# Do you care if Your WC isn't "Authentic"?



## geezer (Nov 14, 2008)

I was talking with some friends in my Eskrima class. Several of also have had experience in WC/WT, but from different lineages. We often note how what we learned differs in various ways. One guy does a long pole form that is totally different than the one I learned. So somebody is not learning the _authentic_ stuff. Funny thing is, there was a time when that would have really started an argument. Nowdays, neither of us cares much about "authenticity". We do spend a lot of time sharing and exploring "practicality". Now _that's_ something that matters. 

How about you guys? What if you found out that some of your technique wasn't as authentic as you thought it was?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 14, 2008)

I would be disappointed that I had been fooled but if I was enjoying what I was studying I might still continue  then again I might leave if I thought it all was made up or taken off the web


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 14, 2008)

How do you define "authentic"?


----------



## El_Nastro (Nov 14, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> How do you define "authentic"?



There's a couple ways you could define it, depending on your criteria and on who you ask.

It's fair to say that "authenticity"="effective", and under this definition lineage is neither here nor there. If the technique/art/system helps you win fights, then it's authentic. 

To some people, "authentic" means "part of a time-tested tradition going back several generations". Nowadays it seems fashionable to deny the value of this definition of authenticity under the notion that just because something's old, it's not necessarily effective or useful. 

In Wing Chun, "authenticity" seems to equal "lineage". People tend to get too hung up on lineage, and it' usually for silly reasons. Lineage arguments commonly sound like "my dad can beat up your dad!", and because that attitude is sooooooo lame, it can have a sort of backlash-effect on the rest of us so that even to hear the word "lineage" is to become irritated. Because of this backlash-effect, it's becoming more common for people to say stuff like: "lineage doesn't matter at all", and "there's really no such thing as 'authenticity' anyway."

I think there _is_ a value to lineage, and I think it does, to an extent, equate to "authenticity". Here's why....

In the world of martial arts, there's a lot of whackos, liars, and cons. How do I know, as a total martial-arts-virgin, that when I walk into a school, the instructor didn't just make up a bunch of _crap_ that'll get me killed if I need to use it? At least in theory, lineage provides a means to check someone's credentials, ie their _authenticity_. It's like citing your sources in a research paper. 

If an instructor is part of an old, time-tested tradition that spans the generations, then it's more likely you'll learn _better_ stuff -  a multi-generational system (hopefully) represents the accumulated experience and contributions of _several lifetimes_ worth of experience, trial-and-error learning, and refinement.

It's no _guarantee_ you'll learn better stuff through an "authentic" system, but I figure the odds are slightly better the instructor will simply know more if they're part of an authentic tradition.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 14, 2008)

El_Nastro said:


> *There's a couple ways you could define it, depending on your criteria and on who you ask.*
> 
> It's fair to say that "authenticity"="effective", and under this definition lineage is neither here nor there. If the technique/art/system helps you win fights, then it's authentic.
> 
> ...


 
Exactly, particularly the part that I bolded.


----------



## geezer (Nov 14, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> How do you define "authentic"?



I think the standard usually  implied by the term "authentic" is that it is genuine and original to the system. So for the Yip Man lineage, each form would be essentially performed as Grandmaster Yip taught it, with some minor variations. However there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Grandmaster Yip adapted and changed his teachings throughout his lifetime. In fact, it would be very odd if he didn't... So, even by this criterion, there should be considerable variation within what you could call "authentic".  

However, for me, "authenticity", in the sense of being "honest", is more important than something being merely old and unchanged over a long period of time. If an instructor openly and honestly states that he has altered parts of a form, that's fine. His adaptations are either improvements, or they aren't, but there is no deception involved. On the other hand, if an instructor simply throws together a phony set of movements adapted from other systems, and falsely claims that his is the only  "true and original" version, then, yes I have a problem with that.

In Wing Chun, the amount of variation between the forms increases as one moves to the higher level forms such as the dummy and weapons sets.  In many cases, the variants may be equally "authentic", but often I believe it's the case that some Sifus haven't been taught the whole system. Rather than admit the fact, they borrow or concoct something and pass it off as the real thing. Personally, I feel better off training with people who are straight up with me. Of course, _how do you ever really know?_ Well, if your instructor or system's headman is upfront and says that he changed this or that group of movements for such and such a reason...then, there you have it.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 14, 2008)

As far as i know my Sifu added a low side kick , a medium side kick and a charging side kick i think he got them from Choy Lay Fut because he studied that art before learning Wing Chun when he was about 14 . 

The reason was because junior students would find it easier to throw out a side kick than to try and do the turning thrust kick from chum kiu , that kick is very difficult to do properly .

 The way the kicks are executed still follow all the principles of directness , economy of movement etc and are very practical in my opinion .


----------



## qwksilver61 (Nov 15, 2008)

Yes I do,I've seen plenty of slop,bad moves and bad teaching,milking people,people spending a good amount of money for a seminar just to be shoved into a corner with a couple of techniques for the duration whilst the higher end get the goods....yes I do judge by the quality of instruction.When I trained under (then) DeiSihing Steve Brandon he made sure that everyone got a fair shake and did not promote sloppy technique or bad footwork. ....proper placement, proper execution...solid grounding.Fast forward.........Sifu Emin Boztepe,multi-faceted well rounded instruction,he covered footwork,groundfighting,clenches,hands on combat.Authentic like sticking to the *core principles*.....I like.


----------



## UrBaN (Nov 15, 2008)

All 1st generation students of Yip Man, are actually practicing the same thing, only their expression of the art is different. In a fight, they all apply the same principles. 
Yip Man's teaching, was highly individualized, as it should be. Hence, everybody's expression of the system was according to their body and mind limitations.

The only difference is the training method. Every teacher has his own methods, which is logical. 
Find out, which method suits you the best and then practice hard and honest.

So, authenticity is relevant. If you study Wing Chun in depth and have an open mind, then it's quite obvious that they are all the same when fighting. 
And if it works for you, then you don't really care about "authentic".

The goal is to own the system and not let the system own you.
This is the main objective of the system. To get out of the box and not be restricted by it. Wing Chun actually incorporated the JKD concept, before it even existed.


----------



## geezer (Nov 15, 2008)

qwksilver61 said:


> ...Sifu Emin Boztepe,multi-faceted well rounded instruction,he covered footwork,groundfighting,clenches,hands on combat.Authentic like sticking to the *core principles*.....I like.



Sifu Emin is a good example of someone who is up-front about modifying the system, even within his WT lineage coming from GM Leung Ting and Master Kernspecht. The last time I saw him at a seminar a year and a half back, he was openly discussing certain modifications that he made to make the system meore effective for fighting. Then there are his contributions to the "anti-grappling" material. A lot of it is extrapolated from stuff that was already there, but he has moved it way beyond what you would find in the old stuff of GGM Yip Man's time. Is it authentic? If your main criterion is that it has to be just the pure old Chinese stuff, then the answer is _no._ But if your criteria are that it should be true to the principles of the art, be practical and effective, then I'd say _yes._ And definately worth looking at, regardless of your lineage.

Another interesting thing about Sifu Emin... Now I may be wrong about this, but I've heard from numerous sources that he is not particularly well versed in some of the advanced movement sets of his WT lineage, namely the wooden dummy form and the weapons sets. On the other hand, he is about as good at _applying_ this material in a fight as anyone you are likely to encounter. I don't mean this to knock him. As I recall, Bruce Lee wasn't a big fan of forms either. But if you were a purist who wanted to learn these forms for the sake of tradition and the refinements they contain, Emin would not be your ideal choice. His authenticity is that _he can walk the walk._

On the other hand, if I were looking for the the original forms, I'd probably go to Master Kernspecht, or in this country to Master Jeff Webb. And if I had a lot of cash I really wanted to get rid of for a minimal return, I'd contact Leung Ting. Or maybe I'd save the money and just beat my had against the wall.


----------



## BFL (Nov 15, 2008)

Just a thought on Authenticity.  I began my training in Wing Chun style A, later due to circumstances my next Sifu was from Wing Chun family B, then years later under my current Sifu I've learned both Wing Chun family style C and D.  Now bare with me on this.  If I were to teach a seminar representing Wing Chun family A but teaching techniques from Wing Chun family C, then I would consider this an inacurate representation under that guise, and not an authentic representation of family A.  However authentic the techniques might be to family C, it is inacurate and not authentic for family A.  Now if I teach a seminar representing family A, and teach techniques from family A, this is still authentic for that family.  If someone else teaches a seminar to those same people but represents family B,C,D or anything else, just because it's different from family A does not negate it's authenticity to that respective family.  Keep in mind that just because it might be different than what you've been taught, does not make it "not authentic", it just might be that it is not authentic to your family/lineage.  Keep an open mind that even if you disagree with it's methodoligy, does not negate it's authenticity.


----------



## geezer (Nov 16, 2008)

BFL said:


> Just a thought on Authenticity...
> 
> ... just because it's different from family A does not negate it's authenticity to that respective family.  Keep in mind that just because it might be different than what you've been taught, does not make it "not authentic", it just might be that it is not authentic to your family/lineage. .



Sure. Different variations that _accurately_ represent different lineages could be equally "authentic" if they haven't just been made up or borrowed from elsewhere. 

But what about this situation... you show a video of a certain sifu's "authentic" Yip Man lineage long pole form to two elder Chinese sifu's of two separate branches of the Yip Man lineage. One laughs and says, "That is not Grandmaster Yip's Luk dim boon kwun fa._ That_ is a _Pak-Mei_ pole form! The other sifu, from a different Yip Man WC branch, laughs in agreement saying, "Yes, that form was well known in Hong Kong. It is nothing like ours!" 

Now, would you say that the sifu who falsely represents the Pak-Mei pole form as coming from Grandmaster Yip is still teaching an "authentic" version just because he, or perhaps _his_ sifu didn't learn the original, and substituted this version in their branch of WC? I wouldn't! 

FYI (in case you haven't already guessed) this is a true story!


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Nov 17, 2008)

Going back to William Cheung bashing, his instructors are brainwashed into believing that there style is authentic (ie true wing chun) whereas everyone elses is modified

For me, wing chun is a set of principles and ideas

There may be 'new moves' created all the time and if they follow wing chun ideas (centre line, economy of motion etc) then that is all cool in my book

When styles are created, they are created inadequately. People don't invent anything that is perfect. Even things as simple as the pencil are always researched and improved upon. 

Traditional arts like karate tend to modify the style (I expect when it was first created there was no point scoring tournaments...)

People fixate on the idea of having a pure or authentic style and as long as it works and works well, who cares???


----------



## geezer (Nov 17, 2008)

Kamon Guy said:


> For me, *wing chun is a set of principles and ideas*
> 
> There may be 'new moves' created all the time and if they follow wing chun ideas (centre line, economy of motion etc) then that is all cool in my book...
> 
> People fixate on the idea of having a pure or authentic style and as long as it works and works well, who cares???


 
Using this logic, If you modify and adapt your WC according to the principles, it's _legitimate_.  And if your modifications improve the system, that's _good_. I agree. Good and legit are way better than somebody's opinion of "authentic" or "original". I just think instructors should be honest and up-front about the changes they make. 

So, for example, if the sifu teaching the pak-mei pole set had just said, "We use a pole form adapted from pak-mei, because..." then that's his business. And maybe it's a really good form.

Another example: My old sifu has never been accused of being an exemplary businessman, but he did actually (!) give credit when he made some modifications to the forms. In the late '80s, he was one of the first to go back to Fatshan (Fo'shan) and research some of the surviving mainland WC branches. On the basis of his inquiries he "restored" some movements that had been dropped. Interestingly, we now even (unofficially) refer to one movement as the "Pan Nam hand".  My point? Give credit where credit is due.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 17, 2008)

geezer said:


> I think the standard usually  implied by the term "authentic" is that it is genuine and original to the system. So for the Yip Man lineage, each form would be essentially performed as Grandmaster Yip taught it, with some minor variations.



Well, maybe it's arbitrary to stop with Yip Man.  One could go back beyond Yip Man and try to establish authenticity to an even older source.  Or a more recent source for that matter.  So why does it need to be one source, vs. another?



> However there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Grandmaster Yip adapted and changed his teachings throughout his lifetime. In fact, it would be very odd if he didn't... So, even by this criterion, there should be considerable variation within what you could call "authentic".



I would certainly think so as well.  It would be very surprising if how he trained and what he taught remained the exact same throughout his lifetime.



> However, for me, "authenticity", in the sense of being "honest", is more important than something being merely old and unchanged over a long period of time. If an instructor openly and honestly states that he has altered parts of a form, that's fine. His adaptations are either improvements, or they aren't, but there is no deception involved.



Is it dishonest to change something?  Some people aren't very good and shouldn't change things.  But many people are good enough, and what is the problem if they change things in a way that they feel is an improvement?  the arts do change from generation to generation, and frequently.  I think it is inherent in the arts.



> On the other hand, if an instructor simply throws together a phony set of movements adapted from other systems, and falsely claims that his is the only  "true and original" version, then, yes I have a problem with that.



Does this ever actually happen?  The arts are often influenced by one's experience with other arts, and that is to be expected.  Really, there is no such thing as a "pure" art.  But have you ever actually heard of someone doing this?  Throwing together a bunch of phony stuff?  I hear this claim made sometimes, but I think it's really kind of far-fetched.  Let me know if you have actually heard of a concrete example.

I think you can only make a claim that something is authentic in how it was taught to you by your teacher.  Beyond that, there is a lot of room for differences, while still being authentic.


----------



## geezer (Nov 18, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> ...But *have you ever actually heard of someone* doing this? *Throwing together a bunch of phony stuff?* I hear this claim made sometimes, but I think it's really kind of far-fetched. Let me know if you have actually heard of a concrete example.


 
Have I heard of people concocting movements and forms to cover up gaps in their training? Sure. I've _seen_ it too! Check out my previous post (#14) on the pak-mei pole set being sold as a Wing Chun long pole form.

I've seen similar deceptions with the dummy form. Now, of course there are many versions of the dummy set, and many ways to train it. But I'm talking about people who I personally know weren't taught the whole thing cobbling together movements learned from various sources and books, and then charging a lot to teach this stuff to unsuspecting students.

It would be the same as if someone had a bit of Chen style taijiquan training and then pieced together a form including Yang style and so forth, and then marketed it as an authentic Chen style form. This kind of deception happens _all the time_ in the martial arts. I know this happens, because I began _my_ training over 30 years back in a "Shaolin" system that I now know was probably invented in Hawaii!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 18, 2008)

geezer said:


> It would be the same as if someone had a bit of Chen style taijiquan training and then pieced together a form including Yang style and so forth, and then marketed it as an authentic Chen style form.


 
*BLASPHEMER!!!! *

I trained only a little Wing Chun and it was authentic, or as authentic as it can be as it comes from Ip Ching.

If I were training what I was lead to believe was Wing Chun and I found that it was a combination of say Wing Chun and Judo and I wanted authentic Wing Chun I would be a bit peeved. If I liked it and the label of Wing Chun didn't matter I would not care.

However I tend towards tradition and I personally would be rather upset if I came across a Sifu claiming to teach Wing Chun that was in reality teaching Wing Chundo and calling it Wing Chun. Much the same as if I found any taiji teacher that did something similar. If someone is teaching a system that is a combination of other arts or an incomplete version of an art with added patches I have no problem with that at all. It is when they do that and still insist on calling it something it is not that I have a problem with.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 18, 2008)

geezer said:


> Have I heard of people concocting movements and forms to cover up gaps in their training? Sure. I've _seen_ it too! Check out my previous post (#14) on the pak-mei pole set being sold as a Wing Chun long pole form.


 
ah, well, something borrowed from elsewhere isn't phony, it's just borrowed.  Personally, I believe in truth in advertising, so if something is borrowed, it ought to be acknowledged as such.  But it may be just as good or even better than the original material from the system.



> I've seen similar deceptions with the dummy form. Now, of course there are many versions of the dummy set, and many ways to train it. But I'm talking about people who I personally know weren't taught the whole thing cobbling together movements learned from various sources and books, and then charging a lot to teach this stuff to unsuspecting students.


 
other systems like Choy Lay Fut also use the dummy, altho I believe the differences don't stop with the techniques, but the dummy itself is also different.  Again, this would be borrowed, not phony.

If someone tried to learn it from a book or video, then it is poorly learned, or borrowed, or both.  I would agree, probably not what that person ought to be teaching, much less charging lots of money to teach.  That would be rather deceptive.

I guess maybe I'm fixating on you choice of words with "phony".  That conjures up an image of some guy sitting in his basement, just making stuff up off the top of his head with no basis of knowledge on which to place it, and no ability to put it into use.  That to me, is phony.

But a sifu with a good background of training and knowlege may create his own drills, or make his own modifications to forms, or even create his own forms to augment what he learned from his sifu.  As long as this person is skilled and knowledgeable to begin with, before he makes these changes and additions, I don't see that as phony.  I just see that as innovative.  Maybe I would like his innovations, maybe not.  But I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with this.  Obviously not every schmoe should be trying to do this, but there are teachers who I think can do this and produce good results for his students, and it is probably more common that we may realize.

Remember: all of this stuff was just created by people, not by gods.  None of it is sacred and unchangeable.  Other people can and do come along later and make changes.  Some are for the better, others for the worse, still others may have little or no effect.  But it happens.  At what point does it become in-authentic?  At what point has it changed so much that it is truly a different method?  I don't know, but I think every sifu has his own flavor of his art.  And it is all authentic, altho it could be "wing chun with some changes I made", or  "wing chun with a bak mei influence", or even "wing chun, but I also teach some bak mei forms", for example.  



> It would be the same as if someone had a bit of Chen style taijiquan training and then pieced together a form including Yang style and so forth, and then marketed it as an authentic Chen style form. This kind of deception happens _all the time_ in the martial arts. I know this happens, because I began _my_ training over 30 years back in a "Shaolin" system that I now know was probably invented in Hawaii!


 
Again, I think this comes back to truth in advertising.  The Shaolin reference is a big one.  I know that some kenpo systems like to insert Shaolin into their name, but I believe it would be shaky at best if you tried to trace an actual lineage to shaolin.  I think that's deceptive advertising.  But parhaps their material came from somewhere, and in it's own way it's still authentic SOMETHING, just not shaolin.  Whether it's poorly or skillfully done is another matter altogether.  But in the end, it's all made up by people.


----------



## BFL (Nov 18, 2008)

Geezer,
  Good point and I agree.  In my previous example of the A, B, C & D lineages, as long as each respective teacher represented what he was teaching accurately then it's cool.  When one falsely represents then they cross the line and it is no longer authentic.  I know I've seen Sigung Chong teach the standard Yip Man pole set (Leung Sheung family) on video, not in person mind you and represent it for what it was and it was the same as pretty much all the other Yip Man/Hong Kong set's I've seen elsewhere.  As well also teach Pan Nam's pole set but represent it for what it was. The Pan Nam system actually has both the standard 6.5/Yip Man pole set and his pole set, just an fyi.  I've always been a very curious person (translate=nosey, hehe) so I'd love to know who your example is referring to.


----------



## geezer (Nov 19, 2008)

BFL said:


> ...The Pan Nam system actually has both the standard 6.5/Yip Man pole set and his pole set, just an fyi. I've always been a very curious person (translate=nosey, hehe) so I'd love to know who your example is referring to.


 
I'll be honest and admit that this was so long ago (late 80's?, early '90's?) that I don't remember. But I can ask around. I know some other folks with less ...er "senior"...  memories. 

Anyway, now I really want to look at that Eddie (?) Chong video and see how what I learned compares. I would also love to see the other Pan Nam version. Although, in truth, its hard (for me,at least) to understand the meaning of variations in a form outside of the context of _application_. Many times a movement_ looks_ totally screwy and then, when you understand its application, it makes a lot of sense.


----------



## BFL (Nov 19, 2008)

geezer said:


> I'll be honest and admit that this was so long ago (late 80's?, early '90's?) that I don't remember. But I can ask around. I know some other folks with less ...er "senior"... memories.
> 
> Anyway, now I really want to look at that Eddie (?) Chong video and see how what I learned compares. I would also love to see the other Pan Nam version. Although, in truth, its hard (for me,at least) to understand the meaning of variations in a form outside of the context of _application_. Many times a movement_ looks_ totally screwy and then, when you understand its application, it makes a lot of sense.


 

No worries, I was just curious.  Shoot, I'll even try and vid myself doing the Pan Nam pole set with explanation and shoot it to you.  It is very differrent from the standard Hong Kong/Yip man set, but Sigung Chongs representation of the Leung Sheung version is spot on with other Yip Man family pole sets.  I've actually got about mmmmmmmmm, wait, brain fart... I think 4 or 5 pole sets to pool from and although I understand and hold fast to the standard H.K./Y.M. sets, I really like the Pan Nam set too. Have a super day and and a great turkey day upcoming. 
Peace to all.


----------



## martyg (Nov 19, 2008)

"Standard sets"?  I have yet to see anything of "standard" among Yip family in the sets, they usually vary by generations/student groupings/allegiences.

As far as Pan Nam also having the Yip style pole form, Eddie's version of Pan Nam is Eddie's version of Pan Nam (and that's not intended as a knock).  He's the one who created the "hong kong" vs.  "fatshan" marketing, and tends to teach and explain from that perspective.  Its not the same perspective across the board with other Pan family or even "mainland" people.

I do have to say regarding Pan Nam, I was most impressed with Pan doing his pole form on the video I have of him.  Extra extra long pole, and someone of his age able to move it around fully extended like that was certainly a site to see.


----------



## geezer (Nov 20, 2008)

martyg said:


> I do have to say regarding Pan Nam, I was most impressed with Pan doing his pole form on the video I have of him. Extra extra long pole, and someone of his age able to move it around fully extended like that was certainly a site to see.


 
Personally, I'm always amazed by anybody who can really move the long pole around with precision, speed, power, and "snap". When it's an old guy and and extra heavy pole, that goes double. 

...This gets me thinking about an idea for another thread on the pole...


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 20, 2008)

geezer said:


> I think the standard usually  implied by the term "authentic" is that it is genuine and original to the system. *So for the Yip Man lineage, each form would be essentially performed as Grandmaster Yip taught it, with some minor variations. However there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Grandmaster Yip adapted and changed his teachings throughout his lifetime. In fact, it would be very odd if he didn't... So, even by this criterion, there should be considerable variation within what you could call "authentic".  *
> 
> However, for me, "authenticity", in the sense of being "honest", is more important than something being merely old and unchanged over a long period of time. If an instructor openly and honestly states that he has altered parts of a form, that's fine. His adaptations are either improvements, or they aren't, but there is no deception involved. On the other hand, if an instructor simply throws together a phony set of movements adapted from other systems, and falsely claims that his is the only  "true and original" version, then, yes I have a problem with that.
> 
> In Wing Chun, the amount of variation between the forms increases as one moves to the higher level forms such as the dummy and weapons sets.  In many cases, the variants may be equally "authentic", but often I believe it's the case that some Sifus haven't been taught the whole system. Rather than admit the fact, they borrow or concoct something and pass it off as the real thing. Personally, I feel better off training with people who are straight up with me. Of course, _how do you ever really know?_ Well, if your instructor or system's headman is upfront and says that he changed this or that group of movements for such and such a reason...then, there you have it.



Geezer, we talkin' Wing Chun/Tsun or Jeet Kune Do here? J/K LOL


----------



## BFL (Nov 20, 2008)

martyg said:


> "Standard sets"? I have yet to see anything of "standard" among Yip family in the sets, they usually vary by generations/student groupings/allegiences.
> 
> As far as Pan Nam also having the Yip style pole form, Eddie's version of Pan Nam is Eddie's version of Pan Nam (and that's not intended as a knock). He's the one who created the "hong kong" vs. "fatshan" marketing, and tends to teach and explain from that perspective. Its not the same perspective across the board with other Pan family or even "mainland" people.
> 
> I do have to say regarding Pan Nam, I was most impressed with Pan doing his pole form on the video I have of him. Extra extra long pole, and someone of his age able to move it around fully extended like that was certainly a site to see.


 
Sigung Chong has been teaching Leung Sheung family (Yip Man lineage) since the 80's ( or longer) and the pole form presented is pretty much the same I've seen from many other Yip Man family schools.   The Pan Nam pole set he teaches is the same as what Pan Nam represented and is the same presented by other Pan Nam Sifu's and Pan's students that I've seen, even on the publicly sold videos.  Pan Nam's system has both but Pan's system has the (somewhat standard or typical) Hong Kong pole set as an excercise set and yes I've probably seen that same video you did.  All the forms I've been taught of the Pan Nam system are almost identical to what they present with very minor variations as one would expect.  One aspect of the Pan family perhaps finding disagreement with Sigung Chong is an aspect we find within almost all Wing Chun families/schools and can you guess what that might be......And no I do not take it as a "knock" so no worries there, just want to state some corrections as I see them.  Also few, if not none of the Pan family teach Yip Man system so why would they make a comparison? I have complette respect for your knowledge of many Wing Chun families and versions and your experience however, I'm probably a bit more familiar with the system and some of the comparisons than those that have only viewed video's or spoken to some that might have issue's with him (Chong)  Sigung is also quiet honest with any changes he might have made within the system however minor they might be but only with those he teaches etc, no need to put them on videos for the public, it is what it is if they want to learn it.  My deepest respects to you Marty and I take nothign as negative.


----------



## martyg (Nov 21, 2008)

BFL said:


> Sigung Chong has been teaching Leung Sheung family (Yip Man lineage) since the 80's ( or longer) and the pole form presented is pretty much the same I've seen from many other Yip Man family schools.



I'm not sure what you're getting at with that, I was commenting on your statement that said "The Pan Nam system actually has both the standard 6.5/Yip Man pole set and his pole set".  I don't recall seeing Pan Nam with the Yip set, unless some of his students picked it up at a later date?  I know some of the students from his branch and several other mainland branches started doing that with Sum Nung's material (adding it in to their personal system).



> Also few, if not none of the Pan family teach Yip Man system so why would they make a comparison?



Which is why the above statement seemed confusing to me.  Eddie teaches both, but I don't recall both being a part of Pan Nam's system.



> I have complette respect for your knowledge of many Wing Chun families and versions and your experience however, I'm probably a bit more familiar with the system and some of the comparisons than those that have only viewed video's or spoken to some that might have issue's with him (Chong)  Sigung is also quiet honest with any changes he might have made within the system however minor they might be but only with those he teaches etc, no need to put them on videos for the public, it is what it is if they want to learn it.  My deepest respects to you Marty and I take nothign as negative.



Again, I don't recall stating Eddie changed material.  My statement regarding Eddie's version being Eddie's version of Pan Nam was in regards to the "fatshan vs. hong kong" comparison marketing.  As if "fatshan" were a system and that there's this "fathsan" system vs. everything else that simply falls under "hong kong".  I've come across numerous students and grandstudents of Eddie's regurgitating that as some sort of actual factual system comparison. There's many other mainland branches besides Pan Nam's of course, and truthfully, just about all wing chun comes through Fatshan at one point and even other "mainland" and "fatshan" based systems have been in hong kong for quite some time as well.  It just makes little sense from a geographical and historical perspective.  Eddie could have just as easily done the comparison by publicly promoting "What I learned in the Leung Shung branch of the Yip Family vs. Pan Nam's system".  I view it as similar to Leung Ting's marketing of labeling everything else as this generic "wing chun" system to compare against his "wing tsun" sytem.  I've literally run across some of WT's european contingent that actually think that way in literal terms.

I guess that's why I get a little irked sometimes with that kind of talk, because I saw how, as soon as the mainland systems (and even Yip's pre Hong Kong students) started becoming popular and more well known, you suddenly had these people in Yip's HK family that were fighting against each other, all of a sudden band together to downplay the mainland  systems and prop up Yip.  I don't go for that kind of stuff in either direction.  There's room enough for everyone, and if you suddenly find you're not alone in the house or that its not even your house to begin with, you don't downplay the other people living there and offer them space in the basement to protect your market share.  Nor do you promote an over generalization of everyone else in the house to misrepresent them in relation to you.


----------



## BFL (Nov 21, 2008)

Marty,
  I understand your point now, my confusion as to your direction.  I myself do not do a comparison persae' as to one being better than another.  I simply offer both and depending on the student they will start with one or another but in time will learn both.  I understand now where you were coming from, no worries.


----------



## martyg (Nov 21, 2008)

BFL said:


> Marty,
> I understand your point now, my confusion as to your direction.  I myself do not do a comparison persae' as to one being better than another.



That's my point though with this, what "one" being better than the other?   There is no "fastshan" wing chun and there is no "hong kong" wing chun.  Those are just locations, not actual styles or linneages.  And you have many styles and linneages in both locations.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Nov 24, 2008)

I think that is the trouble. Some people believe that they wil sell martial arts if it is the 'pure' style that has been handed down without change

Its nonsense. I've seen many federations in practice and the only one that really blew me away was Kamon, due to its simplicity and true nature. There is no emphasis on lineage. Kevin Chan started from within the Sam Kwok federation but went to Ip Chun in the end before developing his own wing chun through various talented training partners

He has a no bullsh*t approach. If you don't think something works, you can ask him about the move and he will demonstrate it in a very kindly way. I heard of one school (I will only name it via PM) where the Sifu kicked someone across the classroom because he caught him out during chi sao. 

There are plenty of talented chunners such as Alan Orr and James Sinclair who are pretty much on the ball but it really does seem nowadays that it is rare to get a wing chun teacher who has no ego, no bullying nature and realistic knowledge

It just gets silly. Who honestly cares about lineage? Just because an instructor is good does not necessarily mean that all his students will be


----------



## profesormental (Nov 24, 2008)

Greetings.

Many in Wing Chun after being taught go on to develop their Wing Chun and their flavor.

When you see them training and in person, you notice that we don't depend on our Si Fu for further development; as with fathers, we ask for guidance, yet our development is out own...

My Wing Chun execution is different thatn my Si Fu's, and that is ok. It works and when a hit is felt, it is like a car crash, yet little effort is apparent. That is Wing Chun no matter what.

Eternal Springtime... always growing, always renewing.

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 24, 2008)

Flying Crane said:


> ah, well, something borrowed from elsewhere isn't phony, it's just borrowed. Personally, I believe in truth in advertising, so if something is borrowed, it ought to be acknowledged as such. But it may be just as good or even better than the original material from the system.
> 
> I guess maybe I'm fixating on you choice of words with "phony". That conjures up an image of some guy sitting in his basement, just making stuff up off the top of his head with no basis of knowledge on which to place it, and no ability to put it into use. That to me, is phony.
> 
> ...


 
To me that is what is most important.  I can think of TONS of TMA's that have changed/added/created a new style or system and then have a story about it's origins to make it more marketable or mystical.  Often times it was done for political reasons too.  For example, Tang Soo Do claims that their "pinan" forms were brought back from China when the founder trained there.  Why not admit their origin?  Why not come out now and state where they were truly learned.  

If you make the changes admit that you made the changes instead of making unfounded claims that you alone were shown the secret squirrel temple techniques and are now making them public to everyone.

As someone else stated, I think the "authentic" argument is really a lineage argument.  Most styles are additions, combinations and modifications or previous styles.  There really is nothing new under the sun.  It just depends on how many people choose to follow the new branch.  When enough people do, it is somehow "authentic" MA.


----------



## chisauking (Nov 25, 2008)

If you went into a shop and asked for a Sony TV, would you mind being sold something else?

If you had paid for a Mercedes, would you take a Ford instead?

In both cases above, the substitutes may well be better than what you had asked for, but that's besides that point, isn't it?

So, if you had paid good money to learn wing chun, would you accept being taught chopsuey kungfu or kickboxing? One may argue that they are not concerned whether something is authentic or not as long as it's effective....I can't argue with this logic, but I have to ask, if all one is concerned about is the effectiveness of a particular method, then why not just buy yourself a 'crowbar'? One would surely save alot of time and money.

Personally, I feel the publics inability to descern between 'authentic' wing chun and 'chopsuey fist' is one of the major reasons for the current state of wing chun in the world. Some people may argue that there's no 'consistancy' with any of the wing chun schools and therefore there's no such thing as authentic, well, I would say that just like fighting, wing chun is a very personal thing, and no 2 wing chun practitioner would apply wing chun exactly the same anyway. However, what constitute 'authenticity' in my book is no matter what training methods one adopts, the methods conforms to wing chun principles. For no matter how far or much this art may evolve, the principles remain the same and is the guilding light in the way we train, and it's what seperates wing chun from other methods. That's why I always say 'wing chun starts from the mind'.

But of course, how many people even bother to research on wing chun before setting out to find an 'authentic' school? As long as it's effective, right? In that case, kickboxing is just the ideal thing: it's effective and it's far cheaper than wing chun classes (by name).


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Nov 26, 2008)

chisauking said:


> If you went into a shop and asked for a Sony TV, would you mind being sold something else?
> 
> If you had paid for a Mercedes, would you take a Ford instead?
> 
> ...


 
Sorry to revert back to my evil goblin self, but NONSENSE!

We are not talking about wing chun that involves a spinning back fist or roundhouse kick. We are talking about involving moves that are wing chun in theory. Or refusing to train bull ***** moves that don't work

Not naming federations but I have seen moves done for the sake of tradition. Students truly believe that they will work in a fight. And that saddens me

I went to a seminar last year hosted by two of Ip Chun's top students (35 years training each) 
They mentioned the movement from the second part of the first form which is a double gum sao from behind. They showed what the move was intended for and then demonstrated how it didn't work, or would only work on very rare occasions. Half the crowd watching let out a groan of disappointment and one person admitted to me afterwards that he had trained that move for years believibng it to work. I grabbed him and asked him to perform it. He couldn't. That is just one example of many, why 'authentic' is nonsense

I went on facebook yesterday and there is a group for Chelmsford wing chun (WT) where the main picture shows a girl holding her partner hands (double lap sao) and doing a high kick to the persons chin. The lap saos are past the girls body (ie non wing chun) and a kick that high, done in that position should only be done in a kung fu movie. In a real fight, she would be destroyed by her opponent. It is a very commercial poster. And yet I know that the die hard WT guys on here will insist that WT is authentic wing chun (which I'm not saying is or isn't)

Authenticity is a myth. I am sure Yip Man was accused by his peers of changing the style and involving new moves from when it was first created
I don't think he really cared...


----------



## chisauking (Nov 26, 2008)

Kamon Guy sez: Sorry to revert back to my evil goblin self, but NONSENSE!

csk: In life, there's seldom absolutes. It all comes down to your depth of knowledge and experience.

KG: We are not talking about wing chun that involves a spinning back fist or roundhouse kick. We are talking about involving moves that are wing chun in theory. Or refusing to train bull ***** moves that don't work

csk: All techniques work. The question is, against whom, and what capacity of the practitioner.

KG: Not naming federations but I have seen moves done for the sake of tradition. Students truly believe that they will work in a fight. And that saddens me

csk: Again, it depends on one's comprehension of the system. It's not so much the adherence to 'tradtion', rather the practitioner's understanding of the method and his skill level.

KG: I went to a seminar last year hosted by two of Ip Chun's top students (35 years training each) 
They mentioned the movement from the second part of the first form which is a double gum sao from behind. They showed what the move was intended for and then demonstrated how it didn't work, or would only work on very rare occasions. Half the crowd watching let out a groan of disappointment and one person admitted to me afterwards that he had trained that move for years believibng it to work. I grabbed him and asked him to perform it. He couldn't. That is just one example of many, why 'authentic' is nonsense

csk: What makes you think they were practising 'authentic' wing chun? Maybe it was the individual's limitations.

KG: I went on facebook yesterday and there is a group for Chelmsford wing chun (WT) where the main picture shows a girl holding her partner hands (double lap sao) and doing a high kick to the persons chin. The lap saos are past the girls body (ie non wing chun) and a kick that high, done in that position should only be done in a kung fu movie. In a real fight, she would be destroyed by her opponent. It is a very commercial poster. And yet I know that the die hard WT guys on here will insist that WT is authentic wing chun (which I'm not saying is or isn't)

csk: The 'truth' and what people beleive in are two seperate issues. If practitioners understands the core principles of wing chun, they would be able to discern what's authentic and what's chopsuey wing chun.

KG: Authenticity is a myth. I am sure Yip Man was accused by his peers of changing the style and involving new moves from when it was first created
I don't think he really cared... 

csk: As I've stated before, we all express wing chun a little differently, and there's bound to be differences in our training methods. However, there's a world of difference between changing a method and adopting different training methods. In essence, Yip Man was a gungfu genius.....yet for all his brilliance, he streamlined the wing chun system rather than added to it. For example, he felt that the '5 elements' wing chun concepts were far too complicated for practitioners to comprehend, so he despensed with this way of teaching, prefering to adopt a more simplistic approach.

If one takes the time to learn about the principles of wing chun, one would easily discern between 'authentic' wing chun and chopsuey kuen. Just as if one understands the core principles of the English language, one would know that if a teacher taught their students 28 letters in the alphabet, than that teacher isn't teaching his students 'authentic' English.


----------



## KamonGuy2 (Nov 27, 2008)

chisauking said:


> Kamon Guy sez: Sorry to revert back to my evil goblin self, but NONSENSE!
> 
> csk: In life, there's seldom absolutes. It all comes down to your depth of knowledge and experience..


There are absolutes. Nothing is impossible, but things can be certain



chisauking said:


> KG: We are not talking about wing chun that involves a spinning back fist or roundhouse kick. We are talking about involving moves that are wing chun in theory. Or refusing to train bull ***** moves that don't work
> 
> csk: All techniques work. The question is, against whom, and what capacity of the practitioner..


No they don't. That is like saying I can fly. But only a foot off the ground and only for a couple of microseconds... (ie a jump)
There are certainly limits of techniques. I will never be as good as Chuck Liddell at cage fighting, but I know that my techniques work under pressure. They may not work if other factors are involved (more people attack me or if I am fighting in a river etc). But I am talking about techniques that only work if their opponent is compliant and reacts in a set, pre determined way 



chisauking said:


> KG: Not naming federations but I have seen moves done for the sake of tradition. Students truly believe that they will work in a fight. And that saddens me
> 
> csk: Again, it depends on one's comprehension of the system. It's not so much the adherence to 'tradtion', rather the practitioner's understanding of the method and his skill level..


No not at all. I am talking about tradition for traditions sake - involving moves that don't work, just because your master does them



chisauking said:


> KG: I went to a seminar last year hosted by two of Ip Chun's top students (35 years training each)
> They mentioned the movement from the second part of the first form which is a double gum sao from behind. They showed what the move was intended for and then demonstrated how it didn't work, or would only work on very rare occasions. Half the crowd watching let out a groan of disappointment and one person admitted to me afterwards that he had trained that move for years believibng it to work. I grabbed him and asked him to perform it. He couldn't. That is just one example of many, why 'authentic' is nonsense
> 
> csk: What makes you think they were practising 'authentic' wing chun? Maybe it was the individual's limitations..


Are you joking? These are two of Ip Chun's top students, representing Ip Chun and teaching his style of wing chun!!! If anyone knows anything about authentic chun it's them!!! 
Or are you now saying that Ip Chun doesn't teach authentic wing chun?



chisauking said:


> KG: Authenticity is a myth. I am sure Yip Man was accused by his peers of changing the style and involving new moves from when it was first created
> I don't think he really cared...
> 
> csk: As I've stated before, we all express wing chun a little differently, and there's bound to be differences in our training methods. However, there's a world of difference between changing a method and adopting different training methods. In essence, Yip Man was a gungfu genius.....yet for all his brilliance, he streamlined the wing chun system rather than added to it. For example, he felt that the '5 elements' wing chun concepts were far too complicated for practitioners to comprehend, so he despensed with this way of teaching, prefering to adopt a more simplistic approach..


So Yip Man didn't teach authentic wing chun? <Groan>
And I think you will find that he added quite a few things to the wing chun system



chisauking said:


> If one takes the time to learn about the principles of wing chun, one would easily discern between 'authentic' wing chun and chopsuey kuen. Just as if one understands the core principles of the English language, one would know that if a teacher taught their students 28 letters in the alphabet, than that teacher isn't teaching his students 'authentic' English.


And what if your teacher is teaching you the wrong principles of wing chun? (As many do)
A rear naked choked could be considered as fitting into the principles of wing chun and yet it is not taught by a majority of kung fu federations


----------



## chisauking (Nov 27, 2008)

Kamon guy sez: There are absolutes. Nothing is impossible, but things can be certain

csk: How we perceive things, concepts, etc., is down to our comprehension and experiences. As we get older, we tend to get wiser, and our views change due to our accumulated learnings. I don't know about other people, but my own concept\veiw of wing chun has certainly changed since starting wing chun and now. Only a 'stone' or someone who thinks they already know everything would see things as absolutes.


KG: No they don't. That is like saying I can fly. But only a foot off the ground and only for a couple of microseconds... (ie a jump)
There are certainly limits of techniques. I will never be as good as Chuck Liddell at cage fighting, but I know that my techniques work under pressure. They may not work if other factors are involved (more people attack me or if I am fighting in a river etc). But I am talking about techniques that only work if their opponent is compliant and reacts in a set, pre determined way 

csk: I really don't know what you are trying to convey here. One, you say your techniques work, and then you say you will never be as good as Chuck Liddell. If you say your techniques work, why wouldn't it work against Chuck? I thought you said things were absolutes?


KG: Not naming federations but I have seen moves done for the sake of tradition. Students truly believe that they will work in a fight. And that saddens me


KG: No not at all. I am talking about tradition for traditions sake - involving moves that don't work, just because your master does them

csk: Just because some techniques don't work for you, doesn't mean it won't work for another. If a concept complies to wing chun principles, then it shouldn't be discarded from the student. Most English people know only approx. 10% of the vocabulary, doesn't that mean we should discard the other 90% in our teachings?



KG: Are you joking? These are two of Ip Chun's top students, representing Ip Chun and teaching his style of wing chun!!! If anyone knows anything about authentic chun it's them!!! 
Or are you now saying that Ip Chun doesn't teach authentic wing chun?

csk: There are so many variables that unless I have direct experience with those people it wouldn't be fair for me to make up some fabricated opinion. Suffice to say, talent may not be passed down from 1 generation to the next. If you have been around long enough and done your research, you know the level of sifu Yip Chun's keun faat skills.


KG: So Yip Man didn't teach authentic wing chun? <Groan>
And I think you will find that he added quite a few things to the wing chun system

csk: I never said such thing, and you know it. So please stop trying to distort what I'd stated. In regards to sifu Yip Man adding 'quite a few things' into the wing chun method, could you please state some examples?



KG: And what if your teacher is teaching you the wrong principles of wing chun? (As many do)
A rear naked choked could be considered as fitting into the principles of wing chun and yet it is not taught by a majority of kung fu federations

csk: If you start with a weak 'foundation' then your level and development process will always be flawed. If you don't know the alphabet very well, and your spelling,  construction of sentences\grammer, etc. is poor, then your reading\writing ability would be very weak. And the errors would manifest itself the more you use it to communicate. Another good analogy is in navigation. If you are off course by 3 degress at the starting point, after 60NM you are 3NMs off course. The further you are into the journey, the further you are off course. This is why after 20-years' in wing chun some people are further away from wing chun than when they first began. 

Again, if one is not interested in learning 'authentic' wing chun, what does it matter? The local 'chopsuey' club is only down the road, and it's just as effective as wing chun, easier to learn and a lot cheaper.


----------



## geezer (Nov 27, 2008)

chisauking said:


> csk: If you start with a weak 'foundation' then your level and development process will always be flawed. If you don't know the alphabet very well, and your spelling,  construction of sentences\grammer, etc. is poor, then your reading\writing ability would be very weak. And the errors would manifest itself the more you use it to communicate. Another good analogy is in navigation. If you are off course by 3 degress at the starting point, after 60NM you are 3NMs off course. The further you are into the journey, the further you are off course. This is why after 20-years' in wing chun some people are further away from wing chun than when they first began.



CSK -- Did you type in this whole dialogue manually instead of using multiple quotes? If so, that means I'm not the only one who doesn't know how to do that multiple quotation thing! Help, anyone?

Oh, and back to the topic. Have you noticed how much variation there is in the basic "alphabet" and "grammar" of WC/WT even among bona fide Yip Man students. They vary considerably on such basics as stance, posture and steps, as well as all the stuff that is built on this foundation. And yet, they  practice and teach the "authentic" art and are often respected for their technique. When I switched sifus in 1980, I had to spend many hours of hard work to retrain my stance to my new sifu's exacting standards before he would teach me anything else. Another chunner I've met on this forum switched in _the other direction_ and had to go through the same ordeal to learn the very stance work I had to unlearn. Yet we are both satisfied with our results. Any thoughts?


----------



## profesormental (Nov 28, 2008)

Greetings.

This is actually a very interesting question and an interesting discussion.

The first problem is defining "authentic".

The second thing is to determine if authenticity is important.

My position, as has been in many of my posts, is that at the end, what is important is the individual instructor's skill at Quan Fa and skill at teaching and training.

As for the authenticity issue, even the VTAA in Hong Kong has loose curriculum guidelines to awarding certificates, since most Si Fu teach very differently, even students of the same Si Fu.

So, to me, you train Wing Chun if you use as training methods and tools Sil Lum Tao, Chum Kiu, Bil Jee, Mook Jong, Chi Sao and do San Da and drills using these tools as teaching basis.

The forms, if trained correctly, instill a certain structure and body mechanics that is quite strong and formidable.

Since Wing Chun is very much based on Taoist principles of thought and action, the training seeks simplicity (although very sophisticated at times), and in many Si Fu's minds, better Wing Chun is the one that does more with less.

So while I agree that if you say you teach Wing Chun and the forms are Pinans and containg 720 degree spinning heel hook kicks, then that should not be called Wing Chun...

I know of people that have made their own explorations of Wing Chun, look like Wing Chun with a twist and flavor that makes it their own and it works... even though they've been disfranchised by their "lineage".

I've seen other things that I will not mention... yet after exploration and experience, you know what is Wing Chun and what it is not. and you can decide to seek it or not.

Hope that helps.

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## BFL (Nov 28, 2008)

By definition:


*au·then·tic* (ô-th
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




t
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




k) 
_adj._ *1. *Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief: _an authentic account by an eyewitness._
*2. *Having a claimed and verifiable origin or authorship; not counterfeit or copied: _an authentic medieval sword._
*3. *_Law_ Executed with due process: _an authentic deed._
*4. *_Music_ *a. *Of, relating to, or being a medieval mode having a range from its final tone to the octave above it.
*b. *Of, relating to, or being a cadence with the dominant chord immediately preceding the tonic chord.

*5. *_Obsolete_ Authoritative.

[Middle English autentik, from Old French autentique, from Late Latin authenticus, from Greek authentikos, from authent
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




s, _author_.]
*au·then
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




ti·cal·ly*_ adv._
*Synonyms: **authentic**, bona fide**, genuine**, real*1*, true**, undoubted**, unquestionable*
These adjectives mean not counterfeit or copied: _an authentic painting by Corot; a bona fide transfer of property; genuine crabmeat; a real diamond; true courage; undoubted evidence; an unquestionable antique._ *Antonym: *counterfeit


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
*authentic* 
_Adjective_
*1*. of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine 
*2*. reliable or accurate 
*3*. _Music_ using period instruments, scores, and playing techniques [Greek _authentikos_] 
*authentically* _adv_
*authenticity* _n_


----------



## dungeonworks (Nov 28, 2008)

My Kung Fu is better than everyone elses!!!


----------



## Museumtech (Dec 1, 2008)

geezer said:


> CSK -- Did you type in this whole dialogue manually instead of using multiple quotes? If so, that means I'm not the only one who doesn't know how to do that multiple quotation thing! Help, anyone?





geezer said:


> Yet we are both satisfied with our results. Any thoughts?



Geezer. I simply cut and past the codes from the start and end of the original to the beginning and end of each new one.

Peter


----------



## matsu (Dec 1, 2008)

the wing chun i am taught is not "authentic" ie as it was originally taught to sifu.
it has been changed according to the core principles of wing chun,
because my sifu felt that some of the "authentics" did not work and through trial and error he made them *effective!*

i have no problem with this fact and neither should anyone else.

the major problem with this thread is everyones insistence on the word authentic and i think with a living moving teaching such as wing chun you cannot use that definition/description of the art.
just my tuppence

matsu


----------



## dungeonworks (Dec 1, 2008)

I'm on the same page Matsu! :ultracool


----------



## chisauking (Dec 2, 2008)

A good wing chun sifu will always teach their student the way of wing chun, which is to find their own way.

Then there are others that would teach their students their way.

If you can understand the above, then you can understand wing chun.


It's time for me to leave again.....

Some people like to hear the truth....

Most people like to hear what they want to hear.


----------



## Eru IlÃºvatar (Dec 3, 2008)

Personaly I like the pricipals of Wing Chun a lot and I agree with them. I also agree with all those here saying that as long as it works and it is true to the core principals I'm ok with it. As far as authenticy in the sense of lineages go I could't care less even thoug my sigung did train with some of the top names in Wing Chun. In other words I would gladly train with someone skilled in WC by my definition even though he doesn't call it that way and doesn't use WC forms to train allthough I belive they are an invaluable training method in WC. But on the other hand, I do belive you should know where your system comes from and appreciate the ones who passed it down to you along with the ancestor of the system. I also belive becouse of a similar reason the it would not be appropriate to start calling the system passed down to you something else and changing it and twisting it just to make it something orginal or to sell it better.


----------



## Yoshiyahu (Dec 5, 2008)

Wing Chun is for fighting. I care if my Wing Chun works. You have traditionalist who can't fight worth a lick. You have modified wing chun artist who can fight a little but can't match a skilled fighter because they lack some of the key ingredients that removed from traditional Wing Chun.

I feel the best Wing Chun is the one that can save you from attackers and defeat skilled fighters. If you can do that then your Wing Chun is real Gung Fu.


----------

