# Do you ever feel as if the Wing Chun we Learn today isn't original?



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

I've been learning wing chun for 5 years and I feel as if it has been changed to much from it's origins and I think it's wrong to change the style and then teach the new way. If you change the style keep it to yourself and teach everyone else the way you were taught. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> If you change the style keep it to yourself and teach everyone else the way you were taught.


If you have this kind of attitude, all your life you may be a good "copy machine", no more and no less. Is that what you want to be?

- After DOS has been evolved into Window, do you still use DOS?
- Do you still use your pager (beeper)?

In the river, the back wave will push the front wave. The front wave will crash onto the rock. That's the law of nature.


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have this kind of attitude, all your life you may be a good "copy machine", no more and no less. Is that what you want to be?
> 
> After DOS has been evolved into Window, how may people are still using DOS? Do you still use your beeper?


90% of Wing Chun styles out there are robotic with no body movement, I'm all about expressing and adapting yourself to new styles but that doesn't mean mix it up with your own style and then try teaching everyone else it as if it's your own style. I've always been taught to use the body and be free with expression. Bruce Lee developed Jeet Kun Do because it suited him personally but that doesn't mean everyone can use it. Learn a style then adjust it for yourself, don't try changing the style for everyone. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Danny T (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> I've been learning wing chun for 5 years and I feel as if it has been changed to much from it's origins...


How so? In what ways?



ipmann97 said:


> I think it's wrong to change the style and then teach the new way. If you change the style keep it to yourself and teach everyone else the way you were taught.


Can you go into deeper detail as to what is meant by 'changing the style' and 'teach the new way'.


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Danny T said:


> How so? In what ways?
> 
> 
> Can you go into deeper detail as to what is meant by 'changing the style' and 'teach the new way'.


I mean like if you master Wing Chun and then decide to master Taekwondo then feel free to combine it but if your gunna teach Wing Chun then by all means teach Wing Chun as the combination wouldn't suit everyone and if someone wants to learn wing chun then that's all they wanna learn. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Learn a style then adjust it for yourself, don't try changing the style for everyone.


You have assumed that the ancient material is better than the modern material. 

By using your approach, you learn WC from your teacher, you adjust it for yourself. When you teach your students, you still teach the same way as your teacher taught you. All your personal experience will be lost forever.

If you can't contribute anything to the WC system, you are just a copy machine. If you don't write any books, you are only a reader. You will never be a writer. Do you want to be a copy machine and reader for the rest of your life?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> I mean like if you master Wing Chun and then decide to master Taekwondo then feel free to combine it but if your gunna teach Wing Chun then by all means teach Wing Chun as the combination wouldn't suit everyone and if someone wants to learn wing chun then that's all they wanna learn.


WC doesn't have roundhouse kick. If you add roundhouse kick into WC, that will be a plus.

A + B > A


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> WC doesn't have roundhouse kick. If you add roundhouse kick into WC, that will be a plus.
> 
> A + B > A


No doubt about it but it's not wing chun if your gunna change it all the time, if your teaching Wing Chun then teach pure Wing Chun. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

It absolutely should evolve. All styles need to evolve to stay relevant. Bruce lee did exactly he evolved wing chun and created a newer style from it. 

To many people are stuck In the past and refuse to change what they do because that's the way some guy did it hundreds of years ago. Well no everyone has to adapt. No one should be teaching to do it exactly one way. Everyone's different and needs to do it differently


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> No doubt about it but it's not wing chun if your gunna change it all the time, if your teaching Wing Chun then teach pure Wing Chun.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


That's fine if you just want to learn history but if you want it for fighting who gives a damm what's pure and what's not pure if I'm learning I want to learn what works to protect myself. So you'd rather stay learning something less just because it's "pure"?

Everyone changes the style. Do you believe ip mans wing chun is the same as dan innosantos do you believe his is the same as William cheungs. If people didnt change stuff then martial arts would never move forward


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> That's fine if you just want to learn history but if you want it for fighting who gives a damm what's pure and what's not pure if I'm learning I want to learn what works to protect myself. So you'd rather stay learning something less just because it's "pure"?
> 
> Everyone changes the style. Do you believe ip mans wing chun is the same as dan innosantos do you believe his is the same as William cheungs. If people didnt change stuff then martial arts would never move forward


Feel free to change it but I just find it of putting when someone advertises or decides to start teaching Wing Chun with a bit of Muay Thai or Taekwondo or anything but by all means learn it for yourself just don't try making your own Wing Chun and teaching it as if it's your own new style. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Feel free to change it but I just find it of putting when someone advertises or decides to start teaching Wing Chun with a bit of Muay Thai or Taekwondo or anything but by all means learn it for yourself just don't try making your own Wing Chun and teaching it as if it's your own new style.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


Ok you find it off putting then dont train with those people then. Doesn't mean they shouldn't do it just because you don't like it. Some may prefer that. Also if they mix wing chun with Muay Thai or taekwondo then that is their own style simple as that. Nothing wrong with it at all


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Ok you find it off putting then dont train with those people then. Doesn't mean they shouldn't do it just because you don't like it. Some may prefer that. Also if they mix wing chun with Muay Thai or taekwondo then that is their own style simple as that. Nothing wrong with it at all


I'm not saying it's bad just don't teach someone that people aren't after. Like my teacher, one of his black belts teaches and he spent one month in China and did Shoulin so now he tries to mix it with Wing Chun and even watches videos on YouTube of it to learn more. Personally I don't think he should be using or teaching a move he's never been taught. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> I'm not saying it's bad just don't teach someone that people aren't after. Like my teacher, one of his black belts teaches and he spent one month in China and did Shoulin so now he tries to mix it with Wing Chun and even watches videos on YouTube of it to learn more. Personally I don't think he should be using or teaching a move he's never been taught.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


Good for him he's becoming a better martial artist because of it. Like I said just because /you/ don't want it why would that mean no else wants it. If someone's filling wing chuns holes that can only be a good thing. Maybe you should try learning new stuff instead of having a closed mind it may help you improve


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Good for him he's becoming a better martial artist because of it. Like I said just because /you/ don't want it why would that mean no else wants it. If someone's filling wing chuns holes that can only be a good thing. Maybe you should try learning new stuff instead of having a closed mind it may help you improve


I got nothing against doing other styles with Wing Chun and I've tried doing other style but nothing else has the same feeling as Wing Chun not even other wing chun schools and I haven't seen any of them use the body from feet to head. But only from the knees or elbows. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> I got nothing against doing other styles with Wing Chun and I've tried doing other style but nothing else has the same feeling as Wing Chun not even other wing chun schools and I haven't seen any of them use the body from feet to head. But only from the knees or elbows.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


Well fine that's up to you but it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. You do what you want and let everyone else do what they want


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Well fine that's up to you but it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. You do what you want and let everyone else do what they want


Agreed

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> No doubt about it but it's not wing chun if your gunna change it all the time, if your teaching Wing Chun then teach pure Wing Chun.


First Yeh Men's WC was not pure to start with. He added the staff form into his WC. If he added a sword form into his WC instead, how will you be able to know the difference?

How will you be able to teach your students the

- pure WC (your teacher's WC), and
- WC+ (your WC)?

If you teach your students both WC and WC+, you student then teach his students WC, WC+, and WC++, how will people be able to separate WC, WC+, WC++. WC+++. ... in the future?


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

Also how do you know your wing chun is pure? Maybe your teacher added some stuff themselves and just hasn't said maybe he's slightly altered certain moves how would you know if they have or haven't?


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> First Yeh Men's WC was not pure to start with. He added the staff form into his WC. If he added a sword form into his WC instead, how will you be able to know the difference?
> 
> How will you be able to teach your students the
> 
> ...


Very true and it's a shame that we can't go back to pure origins, my school doesn't teach the authentic Wing Chun guard so I've wanted to know why Wing Chun use or and how. My Sui Lim Tai, Chum Kui and Bill Jee is different to everyone else's and even though we come from William Cheung even in his videos it's still different to what I know..... 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Also how do you know your wing chun is pure? Maybe your teacher added some stuff themselves and just hasn't said maybe he's slightly altered certain moves how would you know if they have or haven't?


He doesn't really seem the kinda guy that cares haha he's the kinda teacher that says Wing Chun  is the only best style in the world. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> He doesn't really seem the kinda guy that cares haha he's the kinda teacher that says Wing Chun  is the only best style in the world.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


Hmm any teacher that says that always raises a few flags with me


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Hmm any teacher that says that always raises a few flags with me


Yeah I don't like it but can't change his mind. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Yeah I don't like it but can't change his mind.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


No ones forcing you to train there


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> No ones forcing you to train there


I know but from William Cheung we use the blind side technique and to me feels very advantaging which is why I struggle to try any other Wing Chun schools. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> just don't teach someone that people aren't after.


It's up to the teacher to decide what he wants to teach. If you don't like it, you can always find yourself a different teacher.


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's up to the teacher to decide what he wants to teach. If you don't like it, you can always find yourself a different teacher.


Yeah I know tbh it could just be my school that I'm experiencing this with. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's up to the teacher to decide what he wants to teach. If you don't like it, you can always find yourself a different teacher.


Agreed and no teacher will ever teach the same. Everyone does everything different and that's a good thing. Something I read once was that there'll come a time when your teacher can't teach you any more and when that happens go to a different place. They may not be any better than your last but at least they'll have something new to show you


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> it's a shame that we can't go back to pure origins,


If the WC system did come from the white crane system, do you want to learn the white crane system instead?


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 18, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If the WC system did come from the white crane system, do you want to learn the white crane system instead?


Wasn't it White Crane and Snake? And I'd like to learn the original Wing Chun. Like imagine learning Wing Chun from Ng Mui. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Wasn't it White Crane and Snake? And I'd like to learn the original Wing Chun. Like imagine learning Wing Chun from Ng Mui.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk



But why?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 18, 2017)

Nothing springs forth from a vacuum, fully formed.  Everything has been built upon something else that came before it.

Nothing is Original.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 18, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> I mean like if you master Wing Chun and then decide to master Taekwondo then feel free to combine it but if your gunna teach Wing Chun then by all means teach Wing Chun as the combination wouldn't suit everyone and if someone wants to learn wing chun then that's all they wanna learn.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


So the wing chun you are learning has no weapons?


----------



## Anarax (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> I've been learning wing chun for 5 years and I feel as if it has been changed to much from it's origins and I think it's wrong to change the style and then teach the new way. If you change the style keep it to yourself and teach everyone else the way you were taught.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk



A lot of martial artist think that any changes they make to a style are good changes, unfortunately that isn't always true. Some styles have the same or similar concepts, but some styles aren't alike at all. Blending techniques that have entirely different concepts *can* get messy and chaotic. We all have preferences, some like kicking more than punching, others like grappling more than striking. For example; if I took tae kwon do and realized it's not for me why would I keep training it? Would it make sense for me to study for years, open my own school, replace all the kicks with boxing techniques and still call it tae kwon do? When questioned I can just say it's my "own" version of tae kwon do.

I have changed martial arts schools multiple times because I concluded it wasn't for me. It's a difficult choice to make, but in the end you'll find something better. Eventually, I found Kali which is the perfect style for *me*. It has everything I was looking for and more.   

That's not to say you can't add to an existing style and still maintain the core concepts of that style. For example; my kali instructor has a wrestling background and we incorporate wrestling techniques into it, but it blends well with a lot of the kali techniques. However; we don't neglect or replace other important training regiments in place of the wrestling techniques. 

Some Wing Chun doesn't resemble real Wing Chun at all. They "adapt" it in ways that draws away from the center line and economy of motion concepts yet they still call in Wing Chun. I have witnessed this with other styles too, but from my experience the Wing Chun community seems to be riddled with this problem.


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 19, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> But why?


Because your not gunna learn Wing Chun and proper than from Ng Mui. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 19, 2017)

Danny T said:


> So the wing chun you are learning has no weapons?


Butterfly swords and long pole but we have no form for the butterfly swords. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 19, 2017)

Anarax said:


> A lot of martial artist think that any changes they make to a style are good changes, unfortunately that isn't always true. Some styles have the same or similar concepts, but some styles aren't alike at all. Blending techniques that have entirely different concepts *can* get messy and chaotic. We all have preferences, some like kicking more than punching, others like grappling more than striking. For example; if I took tae kwon do and realized it's not for me why would I keep training it? Would it make sense for me to study for years, open my own school, replace all the kicks with boxing techniques and still call it tae kwon do? When questioned I can just say it's my "own" version of tae kwon do.
> 
> I have changed martial arts schools multiple times because I concluded it wasn't for me. It's a difficult choice to make, but in the end you'll find something better. Eventually, I found Kali which is the perfect style for *me*. It has everything I was looking for and more.
> 
> ...


I love my wing Chun as we use William Cheungs blind side technique but we have completely different forms. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Because your not gunna learn Wing Chun and proper than from Ng Mui.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk



How do you know that?  What if Ng Mui was primarily a White Crane person who had some good ideas for how to evolve the system.  So she taught this "altered" version of Wing Chun to Yim Wing Chun who then taught it to her husband.  Then her husband taught it to Leung Yee Tai, who had already learned a snake system.  So Leung Yee Tai combined his "altered" White Crane with his Snake system and taught it to Leung Jan.  Did this happen?  Who knows?  And that's the point.  There is no such thing as "original" Wing Chun.  You really have no way of knowing who taught what.  Ip Man himself learned from different teachers and altered his own version over the years.  So what is "original"?   William Cheung has altered his Wing Chun quite a bit!  So I find it rather ironic that you are complaining about people changing Wing Chun!


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Because your not gunna learn Wing Chun and proper than from Ng Mui.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


Why not? Just because they founded it or whatever doesn't mean they're better teachers than the people of today. Stop looking at the past with rose tinted glasses there's no reason why today's teachers and practitioners can't be as good as those people


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 19, 2017)

KPM said:


> How do you know that?  What if Ng Mui was primarily a White Crane person who had some good ideas for how to evolve the system.  So she taught this "altered" version of Wing Chun to Yim Wing Chun who then taught it to her husband.  Then her husband taught it to Leung Yee Tai, who had already learned a snake system.  So Leung Yee Tai combined his "altered" White Crane with his Snake system and taught it to Leung Jan.  Did this happen?  Who knows?  And that's the point.  There is no such thing as "original" Wing Chun.  You really have no way of knowing who taught what.  Ip Man himself learned from different teachers and altered his own version over the years.  So what is "original"?   William Cheung has altered his Wing Chun quite a bit!  So I find it rather ironic that you are complaining about people changing Wing Chun!


Ng Mui invented Wing Chun so even if she did change it, it would still be the original Wing Chun and which is why I wanna learn authentic Wing Chun but no where uses the body or they just run in using chain punch. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 19, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Why not? Just because they founded it or whatever doesn't mean they're better teachers than the people of today. Stop looking at the past with rose tinted glasses there's no reason why today's teachers and practitioners can't be as good as those people


You can make the style better for yourself but no need to re make the system just because it doesn't work for you or else there would be much point in learning Wing Chun, if you wanna learn other styles than do it but don't go making another jeet kune do style. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> You can make the style better for yourself but no need to re make the system just because it doesn't work for you or else there would be much point in learning Wing Chun, if you wanna learn other styles than do it but don't go making another jeet kune do style.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


Why not? If they want to do it they can do it and there's nothing to stop them


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 19, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> Why not? If they want to do it they can do it and there's nothing to stop them


But then it's not wing chun 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> But then it's not wing chun
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


And? It's just a name who cares don't get so obsessed over a name just focus on training and getting better. Who cares about purity or what some old lady did hundreds of years ago the past is the past for a reason it's gone you've got to move forward that's the only way things get better


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> I've been learning wing chun for 5 years and I feel as if it has been changed to much from it's origins and I think it's wrong to change the style and then teach the new way. If you change the style keep it to yourself and teach everyone else the way you were taught.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


I should hope it's not original. There should be evolution and progress. Otherwise, every art would be making the same mistakes as always, based upon the lack of information at its origin.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Feel free to change it but I just find it of putting when someone advertises or decides to start teaching Wing Chun with a bit of Muay Thai or Taekwondo or anything but by all means learn it for yourself just don't try making your own Wing Chun and teaching it as if it's your own new style.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


So, feel free to change it, but don't try making it your own. If you teach Wing Chun, teach the original, but don't try to play off changes as your own style?

You are actually contradicting yourself.


----------



## VPT (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Wasn't it White Crane and Snake? And I'd like to learn the original Wing Chun. Like imagine learning Wing Chun from Ng Mui.



Chee Kim Thong lineage of Five Ancestors Boxing has a form alleged to and named after Ng Mui. Did I blow your mind? Is that the _original Wing Chun_? Should you go find that out or should you stay with your current teacher? Think wisely, and pay attention what you actually want and need in your training.


----------



## Danny T (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Butterfly swords and long pole but we have no form for the butterfly swords.


Ok...
The reason I asked about the weapons is because they were added into the Wing Chun System as the System continued to evolve.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 19, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Ok...
> The reason I asked about the weapons is because they were added into the Wing Chun System as the System continued to evolve.



But isn't this also not a known/confirmed fact (?)


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 19, 2017)

VPT said:


> Chee Kim Thong lineage of Five Ancestors Boxing has a form alleged to and named after Ng Mui. Did I blow your mind? Is that the _original Wing Chun_? Should you go find that out or should you stay with your current teacher? Think wisely, and pay attention what you actually want and need in your training.


Well after what everyone has said it's official that Wing Chun is just Wing Chun, an art of combat and self awareness. People's ways of adapting the style is just self expression through Wing Chun or their own fighting method. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Ng Mui invented Wing Chun so even if she did change it, it would still be the original Wing Chun and which is why I wanna learn authentic Wing Chun but no where uses the body or they just run in using chain punch.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


Ok, I kind of think this is a put-on, but I’ll bite...

The existence of Ng Mui as founder/inventer of Wing Chun is an uncertainty.  However, if she did exist, she is long dead and you can’t learn from her.  Too late for you.


----------



## ipmann97 (Dec 19, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Ok, I kind of think this is a put-on, but I’ll bite...
> 
> The existence of Ng Mui as founder/inventer of Wing Chun is an uncertainty.  However, if she did exist, she is long dead and you can’t learn from her.  Too late for you.


All I'm gunna say is 90% of Wing Chun is dead and the 10% that know what they're doing, don't wanna teach it. 

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


----------



## TMA17 (Dec 19, 2017)

What is real WC to you then?  How does it differ from what is being taught today?

If I read what you said correctly you studied TWC (William Cheung) and like it but it’s not “original”.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> All I'm gunna say is 90% of Wing Chun is dead and the 10% that know what they're doing, don't wanna teach it.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


I guess you need to change your plans then.


----------



## KPM (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Ng Mui invented Wing Chun so even if she did change it, it would still be the original Wing Chun and which is why I wanna learn authentic Wing Chun but no where uses the body or they just run in using chain punch.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk



How do you know Ng Mui invented Wing Chun?  You are going by old oral legends and stories.   If Ng Mui really existed, what she might have practiced may have looked nothing at all like we call "Wing Chun" today!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> - After DOS has been evolved into Window, do you still use DOS?



If you are in IT like I am...yes, yes you do...even after Windows 10


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 19, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> If you are in IT like I am...yes, yes you do...even after Windows 10


I haven't done it lately (because I'm more likely to use VBA for it), but I used to regularly pop into a DOS window to batch rename files and that sort of thing. Sometimes I still use DOS to poke around in old archives. Something about the way I look at lists in DOS is hardwired, and doesn't work the same in File Manager.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> All I'm gunna say is 90% of Wing Chun is dead and the 10% that know what they're doing, don't wanna teach it.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk


What a load of rubbish. If people didnt adapt and change it then it would be dead. Heck wing chun only got popular in the west because of bruce lee doing it and he changing things about it left right and centre.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 19, 2017)

To me this type of thing is one of my main problems with some traditional places kenpo included. People are to scared to change things and drop things because they're scared to dare go against the "sacred" teachings. For example I was having a conversation with a Kung fu guy recently and he showed me some stuff and I was respectful but I pointed out a few holes and he said oh yeah I know that's rubbish and would never work so I asked why keep teaching it if it doesn't work and he said well that's how it's always been done.

People would rather practice things they know wouldn't ever work than actually say you know what I'm going to change that.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Because your not gunna learn Wing Chun and proper than from Ng Mui.


Did Ng Mui ever spar with boxers, wrestlers, Judo guys, MT guys, BJJ guys, ...? Back then the WC system tried to solve different problems than the way we try to solve today's problem.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 19, 2017)

I don't get it. If you have learned wing chun well from a good teacher and train hard by the time you reach a level of understanding and skill that would allow you to change aspects of it you would find there is no need to change anything. It become so fluid and versitile and a part of your own body to move a certain way, changing it is not only unneccessary but would be a waste of time and energy. 

People in our history may have channged things but this is over a period of over 300 years. With people actually using it in challenge fights and battles mutiple tomes in a single lifetime (unlike today). So when they change something they had experience and the chance to go out and use it more in life threatening situations. People will say "there were no boxers in olden day china" or "they never had to face bjj". You think that in the thousands of years of martial arts in china no one thought up grappling?  Boxing has been a sport in china from at least 1920s onwards well inside the lifetime of people like sum nung (who did fight his entire life and remain undefeated) and yip man. What works has already been figured out and put together for us. Its up to us to do the training to make it work and learn it as best we can.

Just because something is difficult or not immediately aquired or useable does not make it useless and so thrown away and changed. Just because you dont understand soemthing or cant do it yourself doesnt mean it should be discarded. You could be theowing away or changing very valuable techniques or skills


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Just because you dont understand soemthing or cant do it yourself doesnt mean it should be discarded. You could be theowing away or changing very valuable techniques or skills


You are not throwing away anything when your WC also contain hook, uppercut, side kick, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount, ...

WC + hook, uppercut, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount > WC


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are not throwing away anything when your WC also contain hook, uppercut, side kick, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount, ...
> 
> WC + hook, uppercut, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount > WC



I beg to differ. You are throwing away economy if motion, your stance, centreline etc. In other words it ceases to be wing chun. 

You are a puzzling fellow. Ive seen your comments on many threads here and it seems you dont do wing chun at all. Just contributing vague suggestions as to how to improve it. 

Like i said before if you train hard and to level where you understand it you might find there is nothing to change.  The path is set the way it is for a reason. Sometimes you have to get a fair way along before you can understand why its layed out the way it is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> it seems you dont do wing chun at all.


Of course WC is not the only system that I train. But I may be the 1st person in Texas who owned a WC dummy back in 1973. I spent $500 to build that one from a telephone pole.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Of course WC is not the only system that I train. But I may be the 1st person in Texas who owned a WC dummy back in 1973. I spent $500 to build one from a telephone pole.



Well thats great if you are into mixing arts. Or you feel like there are holes in wing chun that need filling with techniques from other styles. 

From where i learnt wing chun i have never felt like a question was left unanswered and every technique and principle has a purpose. The style is so seamlessly designed that everything you learn feeds into both what you will do and what you have already done. Each movement flows and turns into another.

 I am not against change but i am against fixing whats not broken.


----------



## TMA17 (Dec 19, 2017)

I


obi_juan_salami said:


> You are a puzzling fellow. Ive seen your comments on many threads here and it seems you dont do wing chun at all. Just contributing vague suggestions as to how to improve it.



No that would be me LOL!!!


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 19, 2017)

My teacher is pretty big on this, preserving the original art. The training methods may change, but the principles behind it shouldn't. That requires a pretty in depth understanding to decide if adding something to it is an evolution or a pollution. 

That said, knowing the rules also means knowing how to break them, and what makes that a good idea.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2017)

*pollution:*

If you are a Judo guy and you are taught how to wrestle with Judo jacket on, will you be interested to learn how to wrestle without Judo jacket? Also will you be interested to integrate your kick and punch into your Judo throw? If your Judo teacher cannot help you in those areas, where will you look for your solution?

Jacket wrestling + no jacket wrestling > jacket wrestling
Jacket wrestling + no jacket wrestling > no jacket wrestling
Jacket wrestling + kick/punch > jacket wrestling
No jacket wrestling + kick/punch > no jacket wrestling


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you are a Judo guy and you are taught how to wrestle with Judo jacket on, will you be interested to learn how to wrestle without Judo jacket on? Also will you be interested to integrate your kick and punch into your Judo throwing skill? If your Judo teacher cannot help you in those areas, where will you look for your solution?




I don't do judo so i dont know what id be interested in doing if i did judo. 

Judo is a sport. Its original art of jujitsu is much more holistic from my understanding. 

Also wing chun works regardless if your shirt is on or off. Has both punches and kicks. Also contains throws.


----------



## TMA17 (Dec 19, 2017)

Good points.


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 19, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> I don't do judo so i dont know what id be interested in doing if i did judo.
> 
> Judo is a sport. Its original art of jujitsu is much more holistic from my understanding.
> 
> Also wing chun works regardless if your shirt is on or off. Has both punches and kicks. Also contains throws.



Not to be that guy but the "X is only a sport" argument seriously needs to die already. If the most lethal stuff in one's training is hypothetically the only way to make it work, then one's training seriously needs a step up.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 19, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> Not to be that guy but the "X is only a sport" argument seriously needs to die already. If the most lethal stuff in one's training is hypothetically the only way to make it work, then one's training seriously needs a step up.



I didnt say "its only a sport"  i said "judo is a sport" which it is. And i didnt say it in order to devalue it at all. People who choose to practice it for various reasons and i think it is actually a good martial art. 

However, being a sport it is limited to using grappling technique instead of striking and other strategies. People may think they need to cross train in order to feel 'complete'. I consider wing chun to be very complete and not a sport since its curriculum is not governed by any specific ruleset. 

Not because you "cant use it in competition" or "it only works for the street" or whatever. You train for what you want out of a martial art. The end goal matters whether its for competing or for self defence or for fitness etc.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 19, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> People may think they need to cross train in order to feel 'complete'.


There exist no MA system that is complete. Some people like to have more tools in their toolbox and I'm in that group. I just can't stand to know that there is a MA tool that I don't know how to use it.

The following are MA tools.

1. Punch - jab, cross, hook, uppercut, back fist, hammer fist, side punch, hay-maker, ...
2. Kick - front toe kick, front heel kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, hook kick, back kick, inside crescent kick, outside crescent kick, tornado kick, jumping double front kick, jumping crescent kick, ...
3. Knee - upward knee, horizontal knee, 45 degree knee, flying knee, ...
4. Elbow - horizontal elbow, upward elbow, downward elbow, forward elbow, backward elbow, ...
5. Lock - finger lock, wrist lock, elbow lock, shoulder lock, head lock, spine lock, knee lock, ankle lock, ...
6. Throw - single leg, double legs, hip throw, leg twist, leg spring, leg lift, leg block, foot sweep, ...
7. Footwork - forward step, backward step, side step, wheeling step, circle walking, circle running, long distance advance, long distance retreat, ...
8. Ground game - full mount, side mount, arm bar, leg bar, choke, ...
9. Short weapon - dagger, double edges sword, single edge knife, Miao Diao, ...
10. Long weapon - staff, pole, spear, Guan Dao, ...
11. Throwing weapon - bow and arrow, throwing dart, throwing knife, throwing rock, ...

As far as "hot weapon" such as hand gun, riffle, shot gun, ..., that will be a different story.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 19, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> There exist no MA system that is complete. Some people like to have more tools in their toolbox and I'm in that group. I just can't stand to know that there is a MA tool that I don't know how to use it.
> 
> The following are MA tools.
> 
> ...




Ok for starters we are all martial artists here and we know what these 'tools' are already so not need to list them.

I personally would rather be master of a few effective techniques than mediocre are 1000 others. A complete martial art for me is measured by an effective solution to any attack that is thrown or any given situation. Not sheer number of techniques you know or can make use of.

wing chun is complete in this way. There are few techniques but when strung together form unlimited combinations and coverage across all situations.

We may just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> To me this type of thing is one of my main problems with some traditional places kenpo included. People are to scared to change things and drop things because they're scared to dare go against the "sacred" teachings. For example I was having a conversation with a Kung fu guy recently and he showed me some stuff and I was respectful but I pointed out a few holes and he said oh yeah I know that's rubbish and would never work so I asked why keep teaching it if it doesn't work and he said well that's how it's always been done.
> 
> People would rather practice things they know wouldn't ever work than actually say you know what I'm going to change that.


Sometimes it's really just that that's the way they know to teach. There are techniques I've left in my curriculum that I classify (and describe to students) as "esoteric techniques". They won't have much direct application, but are the best way I know to teach and reinforce some principles. Every time I revisit the curriculum, I consider removing them. And every time I personally work with them, I am reminded what I learned from them and how that affects my overall movement. So, I leave them in. If I figure out drills that teach those principles using other techniques or movement, those techniques will be gone.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> I don't get it. If you have learned wing chun well from a good teacher and train hard by the time you reach a level of understanding and skill that would allow you to change aspects of it you would find there is no need to change anything. It become so fluid and versitile and a part of your own body to move a certain way, changing it is not only unneccessary but would be a waste of time and energy.
> 
> People in our history may have channged things but this is over a period of over 300 years. With people actually using it in challenge fights and battles mutiple tomes in a single lifetime (unlike today). So when they change something they had experience and the chance to go out and use it more in life threatening situations. People will say "there were no boxers in olden day china" or "they never had to face bjj". You think that in the thousands of years of martial arts in china no one thought up grappling?  Boxing has been a sport in china from at least 1920s onwards well inside the lifetime of people like sum nung (who did fight his entire life and remain undefeated) and yip man. What works has already been figured out and put together for us. Its up to us to do the training to make it work and learn it as best we can.
> 
> Just because something is difficult or not immediately aquired or useable does not make it useless and so thrown away and changed. Just because you dont understand soemthing or cant do it yourself doesnt mean it should be discarded. You could be theowing away or changing very valuable techniques or skills


You're missing a piece of the puzzle. Your statement assumes that WC, as a person is taught it, is perfect. That is not true of any art/system. There will always be something that can be improved. Whether it's tweaking something for better power in specific techniques, adapting a technique to handle a wider range of inputs (from different styles, perhaps), or adjusting something so the practice is less damaging to the practitioner (based upon our progressive knowledge of physiology).

Then you have to add the issue of incomplete transmission. No instructor will ever transmit absolutely 100% of his knowledge about WC (or any art). It's simply impossible with human communication. That means there's a built-in degradation at each generation. If those generations do not add any improvements to what they learned, they are transmitting less than their instructor did. If they make improvements, they may transmit as much as their instructor (or even more, if the improvements are especially good).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Ok for starters we are all martial artists here and we know what these 'tools' are already so not need to list them.
> 
> I personally would rather be master of a few effective techniques than mediocre are 1000 others. A complete martial art for me is measured by an effective solution to any attack that is thrown or any given situation. Not sheer number of techniques you know or can make use of.
> 
> ...


That can be said of any system with good fundamental weapons (which, IMO, must include both striking and grappling to some extent), if it trains for varied scenarios and inputs.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

Eric_H said:


> My teacher is pretty big on this, preserving the original art. The training methods may change, but the principles behind it shouldn't. That requires a pretty in depth understanding to decide if adding something to it is an evolution or a pollution.
> 
> That said, knowing the rules also means knowing how to break them, and what makes that a good idea.


IMO, that's the right way to "preserve" an art. You start from the principles and look for ways to make the whole better - including examining the principles themselves for flaws. And that does take a depth of understanding.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 20, 2017)

i got in my "way back" machine and went back in time. i talked to this Ng Mui,  she said your all nuts. 

this is my first visit into this area of MT,,,,,after reading a page of this thread i am so glad i didnt learn this style.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 20, 2017)

Headhunter said:


> why keep teaching it if it doesn't work and he said well that's how it's always been done.


This is one big problem and here is one example. Everybody know that when you use your hand to attack your opponent's groin, you opponent will punch your head. But this form was still used as the 1st form to teach in the Nanking CMA Academy back in 1928 in China.

The groin strike at 0.34.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Everybody know that when you use your hand to attack your opponent's groin, you opponent will punch your head.



C'mon, thats a bit of a general statement, no?

I think many will agree that, unappealing as it sounds, grabbing a fistful of nards with a yank and a twist will put a speedy end to many an altercation. But being able to do so depends entirely on where you are with respect to your assailant, what his arms are doing, what your other arm is doing, how tall he is compared to you etc etc etc


----------



## KPM (Dec 20, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i got in my "way back" machine and went back in time. i talked to this Ng Mui,  she said your all nuts.
> 
> this is my first visit into this area of MT,,,,,after reading a page of this thread i am so glad i didnt learn this style.



Then you haven't around much my friend!  You'll find the same kinds of silly discussions in TKD forums, Karate forums, etc.   Wing Chun does have its far share of crazy, but likely no more than other traditional styles!


----------



## hoshin1600 (Dec 20, 2017)

KPM said:


> Then you haven't around much my friend!  You'll find the same kinds of silly discussions in TKD forums, Karate forums, etc.   Wing Chun does have its far share of crazy, but likely no more than other traditional styles!


actually i have.  i used to frequent a karate forum for the style i do.....long story short,  no one goes there anymore and i mean NO ONE, its a ghost town


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 20, 2017)

hoshin1600 said:


> i got in my "way back" machine and went back in time. i talked to this Ng Mui,  she said your all nuts.



I happen to agree with this most of all, but what the hay, I'll contribute my priceless opinion anyway...



obi_juan_salami said:


> ...wing chun is complete in this way. There are few techniques but when strung together form unlimited combinations and coverage across all situations.
> 
> We may just have to agree to disagree.



All right then, I agreeably disagree. Much as I love WC. 
For example, if a good wrestler gets his arms wrapped around me, my wing chun training will be complete

-ly ineffective as my face gets mashed into the turf.

Problem is, learning a wrestling technique or two won't help me. I would need to dedicate a great deal of time pressure testing my wrestling repertoire to hope that any of it will work under the duress of self-defense. If I didn't have a day job, i might just do that, but many of us live with the limitations of time and age (training all out in some disciplines can get harder on your body and well being as you head into your 50s).
Since I love the practice of wing chun, I'd rather work out how to make it very hard for the hypothetical wrestler to get his arms around be in the first place.

But I don't kid myself into believing that my wing chun is 'complete' in all situations. I'll just try my best to avoid the situations where it is not going to be optimal.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 20, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> C'mon, thats a bit of a general statement, no?
> 
> I think many will agree that, unappealing as it sounds, grabbing a fistful of nards with a yank and a twist will put a speedy end to many an altercation. But being able to do so depends entirely on where you are with respect to your assailant, what his arms are doing, what your other arm is doing, how tall he is compared to you etc etc etc


There's also the fact that they could simply miss or the attacker could see it coming


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Then you have to add the issue of incomplete transmission. No instructor will ever transmit absolutely 100% of his knowledge about WC (or any art). It's simply impossible with human communication. That means there's a built-in degradation at each generation. If those generations do not add any improvements to what they learned, they are transmitting less than their instructor did. If they make improvements, they may transmit as much as their instructor (or even more, if the improvements are especially good).


i dont agree with this.  You are assuming that a person needs to be taught everything, that all knowledge and skill must come directly from the sifu.

One thing my sifu has said is that he cannot teach us everything.  For some things he can only get us close, and it is up to us to make the final leap and grasp the understanding.  Some things just cannot be described and explained perfectly.

A sifu can teach the complete curriculum (however that may be defined).  But while he can also teach nuances from his personal insights and experiences, he cannot transmit the sum total of those insights and experiences to the student.

None of this stuff is perfectly transmittable, and the success or failure ultimately rests on the insights and experiences of the student, coupled with their knowledge and skill with the material.  This includes the possibility to go far beyond the sifu.  There is not an automatic degradation from one generation to the next, even though it is guaranteed that the sifu will not and cannot teach everything that he knows.

In some cases, where a curriculum is very large and arguably contains a lot of redundancy, failing to teach some portion of the curriculum may have no detriment at all.  Choy Lay Fut is a good example.  The system as a whole contains a huge number of forms, dozens and dozens.  But there is a lineage that has only kept a very limited number of those forms, and it does just fine.  I would argue that the original curriculum could be downright cumbersome, and that more is not always better.  The second lineage could be much more useful, and useable was a streamlined method.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are not throwing away anything when your WC also contain hook, uppercut, side kick, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount, ...
> 
> WC + hook, uppercut, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount > WC



Having come from a background of other martial arts, I've learned all sorts of cool techniques. People I train with from other arts enjoy teaching me more.
But the fact remains, my wing chun usually (see above) affords simpler ways of dealing with situations, so all these techniques aren't so interesting to me.

Since I started WC I have come to appreciate the aspect of using fewer and fewer responses to deal with more and more situations. I believe it makes it easier for me to be clear-headed and empty minded under duress.

And by the way...for me in any case
WC + flying knee < WC
I'm much safer with my feet happily on terra firma.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> i dont agree with this.  You are assuming that a person needs to be taught everything, that all knowledge and skill must come directly from the sifu.
> 
> One thing my sifu has said is that he cannot teach us everything.  For some things he can only get us close, and it is up to us to make the final leap and grasp the understanding.  Some things just cannot be described and explained perfectly.
> 
> ...



The way I read it, you actually agree with gpseymour more than disagree.
As transmission from a sifu is incomplete (for whatever reason) in is up to the practitioner to enrich his understanding and abilities (by whatever means) for the art to remain viable.

By and large, I agree with both of you. But...

The slippery-slope concern to this, that many in the past have voiced, is that if you don't absorb as much as you can from your sifu you might be tempted to look at holes in the effectiveness of your system (per your experience), and fill them with other stuff.

Some principles in WC (and other styles) take a lot of time and effort to be able to use effectively under duress. If you have not invested that time and effort and simply state that the principle is invalid and replace it with something that seems easier, then the style has lost something going forward. Is that loss/change a good thing?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 20, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> I personally would rather be master of a few effective techniques than mediocre are 1000 others.


The reason that I come up that "tool list" is to indicate that even if you may not use those tools, you can't prevent your opponent from using those tools on you. You don't need to know how to use it, but you do need to know how to counter it.

For example, how to counter

- under hook,
- over hook,
- single leg,
- double legs,
- hit throw,
- foot sweep,
- ...

Do those counters exist in the WC system?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The reason that I come up that "tool list" is to indicate that even if you may not use those tools, you can't prevent your opponent from using those tools on you. You don't need to know how to use it, but you do need to know how to counter it.
> 
> For example, how to counter
> 
> ...


Yes they do, for someone who understands the method.  Any good system ought to have viable solutions for what might come at you.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> The way I read it, you actually agree with gpseymour more than disagree.
> As transmission from a sifu is incomplete (for whatever reason) in is up to the practitioner to enrich his understanding and abilities (by whatever means) for the art to remain viable.
> 
> By and large, I agree with both of you. But...
> ...


Sure, I read you.

I guess my point is more in line with the idea


Cephalopod said:


> The way I read it, you actually agree with gpseymour more than disagree.
> As transmission from a sifu is incomplete (for whatever reason) in is up to the practitioner to enrich his understanding and abilities (by whatever means) for the art to remain viable.
> 
> By and large, I agree with both of you. But...
> ...


sure, I get where you are coming from.

I guess my point is that more importance needs to be placed on the student gaining experience and insight to understand what is possible, vs. expecting the sifu to spoon-feed all the answers.  It takes work and thought.

Then, even with an abridged curriculum, great things are possible.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The reason that I come up that "tool list" is to indicate that even if you may not use those tools, you can't prevent your opponent from using those tools on you. You don't need to know how to use it, but you do need to know how to counter it.
> 
> For example, how to counter
> 
> ...



That's a whole other argument!

Training with people who will use these techniques against me will help me make my wing chun better. No doubt!

Incorporating these techniques into my wing chun? The jury is out.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Sure, I read you.
> 
> I guess my point is more in line with the idea
> 
> ...



Ha, I slapped you with a 'Like' just to prevent you from editing your doubled quote! 
Just kidding!

What you touched on about people expecting to be spoon-fed all the answers is super important. I wish more students of the martial arts would remember that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> i dont agree with this.  You are assuming that a person needs to be taught everything, that all knowledge and skill must come directly from the sifu.
> 
> One thing my sifu has said is that he cannot teach us everything.  For some things he can only get us close, and it is up to us to make the final leap and grasp the understanding.  Some things just cannot be described and explained perfectly.
> 
> ...



I don't think we actually disagree on this. The physical curriculum is not the entirety of the art. And even that part can't be transmitted error-free. So, let's say you manage to replicate your instructor's forms and physical techniques 95%. If you try to teach exactly what he taught, there will be a 5% degradation. On top of that, there's the transmission of ideas and understanding, which will be less complete/exact than the physical techniques. If you only transmit exactly the information and understanding you got from him, there would be further degradation.

Of course, you wouldn't do that. You'd teach the physical curriculum as best you could, including where you've found ways that worked better for you than your sifu taught (which, in some cases, will be things you just didn't get from him, though he did them, too). You'd also pass along the best understanding you could, rather than just the bits you got directly from your instructor. That "best you can" is what prevents the degradation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> The way I read it, you actually agree with gpseymour more than disagree.
> As transmission from a sifu is incomplete (for whatever reason) in is up to the practitioner to enrich his understanding and abilities (by whatever means) for the art to remain viable.
> 
> By and large, I agree with both of you. But...
> ...


Agreed. There is the danger (especially given the Dunning-Kruger effect) that we will charge in to change things with too little understanding. Then, adding our (mis)understanding to what we were taught, we could actively degrade an art in a generation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> That's a whole other argument!
> 
> Training with people who will use these techniques against me will help me make my wing chun better. No doubt!
> 
> Incorporating these techniques into my wing chun? The jury is out.


This is something I've worked with, and I've found that the best way to deal with them is to teach a simple form of them. So, now my students learn strikes I didn't teach in the past, as well as some grappling approaches I used to hold for advanced training. Now I teach this stuff much earlier, so they can practice against it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 20, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> That's a whole other argument!
> 
> Training with people who will use these techniques against me will help me make my wing chun better. No doubt!
> 
> Incorporating these techniques into my wing chun? The jury is out.


If you 

- hold your arm straight up, nobody can apply "under hook" on you. 
- rotate your arm the same direction as your opponent's arm is rotating, nobody can apply "over hook" on you.
- ...

What's wrong to add both training into your WC system?


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you
> 
> - hold your arm straight up, nobody can apply "under hook" on you.
> - rotate your arm the same direction as your opponent's arm is rotating, nobody can apply "over hook" on you.
> ...



I don't believe I need to "hold my arm straight up" to avoid underhooks. My application of textbook WC principles (eg staying relaxed to slip the grip, maintaining forward intent to control the distance) has worked pretty well so far.

B'sides, someone might tickle my armpit.


----------



## Cephalopod (Dec 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> This is something I've worked with, and I've found that the best way to deal with them is to teach a simple form of them. So, now my students learn strikes I didn't teach in the past, as well as some grappling approaches I used to hold for advanced training. Now I teach this stuff much earlier, so they can practice against it.


This is fine (not to mention fun) as long as your students realize that dealing with, for example, a Choi Lay Fut circular strike from each other will not be the same as dealing with one from a dedicated CLF practitioner. That's not a slight on your teaching ability, just an acknowledgement of where time is invested.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2017)

Cephalopod said:


> This is fine (not to mention fun) as long as your students realize that dealing with, for example, a Choi Lay Fut circular strike from each other will not be the same as dealing with one from a dedicated CLF practitioner. That's not a slight on your teaching ability, just an acknowledgement of where time is invested.


Agreed. The point is to get them something better than what they were doing. We didn't used to teach round punches (hooks/haymakers/etc.) as part of our curriculum. Yet we need to train against that. I actually like using them at times, and if they learn to use them, they give much better attacks. If I want them to experience working against a hook from a moderately trained boxer, I need a moderately trained boxer for that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I don't think we actually disagree on this. The physical curriculum is not the entirety of the art. And even that part can't be transmitted error-free. So, let's say you manage to replicate your instructor's forms and physical techniques 95%. If you try to teach exactly what he taught, there will be a 5% degradation. On top of that, there's the transmission of ideas and understanding, which will be less complete/exact than the physical techniques. If you only transmit exactly the information and understanding you got from him, there would be further degradation.
> 
> Of course, you wouldn't do that. You'd teach the physical curriculum as best you could, including where you've found ways that worked better for you than your sifu taught (which, in some cases, will be things you just didn't get from him, though he did them, too). You'd also pass along the best understanding you could, rather than just the bits you got directly from your instructor. That "best you can" is what prevents the degradation.


Yes and this is why I always say that nothing taught today is exactly as it was in the past.  Simply teaching from one generation to the next causes things to change,  because no student is exactly like his teacher, nobody understands it exactly like someone else.  So even tho the intention might be to keep it the same, it will change.  But that does not need to mean it degrades.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 20, 2017)

How would ancient WC people deal with "foot sweep" and "double legs"? When a WC guy stands in a narrow inward horse stance, his heel is exposed to his opponent. His opponent doesn't need to re-position the back foot position, he can sweep the WC guy's ankle with 1 move (sweep) instead of 2 moves (re-position back foot, sweep). Also since the narrow stance, it gives your opponent a great chance for "double legs".

From the way that WC inward narrow horse stance was designed, the WC founder didn't not consider the weakness of that stance in enough detail. This weakness might not be a problem in the southern part of China (not many people used foot sweep and double legs in Canton, China). It's a problem in the 21th century today.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 20, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How would ancient WC people deal with "foot sweep" and "double legs"? When a WC guy stands in a narrow inward horse stance, his heel is exposed to his opponent. His opponent doesn't need to re-position the back foot position, he can sweep the WC guy's ankle with 1 move (sweep) instead of 2 moves (re-position back foot, sweep). Also since the narrow stance, it gives your opponent a great chance for "double legs".
> 
> From the way that WC inward narrow horse stance was designed, the WC founder didn't not consider the weakness of that stance in enough detail. This weakness might not be a problem in the southern part of China (not many people used foot sweep and double legs in Canton, China). It's a problem in the 21th century today.



The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 21, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> @obi_juan_salami you might want to contact Sergio Iadarola. I think he did alot of research regarding the roots of Wing Chun and have a great understanding of the several lineages and systems of Wing Chun



Thanks for that. I am familiar with sergios work. His approach to both wing chun itself and the history of it is different and i dont really agree with either. But each to their own i guess. Seems to work for him and has made him a success.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 21, 2017)

Malos1979 said:


> Well you are always able to not agree with him, but fact remain that he sat down and trained  with masters of the art in the place of birth of these styles, so the guy did his research and collected plenty of facts.



Thats his experience and im not saying his wrong. I just dont agree in the origins he believes to have pieced together. I dont know the people he spoke to or trained with on a personal level. 

Id much rather base my belief on the history passed to me by my teachers, one of which was a student of sum nung, and my own research.


----------



## Headhunter (Dec 21, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.


You think no other fighter who gets taken down in either wrestling or fighting doesn't have the same idea to move?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 21, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.



Yup. 

...and there is this really cool concept called striking.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 21, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.


I'm not talking about footwork. I'm talking about stance. Any stance that your opponent can get both of your legs at the same time is too risky. This was not a concern in the ancient China (wrestling was not involved). It's a valid concern today (wrestling, Judo, MMA are involved).

Old saying said, "Get both legs if you can (double legs). Otherwise get one leg (single leg) first and get the other leg (inner hook) afterward." The wider that your stance is, the lower that your hands can protect your legs.


----------



## DanT (Dec 21, 2017)

I don't care if it comes from mars, if it works, it works. People don't fight the same today the way they did 200 years ago. My Wing Chun is evolved. Some people want to stick to using Paleolithic Wing Chun, then that's fine for them, not for me.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 21, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> I mean like if you master Wing Chun and then decide to master Taekwondo then feel free to combine it but if your gunna teach Wing Chun then by all means teach Wing Chun as the combination wouldn't suit everyone and if someone wants to learn wing chun then that's all they wanna learn.
> 
> Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk



You do sort of have a duty to teach a system that works though.

I mean if someone was just cleaning house martial arts wise and then not teaching what got them to to be able to do that. I would be pretty upset.

And so if they are doing some modified chun that works. But teaching the in modified version. That isn't cool.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 21, 2017)

drop bear said:


> You do sort of have a duty to teach a system that works though.
> 
> I mean if someone was just cleaning house martial arts wise and then not teaching what got them to to be able to do that. I would be pretty upset.


Why? I could be an amazing martial artist but never teach a day in my life. I'd agree that if I'm teaching, I should teach what works, not what doesn't, but I would never have a general duty to teach no matter how good I become.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 21, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Why? I could be an amazing martial artist but never teach a day in my life. I'd agree that if I'm teaching, I should teach what works, not what doesn't, but I would never have a general duty to teach no matter how good I become.



If you teach.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 21, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.



If you are integrating a new method in to your system. 

It has to have accountability.

So if I did go to China and became fascinated with Wushu. I would still have to take it back home and laboratory test it to decide if it word and is appropriate.

So if for example you think mobile footwork defeats takedowns. You have to defeat takedowns with it. Don't get caught up with the mouthboxing. 

Because that is where changing techniques becomes the issue you think it is.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 21, 2017)

obi_juan_salami said:


> The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.


The footwork is a 2 edges sword. When you apply "forward pressure", you move into your opponent. Your forward movement can be a bonus for your opponent because he doesn't have to move forward too much. Your close the distance will become his close the distance. The issue is whether your hands can protect your legs in your high and narrow WC stance.

Example can be seen at 0.32 of this clip. You want your opponent's head. Your opponent wants your legs.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 21, 2017)

drop bear said:


> If you teach.


Ok. So don't teach bad stuff if you know better stuff?


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 21, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The issue is whether your hands can protect your legs in your high and narrow WC stance.]



Just FYI, WC has more stances than just this "high and narrow stance"...
 Stability THEN mobility. Transitioning as one needs them.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Dec 21, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Just FYI, WC has more stances than just this "high and narrow stance"...
> Stability THEN mobility. Transitioning as one needs them.



Im glad someone gets it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 21, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Just FYI, WC has more stances than just this "high and narrow stance"...


What stances?

1. horse stance?
2. 3-7 stance?
3. 4-6 stance?
4. bow arrow stance?
5. empty stance?
6. twisting stance?
7. golden rooster stance?
8. striking tiger stance?
9. monkey stance?
10. 7 stars stance?
11. ...

Can you put up a clip to show it?


----------



## drop bear (Dec 21, 2017)

kempodisciple said:


> Ok. So don't teach bad stuff if you know better stuff?



Yep.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 21, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What stances?
> 
> 1. horse stance?
> 2. 3-7 stance?
> ...



I'm not familiar with most of the names you posted...but if you post pics of them I could comment better... thx.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 21, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> I'm not familiar with most of the names you posted...but if you post pics of them I could comment better... thx.


1. horse stance - 50%-50% weight distribution. It's used for hip throw.







2. 3-7 stance - 30%-70% weight distribution. It's used in the XingYi system.






3. 4-6 stance - 40%-60% weight distribution. Most common wrestling stance.






4. bow arrow stance - 70%-30% weight distribution. It's used in Karate punch.






5. empty stance - 0%-100% weight distribution. It's used to avoid foot sweep.






6. twisting stance - 60%-30% weight distribution. It's used for stealing step and covering step.






7. golden rooster stance - 0%-100% weight distribution. It's used for single leg standing.






8. striking tiger stance - 20%-80% weight distribution. It's used for dodging a kick.






9. monkey stance - 80%-20% weight distribution. It's used in forward advance.






10. 7 stars stance - 30%-70% weight distribution. It's used for shin bite.


----------



## TMA17 (Dec 22, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The footwork is a 2 edges sword. When you apply "forward pressure", you move into your opponent. Your forward movement can be a bonus for your opponent because he doesn't have to move forward too much. Your close the distance will become his close the distance. The issue is whether your hands can protect your legs in your high and narrow WC stance.
> 
> Example can be seen at 0.32 of this clip. You want your opponent's head. Your opponent wants your legs.


 
Master Wong is right.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 22, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> 1. horse stance - 50%-50% weight distribution. It's used for hip throw.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When you list the percentages, is the first number corresponding to the person's rear leg and second number their lead leg?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 22, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'm not talking about footwork. I'm talking about stance. Any stance that your opponent can get both of your legs at the same time is too risky. This was not a concern in the ancient China (wrestling was not involved). It's a valid concern today (wrestling, Judo, MMA are involved).
> 
> Old saying said, "Get both legs if you can (double legs). Otherwise get one leg (single leg) first and get the other leg (inner hook) afterward." The wider that your stance is, the lower that your hands can protect your legs.


Well no.  Wrestling has been a part of combat since the dawn of humanity.  Chinese Wrestling has been documented back a long long time, as a methodolgy.

Do you really believe that wing chun people from a couple hundred years ago never encountered wrestling, and had absolutely no idea how to deal with it?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 22, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> When you list the percentages, is the first number corresponding to the person's rear leg and second number their lead leg?


leading leg - 1st number.
back leg - 2nd number.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 22, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Do you really believe that wing chun people from a couple hundred years ago never encountered wrestling, and had absolutely no idea how to deal with it?


Chinese wrestling is popular in the north part of China. It's not popular in the southern part of China. It's trained by the Chinese Muslim people around the area of Beijing, Tijing, Baoding in Heibei province, and Mongolian. There are Yi Chinese minority that train in the GuanXi province. As far as the WC original, the Guangdong province, Chinese history has never recorded any Chinese wrestling was taught there.

Here is the Yi Chinese minority wrestling.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 22, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Chinese wrestling is popular in the north part of China. It's not popular in the southern part of China. It's trained by the Chinese Muslim people around the area of Beijing, Tijing, Baoding in Heibei province, and Mongolian. There are Yi Chinese minority that train in the GuanXi province. As far as the WC original, the Guangdong province, Chinese history has never recorded any Chinese wrestling was taught there.
> 
> Here is the Yi Chinese minority wrestling.


No no no.  Wrestling of some sort is one of the most intuitive methods of combat, and I will never believe that Southern Chinese never wrestled.  All people across history have had some sort of wrestling/grappling.  All.


----------



## wckf92 (Dec 22, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What stances?
> 
> 1. horse stance?
> 2. 3-7 stance?
> ...





Kung Fu Wang said:


> leading leg - 1st number.
> back leg - 2nd number.




Ok, thanks. So, to get back to your original observation then...you seem to think that WC only uses that goofy knock-kneed posture. Then you asked "what stances"? 
From your list, there are several stances that WC has. I.e. #1, #2, #4, etc. 
Whether one uses them or not is up to the circumstances I suppose. But, there are other stances in the WC system other than the usual "restraining a goat"


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> No no no.  Wrestling of some sort is one of the most intuitive methods of combat, and I will never believe that Southern Chinese never wrestled.  All people across history have had some sort of wrestling/grappling.  All.


I'd have to agree with that. There may not have been a formal system, but I find it impossible to conceive that they would simply never have wrestled, as a people. And it seems likely there was some "formal" training in it, perhaps not widespread, of which there is no record that survives to today.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 23, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Well no.  Wrestling has been a part of combat since the dawn of humanity.  Chinese Wrestling has been documented back a long long time, as a methodolgy.
> 
> Do you really believe that wing chun people from a couple hundred years ago never encountered wrestling, and had absolutely no idea how to deal with it?



Kind of seems that way.


----------



## geezer (Dec 23, 2017)

drop bear said:


> Kind of seems that way.



Heck, I don't know about what WC would have looked like a couple of centuries ago. But it sure _seems that way _if you look at the WC of the 1970s and early 1980s, before BJJ and MMA burst onto the scene.

By the 1990s WC was at least acknowledging the grappling issue by trying to developing "anti-grappling," ....and now many WC/VT/WT groups have moved beyond such half-baked attempts, and have realized that the _only_ way to deal with a grappler is to train real grappling. Even the EWTO has brought in renowned grapplers for those who want to learn that. 

That said, there are a lot of really change-resistant people out there in the WC world. And as long as we don't have a venue for "pressure testing" what we do, they will hang on to their beliefs.


----------



## geezer (Dec 23, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> No no no.  Wrestling of some sort is one of the most intuitive methods of combat, and I will never believe that Southern Chinese never wrestled.  All people across history have had some sort of wrestling/grappling.  All.



Yes, but wrestling is really popular in some cultures, and on the other hand is looked down upon and held in disrepute in others. It could well be that southern China in the 19th and early 20th century was such a place. If Chinese boxing was respected and wrestling looked down upon, then boxers wouldn't much concern themselves with wrestlers.

Sort of like my old uncle John who died several years back. Growing up in the U.S.  '20s and '30s, he believed that real men fought like boxers. You used your fists, no low blows, no take-downs, and definitely, no kicks. Anyone who _kicked_ was nothing but a low-life, or worse, a Frenchman .

Needless to say, he disapproved strongly of my interest in Wing Chun. He couldn't understand why I'd want to study that damn _ka-rotty_ when he and his buddies went to war to beat _the Japs_.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 23, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Wrestling has been a part of combat since the dawn of humanity.


How many rounds does a MA guy

- spar?
- wrestle?
- spar and wrestle (like Sanda, or MMA)?

If you don't

- spar, you can't develop your striking skill.
- wrestle, you can't develop your wrestling skill.

Many WC, long fist, preying mantis, Baji, ... guys claim their MA system has wrestling. But if they don't wrestle, how can they develop their wrestling skill?


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 23, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> How many rounds does a MA guy
> 
> - spar?
> - wrestle?
> ...


What are you going on about??


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 23, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> What are you going on about??


You can drill the hip throw 10,000 times with your training partner. It doesn't mean that you will be able to pull it out on the wrestling mat. What you can do on the wrestling mat is your true wrestling skill. It has nothing to do with whether your MA system has wrestling element in it or not.

There are difference among MA systems that

1. has wrestling and wrestle.
2. has wrestling but doesn't wrestle.
3. doesn't have wrestling.

IMO, 1 > 2 > 3


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 24, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can drill the hip throw 10,000 times with your training partner. It doesn't mean that you will be able to pull it out on the wrestling mat. What you can do on the wrestling mat is your true wrestling skill. It has nothing to do with whether your MA system has wrestling element in it or not.
> 
> There are difference among MA systems that
> 
> ...


What does this have to do with anything I was saying?

I simply hold that some form of wrestling has existed in all cultures across time, since the dawn of humanity.  Whether that wrestling was formalized or not, whether it was seen as low-culture or not.  It has always been there in some form.


----------



## geezer (Dec 25, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> What does this have to do with anything I was saying?
> 
> I simply hold that some form of wrestling has existed in all cultures across time, since the dawn of humanity.  Whether that wrestling was formalized or not, whether it was seen as low-culture or not.  It has always been there in some form.



True enough ....which is why I was shocked when they were going to drop wrestling from the Olympics a few years back. IMO running and wrestling in some form or another are probably the most universal competitive activities of the human species. Compared with these, all other sports, no matter how enjoyable, seem contrived.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 26, 2017)

ipmann97 said:


> Do you ever feel as if the Wing Chun we Learn today isn't original?





ipmann97 said:


> I've been learning wing chun for 5 years and I feel as if it has been changed to much from it's origins



Bit of a bit peeve of mine here. The question of whether WC as taught today is or is not the same as "original" WC is not a matter of feelings. It's a factual assertion and factual assertions should be evaluated by looking at the available evidence and using reasoning to evaluate said evidence. "Feelings" aren't relevant to the question of what the facts are.

That comment is primarily about the post title. Once you've determined that WC has evolved over the years, you're entitled to feel whatever you like about that fact.



ipmann97 said:


> Very true and it's a shame that we can't go back to pure origins



From an historical research perspective that would be interesting. Not necessarily from a functionality perspective. I can tell you for a fact that Helio Gracie's BJJ knowledge and skill were not on the level of today's top practitioners and teachers. I suspect the same may apply in other arts as well.



ipmann97 said:


> And I'd like to learn the original Wing Chun. Like imagine learning Wing Chun from Ng Mui.



From what I can tell, Ng Mui probably never existed (except as a literary figure) and probably wasn't the creator of WC if she did exist.



Headhunter said:


> Just because they founded it or whatever doesn't mean they're better teachers than the people of today.



Yep. See my note above regarding Helio Gracie.



obi_juan_salami said:


> People in our history may have channged things but this is over a period of over 300 years. With people actually using it in challenge fights and battles mutiple tomes in a single lifetime (unlike today).



I'm not so sure about that. The rise of modern MMA (and its immediate predecessors, such as Vale Tudo, and relatives, such as Dog Brothers gatherings) means that we have many fighters who have dozens (or in rare cases even hundreds) of well-documented professional fights against tough, well-trained opponents with different martial arts backgrounds from around the world under different conditions. We have video footage of thousands of these matches and that footage is studied intensely by many martial artists looking to improve their game. We also have video available of thousands of non-professional violent street encounters.

In contrast, the challenge match experience of a martial artist from a couple of centuries ago was typically with whoever was available locally, was not documented by objective witnesses (let alone video) and was often exaggerated greatly for marketing purposes over the years.




Kung Fu Wang said:


> You are not throwing away anything when your WC also contain hook, uppercut, side kick, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount, ...
> 
> WC + hook, uppercut, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount > WC



Eh, maybe, maybe not. If you just pile on additional techniques without a coherent set of organizing principles I don't think you do much to improve your fighting ability. You may even make yourself less effective.



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Jacket wrestling + no jacket wrestling > jacket wrestling
> Jacket wrestling + no jacket wrestling > no jacket wrestling
> Jacket wrestling + kick/punch > jacket wrestling
> No jacket wrestling + kick/punch > no jacket wrestling



Here I agree. (Assuming you are talking about overall combative ability and not just performance in one specific scenario.) My experience is that grappling arts such as Judo, BJJ, Sombo, Wrestling, MMA grappling (and I presume Shuai Jiao from the looks of it) all are based on the same underlying set of principles. The differences in application are just contextual and cultural.



gpseymour said:


> Then you have to add the issue of incomplete transmission. No instructor will ever transmit absolutely 100% of his knowledge about WC (or any art). It's simply impossible with human communication. That means there's a built-in degradation at each generation. If those generations do not add any improvements to what they learned, they are transmitting less than their instructor did. If they make improvements, they may transmit as much as their instructor (or even more, if the improvements are especially good).





Flying Crane said:


> i dont agree with this. You are assuming that a person needs to be taught everything, that all knowledge and skill must come directly from the sifu.
> 
> One thing my sifu has said is that he cannot teach us everything. For some things he can only get us close, and it is up to us to make the final leap and grasp the understanding. Some things just cannot be described and explained perfectly.
> 
> ...



Michael, I think you and Gerry are saying the same thing using different verbiage. Since an instructor cannot transmit 100% of his/her experience to a student, each generation of students must bring their own hard-earned discoveries and experiences to the table in order to keep the art from degrading over time.





Flying Crane said:


> Well no.  Wrestling has been a part of combat since the dawn of humanity.  Chinese Wrestling has been documented back a long long time, as a methodolgy.
> 
> Do you really believe that wing chun people from a couple hundred years ago never encountered wrestling, and had absolutely no idea how to deal with it?





Flying Crane said:


> No no no.  Wrestling of some sort is one of the most intuitive methods of combat, and I will never believe that Southern Chinese never wrestled.  All people across history have had some sort of wrestling/grappling.  All.



I'm sure there was some sort of wrestling in Southern China during the time WC was being developed. However if it wasn't culturally valued it may have been at a much lower level (technically) than wrestling in other parts of the world. If we have no records of its existence, than I suspect that may be the case.


----------



## talktalk (Jan 8, 2018)

Why there’s a need for original? Is that important? I mean any movements you do must be effective don’t care about this or that ... simply add something to make it becomes complicated and less effective and you know that real situation is disarm as quick as possible .. to be less is works that I mean that true art


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

