# Wooden Dummy Question



## Xue Sheng (Jun 8, 2009)

I will admit right here and now the furthest I ever got in Wing Chun was Sil Lim Tao, and sadly with my limited time these days I no longer train that, but one of the things that got into Wing Chun in the first place was the wooden dummy form. I was just reading another post that mentioned the wooden dummy and I was wondering at what point does one learn the wooden dummy forms in Wing Chun? Do you need to know all three of the main forms first or does it come sooner?

I am not going back to Wing Chun, I still do not have the time, I am simply curious. 

I&#8217;m not sure if this makes a difference or not as to when the wooden dummy form is taught but just in case I should mention that my Sifu&#8217;s teacher was Ip Ching


----------



## Tensei85 (Jun 8, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> I will admit right here and now the furthest I ever got in Wing Chun was Sil Lim Tao, and sadly with my limited time these days I no longer train that, but one of the things that got into Wing Chun in the first place was the wooden dummy form. I was just reading another post that mentioned the wooden dummy and I was wondering at what point does one learn the wooden dummy forms in Wing Chun? Do you need to know all three of the main forms first or does it come sooner?
> 
> I am not going back to Wing Chun, I still do not have the time, I am simply curious.
> 
> Im not sure if this makes a difference or not as to when the wooden dummy form is taught but just in case I should mention that my Sifus teacher was Ip Ching



Hey Xue,

From my line: We started the student with dummy training soon after SNT to train the San Sau techniques. But we didn't incorporate the Muk Yan Jong form til after the completion of either Cham Kiu or Biu Ji. To make a long story short I think the methods vary based on the Sifu and how he tailors the curriculum to meet his standards. (so it varies)

On a side note: certain lineages of 7 star praying mantis also incorporate muk jong training as well. (more san sau based)


----------



## geezer (Jun 8, 2009)

Xue Sheng said:


> I was wondering at what point does one learn the wooden dummy forms in Wing Chun? Do you need to know all three of the main forms first or does it come sooner?



In my branch, (WT) the normal progression is Siu Nim Tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Tze, the Mook Yang Jong set, then the Long Pole, and finally the Bart Cham Dao set.

Actually, that isn't a lot of material compared to what many folks train. I was checking out the postings on a thread asking about what forms you know? I was astounded at how much some people take on. I certainly do not have the physical or mental gifts to ever attempt to learn so many forms... not by  a long shot. A while back I read one of your posts, Xue, discussing your decision to scale back your training so you could really focus on what was important to you. That post showed a lot of wisdom IMHO.

So, getting back to your question, _normally_ a good Wing Chun/Tsun instructor would not teach the dummy set in the first five years of training. Many do teach drills to practice on the dummy, but usually the full set is kept for later. Of course, as you know so well, many folks pick up the outward aspects of the set from books and videos and falsely claim mastery. These guys will gladly "teach" (or more accurately, "rip-off") anyone with money. 

Note that when I said that people can pick up the outward aspects of the form, I do not mean to imply that there is a secret or hidden mystical side to this form. It's just that the important things in the form are subtle and take time to develop. They can't be learned quickly from videos, even by an accomplished kung-fu practitioner.

On the other hand Xue, remember that this is the _normal_ progression. If you are interested in understanding more about the dummy, you have a great deal of experience and knowledge that might open doors for you.


----------



## mook jong man (Jun 8, 2009)

Who knows these days , it seems to be anything goes in some places.
I think some unscrupulous schools probably teach it very early because they recognise that people have seen it in some movies and may only join up so that they can play around on the exotic wooden dummy .

 They think you get on it and smash it around like they do in the movies and break the arms off lol.

In our lineage it was taught very late and you only learnt the first half of the form at first. If I remember correctly it was sometime after I had started learning Bil Jee. Basically I think it went Sil Lum Tao , Chum Kiu , Bil Jee and wooden dummy , then weapons.

Supposedly all the different concepts and theories practiced in the three empty hand forms , merge together and are honed on the dummy.
So I would say that it would probably be better to have a rudimentary understanding of the empty hand forms before using the dummy.

But I wouldn't say it was absolutely crucial , a lot of the time in a class you will have odd numbers , so I used to give the odd person out something to do on the dummy and sometimes they would pick up bits and pieces of the form that way.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 8, 2009)

geezer said:


> In my branch, (WT) the normal progression is Siu Nim Tau, Chum Kiu, Biu Tze, the Mook Yang Jong set, then the Long Pole, and finally the Bart Cham Dao set.
> 
> Actually, that isn't a lot of material compared to what many folks train. I was checking out the postings on a thread asking about what forms you know? I was astounded at how much some people take on. I certainly do not have the physical or mental gifts to ever attempt to learn so many forms... not by a long shot. A while back I read one of your posts, Xue, discussing your decision to scale back your training so you could really focus on what was important to you. That post showed a lot of wisdom IMHO.
> 
> ...


 
I may return to it someday when and if I have time and if my Taiji Sifu ever retires and moves to California as he threatens to do from time to time. I always felt that the wooden dummy would be a good part of any training if for no other reason to toughen up the arms for actual blocks. But then Wing Chun has a lot of these drills with out that which will toughen up the arms and I have had the painful wrists and arms to prove it :EG:. 

If I remember correctly my Sifu taught (and I do not know the progression) the 3 empty had forms, wooden dummy form, staff and the butterfly knives but I am not sure if there was more or not since I was never there long enough to get past Sil Lim Tao, and I tried more than once.

I really like wing Chun and I do feel there is a lot more to it than it is given credit for and if my Taiji Sifu were not here it is likely that is what I would be training today but serious training takes time and I have little of that these days.


----------



## profesormental (Jun 9, 2009)

Greetings.

It's the 3 empty hand forms, the dummy, pole and knives.

Some people teach SLT, CK, half the mook jong form, BJ, the second half of the mook jong form, pole and knives.

I think you can learn the pole before that just for the strengthening and explosiveness it can build.

The Mook jong training has many subtleties that can rarely be understood without serious work on the empty hand forms and thier teachings.

Even doing the void dummy form (without dummy), there is a lot that can be learned and taught from it.

Hope that helps.

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## geezer (Jun 9, 2009)

profesormental said:


> I think you can learn the pole before that just for the strengthening and explosiveness it can build.



In the WT system, the pole is taught after the dummy... which means waiting for many years (although some pole exercises may be taught earlier). A couple of WC guys whose opinions I respect said the same thing as you. Now, after finally having learned the form, I find that agree with you too.

 I suspect that holding it back so long in WT is done for other reasons. In part for _money_. But also, just as a reward for those who stick with it. Either way, it is a big step from just learning the form to becoming proficient with the pole. I say that as one who has a long way to go yet.


----------



## yak sao (Jun 9, 2009)

My si-fu said he had heard that Yip Man would say that if his students knew the SNT, CK and dummy they should never lose a fight. Is this to say then that Yip Man's students learned the dummy before the Biu Tse form?
Coming from a WT lineage I had it programmed in my head SNT,CK, BT,Dummy, Pole and then knives. Now seeing the material as a whole (except the stinking knives!!!!I'll never learn them, who am I kidding?????)
I'm thinking more along the lines of teaching the pole after CK to develop more strength and stamina and explosiveness in the student. Then dummy and then BT. Any thoughts on this or is it simply 6 of one and half a dozen of the other?


----------



## geezer (Jun 9, 2009)

yak sao said:


> Coming from a *WT lineage* I had it programmed in my head SNT,CK, BT,Dummy, Pole and then knives. Now seeing the material as a whole (except the stinking knives!!!!I'll never learn them, who am I kidding?????)
> I'm thinking more along the lines of teaching the pole after CK to develop more strength and stamina and explosiveness in the student. Then dummy and then BT. *Any thoughts on this* or is it simply 6 of one and half a dozen of the other?



Thoughts? Absolutely. I'm finding out that_ the WT progression is very logical_. The order in which the forms are trained not only makes sense in terms of structure and technique, but also in terms of sequentially conditioning your body, from the bridges to the core. Skipping ahead can have harmful consequences. My own impatience has been rewarded with chronic tendonitis and other issues. The problem is that in the IWTA-NAS the training has become excessively prolonged and expensive... to the point where students become understandably suspicious.



yak sao said:


> (except the stinking knives!!!!I'll never learn them, who am I kidding?????)



Boy do I hear ya! I came to the same sad conclusion. Talk about stretching out the training! I had been a personal student of LT for about 12 years and hadn't done any of the weapons, except some exercises, when I dropped out in the early 90's. I really gave up on ever getting the WT version of the advanced stuff, and that was a real disappointment. But now I belong to a new WT association and things are very different. My training is progressing again... and my instructor is very generous in sharing his knowledge. You might want to PM me.


----------



## yak sao (Jun 10, 2009)

[ 


Boy do I hear ya! I came to the same sad conclusion. Talk about stretching out the training! I had been a personal student of LT for about 12 years and hadn't done any of the weapons, except some exercises, when I dropped out in the early 90's. I really gave up on ever getting the WT version of the advanced stuff, and that was a real disappointment. But now I belong to a new WT association and things are very different. My training is progressing again... and my instructor is very generous in sharing his knowledge. You might want to PM me.[/quote]


Were these exercises the pole lifting, etc?


----------



## yak sao (Jun 10, 2009)

Does Jeff Webb follow the old cirriculum pretty closely?


----------



## yak sao (Jun 10, 2009)

I think that's why I'm looking to teach the material in a differnt order.
The WT material is stretched out so ridiculously long that by the time you get to the weapons you're too old to lift the damn things.

I didn't want to perpetuate that on my guys. But at the same time I do think the material is logically presented, so the answer must be to teach it in a more reasonable timely manner.


----------



## geezer (Jun 10, 2009)

yak sao said:


> Were these exercises the pole lifting, etc?



Exactly. And also some training movements with the knives, very rudimentary stuff. Not sufficient for any real self-defense applications. I'd have to fall back on Escrima if I ever had to save my butt.

You know, people tell me that LT's reluctance to teach WT's weapons sets early on is precisely why Keith Kernspecht originally began offering Escrima training along with WT in Europe.

I got into Escrima separately with Rene Latosa here in the States. It was just something I wanted to do. Now I'm working with Martin Torres. Its all good stuff.


----------



## geezer (Jun 10, 2009)

yak sao said:


> Does Jeff Webb follow the old cirriculum pretty closely?



He trained with LT here and also with Master Kernspecht and others in Europe. His approach is influenced by the German approach, but probably a bit more flexible (I've never trained in Europe). Also, because he's trained here, in Europe and in Hong Kong, he's really got a wide breadth of materials, and somehow is able to retain it all! It's wierd how some people have certain abilities. My wife for example can remember complex musical arrangements in her head, on one hearing. I've been told that  this ability is not especially rare among musicians, but I could never do it. Sifu Jeff has a similar ability to remember WT sequences. And more importantly, he really understands what's behind them.

You know, Yak, maybe you should ask _him_ these questions. Google Austin Wing Tsun and shoot him an email or call him. He's pretty open and easy to talk to.


----------



## profesormental (Jun 11, 2009)

Greetings.

The progression that was taught, and is still taught in many place, even in the official VTAA curriculum is to divide the dummy form into 2 parts, teach one half first, then BJ, then the second half.

With good training in SLT, CK and good Chi Sao training, including the explicit integration of Chi Sao into San Da/Self Defense situations, yes, many names should be taken and asses kicked.

The pole form and knives are to many the icing on the cake to symbolize transmission, yet they are what they are... simple collections of fundamental drills that you practice many times to get ridiculous strength without looking like you have it.

My 6 1/2 pt. pole training is simple, practice the form a few times, then practice each step of the form 10 to 25 times while doing Qi Gong (which consists of me swearing loudly, huffing and puffing and saying "DAMN, this pole is getting heavy!!"). Sorta like "Ok... biu Kwun. step back to previous position. Biu kwun...." etc. Again with Pak kwun, bong kwun, jut kwun, tie kwun, huen kwun, etc.

The partner drills are simple applications and controlling the distance to your advantage. Same for the knives.

The knives I just go through the form and make sure that the added weight doesn't affect my structure. While the knives have interesting applications because of the anatomy of the weapon, fencing with them in real life would be a big no-no for legal reasons. So in this I have mixed feelings.

Yet it is another story.

Going back to the topic at hand, the dummy introduces more sequences of movements taht can have a lot more application to fighting than SLT and CK. Yet in SLT and CK you learn HOW to do your movements in a way that makes your strikes and defenses strong. The dummy is a way to perfect this performance learned in the forms and apply it.

Again, without the learnings of SLT and CK, the dummy form is virtually a dance routine, not a training and leaning vehicle.

Juan M. Mercado


----------



## geezer (Jun 11, 2009)

profesormental said:


> Again, without the learnings of SLT and CK, the dummy form is virtually a dance routine, not a training and learning vehicle.
> 
> Juan M. Mercado



(I just thought this was worth repeating).


----------



## KPM (Mar 10, 2017)

Many many years ago I built a dummy.  I  built the trunk with the help of a friend that had his own woodshop.  We cut the edges of boards on his tablesaw so that that fit together in an octagon shape for the trunk.  Then glued them and used belt clamps until the glue dried.  Then I took a "draw-knife" and stripped all the edges off of the octagon to start making it round.  When I had it close, then I took a power sander and finished it off to make it perfectly rounded.

The arms were a different story.  I didn't have access to my friend's woodshop at that point.   For these I took 4 x 4's and cut them to the length I wanted.  Then I traced out the pattern of the arm on the 4 x 4 section.  I then took a handsaw and started cutting downward from the end to make the squared off back of the arm.  Then I cut downward with the handsaw from the other end at more of an angle to start shaping the front of the arm.  Then I took a wood rasp and sandpaper spent hours shaping the front part of the arm to what I wanted it to be.  The back part of the arms are somewhat uneven and ugly, but it doesn't matter because they don't show anyway.  The front part of the arms that project forward from the trunk turned out very well.  I like them because they are not perfectly round like arms turned on a lathe.  I left them with a little bit of a "squared" effect. 

It was a lot of work, and the more power tools you can use the better!


----------



## wingerjim (Mar 10, 2017)

Xue Sheng said:


> I will admit right here and now the furthest I ever got in Wing Chun was Sil Lim Tao, and sadly with my limited time these days I no longer train that, but one of the things that got into Wing Chun in the first place was the wooden dummy form. I was just reading another post that mentioned the wooden dummy and I was wondering at what point does one learn the wooden dummy forms in Wing Chun? Do you need to know all three of the main forms first or does it come sooner?
> 
> I am not going back to Wing Chun, I still do not have the time, I am simply curious.
> 
> I&#8217;m not sure if this makes a difference or not as to when the wooden dummy form is taught but just in case I should mention that my Sifu&#8217;s teacher was Ip Ching


Great question Xue Sheng. With your limited knowledge of Wing Chun having only learned the first form, the wooden dummy cannot help you further your knowledge of Wing Chun very much. We start our students on the dummy from day 1, but with very simple movements, not even any subset, but a sub set of a sub set. Much like if the dummy form were a paragraph and the subset a sentence and the sentence made up of words, we teach our students words only until they have shown they can perform Sil Lim Tao, single arm, and Lap Sau. The main point of the dummy form is to be your teacher when your teacher is not present or training you. It teaches you correct position, energy, footwork, center line, arm position, stance and movement while engaging a physical object. Now having said that, the dummy is not useless to someone without a teacher, but you will not be advancing in WC just because you obtain a dummy with little to no instruction. Even if you watched videos and read books, you cannot correct the mistakes you make if you do not get feedback from a skilled instructor.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 11, 2017)

So, some "unscrupulous" people teach it straight away so their students won't get bored with their instruction, others seem to want string it out as long as possible , perhaps to keep students coming back and paying dues for as extended a period as possible. You can't win. TCMA pedagogy, a contradiction in terms.

At my instructor's academy, the dummy is taught in regular seminars. All grades can attend. You're usually getting pretty competent with it around the same time you're getting decent at Bil Jee.

I don't buy the "you have to learn it in a specific order, if you are shown anything too early it's going to damage you irreparably" credo myself. If you're not ready for it, it'll go right over your head, but it won't really do you any harm. Any student with half a brain can recognise if material is a bit too advanced for him, he can pick it up again later.


----------



## Jut (Mar 23, 2017)

I teach CK concepts from day one, so I start it between SLT and CK, but sometimes it depends on the student. I will teach a panting puppy that has already purchased a Jong, the closing set early on.. as this move is in all 11 of our sets, and it takes more than a little practice to get it down correctly.
What was passed down to me was, most WC concepts are found in the 1st set. Perhaps this is why Ip taught everyone who reached that point, the first set himself?

As for the 3 forms. Teaching WC today is different than the 60's, and it appears Ip didn't teach Bil Jee to very many students.. as in just a handful. Here is a back story, agree with it or not.  I was around, and active in the MA world at the time Ip Man died. The Bruce Lee phenomenon was getting up steam when he died, and people were just learning who IM was.. then _he_ died a year later. You'd have to be Helen Keller [Google her -lol ] not to know that there was _lots_ of money to be made riding BL's coattails. Behind the scenes, _Who_ was going to be Ip Man's successor, was being hotly debated by many. [still is!]

The Oriental way is, 'stay in the family', but after re-uniting, only _one_ son trained hard, and he hadn't the years and knowledge of others. Another opportunist, a _lo-fan _no less [who wasn't a direct student, but claimed he was] said Ip told _Him _ on his deathbed, that _He was _successor.. and that guy hooked up with Ip's other son.  Then, people began copy-writing names.. WC, VT, WT, VC, etc. [THAT'S why those exist], for their business names.  It became a poo-storm!
Then.. a longtime student living in Australia wrote an open letter to the others, stating that while living with Ip Man, during the last two years of his living in Hong Kong, _He and only he, _was taught the secrets of dim-mak within the 3rd form, and _He _and _only he _was the real successor. Well, all hell broke lose. He was disavowed, with almost everyone claiming he was just a part time student, just mainly hanging around and no one remembered. Especially hostile was the _lo-fan_.

That student in Australia's reply is what I still find interesting. After reproving the _lo-fan _by telling him he was still in diapers when he was training with IM, he claimed no one on the panel knew the 3rd form? He also said if they disputed him to let him know and he would fly out to Hong Kong and kick all their as*es. They didn't reply. [-I have a copy of both the HK reply and his response] He also made an 8mm film of BJ, out of order, that was sent with his last reply. [Although someone put it in order, both can be seen on YT]

Now, today I know at least one person on that panel also knew BJ, as well as another, elsewhere. I just find that comment from the early 70's, fascinating, in that it wasn't disputed. [no, I don't advocate his lineage] Today, anyone can find a third form or a Knife form on YT. This may also be why Ip only made reference to the first two forms, and why a lot of weirdness regarding the 3rd?
Anyway, hope it wasn't boring.  Another cool WC story.
Also, Bruce Lee stated, most of Muk Jong teaching was before Chum Kil.   _'Tiger and the Dragon' -Campbell _


----------



## geezer (Mar 23, 2017)

Jut said:


> ...The Oriental way is, 'stay in the family', but after re-uniting, only _one_ son trained hard, and he hadn't the years and knowledge of others. Another opportunist, a _lo-fan _no less [who wasn't a direct student, but claimed he was] said Ip told _Him _ on his deathbed, that _He was _successor.. and that guy hooked up with Ip's other son.  Then, people began copy-writing names.. WC, VT, WT, VC, etc. [THAT'S why those exist], for their business names.  It became a poo-storm!
> Then.. a longtime student living in Australia wrote an open letter to the others, stating that while living with Ip Man, during the last two years of his living in Hong Kong, _He and only he, _was taught the secrets of dim-mak within the 3rd form, and _He _and _only he _was the real successor. Well, all hell broke lose. He was disavowed, with almost everyone claiming he was just a part time student, just mainly hanging around and no one remembered. Especially hostile was the _lo-fan_.



I also have been involved with VT since that era. Some on here started even earlier. My advice is it's best to leave those old feuds in the past. BTW, I spent over a decade as a disciple of that "lo-fan" and could tell you some stories! But, truth be told, in spite of all that, he had an amazing mastery of VT. And he did learn the conceptual "icing" of the cake directly from GM Ip, even if, by the traditional standards he would not have been considered a "to-dai". Unfortunately, his _public _books and videos are very commercial and filled with a lot of garbage as well some good stuff.

The other Chinese gentleman, then living in Austrailia, also fabricated a lot of wild stories and "new movements" to make his system seem special, but honestly, he has produced some good, respected students and grand-students, some of whom contribute regularly to this forum.

Then there was the  young German/Turkish thug that beat up that guy. I know him too. He eventually became more than just a tough fighter. He developed into a really adept master of his own very practical branch of Ip Man lineage "WT". I last saw him years back at a seminar with my Escrima instructor.  Over dinner after the seminar, he told me he regrets being involved in that whole feud, as well as a later feud with the Gracies and now just focuses on teaching. He also has produced some very good, tough students.

On the other hand, you can find some students of the most universally respected senior disciples of Ip Man who never got it right. Ultimately, it's _what *you *do_ that matters most, not the fame of your sifu, and certainly not these tired old arguments. Let's leave it at that, shall we?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 23, 2017)

Ain't CMA politics grand


----------



## Cephalopod (Mar 23, 2017)

^^^^
I admire your patience, Geez.

With regard to the OP, My sifu taught me the first section of the mook jong not that long after my SLT started getting polished, but the remaining sections were spaced out over many years.

I think that worked well for me as the jong can be used to understand some basic fundamentals but can also be used to work on some pretty hard-to-apply concepts.

As I'm teaching beginners I would find it disingenuous to hold back on the jong for several years. It's such a good tool for illustrating correct distancing, shifting footwork, passing power (etc., etc.,), all things that are needed for off-hand drilling.


----------



## Jut (Mar 23, 2017)

geezer said:


> I also have been involved with VT since that era. Some on here started even earlier. My advice is it's best to leave those old feuds in the past. BTW, I spent over a decade as a disciple of that "lo-fan" and could tell you some stories! But, truth be told, in spite of all that, he had an amazing mastery of VT. And he did learn the conceptual "icing" of the cake directly from GM Ip, even if, by the traditional standards he would not have been considered a "to-dai". Unfortunately, his _public _books and videos are very commercial and filled with a lot of garbage as well some good stuff.
> 
> The other Chinese gentleman, then living in Austrailia, also fabricated a lot of wild stories and "new movements" to make his system seem special, but honestly, he has produced some good, respected students and grand-students, some of whom contribute regularly to this forum.
> 
> ...


It certainly wasn't my intention to either trash nor elevate anyone, my friend. Nor was it to blow wind on the sparks of any past feuds, as you imply. I believe most involved have mellowed and have commented on wishing they had chosen differently. There were two questions asked about 'when' the WM should be introduced in training, and the third form.
I'm sure you would agree, questions such as these almost always end up with "how did Ip do it?" Since his way is the barometer searched for by WC practitioners, I traveled back to a time many here have no knowledge of, or are not aware of, and offered to share my knowledge on these two matters.
I explained when "I" introduce the Jong, and why.. and I explained when Ip Man introduced it in his curriculum.. according to Bruce Lee's [and others] personal experience.
The third form was a very controversial issue [as are the knives] at that time, and today there are quite diverse applications. This part of WC history, where something in particular originated, in this case possibly the third form, is also something, not just myself, but many others find fascinating as well. That part of history that contains the possible origin of the third form lands us in a dark place.
I named no names and spoke of the historical wrestling of who would be Ip's successor, and one happens to be your SiFu. I referred to him correctly, Geezer, as lo-fan, not fully Asian.. not Gwailo, a more derogatory term. I have also heard he is quite knowledgeable. Anyone who studied under Leung Sheung [according to LS] should be. I never mentioned a German, nor any personal feuds.. just a sliver of history, albeit touchy.
Because of your close connection, I think perhaps you took this account a bit too personal. Understood.  My objective was, thru edification, to try and bring a possible understanding/explanation as to why so much extreme diversity on this 3rd form, all taught from the same SiFu?  No feudal kindling meant.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 23, 2017)

Jut said:


> I named no names



I will. William Cheung. My Sigung up until 1995. The other principal mentioned was Leung Ting.

Why pussyfoot around the subject when anyone who's been around more than a year or two knows exactly who you are talking about?

Stories were interesting the first fifteen times I heard them. Less so now, several decades later. He made similar claims decades later at a forum in HK where he and all the usual suspects were physically present, same result.

That no one wanted to fight him over such a claim might mean the rest of them are cowards, or OTOH are too sensible or insufficiently motivated to worry about claims which are basically unverifiable.

Internecine TCMA challenges have become preposterous in the age of MMA.

Every Yip Man lineage has its own highly improbable stories and grandiose claims. As, no doubt, do most of the non-YM lineages.



Jut said:


> I'm sure you would agree, questions such as these almost always end up with "how did Ip do it?" Since his way is the barometer searched for by WC practitioners



I don't agree. YM's been dead for over 40 years. If all the research on motor learning and sports science since hasn't delivered better training methods and curricula, and no student has reached or surpassed YM's capabilities as a teacher, we are a sorry, hero-worshipping lot indeed, and Wing Chun is deservedly destined for obscurity, acrimony, and decay.

We are teaching physical skills, not transmitting dogma. For the first, there will always be room for improvement and evolution. 

His skills as a practitioner are legendary (literally), but IMO not so his teaching. There's no question that he totally flubbed succession planning.


----------



## Jut (Mar 24, 2017)

anerlich said:


> Why pussyfoot around the subject when anyone who's been around more than a year or two knows exactly who you are talking about?


One reason was the subject was not about individuals, it was about what was extracted by your SiFu that struck _me_ as important to the subject being discussed. It's called 'discretion'. While _You_ may not wonder about why all the differences from one teacher, others do.  



anerlich said:


> We are teaching physical skills, not transmitting dogma. For the first, there will always be room for improvement and evolution.


I agree. My thoughts on that were posted in the Question forum, "Does anyone know anything about the _Practical Wing Chun _system?



anerlich said:


> His skills as a practitioner are legendary (literally), but IMO not so his teaching. There's no question that he totally flubbed succession planning.


Your opinion. Cancer can do that.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 24, 2017)

anerlich said:


> I will. William Cheung. My Sigung up until 1995. The other principal mentioned was Leung Ting.
> 
> Why pussyfoot around the subject when anyone who's been around more than a year or two knows exactly who you are talking about?
> 
> ...


----------



## geezer (Mar 24, 2017)

Jut said:


> It certainly wasn't my intention to either trash nor elevate anyone...
> 
> ....I named no names and spoke of the historical wrestling of who would be Ip's successor, and one happens to be your SiFu. I referred to him correctly, Geezer, as lo-fan, not fully Asian...
> 
> Because of your close connection, I think perhaps you took this account a bit too personal. Understood.



No worries Jut. Honestly, I have not trained under my old Sifu since the early 90's, and currently have no connection with him or his organization. A simple correction though. Contrary to common assertions of that period, that "lo han" Leung Ting _is Chinese_. Early on, he did use pictures of himself in his books that might have made him look more Occidental or perhaps South Asian/Indian --possibly as a method to promote himself in the Western market? But if you look at other pictures of him and his brother (Leung Kwoon) or look into his family history, you will learn that this was just another "tall tail" fabricated by his opponents in that contentious era.

Frankly the whole assertion is irrelevant anyway and smacks of racism. Best to drop the whole subject.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 24, 2017)

geezer said:


> Best to drop the whole subject.



Agreed.


----------



## Jut (Mar 25, 2017)

geezer said:


> No worries Jut. Honestly, I have not trained under my old Sifu since the early 90's, and currently have no connection with him or his organization. A simple correction though. Contrary to common assertions of that period, that "lo han" Leung Ting _is Chinese_. Early on, he did use pictures of himself in his books that might have made him look more Occidental or perhaps South Asian/Indian --possibly as a method to promote himself in the Western market? But if you look at other pictures of him and his brother (Leung Kwoon) or look into his family history, you will learn that this was just another "tall tail" fabricated by his opponents in that contentious era.
> 
> Frankly the whole assertion is irrelevant anyway and smacks of racism. Best to drop the whole subject.


Yes.. agreed my friend. Honestly, I believe that feud only exists in the past.
_'My'_ personal quandary is, why such diverse teachings from the same SiFu? At times I found that I can come across as a bull in a China closet.. [pun intended], and with such an edified audience, it is apparent I need to be clearer in where I am going.
I appreciate the inside info on the _lo-fan_ aspect.  I don't want to come across as argumentative.. yet your last sentence is puzzling..


geezer said:


> Frankly the whole assertion is irrelevant anyway and smacks of racism.


That is a naïve or dismissive comment.. as Chinese racism was _very_ much alive at that time.. and IMHO is _still_ alive and well! I experienced it first hand in a famous Hawaiian Hung-gar school, and something my [close] Chinese friends will second, as they couldn't care less about being PC.
Anyway.. regardless. To disagree without being disagreeable, is honorable.. and IS Wing Chun.


----------



## geezer (Mar 25, 2017)

Jut said:


> ... as *Chinese racism was *_*very*_* much alive at that time.*. and IMHO is _still_ alive and well! I experienced it first hand in a famous Hawaiian Hung-gar school, and something my [close] Chinese friends will second, as they couldn't care less about being PC...



J_ut_, I totally agree with your observation that Chinese racism, like American racism, was and still is rampant. And It was not surprising when some WC/VT factions tried to appeal to this kind of racism to discredit my old sifu by saying that he somehow wasn't fully Chinese. And to be honest, my old sifu, being of that generation, was not exempt from such behavior himself. While he did not refer to _us_ (his disciples) as _gweilo _or _pakgwei_, he did use the term occasionally, as well as the term _hakgwei _(roughly equivalent to the "N-word") to refer to blacks.

I found this offensive, and even thought many would say it wasn't my place, I did politely suggest to him that such terms in either English or Cantonese would not be well received in this country. His response was actually pretty positive, and he pointed out that he was rather proud of some of his Black students at the time, such as Ron Van Clief. 

I hope you also have found a chance to share this insight with your Hung Ga friends "who couldn't care less about being PC." I don't care about being PC either, and can also enjoy light-hearted joking among my martial arts friends (who are ethnically very diverse). On the other hand, _if it goes beyond being friendly joking _to truly offensive behavior, I believe you have to speak up, otherwise your silence enables and encourages such behaviors.


----------



## anerlich (Mar 26, 2017)

Jut said:


> To disagree without being disagreeable, ... IS Wing Chun.



My experience on multiple Wing Chun forums indicates the opposite, on percentages


----------



## Jut (Mar 26, 2017)

geezer said:


> J_ut_, I totally agree with your observation that Chinese racism, like American racism, was and still is rampant. And It was not surprising when some WC/VT factions tried to appeal to this kind of racism to discredit my old sifu by saying that he somehow wasn't fully Chinese. And to be honest, my old sifu, being of that generation, was not exempt from such behavior himself. While he did not refer to _us_ (his disciples) as _gweilo _or _pakgwei_, he did use the term occasionally, as well as the term _hakgwei _(roughly equivalent to the "N-word") to refer to blacks.
> 
> I found this offensive, and even thought many would say it wasn't my place, I did politely suggest to him that such terms in either English or Cantonese would not be well received in this country. His response was actually pretty positive, and he pointed out that he was rather proud of some of his Black students at the time, such as Ron Van Clief.
> 
> I hope you also have found a chance to share this insight with your Hung Ga friends "who couldn't care less about being PC." I don't care about being PC either, and can also enjoy light-hearted joking among my martial arts friends (who are ethnically very diverse). On the other hand, _if it goes beyond being friendly joking _to truly offensive behavior, I believe you have to speak up, otherwise your silence enables and encourages such behaviors.


Agreed.  Considering the grief they've had to endure over the last two centuries,  with the Japanese in the Mainland.. treatment from India police in HK, one can _understand_ those views. In spite of this, I don't believe I've ever run into a culture with a more jovial, 'find humor in almost everything' attitude, than the Chinese.
The movie/documentary '_Nanking_' gives much insight into their concerns and prejudices. I highly recommend it, but it is heartbreaking. -Any who do.. carry tissues.
Yes, something done in ignorance or non-malice is quite different than when done to hurt or elevate oneself. Your revealing that negative information to your SiFu was what a good friend would do. Accepting it shows humility, as well. 
Sorry Geezer, I see I wasn't clear about Hawaii. I was alone in Oahu [1973] when I tried to join the Hung-gar school and was denied. I was truly puzzled, because at that time [and many years following] there were many articles about both him and that school. There were many students working out front behind a chain link fence, and when I asked, I was told the teacher wasn't there, _but_ I also understood the snickering and caught '_sei pak gwei' _in one comment. One of the few times I broke my rule.. 'fight only when threatened'. Wont bore you with details other than just a good hit to the sternum. I lived in a bad area and didn't have to run, too far.  hahaha.  

At that time, Hawaii was rife with prejudice, but on the opposite side of the coin, I got to meet and spend some time with a guy who was '_openly_' teaching a new concept he was developing called 'small circle' JJ. There was also a well known Kenpo teacher on the Island, who taught openly. He lamented that his peers were not all in agreement with this openness.
You know, it did seem peculiar Geezer, regarding your old SiFu, that he would be in that arena of 'successor' if that be the case.. especially when considering Ip was maneuvered by irritated students to release Bruce Lee from the school, when they exposed him as part German.  I liked that Ip had a couple seniors continue his limited training.
IMHO, it's quite an honor to have been part of the early promotion of WC outside China.. especially a whole country, like Germany. Your SiFu's training Gainsburg was quite a seed for that area, and a special feather in his hat.

Another note.. I wanted to share something with you that I ran across this AM, on a  topic we discussed earlier but I'm not sure how to PM. Thought you might find it interesting, and wanted your take as well.  Any tips? Thanks


----------



## wingchun100 (May 4, 2017)

In the previous school I went to, it was SLT, CK, dummy, BJ, pole, knives.

The reason he saved BJ for last is because it was considered something only the most "advanced" students learned. He really took that phrase "Biu Jee never goes out the door" to heart.


----------



## DanT (May 4, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> In the previous school I went to, it was SLT, CK, dummy, BJ, pole, knives.
> 
> The reason he saved BJ for last is because it was considered something only the most "advanced" students learned. He really took that phrase "Biu Jee never goes out the door" to heart.


At my old gwoon, Biu Jee was taught last, after the knives and pole even. I think as long as SLT and CK come first, you can learn anything after that and be pretty decent. I learned the knives after CK for example.


----------



## wingchun100 (May 4, 2017)

DanT said:


> At my old gwoon, Biu Jee was taught last, after the knives and pole even. I think as long as SLT and CK come first, you can learn anything after that and be pretty decent. I learned the knives after CK for example.


 
Yes, I have always felt the dummy form was basically applying what you learned in SLT and CK to something that took up physical space.


----------



## wingerjim (May 4, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> In the previous school I went to, it was SLT, CK, dummy, BJ, pole, knives.
> 
> The reason he saved BJ for last is because it was considered something only the most "advanced" students learned. He really took that phrase "Biu Jee never goes out the door" to heart.


That is also how we do it. In fact we begin the dummy even earlier but not the dummy form, just some movements on the dummy to get the student used to the feel and to get them to settle in their stance. It is fun to see back into the past as I was new watching people lean forward to push the dummy or get rocked back when making contact. This training helps them with the other forms as it teaches them to settle and not fight the stance.


----------

