and more than a little axe-grinding. My question is: What are you selling?


----------



## drop bear (Nov 25, 2019)

Dominic82555 said:


> I've seen a lot of videos of WC vs WC and WC vs other martial arts and what quickly catches my attention (now school me if I'm wrong). WC vs WC, all I see is front kick followed by chain punching and attempted take downs. Now where's all the other techniques that come with the system?????   Now, with that said WC vs other martial arts I believe is at a severe disadvantage with those gloves on and once again there's the front kick chain punching. Is this a training flaw?     Let me add this last observation: Do WC practitioners need to  participate in tournaments (ie if you're gloved and there's no punches to the face, how do you handle someone like a kyokushin fighter? If basically your target is body mass, you can forget it because they train to pound their bodies day in and day out were as maybe WC students need to had that kind of physical regimen to their training. Idk



There are boxers who use wing chun principles fine with gloves on

You get a guy like lomenchenco and he is miles ahead in the application of wing chun principles.


----------



## Poppity (Nov 25, 2019)

Cynik75 said:


> Personally i think those two articles below and 1 above can explain why contemporary WC cannot produce fighters:
> 1. Yip Man was a fraud without idea about fighting: Penglai Martial Arts : Yip Man a master or something else
> 2. WC become (mostly) a cult: Penglai Martial Arts : Wing Chun ,martial art or religion



Holy sh** balls batman! I don't know where to start with these articles. They are utterly riddled with inaccuracies to the point of being suspiciously misleading.

With the internet so full of armchair experts waving their "correct" opinions about, I am not often surprised by new conspriacies... But....  can I ask you to supply maybe some checkable references of documents and  maybe perhaps a book or too for this  rather unique history... I'm just saying Ben judkins managed to do so when he wrote a book


----------



## geezer (Nov 25, 2019)

Snark said:


> But....  can I ask you to supply maybe some checkable references of documents and  maybe perhaps a book or too for this  rather unique history.



I suspect that “Cynic75” was the author of those articles, or perhaps a student of the same, seeking free publicity. I doubt that he will return or that he is interested in engaging in open discussion.


----------



## geezer (Nov 25, 2019)

drop bear said:


> You get a guy like lomenchenco and he is miles ahead in the application of wing chun principles.


There are a few coaches out there that understand this and are consciously working to bring WC into the 21st Century. I wish them luck.


----------



## Poppity (Nov 25, 2019)

I think I saw the same guy on a different forum perhaps with a different username but startling similarities in content promoting the same articles, claiming Ip man was an opium addict and his family were international drug smugglers


----------



## drop bear (Nov 25, 2019)

geezer said:


> There are a few coaches out there that understand this and are consciously working to bring WC into the 21st Century. I wish them luck.



Yeh. The more they do it. The more successful they will be. And the weird excuses will start to loose credibility.

And there are more chun meet ups that are slowly gaining ground.


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 26, 2019)

geezer said:
			
		

> I suspect that “Cynic75” was the author of those articles, or perhaps a student of the same, seeking free publicity. I doubt that he will return or that he is interested in engaging in open discussion.


No I am not. WC is for me an object of fascination - something so popular and so useless with so much selfpromotion as a superefficient martial art. I am trying to find where and when WC lost its fighting ability. Those articles I linked above are not mine but are close to my own thoughts about this issue. The more I know about old bare knuckle styles (asian and european) the more I realize that Yip Man did not understand WC and had no idea about fighting. He (probably) known only part of system - auxiliary exercises (equivalent of wrestling or bjj solo/pair drills), and made them the main part of his style.
And now few WC practitioners who care about real fighting skills have to fill the post Yip Man gaps in system - I really like Mark Philips' stuff, less Alan Orr 's (in my opinion he completely lost "WC spirit" and does typical MMA - its ok, but it is not WC).


----------



## APL76 (Nov 26, 2019)

Snark said:


> claiming Ip man was an opium addict and his family were international drug smugglers



I thought it was pretty uncontroversial that Yip Man's father was the captain of an opium boat? It didn't quite have the stigma that sort of thing has now. And didn't his dad's job doing that have something to do with a mob burning down their house leading to them shacking up with Yuen Kay San's family for a while.

While I think that the guy who wrote the blogs had some reasonable points I also think that he had a fair bit wrong too. I think his assessment of Yip Man's wing chun, while kinda on the right track is a little too pessimistic. And some of the things he is "refuting" are off from the getgo. For example, claiming that Yip Man breaking the gun is nonsense because it would be impossible for a person to break a gun like that; ergo: Yip Man being full of crap. The story I heard, from my Sifu, who heard it from Yip Chun, Yip Man didn't break the gun, he snatched it out of the guy's hand. 

The author of the blog also talks about Yuen Kay San being an opium addict. According to what my Sifu has said, as Sum Nung explained to him, Yuen Kay San was never an opium addict. 

As far as Yip Man's fighting ability goes??? In my opinion he would certainly not have been anywhere near the league of Yuen Kay San or Sum Nung (I know that that will be an unacceptable proposition to most wing chun people as they mostly descend from Yip Man), having said that though, but he undoubtedly gained himself a reputation in Fat San prior to his move to HK.

There are large inconsistencies in where he got his wing chun from, the Leung Bik story is dubious to say the least. But he still got a reputation as having some ability.


----------



## Poppity (Nov 26, 2019)

APL76 said:


> I thought it was pretty uncontroversial that Yip Man's father was the captain of an opium boat? It didn't quite have the stigma that sort of thing has now. And didn't his dad's job doing that have something to do with a mob burning down their house leading to them shacking up with Yuen Kay San's family for a while.
> 
> While I think that the guy who wrote the blogs had some reasonable points I also think that he had a fair bit wrong too. I think his assessment of Yip Man's wing chun, while kinda on the right track is a little too pessimistic. And some of the things he is "refuting" are off from the getgo. For example, claiming that Yip Man breaking the gun is nonsense because it would be impossible for a person to break a gun like that; ergo: Yip Man being full of crap. The story I heard, from my Sifu, who heard it from Yip Chun, Yip Man didn't break the gun, he snatched it out of the guy's hand.
> 
> ...


I would be very grateful if you might provide some credible references from perhaps ip man's surviving family or historical documentation that Ip man's father was a drugs runner. I am imagining that there is not any...what with it being criminal activity.. And you may perhaps see a similarity with someone else saying. I thought it was established fact (through heresay) that yuen Kay san was on the dope.

I dont mean to be rude but I do strongly feel that giving credence to such rumours without knowing the source seems a common issue in wing chun and perhaps more generally, and is why so many people often choose their own origin or lineage story....

I also see little point in speculations about who was the best or worst fighter out of deceased martial artists. The truth is, no one knows how good they were unless they fought them. It is similar to my friend who claims he would have beaten Mohammed Ali in his heyday, it's just that he didn't want to.


----------



## geezer (Nov 26, 2019)

Cynik75 said:


> No I am not. WC is for me an object of fascination - something so popular and so useless with so much selfpromotion as a superefficient martial art. I am trying to find where and when WC lost its fighting ability. Those articles I linked above are not mine but are close to my own thoughts about this issue. The more I know about old bare knuckle styles (asian and european) the more I realize that Yip Man did not understand WC and had no idea about fighting. He (probably) known only part of system - auxiliary exercises (equivalent of wrestling or bjj solo/pair drills), and made them the main part of his style.
> And now few WC practitioners who care about real fighting skills have to fill the post Yip Man gaps in system - I really like Mark Philips' stuff, less Alan Orr 's (in my opinion he completely lost "WC spirit" and does typical MMA - its ok, but it is not WC).



_Cynik75_, you and _APL76_ are really off track if you believe contemporary Wing Chun's failure to produce effective competitive fighters can be blamed on Yip Man. Whether or not Yip Man was a great fighter and great teacher or, as _Cynik_ seems to imply, a second rate practitioner, _he_ ended up being the reason why Wing Chun became known world wide. His, and all the other WC lineages, would be mere oddities known only to scholars of Chinese folk-boxing had it not been for Yip Man and his first generation of students.

That first generation of students BTW, had some fighters who played with and tested what they where taught. And they developed street cred in 1950s-'60s Hong Kong. Nothing on the level of modern, professional MMA bouts, but it was_ real testing _of their technique. _That's_ is what's been lost.

As far as today's Wing Chun "losing it's fighting ability" ...this is an issue with _all_ the traditional branches of Wing Chun and pretty much all TCMA as well. It has nothing to do with Yip Man's knowledge, ability, or lack thereof. It is a problem _endemic to TCMA _and has everything to do with the cultish over-emphasis on complex, quasi-magical "systems" believed to confer superiority, and the corresponding lack of sparring against diverse, resisting opponents, and frequent testing in open, competitive bouts.

In short, _don't blame Yip Man alone_ for why TCMA, including Wing Chun, is not as effective as it claims to be. Look at your own lineage and tell me how it has addressed these problems, if indeed it has!

BTW regarding stories about Yip Man's character, his opium use and his father's purported involvement in the opium trade ...well that was very long ago. Those were different times in a very different culture, and regardless, none of that has any bearing on the question at hand ...except that, in the history of the Chinese Martial Arts (at least according to my old Chinese sifu and also scholars like  Robert W. Smith and Ben Judkins) the triads and other criminal groups where some of the most avid practitioners of practical and effective martial arts ...for obvious reasons!

So, although I do _not_ agree with all the accusations against Yip Man's character made in prior posts, ironically linking Yip Man (or any other master of those days) with criminal activity might be taken as a back-handed endorsement. Food for thought.


----------



## geezer (Nov 26, 2019)

Oh, Cynik and APl, don't get me wrong. It's _great _to have a real discussion again! Honest disagreement and polite _argument _is what keeps this forum alive. Please keep posting.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2019)

Cynik75 said:


> No I am not. WC is for me an object of fascination - something so popular and so useless with so much selfpromotion as a superefficient martial art. I am trying to find where and when WC lost its fighting ability. Those articles I linked above are not mine but are close to my own thoughts about this issue. The more I know about old bare knuckle styles (asian and european) the more I realize that Yip Man did not understand WC and had no idea about fighting. He (probably) known only part of system - auxiliary exercises (equivalent of wrestling or bjj solo/pair drills), and made them the main part of his style.
> And now few WC practitioners who care about real fighting skills have to fill the post Yip Man gaps in system - I really like Mark Philips' stuff, less Alan Orr 's (in my opinion he completely lost "WC spirit" and does typical MMA - its ok, but it is not WC).



It is lost in isolation. Which happens in a lot of martial arts. 

The idea that it was a bad for their status for a club or instructor to get out there and get dominated by better martial artists. 

And the more they protected their status the crappier they got until everyone started living a lie.


----------



## geezer (Nov 26, 2019)

drop bear said:


> It is lost in isolation. Which happens in a lot of martial arts.
> 
> The idea that it was a bad for their status for a club or instructor to get out there and get dominated by better martial artists. And the more they protected their status the crappier they got until everyone started living a lie.


That’s the short version. Nothing to do with what Yip Man did or didn’t know. It’s about how you train and evolve ...or devolve.


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 26, 2019)

geezer said:
			
		

> _.._, _he_ ended up being the reason why Wing Chun became known world wide.


Bruce Lee is the reason why Wing Chun became known world wide. Chunners used Bruce's fame to spread around the world. 



			
				geezer said:
			
		

> That first generation of students BTW, had some fighters who played with and tested what they where taught. And they developed street cred in 1950s-'60s Hong Kong. Nothing on the level of modern, professional MMA bouts, but it was_ real testing _of their technique. _That's_ is what's been lost.


This kind of testing is a not very good. Defeating booms does not give the winner any impulse for development. "I have won" so "I am the best" so " I do not need to develop". Lack of good quality tests (it means fighting opponents with known fight record against legit opponents - as it it in nowadays sport) give the false statement of own championship. I was an antifa guy back in nineties in Poland - many, many, many fights, I really have a lot of experience in bare handed and not-bare handed strifes and for sure I can say - street brawlers cannot fight on decent level. Or even on medium amateur level. Being 44 y.o. far past my prime I could smash 21 years old myself in 10 seconds.


----------



## drop bear (Nov 26, 2019)

By the way talking about street cred. This is Bob Jones who had back in the day legitimate street cred. And bashed a ton of people.






But that is some ugly bag work.

I don't think the street cred bar is as high as people want to believe.

I think martial arts has gone past the notion of street cred. 

A BJJ nerd is much more terrifying than the Bob Jones types.


----------



## geezer (Nov 26, 2019)

drop bear said:


> By the way talking about street cred. This is Bob Jones who had back in the day legitimate street cred. And bashed a ton of people. ...I don't think the street cred bar is as high as people want to believe.



No, but Wing Chun had street cred in HongKong in the 50's and 60's ...at least against other TMA systems that were commonly practiced at the time. That's what interested people like Bruce Lee. Then, like _Cynik_ said, Bruce Lee made Wing Chun famous. So "street cred" played a key role.

Honestly, what made that early WC work was simplicity and aggression. The WC guys would charge in with chain punches, front kicks, knees and elbows ...and often that was _enough_ against the more complicated TMA systems popular in Hong Kong at the time.

Unfortunately, when exported, the system appealed to a whole different crowd -- often people who really didn't want to fight at all, but were looking for "kung fu magic", like stuff from the movies and TV. I was a little like that. Clueless. 

Still, when we did mix it up, the stuff worked better than other stuff we ran into, and that fueled the delusion. But we were going against friends and acquaintances, other non-fighters who were equally clueless in their training of karate, kenpo, and TKD. Aggressiveness, and forward pressure worked wonders ...until I tried it on a boxer who schooled me. That's part of how I got into escrima taught by a man who knew how to box.

I still think Wing Chun has a lot to offer, but _not_ by going back and looking for "the missing stuff", the "original" system, or any of that "secret knowledge" crap. Rather, we need to take the core concepts, de-mystify them and train them in a practical way with an open mind. See what works, what doesn't, add, subtract and build. Just an opinion.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Nov 26, 2019)

geezer said:


> I still think Wing Chun has a lot to offer, but _not_ by going back and looking for "the missing stuff",


My long fist teacher's teacher Han Ching-Tan always talked about:

- Long fist kick,
- XingYi punch,
- Taiji waist,
- Bagua footwork,

IMO, every MA style has it's strong point. Cross training was an ancient concept. One just can't get everything from one style.


----------



## APL76 (Nov 26, 2019)

In regard to providing "credible evidence" for anything I said about Yip Man, I haven't read this stuff anywhere, it just comes from my Sifu who himself heard this stuff from Yip Chun and Sum Nung. So if both of them say that Yip Man's father was into transporting opium, which back in those days was probably about as bad as being a beer salesman these days, I don't see any reason to disbelieve it. Its not like I'm saying he was El Chapo or anything. It wasn't a big deal back then. As far as I understand it their house got burned down because of his opium trading affiliation with some British trading company or the British Colonial administration in HK (not exactly sure which) rather than anything to do with opium as such. 

And as far as opium addiction goes, I don't know about Yip Man but Sum Nung told my Sifu unambiguously that Yuen Kay San was NOT an opium addict. Given that Sum Nung was his disciple I'm guessing he would know. And so Snark, I don't think you are being rude, but as for establishing where these rumors came from,= Yip Chun and Sum Nung, that is where they came from via my own Sifu who was a private student of Yip Chun and a disciple of Sum Nung. I haven't read this stuff anywhere so I have no references for you, I just got it through my own Sifu. 


Geezer I think I must have been a bit vague in what I was saying. I was not meaning to suggest that any issues with Wing Chun today necessarily stem from Yip Man, though in a round about way I think they do. I was actually trying to suggest that the pangali guy (or whatever his name is that wrote those blog posts) is being a little too hard in his criticisms of Yip Man. Now, I don't think Yip Man was the paragon of martial virtue and the greatest wing chun guy who has ever lived, the way that it seems many of his wing chun descendants appear to. He wasn't even the top wing chun guy in Guangdong, that was Yuen Kay San. But I think the portrayal of him in that article was a bit much. 

I was trying to establish, contradicting those blog articles, that as far as I had heard from my Sifu who heard this stuff from both Yip Chun and Sum Nung (and possibly Pan Nam too, I'd have to ask him), that Yip Man did indeed establish a reputation as a decent fighter in Fat San. Take the story about breaking the gun. As I said, Yip Chun said that Yip Man grabbed it out of the guy's hand, he didn't break it. So if the guy who wrote those blogs is going to say Yip Man's reputation it BS because breaking a gun is impossible, he should at least get the story straight before he tries to critique it.  

And yes you are right, I agree entirely with you, that none of us would even be learning wing chun if not for Yip Man (ironically enough if the stories about him getting cranky with Bruce Lee for teaching non-Chinese is true). But its undoubtable that he did contribute to a lot of the confusion and ambiguity surrounding wing chun today. It is common knowledge that there is ambiguity surrounding exactly where he learned what, It is undoubtable that, for whatever reason, he changed his wing chun substantially when he moved to HK. It is undoubtable that his teaching practices have lead to a lot of confusion about how to do this stuff. Look at the spread of Yip Man style wing chun, from the descendants of William Cheung to the descendants of Chu Shon Tin and everyone in between, some of them don't even seem like the same style of kung fu much less coming from the same guy. So it seems that even in his first generation of students he was not exactly careful to make sure that they were all on the same page as it were. 

But can it all be blamed on Yip Man? No I don't think so. When I started 22/3 years ago at least Yip Man wing chun was all reasonably consistent, but this diffusion has gone a long way in that time. 

I think it has more to do with marketing, money, people wanting to become a Sifu and open a school while barely knowing the stuff themselves, loss of information in the generations that have gone through since the first generation crowd and not just people not training their foundations but actively saying that training their foundations is a waste of time and the wrong way to train. The same is happening in YKS wing chun now, and from a little I have heard in Hung Gar too for example (again, like you say, across classical martial arts in general).


----------



## geezer (Nov 26, 2019)

APL76 - Well written post.

Personally, I don't worry to much about the gradual divergence of the system under the followers of the Yip Man lineage. That's always happened in TCMA. And that's been happening in Yip Man Wing Chun a lot longer than the 22-3 year period you postulated.

My old Chinese sifu studied with Yip Man, and as early as 1980 proclaimed his version as a _distinct system_, and different from what was being taught by his older kung fu brothers in the lineage. Soon others like William Cheung also declared their uniqueness. A big part of it was pure self promotion, and in the case of my own sifu, another part of it was legitimate in describing real conceptual differences.

My sifu attributed these differences to Grandmaster Yip's changing philosophy in his final years. There is probably some truth to that, but equally, I suspect that a lot of these ideas were substantially amplified by my sifu who, in conformity with Chinese cultural norms, preferred to lay the credit on _his _sifu (and in so doing attempt to increase his authority while undermining the legitimacy of his competitors). Others have done the same thing, and William Cheung took it a step further, pretty much proclaiming that everyone else had it all _wrong! _

IMO, divergence and competition should _strengthen_ an art, but only _if different groups could freely come together and test out their approaches_. Unfortunately, the cult-like clannishness of most WC groups prevented this from happening. For example, for the last 12 years, my old kung-fu brothers and training partners won't even speak to me, much less play chi-sau or spar after the organization split and I joined a different branch. _...And these guys were my friends_ going back to the founding of our group in 1979-80!

I'm afraid that the group I'm with now has become just as clannish. They don't know I post here, but if they did, they wouldn't approve. And when I occasionally meet up with  other groups to train, I better keep it quiet!!! 

_This _is what has ruined Wing Chun.


----------



## APL76 (Nov 26, 2019)

geezer said:


> APL76 - Well written post.
> 
> Personally, I don't worry to much about the gradual divergence of the system under the followers of the Yip Man lineage. That's always happened in TCMA. And that's been happening in Yip Man Wing Chun a lot longer than the 22-3 year period you postulated.
> 
> ...




There's two things to look at there in what you are talking about I guess, the divergence on the one hand and the clannishness on the other. 

In terms of the clannishness, I suppose when people have a lot at stake in terms of money, reputation and ego it can be an incentive to be like that. And for people who have invested a substantial amount of their effort into learning something they want it to be, in some objective sense, the best. So, if I learned "the real" stuff from some great master of the art and my competitor didn't learn the real stuff then that's likely to attract students to me (it seems especially problematic when you get two people making those claims that learned from the same guy). Its like a traditional saying in Chinese that my Sifu says "in literature there is no number one; in Kung Fu there is no number two" That is to say, in literature people defer to others and maintain some modesty whereas in Kung Fu everyone claims to be the best. 

But the divergence in the wing chun...………..I don't see that it's necessarily a good thing; I certainly don't buy these arguments that it's some sort of evolution of the art in light of more modern and more effective ways of fighting and or training. Possible I guess, but in most cases I'd be sceptical myself. What I see it as being more attributable to is people missing parts and needing to fill gaps. Now that's not to say that's what Yip Man was doing however I think you can see it in a lot of people who descend from him.

I can give two examples of what I mean: 

1- fairly well known if somewhat controversial and antagonistic guy in wing chun from the US, claimed in a video he made that two of the biggest weaknesses in wing chun are it's inability to cut angles against an oncoming attack and the non-existence of power generation from the hips. Both of which according to him are well developed in boxing and therefore wing chun should incorporate this stuff from boxing. Which it seems he does. Now I'm sure there are people on this forum, who do Yip Man wing chun, who would be surprised that wing chun allegedly doesn't cut angles or generate power from the hips. All one needs to do is train at their turning stance properly and understand how to combine the footwork from chum kue and bui ji and both of those "weaknesses" are taken care of. But this guy in the video, and presumably his students, don't train the things that are already in the system to address that and introduce other stuff in the belief that it will fix the "problem". I'm not convinced that that will make it stronger or better, it might, perhaps, actually undermine the integrity of what they are doing.

2- I read years ago in another blog about how too many people slavishly adhere to tradition and don't "evolve" their wing chun in light of modern science and sports training. And this is particularly bad because in the olden days people believed lots of silly things, were superstitious and didn't have an evidence based approach to martial arts. This guy also added that Yip Man had an empty shell of sing chun (I think that was his term) and so "real" wing chun was dead anyway (as someone who learns YKS wing chun I thought that was a little presumptuous of him too).

The specific example of this problem that the author of the blog used to illustrate his point was the silliness of the pole trapping technique from the butterfly knife form. In his opinion it was stupid and should be abandoned because it doesn't work, is a vestige of olden-days-silliness because the people who put it in the form obviously didn't follow an evidence based approach. He argued that there is no way that that technique can stop a pole thrust, and if you tried it you will cop a pole thrust to the face. Therefore the technique should be abandoned. And by extension of his principle, one should go through their wing chun and cull anything that was equally vestigial and silly. 

Now I have practiced that technique a fair bit against a trust from a person using a length of dowel (I don't much like the idea of my training pole getting all hacked up with the knives), and it works fine. It works because, unlike the guy argues, you don't try to stop the pole thrust, that's not the point. You simply get out of the way of the pole thrust and trap the pole momentarily before you slide one knife along the pole to attack the fingers and the other knife does a huen sao like scooping away of the pole. 

So, this guy, like example 1 above, just didn't understand what it was he was criticising. So I assume his wing chun is "evolving" too (like the first guy's) but my suspicion is that if one cant even understand what it is that they have a problem with in the first place, well, I'm not confident that that person is capable of making wing chun better.

Those are just a couple of examples I have seen of people fixing "problems" in wing chun that in my opinion aren't actually problems in the first place. My gut feeling is that a lot of the divergence in wing chun in the years that I have noticed it at least, is a result of tis sort of stuff and probably won't make wing chun better.


----------



## Poppity (Nov 27, 2019)

APL76 said:


> In regard to providing "credible evidence" for anything I said about Yip Man, I haven't read this stuff anywhere, it just comes from my Sifu who himself heard this stuff from Yip Chun and Sum Nung. So if both of them say that Yip Man's father was into transporting opium, which back in those days was probably about as bad as being a beer salesman these days, I don't see any reason to disbelieve it. Its not like I'm saying he was El Chapo or anything. It wasn't a big deal back then. As far as I understand it their house got burned down because of his opium trading affiliation with some British trading company or the British Colonial administration in HK (not exactly sure which) rather than anything to do with opium as such.
> 
> And as far as opium addiction goes, I don't know about Yip Man but Sum Nung told my Sifu unambiguously that Yuen Kay San was NOT an opium addict. Given that Sum Nung was his disciple I'm guessing he would know. And so Snark, I don't think you are being rude, but as for establishing where these rumors came from,= Yip Chun and Sum Nung, that is where they came from via my own Sifu who was a private student of Yip Chun and a disciple of Sum Nung. I haven't read this stuff anywhere so I have no references for you, I just got it through my own Sifu.
> 
> ...




Hi APL. First I would like to thank you for answering my post with class and decorum, you do your sifu proud.

I am not intending to cast any aspersions on what you have been told only to comment upon my frustrations of the rumour mill and inconsistent accounts. For example Ip Ching flatly denies his father ever used opium, in a similar fashion to Sum Nung...

But...if the rumours are true that Ng Chong So occasionally taught out of an opium den/gambling house. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that both ip man and yuen say kuen who were both familiar with and/or frequented the school were recreational users.

Lives of Chinese Martial Artists (6): Ng Chung So – Looking Beyond the “Three Heroes of Wing Chun”

..but this is how rumours start. However, as you quite rightly say, it's no big deal.

The wing chun I was taught is a mixture of Gulao, Ip Man, Cho family and bits and pieces of other wing chun lineages. Although there are differences there are many similarities... I think perhaps what has been most damaging for wing chun is that for a 'conceptual' martial art, there are many people saying what concepts are wrong or not wing chun... But when you look across lineages, not many things are universally wrong.


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 27, 2019)

geezer said:
			
		

> Honestly, what made that early WC work was simplicity and aggression. The WC guys would charge in with chain punches, front kicks, knees and elbows ...and often that was _enough_ against the more complicated TMA systems popular in Hong Kong at the time.



Sounds like early kravmaga or nowadays kravmaga training in IDF - two weeks of learning how to stimulate agression in fight and to to fire full barrage of kicks, punches and hits. Tank Abbot style, as you said not enough against somebody trained and used to fight.


----------



## APL76 (Nov 27, 2019)

Snark said:


> Hi APL. First I would like to thank you for answering my post with class and decorum, you do your sifu proud.
> 
> I am not intending to cast any aspersions on what you have been told only to comment upon my frustrations of the rumour mill and inconsistent accounts. For example Ip Ching flatly denies his father ever used opium, in a similar fashion to Sum Nung...
> 
> ...




I had a read of that article, thanks for liking that, I have heard the insinuations that Ng Chun So had taught from an opium den before, and even heard people make the claim that Yuen Kay San had learned from him. I don't know about teaching in an opium den but I think it's doubtful that he ever taught Yuen Kay San and the insinuation is probably a little politically motivated. In the YKS lineage its always unambiguously stated that YKS learned from: First- Fok Bo Chun and then second- Fun Sui Ching.

The strongest thing that suggests to me that its highly unlikely that Yuen Kay San learned from Ng Chun So is the wing chun itself. I have learned the whole of Yip Man wing chun and a good chunk of the Yuen Kay San stuff and they are just too different to have come from the same source. An outsider might look at them and think "meh they look the same to me" but actually doing them... there are vast differences, most of which are contradictory. So much so that everyone I, or my Sifu, teaches YKS stuff to eventually has to make a choice to stick with either one or the other because trying to do both they just get in the way of each other. 

Which leads me to my question for you. How do you find doing so many different variations of wing chun? I can see how, and its reasonably logical that, Yip Man and Ku Lo wing chun should be fairly compatible but how about Cho wing chun. I don't know anything about it really, I have had a look at a little of it. It actually reminded me of some of the Weng Chun I have see. Is there any relationship there? Do you find contradictions it the way the generate power, ideas of efficiency and technique? Or do you manage to integrate them without any trouble?


----------



## geezer (Nov 27, 2019)

APL76 said:


> ... there are vast differences, most of which are contradictory. So much so that everyone I, or my Sifu, teaches YKS stuff to eventually has to make a choice to stick with either one or the other because trying to do both they just get in the way of each other.



I totally get this... at least in concept. It is certainly true of the Wing Chun that I was taught as compared with some other branches (even within the Ip Man lineage). Most of the problem comes from the way we receive and generate power. If your fundamentals are contradictory, you cannot benefit from training both. For me it boils down to the concept of "springy energy" which not all WC groups share.

APL76 - would it be possible in this, or in another thread, for you to describe one of the aspects of YKS Wing Chun that conflicts with the Ip Man Wing Chun you learned? It would help our understanding and be greatly appreciated.


----------



## APL76 (Nov 27, 2019)

geezer said:


> I totally get this... at least in concept. It is certainly true of the Wing Chun that I was taught as compared with some other branches (even within the Ip Man lineage). Most of the problem comes from the way we receive and generate power. If your fundamentals are contradictory, you cannot benefit from training both. For me it boils down to the concept of "springy energy" which not all WC groups share.
> 
> APL76 - would it be possible in this, or in another thread, for you to describe one of the aspects of YKS Wing Chun that conflicts with the Ip Man Wing Chun you learned? It would help our understanding and be greatly appreciated.



I can give it a go. There will be a little difficulty in that I have to be conservative with the YKS stuff I talk about but I should be able to give a general overview of it. I'll start another thread about it soon (meant to be working on my dissertation right now rather than procrastinating).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Nov 28, 2019)

APL76 said:


> I can give it a go. There will be a little difficulty in that I have to be conservative with the YKS stuff I talk about but I should be able to give a general overview of it. I'll start another thread about it soon (meant to be working on my dissertation right now rather than procrastinating).


Practicing your communication skills isn’t procrastinating.


----------



## Poppity (Nov 29, 2019)

APL76 said:


> I had a read of that article, thanks for liking that, I have heard the insinuations that Ng Chun So had taught from an opium den before, and even heard people make the claim that Yuen Kay San had learned from him. I don't know about teaching in an opium den but I think it's doubtful that he ever taught Yuen Kay San and the insinuation is probably a little politically motivated. In the YKS lineage its always unambiguously stated that YKS learned from: First- Fok Bo Chun and then second- Fun Sui Ching.
> 
> The strongest thing that suggests to me that its highly unlikely that Yuen Kay San learned from Ng Chun So is the wing chun itself. I have learned the whole of Yip Man wing chun and a good chunk of the Yuen Kay San stuff and they are just too different to have come from the same source. An outsider might look at them and think "meh they look the same to me" but actually doing them... there are vast differences, most of which are contradictory. So much so that everyone I, or my Sifu, teaches YKS stuff to eventually has to make a choice to stick with either one or the other because trying to do both they just get in the way of each other.
> 
> Which leads me to my question for you. How do you find doing so many different variations of wing chun? I can see how, and its reasonably logical that, Yip Man and Ku Lo wing chun should be fairly compatible but how about Cho wing chun. I don't know anything about it really, I have had a look at a little of it. It actually reminded me of some of the Weng Chun I have see. Is there any relationship there? Do you find contradictions it the way the generate power, ideas of efficiency and technique? Or do you manage to integrate them without any trouble?



Hi, I am not very familiar with Weng chun but I have been told that some of our movements of the waist and back are similar to Weng chun or five animal style. However, these movements also appear to a degree in Gulao wing chun.

With regard to confusing, it was at first, but I would say that explanations and understanding is a testament to the teaching of my sifu and his most senior students. The phrase "it's the same but not the same" is used a lot.

We are taught the three empty hand forms in Ip Man as a reference point and these are generally used as skeletons on which to hang our knowledge as it develops. There are other forms and interactions we are necessarily taught as supplements.

With regard to power generation. We start being taught with elbow snapping power, which moves to the bodies joints and then body motion and once this is accomplished it's kind of broken down again in different segments which generate power in a different way. Added to that and off the top of my head we have 8 different types of Ging and then you also have the elemental expression of that power etc. Etc.

There is a lot of focus on intent and objective to differentiate the techniques and which approach you use as a single structure might have utterly different fundamentals.


----------



## APL76 (Nov 29, 2019)

Snark said:


> Hi, I am not very familiar with Weng chun but I have been told that some of our movements of the waist and back are similar to Weng chun or five animal style. However, these movements also appear to a degree in Gulao wing chun.
> 
> With regard to confusing, it was at first, but I would say that explanations and understanding is a testament to the teaching of my sifu and his most senior students. The phrase "it's the same but not the same" is used a lot.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reply. The Weng Chun thing and possible similarities with Gu Lo wing chun I find unsurprising. From a YKS perspective there has always been this idea that that side of the wing chun family tree (the YM-Chun Wah Shun-Leung Jan) side is much more towards Weng Chun than Wing Chun. This is due to the closeness of Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yi Tai, Leung Yi Tai being a student of Ji Shim who, if I'm not mistaken is the founder of Weng Chun. Having said that though Weng Chun also claims Fung Su Ching as an ancestor too.

The way it seems my sifu is thinking about it is that during the late 1800's and early 1900's Fat San was very rich in kung fu and it seems that there was a bit of collaboration, or at least association between the Wing Chun and Weng Chun people to the extent that at times it seems as though the two arts appeared to be more a position on a spectrum rather than definitively definable arts in and of themselves. From what he tells us, and this comes from years spent with Sum Nung and also going and looking at other lineages of wing chun, including Ku Lo, Pan Nam, Yu Choi, and the mainland YM gear, and weng chun in China, he appears to see it as the YKS stuff probably being more Ng Mui influenced and the YM side more Ji Shim influenced and Weng Chun being the most solid expression of Ji Shim's influence.

Can you explain what you mean by ging? I can't recall hearing that term before. And your comment about intent, if I am not misunderstanding what you mean, that is also very important, or probably of crucial importance, in both the styles of wing chun I do too.


----------



## The Discerning Gentleman (Jan 7, 2020)

I was just skimming through this thread and noticed that it got off topic alot. The questions were: Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu. Do you train for a work out or to fight?

They were really simple, and directly to the point questions. Are you preparing yourself for a real-life altercation, or are you just practicing perfunctorily? Or are you doing it as a workout, or to build your ego?

These questions are really something to ask yourself. There is no room for argument, it is merely a self-awareness question. What is your purpose?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 8, 2020)

The Discerning Gentleman said:


> I was just skimming through this thread and noticed that it got off topic alot. The questions were: Is your WC about fighting or about Kung Fu. Do you train for a work out or to fight?
> 
> They were really simple, and directly to the point questions. Are you preparing yourself for a real-life altercation, or are you just practicing perfunctorily? Or are you doing it as a workout, or to build your ego?
> 
> These questions are really something to ask yourself. There is no room for argument, it is merely a self-awareness question. What is your purpose?


Actually, the OP appears to go beyond personal purpose, asking questions about the general training methods.

Thread swerves are pretty common on MT. You'll get used to them.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Jan 8, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> Actually, the OP appears to go beyond personal purpose, asking questions about the general training methods.
> 
> Thread swerves are pretty common on MT. You'll get used to them.


I think we go way beyond that here.  lol For a bunch of people who take martial arts our focus is horrible


----------

