# Wing Chun Sparring



## KPM

This was something that came up in another thread, so it probably got missed by many people who weren't following that thread.  But it seemed like a good topic for its own discussion, so I'm starting a new thread!  

My viewpoint: Sparring should not be seen as a thing unto itself. It should be seen as a platform for training, just like Chi Sau is a platform for training. Everyone realizes that good technique goes to sh!t under pressure. Sparring is the opportunity to put a student under pressure and see what goes to sh!t. Then he knows what he needs to go back and work on. If you saw someone bobbing and weaving, breaking center, giving up their structure, etc in Chi Sau....wouldn't you point these things out as something to work on? Something that needs improvement? Why is it any different when it comes to sparring? Why does everyone get all offended if someone points out how they are losing their Wing Chun structure and technique when sparring? Are you training Wing Chun? Or are you training to be a good sparrer? Why do we have such a high standard for Wing Chun in our forms and drills and such a low standard for Wing Chun when it comes to sparring? Any good martial art should strive to train the way it fights and fight the way it trains. Sparring is a great environment to bring all those hours of training to the fight. But if you start being content with resorting to sloppy kickboxing, then you are wasting all those hours of training. Now, one might very well find adjustments and modifications to their Wing Chun that are more successful in sparring. That's great and how things progress and evolve! But if you aren't then going back and putting those modifications into your training, again you are wasting time and not training efficiently.

And I will assert that....yes....it should actually look somewhat like Wing Chun in action!  I'm NOT saying it has to be "picture perfect" Wing Chun as trained in the forms and drills.  But someone with even passing familiarity with Wing Chun should be able to recognize it....just like if they have even a passing familiarity with western boxing, kickboxing, or Muay Thai they would recognize those arts in the ring.  I think that if you put a Wing Chun guy in a sparring situation with a kickboxer and neutral observer can't tell who is who...then the Wing Chun probably needs to work on his technique!  

 So really, the key question to ask is this:  Are you training Wing Chun? Or are you training to be good at sparring? (general question for everyone)


----------



## PiedmontChun

I think I am inclined to agree with your thoughts, but with the caveat that if the sparring is of any real speed - I would think some of the movements become hard to recognize in practice, even to WC people. For example Bong Sau by nature is very transitional- when you "see" it, it is but a quick moment in time. No one throws out a Bong Sau and poses with it like a scene from IP Man 3 I would hope. Fine motor skills are much harder to pick up on than more exaggerated movements like you would see in other arts like Muay Thai.
But overall, I understand your viewpoint and do not disagree.


----------



## Danny T

I’m not certain I know just what a wc person is to look like or that I care.
I have a student who has become an instructor and is quite good. No actually he is very good.

Was in a discussion a few months back with some other students and instructors who described the above mentioned as “not looking wing chun enough”.
I asked, “do you think that person is knowledgeable and someone you are able to learn from?”
Everyone answered with an emphatic yes!
I continued with, “do you think that person has good fighting skills derived from the training of wc?”
Again, ‘Yes!’
My final question, “would you want to have to fight that person in a real fight?"
All stated “NO!”

"we don’t fight with our looks."


----------



## KPM

^^^But would you say the same thing about his Wing Chun if he consistently assumed a low horse stance when fighting?  How about if he danced around on his toes?  What would be your judgment of his Wing Chun?


----------



## drop bear

You dont get punched in the face during forms or drills.  So technique is judged on aesthetics. 

Sparring is judged on face punching.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

"His fighting skill" is more important than "his WC".

You toolbox may contain many tools. Your tools can come from different hardware stores.


----------



## Phobius

You improve fighting skills by making very clear movements in your drills and forms. There is however no resistance or opponent in forms or drills. To assume fighting would look the same would be similar to assume forms or drills teach you how to fight.

When we spell words we pronounce each letter separately dividing it and focusing on it for a moment before moving on. When we read out loud however the words come together and the sound they shape is altogether different from the spelling of the same word.

WC is a concept system, if you want fighting to look like the training of drills or forms that would not be much different to making WC a technique based art. Saying each technique needs to be done in a certain manner. Ironically assuming techniques needs to look a certain way would be to make WC technique based.


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> You dont get punched in the face during forms or drills.  So technique is judged on aesthetics.
> 
> Sparring is judged on face punching.



But face punching in any ole way?  Are boxers taught to keep good form when fighting?  Are they taught to keep a good guard?  Are they taught good biomechanics for power generation?  Are those things recognizable as "boxing" when in the ring?  Is the boxing coach critical of good form in training and then just tells his fighter to do whatever the heck he wants in the ring?  Or are boxers expected to adhere to the form and mechanics that their coach has been training them on in the gym?  Does that form and those mechanics "look" a certain way that lets an observer know they are doing them as trained?  Can you tell when a boxer is being "sloppy" and using poor technique just by watching?????


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> "His fighting skill" is more important than "his WC".
> 
> You toolbox may contain many tools. Your tools can come from different hardware stores.



That's fine if you are a professional fighter.  But most Wing Chun guys are sparring for the fun of it and....at least many think...to improve their Wing Chun.   So again....you have the ask the question....are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring?  Is your Wing Chun training a means to learn to spar well, or is your sparring a means to check your Wing Chun knowledge and ability?  Because if the answer is the former....training Wing Chun to learn to spar well, then there are far better ways to train that!  That person should just  take up kickboxing!  But if the answer is the later....doing some sparring as a way to improve Wing Chun, then why shouldn't the sparring be recognizable as Wing Chun????  Why shouldn't the person sparring be held to a similar standard as the person practicing forms and drills?


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> That's fine if you are a professional fighter.  But most Wing Chun guys are sparring for the fun of it and....at least many think...to improve their Wing Chun.   So again....you have the ask the question....are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring?  Is your Wing Chun training a means to learn to spar well, or is your sparring a means to check your Wing Chun knowledge and ability?  Because if the answer is the former....training Wing Chun to learn to spar well, then there are far better ways to train that!  That person should just  take up kickboxing!  But if the answer is the later....doing some sparring as a way to improve Wing Chun, then why shouldn't the sparring be recognizable as Wing Chun????  Why shouldn't the person sparring be held to a similar standard as the person practicing forms and drills?



You do not train to spar. Sparring is training. Same thing you do not train to do drills, you do drills as training. Drills do not look like forms, but in both forms and drills done in slower speed will be completed movements where an opponent does not resist. As soon as an opponent starts becoming offensive and resisting the way it looks to someone watching will be entirely different.

Quite frankly you can not finish a perfect technique or set of techniques (movements) because the fight changes characteristics very fast. Your opponent will not throw a dedicated punch in the air without pulling back, shifting stance or change path of strike.

Also when drilling you do not care about getting punched, the purpose is to practise the concepts. This in my view has caused people to forget that the important thing is still to secure your position and safety before punching. Movement of body is crucial.
(Not saying drills are not about learning not to get punched as well, they can very well be. But if you mess up you will still not get punched but can rather focus on your own techniques and movements.)

Being a short distance martial art it is funny that so many think it is about standing fairly still in good stance and fight your way through. Having an opponent that is larger than you and having a better reach means you need to constantly be moving your feet. How come then when WC has shorter reach that same logic should not apply?

Sadly concepts break down in sparring because many do it too rarely. Another problem is when doing sparring is if you do not fight someone that has a larger reach how can you understand the importance of that footwork? Or when two people sparring that neither thinks being quick on your feet is necessary, how can we not see this as giving us false confidence in our skill being sufficient?


----------



## KPM

_You improve fighting skills by making very clear movements in your drills and forms. There is however no resistance or opponent in forms or drills. To assume fighting would look the same would be similar to assume forms or drills teach you how to fight._

----I didn't assume that.  I said right from the start that I wouldn't expect sparring or fighting to look like "picture perfect" Wing Chun.  Just that it should at least be recognizable as Wing Chun! 


_When we spell words we pronounce each letter separately dividing it and focusing on it for a moment before moving on. When we read out loud however the words come together and the sound they shape is altogether different from the spelling of the same word_.

---But those words are still recognizable as English (or Dutch, or German, etc.).   You don't go spelling words any way you want.  You don't go changing the pronunciation so drastically that other people can't recognize what you are saying!


_WC is a concept system,_

----And those concepts include how to send and receive force well from a Wing Chun context, do they not?  And that takes a certain biomechanic that makes it distinctly Wing Chun.  When you abandon that biomechanic.....that Wing Chun specific way to send and receive force....are you still doing Wing Chun?


_ Ironically assuming techniques needs to look a certain way would be to make WC technique based._

---No it wouldn't!  It seems many people misunderstand what it means to be a "concept-based" system.  Having concepts guides your application.  It provides tactics and strategies.  It does not mean you can abandon good form and biomechanics and do whatever you want and still call it "Wing Chun"!   Those concepts include biomechanical guidelines. That is how the forms can embody many of the concepts!


----------



## KPM

_Drills do not look like forms, but in both forms and drills done in slower speed will be completed movements where an opponent does not resist. As soon as an opponent starts becoming offensive and resisting the way it looks to someone watching will be entirely different._

---Why?  As I said before, why is our standard for good execution so much different between forms/drills and sparring?  Shouldn't the goal in sparring to be to develop technique and application that is at least approaching what we can do in other training?  Otherwise, why are we spending all that time on the training???


_Quite frankly you can not finish a perfect technique or set of techniques (movements) because the fight changes characteristics very fast. Your opponent will not throw a dedicated punch in the air without pulling back, shifting stance or change path of strike._

---No doubt!  But why would that suddenly make your Wing Chun look unrecognizable????  Why should that suddenly make your Wing Chun look like sloppy kickboxing???  Why should that make your Wing Chun structure fall completely apart???


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> -I didn't assume that.  I said right from the start that I wouldn't expect sparring or fighting to look like "picture perfect" Wing Chun.  Just that it should at least be recognizable as Wing Chun!



A vague statement. Can neither agree nor disagree. Without examples I would say that definition of what is Wing Chun can not be agreed between lineages or even people within same lineage. Take any single video of WC sparring I am pretty sure at least some people will say it is not WC.



KPM said:


> -But those words are still recognizable as English (or Dutch, or German, etc.).   You don't go spelling words any way you want.  You don't go changing the pronunciation so drastically that other people can't recognize what you are saying!



Actually this is irrelevant but words are not recognizable at all times. Many words are spelled the same in different languages but pronounced very differently. And changing pronounciation was not what I was saying, all I am saying is that pronounciation and spelling will differ even if it is the same exact word. Reason being that one is a drill and the other is 'application'. Still it is irrelevant, no need to argue because you are free to disagree and I can not argue against you. That is my problem with saying it is similar to a completely unrelated scenario.

_WC is a concept system,_



KPM said:


> -And those concepts include how to send and receive force well from a Wing Chun context, do they not?  And that takes a certain biomechanic that makes it distinctly Wing Chun.  When you abandon that biomechanic.....that Wing Chun specific way to send and receive force....are you still doing Wing Chun?



That is similar to people saying there is no dedicated long range punch in WC. And yet it is there in the forms. Concepts are up for interpretation and may differ in meaning from person to person. This is where experience and training make some people better than others in WC. Who is most correct does not change the fact that it is a concept based system and as such does not work with dedicated techniques for specific situations.



KPM said:


> -No it wouldn't!  It seems many people misunderstand what it means to be a "concept-based" system.  Having concepts guides your application.  It provides tactics and strategies.  It does not mean you can abandon good form and biomechanics and do whatever you want and still call it "Wing Chun"!   Those concepts include biomechanical guidelines. That is how the forms can embody many of the concepts!



Noone can abandon good form. But are you saying that for instance bob and weave is bad form? Moving body is bad form? As for biomechanics I find it sometimes hard to judge because if the fighter has history in other arts besides WC he may very well have a different movement for long range punching. This is because he same as you and everyone else, we are not Wing Chunners, we are martial artists that train a specific or multiple systems. These systems merge together to create a style.

For some more technique based systems it teaches that a technique is used to counter a movement. As such you can pick which techniques you use and which ones you neglect for other techniques. With WC being concept based it means you adhere to the concepts when it suits you and understand the purpose of those concepts when you are not following them.

Just like the concepts are there to counter weakness in other movements, they also have weakness of their own. Being a "Wing Chunner" means two things, either A. you follow the concepts. or B. you know  the concepts and make sure your movements do not contain flaws that WC can use. Both are valid ways to learn a system, reason being that you as a martial artist is not the system, you improve your style by studying the system.

Problem however is that you if teaching need to not only get your style but learn the system as well. Making you able to pass the system along to new generations.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> -Why?  As I said before, why is our standard for good execution so much different between forms/drills and sparring?  Shouldn't the goal in sparring to be to develop technique and application that is at least approaching what we can do in other training?  Otherwise, why are we spending all that time on the training???



You might miss a point here. Your execution maybe should look like it does when sparring, not like it does when doing the drills.

And keep in mind now that there is such a thing as terrible sparring as well. People that can not handle the speed when sparring and instead of slowing down rather throw all concepts out the window and just go at it with arms swinging. Same you see when people do chain punching when sparring without even having a way to hit.

If I say it might need to look more like it does when sparring I do not say it should, because in drills you can exagerate (spell?) movements to make sure your body learns them.



KPM said:


> -No doubt!  But why would that suddenly make your Wing Chun look unrecognizable????  Why should that suddenly make your Wing Chun look like sloppy kickboxing???  Why should that make your Wing Chun structure fall completely apart???



It does not, being similar to boxing does not make your structure fall apart. It also does not make your Wing Chun look unrecognizable unless you expect it to look a way it does not. To be honest all systems have a tendency to look the same when fighting for real. Reason being that we need to move naturally and as such there is an efficient way to move when fighting. This does not mean there are not different ways to train it for different purposes. Nor that the way we generate power or use our stance may not differ.

I can do punches like a boxer and a punch looking very similar but adhering to biomechanics known from WC. Reason of course being that both have same centerline theory for jab and cross while having same stance as we learn in SLT, at least the core of it.

EDIT: Also to clarify, I am not dictating a single truth that you must all believe. I am simply raising philosophical points to discuss.

My personal belief is that if someone punches me, my main goal is to not get punched. I make sure to get out of the way. Using just one defensive move to not get punched means I will lose because if that move fails I may get knocked out. My way of applying WC is my own style. That style is constantly evolving by the different arts I have studied in my life.


----------



## Danny T

KPM said:


> ^^^But would you say the same thing about his Wing Chun if he consistently assumed a low horse stance when fighting?  How about if he danced around on his toes?  What would be your judgment of his Wing Chun?


Depends on when and what he is doing with his low horse. We train the low horse in the pole work but that doesn't mean it is only utilized with the pole.
I don't care if he is dancing on his toes if he isn't engaged. It is what he does with his footwork, structure, and positioning when engaged that is important. Said engagement may only be a moment in time.
We use Wing Chun as a training system to train our bodies for fighting. It is a training system not a style of fighting.


----------



## KPM

_[ It is what he does with his footwork, structure, and positioning when engaged that is important. Said engagement may only be a moment in time_.

---But would not that footwork, structure and positioning resemble what you have been training in your forms, drills, and Chi Sau??


----------



## KPM

_You might miss a point here. Your execution maybe should look like it does when sparring, not like it does when doing the drills._

----No, I think you are missing my point.   You should train the way you fight and fight the way you train.  Otherwise you are wasting a lot of time and being inefficient.  Why are you spending hours on drills that don't show up in your sparring, if being good at sparring is your goal???  And don't say that the drills are developing attributes that are used in sparring!  Because if that is the case, then the drills should be restructured to more closely resemble the actual sparring rather than looking nothing like the sparring.  Otherwise....again....you are being inefficient in your training. 


_And keep in mind now that there is such a thing as terrible sparring as well. People that can not handle the speed when sparring and instead of slowing down rather throw all concepts out the window and just go at it with arms swinging. Same you see when people do chain punching when sparring without even having a way to hit._

---I don't disagree with that point at all!  But why would you NOT expect that person who is doing good sparring to actually have good recognizable Wing Chun??



_If I say it might need to look more like it does when sparring I do not say it should, because in drills you can exagerate (spell?) movements to make sure your body learns them._

---Exaggerating a motion is not at all the same thing as doing forms and drills that are completely different than what you do in sparring.



_It does not, being similar to boxing does not make your structure fall apart._

----If someone abandons good Wing Chun structure when sparring, what do you call it???


_ It also does not make your Wing Chun look unrecognizable unless you expect it to look a way it does not._

---I expect it to look somewhat like Wing Chun and not like kickboxing.  That just seems like common sense to me!!


_ To be honest all systems have a tendency to look the same when fighting for real. Reason being that we need to move naturally and as such there is an efficient way to move when fighting._

---So if your training is not to the point  that Wing Chun is a natural and efficient way to move for you, possibly something is wrong with your  training!  Why do people feel like they need to resort to some version of kickboxing in order to win fights??  Is that not a pretty damning statement about Wing Chun??  If some version of kickboxing is the most natural and efficient way to move, then shouldn't we be training a version of kickboxing rather than formal Wing Chun???  Wouldn't training JKD serve us better since it is essentially a version of kickboxing with some Wing Chun concepts and principles?



_I can do punches like a boxer and a punch looking very similar but adhering to biomechanics known from WC. Reason of course being that both have same centerline theory for jab and cross while having same stance as we learn in SLT, at least the core of it._

---But why do you feel the need to do a jab and cross?  Is there something wrong with your Wing Chun?  Shouldn't Wing Chun work as designed?  I don't think Ip Man did jabs and crosses!  



_EDIT: Also to clarify, I am not dictating a single truth that you must all believe. I am simply raising philosophical points to discuss._

---And I am doing the same.  I am hoping that people will question what they are doing.   Are you training Wing Chun?  Or are you training to be good at sparring?  Are you using your training time efficiently?  If Wing Chun is a good fighting system, then why do people feel the need to resort to some version of Kickboxing when sparring?  If all of your Wing Chun seems to disappear under pressure, then how good is your Wing Chun in actuality?  All good philosophical points that people should be thinking about!


----------



## Jake104

---But would not that footwork, structure and positioning resemble what you have been training in your forms, drills, and Chi Sau??[/QUOTE]

Not always.. when you train forms and drills there is no foward intent coming at you. Don't you think that might change things?


----------



## Jake104

Jake104 said:


> Not always.. when you train forms and drills there is no foward intent coming at you. Don't you think that might change things?


Boxing and wrestling look like they train in the ring, because they mostly train under pressure. In WC a good percentage of the training isn't under pressure ..Why because most don't train in that way cause they don't want to get hit..A boxer uses certain drills that they don't use in the ring. Like a speed bag or jump rope.


----------



## Jake104

KPM said:


> _You might miss a point here. Your execution maybe should look like it does when sparring, not like it does when doing the drills._
> 
> ----No, I think you are missing my point.   You should train the way you fight and fight the way you train.  Otherwise you are wasting a lot of time and being inefficient.  Why are you spending hours on drills that don't show up in your sparring, if being good at sparring is your goal???  And don't say that the drills are developing attributes that are used in sparring!  Because if that is the case, then the drills should be restructured to more closely resemble the actual sparring rather than looking nothing like the sparring.  Otherwise....again....you are being inefficient in your training.
> 
> 
> _And keep in mind now that there is such a thing as terrible sparring as well. People that can not handle the speed when sparring and instead of slowing down rather throw all concepts out the window and just go at it with arms swinging. Same you see when people do chain punching when sparring without even having a way to hit._
> 
> ---I don't disagree with that point at all!  But why would you NOT expect that person who is doing good sparring to actually have good recognizable Wing Chun??
> 
> 
> 
> _If I say it might need to look more like it does when sparring I do not say it should, because in drills you can exagerate (spell?) movements to make sure your body learns them._
> 
> ---Exaggerating a motion is not at all the same thing as doing forms and drills that are completely different than what you do in sparring.
> 
> 
> 
> _It does not, being similar to boxing does not make your structure fall apart._
> 
> ----If someone abandons good Wing Chun structure when sparring, what do you call it???
> 
> 
> _ It also does not make your Wing Chun look unrecognizable unless you expect it to look a way it does not._
> 
> ---I expect it to look somewhat like Wing Chun and not like kickboxing.  That just seems like common sense to me!!
> 
> 
> _ To be honest all systems have a tendency to look the same when fighting for real. Reason being that we need to move naturally and as such there is an efficient way to move when fighting._
> 
> ---So if your training is not to the point  that Wing Chun is a natural and efficient way to move for you, possibly something is wrong with your  training!  Why do people feel like they need to resort to some version of kickboxing in order to win fights??  Is that not a pretty damning statement about Wing Chun??  If some version of kickboxing is the most natural and efficient way to move, then shouldn't we be training a version of kickboxing rather than formal Wing Chun???  Wouldn't training JKD serve us better since it is essentially a version of kickboxing with some Wing Chun concepts and principles?
> 
> 
> 
> _I can do punches like a boxer and a punch looking very similar but adhering to biomechanics known from WC. Reason of course being that both have same centerline theory for jab and cross while having same stance as we learn in SLT, at least the core of it._
> 
> ---But why do you feel the need to do a jab and cross?  Is there something wrong with your Wing Chun?  Shouldn't Wing Chun work as designed?  I don't think Ip Man did jabs and crosses!
> 
> 
> 
> _EDIT: Also to clarify, I am not dictating a single truth that you must all believe. I am simply raising philosophical points to discuss._
> 
> ---And I am doing the same.  I am hoping that people will question what they are doing.   Are you training Wing Chun?  Or are you training to be good at sparring?  Are you using your training time efficiently?  If Wing Chun is a good fighting system, then why do people feel the need to resort to some version of Kickboxing when sparring?  If all of your Wing Chun seems to disappear under pressure, then how good is your Wing Chun in actuality?  All good philosophical points that people should be thinking about!


 Who's Wing Chun disappears under pressure? Can you be more specific? Alan's Guys?  Me? Who are you talking about?


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> But face punching in any ole way?  Are boxers taught to keep good form when fighting?  Are they taught to keep a good guard?  Are they taught good biomechanics for power generation?  Are those things recognizable as "boxing" when in the ring?  Is the boxing coach critical of good form in training and then just tells his fighter to do whatever the heck he wants in the ring?  Or are boxers expected to adhere to the form and mechanics that their coach has been training them on in the gym?  Does that form and those mechanics "look" a certain way that lets an observer know they are doing them as trained?  Can you tell when a boxer is being "sloppy" and using poor technique just by watching?????



Mohummed ali technically did a lot wrong. If it wasn't for the face punching he would be a pretty poor boxer.


----------



## Jake104

drop bear said:


> Mohummed ali technically did a lot wrong.


Yes... exactly!

Problem with Wing Chun is, someone most likely lied to them in the beginning, giving them the idea that they can block and control an opponent and not get hit. Like in chi sao.. it's a shame


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

I wonder what sparring would look like with no gloves. Lets imagine that we could spar with no gloves and maybe only be wearing some headgear or something. And lets put aside risk of injury etc. for a moment. What would sparring look like then. I would think there would be a bit more hand, limb controlling or arm grabbing involved. That's just what I imagine.


----------



## drop bear

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I wonder what sparring would look like with no gloves. Lets imagine that we could spar with no gloves and maybe only be wearing some headgear or something. And lets put aside risk of injury etc. for a moment. What would sparring look like then. I would think there would be a bit more hand, limb controlling or arm grabbing involved. That's just what I imagine.



Gee if only they made 4 ounce gloves that you could spar in.  But also let you grab people.

Actually the most interesting dynamic for that is cage muay thai.  Where about the only change is big gloves to small ones.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> But face punching in any ole way?  Are boxers taught to keep good form when fighting?  Are they taught to keep a good guard?  Are they taught good biomechanics for power generation?  Are those things recognizable as "boxing" when in the ring?  Is the boxing coach critical of good form in training and then just tells his fighter to do whatever the heck he wants in the ring?  Or are boxers expected to adhere to the form and mechanics that their coach has been training them on in the gym?  Does that form and those mechanics "look" a certain way that lets an observer know they are doing them as trained?  Can you tell when a boxer is being "sloppy" and using poor technique just by watching?????


One of the big problems with using complex arts like Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Bak Siu Lam etc. and having it look like that art when fighting is the sheer volume of techniques. The reason that methods like Boxing, Kick Boxing & Wrestling are immediately recognizable is because of a small core of techniques emphasized. This core covers a wide base of offensive & defensive skills from which combinations & variations are extrapolated. While this is also true of TCMA like Wing Chun & Hung Gar, unlike Boxing, Kick Boxing & Wrestling, TCMA does not focus on one aspect of fighting, it tries to cover all, punching, kicking, throwing & grappling. This actually becomes the problem. If you try to address each method in your training it will look like MMA. If you only focus on striking, naturally you will adapt a simpler boxing approach. Your sparring will conform to the methods you adhere to. If Wing Chun is truly a conceptual art the frame work (stance & posture) has to be allowed to conform in a manner that is most economical to the method employed. Doing this changes its appearance.

Most people say that Wing Chun is a boxing method. This may be accurate, but, where does that leave Chi Sau. Chi Sau is similar to hand fighting in grappling. Most fail in sparring when trying to incorporate Chi Sau with the boxing, not because it isn't an effective element of Wing Chun but because they are trying to force a grappling method into the structure of a boxing method. You also have the added element of blocking or parrying, something not used to a great degree in Boxing or Kick Boxing & nearly extinct in grappling. A boxer punches, a kicker kicks, a grappler wrestles. When all 3 are combined the most economical manner of deployment looks like any MMA method.

Also don't forget that most Wing Chun practitioners spar against other Wing Chun practitioners, this makes it easier to maintain structure, because their structure is the same. When going against a Wrestler or Boxer etc. It's harder to maintain structure because the opponents dynamics are vastly different. Here you can easily run into problems, because if you are attempting to defend against a wrestler using boxing posture he has the advantage of breaking your structure.

The methodologies of Boxing, Kicking, Grappling & Throwing are different & require different structure to be most economical & efficient. To try & force one method into the framework of another is to invite disaster.

Too often Wing Chun people adhere too dogmatically to structure as learned in the forms, & do not allow for deviation when trying to apply something other than a strike. If the numerous hand positions of Wing Chun can have a great deal of variation & freedom of interpretation, why can't the body? Stance, position & structure need to have flexibility in use & interpretation as well if one is to successfully apply all modes of fighting. When this happens, it no longer looks like the package it came out of.


----------



## KPM

_Not always.. when you train forms and drills there is no foward intent coming at you. Don't you think that might change things?_

----Of course it will change things!  But should it change things to the point that your Wing Chun is no longer recognizable?  If so, then there is something wrong with your training!!!!!  Will it change things to the point that you start doing something that looks like kickboxing??


----------



## KPM

Jake104 said:


> Who's Wing Chun disappears under pressure? Can you be more specific? Alan's Guys?  Me? Who are you talking about?



You want me to name names?  Just do a search for anything Wing Chun sparring.  You'll find plenty of examples.   Now some will still be recognizable as Wing Chun.  But the Wing Chun looks like crap.  People get all offended when you point that out and they say "well, Wing Chun doesn't look like Wing Chun when you have to really use it!"  To which I say...."why not????"  Why do we have such a lower standard for Wing Chun performance when sparring as compared to when doing forms, Chi Sau, or drills?  Shouldn't sparring be a platform to tease out where we start losing our Wing Chun and then work on that?  Shouldn't the ideal in sparring be to work towards good Wing Chun technique?  Again....are people training to be good at Wing Chun, or good at sparring?


----------



## KPM

_One of the big problems with using complex arts like Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Bak Siu Lam etc. and having it look like that art when fighting is the sheer volume of techniques. The reason that methods like Boxing, Kick Boxing & Wrestling are immediately recognizable is because of a small core of techniques emphasized._

---Well, that's a pretty simple fix.  People can easily set the rules for their sparring session so that only strikes are used.  That way they can really work on using Wing Chun-specific strikes and defenses.   Once again....are people training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring???


_ . Your sparring will conform to the methods you adhere to. If Wing Chun is truly a conceptual art the frame work (stance & posture) has to be allowed to conform in a manner that is most economical to the method employed. Doing this changes its appearance._

---But should it change its appearance to the point that it looks more like kickboxing than Wing Chun?  The problem here is with the idea of "conforming."  Why do so many people feel the need to conform to a kickboxing framework when sparring?  I've said multiple times that I wouldn't expect "picture perfect" Wing Chun when under pressure.   But shouldn't that be the goal to strive for?  When someone's essential frame work (stance & posture) radically changes when they spar, you don't see that as a problem with their training?   "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight."  Otherwise you are being very uneconomical.


_ A boxer punches, a kicker kicks, a grappler wrestles. When all 3 are combined the most economical manner of deployment looks like any MMA method._

---I disagree.  A boxer punches in a certain way that may be different from how we are taught to punch in Wing Chun.  A kickboxer kicks in a different way than what we are taught in Wing Chun.   So if a Wing Chun guy starts throwing wide loopy punches and high roundhouse kicks to the head when sparring, is he  still doing Wing Chun??



_Also don't forget that most Wing Chun practitioners spar against other Wing Chun practitioners, this makes it easier to maintain structure, because their structure is the same. When going against a Wrestler or Boxer etc. It's harder to maintain structure because the opponents dynamics are vastly different._

---Here is another pretty damning statement in regards to "classical Wing Chun."   You seem to be saying that a Wing Chun guy is automatically going to be forced to "fight the other guy's fight".   He is automatically going to be forced to abandon all his good Wing Chun training and "conform" to what the other guy is doing?



_Too often Wing Chun people adhere too dogmatically to structure as learned in the forms, & do not allow for deviation when trying to apply something other than a strike._

---I'm not saying to adhere to things dogmatically or to not be willing to deviate when a situation demands.  But those forms and drills have a purpose.  They provide a standard.  They show us how the system is designed to work.   So why has it become so acceptable to simple abandon all that when sparring??    Wong Shun Leung did boxing before Wing Chun.   But I have seen Gor Sau footage of him in action and he certainly didn't abandon his Wing Chun and start moving around like a kickboxer!   Does anyone believe that in the fights Ip Man had he abandoned good Wing Chun structure and threw Jabs, Crosses, and high kicks???


_If the numerous hand positions of Wing Chun can have a great deal of variation & freedom of interpretation, why can't the body? Stance, position & structure need to have flexibility in use & interpretation as well if one is to successfully apply all modes of fighting_.

---The body structure, stance and position are what define the essential core biomechanics.  They dictate how you move and how you send and receive force.  If you abandon all of that, how can one be  said to still be doing Wing Chun?   Again....are people training Wing Chun?  Or are they training to be good at sparring????

---Wing Chun does not have actual ground-fighting/wrestling techniques.  So I see no problem at all in transitioning from Wing Chun directly into wrestling or BJJ in a fight.  That is not what I have been talking about in this thread.


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> Mohummed ali technically did a lot wrong. If it wasn't for the face punching he would be a pretty poor boxer.



Huh?  That made no sense in the context of what I wrote.  Do you think Muhummed Ali in training looked vastly different from Muhummed Ali in a fight?   When Muhummed Ali worked the heavy bag, did he use different punching mechanics and body methods than he did in a fight?  When Muhummed Ali worked the focus pads with his coach, did he use different punching methods, footwork and defenses as compared to what he did in a fight???


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Huh?  That made no sense in the context of what I wrote.  Do you think Muhummed Ali in training looked vastly different from Muhummed Ali in a fight?   When Muhummed Ali worked the heavy bag, did he use different punching mechanics and body methods than he did in a fight?  When Muhummed Ali worked the focus pads with his coach, did he use different punching methods, footwork and defenses as compared to what he did in a fight???



He would if any coach tried to make him an orthodox boxer. 

But no he took the success he had in fighting and used that to influence his style.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> _One of the big problems with using complex arts like Wing Chun, Hung Gar, Bak Siu Lam etc. and having it look like that art when fighting is the sheer volume of techniques. The reason that methods like Boxing, Kick Boxing & Wrestling are immediately recognizable is because of a small core of techniques emphasized._
> 
> ---Well, that's a pretty simple fix.  People can easily set the rules for their sparring session so that only strikes are used.  That way they can really work on using Wing Chun-specific strikes and defenses.   Once again....are people training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring???
> 
> 
> _ . Your sparring will conform to the methods you adhere to. If Wing Chun is truly a conceptual art the frame work (stance & posture) has to be allowed to conform in a manner that is most economical to the method employed. Doing this changes its appearance._
> 
> ---But should it change its appearance to the point that it looks more like kickboxing than Wing Chun?  The problem here is with the idea of "conforming."  Why do so many people feel the need to conform to a kickboxing framework when sparring?  I've said multiple times that I wouldn't expect "picture perfect" Wing Chun when under pressure.   But shouldn't that be the goal to strive for?  When someone's essential frame work (stance & posture) radically changes when they spar, you don't see that as a problem with their training?   "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight."  Otherwise you are being very uneconomical.
> 
> 
> _ A boxer punches, a kicker kicks, a grappler wrestles. When all 3 are combined the most economical manner of deployment looks like any MMA method._
> 
> ---I disagree.  A boxer punches in a certain way that may be different from how we are taught to punch in Wing Chun.  A kickboxer kicks in a different way than what we are taught in Wing Chun.   So if a Wing Chun guy starts throwing wide loopy punches and high roundhouse kicks to the head when sparring, is he  still doing Wing Chun??
> 
> 
> 
> _Also don't forget that most Wing Chun practitioners spar against other Wing Chun practitioners, this makes it easier to maintain structure, because their structure is the same. When going against a Wrestler or Boxer etc. It's harder to maintain structure because the opponents dynamics are vastly different._
> 
> ---Here is another pretty damning statement in regards to "classical Wing Chun."   You seem to be saying that a Wing Chun guy is automatically going to be forced to "fight the other guy's fight".   He is automatically going to be forced to abandon all his good Wing Chun training and "conform" to what the other guy is doing?
> 
> 
> 
> _Too often Wing Chun people adhere too dogmatically to structure as learned in the forms, & do not allow for deviation when trying to apply something other than a strike._
> 
> ---I'm not saying to adhere to things dogmatically or to not be willing to deviate when a situation demands.  But those forms and drills have a purpose.  They provide a standard.  They show us how the system is designed to work.   So why has it become so acceptable to simple abandon all that when sparring??    Wong Shun Leung did boxing before Wing Chun.   But I have seen Gor Sau footage of him in action and he certainly didn't abandon his Wing Chun and start moving around like a kickboxer!   Does anyone believe that in the fights Ip Man had he abandoned good Wing Chun structure and threw Jabs, Crosses, and high kicks???
> 
> 
> _If the numerous hand positions of Wing Chun can have a great deal of variation & freedom of interpretation, why can't the body? Stance, position & structure need to have flexibility in use & interpretation as well if one is to successfully apply all modes of fighting_.
> 
> ---The body structure, stance and position are what define the essential core biomechanics.  They dictate how you move and how you send and receive force.  If you abandon all of that, how can one be  said to still be doing Wing Chun?   Again....are people training Wing Chun?  Or are they training to be good at sparring????
> 
> ---Wing Chun does not have actual ground-fighting/wrestling techniques.  So I see no problem at all in transitioning from Wing Chun directly into wrestling or BJJ in a fight.  That is not what I have been talking about in this thread.


_---Well, that's a pretty simple fix. People can easily set the rules for their sparring session so that only strikes are used. That way they can really work on using Wing Chun-specific strikes and defenses. Once again....are people training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring???_

True, they can and should IMO, but they will still need to train this against other styles. If Wing Chun is a method of combat, what’s the difference? Do you want form or function? Sometimes the perception of proper form isn’t compatible with real world function.


_---But should it change its appearance to the point that it looks more like kickboxing than Wing Chun? The problem here is with the idea of "conforming." Why do so many people feel the need to conform to a kickboxing framework when sparring? I've said multiple times that I wouldn't expect "picture perfect" Wing Chun when under pressure. But shouldn't that be the goal to strive for? When someone's essential frame work (stance & posture) radically changes when they spar, you don't see that as a problem with their training? "Fight the way you train and train the way you fight." Otherwise you are being very uneconomical._

Inability to conform or adapt is a sign of a dead method. Wing Chun offers a plethora of methods neatly packed into box, problem is, not all of Wing Chun’s solutions are as economical or ideal for certain situations. Because of this, adaptation is needed. “_When someone's essential frame work (stance & posture) radically changes when they spar, you don't see that as a problem with their training? "*Fight the way you train and train the way you fight*." Otherwise you are being very uneconomical”._ You just answered your own question. We don’t all have the same preferences, reactions or inclinations when it comes to fighting. More than just technique and posture are involved, psychological factors play a HUGE part into reaction.

_--I disagree. A boxer punches in a certain way that may be different from how we are taught to punch in Wing Chun. A kickboxer kicks in a different way than what we are taught in Wing Chun. So if a Wing Chun guy starts throwing wide loopy punches and high roundhouse kicks to the head when sparring, is he still doing Wing Chun??_

You’re only looking at this from one side. Wing Chun has uppercuts, hook punches, straight punches, front kick, side kick, roundhouse kick, crescent kick etc. Do you believe that the Wing Chun method of deploying these techniques as the most powerful and economical manner of doing them? You have to remember that when fighting you are moving rapidly, balance, posture, momentum, power is all affected. How one recovers from mishaps has to be taken into consideration. Many of the postures in Wing Chun can be somewhat un-natural and uncomfortable, this causes people to be distracted, so they seek a more natural feeling position. Lastly, let’s not forget how the body is affected by stress in a confrontation. Wing Chun is predominately fine motor skill (which requires a great deal of concentration & control to maintain), the higher the stress the more we lean to gross motor movement.

_--Here is another pretty damning statement in regards to "classical Wing Chun." You seem to be saying that a Wing Chun guy is automatically going to be forced to "fight the other guy's fight". He is automatically going to be forced to abandon all his good Wing Chun training_ _and "conform" to what the other guy is doing?_

This is not what I’m saying, per say, but let’s look at this realistically. Find any footage of a real knockdown, drag out fight involving any TCMA or Karate. What’s it look like? 99% of the time it looks like sloppy kickboxing and specific style cannot be determined. Arts like Boxing, Wrestling and even Kick Boxing (Muay Thai / Sanda) are recognizable because they are limited in rules and techniques used. If you limit Wing Chun to one aspect, what would it look like? It would probably like recognizable as Wing Chun, but being limited in technique could it still be called Wing Chun?

_---I'm not saying to adhere to things dogmatically or to not be willing to deviate when a situation demands. But those forms and drills have a purpose. They provide a standard. They show us how the system is designed to work. So why has it become so acceptable to simple abandon all that when sparring?? Wong Shun Leung did boxing before Wing Chun. But I have seen Gor Sau footage of him in action and he certainly didn't abandon his Wing Chun and start moving around like a kickboxer! Does anyone believe that in the fights Ip Man had he abandoned good Wing Chun structure and threw Jabs, Crosses, and high kicks???_

You can’t compare exceptions to a rule of standard. As far as Yip Man goes, there is no fight footage of him, so it can’t be determined. I have seen plenty of footage from many TCMA masters, more often than not it looks like Sanda with no discernable style making itself apparent. Outside of choreographed demos and light sparring, real fighting doesn’t look good most of the time. It often tends to look like MMA unless it’s a specific sport method with clearly defined rules. As far as jabs, crosses and high kicks, see above.

_---The body structure, stance and position are what define the essential core biomechanics. They dictate how you move and how you send and receive force. If you abandon all of that, how can one be said to still be doing Wing Chun? Again....are people training Wing Chun? Or are they training to be good at sparring???? _

Maybe they need re-evaluated. Personal combat has evolved to encompass a variety of ranges and techniques. Most TCMA styles don’t emphasize grappling. This is one aspect that many, in days gone by, didn’t have to deal with. You have to remember that the Chinese approached fighting differently than did Westerners did in some aspects. The Chinese like to pack things into neat bundles that don’t necessarily fit as well as they think. Lots of ambiguity in theory and application of movement. Western ideology towards fisticuffs / wrestling had simple loose movements and straight forward application. One method can take years to understand, master and apply in a practical manner. The other is usable nearly from the start because it isn’t as constrained by theory or ambiguous application.

When a society doesn’t wrestle on the ground, they don’t have any real defense for it. Shuai Jiao, for the most part doesn’t allow for grabbing the legs, the defense against throws or takedowns is approached differently. Also in traditional Chinese grappling strikes aren’t allowed. More often than not, some of these rules were adhered to in challenge “No-Holds-Barred” matches, because they never emphasized them to begin with. What once could be done using a specific method has changed. This is due to combing arts that focus specifically on different ways of fighting. More often than not if a master studied more than one art, is was just a different interpretation of a punch & kick method that he already knew with a different theory and approach. Only the ones that combined a more even mix of basic Punch, Kick, Throw & Grapple went on to gain any notoriety in documented fighting, not just oral legends coming from their students.

What works for one person may not for another. Boxing can be identified as boxing because of the limited number of techniques, however, no two boxers are the same. Some boxing styles are discernibly different. TCMA has a vast arsenal of techniques, especially Wing Chun, which has several variations of very similar movements. This becomes confusing and can become downright dangerous when attempting to defend yourself. When you have a dozen ways to defend against a straight punch, your mind can't think quick enough to react accordingly. Wing Chun, and traditional arts in general, have become so technique heavy that they have become weighed down and ineffective to a great degree.


----------



## Jake104

KPM said:


> You want me to name names?  Just do a search for anything Wing Chun sparring.  You'll find plenty of examples.   Now some will still be recognizable as Wing Chun.  But the Wing Chun looks like crap.  People get all offended when you point that out and they say "well, Wing Chun doesn't look like Wing Chun when you have to really use it!"  To which I say...."why not????"  Why do we have such a lower standard for Wing Chun performance when sparring as compared to when doing forms, Chi Sau, or drills?  Shouldn't sparring be a platform to tease out where we start losing our Wing Chun and then work on that?  Shouldn't the ideal in sparring be to work towards good Wing Chun technique?  Again....are people training to be good at Wing Chun, or good at sparring?


IMO you are kind of all over the place with this thread.. It seems as if you're complaining about WC when it doesn't work and looks like crappy kick boxing. Which I think agree with...But then on the other hand I feel like you are passive aggressively jabbing those of us who do train like we fight with comments like, -those who do whatever they want and call it Wing Chun, when it's not??..I'm just paraphrasing there, cause I really don't feel like searching through all your post for a direct quote.


----------



## Danny T

Curious to know your thoughts as to how the different weight distributions, striking movements, footwork, body structures relate from the different parts of the 'system'. I think most look at the empty hand portions as inter-relating with each empty hand form building upon the previous. But what of the weapons forms and drills where there are some substantial differences? Are these differences only to be utilized with or against weapons? Or do they also inter-relate with the empty hands? 
Are they stand along or are they in addition to what is developed with the empty hand forms and drills?
I am a strong proponent that they are all inter-related and that the footwork, body structures, and striking movements/structures from weapons can be and are to be utilized within the empty hand aspects. This avails the practitioner with much more possibilities for fighting/sparring. It will also allow for what appears to be different presentations of a practitioner's structure and strikes vs what one sees within basic form and drills.


----------



## Phobius

Danny T said:


> Curious to know your thoughts as to how the different weight distributions, striking movements, footwork, body structures relate from the different parts of the 'system'. I think most look at the empty hand portions as inter-relating with each empty hand form building upon the previous. But what of the weapons forms and drills where there are some substantial differences? Are these differences only to be utilized with or against weapons? Or do they also inter-relate with the empty hands?
> Are they stand along or are they in addition to what is developed with the empty hand forms and drills?
> I am a strong proponent that they are all inter-related and that the footwork, body structures, and striking movements/structures from weapons can be and are to be utilized within the empty hand aspects. This avails the practitioner with much more possibilities for fighting/sparring. It will also allow for what appears to be different presentations of a practitioner's structure and strikes vs what one sees within basic form and drills.



This is my belief as well, weapon forms have a lot to teach us even for unarmed combat.


----------



## KPM

Phobius said:


> This is my belief as well, weapon forms have a lot to teach us even for unarmed combat.



Sure!  But I have yet to see anyone throw a wide hook punch in their knife form or a roundhouse kick in their pole form!


----------



## KPM

_True, they can and should IMO, but they will still need to train this against other styles. If Wing Chun is a method of combat, what’s the difference? Do you want form or function? Sometimes the perception of proper form isn’t compatible with real world function._

----So you don't think Wing Chun works as designed?  If Wing Chun is a "method" of combat, shouldn't the Wing Chunner be using that method when engaged in combat and not using a kickboxing method???


_Inability to conform or adapt is a sign of a dead method._

---Absolutely!  But one should be able to conform and adapt within the context of their Wing Chun.  Not abandon to the extent that it is no longer recognizable!  Wing Chun is a flexible method.  But it still has defined ways of doing things that make it "Wing Chun."  Just as boxing has defined ways of doing things that make it "boxing", or Muay Thai, etc.



_Wing Chun offers a plethora of methods neatly packed into box, problem is, not all of Wing Chun’s solutions are as economical or ideal for certain situations. Because of this, adaptation is needed._

---Wing Chun is  "stand up" fighting method.  Should it not work as designed when engaged in "stand up" sparring?


_ We don’t all have the same preferences, reactions or inclinations when it comes to fighting. More than just technique and posture are involved, psychological factors play a HUGE part into reaction._

----Do psychological factors completely change your biomechanical base of movement?  If they do, then you need to really reevaluate your training!  


_. Do you believe that the Wing Chun method of deploying these techniques as the most powerful and economical manner of doing them?_

----For Wing Chun....Yes!!!!!  If you aren't going to use the Wing Chun method of deploying these techniques, then why are you bothering to study and train Wing Chun?  Just train kickboxing!!!!



_ Many of the postures in Wing Chun can be somewhat un-natural and uncomfortable, this causes people to be distracted, so they seek a more natural feeling position._

---Another somewhat damning statement in regards to "classical" Wing Chun!



_Lastly, let’s not forget how the body is affected by stress in a confrontation. Wing Chun is predominately fine motor skill (which requires a great deal of concentration & control to maintain), the higher the stress the more we lean to gross motor movement._

----Essential body mechanics is a gross motor skill.  If its not, then there is something wrong with the person's training!



_
 Find any footage of a real knockdown, drag out fight involving any TCMA or Karate. What’s it look like? 99% of the time it looks like sloppy kickboxing and specific style cannot be determined._

---Perhaps you are right!  So then why are we bothering to train TCMA?  Why are we not all studying kickboxing, MMA or something like JKD?




_You can’t compare exceptions to a rule of standard._

----Ah!  But see that's the question I have been essentially asking!  Why is sparring so widely seen as an exception to the rules of standard Wing Chun????




_As far as Yip Man goes, there is no fight footage of him, so it can’t be determined._

---Ok.  But just how likely is it that he moved like a sloppy kickboxer when he had to fight???  Just how likely do you think it is that he completely abandoned his Wing Chun structure when he had to fight???  Let's be realistic here!


_
Maybe they need re-evaluated. Personal combat has evolved to encompass a variety of ranges and techniques._

---Maybe they do!  Food for thought!  Maybe Wing Chun needs an update and we should all abandon the "classical" methods of training it!  




_What works for one person may not for another. Boxing can be identified as boxing because of the limited number of techniques, however, no two boxers are the same. Some boxing styles are discernibly different._

---And yet they are all recognizable as "boxing"!


_TCMA has a vast arsenal of techniques, especially Wing Chun, which has several variations of very similar movements. This becomes confusing and can become downright dangerous when attempting to defend yourself_.

---Wing Chun has to be one of the simplest and most straight-forward of all the TCMA's.  Its not that complicated.  If you talk to the WSLVT guys, it all comes down to a straight punch.  So I think I have to disagree with you again.  I don't think that the problem I have been pointing out has anything to do with Wing Chun being "complicated."


----------



## KPM

_IMO you are kind of all over the place with this thread.._

---Not really.  I stated my position in the OP and think I have stuck with that position fairly well.

_It seems as if you're complaining about WC when it doesn't work and looks like crappy kick boxing._

---No.  I'm complaining about WHEN WC looks like crappy kick boxing and why it seems so acceptable to many people when that happens!

_But then on the other hand I feel like you are passive aggressively jabbing those of us who do train like we fight with comments like, -those who do whatever they want and call it Wing Chun, when it's not??.._

---That's not my intent.  If you have changed up your Wing Chun so it works for you when sparring and are no longer doing "classical" Wing Chun.....and your training is consistent with what you are doing when sparring, then that's great!  Start a new thread and tell us what you have changed and how it works!  If you are able to maintain your "classical" Wing Chun structure and mechanics when sparring that's great as well!  That means you aren't one of the people I'm talking about!  

---What I am complaining about (or at least pointing out so people will think about it) is the Wing Chun guys that do classical training for years, yet when they are put in a sparring situation their Wing Chun structure and basics disappear. Then when you point this out to them they get all offended and come back with things like "Wing Chun doesn't look like Wing Chun when you really have to use it!"  That just makes no sense to me.  

---- My essential question is this.....why do so many people have a high standard when judging Wing Chun forms, drills, and Chi Sau, and yet such a low standard when it comes to judging Wing Chun performance in a sparring match????   


----- I have not yet heard a really good explanation for that disconnect.  What appears to be emerging as a conclusion is that Wing Chun just doesn't work in a sparring  situation without some pretty drastic changes being made to it.  Does that seem like a fair conclusion to everyone?  That sure seems to be what all the responses so far are saying!


----------



## Kickboxer101

KPM said:


> That's fine if you are a professional fighter.  But most Wing Chun guys are sparring for the fun of it and....at least many think...to improve their Wing Chun.   So again....you have the ask the question....are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring?  Is your Wing Chun training a means to learn to spar well, or is your sparring a means to check your Wing Chun knowledge and ability?  Because if the answer is the former....training Wing Chun to learn to spar well, then there are far better ways to train that!  That person should just  take up kickboxing!  But if the answer is the later....doing some sparring as a way to improve Wing Chun, then why shouldn't the sparring be recognizable as Wing Chun????  Why shouldn't the person sparring be held to a similar standard as the person practicing forms and drills?


As long as what I do works and I can fight I don't what I look like I don't care if I look like a drunken fist Kung fu stylist as long as my stuff works. There's to much focus on how you look in martial arts image means nothing in a fight


----------



## KPM

Kickboxer101 said:


> As long as what I do works and I can fight I don't what I look like I don't care if I look like a drunken fist Kung fu stylist as long as my stuff works. There's to much focus on how you look in martial arts image means nothing in a fight



Ok.  So tell me.  Is your form and technique in training greatly different from your form and technique when sparring?  I'm not talking about "looking pretty."  I'm simply talking about the maxim..."fight the way you train and train the way you fight!"  So is that true of you as a kickboxer?


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> Ok.  So tell me.  Is your form and technique in training greatly different from your form and technique when sparring?  I'm not talking about "looking pretty."  I'm simply talking about the maxim..."fight the way you train and train the way you fight!"  So is that true of you as a kickboxer?



Stop focusing on techniques. You can do a jab even in WC without breaking the concepts. It is even present in the forms if you know where to look. Yet that jab will look like boxing for someone that does not know what they are seeing.

So this discussion is kind of strange. You are saying things look a certain way and therefore it is a sloppy version of what it looks like. This is opinion that you have based on nothing at all. There is nothing saying whatever you are seeing does not follow the concepts even if it looks nothing like the drills or forms. Problem is that people when thinking of WC also assumes that it should look like the first form, static in nature and solid structure.

If WC looks that way when you apply weapons people would die like flies if taught WC weapon forms.


----------



## JPinAZ

Kung Fu Wang said:


> "His fighting skill" is more important than "his WC".
> 
> You toolbox may contain many tools. Your tools can come from different hardware stores.



And yet there's still one 'best way' to use each tool depending on the given task...


----------



## KPM

_Stop focusing on techniques._

---I'm not focusing on techniques.  I'm focusing on fundamental biomechanics.  Wing Chun teaches you to move in a certain way.  It teaches you to send and receive force in a certain way....with a certain structure.  If you abandon that when sparring then how can you say you are still doing Wing Chun?


_So this discussion is kind of strange. You are saying things look a certain way and therefore it is a sloppy version of what it looks like. This is opinion that you have based on nothing at all._

---Nothing at all?  Its just plain common sense!!!!   I've said it multiple times already....a boxer is recognizable as a boxer when he fights/spars....a Muay Thai guy is recognizable as a Muay Thai guy when he fights/spars.....why should Wing Chun be any different?  Why do you have a certain standard with the way Wing Chun should be done when doing forms, drills, and Chi Sau but not when sparring?  That makes no sense!


----------



## KPM

JPinAZ said:


> And yet there's still one 'best way' to use each tool depending on the given task...



And I would say there is a "best way" to use each tool depending on how you've been taught to use that tool!  Why abandon what you've been taught just because the pressure is on???


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> ----So you don't think Wing Chun works as designed? If Wing Chun is a "method" of combat, shouldn't the Wing Chunner be using that method when engaged in combat and not using a kickboxing method???



There isn't really a kickboxing method like there is a wing chun method. So you can spar fight and compete in kickboxing using wing chun if you want to.(within some rules issues)

So if you were to relate the question. "do you want to be good at kickboxing or good at sparring?" well it is the same thing. 

Even if you have used chun movements to be good at kickboxing/sparring.

This idea also comes up a bit with physicality and sparring. So you may have better technique but he is just a unit and towels you up. And the general consensus is tough.  Deal with it.  You don't get style points.

People will try to shy away from these factors.  Because it is a bit crap to get beat up by someone who you should be better than.  But they are realities of fighting.  From sparring to competition to self defence.  They never go away.


----------



## KPM

_There isn't really a kickboxing method like there is a wing chun method. So you can spar fight and compete in kickboxing using wing chun if you want to.(within some rules issues)_

---Sure there is!  I'm not talking about a ruleset.  I'm talking about a way of moving and fighting.  And there most certainly is a kickboxing method!  You train with a kickboxing coach and you are going to learn a specific way to move, specific footwork, a specific way to generate power in punches, a specific way to pivot the body when kicking, a specific way to cover or defend against strikes, etc. 


_So if you were to relate the question. "do you want to be good at kickboxing or good at sparring?" well it is the same thing._

---Exactly!   So why is the same not true of a lot of people's Wing Chun??


_And the general consensus is tough.  Deal with it.  You don't get style points._

---Yeah.  Its looking like the general consensus here is that "classical" Wing Chun doesn't work under the pressure of sparring and must be modified and abandoned to a large extent if you want to win a sparring match.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> _There isn't really a kickboxing method like there is a wing chun method. So you can spar fight and compete in kickboxing using wing chun if you want to.(within some rules issues)_
> 
> ---Sure there is!  I'm not talking about a ruleset.  I'm talking about a way of moving and fighting.  And there most certainly is a kickboxing method!  You train with a kickboxing coach and you are going to learn a specific way to move, specific footwork, a specific way to generate power in punches, a specific way to pivot the body when kicking, a specific way to cover or defend against strikes, etc.
> 
> 
> _So if you were to relate the question. "do you want to be good at kickboxing or good at sparring?" well it is the same thing._
> 
> ---Exactly!   So why is the same not true of a lot of people's Wing Chun??
> 
> 
> _And the general consensus is tough.  Deal with it.  You don't get style points._
> 
> ---Yeah.  Its looking like the general consensus here is that "classical" Wing Chun doesn't work under the pressure of sparring and must be modified and abandoned to a large extent if you want to win a sparring match.



Just the last bit.  And i found this idea kind of interesting. 

It seems that there is this idea that someone trains in a system.  Then takes that system and puts it in a live environment and for whatever reason has to throw it out the window. And do something else. 

From that the conclusion is that the live environment is somehow faulty. Not the training.  Which to me is backwards.

I would suggest that if you want to win a sparring match.  Your martial arts has to be good.


----------



## drop bear

By the way.  Sparring is really only a rule set.


----------



## Danny T

KPM said:


> Sure!  But I have yet to see anyone throw a wide hook punch in their knife form or a roundhouse kick in their pole form!


No not in the pole form however, we do have hooks, uppercuts, and overhands as well as a roundhouse type kick. Maybe you don't but in the wc I have learned they are there and are use. Not in the same specific manner as a what today's boxers do but they are there.
Forms for us are a kind of reference list. Not everything in the system in specifically shown in the forms but they are there in other aspects of the training.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

JPinAZ said:


> And yet there's still one 'best way' to use each tool depending on the given task...


Of course.

1. chain punch, Tan Shou - WC.
2. hook punch, uppercut - boxing.
3, side kick - TKD.
4. roundhouse kick, flying knee = MT.
5. lock - eagle claw.
6. take down - wrestling.
7. ground game - BJJ.
8. ...


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> ^^^But would you say the same thing about his Wing Chun if he consistently assumed a low horse stance when fighting?  How about if he danced around on his toes?  What would be your judgment of his Wing Chun?



What does WC even look like?  What you do in training is building the skills, learning the principles etc.  Do I use another MA simply because once a fight starts I keep my hands in fists and not open? Am I using a different art because when I move I move on my toes but when I attack or defend I am still maintaining proper structure? Obviously "looking like" WC, imo, is about clearly demonstrating the principles of the art.  The structure, tight footwork etc that forms the foundation upon which the techniques are applied from.

I don't know of any traditional MA that  "looks" like it does in training in Lei Tai, sparring etc.  However if you look at the fight you will see them applying the principles and techniques of the art.  The reason for it is this.  Especially when facing people fighting using other systems your actions are not solely dictated by you but by the actions of your opponent.  As such what makes it WC is do they maintain their structure? Do they protect, and attack, from their centerline?  Are they disrupting and are they attacking their opponents center?  Are they pressing forward and applying constant pressure unless forced to back off? Etc.  If so they are doing WC.

WC is a conceptual MA based on core principles.  So long as the principles are held to and the techniques based on these principles are used  then it's WC.  

You can still maintain these core principles without the appearance you see in training.  The appearance in training is so the new student can learn how it "feels" to be "grounded" via structure so that attacks start from the ground and the the force of incoming attacks go through the body into the ground and don't get "bound" up in the "jelly" at your hips and thus disrupting your center.  Once you know how this feels, you can achieve it without a "classic" appearing stance.  If you marry yourself to what are ultimately training tools, it will limit how you can react in a real fight.


----------



## Juany118

Danny T said:


> No not in the pole form however, we do have hooks, uppercuts, and overhands as well as a roundhouse type kick. Maybe you don't but in the wc I have learned they are there and are use. Not in the same specific manner as a what today's boxers do but they are there.
> Forms for us are a kind of reference list. Not everything in the system in specifically shown in the forms but they are there in other aspects of the training.



I think this might be the issue as well.  In my WC we learn a "Buffalo" punch.  It's only supposed to be used on "soft" areas but it is a "hook" punch.  While not often used we also learn a round kick but it is different in that it stops at the apex if you miss, you don't "windmill" follow through like you might in TKD.  Also punching is seen as largely a "beginner" technique.  Once you are at a certain point palm strikes and _biu sau_ are your "go to" empty hand attacks.  

It wouldn't make sense if you only straight punched.  Sometimes there is no "opening" for a straight punch but you still have to attack.  The trick is striking through an opening and to still keep your "center" behind the blow, in the case of a hook punch with rotation from the waist.

I know some VT people will say "thats not WC" but it is my WC.


----------



## Juany118

Example, while it doesn't look pretty, in the video below (especially in slow motion) you see With (and Provisional Master under Grand Master William Cheung) us a "crashing"  _bong sau_ to transition into a _lap_ grab to trap the hands of his opponent so he can then get the KO.  If you didn't know the techniques you wouldn't know it was WC.  Elsewhere in the same fight (there are multiple videos) he will do the "tight" round kick previously mentioned as well.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _._
> 
> ---Nothing at all?  Its just plain common sense!!!!   I've said it multiple times already....a boxer is recognizable as a boxer when he fights/spars....a Muay Thai guy is recognizable as a Muay Thai guy when he fights/spars.....why should Wing Chun be any different?  Why do you have a certain standard with the way Wing Chun should be done when doing forms, drills, and Chi Sau but not when sparring?  That makes no sense!



A WC guy is recognizable as a WC guy if you slow things down or have a good eye.  Thing is in a real fight a _tan_ or a _bong_ (just as examples) can look like interrupted strikes at full speed, a palm strike (since we keep our hands open) can look like a slap etc.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> _True, they can and should IMO, but they will still need to train this against other styles. If Wing Chun is a method of combat, what’s the difference? Do you want form or function? Sometimes the perception of proper form isn’t compatible with real world function._
> 
> ----So you don't think Wing Chun works as designed?  If Wing Chun is a "method" of combat, shouldn't the Wing Chunner be using that method when engaged in combat and not using a kickboxing method???
> 
> 
> _Inability to conform or adapt is a sign of a dead method._
> 
> ---Absolutely!  But one should be able to conform and adapt within the context of their Wing Chun.  Not abandon to the extent that it is no longer recognizable!  Wing Chun is a flexible method.  But it still has defined ways of doing things that make it "Wing Chun."  Just as boxing has defined ways of doing things that make it "boxing", or Muay Thai, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> _Wing Chun offers a plethora of methods neatly packed into box, problem is, not all of Wing Chun’s solutions are as economical or ideal for certain situations. Because of this, adaptation is needed._
> 
> ---Wing Chun is  "stand up" fighting method.  Should it not work as designed when engaged in "stand up" sparring?
> 
> 
> _ We don’t all have the same preferences, reactions or inclinations when it comes to fighting. More than just technique and posture are involved, psychological factors play a HUGE part into reaction._
> 
> ----Do psychological factors completely change your biomechanical base of movement?  If they do, then you need to really reevaluate your training!
> 
> 
> _. Do you believe that the Wing Chun method of deploying these techniques as the most powerful and economical manner of doing them?_
> 
> ----For Wing Chun....Yes!!!!!  If you aren't going to use the Wing Chun method of deploying these techniques, then why are you bothering to study and train Wing Chun?  Just train kickboxing!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> _ Many of the postures in Wing Chun can be somewhat un-natural and uncomfortable, this causes people to be distracted, so they seek a more natural feeling position._
> 
> ---Another somewhat damning statement in regards to "classical" Wing Chun!
> 
> 
> 
> _Lastly, let’s not forget how the body is affected by stress in a confrontation. Wing Chun is predominately fine motor skill (which requires a great deal of concentration & control to maintain), the higher the stress the more we lean to gross motor movement._
> 
> ----Essential body mechanics is a gross motor skill.  If its not, then there is something wrong with the person's training!
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Find any footage of a real knockdown, drag out fight involving any TCMA or Karate. What’s it look like? 99% of the time it looks like sloppy kickboxing and specific style cannot be determined._
> 
> ---Perhaps you are right!  So then why are we bothering to train TCMA?  Why are we not all studying kickboxing, MMA or something like JKD?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _You can’t compare exceptions to a rule of standard._
> 
> ----Ah!  But see that's the question I have been essentially asking!  Why is sparring so widely seen as an exception to the rules of standard Wing Chun????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _As far as Yip Man goes, there is no fight footage of him, so it can’t be determined._
> 
> ---Ok.  But just how likely is it that he moved like a sloppy kickboxer when he had to fight???  Just how likely do you think it is that he completely abandoned his Wing Chun structure when he had to fight???  Let's be realistic here!
> 
> 
> _
> Maybe they need re-evaluated. Personal combat has evolved to encompass a variety of ranges and techniques._
> 
> ---Maybe they do!  Food for thought!  Maybe Wing Chun needs an update and we should all abandon the "classical" methods of training it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _What works for one person may not for another. Boxing can be identified as boxing because of the limited number of techniques, however, no two boxers are the same. Some boxing styles are discernibly different._
> 
> ---And yet they are all recognizable as "boxing"!
> 
> 
> _TCMA has a vast arsenal of techniques, especially Wing Chun, which has several variations of very similar movements. This becomes confusing and can become downright dangerous when attempting to defend yourself_.
> 
> ---Wing Chun has to be one of the simplest and most straight-forward of all the TCMA's.  Its not that complicated.  If you talk to the WSLVT guys, it all comes down to a straight punch.  So I think I have to disagree with you again.  I don't think that the problem I have been pointing out has anything to do with Wing Chun being "complicated."


_----So you don't think Wing Chun works as designed? If Wing Chun is a "method" of combat, shouldn't the Wing Chunner be using that method when engaged in combat and not using a kickboxing method???_

Honestly, not as well as many believe. Wing Chun has good theory & strategy, but in many cases this strategy is best utilized using a different method. I know, I’m a heretic.


_---Absolutely! But one should be able to conform and adapt within the context of their Wing Chun. Not abandon to the extent that it is no longer recognizable! Wing Chun is a flexible method. But it still has defined ways of doing things that make it "Wing Chun." Just as boxing has defined ways of doing things that make it "boxing", or Muay Thai, etc._

To an extent yes, but this requires limiting what from Wing Chun is used. Take for example using Wing Chun techniques solely for boxing (no kicking, elbows, trapping), would it look drastically different from boxing? There are prominent theories suggesting that Wing Chun was heavily influenced by western bare knuckle boxing. I surmise that if you eliminated a fair amount of the techniques to conform to a boxing rule set, it’ll look like boxing with some semblance of Wing Chun structure.



_---Wing Chun is "stand up" fighting method. Should it not work as designed when engaged in "stand up" sparring?_

Yes, as long as Chi Sau isn’t trying to be used. As I stated before, you cannot force grappling tactics into a boxing frame and expect it to work. Simple passes and clinching can be used, we see it all the time in boxing. Doing volleys back and forth in chi sau where you are constantly focusing on defense is inviting defeat.



_----Do psychological factors completely change your biomechanical base of movement? If they do, then you need to really reevaluate your training! _

Absolutely yes! The higher the stress level the greater the ability to react, use sensitivity and perform small movements. I don’t know anyone beyond those individuals that actually fight regularly who can maintain the necessary motor skill involved in complex martial arts that require strict structure protocols. It is a perishable skill if not trained regularly, repetition only goes so far, fear also has to be present to condition a mind that can react under duress.


_----For Wing Chun....Yes!!!!! If you aren't going to use the Wing Chun method of deploying these techniques, then why are you bothering to study and train Wing Chun? Just train kickboxing!!!!_

As far as striking and kicking go, there are some better and more powerful methods. To ignore the usefulness of these methods is to limit yourself. Even Yip Man was known to confuse his students by striking them with a technique or two he picked up from Choy Lay Fut.


_--Another somewhat damning statement in regards to "classical" Wing Chun!_

Maybe so, but none the less true. (Regarding stance).


_----Essential body mechanics is a gross motor skill. If its not, then there is something wrong with the person's training!_

The posture of Wing Chun isn’t natural for boxing, it is based upon Zhan Zhuang, which is Chi Kung posture for energy cultivation. It isn’t as easy to maintain because it is smaller making it harder to generate power. I know this is the whole idea behind the postures, but when stressed we will seek familiarity and comfort in movement and posture, why not exploit it?


_---Perhaps you are right! So then why are we bothering to train TCMA? Why are we not all studying kickboxing, MMA or something like JKD?_

Any art is just a tool, take what is useful and discard what isn’t  If your goal is to be able to effectively defend yourself, why does it have to look cool? Personally I don’t care if I look like a mentally retarded meth addict with Tourette’s as long as I win. You don’t win fights with style points.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> And I would say there is a "best way" to use each tool depending on how you've been taught to use that tool!  Why abandon what you've been taught just because the pressure is on???



Simply because it doesn't "look" like "classical" WC doesn't mean anything was abandoned.  I really think your issue lies in the fact that you don't seem to understand that the picture perfect postures in the forms are their as a training tool to teach the principles and to build certain physical attributes (stronger quads, knees etc).  You can adhere too just about every principle I can think off, off the top of my head, without sticking to the training structures.

It's kinda like this Kali drill.




Now when I see this drill I say "yep FMA" however you will never look like this in a fight.  The purpose of the drill is to teach you to use your non dominant hand effectively, flow, how to weave two weapons without getting your weapons, or opposing hands, tied up with each other and then to integrate footwork while at the same time taking offensive and counter offensive actions, among other things.   This is not what it looks like in a fight though, it's just about training principles.


----------



## KPM

Danny T said:


> No not in the pole form however, we do have hooks, uppercuts, and overhands as well as a roundhouse type kick. Maybe you don't but in the wc I have learned they are there and are use. Not in the same specific manner as a what today's boxers do but they are there.
> Forms for us are a kind of reference list. Not everything in the system in specifically shown in the forms but they are there in other aspects of the training.



And again, on multiple posts here I have referred to core body mechanics as more important than specific techniques.  If you aren't using those core body mechanics, are you still doing Wing Chun?


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> And again, on multiple posts here I have referred to core body mechanics as more important than specific techniques.  If you aren't using those core body mechanics, are you still doing Wing Chun?


What core mechanics are you referring too.  I think this is the issue people are getting hung up on.  You keep saying this, but so far the core mechanics I am thinking off can be maintained without the "classic" WC appearance.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> A WC guy is recognizable as a WC guy if you slow things down or have a good eye.  Thing is in a real fight a _tan_ or a _bong_ (just as examples) can look like interrupted strikes at full speed, a palm strike (since we keep our hands open) can look like a slap etc.



Please go back and read what I have written throughout this thread.  I would not disagree with what you've written at all!  I have  said multiple times I would not expect it to be "picture perfect" technique.  I'm talking more about core Wing Chun mechanics.  The way Wing Chun as a system teaches to move and to send and receive force.  If you aren't doing that, are you still doing Wing Chun?  Why do people feel the need to abandon those core mechanics just because they are in a sparring situation?  I will also say I see no problem with the video you posted.  The sparring vids I have seen of TWC guys are typically very recognizable as what they train.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Please go back and read what I have written throughout this thread.  I would not disagree with what you've written at all!  I have  said multiple times I would not expect it to be "picture perfect" technique.  I'm talking more about core Wing Chun mechanics.  The way Wing Chun as a system teaches to move and to send and receive force.  If you aren't doing that, are you still doing Wing Chun?  Why do people feel the need to abandon those core mechanics just because they are in a sparring situation?  I will also say I see no problem with the video you posted.  The sparring vids I have seen of TWC guys are typically very recognizable as what they train.



Can you provide an example then that I can watch?  I only ask because I showed the full fight of the video I noted on another thread a couple months ago.  One person insisted it wasnt WC.  I explained that some of the stuff they thought were just blind throws were tans and bongs.  I explained the important part of a straight punch was elbow down, fist verticals and that upon full extension it was on our centerline BUT obviously if your punch connects before full extension it won't be etc. 

Also I wasn't clear on your last response to Danny.  Are you saying you think a round kick and a hook punch (as examples) go against WC principles?

As for your comment about other videos where they spar and do look WC... Look at the other videos related to the one I showed you then the others side by side.  In the ones I showed that was an unsanctioned fight.  The guy in that video gets crushed like 3 or 4 times by Sifu Jerry.  The others are more akin to what I refer to as "light sparring", bordering on demonstrations.  There is a big difference between the pressure applied in each.  In the end when real pressure is applied all you really need to do is adhere to core principles, not appearance, and win.


----------



## KPM

_Honestly, not as well as many believe. Wing Chun has good theory & strategy, but in many cases this strategy is best utilized using a different method. I know, I’m a heretic._

----Another "damning statement" about Wing Chun.  That's what, 3 now?  


_To an extent yes, but this requires limiting what from Wing Chun is used. Take for example using Wing Chun techniques solely for boxing (no kicking, elbows, trapping), would it look drastically different from boxing?_

---Maybe, maybe not. Last I was taught Wing Chun doesn't throw straight punches with the elbows all flared out like some boxers.   Last I was taught, Wing Chun doesn't bend over at the waist and swing from the shoulders when punching like a lot of boxers.  So why would you expect a Wing Chun guy and a boxer to look alike when in a punching situation if the way they train to punch is drastically different?


_There are prominent theories suggesting that Wing Chun was heavily influenced by western bare knuckle boxing. I surmise that if you eliminated a fair amount of the techniques to conform to a boxing rule set, it’ll look like boxing with some semblance of Wing Chun structure._

---No.  It will look somewhat like "old school" boxing, which is pretty distinct from modern boxing.  And you know why?  Because "old school" boxing  (London Prize Ring era) used very upright stances, very straight punches with the elbows down, defenses that resemble Wing Chun techniques rather than bobbing and weaving, a centerline orientation with somewhat of a "shuffling" footwork, etc.  "Old school" boxing had a distinct "look" (I know!  There's that word again!).  It gradually evolved into modern boxing.  If you laid out B&W photos from that older era next to B&W photos from 30 years later you could easily pic out which is which.  Why?  Because they use different body mechanics that are recognizable.



_The higher the stress level the greater the ability to react, use sensitivity and perform small movements. I don’t know anyone beyond those individuals that actually fight regularly who can maintain the necessary motor skill involved in complex martial arts that require strict structure protocols. It is a perishable skill if not trained regularly, repetition only goes so far, fear also has to be present to condition a mind that can react under duress._

---And, as I stated before....core body mechanics...the essential way you move....should be a gross motor skill or there is something wrong with your training.  That is the essential thing that sparring should be testing.  If your basic structure breaks down under the stress of sparring then you know you need to go back and do some more training.  But it seems too many be are content to just assume that their basic structure is going to fail under pressure and accept that.




_As far as striking and kicking go, there are some better and more powerful methods. To ignore the usefulness of these methods is to limit yourself. Even Yip Man was known to confuse his students by striking them with a technique or two he picked up from Choy Lay Fut._

---Striking them with a technique from another system so that they have seen it and learn how to deal with it is far different than incorporating that technique into your own fighting system.  I have never heard of Ip Man "mixing and matching" and including a CLT kick here, a Hung Kuen uppercut there, etc into his own fighting method. 




_The posture of Wing Chun isn’t natural for boxing, it is based upon Zhan Zhuang, which is Chi Kung posture for energy cultivation. It isn’t as easy to maintain because it is smaller making it harder to generate power. I know this is the whole idea behind the postures, but when stressed we will seek familiarity and comfort in movement and posture, why not exploit it?_

----I disagree.  The posture for Wing Chun is an upright alignment with a natural spacing of the feet.  This is much more natural and easy to do compared to the low extended stances of a lot of TCMAs.  That upright posture is used to smoothly transmit force and maintain structure in a "Wing Chun way."   The only thing that makes it "unnatural" for boxing is when people start swinging from their shoulders and "hunching over" as a defense.  Those are all seen as mistakes in Wing Chun training, so why shouldn't they be seen as mistakes in Wing Chun sparring?



Any art is just a tool, take what is useful and discard what isn’t  If your goal is to be able to effectively defend yourself, why does it have to look cool? Personally I don’t care if I look like a mentally retarded meth addict with Tourette’s as long as I win. You don’t win fights with style points.

---Do you get in a lot of fights where you live?  Are you around mentally retarded meth addicts much?  Again, this goes back to my previous question.....are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or are you training to be good at sparring/fighting?  If you are training to be good at sparring, then something like kickboxing would serve you better if that is what people in general seem to resort to when sparring.


----------



## KPM

I posted this one before.   This is labeled as "Wing Chun no MMA."  Don't watch from the beginning.  Skip forward to the 2 1/12 minute mark so you don't see the corner guys who give it away.  Watch from the 2 1/2 minute mark and see if you can easily tell which guy is the Wing Chun guy.







Check out this one.  This is a little better, but if it wasn't labeled as "Wing Chun" would you immediately recognize it? There is some nice straight punches.  But styles other than Wing Chun use nice straight punches as well.






I don't see much Wing Chun structure in this one:






No Wing Chun structure here:






I'm still not quite sure which guy is supposed to be the Wing Chun guy in this one!






Now watch this one.  This is Brian Desar.  If I watched this video with no label I would have no problem saying "Hey, these guys are doing Wing Chun!"  It isn't "picture perfect" Wing Chun, and I'll assume Brian would look at this and recognize areas were he could improve his Wing Chun from going back and watching the footage.

Wing Chun Sparring

Here is another good one from the TWC ranks.  Now tell me, does anyone have any problem recognizing which guy is doing Wing Chun here?   Shouldn't that be the rule and not the exception?  Why is it that this guy can maintain pretty good Wing Chun structure under pressure when everyone here seems to think it can't be done????

Wing Chun v kick boxer

Here's another one from TWC.   Anyone have any problems spotting the Wing Chun here?  So obviously, IT CAN BE DONE....under pressure!

WING CHUN vs MMA

Even without the uniforms, would anyone have any trouble knowing who is who here?

Wing Chun vs Kyokushin Karate - Dojo Invasion Compilation


My point all along has not been that everyone looks like kickboxing when they spar with Wing Chun.  My point has been why do we see it as natural and acceptable when someone resorts to looking like sloppy kickboxing when they spar?  Why do we have so many people willing to shout out that "Wing Chun doesn't look like Wing Chun when you fight with Wing Chun!!!!"   Really?  I think the people in the last several videos above would disagree!!!  Why is it that too many seem to have such a lower standard for Wing Chun in sparring compared to Wing Chun in training?  (including people that have been responding to this discussion!)


----------



## KPM

_Can you provide an example then that I can watch?_ 

---Videos above!

_Also I wasn't clear on your last response to Danny.  Are you saying you think a round kick and a hook punch (as examples) go against WC principles?_

---If you are bending over at the waist and swinging from the shoulders to do a hook punch...yes, you are going against Wing Chun principles.  If you are leaning far backwards and trying to round kick a standing opponent to the head....yes, you are going against Wing Chun principles.


_ There is a big difference between the pressure applied in each.  In the end when real pressure is applied all you really need to do is adhere to core principles, not appearance, and win._

---If you are adhering to core Wing Chun mechanics and principles it should somewhat resemble Wing Chun.  The videos above show that.  Again, the forms are a reference for how we move when we do our Wing Chun.  Why should we be moving drastically different when sparring??  And if we aren't moving drastically different, why wouldn't it look like Wing Chun????  Why are people's standards so much lower for sparring compared to training?


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _Can you provide an example then that I can watch?_
> 
> ---Videos above!
> 
> _Also I wasn't clear on your last response to Danny.  Are you saying you think a round kick and a hook punch (as examples) go against WC principles?_
> 
> ---If you are bending over at the waist and swinging from the shoulders to do a hook punch...yes, you are going against Wing Chun principles.  If you are leaning far backwards and trying to round kick a standing opponent to the head....yes, you are going against Wing Chun principles.
> 
> 
> _ There is a big difference between the pressure applied in each.  In the end when real pressure is applied all you really need to do is adhere to core principles, not appearance, and win._
> 
> ---If you are adhering to core Wing Chun mechanics and principles it should somewhat resemble Wing Chun.  The videos above show that.  Again, the forms are a reference for how we move when we do our Wing Chun.  Why should we be moving drastically different when sparring??  And if we aren't moving drastically different, why wouldn't it look like Wing Chun????  Why are people's standards so much lower for sparring compared to training?




Well the first video is a bad choice in general.  It is MMA after all.

The second video I saw it.  The short guy especially largely kept proper upright structure I saw at least one _lan sau_ into a _fak_ used as a take down, I saw _paks_ and _tans_ my WC includes tight round kicks like you saw there etc.  Was their "sliding" or "shuffling" foot work?  No, not really but at the same time my school teaches us to be on the balls of our feet and to pick them up because it allows for quicker movement and direction changes in small spaces.  A perfect example is this.  Students of Ip Chun's Lineage when you turn, to either avoid an attack or to change your angle of attack, you pivot on the heel, Leung Ting Lineage they pivot on the balls of the foot, In Grand Master William Cheung's Lineage we actually lift our foot and step.

The black and white one is two guys screwing around.

The one vs TKD, the guy in the black shirt is the WC guy.  Eventually he is holding his hands that way because the other guy keeps throwing low kicks, why not be ready?  Would I do that?  Maybe not, but it was pretty obvious to me at least.

The last one is actually the one when I was referring to what amounts to a demonstration fight

I never said you can't "look pretty" when under pressure.  What I said was that under pressure you simply have to adhere to the core principles.  What are the core principles?  The three parts of Centerline theory, that I never meet force with force, that I simultaneously attack and defend, that I use economy of motion and that at the moment of attack or when I am deflecting blows I ensure I am grounded and using the centerline concepts to have my skeletal structure as the primary support for my attack and defense.

The trick is to learn how it "feels" in the "classic" stance, then you can "feel" the same way in modified stances that the dynamics of a fight may force upon you but the appearance has VERY little to do with adhering to the actual principles.  Now if someone takes a modified stance too far, such as leaning forward in a modern western boxing pose, if they are throwing their weight behind strikes instead of keeping the weight behind them.  I really don't see why its so hard to understand that the principles of Wing Chun still function when you don't have the "classic" stance.

Again will you use that stance in training?  Yes, because you want to continuously remind yourself what it feels like to be properly grounded, to protect and attack from your centerline etc.  However so long as you know what that feels like you can still apply those principles in what someone who say is not a "WC" stance.  Now there are limits as I said but you don't have to dogmatically adhere to appearance to adhere to principles.  Here is a full video that I think kinda proves my point. 

Now maybe it's my Lineage, it's what Sifu Jerry teaches (I have actually studied under him a bit and he may be moving permanently to my school).  Here is the whole fight vs the one little bit I showed earlier.






Is it pretty?  Nope.  Should that guy have been matched up against Sifu Jerry (ummm no, but thats unsanctioned "lets prove who the toughest is" round robin competitions.)  The white shirt however was the guy always trying to look "Classic" WC.  Sifu Jerry still consistently applied the WC principles BUT there were times he didn't "look" WC.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> ---If you are adhering to core Wing Chun mechanics and principles it should somewhat resemble Wing Chun.



Well then, perhaps the issue here is that there are just so many different "wing chun's" out there and that is why everyone thinks what they are doing (forms, drills, applications, sparring, etc) are all correct(?). I mean, is it a simple case of 'truth is in the eye of the beholder' ?


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> Well then, perhaps the issue here is that there are just so many different "wing chun's" out there and that is why everyone thinks what they are doing (forms, drills, applications, sparring, etc) are all correct(?). I mean, is it a simple case of 'truth is in the eye of the beholder' ?



I don't know about that.  In the videos I posted you have a range from Ip Chun Wing Chun to William Cheung Wing Chun, which are fairly different.  Yet they were both recognizable as Wing Chun.  There may be many different "wing chun's" out there, but they all still stick pretty close to a core biomechanics.


----------



## KPM

_Well the first video is a bad choice in general.  It is MMA after all._

---True!  But the video is labeled "Shaolin Wing Chun no MMA."  And this is one of those times when the question is asked "But where is the Wing Chun?" and people get all butt-hurt and come back with "but Wing Chun doesn't look like Wing Chun when you really use it! Why are you so stuck on appearances?" 


_The second video I saw it._ 

---Then it was pretty crappy Wing Chun!  Is that Ok?  Again, do we have a lower standard when it comes to Wing Chun when sparring compared to Wing Chun when training?  Why is that?


_The black and white one is two guys screwing around._

---Yeah, but if you look for other videos of him talking about sparring or demonstrating, he has no Wing Chun structure in those either.


_The one vs TKD, the guy in the black shirt is the WC guy.  Eventually he is holding his hands that way because the other guy keeps throwing low kicks, why not be ready?  Would I do that?  Maybe not, but it was pretty obvious to me at least._

---So you're saying Wing Chun has no answer for low kicks?  Again, no Wing Chun structure or mechanics there.  Why did he feel the need to abandon his Wing Chun mechanics just because the other guy was throwing low kicks?  He had no confidence in his Wing Chun?



_The trick is to learn how it "feels" in the "classic" stance, then you can "feel" the same way in modified stances that the dynamics of a fight may force upon you but the appearance has VERY little to do with adhering to the actual principles._ 

---Its more than principles.  Its structure and mechanics as well.  Did you have any trouble picking out the Wing Chun guys in those last videos based on appearance alone?  If you are adhering to Wing Chun mechanics, it can't help but look like Wing Chun.  If you are abandoning Wing Chun mechanics (not individual techniques), then it likely won't look much like Wing Chun.


_Now if someone takes a modified stance too far, such as leaning forward in a modern western boxing pose, if they are throwing their weight behind strikes instead of keeping the weight behind them.  I really don't see why its so hard to understand that the principles of Wing Chun still function when you don't have the "classic" stance._

---So is JKD actually Wing Chun?  JKD uses a different core mechanics but still uses a lot of Wing Chun principles and even techniques.  So is JKD the same thing as Wing Chun?  IMHO, it takes more than having a handful of principles to say you are doing Wing Chun.  Wing Chun has a  specific biomechanics for sending and receiving force.  How many times have I said that now?  Does anyone disagree with that?




_Is it pretty?  Nope.  Should that guy have been matched up against Sifu Jerry (ummm no, but thats unsanctioned "lets prove who the toughest is" round robin competitions.)  The white shirt however was the guy always trying to look "Classic" WC.  Sifu Jerry still consistently applied the WC principles BUT there were times he didn't "look" WC_.

---Sifu Jerry kept his Wing Chun structure pretty decently through-out.  He never resort to the "sloppy kickboxing" that I've been talking about.  This video is not an example of what I have been asking people about.   Now compare your video to the first 5 videos I posted.  You honestly don't see a difference???


----------



## KPM

Wong Shun Leung was not a fan of "bobbing and weaving."


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> _Honestly, not as well as many believe. Wing Chun has good theory & strategy, but in many cases this strategy is best utilized using a different method. I know, I’m a heretic._
> 
> ----Another "damning statement" about Wing Chun.  That's what, 3 now?
> 
> 
> _To an extent yes, but this requires limiting what from Wing Chun is used. Take for example using Wing Chun techniques solely for boxing (no kicking, elbows, trapping), would it look drastically different from boxing?_
> 
> ---Maybe, maybe not. Last I was taught Wing Chun doesn't throw straight punches with the elbows all flared out like some boxers.   Last I was taught, Wing Chun doesn't bend over at the waist and swing from the shoulders when punching like a lot of boxers.  So why would you expect a Wing Chun guy and a boxer to look alike when in a punching situation if the way they train to punch is drastically different?
> 
> 
> _There are prominent theories suggesting that Wing Chun was heavily influenced by western bare knuckle boxing. I surmise that if you eliminated a fair amount of the techniques to conform to a boxing rule set, it’ll look like boxing with some semblance of Wing Chun structure._
> 
> ---No.  It will look somewhat like "old school" boxing, which is pretty distinct from modern boxing.  And you know why?  Because "old school" boxing  (London Prize Ring era) used very upright stances, very straight punches with the elbows down, defenses that resemble Wing Chun techniques rather than bobbing and weaving, a centerline orientation with somewhat of a "shuffling" footwork, etc.  "Old school" boxing had a distinct "look" (I know!  There's that word again!).  It gradually evolved into modern boxing.  If you laid out B&W photos from that older era next to B&W photos from 30 years later you could easily pic out which is which.  Why?  Because they use different body mechanics that are recognizable.
> 
> 
> 
> _The higher the stress level the greater the ability to react, use sensitivity and perform small movements. I don’t know anyone beyond those individuals that actually fight regularly who can maintain the necessary motor skill involved in complex martial arts that require strict structure protocols. It is a perishable skill if not trained regularly, repetition only goes so far, fear also has to be present to condition a mind that can react under duress._
> 
> ---And, as I stated before....core body mechanics...the essential way you move....should be a gross motor skill or there is something wrong with your training.  That is the essential thing that sparring should be testing.  If your basic structure breaks down under the stress of sparring then you know you need to go back and do some more training.  But it seems too many be are content to just assume that their basic structure is going to fail under pressure and accept that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _As far as striking and kicking go, there are some better and more powerful methods. To ignore the usefulness of these methods is to limit yourself. Even Yip Man was known to confuse his students by striking them with a technique or two he picked up from Choy Lay Fut._
> 
> ---Striking them with a technique from another system so that they have seen it and learn how to deal with it is far different than incorporating that technique into your own fighting system.  I have never heard of Ip Man "mixing and matching" and including a CLT kick here, a Hung Kuen uppercut there, etc into his own fighting method.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The posture of Wing Chun isn’t natural for boxing, it is based upon Zhan Zhuang, which is Chi Kung posture for energy cultivation. It isn’t as easy to maintain because it is smaller making it harder to generate power. I know this is the whole idea behind the postures, but when stressed we will seek familiarity and comfort in movement and posture, why not exploit it?_
> 
> ----I disagree.  The posture for Wing Chun is an upright alignment with a natural spacing of the feet.  This is much more natural and easy to do compared to the low extended stances of a lot of TCMAs.  That upright posture is used to smoothly transmit force and maintain structure in a "Wing Chun way."   The only thing that makes it "unnatural" for boxing is when people start swinging from their shoulders and "hunching over" as a defense.  Those are all seen as mistakes in Wing Chun training, so why shouldn't they be seen as mistakes in Wing Chun sparring?
> 
> 
> 
> Any art is just a tool, take what is useful and discard what isn’t  If your goal is to be able to effectively defend yourself, why does it have to look cool? Personally I don’t care if I look like a mentally retarded meth addict with Tourette’s as long as I win. You don’t win fights with style points.
> 
> ---Do you get in a lot of fights where you live?  Are you around mentally retarded meth addicts much?  Again, this goes back to my previous question.....are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or are you training to be good at sparring/fighting?  If you are training to be good at sparring, then something like kickboxing would serve you better if that is what people in general seem to resort to when sparring.


We can go back & forth all day, especially when you cherry pick and/or take things out of context. So here's the deal......Are you able to effectively defend yourself in a real fight using Wing Chun that looks like Wing Chun?Or is it going to look like a combination of different methods, you know, like kick Boxing?

You ask if people are training to be good at Wing Chun or good at sparring, I surmise what's the difference if Wing Chun is an art of combat? If you're looking for effective self defense why can you not deviate from an art? Wing Chun is limited, it has no real ground game, yet adding BJJ to supplement doesn't seem to be an issue, so why would adding in something else.

Wing Chun is not all inclusive, regardless of what purists say. It is a specialty method best used to augment IMO. I know another damning statement, so what! It's not like I'm gonna get kicked out of the Wing Chun fanboy club, I was never a member to begin with.

Allen Orr calls his stuff Wing Chun, you enrolled in his online course, you must have thought it was Wing Chun looking enough to study it.

If the art you study is so rigid that you are not allowed to deviate from what's been interpreted for you, if you cannot interpret it's movements and techniques based on your own revelations, why study it.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> sloppy kickboxing ...


Have you ever considered that "kickboxing" may be the most effective way in fighting?

If your opponent
- uses straight punches at your face, you spin your body and use a hay-maker to knock him down.
- switch sides in the middle of the fight, your back leg roundhouse kick at his chest without thinking.
- ...

Even if "hay-maker" and "roundhouse kick" may not exist in your MA system, if you spar long enough, you will pick it up, find it useful, and make yourself become a kick boxer.

Without wrestling jacket, wrestlers, Judo guys, Aikido guys will all use "under-hook" and "over-hook" on the mat even if both moves may not be in their daily major grappling art training. When your opponent uses

- under-hook on you, it forces you to be in the over-hook position.
- over-hook on you, it forces you to be in the under-hook position.

In other words, if your opponent is a kick boxer and if "*he dominate the fight*" he will force you to fight like a kick  boxer no matter you like it or not. of course if you take your opponent down within 3 seconds, you will fight like a wrestler instead.


----------



## Phobius

Another thing people miss as well, when experience differences are too great in a fight and one guy gets his behind whooped. His technique and posture will often go out the window often, reason being that what may be called sparring is more resembling a fight with rules. Often there is little understanding that sparring is done for training purposes.

As for some one of those examples above. I just realize if this is the point of the discussion I better go and train instead. Approaching a martial art system as a bible is not something that fits me very well. Thinking that just because first forms and drills only teach short range combat that long range combat is the same is just strange in my view. Weapon forms show me ways to do long range punching, having a forward bend, not being straight to my opponent. Importance and difficulty is of course to maintain proper structure and not surrender your shoulders.


----------



## KPM

_We can go back & forth all day, especially when you cherry pick and/or take things out of context. _

---So just what have I "cherry picked" or taken out of context?  I think I have asked some very legitimate  and tough questions to which I haven't gotten very good answers.  Hopefully I've made people think a bit deeper about this topic as well.


_So here's the deal......Are you able to effectively defend yourself in a real fight using Wing Chun that looks like Wing Chun?Or is it going to look like a combination of different methods, you know, like kick Boxing?_

----And I've asked the question....are you training to get good at  Wing Chun?  Or are you (general "you") training to get good at  sparring?  Because if the answer is you only want to be good at sparring and fighting, them maybe it would be better to take up something like kickboxing, Muay Thai, or MMA.  That would be a much more efficient use of training time if you think you are going to end up fighting like a kickboxer or MMA guy!  Personally I don't live in an area or frequent areas where I have a high risk of getting attacked on the street.  I study martial arts for personal development and because I enjoy them......not to be the "baddest mother F'er on the planet"!    Being  able to defend myself well is a good and desirable product, but not the main reason I study martial arts.  I spar to get feedback about how well I am making my Wing Chun work.  If I end up doing some version of kickboxing in order to win the exchange, then my Wing Chun obviously needs some work ! Why is that so hard to accept?  Why do you think is it Ok to just abandon good Wing Chun structure and mechanics in a sparring situation? 



_You ask if people are training to be good at Wing Chun or good at sparring, I surmise what's the difference if Wing Chun is an art of combat?_

---I've said it multiple times....efficiency!   If you spend all your training time doing Wing Chun, and then spar more or less like a kickboxer, then you are being very inefficient with your training if doing well in sparring is your goal!  Isn't that just common sense?



_If you're looking for effective self defense why can you not deviate from an art? Wing Chun is limited, it has no real ground game, yet adding BJJ to supplement doesn't seem to be an issue, so why would adding in something else._

---I've already stated that since Wing Chun has no ground game I see nothing at all wrong with transitioning from Wing Chun to BJJ or something similar.  That is not what I have been talking about.


_Wing Chun is not all inclusive, regardless of what purists say. It is a specialty method best used to augment IMO. I know another damning statement, so what!_

---Yes.  Damning statement #4!    But it seems guys like Ip Man and Wong Shun Leung didn't feel the need to "augment." 


_Allen Orr calls his stuff Wing Chun, you enrolled in his online course, you must have thought it was Wing Chun looking enough to study it._

---Yes!  And the things he teaches in his course "look" very much like Wing Chun because they are Wing Chun!  He explains the core mechanics and principles very well.  And those core mechanics do not include bending over at the waist and swinging from the shoulders when throwing punches, or bending over way back and throwing high roundhouse kicks to the head, or bending forward at the waist bobbing and weaving.  I'm not  saying that doesn't happen when his guys are fighting MMA.  I'm just saying his on-line course teaches very good "classical" Wing Chun mechanics.



_If the art you study is so rigid that you are not allowed to deviate from what's been interpreted for you, if you cannot interpret it's movements and techniques based on your own revelations, why study it._

----No.  The better statement would be...."if you are going to abandon the core mechanics and principles of the art you study when you spar and get put under a little pressure, then why study it?"    There is room to "deviate" within the mechanics of Wing Chun without abandoning them so completely that it no longer looks like Wing Chun.  I provided video above to prove it!


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Have you ever considered that "kickboxing" may be the most effective way in fighting?
> 
> .



Well, yeah!  I've already said that if kickboxing is going to be the most effective way of sparring/fighting, then people should be studying kickboxing if their goal is to be good at sparring/fighting!  I've already said that if someone feels like the best thing is using somewhat of a kickboxing structure but with some Wing Chun techniques and principles, then JKD might be just what they need!   Are you guys actually reading my posts?  I seem to be saying the same things over and over.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> I've already said that if someone feels like the best thing is using somewhat of a kickboxing structure but with some Wing Chun techniques and principles, then JKD might be just what they need!


We agree each other on that 100% and no argument there. 

I have used long fist and Chinese wrestling to help my students to reach to Sanda/Sanshou (a super set of kickboxing). To me, both long fist and Chinese wrestling are just the paths and not the final goal.


----------



## Nobody Important

---So just what have I "cherry picked" or taken out of context?  I think I have asked some very legitimate  and tough questions to which I haven't gotten very good answers.  Hopefully I've made people think a bit deeper about this topic as well.

Most everything I wrote you've cherry picked. I've attempted to explain why I feel that Wing Chun form is abandoned in sparring or fighting, you've deflected, dismissed or taken out of context. I've explained my position at length. Maybe you should ask yourself why it's so. You obviously want to argue my thoughts instead of examining your own questions.

----And I've asked the question....are you training to get good at  Wing Chun?  Or are you (general "you") training to get good at  sparring?  Because if the answer is you only want to be good at sparring and fighting, them maybe it would be better to take up something like kickboxing, Muay Thai, or MMA.  That would be a much more efficient use of training time if you think you are going to end up fighting like a kickboxer or MMA guy!  Personally I don't live in an area or frequent areas where I have a high risk of getting attacked on the street.  I study martial arts for personal development and because I enjoy them......not to be the "baddest mother F'er on the planet"!    Being  able to defend myself well is a good and desirable product, but not the main reason I study martial arts.  I spar to get feedback about how well I am making my Wing Chun work.  If I end up doing some version of kickboxing in order to win the exchange, then my Wing Chun obviously needs some work ! Why is that so hard to accept?  Why do you think is it Ok to just abandon good Wing Chun structure and mechanics in a sparring situation?

I study what ever is useful to me, I care little for art. If your main reason isn't for fighting purposes, why do you care about it? The only way to insure that you can use an art exclusively is to pressure test often!

---I've said it multiple times....efficiency!   If you spend all your training time doing Wing Chun, and then spar more or less like a kickboxer, then you are being very inefficient with your training if doing well in sparring is your goal!  Isn't that just common sense?

Efficiency or looking for that magical belief in being able to effectively use Wing Chun with as little effort as possible. What do you care if others look like sloppy kick boxers when sparring, are they you?

---I've already stated that since Wing Chun has no ground game I see nothing at all wrong with transitioning from Wing Chun to BJJ or something similar.  That is not what I have been talking about.

I don't think Wing Chun has a real strong stand up game, so I don't see any issues with augmenting that part. Disagree all you want. I appreciate the theory and strategy the art offers, not so much the techniques it employs.


---Yes.  Damning statement #4!    But it seems guys like Ip Man and Wong Shun Leung didn't feel the need to "augment."

Yes #4 am I disbarred now? I'm not allowed to speak out against the art. I like Wing Chun, but I'm not a fervent believer in it being the best art in existence. It has flaws IMO.


---Yes!  And the things he teaches in his course "look" very much like Wing Chun because they are Wing Chun!  He explains the core mechanics and principles very well.  And those core mechanics do not include bending over at the waist and swinging from the shoulders when throwing punches, or bending over way back and throwing high roundhouse kicks to the head, or bending forward at the waist bobbing and weaving.  I'm not  saying that doesn't happen when his guys are fighting MMA.  I'm just saying his on-line course teaches very good "classical" Wing Chun mechanics.

Really!!?? Because not so long ago you threw a tantrum stating you couldn't tell it apart from MMA. But now that you have some insight, you can suddenly see the Wing Chun, where you couldn't before. I stated that I could see the principles present, you argued that wasn't enough because the structure wasn't apparent. Smh

----No.  The better statement would be...."if you are going to abandon the core mechanics and principles of the art you study when you spar and get put under a little pressure, then why study it?"    There is room to "deviate" within the mechanics of Wing Chun without abandoning them so completely that it no longer looks like Wing Chun.  I provided video above to prove it!

I never stated to abandon them completely, I stated at times deviation is needed, even required.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> What does WC even look like?  What you do in training is building the skills, learning the principles etc.  Do I use another MA simply because once a fight starts I keep my hands in fists and not open? Am I using a different art because when I move I move on my toes but when I attack or defend I am still maintaining proper structure? Obviously "looking like" WC, imo, is about clearly demonstrating the principles of the art.  The structure, tight footwork etc that forms the foundation upon which the techniques are applied from.
> 
> I don't know of any traditional MA that  "looks" like it does in training in Lei Tai, sparring etc.  However if you look at the fight you will see them applying the principles and techniques of the art.  The reason for it is this.  Especially when facing people fighting using other systems your actions are not solely dictated by you but by the actions of your opponent.  As such what makes it WC is do they maintain their structure? Do they protect, and attack, from their centerline?  Are they disrupting and are they attacking their opponents center?  Are they pressing forward and applying constant pressure unless forced to back off? Etc.  If so they are doing WC.
> 
> WC is a conceptual MA based on core principles.  So long as the principles are held to and the techniques based on these principles are used  then it's WC.
> 
> You can still maintain these core principles without the appearance you see in training.  The appearance in training is so the new student can learn how it "feels" to be "grounded" via structure so that attacks start from the ground and the the force of incoming attacks go through the body into the ground and don't get "bound" up in the "jelly" at your hips and thus disrupting your center.  Once you know how this feels, you can achieve it without a "classic" appearing stance.  If you marry yourself to what are ultimately training tools, it will limit how you can react in a real fight.



Any traditional arts that do alive training.  Judo. Sumo. Boxing. Wrestling. Fighting looks like training.

Arts that dont.  Start to stray away from their fighting appearence.

Sorry more accurately where their centerpoint is alive training. So the martial art looks like the sparring because that is the martial art.


----------



## drop bear

Ok. I think people need to understand a little bit more about kickboxing if we are going to use it as an example.

Kickboxing was originally a vehicle for tkd and karate guys. Back in the shiny pants era of the 80,s it looked like this.






And would be considered as traditional as kickboxing gets if it had that mindset. But because you can kickbox any way you want you got people from all sorts of styles come in and do their own thing.

Famously there was a massive change when the Thai guys appeared on the scene and started winning.





Watch that video. It is important.

Basically after that fight. The outcry was."well f you want to learn the art of kickboxing then you should train our way. If you want to just kick guys legs to bits. Then do that"

See where this starts to sound similar?

So kickboxing really dosent look like kickboxing either. It looks like kickboxing fighting.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

2 general questions for those who has concern about "fight like a kick boxer".

1. When you stand in front of your heavy bag, do you have the desire to roundhouse kick at that bag?

2. After you have learned roundhouse kick just by kicking on your heavy bag, do you ever question why roundhouse kick is not in your particular MA style?


----------



## KPM

_Most everything I wrote you've cherry picked. I've attempted to explain why I feel that Wing Chun form is abandoned in sparring or fighting, you've deflected, dismissed or taken out of context. I've explained my position at length. Maybe you should ask yourself why it's so. You obviously want to argue my thoughts instead of examining your own questions._

----Oh now come on!    I've gave my reasons for why good Wing Chun should stay good Wing Chun even when sparring and your responses have essentially been "but it doesn't!!!"  You've deflected and dismissed what I have had to say in every post.  I have been making the point that good Wing Chun structure and mechanics shouldn't be abandoned, and don't HAVE to be abandoned under pressure.  I've even provided video showing people maintaining their Wing Chun structure under pressure.  My question has been....why has it become acceptable by some to abandon good Wing Chun structure and mechanics in sparring?  What has been your response?  Essentially it has been...."because it happens!"  So who is deflecting here?  I've been keeping this on friendly terms because this is just a discussion to get people to think a bit.  So why are you going and getting nasty about things??? 



_I study what ever is useful to me, I care little for art. If your main reason isn't for fighting purposes, why do you care about it? The only way to insure that you can use an art exclusively is to pressure test often!_

---Very true!  And what is your conclusion when the basic structure and mechanics of your art break down under pressure???



_Efficiency or looking for that magical belief in being able to effectively use Wing Chun with as little effort as possible. What do you care if others look like sloppy kick boxers when sparring, are they you?_

---They can look like sloppy kickboxers all they want!  Again, my position has simply been to ask the questions...why has it become so  acceptable by some to abandon good Wing Chun when sparring?  Why do some have a lower standard for Wing Chun in sparring compared to Wing Chun in training?  Why do people get all offended when you point out to them that their Wing Chun has broken down and disappeared when they spar?  Why do people think that Wing Chun in sparring shouldn't actually LOOK like Wing Chun?  Why does it NOT seem like common sense to assert that Wing Chun has a certain structure and mechanics for sending and receiving force.  This is trained in the forms and drills.  They are there for a reason.  Why do you think it is perfectly acceptable to toss all that out the window when sparring?  Why do you think that this is a "magical belief"?  I think those are pretty straight-forward questions.  But based on your last few responses, it seems my points may be hitting a little too close to home!    Have you lost all faith in YOUR WIng Chun??  Why are you defending the "sloppy kickboxers" that call what they do "Wing Chun"?




_I don't think Wing Chun has a real strong stand up game,_

---I guess that's my answer then.  You seem to be taking offense at my points and position because you HAVE lost faith in your Wing Chun as a fighting art.  But there's nothing wrong with that!  However, maybe you feel like you have been  wasting your time training Wing Chun rather than something more "kickboxing-like"?  My apologies if what I have been saying has touched a nerve in that regard.  But its never too late to learn something new!  Personally, I have  recently started studying Pentjak Silat Bukti Negara and am really enjoying it!  



_Yes #4 am I disbarred now? I'm not allowed to speak out against the art. I like Wing Chun, but I'm not a fervent believer in it being the best art in existence. It has flaws IMO._

----I agree with that part!  To some extent I have been playing the "devil's advocate" here.  But it also points out a big hypocrisy in Wing Chun circles for those guys that talk up their chun and then abandon it under pressure.  All you have needed to say in these various exchanges here is that you DON'T think "classical" Wing Chun works well in sparring/fighting in today's environment.  That is a perfectly valid opinion and you could come up with many good points to support that opinion! 




_Really!!?? Because not so long ago you threw a tantrum stating you couldn't tell it apart from MMA_

---I said that I couldn't tell some of the MMA bouts that his guys were in apart from standard MMA.  I still can't at times!  I still think that for the most part they are doing more MMA than Wing Chun when they get in the ring.




_I never stated to abandon them completely, I stated at times deviation is needed, even required._

----We have both said that.  I said there is enough flexibility within Wing Chun that it doesn't have to be "deviated" to the point that it no longer resembles Wing Chun.  If you believe that is untrue, that simply say so.  Otherwise it seems we will keep arguing in circles!


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> Any traditional arts that do alive training.  Judo. Sumo. Boxing. Wrestling. Fighting looks like training.
> 
> Arts that dont.  Start to stray away from their fighting appearence.
> 
> Sorry more accurately where their centerpoint is alive training. So the martial art looks like the sparring because that is the martial art.



Exactly!   I have stated multiple times on this thread ..."fight the way you train and train the way you fight!"  Yet some of the very people that have been arguing against my points just agreed with you!  Go figure!


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> _Most everything I wrote you've cherry picked. I've attempted to explain why I feel that Wing Chun form is abandoned in sparring or fighting, you've deflected, dismissed or taken out of context. I've explained my position at length. Maybe you should ask yourself why it's so. You obviously want to argue my thoughts instead of examining your own questions._
> 
> ----Oh now come on!    I've gave my reasons for why good Wing Chun should stay good Wing Chun even when sparring and your responses have essentially been "but it doesn't!!!"  You've deflected and dismissed what I have had to say in every post.  I have been making the point that good Wing Chun structure and mechanics shouldn't be abandoned, and don't HAVE to be abandoned under pressure.  I've even provided video showing people maintaining their Wing Chun structure under pressure.  My question has been....why has it become acceptable by some to abandon good Wing Chun structure and mechanics in sparring?  What has been your response?  Essentially it has been...."because it happens!"  So who is deflecting here?  I've been keeping this on friendly terms because this is just a discussion to get people to think a bit.  So why are you going and getting nasty about things???
> 
> 
> 
> _I study what ever is useful to me, I care little for art. If your main reason isn't for fighting purposes, why do you care about it? The only way to insure that you can use an art exclusively is to pressure test often!_
> 
> ---Very true!  And what is your conclusion when the basic structure and mechanics of your art break down under pressure???
> 
> 
> 
> _Efficiency or looking for that magical belief in being able to effectively use Wing Chun with as little effort as possible. What do you care if others look like sloppy kick boxers when sparring, are they you?_
> 
> ---They can look like sloppy kickboxers all they want!  Again, my position has simply been to ask the questions...why has it become so  acceptable by some to abandon good Wing Chun when sparring?  Why do some have a lower standard for Wing Chun in sparring compared to Wing Chun in training?  Why do people get all offended when you point out to them that their Wing Chun has broken down and disappeared when they spar?  Why do people think that Wing Chun in sparring shouldn't actually LOOK like Wing Chun?  Why does it NOT seem like common sense to assert that Wing Chun has a certain structure and mechanics for sending and receiving force.  This is trained in the forms and drills.  They are there for a reason.  Why do you think it is perfectly acceptable to toss all that out the window when sparring?  Why do you think that this is a "magical belief"?  I think those are pretty straight-forward questions.  But based on your last few responses, it seems my points may be hitting a little too close to home!    Have you lost all faith in YOUR WIng Chun??  Why are you defending the "sloppy kickboxers" that call what they do "Wing Chun"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I don't think Wing Chun has a real strong stand up game,_
> 
> ---I guess that's my answer then.  You seem to be taking offense at my points and position because you HAVE lost faith in your Wing Chun as a fighting art.  But there's nothing wrong with that!  However, maybe you feel like you have been  wasting your time training Wing Chun rather than something more "kickboxing-like"?  My apologies if what I have been saying has touched a nerve in that regard.  But its never too late to learn something new!  Personally, I have  recently started studying Pentjak Silat Bukti Negara and am really enjoying it!
> 
> 
> 
> _Yes #4 am I disbarred now? I'm not allowed to speak out against the art. I like Wing Chun, but I'm not a fervent believer in it being the best art in existence. It has flaws IMO._
> 
> ----I agree with that part!  To some extent I have been playing the "devil's advocate" here.  But it also points out a big hypocrisy in Wing Chun circles for those guys that talk up their chun and then abandon it under pressure.  All you have needed to say in these various exchanges here is that you DON'T think "classical" Wing Chun works well in sparring/fighting in today's environment.  That is a perfectly valid opinion and you could come up with many good points to support that opinion!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Really!!?? Because not so long ago you threw a tantrum stating you couldn't tell it apart from MMA_
> 
> ---I said that I couldn't tell some of the MMA bouts that his guys were in apart from standard MMA.  I still can't at times!  I still think that for the most part they are doing more MMA than Wing Chun when they get in the ring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I never stated to abandon them completely, I stated at times deviation is needed, even required._
> 
> ----We have both said that.  I said there is enough flexibility within Wing Chun that it doesn't have to be "deviated" to the point that it no longer resembles Wing Chun.  If you believe that is untrue, that simply say so.  Otherwise it seems we will keep arguing in circles!


Good lord man, I have stated why I think it breaks down. I'm not trying to be nasty, go back over my overly lengthy posts stating my belief why it does break down when sparring. You've consistently argued against why I believe it does.

Solo practice, even partner practice is generally choreographed, way different approach than live & spontaneous application.

I haven't given up Wing Chun & You haven't struck a nerve. I just personally don't believe Wing Chun is a stand alone method. I've stated before & I'll state again I believe Wing Chun is an art meant to augment & elevate a more gross motor skill method like Long Fist or Boxing. I believe it to be an art of refinement, an art of ideal approach.

When it comes to realistic fight application Wing Chun training is backwards. It starts with fundamentals that are predominantly fine motor movement and working up to gross motor movement. There is also a great deal of emphasis on forms that don't really contain practical body movement. Exactly opposite of loose technique arts like Wrestling & Boxing.

It's very hard to convince people to make small position adjustments & bridge when someone is trying to rip their head off, when their natural instinct is to duck, dodge or run away.

It's best to work from big movements to small movements. A big movement can be refined to become small. It's very difficult to enlarge a small movement effectively. Wing Chun is designed small to big (Siu Lim Tau to Biu Jee) where as the big isn't even that big. Even the legends state that Wing Chun is an advanced art, one refined from others. This is why I believe it to be an art of augmentation and refinement.

Why do many Wing Chun practitioners revert to sloppy kickboxing? IMO , because it is the first art that they learned. Many Tai Chi practitioners suffer from the same dilemma. Arts of refinement shouldn't be first arts learned.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _Well the first video is a bad choice in general.  It is MMA after all._
> 
> ---True!  But the video is labeled "Shaolin Wing Chun no MMA."  And this is one of those times when the question is asked "But where is the Wing Chun?" and people get all butt-hurt and come back with "but Wing Chun doesn't look like Wing Chun when you really use it! Why are you so stuck on appearances?"
> 
> 
> _The second video I saw it._
> 
> ---Then it was pretty crappy Wing Chun!  Is that Ok?  Again, do we have a lower standard when it comes to Wing Chun when sparring compared to Wing Chun when training?  Why is that?


I don't think it is crappy WC if you adhere to the principles.  It's not about appearance.  I will explain what I mean by principles below.



> ---So you're saying Wing Chun has no answer for low kicks?  Again, no Wing Chun structure or mechanics there.  Why did he feel the need to abandon his Wing Chun mechanics just because the other guy was throwing low kicks?  He had no confidence in his Wing Chun?



Indeed it does.  He didn't violate structure or principles.  He simply kept a hand low.  Since some of the techniques used to address low kicks involve the hand, why be a fool and waste time moving a hand from a high guard to a low deflection? 


> ---Its more than principles.  Its structure and mechanics as well.  Did you have any trouble picking out the Wing Chun guys in those last videos based on appearance alone?  If you are adhering to Wing Chun mechanics, it can't help but look like Wing Chun.  If you are abandoning Wing Chun mechanics (not individual techniques), then it likely won't look much like Wing Chun.



By principles I mean structure and mechanics, I explained this.  The purpose of structure is so that you are "grounded".  In essence your attack starts from the ground and your defenses allow the energy to not simply get "stuck" in the defending limb or torso but to pass into the ground.  That is what I meant when I said "feel" your stance.  You can achieve that without the stereotypical stance.  Example in my school our "goto" stance is not a "front" stance but a neutral stance.  We only adopt a front stance when we are confident we aren't dealing with a "kicker".  The only thing you would recognize as uniquely "WC" is the hand position.  My With is a student of Keith Mazza, GM Cheung's closed door disciple so I would say that it is "WC."



> ---So is JKD actually Wing Chun?  JKD uses a different core mechanics but still uses a lot of Wing Chun principles and even techniques.  So is JKD the same thing as Wing Chun?  IMHO, it takes more than having a handful of principles to say you are doing Wing Chun.  Wing Chun has a  specific biomechanics for sending and receiving force.  How many times have I said that now?  Does anyone disagree with that?



I would certainly consider Guro Dan's JKD concepts to be modified WC yes.  He himself even says to learn JKD you need WC.  At the Inosanto Academy he goes so far as to have WC Instructors come in to teach WC to his JKD students.  Does it go outside classical WC with various techniques, if there is such a thing? Yes it does still...  




Heck some of the principles/structure he said JKD changed is actually in the WC I study.



> ---Sifu Jerry kept his Wing Chun structure pretty decently through-out.  He never resort to the "sloppy kickboxing" that I've been talking about.  This video is not an example of what I have been asking people about.   Now compare your video to the first 5 videos I posted.  You honestly don't see a difference???



I didn't see real "sloppy kick boxing" in terms of effective structure in the blue shirt video (short guy) nor the TKD one.    All I saw was non classic hand and arm position (though in the TKD one he starts with it, he just transitions from it when he realizes his opponent is a one trick pony) and the blue guys threw more kicks than I would like BUT Sifu Jerry likes high kicks too as you see. The kicking (blue shirts) is natural btw with many MA students and that isnt limited to WC.  Most people aren't comfortable getting in so close so they often resort to kicks so they are still "attacking" but don't have to be inside someone's personal space.  That isn't a WC exclusive issue though, it's a Universal one.  It's one of the reasons TKD and certain other arts are so popular.  They look cool and people are more comfy with it.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Good lord man, I have stated why I think it breaks down. I'm not trying to be nasty, go back over my overly lengthy posts stating my belief why it does break down when sparring. You've consistently argued against why I believe it does.
> 
> Solo practice, even partner practice is generally choreographed, way different approach than live & spontaneous application.
> 
> I haven't given up Wing Chun & You haven't struck a nerve. I just personally don't believe Wing Chun is a stand alone method. I've stated before & I'll state again I believe Wing Chun is an art meant to augment & elevate a more gross motor skill method like Long Fist or Boxing. I believe it to be an art of refinement, an art of ideal approach.
> 
> When it comes to realistic fight application Wing Chun training is backwards. It starts with fundamentals that are predominantly fine motor movement and working up to gross motor movement. There is also a great deal of emphasis on forms that don't really contain practical body movement. Exactly opposite of loose technique arts like Wrestling & Boxing.
> 
> It's very hard to convince people to make small position adjustments & bridge when someone is trying to rip their head off, when their natural instinct is to duck, dodge or run away.
> 
> It's best to work from big movements to small movements. A big movement can be refined to become small. It's very difficult to enlarge a small movement effectively. Wing Chun is designed small to big (Siu Lim Tau to Biu Jee) where as the big isn't even that big. Even the legends state that Wing Chun is an advanced art, one refined from others. This is why I believe it to be an art of augmentation and refinement.
> 
> Why do many Wing Chun practitioners revert to sloppy kickboxing? IMO , because it is the first art that they learned. Many Tai Chi practitioners suffer from the same dilemma. Arts of refinement shouldn't be first arts learned.



Just to your last point.  The legend as passed down, that I know, says that WC was actually created to be an art easier to learn.  It was said that it took 15 years to train what they considered a competent Kung Fu fighter, WC was designed to allow this to be done in 1/3 the time.  So it was a hybrid art taking from many styles to create a more streamlined art.

I think, when people go sloppy kick boxing, its no different with WC than any other art.  I have seen it with certain forms of Karate and almost every other TMA style.  People do not train enough period and so the devolve from the fine motor skills of WC that you see in _tans_, _bongs_ etc and go instinct which = gross motor skills.  I think the whole reason of small to big is actually to address this issue BUT how many people will do SLT over and over again, sometimes REAL slow to get the muscle memory?  You can actually build such muscle memory, a more common example is a soldier being training to reload, aim, fire and clear malfunctions with their rifle.  The thing is it takes practice, practice, practice and more practice and that is lacking in far too many Martial artists.


----------



## KPM

_Good lord man, I have stated why I think it breaks down. I'm not trying to be nasty, go back over my overly lengthy posts stating my belief why it does break down when sparring. You've consistently argued against why I believe it does._

---And good lord man!  I've posted videos showing where it didn't break down!  So clearly it doesn't have to!  So I've asked why some have such a lower standard for Wing Chun when sparring than Wing Chun when training.  I've asked why people get all offended when you point out that there Wing Chun has broken down.  I've asked why people would think they need to abandon core Wing Chun mechanics and structure when sparring.  Because obviously not everyone does!  You haven't answered those questions directly. 


_Solo practice, even partner practice is generally choreographed, way different approach than live & spontaneous application._

---See, here is another example.  You come back with a counter-point without actually addressing the questions I have been proposing.  So who has been deflecting?   Just because an application is live & spontaneous, why do you think one should simple abandon core Wing Chun mechanics and structure???    If the forms and drills are teaching a Wing Chun-specific way to move, way do you think it is acceptable to then just forget all that when sparring? 



_I haven't given up Wing Chun & You haven't struck a nerve. I just personally don't believe Wing Chun is a stand alone method. _

----Well, it seems like a long line of our Wing Chun ancestors did!  And again, adding a ground-game to your fighting skills because Wing Chun doesn't have one is quite different that deciding to use a kickboxing structure with jabs, and crosses and high roundhouse kicks to the head and similar things that violate basic Wing Chun structure.  Judging by your reactions on this thread, I think I have struck a nerve, even if you are not consciously admitting it to yourself.  Because you seem to be the only one that has taken this discussion personally.   So I apologize for that and didn't intend for the tone to degenerate.



_I've stated before & I'll state again I believe Wing Chun is an art meant to augment & elevate a more gross motor skill method like Long Fist or Boxing. I believe it to be an art of refinement, an art of ideal approach._

---So you think our Wing Chun ancestors were simply doing Wing Chun to augment their Long Fist skills?  That is an interesting proposal!   I've never heard that Leung Jan, Yuen Kay Shan, Sum Nun, Ip Man, Wong Shun Leung, etc also did Long Fist as well as Wing Chun.   Has your research shown that they did?


_When it comes to realistic fight application Wing Chun training is backwards. It starts with fundamentals that are predominantly fine motor movement and working up to gross motor movement. There is also a great deal of emphasis on forms that don't really contain practical body movement. Exactly opposite of loose technique arts like Wrestling & Boxing._

---Ok.  Now that is an actual answer to a few of my questions. Rather than just essentially saying..."because it does!"  


_It's very hard to convince people to make small position adjustments & bridge when someone is trying to rip their head off, when their natural instinct is to duck, dodge or run away._

---True! 


_It's best to work from big movements to small movements. A big movement can be refined to become small. It's very difficult to enlarge a small movement effectively. Wing Chun is designed small to big (Siu Lim Tau to Biu Jee) where as the big isn't even that big. Even the legends state that Wing Chun is an advanced art, one refined from others. This is why I believe it to be an art of augmentation and refinement._

---Interesting points!   So it would seem the training method is at fault.

_
Why do many Wing Chun practitioners revert to sloppy kickboxing? IMO , because it is the first art that they learned. Many Tai Chi practitioners suffer from the same dilemma. Arts of refinement shouldn't be first arts learned._

---Ah see!  Another actual answer to what I have been asking!  This may very well be the case!  That would make an interesting survey of people sparring that are able to maintain a Wing Chun structure or not....whether they had started in another martial art prior to Wing Chun that taught sparring like that. 


---But it occurs to me, that if Wing Chun is really best as a refinement or augmentation to an art based more on gross motor skills and real fighting application.....then maybe Bruce Lee truly was on the right track.  Because he essentially developed his own kickboxing method and used Wing Chun principles and techniques to "refine it" to some extent.  So maybe we should all be doing JKD!  

---Anyway, thanks for finally attempting to answer my questions with real feedback rather than just arguing to defend the "sloppy kickboxers."


----------



## KPM

_I don't think it is crappy WC if you adhere to the principles.  It's not about appearance.  I will explain what I mean by principles below._

---See, that's clearly a case of having a lower standard for assessing Wing Chun sparring as compared to assessing Wing Chun training.  You didn't see that as an example of crappy Wing Chun!  Heck, I'll bet even the guy involved would admit that he did a crappy job!  


_
Indeed it does.  He didn't violate structure or principles.  He simply kept a hand low.  Since some of the techniques used to address low kicks involve the hand, why be a fool and waste time moving a hand from a high guard to a low deflection? _

---Turning your body completely sideways so that you eliminate your "Wu Sau" hand's role as a back up is something I've been taught is not good Wing Chun structure in every system of Wing Chun I've studied.  And one of those Wing Chun systems is actually called "side body" (Pin Sun) Wing Chun!!  This violates most principles of facing an opponent.  This is done with the pole because it is such a long weapon and you only use one end of it.  But when you do it empty hand you limit half of your arsenal.  He didn't need to turn completely sideways to his opponent simply to deal with kicks.  He DID violate Wing Chun structure and principles when he did that.  And he used it through most of the exchange!


_By principles I mean structure and mechanics, I explained this._ 

---You detail a generalized way of rooting that is common to most TCMAs.  I'm talking about the structure and mechanics that are specific to Wing Chun.   Wing Chun's own method for sending and receiving force.

_ The purpose of structure is so that you are "grounded".  In essence your attack starts from the ground and your defenses allow the energy to not simply get "stuck" in the defending limb or torso but to pass into the ground.  That is what I meant when I said "feel" your stance.  You can achieve that without the stereotypical stance._

---I agree. And relaxing the angles and such somewhat is not what I'm talking about.  I explained that I am talking about those guys that start bending forward at the waist, swinging from the shoulders, bobbing and weaving, and yes....turning completely sideways to the opponent!   In all the TWC videos so far the Wing Chun guy has kept pretty good structure.  A nice upright stance, gliding footwork and not dancing around on the toes, nice straight punches and no loopy haymakers, etc.




_I would certainly consider Guro Dan's JKD concepts to be modified WC yes.  He himself even says to learn JKD you need WC.  At the Inosanto Academy he goes so far as to have WC Instructors come in to teach WC to his JKD students._ 

---And a lot of JKD guys  would go ape-sh1t on you if you said they were simply doing a modified form of Wing Chun.    But then that still begs the question.....you say you see adhering to the principles as important to still be doing Wing Chun.  So why do you think it is not important to adhere to the mechanics and structure taught in the forms and drills?  Because JKD does not use the same structure and mechanics as taught in the Wing Chun forms.


\


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _I don't think it is crappy WC if you adhere to the principles.  It's not about appearance.  I will explain what I mean by principles below._
> 
> ---See, that's clearly a case of having a lower standard for assessing Wing Chun sparring as compared to assessing Wing Chun training.  You didn't see that as an example of crappy Wing Chun!  Heck, I'll bet even the guy involved would admit that he did a crappy job!
> 
> 
> _
> Indeed it does.  He didn't violate structure or principles.  He simply kept a hand low.  Since some of the techniques used to address low kicks involve the hand, why be a fool and waste time moving a hand from a high guard to a low deflection? _
> 
> ---Turning your body completely sideways so that you eliminate your "Wu Sau" hand's role as a back up is something I've been taught is not good Wing Chun structure in every system of Wing Chun I've studied.  And one of those Wing Chun systems is actually called "side body" (Pin Sun) Wing Chun!!  This violates most principles of facing an opponent.  This is done with the pole because it is such a long weapon and you only use one end of it.  But when you do it empty hand you limit half of your arsenal.  He didn't need to turn completely sideways to his opponent simply to deal with kicks.  He DID violate Wing Chun structure and principles when he did that.  And he used it through most of the exchange!
> 
> 
> _By principles I mean structure and mechanics, I explained this._
> 
> ---You detail a generalized way of rooting that is common to most TCMAs.  I'm talking about the structure and mechanics that are specific to Wing Chun.   Wing Chun's own method for sending and receiving force.
> 
> _ The purpose of structure is so that you are "grounded".  In essence your attack starts from the ground and your defenses allow the energy to not simply get "stuck" in the defending limb or torso but to pass into the ground.  That is what I meant when I said "feel" your stance.  You can achieve that without the stereotypical stance._
> 
> ---I agree. And relaxing the angles and such somewhat is not what I'm talking about.  I explained that I am talking about those guys that start bending forward at the waist, swinging from the shoulders, bobbing and weaving, and yes....turning completely sideways to the opponent!   In all the TWC videos so far the Wing Chun guy has kept pretty good structure.  A nice upright stance, gliding footwork and not dancing around on the toes, nice straight punches and no loopy haymakers, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I would certainly consider Guro Dan's JKD concepts to be modified WC yes.  He himself even says to learn JKD you need WC.  At the Inosanto Academy he goes so far as to have WC Instructors come in to teach WC to his JKD students._
> 
> ---And a lot of JKD guys  would go ape-sh1t on you if you said they were simply doing a modified form of Wing Chun.    But then that still begs the question.....you say you see adhering to the principles as important to still be doing Wing Chun.  So why do you think it is not important to adhere to the mechanics and structure taught in the forms and drills?  Because JKD does not use the same structure and mechanics as taught in the Wing Chun forms.
> 
> 
> \



I am referring to specific videos and people in them.  The short kid in the one video really only has an issue with hand position (and kicking to much for my tastes) but he maintains upright structure and doesn't actually adopt a boxers stance.  He does stay on the balls of his feet and step vs shuffle, but that is what I am taught under Grand Master Cheung's lineage.  You can argue he is moving to much but the question needs be asked, is he doing that simply to match his opponent? However his high kicks are what I assumed you were referring to, and that is why I posted Sifu Jerry's fight. 

I think we run into issues sometimes because of different Lineages (stepping vs sliding and kicking) plus in pressure sparing some stuff ends up "off" simply because you have to move to match your opponent.

The TKD guy, it actually looks like he dances between two styles tbh.  He blades for defense but when he attacks he squares up and uses WC punching structure.  

I dismissed the first due to MMA, and the black and white because it's "smoking and joking."

The "crashing the dojo" one I actually had issue with because he never tried to get to the blind side, which is strong in my lineage (which is why I thought it more of a demonstration fight.)

JKD concepts is a weird thing, as it was explained to me, in that the structure you use changes depending on your range.  That is why I see it as modified WC because at close range it is very WC like.  I can't speak to "Original" JKD as I know no one who studied it.


----------



## Juany118

Let me note I have indeed watched people go to legit bad kick boxing.  My only thing is first what I noted above.  Second, I am personally VERY hesitant to challenge people from other lineages.  They can all have different "principles" in appearance.  Example...

Here is Chum Kiu in My Lineage





Here it is in another Lineage





Are they clearly related?  heck yeah.  Are there profound differences as well?  Also heck yeah and those differences will influence how it works in practice.


----------



## Nobody Important

--And good lord man!  I've posted videos showing where it didn't break down!  So clearly it doesn't have to!  So I've asked why some have such a lower standard for Wing Chun when sparring than Wing Chun when training.  I've asked why people get all offended when you point out that there Wing Chun has broken down.  I've asked why people would think they need to abandon core Wing Chun mechanics and structure when sparring.  Because obviously not everyone does!  You haven't answered those questions directly.

Is it a lower standard when they find something that works better for them, something they have more success with? That's the point I've argued.

---See, here is another example.  You come back with a counter-point without actually addressing the questions I have been proposing.  So who has been deflecting?   Just because an application is live & spontaneous, why do you think one should simple abandon core Wing Chun mechanics and structure???    If the forms and drills are teaching a Wing Chun-specific way to move, way do you think it is acceptable to then just forget all that when sparring?

They may be teaching a specific way to move, but it is generally unrealistic for actual fighting because it contains complex fine motor transitions. Simple 1,2 movements & responses are best. Most classical Wing Chun drills are not that.


----Well, it seems like a long line of our Wing Chun ancestors did!  And again, adding a ground-game to your fighting skills because Wing Chun doesn't have one is quite different that deciding to use a kickboxing structure with jabs, and crosses and high roundhouse kicks to the head and similar things that violate basic Wing Chun structure.  Judging by your reactions on this thread, I think I have struck a nerve, even if you are not consciously admitting it to yourself.  Because you seem to be the only one that has taken this discussion personally.   So I apologize for that and didn't intend for the tone to degenerate.

Think what you like, no nerve struck. I'm impartial as Wing Chun isn't my preferred method. Just simply trying to explain why it can break down. Points you've dismissed by saying it doesn't have to. The points were valid ones, even though they may not apply to all. It's not deflection when direct answers are given. I've mentioned breakdown of small movement & fine motor skill under stress multiple times as well as fear and mindset. Factors that directly link to performance. Fight or flight is directly related to response & decision making.

---So you think our Wing Chun ancestors were simply doing Wing Chun to augment their Long Fist skills?  That is an interesting proposal!   I've never heard that Leung Jan, Yuen Kay Shan, Sum Nun, Ip Man, Wong Shun Leung, etc also did Long Fist as well as Wing Chun.   Has your research shown that they did?

Many Wing Chun ancestors were rumored to have studied other arts first. It's not until after Leung Jan's generation that we see Wing Chun being taught as a method unto itself. It was taught alongside Hung Gar in the beginning, even Cho family stated with Cho Lay Fut. The 72 arts of Siu Lim took years to master, Wing Chun was supposedly a condensation of these. An art to be learned quickly. But many forget that Siu Lim had a base art that was required learning before entering into advanced training, like the 72 arts. This was Fut Gar, supposedly an art that distilled the 5 Families into a simple method of basic training. It was rumored that some Wing Chun ancestors like Fung Siu Ching, Dai Fa Min Jam & Leung Bak Lau were actually practitioners of Fut Gar prior to learning Wing Chun.

---Ok.  Now that is an actual answer to a few of my questions. Rather than just essentially saying..."because it does!"  

Again nothing different than what I've been saying. Perhaps I didn't clarify enough.

---But it occurs to me, that if Wing Chun is really best as a refinement or augmentation to an art based more on gross motor skills and real fighting application.....then maybe Bruce Lee truly was on the right track.  Because he essentially developed his own kickboxing method and used Wing Chun principles and techniques to "refine it" to some extent.  So maybe we should all be doing JKD!  

---Anyway, thanks for finally attempting to answer my questions with real feedback rather than just arguing to defend the "sloppy kickboxers.

That isn't for me to answer, I can only speak to my experience and belief. Fung Siu Ching was an expert in Sut Gow & Kam Na, methods not found in all branches of Wing Chun to such an extent as his. A mitre box is a great tool to augment a saw, but not applicable in every situation. MMA methodology is at the forefront of the fight game. The question to ask, is why? We've seen Wing Chun fall flat time & time again when put to the test despite defending it's supposed superior theory & mechanics. There are some exceptions, but the majority rules. Perhaps the training methodology is flawed & needs reevaluated, or perhaps how the art is being used needs reevaluated. Why do you train other arts if Wing Chun contains all you'll ever require? Not to long ago you questioned Wing Chun yourself.

It seems we are talking past each other & in circles. So I'll extend the olive branch & leave the conversation on this note.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Is it a lower standard when they find something that works better for them, something they have more success with? That's the point I've argued.



I think another question is "did it break down", which implies a lack of intent, or was it intentional?  WC is an great art, but if confronted by an assailant armed with a melee weapon in real life, sorry my WC isn't breaking down, I am going into Kali mode because that, for me, is simply a more natural response to someone coming at me with weapons, because it is basically purpose built for that from the first lesson.

I even think one of the videos he shows kinda shows that point.  The TKD video shows the man in black start WC.  He changes his structure when in defense but then returns to WC when he attacks (at least at .25 speed that is how it looked to me).  If you have additional knowledge its silly to say, imo, "well I study WC now so I can only use WC."  I had to fight a boxer once at work.  He didn't know what to do with WC except try to clinch me, he just wasn't used to someone comfy trapping and punching (not clinching) that close (I didn't have a taser at the time or there would have been no fight lol).  So WC is definitely good in particular circumstances, just like BJJ shines in its own particular set of circumstances but there will be places where there is a better option as well and if you have that option use it.


----------



## Vajramusti

Much that I don't relate to at all on this thread, including the two examples of chum kiu and comments about the kwan.


----------



## Juany118

Vajramusti said:


> Much that I don't relate to at all on this thread, including the two examples of chum kiu and comments about the kwan.



That has kinda become my point.  Until I joined this forum the only WC I knew was that which I studied.  Coming here made me look around at the other "schools of thought".  There are so many schools of thought I am of two minds "you can break your WC" and "who am I to say anyone I don't study with has broken their WC because I can only relate to what I am taught.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> I think another question is "did it break down", which implies a lack of intent, or was it intentional?  WC is an great art, but if confronted by an assailant armed with a melee weapon in real life, sorry my WC isn't breaking down, I am going into Kali mode because that, for me, is simply a more natural response to someone coming at me with weapons, because it is basically purpose built for that from the first lesson.
> 
> I even think one of the videos he shows kinda shows that point.  The TKD video shows the man in black start WC.  He changes his structure when in defense but then returns to WC when he attacks (at least at .25 speed that is how it looked to me).  If you have additional knowledge its silly to say, imo, "well I study WC now so I can only use WC."  I had to fight a boxer once at work.  He didn't know what to do with WC except try to clinch me, he just wasn't used to someone comfy trapping and punching (not clinching) that close (I didn't have a taser at the time or there would have been no fight lol).  So WC is definitely good in particular circumstances, just like BJJ shines in its own particular set of circumstances but there will be places where there is a better option as well and if you have that option use it.


And I've mentioned that. If you have a better method then why not use it. I can't disagree. I've stated multiple times Wing Chun isn't all inclusive or always the best option. When you try to force a method to respond to something that it isn't as congruent in as another it breaks down.


----------



## Danny T

Vajramusti said:


> Much that I don't relate to at all on this thread, including the two examples of chum kiu and comments about the kwan.


Joy I am interested in your thoughts as to what you do not relate to within the comments about the pole.
There were (if my memory serves) three maybe four comments made by different persons.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> --
> That isn't for me to answer, I can only speak to my experience and belief. Fung Siu Ching was an expert in Sut Gow & Kam Na, methods not found in all branches of Wing Chun to such an extent as his. A mitre box is a great tool to augment a saw, but not applicable in every situation. MMA methodology is at the forefront of the fight game. The question to ask, is why? We've seen Wing Chun fall flat time & time again when put to the test despite defending it's supposed superior theory & mechanics. There are some exceptions, but the majority rules. Perhaps the training methodology is flawed & needs reevaluated, or perhaps how the art is being used needs reevaluated. Why do you train other arts if Wing Chun contains all you'll ever require? Not to long ago you questioned Wing Chun yourself.
> .



 Yes, and as I said to some extent I have been playing the "devil's advocate" here.  And you make a great point above.  Again, this whole exercise was to really get people to think more deeply about this.  Including me!


----------



## Vajramusti

Danny T said:


> Joy I am interested in your thoughts as to what you do not relate to within the comments about the pole.
> There were (if my memory serves) three maybe four comments made by different persons.


------------------
Hi Danny the short end of the pole can also be used... similar to the pulling punch bridge  can be \used
when sinking the kwan.


----------



## Phobius

drop bear said:


> Any traditional arts that do alive training.  Judo. Sumo. Boxing. Wrestling. Fighting looks like training.
> 
> Arts that dont.  Start to stray away from their fighting appearence.
> 
> Sorry more accurately where their centerpoint is alive training. So the martial art looks like the sparring because that is the martial art.



This is the whole problem with the discussion.

Judo, Sumo, Boxing, Wrestling and so on. Fighting does not look like training. Instead fighting looks like sparring but sparring is a more integrated part of training.

Boxing may have more drills focused on learning a pattern or combos that are directly used in fighting as a pre-programmed machine, this is why I have a lot of respect for boxing but even there there are a lot of drills that do not look at all like fighting or sparring. Speed bag for instance.

Problem as I see it that if you feel that drills in WC do not look like sparring then you are probably spending too much time doing drills as if a beginner. It is my belief that people in WC are terrible at advancing their drills and get stuck in some kind of passive "I punch and you react" kind of drills where emphasize is on proper techniques and making every move in order to create a feeling in your body to maintain proper structure even in a fighting context.

However a proper structure is not to stand in a static stance but rather being in a constant movement. Also if you are in long range it is not proper technique to be standing squared to  your opponent just because WC trains that way. Reason is that you can not neglect distance, and there is no point standing squared if neither arm can reach. Why make yourself a larger target?

At same time you do not give your back to the opponent, as should be drilled quite clearly in the baat cham dao form. So yes you do not stand squared in long range fighting.

Now this would be called "looks like sloppy kickboxing" because it is an opinion of KPM that unless it looks like some chi sao drill or like the guy is doing a SLT form then it is sloppy kickboxing and I can not agree with such statement.

Now on the other hand some of the example videos show terrible sparring still, not terrible in regards to guy throwing everything out the door initially but terrible because there is often a clear difference in experience between fighters and one guy simply becomes frustrated and/or flails wildly in lack of understanding that sparring should be used to train your techniques and not as a need to win. (To their defense it could be fights for honor rather than sparring)

Also the example videos from KPM some show complete lack of knowledge as to what is fighting or even sparring and yet he suggests these show good WC while I would say any sparring in WC that lacks offensive intent is clearly not WC. It may become WC with time but at the moment it is as saying a beginner does WC when doing drills. He is trying to do WC which is not really the right thing.


----------



## KPM

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------
> Hi Danny the short end of the pole can also be used... similar to the pulling punch bridge  can be \used
> when sinking the kwan.



That's your one gripe?    Of course the butt of the pole can be used to strike downward, or even forward.  But it is a minor part of the pole compared to everything else.  I made the comment about sideways stance with the pole because one end of the pole is what is primarily used.....as opposed to those staff systems that flip the weapon around and strike with both ends fairly equally.  Those types of systems often stand relatively "square on" to the opponent.


----------



## KPM

_Judo, Sumo, Boxing, Wrestling and so on. Fighting does not look like training. Instead fighting looks like sparring but sparring is a more integrated part of training._

---What gives you that idea?  Certainly Judo, Sumo, Boxing, and Wrestling look the same in training as they do in sparring/fighting!  Does the Judo guy change the mechanics of his throws he practices in randori just because he is in a competition?  Does the wrestler change the mechanics of his double leg takedown he has been practicing in training with his partner just because he is in a competition?   Does the boxer change the mechanics of his punching developed from working on the focus mitts with his coach when he gets in the ring with an opponent?  Geez!  Use a little common sense here!


_Boxing may have more drills focused on learning a pattern or combos that are directly used in fighting as a pre-programmed machine, this is why I have a lot of respect for boxing but even there there are a lot of drills that do not look at all like fighting or sparring. Speed bag for instance._

---Ok.  So a boxer doing the speed bag does change his punching mechanics just for sake of working the speed bag.   A boxer training cardio isn't going to use the same footwork with the jump rope that he will use in the ring.  But those are small relatively insignificant drills compared to the entirety of a boxer's training.  If the boxer loses his form in the ring that his coach has been working on in training you can bet he is going to hear about it after the fight!



_Problem as I see it that if you feel that drills in WC do not look like sparring then you are probably spending too much time doing drills as if a beginner. It is my belief that people in WC are terrible at advancing their drills and get stuck in some kind of passive "I punch and you react" kind of drills where emphasize is on proper techniques and making every move in order to create a feeling in your body to maintain proper structure even in a fighting context._

---Again, it depends on who we are talking about.  And, again....I never said I would expect Wing Chun in sparring to be "picture perfect" and look exactly like the forms and drills.  I have simply been saying that some abandon the basic structure and mechanics of Wing Chun when sparring.  And I wondered why that was, and why so many find that to be acceptable.  Why do you find it acceptable?  Do you agree with "Nobody Important" that Wing Chun structure and mechanics doesn't really work in fighting?


_Also if you are in long range it is not proper technique to be standing squared to  your opponent just because WC trains that way. Reason is that you can not neglect distance, and there is no point standing squared if neither arm can reach. Why make yourself a larger target?_

---If you aren't close enough to the opponent to reach him, then he isn't close enough to reach you! So what is there to be gained by standing sideways?   If he is going to be launching a projectile at you, then yeah!  I could see how you might want to make yourself a narrower target!  But otherwise???   From a Wing Chun perspective when it is ever advantageous to be standing perfectly sideways to an opponent??  (other than when using the long pole)



_ it is an opinion of KPM that unless it looks like some chi sao drill or like the guy is doing a SLT form then it is sloppy kickboxing and I can not agree with such statement._

---And again,  how many times do I have to point out that I have never said that!!!  Why are you putting words in my mouth?  Either make a good point or don't.  Don't trot out a straw man argument to make yourself feel better.

---Should I spell it out  again?  Geez, how many times do I need to restate this?  Wing Chun has a specific core mechanics and structure for sending and receiving force.  This is what is trained in the forms and drills and Chi Sau.  That core mechanics is flexible enough to allow for some adaptation when needed.  But when someone starts doing things like bending over at the waist bobbing and weaving, throwing wide punches by swinging the shoulders, bouncing around on their toes rather than using smooth gliding footwork, punching with their elbows flared outward, violating principles of facing by standing sideways to an opponent, etc....they have abandoned their core Wing Chun biomechanics.  THAT is what I have been saying!   So do you, Phobius, believe that someone can abandon those core mechanics and resort to "sloppy kickboxing" as I have just described and still be said to be doing Wing Chun???



_Also the example videos from KPM some show complete lack of knowledge as to what is fighting or even sparring and yet he suggests these show good WC_

---Huh?  You need to explain that one a little further!   As far as whether it is good Wing Chun,  you'll have to take that one up with Juany118, because all of the examples I noted as pretty good  were all TWC!  


_ while I would say any sparring in WC that lacks offensive intent is clearly not WC. It may become WC with time but at the moment it is as saying a beginner does WC when doing drills. He is trying to do WC which is not really the right thing._

---So you are saying that ALL of the videos were examples of "crappy Wing Chun"????


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> -What gives you that idea?  Certainly Judo, Sumo, Boxing, and Wrestling look the same in training as they do in sparring/fighting!  Does the Judo guy change the mechanics of his throws he practices in randori just because he is in a competition?  Does the wrestler change the mechanics of his double leg takedown he has been practicing in training with his partner just because he is in a competition?   Does the boxer change the mechanics of his punching developed from working on the focus mitts with his coach when he gets in the ring with an opponent?  Geez!  Use a little common sense here!



This is not what was said, I said the drill and the way it looks during drill is not how it looks during sparring or fighting. Drills are targetting specific areas to train, some may resemble sparring and others dont. For boxing a lot of it is maintained same behavior as fighting. Well at least for good schools, just punching bag workouts seem to done in a crappy non-realistic way for some schools but assuming a good class of course.




KPM said:


> -Ok.  So a boxer doing the speed bag does change his punching mechanics just for sake of working the speed bag.   A boxer training cardio isn't going to use the same footwork with the jump rope that he will use in the ring.  But those are small relatively insignificant drills compared to the entirety of a boxer's training.  If the boxer loses his form in the ring that his coach has been working on in training you can bet he is going to hear about it after the fight!



We are not saying it is ok to lose form. I am saying it is not clear a form is lost just because you think it looks like kickboxing. The difference in that statement should be very clear to you.

A boxer has drills that are not using any techniques as they would be used in sparring or fighting, but boxing is an art that is in its core intended to be that you train exactly the way you fight. Very efficient. This is my belief that when it comes to punching itself a boxer will always become better at that part than any other art given the time investment and natural ability is somewhat identical.




KPM said:


> -Again, it depends on who we are talking about.  And, again....I never said I would expect Wing Chun in sparring to be "picture perfect" and look exactly like the forms and drills.  I have simply been saying that some abandon the basic structure and mechanics of Wing Chun when sparring.  And I wondered why that was, and why so many find that to be acceptable.  Why do you find it acceptable?  Do you agree with "Nobody Important" that Wing Chun structure and mechanics doesn't really work in fighting?



I am disagreeing that WC should look like forms or drills, because most forms or drills people refer to are those on YouTube that lack offensive intent and focuses on singular application or specific movements of body. I can move in other ways and still maintain mechanics, this is because I have been taught over and over that it is not about the techniques but rather to learn my body to move correctly.

Drilling techniques and doing forms teach me the mechanics and to follow them without thinking. It does not teach me how to move in a specific situation because the application drills usually are void of realistic offensive intent. When adding that intent the drill becomes more random in nature and my approach to it becomes something that stems from my training and the very foundation of my body seeking to maintain trained mechanics.

So once more, I am disagreeing that when it in your opinion does not look like the drills it is "sloppy kickboxing". Besides, no fighter will ever be doing WC. WC is a system you train but as for fighting we are not systems, we have a style that we maintain ourselves. It develops based on different systems we have been in contact with.



KPM said:


> -If you aren't close enough to the opponent to reach him, then he isn't close enough to reach you! So what is there to be gained by standing sideways?   If he is going to be launching a projectile at you, then yeah!  I could see how you might want to make yourself a narrower target!  But otherwise???   From a Wing Chun perspective when it is ever advantageous to be standing perfectly sideways to an opponent??  (other than when using the long pole)



You have never met a boxer of some kind? Or a taller guy? Believe me, range matters and a boxer will maintain a range for which he can hit you and while squared you will be unable to hit back. If we need to discuss the difference between preferred range of WC vs long range punching then I better just skip this discussion altogether because we wont be able to help each other find new things to think about.



KPM said:


> -And again,  how many times do I have to point out that I have never said that!!!  Why are you putting words in my mouth?  Either make a good point or don't.  Don't trot out a straw man argument to make yourself feel better.



You are posting videos and stating things such as guard being incorrect, stance not being WC stance and so on. Then you have been saying that if we do not train the way we fight, why train WC at all. That sparring should look like our forms and drills otherwise we better train kickboxing if that is how we look when fighting.

So I turned the words and said the same thing but as a statement about your opinion. If you feel it is bad to train if we do not do sparring as we are doing drills and forms, then you think it is sloppy kickboxing as you call such appearance.





KPM said:


> -Should I spell it out  again?  Geez, how many times do I need to restate this?  Wing Chun has a specific core mechanics and structure for sending and receiving force.  This is what is trained in the forms and drills and Chi Sau.  That core mechanics is flexible enough to allow for some adaptation when needed.  But when someone starts doing things like bending over at the waist bobbing and weaving, throwing wide punches by swinging the shoulders, bouncing around on their toes rather than using smooth gliding footwork, punching with their elbows flared outward, violating principles of facing by standing sideways to an opponent, etc....they have abandoned their core Wing Chun biomechanics.  THAT is what I have been saying!   So do you, Phobius, believe that someone can abandon those core mechanics and resort to "sloppy kickboxing" as I have just described and still be said to be doing Wing Chun???



First of all, bobbing and weaving or similar movement at least can be done while maintaining structure. It does however require practise. Do not assume a boxer has left his back and spine vulnerable because he is moving around. However it of course is not pure Wing Chun, pure Wing Chun is an advanced way of boxing that means you need to be master the elements such as bobbing and weaving to such a degree that you no longer need to use them. What that means to me is that if you can not control the situation you need to know how to bob and weave, and as much as possible try to maintain structure in such a way that you keep the upper hand.

You see, there is a basic knowledge of fighting required in order to be better than it. Not the other way around saying you know no fighting and can train something more advanced to beat regular fighting.

Wide punches are usually a reaction when sparring is failing. Not proper structure but a fighter that is pressured and probably hurt or beat. Usually seen done more often when a fighter is A. believing he is just about to win. or B. in pain and ready to give up, holding on to his last straw.

Swinging shoulders to some degree having a long range punching ability is part of weapon forms in WC. However it is very important to not overdo that movement, same thing applies to most martial arts. Beginners tend to often overdo it and it usually has a punishment attached to it.

Bouncing around on toes I think is a point sparring kind of habit. Often seen introduced I believe (not verified, just my personal theory) when sparring does not have enough offensive intent but becomes more a friendly game of touch. Smooth gliding footwork? Can be steps as well, as this is not a movie. It is not the movement but rather the structure and ability to change path midstep that is important.

Punching with elbows faced outwards is not the same as flared outward. If it can be avoided that is great but for long range punching it might face outward more often than not. Flaring outward however is just sloppy unless doing round punches and in that case those are techniques not taken from WC but rather something the fighter has brought into the game to mix things up.



KPM said:


> -Huh?  You need to explain that one a little further!   As far as whether it is good Wing Chun,  you'll have to take that one up with Juany118, because all of the examples I noted as pretty good  were all TWC!



It was not the lineage that made them bad, it was the way they were done. It is not even possible to say that it was because the teacher was bad or the student. Could simply be that it was an early phase and they have now improved. Or perhaps it was simply the way they wanted to train that specific day. In some cases they also may not want to relay the proper way of doing sparring because it might be giving too much away in terms of information and rather point to some warmup session or something.




KPM said:


> -So you are saying that ALL of the videos were examples of "crappy Wing Chun"????



There is no such possibility of saying something is "crappy Wing Chun". There are just systems people train and then they get a different level of skill based on how much and how  they train. So some videos do contain quite a bit of beginners. Others contain people that have spent a lot of time in their life training other arts, leaving it unclear how long they trained Wing Chun and for what purpose they are training it. As such their style may incorporate Wing Chun in exactly the way they wish for it.


----------



## KPM

_This is not what was said, I said the drill and the way it looks during drill is not how it looks during sparring or fighting._

---Huh?  That's what I thought you said!  To which my reply to applies!!!!:  "What makes you think that? Certainly Judo, Sumo, Boxing, and Wrestling look the same in training as they do in sparring/fighting! Does the Judo guy change the mechanics of his throws he practices in randori just because he is in a competition? Does the wrestler change the mechanics of his double leg takedown he has been practicing in training with his partner just because he is in a competition? Does the boxer change the mechanics of his punching developed from working on the focus mitts with his coach when he gets in the ring with an opponent?"  



_We are not saying it is ok to lose form. I am saying it is not clear a form is lost just because you think it looks like kickboxing. The difference in that statement should be very clear to you._

----And my description of losing form should be very clear to you.  You didn't answer my question.  So let me repeat it:    "So do you, Phobius, believe that someone can abandon those core mechanics and resort to "sloppy kickboxing" as I have just described and still be said to be doing Wing Chun???"




_I am disagreeing that WC should look like forms or drills, because most forms or drills people refer to are those on YouTube that lack offensive intent and focuses on singular application or specific movements of body. I can move in other ways and still maintain mechanics, this is because I have been taught over and over that it is not about the techniques but rather to learn my body to move correctly._

---And why do you believe that "moving your body correctly".....according to what is taught in the Wing Chun forms and drills.....would NOT resemble Wing Chun???



_Drilling techniques and doing forms teach me the mechanics and to follow them without thinking. It does not teach me how to move in a specific situation because the application drills usually are void of realistic offensive intent. When adding that intent the drill becomes more random in nature and my approach to it becomes something that stems from my training and the very foundation of my body seeking to maintain trained mechanics._

---And I have said that the core mechanics of Wing Chun, the way Wing Chun teaches to move correctly, has room for flexibility.  What situation do you think would require you to abandon those core mechanics?   And....as I have said multiple times now....I am not referring to ground-fighting because Wing Chun does not teach ground-fighting.   Why would adding "offensive intent" alter your core Wing Chun mechanics??






_You have never met a boxer of some kind? Or a taller guy? Believe me, range matters and a boxer will maintain a range for which he can hit you and while squared you will be unable to hit back._

---But standing sideways you will?  I'm sorry.  I'm not following your points very well.  You skip answering my direct questions and aren't putting together a very good description of what you mean.



_You are posting videos and stating things such as guard being incorrect, stance not being WC stance and so on. Then you have been saying that if we do not train the way we fight, why train WC at all. That sparring should look like our forms and drills otherwise we better train kickboxing if that is how we look when fighting.

So I turned the words and said the same thing but as a statement about your opinion. If you feel it is bad to train if we do not do sparring as we are doing drills and forms, then you think it is sloppy kickboxing as you call such appearance._

---I'm not even going to  justify that with a rebuttal.  You are simply twisting what I have been saying and the points I have been trying to make.


_ pure Wing Chun is an advanced way of boxing that means you need to be master the elements such as bobbing and weaving to such a degree that you no longer need to use them. What that means to me is that if you can not control the situation you need to know how to bob and weave, and as much as possible try to maintain structure in such a way that you keep the upper hand.

You see, there is a basic knowledge of fighting required in order to be better than it. Not the other way around saying you know no fighting and can train something more advanced to beat regular fighting._

---Ok.  So like "Nobody Important" you see Wing Chun as a style to "augment" something else and not as a good independent style all of its own?   That's ok!  Why haven't you just come out and said that in the past?


----------



## Danny T

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------
> Hi Danny the short end of the pole can also be used... similar to the pulling punch bridge  can be \used
> when sinking the kwan.


Hi Joy,
Thank you for taking the time to respond. With the instruction and training I've had I agree with that.
Would you be willing to share a thought or two as to the relationship of the stances, structures, and movements within kwan training and other parts of the system or do you find any relationship at all?


----------



## Vajramusti

Danny T said:


> Hi Joy,
> Thank you for taking the time to respond. With the instruction and training I've had I agree with that.
> Would you be willing to share a thought or two as to the relationship of the stances, structures, and movements within kwan training and other parts of the system or do you find any relationship at all?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Danny- there are lots of relationships.I will touch on some key ones in Ip Man kwan usage.
1. The spacing of the hands.Among other things that helps the hands to coordinate together.
2.For developing power the wide horse stance and the use of the pole helps develop power and aim.The narrower horse stance does that but with more speed.
3 Unlike the northern spear work the positioning of the kwan-keeps the close alignment with the body structure
4.When pulling back in the narrow horse the front foot cat strance helps balance the heavy pole.
5All stances control the pole so that the pole does not control you
6. the biu kwan really develops body unity
7.  Forward and backward bracing stances help with deflections in different angles
8 the complementary positioning of the hands helps prevent the pole from being knocked out of the hand.
Of course there is more-one could write a book on it. The kwan trains you for long weapons and the
do for shorter weapons. The Romans -not the same usage or weapons- but it is interesting they also depended on the spear and the short sword. The Indians as well.


----------



## Danny T

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Danny- there are lots of relationships.I will touch on some key ones in Ip Man kwan usage.
> 1. The spacing of the hands.Among other things that helps the hands to coordinate together.
> 2.For developing power the wide horse stance and the use of the pole helps develop power and aim.The narrower horse stance does that but with more speed.
> 3 Unlike the northern spear work the positioning of the kwan-keeps the close alignment with the body structure
> 4.When pulling back in the narrow horse the front foot cat strance helps balance the heavy pole.
> 5All stances control the pole so that the pole does not control you
> 6. the biu kwan really develops body unity
> 7.  Forward and backward bracing stances help with deflections in different angles
> 8 the complementary positioning of the hands helps prevent the pole from being knocked out of the hand.
> Of course there is more-one could write a book on it. The kwan trains you for long weapons and the
> do for shorter weapons. The Romans -not the same usage or weapons- but it is interesting they also depended on the spear and the short sword. The Indians as well.


Thank you Joy.
This affirms numerous aspects of what I have learned while giving rise to some that I will continue to research.
I appreciate your sharing.


----------



## Vajramusti

You are welcome Danny


----------



## anerlich

Personally, if my sparring works and looks like *good* kickboxing I'll be happy.

I don't spar pugilistically with significant contact anymore due to age (61), over $50,000 of dental work I don't want to put at risk, and a progressive lack of interest in getting hit in the face. I grapple four days a week and go hard for at least a couple of rounds, so I think I'm continuing to push myself.

When I did spar, I used to bob and weave, and use roundhouse and spinning kicks aimed at the legs, body and the head. My Wing Chun instructor taught me all that stuff and is still crazy good at it himself. Roundhouse kicks work really well on the sidestep, whatever the stylistic YouTube police might say. Arrest me, mofos. My lawyer will have me back on the street within the hour and get you laughed out of court.

I used to change levels and hit WC guys with low ankle shoots a lot as well, probably about an 80% success rate.

Effective base, structure, and posture are based on physics and kinesiology, not any style. 

These days my martial arts training is Jiu Jitsu and forms from Wing Chun and other TCMA styles I have studied. I'm not a stylistic purist so don't feel I have a set of stylistic rules or laws I have to stick to.

I've found that when put under pressure in standup wrestling and occasionally on the ground Wing Chun structure and pak, bil, larp, bon etc. seem to come out on their own pretty often. So I guess my training did get ingrained. FWIW, which isn't a lot.

Frankly, these days I do Wing Chun forms and occasional dummy mainly for movement precision and meditative aspects.

Not good enough, you say? My response is three words, the last being "yourself", and the first, "Go". Who set the standards I am supposed to live up to, exactly?

My forms practices are an end in themselves rather than a means to anything. I practice grappling and BJJ for my self defense, stress relief, self actualisation, and "physical chess" aspirations.

Over 100 posts, some of them lengthy, on this subject? Only on a Wing Chun forum. The ghost of Terence Niehoff (sp?) is haunting this thread. Now I know why other martial arts interest me more at present.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> Personally, if my sparring works and looks like *good* kickboxing I'll be happy.
> 
> I don't spar pugilistically with significant contact anymore due to age (61), over $50,000 of dental work I don't want to put at risk, and a progressive lack of interest in getting hit in the face. I grapple four days a week and go hard for at least a couple of rounds, so I think I'm continuing to push myself.
> 
> When I did spar, I used to bob and weave, and use roundhouse and spinning kicks aimed at the legs, body and the head. My Wing Chun instructor taught me all that stuff and is still crazy good at it himself. Roundhouse kicks work really well on the sidestep, whatever the stylistic YouTube police might say. Arrest me, mofos. My lawyer will have me back on the street within the hour and get you laughed out of court.
> 
> I used to change levels and hit WC guys with low ankle shoots a lot as well, probably about an 80% success rate.
> 
> These days my martial arts training is Jiu Jitsu and forms from Wing Chun and other TCMA styles I have studied. I'm not a stylistic purist so don't feel I have a set of rules or laws I have to stick to.
> 
> I've found that when put under pressure in standup wrestling and occasionally on the ground Wing Chun structure and pak, bil, larp, bon etc. seem to come out on their own pretty often. So I guess my training did get ingrained. FWIW, which isn't a lot.
> 
> Frankly, these days I do Wing Chun forms and occasional dummy mainly for movement precision and meditative aspects.
> 
> Not good enough, you say? My response is three words, the last being "yourself", and the first, "Go". Who set the standards I am supposed to live up to, exactly?
> 
> My forms practices are an end in themselves rather than a means to anything. I practice grappling and BJJ for my self defense, stress relief, self actualisation, and "physical chess" aspirations.
> 
> Over 100 posts, some of them lengthy, on this subject? Only on a Wing Chun forum. The ghost of Terence Niehoff (sp?) is haunting this thread. Now I know why other martial arts interest me more at present.



Yeah kinda kills me that only on this form do we have "that is real <insert martial arts>" debates.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Juany118 said:


> Yeah kinda kills me that only on this form do we have "that is real <insert martial arts>" debates.


Pureblood + Muggle -> _Mudblood

WC + MA X -> ..._


----------



## Juany118

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Pureblood + Muggle -> _Mudblood
> 
> WC + MA X -> ..._



It doesn't even have to be that though.  I am fairly certain that some people would look at the Chun Kiu of Grand Master Cheung's Lineage and alone say "that isn't WC." The fact I may personally use certain Kali techniques, say a "cover" (looks vaguely like you are saluting) instead of a _tan-bong_ would only make matters worse.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> -And why do you believe that "moving your body correctly".....according to what is taught in the Wing Chun forms and drills.....would NOT resemble Wing Chun???



I am gonna say something that you wont agree with most likely and therefore it serves no point continuing this discussion.



KPM said:


> Why would adding "offensive intent" alter your core Wing Chun mechanics??



Try adding offensive intent and then we can talk. It does not alter mechanics. It alters appearance and would because it will differ from drills and forms be called sloppy kickboxing by you.



KPM said:


> -But standing sideways you will?  I'm sorry.  I'm not following your points very well.  You skip answering my direct questions and aren't putting together a very good description of what you mean.



You make the target smaller. The rest was just to say that people can hit you without you reaching them when standing squared. This is due to long range punching which forces you to not keep squared stance. Standing somewhat sideways is not to punch but reduce target size. Standing completely sideways may be something else altogether. Only done that in Karate for forms and drills only.
_ 
_


KPM said:


> -Ok.  So like "Nobody Important" you see Wing Chun as a style to "augment" something else and not as a good independent style all of its own?   That's ok!  Why haven't you just come out and said that in the past?



Think you do not understand what I mean. The system may be complete if you train it correctly. The concepts and mechanics are advanced in such a degree that you need to understand other mechanics as to not leave yourself lacking basic knowledge.

How can you understand fighting others if you do not know how they fight? 

Many of these things I see in forms and drills but you seem not to. So discussion gets complicated because you want to say it is not WC and therefore sloppy kickboxing.

Now I say sparring as done in your videos may be sloppy whether it is WC or not and besides the point.

So do you want to discuss sloppy sparring or WC not resembling forms? We cannot discuss both at the same time.


----------



## KPM

_. My Wing Chun instructor taught me all that stuff and is still crazy good at it himself._

---If I remember right, wasn't he a pretty talented Kyukushin Karate fighter prior to taking up Wing Chun?


_These days my martial arts training is Jiu Jitsu and forms from Wing Chun and other TCMA styles I have studied. I'm not a stylistic purist so don't feel I have a set of stylistic rules or laws I have to stick to._

---Ah!  Then see you are not the person I have been talking about!  I've been talking about those guys that actually say they are doing Wing Chun and then get all offended when you point out that they aren't really using much of their Wing Chun when they spar!



_My forms practices are an end in themselves rather than a means to anything. I practice grappling and BJJ for my self defense, stress relief, self actualisation, and "physical chess" aspirations._

---Nothing wrong with that!  So would you agree with several here that Wing Chun in and of itself is not good enough as a stand-alone art in today's sparring/fighting environment?

_Over 100 posts, some of them lengthy, on this subject? Only on a Wing Chun forum. The ghost of Terence Niehoff (sp?) is haunting this thread. Now I know why other martial arts interest me more at present._

---I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or a slam.    TN was very good at making his point and then sticking to it and arguing it very logically.  But we certainly got people thinking and posting!   I do find it interesting that from the beginning of this thread I have simply been asking the questions.....why do some people say they are doing Wing Chun, but then essentially abandon good Wing Chun when sparring and get all butt-hurt when you point out to them that this is what is happening?  And look at how butt-hurt people got about that simple question!!!!   I've simply asked why some people have such a lower standard for Wing Chun in sparring compared to Wing Chun in training.  It took until the end of this thread to actually get people to come right out and say...."because Wing Chun doesn't work well in sparring!"    

---Another interesting point that has emerged is this whole idea that you can be doing Wing Chun if you are using the principles of Wing Chun, and you don't have to actually use the core mechanics and structure.  And that JKD is still actually Wing Chun for that reason.  Do you agree with that Andrew?


----------



## Phobius

To conclude once more. You can not say that doing what you do as 'good Wing Chun' and everything else as lacking mechanics.

I have tried to tell you that I do not agree with your definition of what is Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM

_Try adding offensive intent and then we can talk. It does not alter mechanics. It alters appearance and would because it will differ from drills and forms be called sloppy kickboxing by you._

---So it would not make someone resort to....do I have to spell it out again?.....swinging punches from the shoulders, bending forward at the waist bobbing & weaving, throwing punches with the elbows all flared out, etc???  THAT has been what I am referring to.  If that is NOT was is happening for you and yours, then what are we arguing about??  I get the impression you have not been reading what I have been saying  very closely.     I think you are in that "butt-hurt" category.  



_ Standing somewhat sideways is not to punch but reduce target size. Standing completely sideways may be something else altogether. Only done that in Karate for forms and drills only._

---And Phobius, standing completely sideways is what I have mentioned several times now!!!!  Again, it seems you have not been reading very closely what I have been saying.

---Besides, when people aren't following the points being made or even really attempting to give direct answers to questions asked it becomes hard to carry on a good discussion.  It starts to stray all over the place and people don't bother to go back and read what has come before.  I get tired of repeating myself.  So I think this one is drawing to a close.
_ 
_


----------



## KPM

Phobius said:


> To conclude once more. You can not say that doing what you do as 'good Wing Chun' and everything else as lacking mechanics.
> 
> I have tried to tell you that I do not agree with your definition of what is Wing Chun.



So what is your definition of Wing Chun?   Mine is very very simple.  Which is why I am getting tired of repeating myself.   Let me just give a brief summary of what I have been saying........I pointed out that some people claim to be doing Wing Chun and end up doing some version of "sloppy kickboxing" when sparring.  They seem to abandon all or most of their Wing Chun mechanics and structure under pressure and then get all offended when you point that out to them.   And multiple people have proven this here by getting all offended when I pointed that out!  I defined what I meant by "a version of sloppy kickboxing".....as things like bending forward at the waist bobbing and weaving, swinging from the shoulders with wide loopy punches, punching with the elbows all flared out instead of keeping them in, bouncing around on the toes, etc.  If that's not you, then why are you so offended???  I've also said that Wing Chun mechanics allows plenty of room for some adaptation and variation without resorting to what I described above.  One of my points was that we have forms and drills for a reason.  These teach core Wing Chun mechanics and structure...how to send and receive force in a "Wing Chun way".....how to move like Wing Chun.   You have to be doing more than just a handful of Wing Chun principles to really be doing Wing Chun.  I don't think JKD is just a version of Wing Chun.  And I don't think the JKD guys would disagree.   And so if you are using those core Wing Chun mechanics and structure that dictate how a Wing Chun guy moves, how can it NOT look somewhat like Wing Chun????   How can it NOT be recognizable as Wing Chun....just as kickboxing is recognizable as kickboxing, western boxing is recognizable as western boxing, and Judo is recognizable as Judo? Now if someone wants to "mix and match" and use multiple things when they spar, that's great!  Just don't turn around and claim its all Wing Chun like so many seem to want to do.  Just be honest about what you are doing and why!  Is that so hard? One of the conclusions expressed here is that Wing Chun doesn't function so well as a stand alone art and should be used to augment other things.  Maybe that's true.  It is a valid opinion.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> How can it NOT be recognizable as Wing Chun....just as kickboxing is recognizable as kickboxing, western boxing is recognizable as western boxing, and Judo is recognizable as Judo?



That was already gone over... The arts you just named rely on a lot more gross motor skills.  It is far easier to maintain under pressure.  To maintain fine motor skills under pressure it takes A LOT of training. Only one video you posted shows what you state and it was with people, from my perception, who are youngsters and the one managed to do half decently regardless.  The first video was MMA so it was irrelevant, the black and white one was two guys screwing around the TKD one is more like your statement below, I will address it.

As for the videos you said proved your point they were no where near as under pressure as the first two.  They were so obviously "exhibition" that it doesn't count as pressure to me.  To me being under pressure is that you either are definitely wearing head gear to minimize the danger or, like in the MMA and MUSU video I posted with Sifu Jerry you are prepared to watch people get hurt.  That is pressure.

IMO the problem isn't in WC, or the student.  The problem is with the instruction.  Today in the west doing "hard" sparring in TMAs seems the exception and not the rule.  People are concerned about liability, keeping people coming in the door (to keep the money flowing) etc.  It's actually one of the reasons my school's member's vary so much.  People get hurt.  I have come home with bruises and even hands swollen (the hands were from lucky knife thrusts).  On Thursday we had two students needing to ice hands, one might have a broken knuckle, from getting wacked HARD with padded sticks while wearing padded gloves no less.  You fold under pressure unless you train under pressure.  Pressure means the fear of pain. 

THEN you have to take into account that many people take ALL Martial arts simply for the cool/fun factor.



> Now if someone wants to "mix and match" and use multiple things when they spar, that's great!  Just don't turn around and claim its all Wing Chun like so many seem to want to do.



Wait a minute.  So if I use Kali techniques to disarm someone then go Wing Chun to hit em it's not Wing Chun?  That's like saying "well you didn't eat beef, you ate chili."  And thats ignoring the fact that with all the different styles of WC at this point one person will say what I do isn't WC just because its TWC.  In a 5 minute fight, if I did WC for 2 minutes, I still did WC.



> Just be honest about what you are doing and why!  Is that so hard? One of the conclusions expressed here is that Wing Chun doesn't function so well as a stand alone art and should be used to augment other things.  Maybe that's true.  It is a valid opinion.



I think you misrepresent the point made.  The point was that WC is not a beginners art (I personally disagree with that point, I just think it is an Art with a different mindset and that creates a barrier) and that, like ALL TMAs it is not all encompassing, but it is different than saying it's not a stand alone art.


----------



## KPM

_That was already gone over... The arts you just named rely on a lot more gross motor skills.  It is far easier to maintain under pressure._ 

---I agree with that point.  But I have also pointed out that basic core mechanics....how you move...IS a gross motor skill.  And if its not, then there has been a problem with the training.  


_ The first video was MMA so it was irrelevant, _

---Have you also not been following my points?  It absolutely was relevant to two points.....first, the idea that people do a lot of things outside of Wing Chun mechanics and still say they are doing Wing Chun.  That video was titled  "Shaolin Wing Chun no MMA" when it was obviously about 99% MMA and hardly any actual Wing Chun.  Second, that Wing Chun should be at least vaguely recognizable.  In my opinion, in that video if you didn't know which guy was supposed to be the Wing Chun guy, you wouldn't be able to pick him out just by watching that video.  So yeah, very relevant if you have actually been trying to follow what I have been saying.  Again, I'm growing tired of repeating myself and am about ready to bow out of this discussion unless someone has something new and interesting to say.

_
the black and white one was two guys screwing around_

---And again, it was labeled as "full contact Wing Chun sparring" or something like that.  Another one of my points was being truthful about what you are actually doing.


_ To me being under pressure is that you either are definitely wearing head gear to minimize the danger or, like in the MMA and MUSU video I posted with Sifu Jerry you are prepared to watch people get hurt.  That is pressure._

----Now you are just splitting hairs for the sake of arguing.  My point was that when people have to actually use their Wing Chun doing more than forms and drills it seemed to fall apart.  You can argue about what "true" pressure is all you want.  That isn't relevant to what I was saying.


_IMO the problem isn't in WC, or the student.  The problem is with the instruction.  Today in the west doing "hard" sparring in TMAs seems the exception and not the rule.  People are concerned about liability, keeping people coming in the door (to keep the money flowing) etc._

---Now that is a good point and very valid!  And that goes back to one of my other points, if you had really been paying attention!  I have said several times now that one should "fight the way you train and train the way you fight" if you want to be efficient with your time and effort. 



_THEN you have to take into account that many people take ALL Martial arts simply for the cool/fun factor._

---And again, I asked the question here more than once....are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or are you training to be good at sparring?   You think you are arguing with me when you are actually just rewording what I've already said! 


_Wait a minute.  So if I use Kali techniques to disarm someone then go Wing Chun to hit em it's not Wing Chun?_

---I've have NEVER said that doing that would not be valid!  But if people didn't know that you also did Kali, and you labeled a video of that as being all Wing Chun, would that not be a bit deceptive and even borderline dishonest?



_I think you misrepresent the point made. _

---No I don't think so.  Go back a reread what "nobody important" wrote.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _That was already gone over... The arts you just named rely on a lot more gross motor skills.  It is far easier to maintain under pressure._
> 
> ---I agree with that point.  But I have also pointed out that basic core mechanics....how you move...IS a gross motor skill.  And if its not, then there has been a problem with the training.


 I would disagree with this only I actually found the WC structure to be a fine motor skill (meaning it need be learned and practiced.). It is gross motor skill to lean left, right, or back to avoid a blow.  It is technically a fine motor skill to keep your center and use footwork to achieve the same goal.


_ The first video was MMA so it was irrelevant, _



> ---Have you also not been following my points?  It absolutely was relevant to two points.....first, the idea that people do a lot of things outside of Wing Chun mechanics and still say they are doing Wing Chun.  That video was titled  "Shaolin Wing Chun no MMA" when it was obviously about 99% MMA and hardly any actual Wing Chun.



And here in I believe lies the key issue.  It is not logical to say a video saying "pure WC" is actually that.  Many such videos are posted by fanbois who ripped it and labeled it as such because so and so said they studied WC.  As such when I see such videos I will actually slow stuff down to .25 on YouTube and ask, "did I see any WC?". So I say, in the first video "MMA who knows who posted and/or titled the video."

Basically I fact check, if there are no facts in evidence to support the claim of what amounts to an anonymous internet handle I dismiss it.  Hell, I am so OCD about fact checking I probably wouldn't have posted Sifu Jerry's fight if I didn't know the man.

But that's just me.


----------



## Nobody Important

[


----------



## Nobody Important

I've never been a believer in being able to switch from one style to another in a fight, and say I'm using this style now this style. In example Wing Chun to Kali or Wing Chun to wrestling.

You need to be able to create coherent transitions from one to the other not present in the art to begin with. So in essence you are creating a hybrid art & not really switching from one to the other.

One of the reasons MMA works so well is because transitions are created for the person to switch from striking to kicking to throwing to grappling smoothly.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I've never been a believer in being able to switch from one style to another in a fight, and say I'm using this style now this style. In example Wing Chun to Kali or Wing Chun to wrestling.
> 
> You need to be able to create coherent transitions from one to the other not present in the art to begin with. So in essence you are creating a hybrid art & not really switching from one to the other.
> 
> One of the reasons MMA works so well is because transitions are created for the person to switch from striking to kicking to throwing to grappling smoothly.



So you don't think (since you named wrestling) that someone can't be WC fighting and then say "fff it" and smoothly transition into a two leg take down, if they know how to apply one?  That is rather silly because if it wasn't possible then hybrid arts in general wouldn't exist.


----------



## Buka

As an observation from an outsider -
It seems that many people train and apply Wing Chun differently. And it all seems to work really well. Just makes me like Wing Chun all the more.

It is kind of fun following the discussions, though, in a "like my in-laws do it" kind of way.


----------



## Juany118

Buka said:


> As an observation from an outsider -
> It seems that many people train and apply Wing Chun differently. And it all seems to work really well. Just makes me like Wing Chun all the more.
> 
> It is kind of fun following the discussions, though, in a "like my in-laws do it" kind of way.



That's largely been my point and I am actually confused as heck by KLM because I remember another thread when he was supporting Orr in a video he made about WC being in his MMA, I recall no comments about how it didn't look WC.  Now this.  I am weirded out tbh.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> So you don't think (since you named wrestling) that someone can't be WC fighting and then say "fff it" and smoothly transition into a two leg take down, if they know how to apply one?  That is rather silly because if it wasn't possible then hybrid arts in general wouldn't exist.


No, what I'm saying is that they have created a hybrid. It is no longer one or the other. To make it effective, coherent transitioning from one method to another is needed to be able to switch back & forth without causing conflicting movements. This creates a whole new art IMO. Because of the transitions, mechanics & strategy will change.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> That's largely been my point and I am actually confused as heck by KLM because I remember another thread when he was supporting Orr in a video he made about WC being in his MMA, I recall no comments about how it didn't look WC.  Now this.  I am weirded out tbh.



I already commented on that.  I'm tired of repeating myself.


----------



## anerlich

KPM said:


> ---If I remember right, wasn't he a pretty talented Kyukushin Karate fighter prior to taking up Wing Chun?



Sort of. He did Kyokushin as his first martial art as a kid. Then did Wing Chun for 20 years. Then made friends with some expat South African Kyokushin guys about 8 years ago who encouraged him to train for his black belt, which he duly got, in exchange for teaching them some groundwork, etc. He got into kicking because as a pro/am kickboxer in the early 1980s they weren't allowed to kick below the waist. He modelled most of his kicking game on Bill Wallace.



KPM said:


> Ah! Then see you are not the person I have been talking about! I've been talking about those guys that actually say they are doing Wing Chun and then get all offended when you point out that they aren't really using much of their Wing Chun when they spar!



Perhaps, though disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily mean they are getting offended. I think you give yourself a bit too much credit for your ability to upset people enough to make them think. Sort of like Terence.



KPM said:


> Nothing wrong with that! So would you agree with several here that Wing Chun in and of itself is not good enough as a stand-alone art in today's sparring/fighting environment?



I have deeply explored two martial arts, Wing Chun and Jiu Jitsu, and gone a fair way down the rabbit holes of several more. I think my actions speak for themselves in that regard.



KPM said:


> I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or a slam.



Up to you, bro. 



KPM said:


> TN was very good at making his point and then sticking to it and arguing it very logically. But we certainly got people thinking and posting! I



True, I guess. He also couldn't shut up after making his point and had to keep making it over and over. And over. He would also create straw men out of what other people were staying and them relentlessly reduce the straw men to their constituent subatomic particles and then still keep going until he hit the Planck length limit. I'm not saying your doing that ... but the thread is still going and anything is possible.



KPM said:


> -Another interesting point that has emerged is this whole idea that you can be doing Wing Chun if you are using the principles of Wing Chun, and you don't have to actually use the core mechanics and structure. And that JKD is still actually Wing Chun for that reason. Do you agree with that Andrew?



I might if I had a firm idea of what it actually meant. As I said earlier, I believe effective mechanics and structure largely transcend style. JKD is probably more accepting of this than Wing Chun. "No way as way," and all that.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> I've never been a believer in being able to switch from one style to another in a fight, and say I'm using this style now this style. In example Wing Chun to Kali or Wing Chun to wrestling.
> 
> You need to be able to create coherent transitions from one to the other not present in the art to begin with. So in essence you are creating a hybrid art & not really switching from one to the other.
> 
> One of the reasons MMA works so well is because transitions are created for the person to switch from striking to kicking to throwing to grappling smoothly.



I train multiple arts, but I train each art separately. I used to train MMA for a couple of years, but IMO the requirements of MMA are different enough from pure striking and pure grappling to require it to be trained as yet another separate art. You can't train say, Wing Chun and Jiu Jitsu separately and expect to do well in MMA. you need separate sessions to develop mixed skills.

Personally I'm more interested in becoming good at my two separate arts than being able to blend them. If anyone disagrees with that choice, I don't care.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> I train multiple arts, but I train each art separately. I used to train MMA for a couple of years, but IMO the requirements of MMA are different enough from pure striking and pure grappling to require it to be trained as yet another separate art. You can't train say, Wing Chun and Jiu Jitsu separately and expect to do well in MMA. you need separate sessions to develop mixed skills.
> 
> Personally I'm more interested in becoming good at my two separate arts than being able to blend them. If anyone disagrees with that choice, I don't care.


I agree, there has to be cohesion especially in transitions from method to method. MMA is a product of blended methods that requires it's own unique training format. I'm not saying people can't utilize a technique or two from another art & be successful in pulling it off. But like you said, to train separately & be successful is unlikely, something is needed to link the two methods successfully. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is your journey, not someone else's opinion of what they believe is proper.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> No, what I'm saying is that they have created a hybrid. It is no longer one or the other. To make it effective, coherent transitioning from one method to another is needed to be able to switch back & forth without causing conflicting movements. This creates a whole new art IMO. Because of the transitions, mechanics & strategy will change.



MMA is clearly a hybrid.  It has a unified structure (for lack of a better term) regardless of what striking techniques you use.  I am referring to, if you dance from one art to another in terms of techniques AND structure you aren't using a hybrid imo, you are simply using two tools.  So a hybrid is sorta like this dagger/gun







Where as what I am talking about is like using this...





pulling out this






What I do is similar to @anerlich .  I train WC and Kali as separate arts.  Heck I have to test in WC over an hour from my school at the Mother School in front of a panel that includes people who I will only ever see on test day.  This was part of the deal with Grand Master Cheung to make sure that what gets taught at the school does go from separate WC and separate Kali to hybrid.  So when I say "go Kali mode on an armed person" I mean Kali mode.  I pretty much reserve Kali for specific things.
1. unarmed dealing with armed.
2. I am armed
3. I am on the ground (it has ground fighting and training for transitions to and from).
4. I need to control/lock (more Chin Na in Kali imo)

If I am in a straight up striking fight, it's WC.  The thing is that, whether by coincidence or design (since my Kali is basically an FMA version of JKD made by Dan Inosanto) the structure of Kali is the same as WC, ultimately all I am really doing is using the techniques taught in the above 4 categories from the exact same WC structure.  So transitioning isn't difficult.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _._...."because Wing Chun doesn't work well in sparring!"



I think we more got that most WC schools don't actually put people under real pressure so when they do actually "really" spar they can fall apart.  That isn't a problem with it he art, it's a problem with how the student is trained.  Even you admitted that Sifu Jerry was keeping what you consider proper structure and that was a bit more than just "sparring" as well.



> ---Another interesting point that has emerged is this whole idea that you can be doing Wing Chun if you are using the principles of Wing Chun, and you don't have to actually use the core mechanics and structure.  And that JKD is still actually Wing Chun for that reason.  Do you agree with that Andrew?



That isn't what I said.  JKD concepts, according to Guro Dan himself, uses not just WC principles BUT also structure etc at close range, they then change their structure when they go out to kicking range.  That, at least as Guro Dan was taught by Lee, is what JKD is about, there is no single structure, so in close you are WC, out at kicking range maybe a fencing structure side on to get more extension for a kick...bridge back in to close range it is WC again.  That is why I referred to it as a defacto modified WC, that Guro Dan simply says (paraphrase) "the core is WC, you need WC to learn JKD."

Of course if you want to debate with Dan Inosanto about whether he actually knows what he is talking about . Me I will just nod and say "yes Guro Dan.". He probably has forgotten more about martial arts than many of the people in this conversation, especially me, will know.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> MMA is clearly a hybrid.  It has a unified structure (for lack of a better term) regardless of what striking techniques you use.  I am referring to, if you dance from one art to another in terms of techniques AND structure you aren't using a hybrid imo, you are simply using two tools.  So a hybrid is sorta like this dagger/gun
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where as what I am talking about is like using this...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pulling out this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I do is similar to @anerlich .  I train WC and Kali as separate arts.  Heck I have to test in WC over an hour from my school at the Mother School in front of a panel that includes people who I will only ever see on test day.  This was part of the deal with Grand Master Cheung to make sure that what gets taught at the school does go from separate WC and separate Kali to hybrid.  So when I say "go Kali mode on an armed person" I mean Kali mode.  I pretty much reserve Kali for specific things.
> 1. unarmed dealing with armed.
> 2. I am armed
> 3. I am on the ground (it has ground fighting and training for transitions to and from).
> 4. I need to control/lock (more Chin Na in Kali imo)
> 
> If I am in a straight up striking fight, it's WC.  The thing is that, whether by coincidence or design (since my Kali is basically an FMA version of JKD made by Dan Inosanto) the structure of Kali is the same as WC, ultimately all I am really doing is using the techniques taught in the above 4 categories from the exact same WC structure.  So transitioning isn't difficult.


Seems overly complicated to me, but if it works for you that's all that matters.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Seems overly complicated to me, but if it works for you that's all that matters.



Well it might be if I learned one of the other versions of FMA and not L-I K but I don't exaggerate when I say the structure, even many of the unarmed techniques are similar.  The only real differences are the ones I numbered and the additional defang the snake mindset.  /Shrug.


----------



## KPM

_I think we more got that most WC schools don't actually put people under real pressure so when they do actually "really" spar they can fall apart._ 

---Yes.  That's one of the conclusions.  But that was not what I was referring to.  Like I said, you need to go back and read "nobody important's" post.



_That isn't what I said.  JKD concepts, according to Guro Dan himself, uses not just WC principles BUT also structure etc at close range, they then change their structure when they go out to kicking range_. 

---But if you watch what Guru Dan is actually doing...when he is talking about Wing Chun structure he means using techniques like Bong, Tan, etc.  When you watch his example of JKD at the end of the video clip, the guy is NOT using a Wing Chun structure. 


_.  That is why I referred to it as a defacto modified WC, that Guro Dan simply says (paraphrase) "the core is WC, you need WC to learn JKD."_

---I don't think that Guru Dan would agree with you that JKD is just a modified WC.  He is saying you need to learn WC to understand the root from which JKD comes and how Wing Chun was adapted and changed to become JKD.  Learning "classic" Wing Chun gives a student a good foundation and teaches the basic Wing Chun techniques that have become a part of JKD....like Bong, Tan, etc.  It also gives the student a sense of their history and roots.  Again, if you watch the demo at the end of the clip the guy is not using Wing Chun mechanics.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _I think we more got that most WC schools don't actually put people under real pressure so when they do actually "really" spar they can fall apart._
> 
> ---Yes.  That's one of the conclusions.  But that was not what I was referring to.  Like I said, you need to go back and read "nobody important's" post.
> 
> 
> 
> _That isn't what I said.  JKD concepts, according to Guro Dan himself, uses not just WC principles BUT also structure etc at close range, they then change their structure when they go out to kicking range_.
> 
> ---But if you watch what Guru Dan is actually doing...when he is talking about Wing Chun structure he means using techniques like Bong, Tan, etc.  When you watch his example of JKD at the end of the video clip, the guy is NOT using a Wing Chun structure.
> 
> 
> _.  That is why I referred to it as a defacto modified WC, that Guro Dan simply says (paraphrase) "the core is WC, you need WC to learn JKD."_
> 
> ---I don't think that Guru Dan would agree with you that JKD is just a modified WC.  He is saying you need to learn WC to understand the root from which JKD comes and how Wing Chun was adapted and changed to become JKD.  Learning "classic" Wing Chun gives a student a good foundation and teaches the basic Wing Chun techniques that have become a part of JKD....like Bong, Tan, etc.  It also gives the student a sense of their history and roots.  Again, if you watch the demo at the end of the clip the guy is not using Wing Chun mechanics.



On the last bit I am sure he would not use that term, that is my cliff notes term, based on his language and his demonstration, and the student at the dummy (not when the student is transitioning back and forth between ranges) rather than go into his 20 minute explanation divided by Donnie Yen videos 

As for your first point I base my responses on my argument.  1. Not training under real pressure and 2. Never knowing what is really going on based on an anonymously posted YouTube video.

I have been told the following as well.  I do not have the knowledge to be able to say if the following is true or a cop out, this is just food for thought.  

Many other CMAs use the stances and picture perfect structures for training.  I don't know if you have ever gone to a CMA tournament but when you look at the people who do the demonstrations picture perfect, but then participate in Lei Tai later, there is a huge difference in the appearance.  Time and again. I have heard Sifus say "the structures in forms are designed to teach principles, proper balance, forward intent, proper grounding for attack and defense etc  they aren't there to be used in "real combat".  Like I said I don't know if the above is correct or not, I am no Sifu by a long shot, this was just food for thought.


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> ....I am no Sifu by a long shot, this was just food for thought.



Give it time. You curiosity of a scientist and the have the soul of a teacher!


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> So what is your definition of Wing Chun?



My definition of Wing Chun is the principles, mechanics and method of training. Including weapon forms. I believe it to be a system where you with time learn to control your environment to such a degree where for instance bobbing and weaving would be pointless. I also believe that WC like any other system is a matter of learning and evolving your own style as you get better.

Lets say you fight, initially you bob and weave as well as utilize footwork to avoid being hit. You train WC every day, after a few years you can control your environment and your opponent well enough to not need to "dodge" any incoming punch. (Yes there are movements to deflect, I know, and these will improve. But try in sparring to deflect each punch coming in without making sure you are not standing in its path would be fatal)

Now give it even more years and you start becoming a master, not requiring to move at all because your opponent is really not able to match your skill level. Those that can are too busy training at their own club or some other art. If you do meet you have things to talk about and no time to ever go face to face, leaving it for the younger generations.

What I do not believe is you learn WC, get your grade and now you can control everything. When you fail you get punched and lose but its your own fault.



KPM said:


> I pointed out that some people claim to be doing Wing Chun and end up doing some version of "sloppy kickboxing" when sparring.  They seem to abandon all or most of their Wing Chun mechanics and structure under pressure and then get all offended when you point that out to them.   And multiple people have proven this here by getting all offended when I pointed that out!



This is a statement that is unclear. First you express a personal opinion and saying people abandon their WC mechanics and structure because it does not look like forms and drills. Calling things sloppy kickboxing and providing videos that does not give the expression of sloppy kickboxing but rather mixed styles, inexperienced practitioner... it does give the impression that you expect WC to look like an application drill and since I personally see WC as being a boxing style with the mechanics of a superior close range game. (Not grappling)

Sadly the whole close game has become the entire style for most people and without proper long range any grappler just take you to the ground because there is little fear in going past your guard.



KPM said:


> .....as things like bending forward at the waist bobbing and weaving



Bobbing and weaving if done properly can and will maintain proper structure. This is what you practise if doing SLT among other things, and no I do not care to elaborate on this. Do I however believe we should bob and weave? No, especially not if it can be avoided... the goal is to not do it. But I do not believe WC to be a program that has a graduation at a select point and then you can fight without worries. Use footwork to get out of the way, but knowing bob and weave is crucial. How to not be in the way of a punch.

If we could say "train 6 years and then you will never have to....." that would be great. World to me does not work like that.



KPM said:


> swinging from the shoulders with wide loopy punches, punching with the elbows all flared out instead of keeping them in



These to me are most often symptoms of fatigue or frustration. It has nothing to do with being badly trained or bad teacher but more on being inexperienced or having problem keeping your mind under control. Perhaps a personal trait that makes it harder for you to remain calm in certain scenarios.

Once again this is not remedied by training different. It is remedied by being made aware and working in same environment to learn control by moving ahead slowly. Increasing speed and power perhaps during sparring. There are different ways of doing it.



KPM said:


> bouncing around on the toes, etc.



I do not see how this relates to kickboxing. This is more like not having a realistic approach to training I believe. Could of course be wrong. Perhaps it is a teaching flaw, or a goal of the club to be more focused towards specific competition rules.



KPM said:


> If that's not you, then why are you so offended???



I do not get offended. Maybe frustrated with myself if I feel my time writing something was a waste of time better spent elsewhere. That is not yet the case here.



KPM said:


> I've also said that Wing Chun mechanics allows plenty of room for some adaptation and variation without resorting to what I described above.  One of my points was that we have forms and drills for a reason.  These teach core Wing Chun mechanics and structure...how to send and receive force in a "Wing Chun way".....how to move like Wing Chun.



And I say that we do not move like the forms when sparring, nor do we look like chi-sao session. Most application drills are for clear and well "pronounced" movement during training which will be done on a target that sometimes offers little resistance but more importantly has no random intent of shifting to a different approach. In sparring movements are not gonna be so clear, and movements will change as the opponent does.

And I believe in the long range game to be present as well.



KPM said:


> And so if you are using those core Wing Chun mechanics and structure that dictate how a Wing Chun guy moves, how can it NOT look somewhat like Wing Chun????   How can it NOT be recognizable as Wing Chun....just as kickboxing is recognizable as kickboxing, western boxing is recognizable as western boxing, and Judo is recognizable as Judo?



Just because you do not recognize it does not mean others dont. This is the point I am disagreeing with the most. Your opinion does not dictate a truth and as such the entire discussion is flawed.

You have a specific view of Wing Chun and then wish to argue as if it should be a clear truth that if you do not recognize it as WC it is not WC.

Besides, seeing movements, mechanics and structure is a lot harder than identifying techniques. So just because we do not see techniques in applications as drilled that does not mean that the movements are not there, constantly shifting for every split of a second because the game is constantly changing.

I do not believe in techniques as much as natural movements that embodies the structure and mechanics of WC. This means that I do not expect to see clear techniques but rather the concepts of the fighting. As for sparring I can not see those concepts easily all the time because it depends on what the practitioner wishes to focus his/her sparring on. After all sparring is a tool to train specific areas, not to just "learn to fight".

So I expect WC to look similar to chinese boxing as a vague term, but I do not expect to see certain clear violations such as flaring elbows. Of course I still expect to see these due to mental reasons and if such expect more sparring sessions to remedy such errors.

You see, it is an evolving process. Learn by doing.



KPM said:


> One of the conclusions expressed here is that Wing Chun doesn't function so well as a stand alone art and should be used to augment other things.  Maybe that's true.  It is a valid opinion.



Once more this is not a conclusion, it is an opinion or a suggestion.

Personally I still consider the discussion flawed, similar to any discussion if filming a guy doing an application drill terribly and then say "Is this guy really training WC?" Not meaning anything bad towards you KPM. Just stating an opinion as you asked about the topic itself.

Of course all my wall of text above is based on one thing that is a core belief of mine. We are not a system, we as fighters have our style which is influenced by any and all systems we train but also by our own personalities.

We can never have a style that is a system, just like two practitioners of the same art will never fight identically.


----------



## KPM

So what do you guys think of this clip?






Or this one?   He flows well and looks good.  But is this "classical" Wing Chun?  Or a mix of Wing Chun and a lot of western boxing mechanics? 






How about this one?  Is bending forward at the waist and breaking your vertical axis part of good Wing Chun mechanics?






I don't mean to pick on Sifu Phillips.  But I remembered that he has actually produced a DVD on Wing Chun sparring and what I saw didn't exactly stick with Wing Chun entirely.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM wrote - "How about this one? Is bending forward at the waist and breaking your vertical axis part of good Wing Chun mechanics?"

I'll play devil's advocate now. What makes you think that it's not a part of good Wing Chun? Many branches perform waist bending in the Biu Jee form. In the beginning with the elbows & at the end with the "life saving" technique. Why could these principles not be applied to bobbing & weaving tactics? Look at Yuen family, Pao Fa Lian, Yiu Choi, Cho family and Pan Nam styles for examples of waist bending. Isn't Biu Jee supposed to teach you how to recover once compromised?


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> KPM wrote - "How about this one? Is bending forward at the waist and breaking your vertical axis part of good Wing Chun mechanics?"
> 
> I'll play devil's advocate now. What makes you think that it's not a part of good Wing Chun? Many branches perform waist bending in the Biu Jee form. In the beginning with the elbows & at the end with the "life saving" technique. Why could these principles not be applied to bobbing & weaving tactics? Look at Yuen family, Pao Fa Lian, Yiu Choi, Cho family and Pan Nam styles for examples of waist bending. Isn't Biu Jee supposed to teach you how to recover once compromised?



Correct!  And I was taught that Bui Gee contains a lot of the "exceptions to the rules"....things you do in extenuating circumstances....things you do when you are put into a bad situation.....departures from the norm.   It does not contain things that would be consider standard basic practice.   What I see Sifu Phillips doing is moving that way as part of his standard basic practice.


----------



## Vajramusti

Does this thread have a clear point?


----------



## KPM

^^^Like most long threads, the topic tends to wander and drift a bit.  But my guess is that you haven't read the whole thing anyway.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> KPM wrote - "How about this one? Is bending forward at the waist and breaking your vertical axis part of good Wing Chun mechanics?"
> 
> I'll play devil's advocate now. What makes you think that it's not a part of good Wing Chun? Many branches perform waist bending in the Biu Jee form. In the beginning with the elbows & at the end with the "life saving" technique. Why could these principles not be applied to bobbing & weaving tactics? Look at Yuen family, Pao Fa Lian, Yiu Choi, Cho family and Pan Nam styles for examples of waist bending. Isn't Biu Jee supposed to teach you how to recover once compromised?



This in part is why I put up the video of both Sifu Jerry and TWC's Chum Kiu.  Many WC practitioners would say that not only are the high kicks not "WC" and then the fact the footwork is clearly "stepping" and using the balls of your feet vs sliding/shuffling isn't WC either.  

I have also spoken with more than a person who actually had the honor of conversing with Wong Shun Leung.  He told me that during this conversation he was told the forms are essentially taught backwards.  So looking at your comments regarding the Biu Jee form, it would make perfect sense.  The new student needs those "oh crap life saving" techniques when you are getting jammed up by an opponent.  In essence Biu Jee is for when you are losing where as SLT and CK are for when you are "really" fighting.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> This in part is why I put up the video of both Sifu Jerry and TWC's Chum Kiu.  Many WC practitioners would say that not only are the high kicks not "WC" and then the fact the footwork is clearly "stepping" and using the balls of your feet vs sliding/shuffling isn't WC either.
> 
> I have also spoken with more than a person who actually had the honor of conversing with Wong Shun Leung.  He told me that during this conversation he was told the forms are essentially taught backwards.  So looking at your comments regarding the Biu Jee form, it would make perfect sense.  The new student needs those "oh crap life saving" techniques when you are getting jammed up by an opponent.  In essence Biu Jee is for when you are losing where as SLT and CK are for when you are "really" fighting.


I've heard the same thing & would have to agree. The forms, progression wise, make more sense backwards. Long to short. White Crane & styles like Uechi Ryu & Goju Ryu, say that Sanchin is the beginning and end of their arts. Siu Lim Tau is the beginning & end of Wing Chun.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Correct!  And I was taught that Bui Gee contains a lot of the "exceptions to the rules"....things you do in extenuating circumstances....things you do when you are put into a bad situation.....departures from the norm.   It does not contain things that would be consider standard basic practice.   What I see Sifu Phillips doing is moving that way as part of his standard basic practice.


Perhaps not a standard as to the ultimate goal of Wing Chun, but as a starting point to be refined.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> So what do you guys think of this clip?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this one?   He flows well and looks good.  But is this "classical" Wing Chun?  Or a mix of Wing Chun and a lot of western boxing mechanics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this one?  Is bending forward at the waist and breaking your vertical axis part of good Wing Chun mechanics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to pick on Sifu Phillips.  But I remembered that he has actually produced a DVD on Wing Chun sparring and what I saw didn't exactly stick with Wing Chun entirely.



in any martial art if you want to be good at fighting you pretty much have to apply extra techniques and tactics. this is because if the other guy can he will.

if you don't then wing Chun will move away from being a practical art.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> In essence Biu Jee is for when you are losing where as SLT and CK are for when you are "really" fighting.




So you seem to be agreeing with what I wrote?  Biu Gee is the "exception, not the rule."   Sifu Phillips is not "losing" but "really" fighting in those clips, so someone can't claim he is using valid Wing Chun mechanics by deferring to the Biu Gee form.  As I said before, the Biu Gee methods are not meant to be considered standard basic practice. What I see Sifu Phillips doing is moving that way as part of his standard basic practice.


----------



## KPM

drop bear said:


> in any martial art if you want to be good at fighting you pretty much have to apply extra techniques and tactics. this is because if the other guy can he will.
> 
> if you don't then wing Chun will move away from being a practical art.



Maybe.  But then one could argue that if you feel the need to depart from Wing Chun and use "extra techniques and tactics", then maybe the Wing Chun you were training wasn't really a "practical art" to begin with.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> So you seem to be agreeing with what I wrote?  Biu Gee is the "exception, not the rule."   Sifu Phillips is not "losing" but "really" fighting in those clips, so someone can't claim he is using valid Wing Chun mechanics by deferring to the Biu Gee form.  As I said before, the Biu Gee methods are not meant to be considered standard basic practice. What I see Sifu Phillips doing is moving that way as part of his standard basic practice.



Not really I think, because of context.  Are the videos you point to "masters?" No they aren't.  What we have are "rookies" and maybe "journeyman." This means that they are more likely to find themselves in a spot of bother and needing to use the techniques in the form.. Some may not have even really learned the form yet so when they end up under pressure they react in a "non-WC" manner.

As for your "practical art" response, you again are basing it on a false premise because it ignores the following
1. All TMA's have weaknesses in techniques, or even a lack of in some respects.  So using your logic all TMAs are impractical.
2. It fails to look at the videos you keep trumpeting about in context.  Was it really WC?  If so have the people in them learned the entire system?  Ignoring the later is akin to saying physics is not a practical science because a high school student who learned physics can't do the math to explain the dynamics of a pulsar.
3. It ignores that at this point the various WC Lineages have a few obvious differences in terms of techniques.


----------



## KPM

_Not really I think, because of context.  Are the videos you point to "masters?" No they aren't.  What we have are "rookies" and maybe "journeyman."_

---I don't know about "master" but Sifu Mark Phillips is a well-known and well respected instructor in the UK that has been teaching for many years.  So, yeah....he is more than just a "journeyman."


_As for your "practical art" response, you again are basing it on a false premise because it ignores the following_

---I was playing the "devil's advocate here to some extent.  I'm not going to continue to argue.  But if Wing Chun was developed as a "practical martial art" then shouldn't it remain a "practical martial art"?  Now it may very well need some updating for modern fighting environments!  But then shouldn't we all be going back and including those updates in the basic training rather than continue to do what has become a bit "outdated" and "impractical"? (at least if you buy into the idea that you need to change things or add things in when actually sparring).   Again, just food for thought!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _Not really I think, because of context.  Are the videos you point to "masters?" No they aren't.  What we have are "rookies" and maybe "journeyman."_
> 
> ---I don't know about "master" but Sifu Mark Phillips is a well-known and well respected instructor in the UK that has been teaching for many years.  So, yeah....he is more than just a "journeyman."
> 
> 
> _As for your "practical art" response, you again are basing it on a false premise because it ignores the following_
> 
> ---I was playing the "devil's advocate here to some extent.  I'm not going to continue to argue.  But if Wing Chun was developed as a "practical martial art" then shouldn't it remain a "practical martial art"?  Now it may very well need some updating for modern fighting environments!  But then shouldn't we all be going back and including those updates in the basic training rather than continue to do what has become a bit "outdated" and "impractical"? (at least if you buy into the idea that you need to change things or add things in when actually sparring).   Again, just food for thought!




The problem is to play devil's advocate you need to do so in context and addressing the issues I point out, in essence using verifiable data.  Instead you are basing your advocacy on unverifiable videos lacking context.

I also think you are kinda moving goal posts.  First it was "that isn't WC" not it's "well okay Biu Jee is WC but it shouldn't be used extensively.". The skills taught in all of the time are to be used as needed, period.  Whether they are used extensively or not is purely situational... aka in the context of the encounter.  In the end, if you win, well then it worked and what techniques were used is irrelevant.  You are actually now using an argument similar to that old thread where some people nitpicked over whether a bong was "just" a remedial action.


----------



## Phobius

KPM said:


> ---I don't know about "master" but Sifu Mark Phillips is a well-known and well respected instructor in the UK that has been teaching for many years.  So, yeah....he is more than just a "journeyman."



When it comes to training it is not about who he is, but who he teaches. If the people he teaches are not yet at a master level, he should be also teaching them how to handle a situation when things do not go your way. Perhaps this is a fault of many WC practises, that we teach people things that are based on an assumption that we will make no errors. Meaning techniques that if they work we win.

In BJJ you may very well be teaching picture perfect techniques, but when rolling you actually as a beginner learn to defend yourself initially. Reason is that you will get tapped out multiple times and your struggle will mainly be to extend the time you can stay out of a finisher so to speak.

In boxing you will during sparring initially be tutored about not letting your defense slip, everytime you do they will punch you. Just hard enough to remind you to keep defense up but not enough to make you mentally unwilling to continue. This teaches you to keep a solid defense and an improved mental toughness.

WC perhaps the focus at many clubs or maybe even down to generic drills is offensive ability, no lessons in what to do when things go wrong. If the teacher is bent on not sharing the secrets of Biu jee for instance because we fear a beginner to rely on last resort techniques rather than focusing on perfecting their ability to control the fight to their favor. As such perhaps there is a lack of defensive strategy not because it does not exist but because traditional approach where the secrets of that form is not revealed until other forms are mastered.

Perhaps we are simply mastering each form too slowly. Or perhaps we are lacking that generic fighting knowledge prior to learning WC. Many of the famous names actually participated in fights long before learning Wing Chun. (this of course is a vague statement from me as I have not checked if this last theory is even a possibility)

These are just comments that may be discussed, I do not claim any of it to be fact or truth but merely a different angle on things.



KPM said:


> ---I was playing the "devil's advocate here to some extent.  I'm not going to continue to argue.  But if Wing Chun was developed as a "practical martial art" then shouldn't it remain a "practical martial art"?  Now it may very well need some updating for modern fighting environments!  But then shouldn't we all be going back and including those updates in the basic training rather than continue to do what has become a bit "outdated" and "impractical"? (at least if you buy into the idea that you need to change things or add things in when actually sparring).   Again, just food for thought!



I have sadly not yet seen anything that indicates that those extra things mentioned are not already part of WT forms. Then again changing an art is standard, at least TMAs are constantly evolving in the west. Dilluted or improved is another discussion altogether.[/QUOTE]


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> Maybe.  But then one could argue that if you feel the need to depart from Wing Chun and use "extra techniques and tactics", then maybe the Wing Chun you were training wasn't really a "practical art" to begin with.



none of them are because they are not KPM,s martial art. I often use swimming as an example of a self defence skill here.

Chun probably dosent teach it. the principles may not even match. but you get thrown in the ocean you may have wanted to train it at some point.

you have to bolt on skills to become more versatile.


----------



## Juany118

Phobius said:


> When it comes to training it is not about who he is, but who he teaches. If the people he teaches are not yet at a master level, he should be also teaching them how to handle a situation when things do not go your way. Perhaps this is a fault of many WC practises, that we teach people things that are based on an assumption that we will make no errors. Meaning techniques that if they work we win.
> 
> In BJJ you may very well be teaching picture perfect techniques, but when rolling you actually as a beginner learn to defend yourself initially. Reason is that you will get tapped out multiple times and your struggle will mainly be to extend the time you can stay out of a finisher so to speak.
> 
> In boxing you will during sparring initially be tutored about not letting your defense slip, everytime you do they will punch you. Just hard enough to remind you to keep defense up but not enough to make you mentally unwilling to continue. This teaches you to keep a solid defense and an improved mental toughness.
> 
> WC perhaps the focus at many clubs or maybe even down to generic drills is offensive ability, no lessons in what to do when things go wrong. If the teacher is bent on not sharing the secrets of Biu jee for instance because we fear a beginner to rely on last resort techniques rather than focusing on perfecting their ability to control the fight to their favor. As such perhaps there is a lack of defensive strategy not because it does not exist but because traditional approach where the secrets of that form is not revealed until other forms are mastered.
> 
> Perhaps we are simply mastering each form too slowly. Or perhaps we are lacking that generic fighting knowledge prior to learning WC. Many of the famous names actually participated in fights long before learning Wing Chun. (this of course is a vague statement from me as I have not checked if this last theory is even a possibility)
> 
> These are just comments that may be discussed, I do not claim any of it to be fact or truth but merely a different angle on things.
> 
> 
> 
> I have sadly not yet seen anything that indicates that those extra things mentioned are not already part of WT forms. Then again changing an art is standard, at least TMAs are constantly evolving in the west. Dilluted or improved is another discussion altogether.


[/QUOTE]

I think one thing is missed with most MA, how is it taught.  Lots of people study MA and never get past light or points sparing, even many grappling arts do light sparing.  This doesn't put you under anything even vaguely resembling real pressure.  So you will often (imo more often than not) have an issue of teaching and not the art.  Think of it like being a doctor.  Doctors don't just go to medical school and then hang a shingle up somewhere, they also get put under pressure as an intern in a hospital so they can make the right decision under pressure.  As I said elsewhere you will see what KPM calls "sloppy kick boxing" in just about every striking MA, and you will see "sloppy wrestling" in almost every grappling art.  I put this off on instruction.

As for the order of the forms I think the issue is more about the philosophy of the art.  WC is a very aggressive Martial art.  I sometimes use a line from Shakespeare to describe it, "once more into the breach my friend, once more." I think the "fighting" forms are put "up front" in order to better instill that attitude.


----------



## Phobius

Juany118 said:


> I think one thing is missed with most MA, how is it taught.  Lots of people study MA and never get past light or points sparing, even many grappling arts do light sparing.  This doesn't put you under anything even vaguely resembling real pressure.  So you will often (imo more often than not) have an issue of teaching and not the art.  Think of it like being a doctor.  Doctors don't just go to medical school and then hang a shingle up somewhere, they also get put under pressure as an intern in a hospital so they can make the right decision under pressure.  As I said elsewhere you will see what KPM calls "sloppy kick boxing" in just about every striking MA, and you will see "sloppy wrestling" in almost every grappling art.  I put this off on instruction.



I agree, this about being put under pressure is very important. It is sort of what I have wanted to say. You do not just attend classes for some time and then you are a WC practitioner meaning you do pure and perfect WC. Problem is that you can not do poor WC. Just like a boxer can not do poor boxing. When you do poorly you get beat, lose your structure and eventually your mental ability to remain focused and centered.

Being a technician or sufficient grade is similar to being someone who finished medical school. Without having been an intern you are not ready for the job and can not be expected to do it at a good enough level. So without having used WC, fighting, sparring or whatever else, you are perhaps not ready yet to use it. Problem then is to define how do we get that experience and how can we know it is sufficient for the task? (Also something to discuss for this topic perhaps)





Juany118 said:


> As for the order of the forms I think the issue is more about the philosophy of the art.  WC is a very aggressive Martial art.  I sometimes use a line from Shakespeare to describe it, "once more into the breach my friend, once more." I think the "fighting" forms are put "up front" in order to better instill that attitude.



Problem might be that this mentality works in eastern culture but for western culture with impatience and the eagerness to climb that ladder as quickly as possible. Perhaps we do require a different way to learn the aggressive nature of WC. Maybe we are influenced too much by having a different view or even understanding of martial art. Watching UFC, knowing boxing. Not having the patience to not look ahead while learning our first form... 

I do not know, nothing I have put much thought into previously.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

Nobody Important said:


> I haven't given up Wing Chun & You haven't struck a nerve. I just personally don't believe Wing Chun is a stand alone method. I've stated before & I'll state again I believe Wing Chun is an art meant to augment & elevate a more gross motor skill method like Long Fist or Boxing. I believe it to be an art of refinement, an art of ideal approach.
> 
> When it comes to realistic fight application Wing Chun training is backwards. It starts with fundamentals that are predominantly fine motor movement and working up to gross motor movement. There is also a great deal of emphasis on forms that don't really contain practical body movement. Exactly opposite of loose technique arts like Wrestling & Boxing.
> 
> It's very hard to convince people to make small position adjustments & bridge when someone is trying to rip their head off, when their natural instinct is to duck, dodge or run away.
> 
> It's best to work from big movements to small movements. A big movement can be refined to become small. It's very difficult to enlarge a small movement effectively. Wing Chun is designed small to big (Siu Lim Tau to Biu Jee) where as the big isn't even that big. Even the legends state that Wing Chun is an advanced art, one refined from others. This is why I believe it to be an art of augmentation and refinement.
> 
> Why do many Wing Chun practitioners revert to sloppy kickboxing? IMO , because it is the first art that they learned. Many Tai Chi practitioners suffer from the same dilemma. Arts of refinement shouldn't be first arts learned.



Interesting thought, and it fits with my experience.

My two cents regarding WC/WT is worth just about that, given that I'm a novice who has only been training in the art for a little over 8 months. Nevertheless, I do come into it with 35 years of prior experience in other arts, most of which place a heavy emphasis on sparring. That perhaps gives me a different perspective from the average WC student.

I _can_ spar using strictly what I've learned of a "pure", "classical" WT structure. I'm not tremendously good at it and I wouldn't want to stick exclusively to that structure while going full-contact against an experienced fighter unless you paid me really good money to make it worth the extra punches I would be eating. I _have_ applied bits of my WT effectively in sparring against some experienced kickboxers and MMA fighters. I do that by working within my normal structures and slipping in little bits of the WT in the moments when the opportunity presents itself. Generally that seems to happen in the "dirty boxing" range when I recognize a line of attack that I might not normally utilize based on my Muay Thai/Jiu-jitsu experience.

When I'm in WT class, I am doing my best to learn and practice the pure art as I am being taught it. Outside of class, I'm more focused on understanding how I can apply the underlying concepts and mechanics wherever they might be applicable. Some of the best lessons for me come from questions that arise when looking at how WT does things differently from arts I am more experienced in. "How can you generate solid punching power with no hip rotation?" "How can you maintain forward pressure while using an extremely back-weighted stance?" As I've learned the answers to these, I've been able to apply those principles to make my boxing punches (which do use hip rotation and don't use an extreme back-weighted stance) even more powerful. A lot of the WT/WC structures gain effectiveness from some fairly subtle adjustments to the skeletal alignment and muscular linkage. As I become more aware of those, it just makes my Boxing, Muay Thai, and Jiu-Jitsu that much more solid. As you say, it's refining and augmenting what I already know.


----------



## Juany118

Phobius said:


> Problem might be that this mentality works in eastern culture but for western culture with impatience and the eagerness to climb that ladder as quickly as possible. Perhaps we do require a different way to learn the aggressive nature of WC. Maybe we are influenced too much by having a different view or even understanding of martial art. Watching UFC, knowing boxing. Not having the patience to not look ahead while learning our first form...
> 
> I do not know, nothing I have put much thought into previously.



I don't even think it is only patience but also the idea of a martial art having a philosophy beyond "beat the other guy."  Example some WC Lineages forms have 108 movements in each form for no other reason that 108 is an important number in Buddhism.  So tbh there is likely a little bit of WC one might even be able to argue is superfluous in some lineages.  Then add the philosophy of combat on top of the instant gratification...


----------



## KPM

_The problem is to play devil's advocate you need to do so in context _

----I'm following the context just fine.  I'm afraid you might be the one having some trouble with context.

_and addressing the issues I point out,_ 

---Your issues were simply being argumentative.  I told you I wasn't going to argue any more.

_ Instead you are basing your advocacy on unverifiable videos lacking context._

---My response about Wing Chun as a practical art were made in reply to drop bear who had copied the post featuring Mark Phillips' video clips.  He said something about changing  and including things in order to be "practical."  I take it he was referring to the things he had seen Sifu Phillips doing in the clips.  So what exactly was "unverified" or "lacking context" about those particular clips???  The context of my response was perfectly in line with drop bear's comment.


_I also think you are kinda moving goal posts.  First it was "that isn't WC" not it's "well okay Biu Jee is WC but it shouldn't be used extensively.". _

----Again, you seem to not be following the context of the comments very well.  "Nobody Important" justified what Mark Phillips was doing (bending at the waist and hunching forward) by saying it came from Biu Gee. I disagreed and just think he has incorporated boxing mechanics in to his Wing Chun.  I never said Biu Gee wasn't Wing Chun, or that it shouldn't be used when appropriate.   But I've learned that Biu Gee was meant for "emergency situations".  It is taught as an advanced level and not used as a way to teach the core basic mechanics.  That is pretty standard Wing Chun teaching.  Now you can choose to disagree with that pretty standard Wing Chun approach to Biu Gee.  But that was a side comment on the main point, which was the way Phillips was moving as his basic core mechanic.   It wasn't "moving goal posts".


_The skills taught in all of the time are to be used as needed, period.  Whether they are used extensively or not is purely situational... aka in the context of the encounter. _

---So you think that Biu Gee idea of "breaking the rules" and doing things that typically violate good Wing Chun structure....like bending at the waist and hunching forward to avoid a blow you were unprepared for, is something should be part of someone's basic core motion, even when they aren't needing to dodge an unexpected blow?   But again, that's just a side point.  

_ In the end, if you win, well then it worked and what techniques were used is irrelevan_t.  

---Which goes back to one of my original questions/points......Are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or to  be good at sparring?   Is sparring a way to  test and find holes in your Wing Chun training?  Or is Wing Chun just one way to get good at sparring so you can win?  Those are two very different mindsets and approaches.  And I think that point has been lost on some of the people posting on this thread.


----------



## Jake104

KPM said:


> Which goes back to one of my original questions/points......Are you training to be good at Wing Chun, or to be good at sparring*/fighting*?*Both.....* Is sparring a way to test and find holes in your Wing Chun training?*YES......* Or is Wing Chun just one way to get good at sparring (*fighting is the ultimate goal..sparring is a tool! )*so you can win?*Yes.......*Those are two very different mindsets and approaches. *Same Same ( who says it's has to be a separate mindset?) *And I think that point has been lost on some of the people posting on this thread.*Yes cause most of us who take martial arts are more concerned about the end results. Unless you're writing a book on WC, sparring and using this thread as research?....I really don't see the point of 8 pages of arguing when you could be training and answering your own questions  *


----------



## Juany118

Tony Dismukes said:


> When I'm in WT class, I am doing my best to learn and practice the pure art as I am being taught it. Outside of class, I'm more focused on understanding how I can apply the underlying concepts and mechanics wherever they might be applicable. Some of the best lessons for me come from questions that arise when looking at how WT does things differently from arts I am more experienced in. "How can you generate solid punching power with no hip rotation?" "How can you maintain forward pressure while using an extremely back-weighted stance?" As I've learned the answers to these, I've been able to apply those principles to make my boxing punches (which do use hip rotation and don't use an extreme back-weighted stance) even more powerful. A lot of the WT/WC structures gain effectiveness from some fairly subtle adjustments to the skeletal alignment and muscular linkage. As I become more aware of those, it just makes my Boxing, Muay Thai, and Jiu-Jitsu that much more solid. As you say, it's refining and augmenting what I already know.



I think this part is good for a few reasons.

1. it illustrates an issue I think we have in any analysis of WC, good or bad.  Example, the Lineage I study not only includes high kicks in the forms and steps rather than slides, we do not use the back weighted stance.  We use a a left or right neutral stance and a front stance that has the weight balanced front and back.  If something as basic as structure can be different is it even really possible to come to any firm conclusion?  I will be honest I can be a bit overly analytical at times, the wife says "fffing Mr. Spock where are your pointy ears" often.

2.  I think the "gain effectiveness" kinda goes along with one thing I have said from my experience with WC (still definitely learning) and speaking with Sifu's of other CMA's (I was surprised how often they are willing to talk "shop" honestly when strangers ask, but I do admittedly "name drop" my occupation).  In essence the strict forms of training and drills being to teach the student the "feel" of the principles and methods of the art.  A more obvious example is someone who studies Crane Kung Fu doesn't fight like this... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





However by doing such training you learn balance and how your connection to the earth, your grounding, should feel, and this is adaptable within limits.  The forms, the picture perfect structure is a teaching tool so you know how your body should "feel" as you are applying the skills that attack and defend.  At least that's my take.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> _The problem is to play devil's advocate you need to do so in context _
> 
> ----I'm following the context just fine.  I'm afraid you might be the one having some trouble with context.
> 
> _and addressing the issues I point out,_
> 
> ---Your issues were simply being argumentative.  I told you I wasn't going to argue any more.



well you win then because you are clearly ignoring context simply because you are taking YouTube video titles at face value for gosh sake and you basically are saying "if you disagree with me you are being argumentative and I am done."  You also ignore the fact that basic WC structures are not only different across lineages but that they are often simply teaching tools.  You also ignore the fact that if you are fighting/sparring without having learned Biu Jee you are going to collapse because that form is about dealing with being in a "bad spot."  This and much more is the context of what I speak and it is absent from your points.

these issues are not simply argumentative.  A martial art must be seen holistically and in context from level to level and I am simply pointing out this fact.


----------



## Jake104

KPM said:


> So what do you guys think of this clip? *I really enjoyed it! Thanks for posting!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or this one?   He flows well and looks good.  But is this "classical" Wing Chun?  Or a mix of Wing Chun and a lot of western boxing mechanics? *I really enjoyed that one too! Thanks again!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this one?  Is bending forward at the waist and breaking your vertical axis part of good Wing Chun mechanics? *Again I thank you! Please post more videos!!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to pick on Sifu Phillips.  But I remembered that he has actually produced a DVD on Wing Chun sparring and what I saw didn't exactly stick with Wing Chun entirely.


----------



## anerlich

KPM said:


> But I've learned that Biu Gee was meant for "emergency situations". It is taught as an advanced level and not used as a way to teach the core basic mechanics. That is pretty standard Wing Chun teaching. Now you can choose to disagree with that pretty standard Wing Chun approach to Biu Gee.



Will the moves in Bil Jee handle every possible emergency situation in an unarmed altercation? Are there other moves not in the Bil Jee form that might work in emergency situations and follow "Wing Chun principles", whatever that means? Or are these other moves not Wing Chun?


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> As for the order of the forms I think the issue is more about the philosophy of the art. WC is a very aggressive Martial art. I sometimes use a line from Shakespeare to describe it, "once more into the breach my friend, once more." I think the "fighting" forms are put "up front" in order to better instill that attitude.



I cant really buy SLT as being put up front as a "fighting form". It is basic movements and combinations with little or no footwork (at least in many schools) done one side at a time. IMO it is also the most meditative of the three empty hand forms, and many people sell it as Wing Chun's answer to Qigong, which is probably fine if you've done no other Qigong or breathwork. Its primary purpose in my view is to develop basic posture and structure. Other training methods do that too, of course.

I was always told the dummy movements are closer to actual fighting. Not sure I agree 100%, but that's what I was always told.


----------



## anerlich

Phobius said:


> Problem might be that this mentality works in eastern culture but for western culture with impatience and the eagerness to climb that ladder as quickly as possible. Perhaps we do require a different way to learn the aggressive nature of WC. Maybe we are influenced too much by having a different view or even understanding of martial art. Watching UFC, knowing boxing. Not having the patience to not look ahead while learning our first form...



You might be right about eastern culture ... traditional eastern culture anyway.

But, I don't see the point in stringing the learning process out any longer than is necessary. if by "climbing the ladder" you are talking about status, sihinghood, sifuhood, sigunghood, etc. I would agree with you. If you are talking about climbing the ladder of technical proficiency, I strongly disagree.

As for impatience ... Jiu Jitsu has taught me WAY more about patience and humility than Wing Chun ever did. All of this stuff is HARD to get good at and takes a LONG time. Impatience won't get you far in any martial art.

There is a structure to a good curriculum, and the order in which things are taught is important, though perhaps not as vitally important as some make out.

I also believe the traditions of TCMA are of value. But boxing, Muay Thai, Jiu Jitsu, all have their own traditions, some of which might be more visible, strange and restricting to a exotic to the country of the art's origin than others.

But skill is skill, aggression is aggression, ruthlessness is ruthlessness. The ways to attain these do not change significantly IMO because one art is a TCMA and another is not.


----------



## Nobody Important

In reference to Biu Jee, what exactly constitutes an emergency situation? Are the forms taught in the wrong order as far as application goes?

Is it when you are in a compromised position and "standard" Wing Chun techniques are not applicable?

Is it when "standard" Wing Chun techniques cannot be used because it will lead to a compromised position that doesn't conform to Wing Chun mechanics?

Is it when you are placed in a technique that cannot be countered with "standard" Wing Chun techniques?

If you answer yes to any of these, does it mean that 1. "Standard" Wing Chun positions are not always applicable 2. "Standard" Wing Chun mechanics are not always applicable 3. "Standard" Wing Chun techniques are not always applicable?

If so, how can "standard" be considered appropriate as a baseline?

Shouldn't we consider starting from a base of neutral position, large gross movement, natural reaction & strength development before refinement to adducted position, small fine movement, instinctual movement and force generation? Instead of the other way around and calling it the "standard" methodology? Especially when the track record is so dismal when it comes to practical use.

We are constantly trying to refine what we do. Why make it harder by trying to refine something that, by other standards is already considered refined. IMO it defeats the purpose. Wing Chun all to often attempts to improve an already created sphere, when everyone else starts with a block that they transform over time into a sphere.

You don't build a house from the roof down.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> In reference to Biu Jee, what exactly constitutes an emergency situation?



The $64 question! I always thought it meant "you f***ed up somewhere and had to get back to safety", but am interested to hear other answers.



Nobody Important said:


> Are the forms taught in the wrong order as far as application goes?



I don't think so personally. They go from the one with fewest moving parts to the most complex IMO.

OTOH....

Jiu Jitsu IMO is best taught incorporating worst case scenarios early, and you frequently find yourself there as a white belt in rolling and have to deal with it. Not quite sure how you incorporate that approach into WC pedagogy , but I think it's a question worthy of consideration.

Also in Jiu Jitsu, indulge me a little further, you have the fundamental techniques and positions and others that were originally developed when the opponent took steps to stop the fundamentals. For example, the basic open guard has at least one foot on the hip for good distance management. People started standing up and hiding their hips with their elbows on the thighs - de la Riva guard was developed to allow you to control such opponents if you can't get a foot on the hip. X guard developed from people standing up to nullify the butterfly guard. Both have gone on and developed in multiple directions, but that's how their origin was explained to me. Where does the line get crossed from a guard being "standard" or "mainstream", to being an "emergency" technique only useful in specific situations? And can what was once an "emergency" technique be developed to the point where it has a use in more than its "emergency" niche?


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> I don't think so personally. They go from the one with fewest moving parts to the most


That's kind of my point though. Siu Lim Tau is static with relatively small movements. Force generation is difficult because there is no movement or any real incorporation of the waist. Numerous esoteric bridge movements, some moving slowly & focusing on breath work. IMO it's an ideal to work towards. An ending place introduced early on, but to be deviated from & later return to.

If we look at San Chin of White Crane & Karate, it is a developmental form, much like Siu Lim Tau. Difference is that a completely different set of basics are introduced alongside it. These basic movements become more advanced and refined as the curriculum advances, until eventually the gap between San Chin and these techniques is closed. Hence them saying, San Chin is the beginning & end.

So while it is introduced early it isn't really stressed until later on as progression in more rudimentary skills are made. Both San Chin & Siu Lim Tau are simple but profound.

There are nuances in these sets that are not appropriate beginner material IMO, beyond a basic sampling or introduction. The progression of Wing Chun of Siu Lim Tau, Chum Kiu to Biu Jee is small movement, bigger movement, biggest movement. It contradicts the theory of the art as one of minimal movement and energy use. Why would it degrade as you advance?


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> That's kind of my point though.



I know, and I agree. FWIW, my instructor teaches an SLT form which uses a front stance rather a neutral stance with stepping to augment the strikes which might go some way to address the issues you rasie with power generation.

I agree with the rest of what you say, I think, but I am of the strong view that your learning in MA is cyclical in nature. You keep coming back to the same stuff but with deeper understanding and a wider set of viewpoints. Everything has deeper and subtler levels that can go on forever, but as life is finite, you have to prioritize.

I emphasised the qigong/flow facet of SLT as part of my argument that it is not taught first to instill aggression from the get go but for simplicity, somewhere back up there.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> I know, and I agree. FWIW, my instructor teaches an SLT form which uses a front stance rather a neutral stance with stepping to augment the strikes which might go some way to address the issues you rasie with power generation.
> 
> I agree with the rest of what you say, I think, but I am of the strong view that your learning in MA is cyclical in nature. You keep coming back to the same stuff but with deeper understanding and a wider set of viewpoints. Everything has deeper and subtler levels that can go on forever, but as life is finite, you have to prioritize.
> 
> I emphasised the qigong/flow facet of SLT as part of my argument that it is not taught first to instill aggression from the get go but for simplicity, somewhere back up there.


I'm inclined to agree and really don't have any contention with your assessment.


----------



## KPM

anerlich said:


> Will the moves in Bil Jee handle every possible emergency situation in an unarmed altercation? Are there other moves not in the Bil Jee form that might work in emergency situations and follow "Wing Chun principles", whatever that means? Or are these other moves not Wing Chun?



I'm sure the answer is "yes" to all of the above!  But again, the point was that the Biu Gee form does not determine your basic core mechanics....SLT and CK determine that.  They are the foundation of training.  Biu Gee is the more advanced level.  To say that someone is not ready to fight/spar without knowing Biu Gee (as Juany seems to be saying) is somewhat misguided.  I was talking to Guru Stevan Plinck once and he commented that he could teach someone to fight with only 2 of the 18 Serak Jurus.  Yet you have to know the entire Wing Chun system to do the same?


----------



## wckf92

anerlich said:


> The $64 question! I always thought it meant "you f***ed up somewhere and had to get back to safety", but am interested to hear other answers.



The way I was taught is that ALL the forms are simply teaching you letters of the WC alphabet. Drills teach basic, small, short "words" or vocab. Use the letters as you see fit, with the goal being to use them within the WC principles and guidelines. 
So, when an adversary attacks you, create the shortest WC word you can as your response. If your response contains letters from SLT, BJ, and pole...who cares...so long as the bad guy is headed to the emergency room and you are not. 


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM

[In reference to Biu Jee, what exactly constitutes an emergency situation? Are the forms taught in the wrong order as far as application goes?

---I was taught that SLT and CK teach you the core mechanics, the way Wing Chun moves.  They provide you with the concepts and principles that guide your Wing Chun.  Once you have those down well, then Biu Gee teaches you how to break those rules and principles as necessary.  That doesn't mean you change your core mechanics.  That means you learn how to deviate from your core mechanics when necessary.   And that "when necessary" is when something happens unexpectedly that catches you in a bad position, or when your opponent is pretty good and is able to put you in a bad position!  That's why the Biu Gee form is often referred to as "emergency" techniques or "recovery" techniques.  Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion!



_Shouldn't we consider starting from a base of neutral position, large gross movement, natural reaction & strength development before refinement to adducted position, small fine movement, instinctual movement and force generation? Instead of the other way around and calling it the "standard" methodology? Especially when the track record is so dismal when it comes to practical use._

---Maybe so!  But that is not the way the system was designed!  The system was designed to start training a student in the core mechanics of Wing Chun right away.   Starting with training you basic structure and stance in the SLT form, and then learning how to "put wheels" on the stance and move around without losing structure in the CK form. 



_We are constantly trying to refine what we do. Why make it harder by trying to refine something that, by other standards is already considered refined. IMO it defeats the purpose. Wing Chun all to often attempts to improve an already created sphere, when everyone else starts with a block that they transform over time into a sphere._

---Like I've said before, I consider core mechanics, the basic way you move as a "gross motor skill."  You take a student whose "block" is just his everyday body mechanics of walking around and working and teach him to start forming that "block" into Wing Chun mechanics.  It would be the same if the student starting studying something like western boxing.


----------



## wingchun100

Phobius said:


> And keep in mind now that there is such a thing as terrible sparring as well. People that can not handle the speed when sparring and instead of slowing down rather throw all concepts out the window and just go at it with arms swinging. Same you see when people do chain punching when sparring without even having a way to hit.
> 
> I can do punches like a boxer and a punch looking very similar but adhering to biomechanics known from WC. Reason of course being that both have same centerline theory for jab and cross while having same stance as we learn in SLT, at least the core of it.


 
The first part of your quote makes me think of all the "wing chun vs. some kicking style" you can find on Youtube, where you see a wing chun practitioner reaching down with their hands to block kicks instead of using their legs or crowding the kicker before they can pull the technique off.

The second part reminds me of a guy named Alan Orr who showed how you can do a boxing hook punch but then drop your elbow and make it like WC. Not sure what anyone here thinks of him, but I think he has some interesting points.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> I cant really buy SLT as being put up front as a "fighting form". It is basic movements and combinations with little or no footwork (at least in many schools) done one side at a time. IMO it is also the most meditative of the three empty hand forms, and many people sell it as Wing Chun's answer to Qigong, which is probably fine if you've done no other Qigong or breathwork. Its primary purpose in my view is to develop basic posture and structure. Other training methods do that too, of course.
> 
> I was always told the dummy movements are closer to actual fighting. Not sure I agree 100%, but that's what I was always told.



SLT contains all of the main hand and arm movements that you will use to attack and defend.  It also teaches, the key concepts of forward intent, the gates, how attack and defense should be along the center line and how we must be able to use both left and right hands equally.  It is far more than just Qigong, it is literally the core of WC.  No SLT you quite literally don't have WC.  The thing is people all to often forget "if you can't do it slow, you can't do it fast".  I think this is certainly more related to what we call "internal" martial arts in terms of learning to fight, but it is what it is.

I was questionable of this at one point as well but I just refer back to what the first person giving this description to me said... "that's not me saying it, Wong Shun Leung said it."

The dummy doesn't teach you to fight so much in my understanding, the dummy, it is simply a tool that helps you to build timing, balance, structure etc. when training on your own.  The balance and steucture one is often overlooked because it isn't always obvious that Newton's law of equal opposite reaction is at play, so when you strike what amounts to an immovable object, the energy comes back on you and you have to maintain balance and structure.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> I was taught that SLT and CK teach you the core mechanics, the way Wing Chun moves.  They provide you with the concepts and principles that guide your Wing Chun.  Once you have those down well, then Biu Gee teaches you how to break those rules and principles as necessary.  That doesn't mean you change your core mechanics.  That means you learn how to deviate from your core mechanics when necessary.   And that "when necessary" is when something happens unexpectedly that catches you in a bad position, or when your opponent is pretty good and is able to put you in a bad position!  That's why the Biu Gee form is often referred to as "emergency" techniques or "recovery" techniques.  Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion!
> 
> ---Maybe so!  But that is not the way the system was designed!  The system was designed to start training a student in the core mechanics of Wing Chun right away.   Starting with training you basic structure and stance in the SLT form, and then learning how to "put wheels" on the stance and move around without losing structure in the CK form.
> 
> ---Like I've said before, I consider core mechanics, the basic way you move as a "gross motor skill."  You take a student whose "block" is just his everyday body mechanics of walking around and working and teach him to start forming that "block" into Wing Chun mechanics.  It would be the same if the student starting studying something like western boxing.



You're not fully comprehending what I'm saying, because you're stuck on the presumption of being taught core mechanics in Wing Chun. Let me try again.

You're "core mechanics" existed long before learning Wing Chun. We learn to sit up, crawl, stand , walk & run. Over time we refine these actions to where we perform them with ultimate efficiency. We start with a big block & refine to a sphere, metaphorically. This is our true core mechanics, further refined through new movements, all that start big or as as step included that is built upon and refined to ideal efficiency. You seem to comprehend this with your last statement, but contradict it with regards to Wing Chun.

Now I understand what you are saying about SLT & CK, but you're missing my point. BJ - CK - SNT is a natural progression. It's taking something considered clumsey & improper to something refined & proper. SNT is the IDEAL, it is the end goal. It is not a core mechanic, it is the refinement of core mechanic.

You say "Maybe so!  But that is not the way the system was designed!". Says who? The system was actually a set of loose techniques prior to forms. Those loose techniques sought to refine existing movement not teach new ways of movement, only to say at the advanced level when compromised Wing Chun core mechanics will not work, so feel free to revert to what you were doing before to correct yourself. Once corrected go back to your Wing Chun core mechanics. 

It's not logical. SNT is the epitome of Wing Chun. Yet, there is often no path to it, as it is taught first. It's teaching someone to run without all the steps required to get there. The proverbial "Sink or Swim" method of teaching. If the art is about maximization of potential, why is the focus on something already maximized? Only later to digress to learn movements & theory considered to violate the ideal. 

Do you not see issue with that? I don't see it as efficient to undermine what is considered proper. To constantly violate the rules when you cannot work within them. Shouldn't the goal be to strive to work within the rules because you are naturally outside them?

You're core mechanics are learned early in life and constantly refined, they are often performed subconsciously. I get what you are saying about SNT & CK, structure & wheels. I'm not really contending that theory. My contention is your view on BJ.

You say "Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion". This is a damning testament to the effectiveness of what is taught in SNT & CK. If BJ is "advanced" there should be no issue in using it all the time. If it isn't considered advanced and is actually an example of what not to do & how to regain proper WC mechanics, why isn't it taught first? Shouldn't we be constantly striving to regain or maintain? Just like when we were learning to stand & walk?


----------



## dudewingchun

My view of biu jee is that it is not for life saving techniques, you just become more free and supple and learn some more techniques. 

Structure is the most important for sparring imo otherwise you just get blown away everytime you try to parry a powerful technique. Trying to make explosive movements is harder when you are standing completely still, if you are slightly swaying,bobbing it is easier to explode and move..


----------



## Nobody Important

dudewingchun said:


> My view of biu jee is that it is not for life saving techniques, you just become more free and supple and learn some more techniques.
> 
> Structure is the most important for sparring imo otherwise you just get blown away everytime you try to parry a powerful technique. Trying to make explosive movements is harder when you are standing completely still, if you are slightly swaying,bobbing it is easier to explode and move..


Exactly, so why wouldn't you learn movement (BJ & CK) prior to learning maximized potential (SNT). It isn't necessary for one to learn SNT to learn "proper" WC structure. Fighting is about movement. To be introduced to it by being required to stand still is contradictory. Not to mention it makes it harder to refine potential because you are being restrained from the start. See my earlier post regarding San Chin for clarification.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Exactly, so why wouldn't you learn movement (BJ & CK) prior to learning maximized potential (SNT). It isn't necessary for one to learn SNT to learn "proper" WC structure. Fighting is about movement. To be introduced to it by being required to stand still is contradictory. Not to mention it makes it harder to refine potential because you are being restrained from the start. See my earlier post regarding San Chin for clarification.



Thing is all the hand and arm movements are in SLT, so there are elements you need first that are there.  I think the problem is an East/west divide.  SLT and CK basically demonstrate the WC philosophy...forward forward forward, attack, attack attack.  WC wouldn't be the first CMA that uses forms in the beginning that are about teaching the mind as much as the body, in essence forcing you to accept the ideal from the beginning.  

It is counter to modern training methods but it is appropriate, imo, if you look at it in the historical context.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Thing is all the hand and arm movements are in SLT, so there are elements you need first that are there.  I think the problem is an East/west divide.  SLT and CK basically demonstrate the WC philosophy...forward forward forward, attack, attack attack.  WC wouldn't be the first CMA that uses forms in the beginning that are about teaching the mind as much as the body, in essence forcing you to accept the ideal from the beginning.
> 
> It is counter to modern training methods but it is appropriate, imo, if you look at it in the historical context.


All the arm & hand movements are also in Biu Jee. Many systems of WC have San Sik that are taught first. Beginning movements can be taught in a loose manner without being bound by the confines of a form. Forms are a collection of technique & theory to be extrapolated. It's true, most CMAs use forms to teach beginning movement & theory. However, all have Jiben taught first and the forms have movement. WC is the only CMA that I am aware of that teaches you to stand still when learning the art, which is contradictory to what is later taught. Minimal movement to big movement. All others are teach big movement to refined. You don't see this methodology as part of the problem with WC today?

For an art that touts simplicity, the methodology is overly complex. Shouldn't we seek a more favorable method of transmission? Shouldn't the idea be function first, form second? Especially for those who do not believe that WC is an art that refines & elevates a more gross motor skill based method?


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> All the arm & hand movements are also in Biu Jee. Many systems of WC have San Sik that are taught first. Beginning movements can be taught in a loose manner without being bound by the confines of a form. Forms are a collection of technique & theory to be extrapolated. It's true, most CMAs use forms to teach beginning movement & theory. However, all have Jiben taught first and the forms have movement. WC is the only CMA that I am aware of that teaches you to stand still when learning the art, which is contradictory to what is later taught. Minimal movement to big movement. All others are teach big movement to refined. You don't see this methodology as part of the problem with WC today?
> 
> For an art that touts simplicity, the methodology is overly complex. Shouldn't we seek a more favorable method of transmission? Shouldn't the idea be function first, form second? Especially for those who do not believe that WC is an art that refines & elevates a more gross motor skill based method?



Well they all aren't in the BJ of my Lineage.  Also at least as taught to me WC is about efficiency and directness in combat.  Efficient and simple aren't synonyms.

WC is also an art designed in a time where you either had the dedication, got it, or you didn't on both counts.  If you didn't the master didn't care if the door hit your *** on the way out.

I think you only see half the issue.  As we both acknowledge many of the techniques aren't gross motor skills, they are fine motor skills.  To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo.  So you do the art static in the form, then move on to drills with partners where you move and can more readily see when your tan or bong fails (as an example.) Once you can do these properly with consistency THEN you add movement to the forms.  Because the student knows the correct hand and arms positions almost subconsciously and so integrating the footwork doesn't create a divided attention issue.

I often use Field Sobriety Testing as an example because they are all about divided attention.  Keeping one foot off the ground while also counting.  Walking a straight line while having to make sure your heel touches your toes, you arms remain fixed at your sides and again counting.  Sober people have issues with these tests sometimes.  Now make the task more complex.

Now does the art take more study, more dedication than some other arts?  Sure it does.  It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts.  Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective.

The initial "hump" may APPEAR steeper than even some other CMAs but even then once over that hump it is actually, in my experience easier and faster to progress.  I never even noticed the issue you mentioned.  It felt natural and logical to me.  Down right scientific actually and I think this may be why Wong Shun Leung, and other refer to WC as a science and not an art. 

Step 1.  You learn the hand and arm movements.  These are how you will attack and defend
Step 2.  Learn to integrate them into "successful" movement.
Step 3. Learn to integrate them into "oh crap" movement.

This to me is actually a more logical curriculum than any other system I have practiced tbh.  BUT it is different, and especially in a world where people want to see results right out of the gate, it won't work for everyone, but it fits my, admittedly, analytical mindset.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Well they all aren't in the BJ of my Lineage.  Also at least as taught to me WC is about efficiency and directness in combat. How it is used in practice and a curriculum of teaching can often be two VERY different things.  Also efficient and simple aren't synonyms.
> 
> WC is an art designed in a time where you either had the dedication, got it, or you didn't on both counts.  If you didn't the master didn't care if the door hit your *** on the way out.
> 
> I think you only see half the issue.  As we both acknowledge many of the techniques aren't gross motor skills, they are fine motor skills.  To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo.  So you do the art static in the form, then move on to drills with partners where you move and can more readily see when your tan or bong fails (as an example.) Once you can do these properly with consistency THEN you add movement to the forms.  Because the student knows the correct hand and arms positions almost subconsciously and so integrating the footwork doesnt create a divided attention issue.
> 
> I often use Field Sobriety Testing as an example because they are all about divided attention.  Keeping one foot off the ground while also counting.  Walking a straight line while having to make sure your heel touches your toes, you arms remain fixed at your sides and again counting.  Sober people have issues with these tests sometimes.  Now make the task more complex.
> 
> Now does the art take more study, more dedication than some other arts?  Sure it does.  It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts.  Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective.
> 
> The initial "hump" is yes, steeper than even some other CMAs but once over that hump it is actually, in my experience easier and faster to progress.  I never even noticed the issue you mentioned.  It felt natural and logical to me.


The movements are there. You say "How it is used in practice and a curriculum of teaching can often be two VERY different things". I say why? It's contradictory to the theory of the art, simple, direct, efficient to practice a movement in one manner & apply in another.

Arts are no different today, you get back what you put in. My argument is to train smarter not harder as a means of compensation.

You stated "To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo". I disagree, many of the techniques in WC are used in many arts, both north & south, who perform the actions while moving when learning them. Through practice they are perfected. They are not perfected first then practiced.

 "It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?

When these other arts are pressure tested, aside from Tai Chi, they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. We need to understand why. I have voiced my opinion as to why, but am countered with the same old rhetoric that doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

You said "Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective". Many have, yet, as the topic of this thread discusses, why do they then resort to "Sloppy Kickboxing"? Especially if the method of instruction is superior? My response all along, and I have been consistent, is that it isn't. Many have agreed with my assessment, or at least agreed that they were worth considering, only to later retract by spouting the same old rhetoric that the methodological approach is superior, without actually countering any point I've made.

How is the current manner in which WC is taught, superior to the manner in which nearly all other CMAs are taught? When the majority of evidence suggests otherwise. Ex. WC straight punch taught from goat stance vs. Boxing straight right taught from fighting stance.

How is WC supposed to be a simple streamlined art that is supposed to take little time to learn, when it is proven that quicker results can be had with other methods? Ex. WC basics taught in SLT while in goat stance vs. Boxing basics. Which one are you going to be able to use right away? Both can later be refined via structure and delivery.

Is maintaining WC structure so important that people will sacrifice practical utility in order to prove effectiveness of a particular technique or method? Simply because one can show the effectiveness of a technique doesn't mean they can apply it with that same effectiveness in real time, especially if it wasn't learned with that mentality from the beginning.

Many that are successful with WC are so because it is not the first art they were trained in. Which was my point that WC is not an art for beginners and is truly an art of refinement. An art that elevates beyond "Sloppy Kickboxing", but IMO requires a firm foundation to chip and mold into something better.

The legends state that WC was developed to counter traditional Siu Lam methods. It was never mentioned how this was to be accomplished. By looking at the various lineages we can see everyone has a different approach. Which leads me to believe that "How" wasn't necessarily passed on or perhaps forgotten, as WC evolved. Training in Ku Lao is a clue as it harkens back to how the art appeared when it was first concueved.


----------



## anerlich

wingchun100 said:


> The second part reminds me of a guy named Alan Orr who showed how you can do a boxing hook punch but then drop your elbow and make it like WC.



It reminds me of myself when I tell students if you do a bil jee elbow strike and open the arm slightly and contact with the fist, you aren't 1000 miles from a boxing hook punch.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> SLT contains all of the main hand and arm movements that you will use to attack and defend. It also teaches, the key concepts of forward intent, the gates, how attack and defense should be along the center line and how we must be able to use both left and right hands equally. It is far more than just Qigong, it is literally the core of WC. No SLT you quite literally don't have WC. The thing is people all to often forget "if you can't do it slow, you can't do it fast". I think this is certainly more related to what we call "internal" martial arts in terms of learning to fight, but it is what it is.



I didn't say it was just qigong. Some people say it can be used for qigong. I was taking issue with the assertion that it is taught first to instill aggression.

"People all too often forget" - really? Who exactly? I usually do the SLT pretty damn slow myself. I prefer the maxim "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast", but ... whatever.

All the forms are integral parts of WC. Well, maybe not Koo Loo (sp?). I never said otherwise.

I'm not sure about "forward intent", though. I think you need chi sao, contact, to develop that.

Does anyone not practice or teach basic stepping and punching at the same time they are teaching SLT? I get introductory lesson peeps to step and punch mitts on day one because IMO this gives them the idea of integrating the entire body behind a punch. And, yes, forward intent.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts".



I definitely disagree WC is "more scientific". Only someone who has not studied multiple arts at a reasonably high level and swallows the advertising uncritically would say that. Jiu Jitsu can be as scientific as it gets. Not everyone pursues either style at or to that level, of course. 

I agree it requires more precision than most. Which I see as a weakness as much as a strength. Other styles are arguably more forgiving of minor errors, which are inevitable in the fog of war.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> The movements are there. You say "How it is used in practice and a curriculum of teaching can often be two VERY different things". I say why? It's contradictory to the theory of the art, simple, direct, efficient to practice a movement in one manner & apply in another.



This is true of almost all TMAs, though some, as illustrated by the Crane photo I showed, are even more obvious than WC.  I also explained elsewhere why.  Fighting is dynamic and under huge pressure, training (especially today) is far less so because they don't want students hospitalized regularly.  That is why I say it's about learning to "feel" in the perfect structure because you can "feel" that in structures that would not be seen as obviously "WC" but that one may assume in a dynamic encounter.  The later I have, regrettably, experience with



> Arts are no different today, you get back what you put in. My argument is to train smarter not harder as a means of compensation.



And that is subjective.  I actually find WC order to be quite smart, logical and orderly.  The difference is when do you expect gratification?



> You stated "To try and learn to do a proper tan or bong while also moving would actually create more headaches imo". I disagree, many of the techniques in WC are used in many arts, both north & south, who perform the actions while moving when learning them. Through practice they are perfected. They are not perfected first then practiced.



Saying, essentially, that other arts did it a different way doesn't mean that WC's method is inherently flawed, only that it is a step by step, paint by numbers method that may not "work" for you.  For me it works very well.  All the time at work while interviewing subjects I say "okay slow down and please answer my questions, don't elaborate, I need you do go A, B, C, D, E etc."



> "It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?



I am not talking about how it actually works.  All martial arts are based on biomechanics and thus science.  BUT if you look at the training method... as I elaborated on by breaking down the first three steps, it is.  The others often use a more philosophical approach.  



> When these other arts are pressure tested, aside from Tai Chi, they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. We need to understand why. I have voiced my opinion as to why, but am countered with the same old rhetoric that doesn't stand up under scrutiny.



Well as I said elsewhere, where are our sources for the alleged breakdown?  I have seen videos labeled as WC that later after research I verified were not WC at all (simply one example.)  Second we are confronted with the idea of was it really a breakdown because at this point there is so much divergence between some lineages that I have seen people say "that wasn't WC..." or "their structure broke down.." only to see another reliable person say "that is what my lineage looks like."  Hell I have had people say just the BJ form of my Lineage isn't WC. 



> You said "Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective". Many have, yet, as the topic of this thread discusses, why do they then resort to "Sloppy Kickboxing"?



See above but refined, is it "sloppy kick boxing", or whatever, if a persons body, through a different alignment achieved the exact same "feel" of grounding and support for attack and defense?  I posted earlier videos of Sifu Jerry Devone in MUSU.  A LOT of people would say that wasn't WC, but sloppy kickboxing.  In my Lineage it was what honest to goodness good WC can look like in a real fight. 



> Especially if the method of instruction is superior? My response all along, and I have been consistent, is that it isn't. Many have agreed with my assessment, or at least agreed that they were worth considering, only to later retract by spouting the same old rhetoric that the methodological approach is superior, without actually countering any point I've made.



I for one dont say WC is a superior art or that it's method of construction is superior.  I just say it's different.  Before I became a Soldier and then a LEO I was a History Secondary Ed Major.  The number of methods of education just for academics is vast.  They work better or worse often because of the student and what the goal is.  If your goal is "learn to fight with only WC now" WC's method is indeed questionable.  If the goal is "when I graduate I will be a dang good WC fighter" then the method works.  



> How is the current manner in which WC is taught, superior to the manner in which nearly all other CMAs are taught?


 see above



> When the majority of evidence suggests otherwise. Ex. WC straight punch taught from goat stance vs. Boxing straight right taught from fighting stance.



That isn't how I am taught.  We do SLT at the beginning of class (you should also do that at home) but after that we do drills with foot work and movement.  The strikes and defenses all applied from fighting stance.   Heck Sifu says "be a good training partner, zone, use footwork, don't stand there like a log."  SLT is to teach the principles. To teach the proper angles, breathing, etc.  That is why I said when you move to the following forms it's easier, you should have already been using foot work in training before to move to the forms that follow SLT. (maybe this is limited to GM Cheungs TWC I don't know).  



> How is WC supposed to be a simple streamlined art that is supposed to take little time to learn, when it is proven that quicker results can be had with other methods? Ex. WC basics taught in SLT while in goat stance vs. Boxing basics. Which one are you going to be able to use right away? Both can later be refined via structure and delivery.



Because historically, hell today, you don't start sending people to war until they have completed training.  In the context of WC, previously it took over a decade to turn a person into what was considered a "competent" martial artist.  Typically a martial artist (as opposed to a mere soldier, soldiers amounting to cannon fodder) began training as children and were not seen as "competent" until their late teens/early 20s.  WC was about taking 10-15 years and making it ~5 years.  This seems odd today but it is the nature of the era and it is something that must be considered.



> Is maintaining WC structure so important that people will sacrifice practical utility in order to prove effectiveness of a particular technique or method?



Well I never said that.  As a matter of fact more than once to KPM I said perfect structure is a training tool so that you can learn how your body should "feel" when fighting.  Once you learn to "feel" you can fight using the principles without the picture perfect structure.



> Many that are successful with WC are so because it is not the first art they were trained in. Which was my point that WC is not an art for beginners and is truly an art of refinement. An art that elevates beyond "Sloppy Kickboxing", but IMO requires a firm foundation to chip and mold into something better.


  Indeed but there are also students who did very well in WC because they lacked the preconceptions of other arts and managed to have an open mind as well.



> The legends state that WC was developed to counter traditional Siu Lam methods. It was never mentioned how this was to be accomplished. By looking at the various lineages we can see everyone has a different approach. Which leads me to believe that "How" wasn't necessarily passed on or perhaps forgotten, as WC evolved. Training in Ku Lao is a clue as it harkens back to how the art appeared when it was first concueved.



Some legends yes but not all and that is the thing about legends, drawing the fact from the fiction.


----------



## Jake104

wckf92 said:


> The way I was taught is that ALL the forms are simply teaching you letters of the WC alphabet. Drills teach basic, small, short "words" or vocab. Use the letters as you see fit, with the goal being to use them within the WC principles and guidelines.
> So, when an adversary attacks you, create the shortest WC word you can as your response. If your response contains letters from SLT, BJ, and pole...who cares...so long as the bad guy is headed to the emergency room and you are not.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk


This is how I learned also.. The 'Intellectuals' are the ones who feel a need to pontificate with the intent to over complicate a martial art which is historically known for its simplicity........(Wow I hope I pulled that one off with themz big wordz)

Anyhow IMO, they loose focus of what the goal is or was....fighting! K.I.S.S... Train and you'll see (Mr OP) that you may answer your own questions?.. In correct training, comes answers.. hopefully???


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> I didn't say it was just qigong. Some people say it can be used for qigong. I was taking issue with the assertion that it is taught first to instill aggression.
> 
> "People all too often forget" - really? Who exactly? I usually do the SLT pretty damn slow myself. I prefer the maxim "slow is smooth, and smooth is fast", but ... whatever.
> 
> All the forms are integral parts of WC. Well, maybe not Koo Loo (sp?). I never said otherwise.
> 
> I'm not sure about "forward intent", though. I think you need chi sao, contact, to develop that.
> 
> Does anyone not practice or teach basic stepping and punching at the same time they are teaching SLT? I get introductory lesson peeps to step and punch mitts on day one because IMO this gives them the idea of integrating the entire body behind a punch. And, yes, forward intent.



See my previous answer regarding my meaning behind scientific (its not regarding the art itself, rather the structure of the forms as a teaching method).  I agree with the last statement, my lineage indeed teaches foot work while learning SLT.  That is why I say that the learning curve can be seen as front weighted, but once past the initial hump it becomes easier because you start learning forms with foot work, after you have already been using techniques with footwork.

As for forward intent, when we are learning SLT we are taught constantly how when even simply a _tan_ we should be focusing on the forward intent, the focal point being the elbow. It is essentially the introduction to everything in WC, including forward intent.

The idea of "can't do it slow..." was not necessarily focused at you, apologies for not clarifying that.  However often I often see people who really have it down blasting through it as if to say "look at me", they begin to miss the point.  SLT is about a lot more than simply the hand and arm movements.  Some people miss that but I did not mean you.


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> The way I was taught is that ALL the forms are simply teaching you letters of the WC alphabet. Drills teach basic, small, short "words" or vocab. Use the letters as you see fit, with the goal being to use them within the WC principles and guidelines.
> So, when an adversary attacks you, create the shortest WC word you can as your response. If your response contains letters from SLT, BJ, and pole...who cares...so long as the bad guy is headed to the emergency room and you are not.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk




And this is essentially how I am taught.  I think the debate has ventured into the land of "due the forms teach the rules of the language in an order that allows the student to start communicating as well as it could?"  I don't think it's a big issue myself.  Others do but I think its because 

1. there are a retarded number of different lineages with different curriculums, all of which claim to be Yip Man Lineage to boot.
2. There are then different Sifus that use their own methods within the limits of their Lineage.  Example, my Sifu admittedly teaches from the attitude of "I used this to fight people trying to kill or beat my on the street as a LE Operator and I teach Federal Agents now."  This may have created a different learning environment for me.
3. people think YouTube is actually representative of reality without actually knowing the context.


----------



## anerlich

My first KF instructor taught me that all forms were "to give you a vocabulary of techniques". Another metaphor I like is that of toolboxes.

I have to ask myself sometimes whether the "deeper" and "more subtle" aspects of the forms, let alone the sequence in which they are taught, are more than figments of overactive imagination, and the result of searching desperately for meaning and significance that isn't actually there. I still don't know the answer, but believe a healthy scepticism is the appropriate attitude.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> This may have created a different learning environment for me.



Maybe, maybe not. Most of my KF instructors consulted to law enforcement or the military at various times. I regularly do seminars with a 5th degree BJJ black belt who has and continues to consult to police and military in Australia and overseas. I did a seminar last Saturday with Dave Camarillo, who teaches BJJ and combatives and regularly consults with LE agencies.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> people think YouTube is actually representative of reality without actually knowing the context.



This only seems to be a problem with TMAs. After a few years training you can pick up lots of good BJJ info from Youtube and slot it right in to what you do.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> See my previous answer



Read it already, bro. Nothing changes.


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> Maybe, maybe not. Most of my KF instructors consulted to law enforcement or the military at various times. I regularly do seminars with a 5th degree BJJ black belt who has and continues to consult to police and military in Australia and overseas. I did a seminar last Saturday with Dave Camarillo, who teaches BJJ and combatives and regularly consults with LE agencies.



All I really meant was to say "my instructor has used WC in actual encounters and made it work.  When you have experience in making an art work in real street fights you may have a different method of instruction based on the practical experience."


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> Read it already, bro. Nothing changes.



So you don't see a difference in teaching methodology, some being more "organic" vs others being more "scientific" or perhaps a better word is "logic" based?


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> This only seems to be a problem with TMAs. After a few years training you can pick up lots of good BJJ info from Youtube and slot it right in to what you do.



And I think this is because most TMA instructors don't pressure test. They focus on the A of "MA" far more than the "M". There are a couple WC instructors who have good stuff on youtube imo.  I will PM ya them if you want but every time I post their names people tend to come out of the woodwork saying "thats not WC!!!!!!" and I am trying to dodge that atm as enough is already being debated.


----------



## Juany118

A thought this thread brought to mind.  It seems to revolve around more than a couple threads.  Would we be well served if we started a thread about "why do so many TMA's instructors not pressure test the way they should so the student can turn what they learn into a "street" art?"  There are instructors who do but they seem to be the exception and not the rule.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> All I really meant was to say "my instructor has used WC in actual encounters and made it work.  When you have experience in making an art work in real street fights you may have a different method of instruction based on the practical experience."



You ain't Robinson Crusoe there, either. Not trying to start a dick measuring contest, just pointing out a lot of old timers really did test this stuff out in various arenas. In a lot of ways going down this road is just an appeal to authority or experience, logical fallacies.


----------



## anerlich

Juany118 said:


> So you don't see a difference in teaching methodology, some being more "organic" vs others being more "scientific" or perhaps a better word is "logic" based?



I see a difference.

Not sure that the usual WC curriculum with respect to forms falls into either category. I'd say 99.9999% of instructors teach the way they do because that's the way their seniors did it, and then look for reasons to call it scientific or logical to justify their choice, or non-choice, afterwards. Under the constraints of a large organisation with many schools your choices may be restricted, in any case.

Arguably, doing something the way it was done before which worked is somewhat evidence based. Not everyone has the time or inclination to experiment, study theories of education, etc. to a deep level. you could argue using students as pedagogical guinea pigs is marginally unethical. Tradition is arguably a safe approach, and one that often works to a large degree


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> You ain't Robinson Crusoe there, either. Not trying to start a dick measuring contest, just pointing out a lot of old timers really did test this stuff out in various arenas. In a lot of ways going down this road is just an appeal to authority or experience, logical fallacies.


Oh I know but these instructors seem to be the exception in TMA these days.  That's all I meant.  Since I don't know the education of the other people here (I know yours now) I don't know how this difference may be impacting my experience of WC vs others.  Sorry if it seems like I was "whipping it out" just trying to avoid my typical wall of text posts.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> I definitely disagree WC is "more scientific". Only someone who has not studied multiple arts at a reasonably high level and swallows the advertising uncritically would say that. Jiu Jitsu can be as scientific as it gets. Not everyone pursues either style at or to that level, of course.
> 
> I agree it requires more precision than most. Which I see as a weakness as much as a strength. Other styles are arguably more forgiving of minor errors, which are inevitable in the fog of war.


I agree with you and stated as much in my post. The quote you pulled was JUANY118.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> I agree with you and stated as much in my post. The quote you pulled was JUANY118.



My apologies, that was my mistake.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I agree with you and stated as much in my post. The quote you pulled was JUANY118.



And I am not referring to WC as an executed art either, only to the manner in which I have been instructed.  I think my teacher training may be coming out unconsciously and so I am not more firmly delineating the line between practice and instruction, the later as I have experienced.


----------



## drop bear

Juany118 said:


> A thought this thread brought to mind.  It seems to revolve around more than a couple threads.  Would we be well served if we started a thread about "why do so many TMA's instructors not pressure test the way they should so the student can turn what they learn into a "street" art?"  There are instructors who do but they seem to be the exception and not the rule.



do deadly to spar.

whole new thread resolved.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> I am not talking about how it actually works.  All martial arts are based on biomechanics and thus science.  BUT if you look at the training method... as I elaborated on by breaking down the first three steps, it is.  The others often use a more philosophical approach.


How it works is the entire point of my post, practicality, practicality, practicality. Those other arts I listed do not use a philosophical approach. The wording is simply different, they have sound theories on usage.




Juany118 said:


> Well as I said elsewhere, where are our sources for the alleged breakdown?  I have seen videos labeled as WC that later after research I verified were not WC at all (simply one example.)  Second we are confronted with the idea of was it really a breakdown because at this point there is so much divergence between some lineages that I have seen people say "that wasn't WC..." or "their structure broke down.." only to see another reliable person say "that is what my lineage looks like."  Hell I have had people say just the BJ form of my Lineage isn't WC.


My answer was in context to the OP. I have to an extent argued these same points you've just made.




Juany118 said:


> That isn't how I am taught.  We do SLT at the beginning of class (you should also do that at home) but after that we do drills with foot work and movement.  The strikes and defenses all applied from fighting stance.   Heck Sifu says "be a good training partner, zone, use footwork, don't stand there like a log."  SLT is to teach the principles. To teach the proper angles, breathing, etc.  That is why I said when you move to the following forms it's easier, you should have already been using foot work in training before to move to the forms that follow SLT. (maybe this is limited to GM Cheungs TWC I don't know).


Here's my point again. You say SLT is to teach the principles, proper angles, breathing etc. I view SNT as a collection of techniques and principles, not as a litmus to proper use. The power generation, angles, breathing, principles and overall movement is going to be much different when performed under some duress while moving as opposed to standing still. How can you know what is proper without even mild resistance? Modification will be required, which will force you to perform the techniques different than as done in the form. It's a set of two standards, IDEAL & PRACTICAL.




Juany118 said:


> Because historically, hell today, you don't start sending people to war until they have completed training.  In the context of WC, previously it took over a decade to turn a person into what was considered a "competent" martial artist.  Typically a martial artist (as opposed to a mere soldier, soldiers amounting to cannon fodder) began training as children and were not seen as "competent" until their late teens/early 20s.  WC was about taking 10-15 years and making it ~5 years.  This seems odd today but it is the nature of the era and it is something that must be considered.


 Now you're kind of babbling. What I was talking about is practicality, not preparation for war. I was speaking to usefulness. Again what is a more practical punch, standing in a goat stance and throwing straight punches or throwing a straight punch from a fighting stance? One is an isolation drill the other a fully integrated movement. Why practice one to go to the other? To me it isn't necessary, you can further develop and refine your straight punch from a moving fighting stance just as easily as you can from a goat stance. The difference is one is practical in application and will lead to a usable defense technique much quicker than the other.




Juany118 said:


> Well I never said that.  As a matter of fact more than once to KPM I said perfect structure is a training tool so that you can learn how your body should "feel" when fighting.  Once you learn to "feel" you can fight using the principles without the picture perfect structure.


Something we can agree on, I would also add that, as far as structure is concerned, movement is needed if one is to progress.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> This is true of almost all TMAs, though some, as illustrated by the Crane photo I showed, are even more obvious than WC.  I also explained elsewhere why.  Fighting is dynamic and under huge pressure, training (especially today) is far less so because they don't want students hospitalized regularly.  That is why I say it's about learning to "feel" in the perfect structure because you can "feel" that in structures that would not be seen as obviously "WC" but that one may assume in a dynamic encounter.


Just a side note, it's not required that you rip someone's head off in order to test their bridge or sweep their leg to test their stance. Pressure testing doesn't have to be "All Out" it can be done safely. Unfortunately many choose either to not do it or in an unrealistic manner. I don't see boxers and Jujutsu guys being regularly hospitalized.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> How it works is the entire point of my post, practicality, practicality, practicality. Those other arts I listed do not use a philosophical approach. The wording is simply different, they have sound theories on usage.



Again maybe it is the teacher in me but I look at learning first, then execution.  WC is practical, once you know the system, the issue is a matter of how you are taught and with the multitude of lineages, on top of sifus, its a crap shoot I will admit.




> My answer was in context to the OP. I have to an extent argued these same points you've just made.



I know just trying to be inclusive.



> Here's my point again. You say SLT is to teach the principles, proper angles, breathing etc. I view SNT as a collection of techniques and principles, not as a litmus to proper use. The power generation, angles, breathing, principles and overall movement is going to be much different when performed under some duress while moving as opposed to standing still. How can you know what is proper without even mild resistance? Modification will be required, which will force you to perform the techniques different than as done in the form. It's a set of two standards, IDEAL & PRACTICAL.



this is where the instructor comes in.  Yes SLT itself is limited in and of itself but in the school I study SLT is taught and then as students prepare for the next form they are not just standing still in drills with a partner, we must use footwork.  While it's not full on sparring if a student isn't ending the drills with red skin from impact, if as a skinny guy like me the bones of the forearms didn't hurt from being struck, you weren't training.  That's why I think much of the debate here is "off" because the divergence between lineages compounded by sifus creates vastly anecdotal experiences.



> Now you're kind of babbling.


no, its a matter of perspective. I studied to be a history teacher and had a focus on military history.  I thus see marital arts as what they were in a historical context.. war arts.  I have since then, for 25 years, applied the arts in actual fighting (green and blue) hence my perspective (and in this case speaking as only from my personal perspective) is that martial arts are about fighting and fighting = combat, combat = war.  War doesn't mean kill btw it means be victorious.




> Again what is a more practical punch, standing in a goat stance and throwing straight punches or throwing a straight punch from a fighting stance?


in my school that is only how one throws a punch in SLT, when actually training outside of forms the "ma" stance is not used period.  

I think this illustrates the disconnect I am trying to describe.  Maybe some schools have people doing drills for novice students in "ma" al la SLT, mine doesn't.  SLT is just that SLT, when SLT stops all students stop using "ma" and we use neutral and front stances.  Heck one of the drills used on a "essentials" night or on the day it combines condition with essentials (think Crossfit meets MAs) everyone, even seniors, do a drill where you punch while swapping between left and right neutral then left and right front.  No "ma".


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Again maybe it is the teacher in me but I look at learning first, then execution.  WC is practical, once you know the system, the issue is a matter of how you are taught and with the multitude of lineages, on top of sifus, its a crap shoot I will admit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know just trying to be inclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> this is where the instructor comes in.  Yes SLT itself is limited in and of itself but in the school I study SLT is taught and then as students prepare for the next form they are not just standing still in drills with a partner, we must use footwork.  While it's not full on sparring if a student isn't ending the drills with red skin from impact, if as a skinny guy like me the bones of the forearms didn't hurt from being struck, you weren't training.  That's why I think much of the debate here is "off" because the divergence between lineages compounded by sifus creates vastly anecdotal experiences.
> 
> 
> no, its a matter of perspective. I studied to be a history teacher and had a focus on military history.  I thus see marital arts as what they were in a historical context.. war arts.  I have since then, for 25 years, applied the arts in actual fighting (green and blue) hence my perspective (and in this case speaking as only from my personal perspective) is that martial arts are about fighting and fighting = combat, combat = war.  War doesn't mean kill btw it means be victorious.
> 
> 
> 
> in my school that is only how one throws a punch in SLT, when actually training outside of forms the "ma" stance is not used period.
> 
> I think this illustrates the disconnect I am trying to describe.  Maybe some schools have people doing drills for novice students in "ma" al la SLT, mine doesn't.  SLT is just that SLT, when SLT stops all students stop using "ma" and we use neutral and front stances.  Heck one of the drills used on a "essentials" night or on the day it combines condition with essentials (think Crossfit meets MAs) everyone, even seniors, do a drill where you punch while swapping between left and right neutral then left and right front.  No "ma".


I can see that we are somewhat on the same page, minor differences, but who doesn't have that. I think at this point we are simply talking past each other instead of seeing what we agree upon. Thank you for the conversation.


----------



## KPM

_You're not fully comprehending what I'm saying, because you're stuck on the presumption of being taught core mechanics in Wing Chun. Let me try again._

----No, I think I understand what you are saying just fine.  I'm just not buying it, that's all!  

_You're "core mechanics" existed long before learning Wing Chun. We learn to sit up, crawl, stand , walk & run. Over time we refine these actions to where we perform them with ultimate efficiency. We start with a big block & refine to a sphere, metaphorically. This is our true core mechanics, further refined through new movements, all that start big or as as step included that is built upon and refined to ideal efficiency. You seem to comprehend this with your last statement, but contradict it with regards to Wing Chun._

---I agree with your first part here, but how am I contradicting anything?  We have our core mechanics for everyday activities.  We have to shape the way we move into being Wing Chun mechanics when we are using our Wing Chun.  Its no different than when someone learns boxing, dancing, shooting, or any other physical activity.  You have to learn to move like a boxer, or a dancer.  You start with the very general and move to the more specific.  Unlike you, I do not see the Biu Gee form as being the more "general" and the SLT form as being the more refined "specific."  The Biu Gee form is no more "gross" than the SLT form.  The Biu Gee form simply teaches one how to "break the rules" when necessary and depart from the principles and structure learned in the SLT and CK forms.  I don't think I am being "contradictory" at all.  

_
Now I understand what you are saying about SLT & CK, but you're missing my point. BJ - CK - SNT is a natural progression. It's taking something considered clumsey & improper to something refined & proper. SNT is the IDEAL, it is the end goal. It is not a core mechanic, it is the refinement of core mechani_c.

---I disagree.  And I think the people that designed Wing Chun would also disagree, otherwise that is exactly the way it would be taught!   Was it Andrew that said that the training is circular?  THAT I agree with!   SLT is the basic training because it teaches you the basic structure and motions of  Wing Chun.  It establishes the foundation.  Then as you advance in your training and understanding you come back to SLT over and over to refine it and gain new insights.  You refine your foundation to make it stronger and stronger.  Why would you train your foundational form last?


_You say "Maybe so!  But that is not the way the system was designed!". Says who?_

---Says everybody that has taught it for the last 100 years!  Who teaches Biu Gee first and SLT last????


_ The system was actually a set of loose techniques prior to forms. Those loose techniques sought to refine existing movement not teach new ways of moveme_nt,

---We  don't know what those loose techniques were like prior to forms.   If Ku Lo Pin Sun can be used as a hint of what they may have been like, well.....the short sets in Pin Sun start out with the more simple sets and build upon them.  They are progressive in what they teach.  The very first set is not big gross movements at all.  The second set learned is actually called Siu Nim Tau!   The short sets are actually organized much like the progression in SLT/CK/BG.  The initial sets are done stationary.  Later sets add a pivot, still later sets add various footwork, and the larger gross movements are actually in the last sets....that again, are designed to deal with bad situations.  One of the last sets is actually called "life after death" because it teaches you to recover from what looked like imminent defeat!


_It's not logical. SNT is the epitome of Wing Chun. Yet, there is often no path to it, as it is taught first. It's teaching someone to run without all the steps required to get there. The proverbial "Sink or Swim" method of teaching. If the art is about maximization of potential, why is the focus on something already maximized? Only later to digress to learn movements & theory considered to violate the ideal. _

----Sorry, but I disagree with that completely!  Unlike most martial arts, Wing Chun starts you out with a simple form with NO footwork.  You start out by moving one arm at a time, and slowly at that!  You don't pivot or move the torso at all because you are learning centerline theory and alignment of basic techniques.  What do mean "there is often no path to it?"  A beginner has to start learning the basics somehow!  These are the basics of Wing Chun!   And it isn't "maximized"...there is not even any footwork!  How can that be "maximized" for fighting??  What you wrote above just doesn't make sense.   




_You say "Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion". This is a damning testament to the effectiveness of what is taught in SNT & CK._

---No it isn't!  In fact, it seems to be right in line with what some have been saying on this thread!   Sh!t happens!  Sometimes you are put in a position you aren't prepared for and have to do something else.  You have to get yourself out of a bad situation.   That might been suddenly bobbing and weaving because you weren't in a position to do a nice Tan Sau, that might mean doing a high cover at the last minute because you couldn't do a Bong Sau, etc. People have said here that resorting with kickboxing kind of responses is necessary because classical Wing Chun doesn't have all the answers.  Well,  Biu Gee is supposed to teach that kind of thing.  Now one could argue that Biu Gee is out-dated because people fight differently today and the "bad situations" you find yourself in aren't dealt with in the Biu Gee form.  I think there is some truth in that.  But that doesn't change the fact that this was the intent of the Biu Gee form.  At least that's what I was taught, that's what Wong Shun Leung and others taught!  


_
 If BJ is "advanced" there should be no issue in using it all the time. If it isn't considered advanced and is actually an example of what not to do & how to regain proper WC mechanics, why isn't it taught first? Shouldn't we be constantly striving to regain or maintain? Just like when we were learning to stand & walk_?

--- How are you going to understand the ways to "break the rules" if you don't have a good understanding of the rules to begin with?   How are you going to learn to recover good structure after you have lost it if you never learned good structure to begin with?    Do you try to teach a child to run before he has even learned to walk? Are you yanking my chain here and playing the "devil's advocate"?


----------



## KPM

_"It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?_

----Who says those arts don't fail under pressure?  Wasn't there a pretty damning statement earlier in this thread about ALL TCMAs?  I've dabbled a small amount in Southern Mantis.  While the initial form contains footwork, it certainly isn't considered an advanced form.  Southern Mantis' approach to training doesn't seem any different than Wing Chun's.


_You said "Thing is though if you put in the time and effort your investment is rewarded, and it is effective". Many have, yet, as the topic of this thread discusses, why do they then resort to "Sloppy Kickboxing"? Especially if the method of instruction is superior? My response all along, and I have been consistent, is that it isn't._

---And you may be right!  But I certainly don't think reversing the order in which the forms are taught is the answer!  I have asked this....if people have found they need to change their Wing Chun in a sparring situation, then why have they not taken those changes back to their basic Wing Chun training and changed that as well?  Again...fight the way you train and train the way you fight.   This may mean doing the SNT form with more of a boxing structure rather than a YGKYM.  This may mean putting some basic body movement or footwork into SNT.  This may been getting rid of Chum Kiu completely and replacing it with something that teaches the footwork that is being used in sparring, etc.  This is how things evolve.  Inside, some people train classic Wing Chun and talk about structure and dynamics and then actually do something very different when they try to spar with Wing Chun. 

_
 Many have agreed with my assessment, or at least agreed that they were worth considering, only to later retract by spouting the same old rhetoric that the methodological approach is superior, without actually countering any point I've made._

---Well, if you are talking about me.....I agreed with your assessment but thought your whole idea of reversing the order of the forms was a bit off, and then you seemed to suggest that reversing the forms was the way it was intended to be taught and that is just way out in left field with nothing to support it. 


_How is the current manner in which WC is taught, superior to the manner in which nearly all other CMAs are taught? When the majority of evidence suggests otherwise. Ex. WC straight punch taught from goat stance vs. Boxing straight right taught from fighting stance._

---I never said it was superior.   But how is it any different to the way other CMAs are taught?   Do other CMAs start with their more advanced form first?  Don't all systems start by teaching the basics?  SNT is a BASIC form.   As you progress through the system you go back and refine those basics in SNT more and more.  But it still remains the basic foundational form.
_

How is WC supposed to be a simple streamlined art that is supposed to take little time to learn, when it is proven that quicker results can be had with other methods? Ex. WC basics taught in SLT while in goat stance vs. Boxing basics. Which one are you going to be able to use right away? Both can later be refined via structure and delivery_.

----You may be right.  But again, you are proposing a change in the way Wing Chun is trained.  I have no problem with saying it should be trained more like a boxing method.  That would be very close to JKD!   But saying you would teach someone Biu Gee first and SNT last is not a "modern update" in training.  Its just backwards, that's all!  

_
Many that are successful with WC are so because it is not the first art they were trained in. Which was my point that WC is not an art for beginners and is truly an art of refinement. An art that elevates beyond "Sloppy Kickboxing", but IMO requires a firm foundation to chip and mold into something better._

---Inosanto's Panantukan starts with a western boxing base and then adds the FMA limb destructions, joint locks, etc. to that base.  Maybe Wing Chun should be trained similarly.  Start with a western boxing base and then add Wing Chun prinicples and techniques to that base.  And again, this would be something very close to JKD and no longer classical Wing Chun.   But then if someone does this, they should be truthful about what they are doing and not try to say they train "classical"  Wing Chun and then do something else when they spar.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> No, I think I understand what you are saying just fine.  I'm just not buying it, that's all!


Really? Disagree with me in one breath then agree on the next, smh.




KPM said:


> I disagree.  And I think the people that designed Wing Chun would also disagree, otherwise that is exactly the way it would be taught!   Was it Andrew that said that the training is circular?  THAT I agree with!   SLT is the basic training because it teaches you the basic structure and motions of  Wing Chun.  It establishes the foundation.  Then as you advance in your training and understanding you come back to SLT over and over to refine it and gain new insights.  You refine your foundation to make it stronger and stronger.  Why would you train your foundational form last?


If you read my post, where I used San Chin as a speaking point, I think you'll come to realize that I too believe it circular. I simply stated that I believe that the foundation of the so called foundational form is missing.




KPM said:


> Says everybody that has taught it for the last 100 years!  Who teaches Biu Gee first and SLT last????


Actually, Mai Gei Wong teaches _some_ of the Biu Jee mechanics first, then focuses on SNT and believes Chum Kiu is the advanced form. There are others that have a similar approach. Look at Cho family SNT, way different than Yip Man, they have Biu Jee & Chum Kiu built into their SNT. They learn some of these mechanics from the beginning


_ The system was actually a set of loose techniques prior to forms. Those loose techniques sought to refine existing movement not teach new ways of moveme_nt,




_


KPM said:



			It's not logical. SNT is the epitome of Wing Chun. Yet, there is often no path to it, as it is taught first. It's teaching someone to run without all the steps required to get there. The proverbial "Sink or Swim" method of teaching. If the art is about maximization of potential, why is the focus on something already maximized? Only later to digress to learn movements & theory considered to violate the ideal.
		
Click to expand...

_


KPM said:


> ----Sorry, but I disagree with that completely!  Unlike most martial arts, Wing Chun starts you out with a simple form with NO footwork.  You start out by moving one arm at a time, and slowly at that!  You don't pivot or move the torso at all because you are learning centerline theory and alignment of basic techniques.  What do mean "there is often no path to it?"  A beginner has to start learning the basics somehow!  These are the basics of Wing Chun!   And it isn't "maximized"...there is not even any footwork!  How can that be "maximized" for fighting??  What you wrote above just doesn't make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is because you replied to this out of context, my statement was about circular training, SNT being the beginning & the end. I stated that too much emphasis is placed on fine motor skill in SNT. I'll come back to that in reply to you other post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> KPM said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say "Therefore, if you have learned you basic stuff well, you should only have to resort to what is taught in Biu Gee on rare occasion". This is a damning testament to the effectiveness of what is taught in SNT & CK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> 
> KPM said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---No it isn't!  In fact, it seems to be right in line with what some have been saying on this thread!   Sh!t happens!  Sometimes you are put in a position you aren't prepared for and have to do something else.  You have to get yourself out of a bad situation.   That might been suddenly bobbing and weaving because you weren't in a position to do a nice Tan Sau, that might mean doing a high cover at the last minute because you couldn't do a Bong Sau, etc. People have said here that resorting with kickboxing kind of responses is necessary because classical Wing Chun doesn't have all the answers.  Well,  Biu Gee is supposed to teach that kind of thing.  Now one could argue that Biu Gee is out-dated because people fight differently today and the "bad situations" you find yourself in aren't dealt with in the Biu Gee form.  I think there is some truth in that.  But that doesn't change the fact that this was the intent of the Biu Gee form.  At least that's what I was taught, that's what Wong Shun Leung and others taught!
> 
> 
> 
> Your statements here, suggest to me, that violating basics is OK, but only in the context of when it suits you. I find problem with this. My question all along has been that, Biu Jee is part of the system, a part that teaches essentially how we move and react (bob, weave, etc.) prior to learning "correct" movement in SNT. Why wouldn't we work with that and try to refine to SNT? Again circular training.
> 
> 
> _
> _
> 
> 
> KPM said:
> 
> 
> 
> --- How are you going to understand the ways to "break the rules" if you don't have a good understanding of the rules to begin with?   How are you going to learn to recover good structure after you have lost it if you never learned good structure to begin with?    Do you try to teach a child to run before he has even learned to walk? Are you yanking my chain here and playing the "devil's advocate"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I'm not, you're simply choosing not to seeing my perspective or you really don't understand it as you claim. It is not required that you understand any rules in order to break them. I will explain in my response to your next post.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> _"It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?_
> 
> ----Who says those arts don't fail under pressure?  Wasn't there a pretty damning statement earlier in this thread about ALL TCMAs?  I've dabbled a small amount in Southern Mantis.  While the initial form contains footwork, it certainly isn't considered an advanced form.  Southern Mantis' approach to training doesn't seem any different than Wing Chun's.


Again, cherry picking and taking out of context. If you would have read my posts you would have seen, that I stated that when these arts are put to the test (with the exception of Tai Chi) they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. Their gross motor core is mostly intact, even under failure. Can WC claim the same?

As far as other arts are concerned, SPM, Hung Gar, TWC etc. Traditionally their first form is the foundation set (much like SNT) however, they contain large movements, later refined and use movement. _Two things not found in SNT_. What they have in common is that they always come back to the foundation set. The two things (large movements and moving) are not introduced until later in WC through the forms. You do not learn to refine by going from small (polished) to big (sloppy).




KPM said:


> ---And you may be right!  But I certainly don't think reversing the order in which the forms are taught is the answer!  I have asked this....if people have found they need to change their Wing Chun in a sparring situation, then why have they not taken those changes back to their basic Wing Chun training and changed that as well?  Again...fight the way you train and train the way you fight.   This may mean doing the SNT form with more of a boxing structure rather than a YGKYM.  This may mean putting some basic body movement or footwork into SNT.  This may been getting rid of Chum Kiu completely and replacing it with something that teaches the footwork that is being used in sparring, etc.  This is how things evolve.  Inside, some people train classic Wing Chun and talk about structure and dynamics and then actually do something very different when they try to spar with Wing Chun.


Hasn't that been what I've been saying. Here we agree to an extent, my argument all along has been. If Biu Jee contains movements such as bobbing, weaving, moving etc. (like boxing) why wouldn't we implement these methods first? Why don't we start with larger movement and chip away to small? Gross motor skill to fine motor skill within the context of WC. You say that its to set the foundation within WC structure. I have stated several times, that a punch taught from a fighting stance while moving is refined as easily as one taught from a goat stance. Core mechanics are not changed. Unless you believe that as you advance in WC forms that they do. If not, what is the harm in teaching in this manner first. Do you believe that Biu Jee violates WC structure? If you do why keep it. I don't believe that it does, and have argued that. You don't put stuff in your system that violates and contradicts your core structure. I believe Biu Jee contains movements that we are more naturally inclined to perform than what is in SNT. Lets look at Siu Lam for reference, they start with Long Fist routines and end with Soft Boxing routines. Hard, Big movement to Small, Soft movement. The core is never violated it is refined and evolved. If we are to put WC into this same formula it would be BJ - CK - SNT.




KPM said:


> Well, if you are talking about me.....I agreed with your assessment but thought your whole idea of reversing the order of the forms was a bit off, and then you seemed to suggest that reversing the forms was the way it was intended to be taught and that is just way out in left field with nothing to support it.


I've presented why I feel that it is a viable approach. You've agreed to some of my assessments (I wouldn't expect you to agree to all). Our disagreement, has nothing to do with the order of the forms, but what we believe about Biu Jee. You think it violates WC structure, I do not.




KPM said:


> I never said it was superior.   But how is it any different to the way other CMAs are taught?   Do other CMAs start with their more advanced form first?  Don't all systems start by teaching the basics?  SNT is a BASIC form.   As you progress through the system you go back and refine those basics in SNT more and more.  But it still remains the basic foundational form.


To answer your question, yes & no. Gung Ji Fuk Fu Kuen, Sam Chien etc. are beginning & advanced. As the art progresses methodology and technique are added to them. It is the same with SNT, in this respect. I am not arguing that. Training is circular, everything comes back to basics. Here is my argument again. With these other arts the beginning forms are big movement, stepping, basic theory etc. as they progress through the system the techniques become more refined, movement becomes smaller & more efficient, focus becomes more internal. Wing Chun methodology is exactly the opposite. 

I have simply pointed out that WC's approach to systematic training is flawed. You've agreed that, if it is why don't people change it from the beginning. This is exactly what I have suggested. The difference is you're looking to boxing or something else. I'm suggesting that the answer is already there within the system, in Biu Jee. No need to change core mechanics. But this can only work if you believe that Biu Jee doesn't violate WC core structure.
_
_


KPM said:


> ----You may be right.  But again, you are proposing a change in the way Wing Chun is trained.  I have no problem with saying it should be trained more like a boxing method.  That would be very close to JKD!   But saying you would teach someone Biu Gee first and SNT last is not a "modern update" in training.  Its just backwards, that's all!


How is it? I'm not saying eliminate SNT. I'm not saying don't teach it first. I'm saying that training is circular. No need to hyper focus on SNT. The core mechanics of the art do not need changed. Biu Jee is the key that unlocks WC. In my branch we have numerous exercises like Waist Bending, Crane Wings, Stepping, Covering, 8 San Sik etc. That are taught before SNT is even sarted, all of these exercises are based upon the movements as performed in Biu Jee. They are found as refined movements in SNT. But if they were taught as they appear in SNT, they wouldn't be practical for use. Students would become confused as to why we apply in one manner and practice in another.




KPM said:


> ---Inosanto's Panantukan starts with a western boxing base and then adds the FMA limb destructions, joint locks, etc. to that base.  Maybe Wing Chun should be trained similarly.  Start with a western boxing base and then add Wing Chun prinicples and techniques to that base.  And again, this would be something very close to JKD and no longer classical Wing Chun.   But then if someone does this, they should be truthful about what they are doing and not try to say they train "classical"  Wing Chun and then do something else when they spar.



And doesn't this suggest to you (if you believe that WC is complete) that there is a fundamental breakdown in how WC is taught. The whole premise of my argument has been that I believe WC to be an advanced art not for beginners to learn but for accomplished artists to learn as a way of refining their skill. If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated. All of my arguments have been in support of this premise. I have stated my position clearly, but responses have been largely based upon biases to my answers without context to my original premise, that WC is not for beginners & is an art of refinement. I truly, believe that the training methodology has been altered long ago, by those that learned WC without a background in other arts. When we look at Mai Gei Wong, Yuen Chai Wan, Cho Family, Pao Fa Lien & Pan Nam their approach and structure to WC is very different than most, because WC wasn't their first art. The only exception to this (to an extent) is Leung Shun, but many would argue that the methodology is quite different.


----------



## geezer

_@Nobody Important _-- I'm also in disagreement with your idea of teaching WC forms in reversed order. I've been a professional teacher for some 30 years ( beginning in college as a GA, then Adult Ed., a couple of decades teaching secondary Ed., as well as teaching WC on and off since 1981) and such a curriculum certainly wouldn't work for the WC I practice. Not that there aren't serious problems with the way a lot of WC and TCMA in general is taught. I believe we need more active drills and sparring and a more open approach to effectively adapt to the kind of fighting methods that are dominant in the world today. And, some method of pressure testing the results, would be hugely helpful.

Many traditional MA curriculums are not adaptive and do not address these concerns. However, IMO reversing the order of teaching WC's forms would not be at all helpful. On the other hand, if you have students or training partners who are learning this way, and this approach is yielding positive results for you, keep us informed. If you can, post a video. I'd be interested to see what you are coming up with.


----------



## KPM

_ If you would have read my posts you would have seen, that I stated that when these arts are put to the test (with the exception of Tai Chi) they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. Their gross motor core is mostly intact, even under failure. Can WC claim the same?_

---OK.  I'll take your word on that, since I really haven't seen those arts in a sparring context much.

_
As far as other arts are concerned, SPM, Hung Gar, TWC etc. Traditionally their first form is the foundation set (much like SNT) however, they contain large movements, later refined and use movement. Two things not found in SNT._

---Ok.  I follow that point as well.  

_ What they have in common is that they always come back to the foundation set. The two things (large movements and moving) are not introduced until later in WC through the forms. You do not learn to refine by going from small (polished) to big (sloppy)._

---True.  But then Wing Chun doesn't have a lot of large movements anyway.  



_ I believe Biu Jee contains movements that we are more naturally inclined to perform than what is in SNT. Lets look at Siu Lam for reference, they start with Long Fist routines and end with Soft Boxing routines. Hard, Big movement to Small, Soft movement. The core is never violated it is refined and evolved. If we are to put WC into this same formula it would be BJ - CK - SNT._

-----We may know different BG forms.  Because to me, the movements of BG seem rather unnatural compared to SNT.  The way the elbow is thrown, the bending forward and then backwards at the waist, etc don't seem all that natural to me!   But I do take your point, and I will contribute to it.   I will admit to this......the Ku Lo Pin Sun set that i referred to....."life after death".....was essentially the same movement from as the Ip Man BG form that has you bending forward at the waist and thrusting the arms downward and then leaning backwards as you sweep the arms up and outward.   Henry Mui recognized that, while this is teaching to break the vertical line to evade a strike, it isn't done in a very good way given modern fighting methods.   So he changed the set.  Rather than doing it the "classic" way he teaches this set as essentially the same motions as the "bob & weave" from western boxing because he thinks this is much more practical.  Now, this is still one of the last sets you learn.  But I can see your point that teaching something like this more in the beginning would be useful.  However, I don't think teaching the BG form in its entirety to a beginner prior to SNT would be that useful.  



_I've presented why I feel that it is a viable approach. You've agreed to some of my assessments (I wouldn't expect you to agree to all). Our disagreement, has nothing to do with the order of the forms, but what we believe about Biu Jee. You think it violates WC structure, I do not._

---Fair enough!



_Here is my argument again. With these other arts the beginning forms are big movement, stepping, basic theory etc. as they progress through the system the techniques become more refined, movement becomes smaller & more efficient, focus becomes more internal. Wing Chun methodology is exactly the opposite. _

----OK.  But I would say that Wing Chun doesn't really have ANY big movements.  It is a compact style.  It  doesn't go from large amplitude movements with hard power to smaller movement with soft power as you described for other systems because Wing Chun stays small amplitude as much as possible.  Even BG.  I guess that's why I don't see it as "gross movements" any more than SNT is "gross movements."  They are simply movements that depart from the standard as learned in SNT and CK.




. In my branch we have numerous exercises like Waist Bending, Crane Wings, Stepping, Covering, 8 San Sik etc. That are taught before SNT is even sarted, all of these exercises are based upon the movements as performed in Biu Jee. They are found as refined movements in SNT. But if they were taught as they appear in SNT, they wouldn't be practical for use. Students would become confused as to why we apply in one manner and practice in another.

----And again, we may be talking past each other simply because we have learned different versions of BG!  I can absolutely see training on a "san sik" basis prior to learning SNT.   Sum Nung Wing Chun does this, as I sure you are well aware of.   Rumor has it that Ip Man taught a set of drills like this early in the curriculum as well.  Heck, most people do!   And those preliminary 12 san sik taught in Sum Nung Wing Chun do have some larger amplitude motions that Ip Man Wing Chun does not include.  So does Ku Lo Pin Sun, and it sounds to me like your  system likely does as well.   So I am coming to the conclusion that the BG form from Ip Man WC that I am envisioning is not the same BG form that you have in mind.  That is likely our disconnect! 




_And doesn't this suggest to you (if you believe that WC is complete) that there is a fundamental breakdown in how WC is taught. The whole premise of my argument has been that I believe WC to be an advanced art not for beginners to learn but for accomplished artists to learn as a way of refining their skill_. 

----That may be true.  And as you said that approach to the training might have changed fairly early on.  Ip Man didn't start with something else.  I don't think Yuen Kay Shan or Sum Nung started with something else.  But the stories told in the Weng Chun lineage certainly have many of the major players coming to Weng Chun from some other system.  


_If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated. _

----Fair statement.  But something we have come to in a rather round-about way.     And not because I didn't understand what you were saying.  But because we get off on all kinds of peripheral points.   And I would still say that the answer for "classical" Wing Chun is not to reverse the order in which the forms are taught and put BG first.  But the answer may very well to be to start out on a san sik basis with larger motions first that are refined as time goes on.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> _If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated. _
> 
> ----Fair statement. But something we have come to in a rather round-about way.  And not because I didn't understand what you were saying. But because we get off on all kinds of peripheral points. And I would still say that the answer for "classical" Wing Chun is not to reverse the order in which the forms are taught and put BG first. But the answer may very well to be to start out on a san sik basis with larger motions first that are refined as time goes on.



from my purely sparring/fighting perspective wing Chun works against itself by making part of fighting the whole of fighting.

so the idea is to close the gap and trade a high volume of strikes into a guy from the pocket. now this works if you have a solid chin good punching power and great cardio.

it is certainly a method you use but there is a time and place.

now that is then combined with counter punching which generally you want to do from the out side with low volume striking. and is used if you want to be a bit saferough from a guy with good takedownside or knock out power.

so I can see why people go off reservation when they spar. for a large portion of people the methods are untenable. bitso of the methods rearranged and added to will just create better results.

having said that straight punches will quite often beat hooks. so for self defense if someone throws lazy hooks at you. then you could absolutely capitalise with basic Chun chain and counter punching. it just has to be done at the right place.

this is why arts that define themselves by sparring are never generic. and will be separated into games depending on the fighter using the system and who he is fighting.

I mean if I have reach on a guy. why would I close with him. I am giving him free shots.


----------



## Juany118

drop bear said:


> from my purely sparring/fighting perspective wing Chun works against itself by making part of fighting the whole of fighting.
> 
> so the idea is to close the gap and trade a high volume of strikes into a guy from the pocket. now this works if you have a solid chin good punching power and great cardio.
> 
> it is certainly a method you use but there is a time and place.
> 
> now that is then combined with counter punching which generally you want to do from the out side with low volume striking. and is used if you want to be a bit saferough from a guy with good takedownside or knock out power.
> 
> so I can see why people go off reservation when they spar. for a large portion of people the methods are untenable. bitso of the methods rearranged and added to will just create better results.
> 
> having said that straight punches will quite often beat hooks. so for self defense if someone throws lazy hooks at you. then you could absolutely capitalise with basic Chun chain and counter punching. it just has to be done at the right place.
> 
> this is why arts that define themselves by sparring are never generic. and will be separated into games depending on the fighter using the system and who he is fighting.
> 
> I mean if I have reach on a guy. why would I close with him. I am giving him free shots.



The problem is though that high volume punching (chain punching) looks cool in the movies but is really a beginner technique and is almost a training tool to simply develop the technique of relaxing after a strike so you can more readily do anything else; strike, defend, etc. (At least in my lineage). 

While you may still straight punch when necessary they eventually become supplanted by palm strikes like ju cheung, biu sau (finger thrust) for "straight" strikes.  (Again my lineage at least.). Of course fighting is dynamic and you may find yourself punching, even chain punching, but when you find someone constantly trying to chain punch, it's usually a sign of an experienced fighter knowing they are fighting a less skill opponent or a novice.

Now obviously you are more limited to punching while sparing, but even then the rule applies on chain punching, it is something that is very situational and less experienced students over use the technique.  That was my only point.  When I see two students simply trade chain punches over and over again I cringe a little bit.


----------



## Nobody Important

geezer said:


> _@Nobody Important _-- I'm also in disagreement with your idea of teaching WC forms in reversed order. I've been a professional teacher for some 30 years ( beginning in college as a GA, then Adult Ed., a couple of decades teaching secondary Ed., as well as teaching WC on and off since 1981) and such a curriculum certainly wouldn't work for the WC I practice. Not that there aren't serious problems with the way a lot of WC and TCMA in general is taught. I believe we need more active drills and sparring and a more open approach to effectively adapt to the kind of fighting methods that are dominant in the world today. And, some method of pressure testing the results, would be hugely helpful.
> 
> Many traditional MA curriculums are not adaptive and do not address these concerns. However, IMO reversing the order of teaching WC's forms would not be at all helpful. On the other hand, if you have students or training partners who are learning this way, and this approach is yielding positive results for you, keep us informed. If you can, post a video. I'd be interested to see what you are coming up with.


TBH, there isn't a lot here I would argue with. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I'm not suggesting teaching the forms in reverse order per say, as much as I'm suggesting that the methodology of what lies in those forms. My rant about San Chin & SLT being the beginning & end of their perspective systems still holds true. I just believe in introducing some of the key concepts of Biu Jee early on. Things like moving, bobbing & weaving, elbows etc. These are things the student will return too, just as they will build upon the techniques learned in SNT.

No need to go outside the system, when these "bigger" body movements are already in the system. I simply feel it important for beginners to WC to have practical applicable movement from the start. Even if clumsy & awkward, it can be refined through SNT.

Not all branches of WC have dedicated Ji Ben exercises that teach them simple "boxing like" skills from the start. Exercises like bending waist (simple uprooting exercise based on emergency waist bend & iron half bridge), 12 San Sik (based on theory of position, bridge, control, hit, return), 8 San Sik ( based on common movements in SNT & BJ), gates drills (based on EWBIHB, Pak Sau, bong sau & gate punching). All these exercises use a lot of movement and are partner drills, & based mostly off of the methodology found in BJ, yet contain techniques from SNT. All learned before starting SNT in my lineage. We use SNT to refine, not teach, if that makes sense.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> _ If you would have read my posts you would have seen, that I stated that when these arts are put to the test (with the exception of Tai Chi) they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. Their gross motor core is mostly intact, even under failure. Can WC claim the same?_
> 
> ---OK.  I'll take your word on that, since I really haven't seen those arts in a sparring context much.
> 
> _
> As far as other arts are concerned, SPM, Hung Gar, TWC etc. Traditionally their first form is the foundation set (much like SNT) however, they contain large movements, later refined and use movement. Two things not found in SNT._
> 
> ---Ok.  I follow that point as well.
> 
> _ What they have in common is that they always come back to the foundation set. The two things (large movements and moving) are not introduced until later in WC through the forms. You do not learn to refine by going from small (polished) to big (sloppy)._
> 
> ---True.  But then Wing Chun doesn't have a lot of large movements anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> _ I believe Biu Jee contains movements that we are more naturally inclined to perform than what is in SNT. Lets look at Siu Lam for reference, they start with Long Fist routines and end with Soft Boxing routines. Hard, Big movement to Small, Soft movement. The core is never violated it is refined and evolved. If we are to put WC into this same formula it would be BJ - CK - SNT._
> 
> -----We may know different BG forms.  Because to me, the movements of BG seem rather unnatural compared to SNT.  The way the elbow is thrown, the bending forward and then backwards at the waist, etc don't seem all that natural to me!   But I do take your point, and I will contribute to it.   I will admit to this......the Ku Lo Pin Sun set that i referred to....."life after death".....was essentially the same movement from as the Ip Man BG form that has you bending forward at the waist and thrusting the arms downward and then leaning backwards as you sweep the arms up and outward.   Henry Mui recognized that, while this is teaching to break the vertical line to evade a strike, it isn't done in a very good way given modern fighting methods.   So he changed the set.  Rather than doing it the "classic" way he teaches this set as essentially the same motions as the "bob & weave" from western boxing because he thinks this is much more practical.  Now, this is still one of the last sets you learn.  But I can see your point that teaching something like this more in the beginning would be useful.  However, I don't think teaching the BG form in its entirety to a beginner prior to SNT would be that useful.
> 
> 
> 
> _I've presented why I feel that it is a viable approach. You've agreed to some of my assessments (I wouldn't expect you to agree to all). Our disagreement, has nothing to do with the order of the forms, but what we believe about Biu Jee. You think it violates WC structure, I do not._
> 
> ---Fair enough!
> 
> 
> 
> _Here is my argument again. With these other arts the beginning forms are big movement, stepping, basic theory etc. as they progress through the system the techniques become more refined, movement becomes smaller & more efficient, focus becomes more internal. Wing Chun methodology is exactly the opposite. _
> 
> ----OK.  But I would say that Wing Chun doesn't really have ANY big movements.  It is a compact style.  It  doesn't go from large amplitude movements with hard power to smaller movement with soft power as you described for other systems because Wing Chun stays small amplitude as much as possible.  Even BG.  I guess that's why I don't see it as "gross movements" any more than SNT is "gross movements."  They are simply movements that depart from the standard as learned in SNT and CK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . In my branch we have numerous exercises like Waist Bending, Crane Wings, Stepping, Covering, 8 San Sik etc. That are taught before SNT is even sarted, all of these exercises are based upon the movements as performed in Biu Jee. They are found as refined movements in SNT. But if they were taught as they appear in SNT, they wouldn't be practical for use. Students would become confused as to why we apply in one manner and practice in another.
> 
> ----And again, we may be talking past each other simply because we have learned different versions of BG!  I can absolutely see training on a "san sik" basis prior to learning SNT.   Sum Nung Wing Chun does this, as I sure you are well aware of.   Rumor has it that Ip Man taught a set of drills like this early in the curriculum as well.  Heck, most people do!   And those preliminary 12 san sik taught in Sum Nung Wing Chun do have some larger amplitude motions that Ip Man Wing Chun does not include.  So does Ku Lo Pin Sun, and it sounds to me like your  system likely does as well.   So I am coming to the conclusion that the BG form from Ip Man WC that I am envisioning is not the same BG form that you have in mind.  That is likely our disconnect!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _And doesn't this suggest to you (if you believe that WC is complete) that there is a fundamental breakdown in how WC is taught. The whole premise of my argument has been that I believe WC to be an advanced art not for beginners to learn but for accomplished artists to learn as a way of refining their skill_.
> 
> ----That may be true.  And as you said that approach to the training might have changed fairly early on.  Ip Man didn't start with something else.  I don't think Yuen Kay Shan or Sum Nung started with something else.  But the stories told in the Weng Chun lineage certainly have many of the major players coming to Weng Chun from some other system.
> 
> 
> _If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated. _
> 
> ----Fair statement.  But something we have come to in a rather round-about way.     And not because I didn't understand what you were saying.  But because we get off on all kinds of peripheral points.   And I would still say that the answer for "classical" Wing Chun is not to reverse the order in which the forms are taught and put BG first.  But the answer may very well to be to start out on a san sik basis with larger motions first that are refined as time goes on.


Please see my response to Geezer, that should better clarify my position. I appreciate you taking the time to see things from my perspective. I would only add one thing to clarify my point regarding Biu Jee. When I speak of BJ having big movement, I'm not speaking in terms like long fist. I'm referring to 1. Body moment ( waist bending & turning) 2. The extension of movement to the left & right. This really isn't seen in SNT & is not really emphasized in CK. These big ( for WC) body movements & extensions are emphasized in BJ. I look at the forms as small, medium & large because of the body (waist) movement involved. But, this large isn't to the extent of a system like long fist.

Power is controlled by the waist & stance. So using the waist with movement to generate force is important. As one progresses the big circle of the hip (s) that was being used can be reduced & compressed towards the spine. In my lineage we adhere to the "turtle front crane back" method of force generation, the same as white crane, where we differ from White Crane is we reduce the use of hip for generation of force to more of a spine method of force generation, this is done through practice of goat stance. We start big & end small. To try and create this force from goat stance without having done the other method first, we wouldn't be able to generate as strong a striking force. Our gung training starts with a fully integrated body doing "big" movements, and slowly progresses to a fully integrated body doing minimal movement without a loss of force generation. Does that make sense?


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Please see my response to Geezer, that should better clarify my position.



Yes, that does help.  And that is a bit different than what you seemed to be saying in your previous posts.  Thanks.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Yes, that does help.  And that is a bit different than what you seemed to be saying in your previous posts.  Thanks.


Well, we did go off script several times, it can get confusing.


----------



## wingchun100

anerlich said:


> It reminds me of myself when I tell students if you do a bil jee elbow strike and open the arm slightly and contact with the fist, you aren't 1000 miles from a boxing hook punch.



Okay, well I didn't know you said it since I haven't been on the board in a while. However, I knew Alan did because I met him via a Facebook group and found his videos.


----------



## anerlich

Sort of on topic:

Some styles teach large movements in their forms because they feel that under pressure the student will tend to cut them short and turn them into smaller movements anyway. Better this than cutting them so extremely short to be ineffectual, if you buy the rationale.

Some styles teach public forms where only a small movement is performed, but in the closed door version it represents something much bigger. A stamp with the foot on the floor in the public form actually represents a kick in the private form. The rationale being that the enemy will think, "that style has no kicks" and end up unexpectedly getting their a$$es kicked up between their shoulder blades when they engage. Not a fan of the security through obscurity model in martial arts, but YMMV.

Josh Waitzkin, the author of "The Art of Learning", chess prodigy, taiji push hands world champion, and BJJ black belt, talks about spending many hours trying to distil his techniques down to the smallest possible movements that still capture the essence of them, on one of his podcasts with Tim Ferriss.

Not suggesting any of these are the way to go, just points I found relevant and interesting and which might provoke further discussion (OK, argument).


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> my argument all along has been. If Biu Jee contains movements such as bobbing, weaving, moving etc. (like boxing) why wouldn't we implement these methods first? Why don't we start with larger movement and chip away to small? Gross motor skill to fine motor skill within the context of WC.



What you are probably looking for is in the other thing that is practiced from the start.

BJ is purposefully stepping outside the parameters of the system that is running correctly because..eventualities. It doesn't contain gross body methods that boil down to the refined VT goal and starting with BJ will end with something that is not VT.


----------



## guy b

This kind of idea is popular in systems like Hung Gar, and many HG practitioners feel that the gross body methods they learn can be channeled through something like SPM to produce something very refined and powerful. It may or may not work with some systems. I can't see it working with VT


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> This kind of idea is popular in systems like Hung Gar, and many HG practitioners feel that the gross body methods they learn can be channeled through something like SPM to produce something very refined and powerful. It may or may not work with some systems. I can't see it working with VT


No offense but you do have a myopic view of WC. I'm not saying this is bad, but not all WC is the same.


----------



## anerlich

One thing that bothers me about this discussion is that it seems to boil down to:

SLT and CK contain the basic mainstream WC mechanics, structure, posture, ...

BJ breaks the rules, but only so far. It's still WC. You have waist twisting elbow strikes, crouching / level changing, bending at the waist, blocks/redirections using both arms instead of just one, ...

This seems contradictory. BJ not using WC mechanics, but still WC, therefore WC mechanics.

So there seems to be a three tier categorisation of technique:


SLT and CK mechanics
BJ mechanics
The outer darkness and futility of every other martial technique, effective or not
Don't really accept this, nor assuming that if I did that I couldn't find other movements outside the standard forms and usual WC curricula that might fit into the first, or certainly second category. Since BJ seems to be stuff that isn't really Wing Chun, but that someone must have liked for reasons not made clear.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> No offense but you do have a myopic view of WC. I'm not saying this is bad, but not all WC is the same.



The gross body movements in BJ don't boil down to the movements in core VT. That isn't myopic, just a fact. 

HG and similar people like the idea that their gross body movements can be refined down into something more succinct because it makes it all seem like less of a waste of time. They rationalise it as training full body linkage, power generation, gross movement pathways, which can later be pared down. The reason I don't think applicable to VT is that VT movement is different, and VT method is very structured, interlinked, and time dependant. Going at it by boiling down is only likely to lead to complete confusion. 

Directly VT applicable movement for force generation is explicitly trained in another part of the system, also started right at the beginning


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> What you are probably looking for is in the other thing that is practiced from the start.
> 
> BJ is purposefully stepping outside the parameters of the system that is running correctly because..eventualities. It doesn't contain gross body methods that boil down to the refined VT goal and starting with BJ will end with something that is not VT.



Wow.  Guy is actually agreeing with me!    Welcome back Guy!  Where have you been?


----------



## KPM

anerlich said:


> One thing that bothers me about this discussion is that it seems to boil down to:
> 
> SLT and CK contain the basic mainstream WC mechanics, structure, posture, ...
> 
> BJ breaks the rules, but only so far. It's still WC. You have waist twisting elbow strikes, crouching / level changing, bending at the waist, blocks/redirections using both arms instead of just one, ...
> 
> This seems contradictory. BJ not using WC mechanics, but still WC, therefore WC mechanics.
> 
> .



No, I  would say BJ uses WC mechanics, it just teaches you instances when you depart from those mechanics.  It is the  "exception to the rules", not a whole new set of rules.


----------



## guy b

anerlich said:


> One thing that bothers me about this discussion is that it seems to boil down to:
> 
> SLT and CK contain the basic mainstream WC mechanics, structure, posture, ...
> 
> BJ breaks the rules, but only so far. It's still WC. You have waist twisting elbow strikes, crouching / level changing, bending at the waist, blocks/redirections using both arms instead of just one, ...
> 
> This seems contradictory. BJ not using WC mechanics, but still WC, therefore WC mechanics.
> 
> So there seems to be a three tier categorisation of technique:
> 
> 
> SLT and CK mechanics
> BJ mechanics
> The outer darkness and futility of every other martial technique, effective or not
> Don't really accept this, nor assuming that if I did that I couldn't find other movements outside the standard forms and usual WC curricula that might fit into the first, or certainly second category. Since BJ seems to be stuff that isn't really Wing Chun, but that someone must have liked for reasons not made clear.



BJ is error correction. It shows what can go wrong with the VT core system and how to correct mistakes. It shows ways to recover from lost position, and ways to cut losses if things go wrong. 

By definition of you lose position then the core system (plus mechanics) is no longer workable. Awareness of the danger and recovery then becomes the priority instead. It doesn't look like core VT because it isn't core VT.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Wow.  Guy is actually agreeing with me!    Welcome back Guy!  Where have you been?



I have been busy with work. You seem to be talking sense on this thread. I haven't read the whole thing but the idea of staring with BJ seems misguided to me.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:
			
		

> I just personally don't believe Wing Chun is a stand alone method. I've stated before & I'll state again I believe Wing Chun is an art meant to augment & elevate a more gross motor skill method like Long Fist or Boxing. I believe it to be an art of refinement, an art of ideal approach



This sounds like an argument I have heard Robert Chu and various friends make several times. I have also heard it made about SPM various people. I think in VT terms it can only be the result of training a system that doesn't work properly, because YM VT contains integrated and complete methods for force generation and is a stand alone method rather than one for special or particular circumstances only. 



> When it comes to realistic fight application Wing Chun training is backwards. It starts with fundamentals that are predominantly fine motor
> movement and working up to gross motor movement



Gross movement is trained from the beginning.


----------



## wingchun100

guy b said:


> BJ is error correction. It shows what can go wrong with the VT core system and how to correct mistakes. It shows ways to recover from lost position, and ways to cut losses if things go wrong.
> 
> By definition of you lose position then the core system (plus mechanics) is no longer workable. Awareness of the danger and recovery then becomes the priority instead. It doesn't look like core VT because it isn't core VT.


 
My first Sify always referred to BJ as the "Desperation form," when you have lost control of the centerline.


----------



## geezer

wingchun100 said:


> My first Sify always referred to BJ as the "Desperation form," when you have lost control of the centerline.



I look at it more like what KPM described-- showing you movements that go beyond the core mechanics of VT, to be used when necessary. That _might_ be in an "emergency" or to recover in an "Oh sheisse!" situation, or it could equally be to take advantage of an opportunity. 

To me it shows how, after a certain level, VT _thinking_ can be applied more broadly, in a wider range of circumstances.


----------



## geezer

Another thing --in response to the earlier statements by _Nobody  --_a lot of the movements in Biu Tze are more risky. _Risky_ in the sense of being potentially dangerous to your opponent, but more importantly, risky to the VT practitioner himself in that they often have tighter tolerances and require more suppleness and skill to execute effectively. 

SNT and CK techniques not only teach the core structures, steps and power generation principles, but they teach the "high percentage" stuff. That's why you work that stuff first.


----------



## wingchun100

geezer said:


> I look at it more like what KPM described-- showing you movements that go beyond the core mechanics of VT, to be used when necessary. That _might_ be in an "emergency" or to recover in an "Oh sheisse!" situation, or it could equally be to take advantage of an opportunity.
> 
> To me it shows how, after a certain level, VT _thinking_ can be applied more broadly, in a wider range of circumstances.


 
Sify. I need to watch my typing. LOL

Anyway, I agree with you. It shows that the principles underlying WC can be applied to moves that many would consider to not be "true WC."


----------



## anerlich

geezer said:


> I look at it more like what KPM described-- showing you movements that go beyond the core mechanics of VT, to be used when necessary. That _might_ be in an "emergency" or to recover in an "Oh sheisse!" situation, or it could equally be to take advantage of an opportunity.
> 
> To me it shows how, after a certain level, VT _thinking_ can be applied more broadly, in a wider range of circumstances.



Yeah. I am playing Devil's advocate here somewhat.

I would say, though, that while Bil Jee might be similarly inside and outside of "core" Wing Chun, sort of like the neck of a Klein bottle, some of the arguments put forward regarding the particular issue have a similar relationship to the "core" of logic.


----------



## Nobody Important

Guy b stated: _“*The gross body movements in BJ don't boil down to the movements in core VT*. That isn't myopic, just a fact. 

*HG and similar people like the idea that their gross body movements can be refined down into something more succinct because it makes it all seem like less of a waste of time*. They rationalise it as training full body linkage, power generation, gross movement pathways, which can later be pared down. The reason I don't think applicable to VT is that VT movement is different, and VT method is very structured, interlinked, and time dependant. Going at it by boiling down is only likely to lead to complete confusion. 

Directly VT applicable movement for force generation is explicitly trained in another part of the system, also started right at the beginning._

*BJ is error correction. It shows what can go wrong with the VT core system and how to correct mistakes. It shows ways to recover from lost position, and ways to cut losses if things go wrong*_. 

By definition of you lose position then the core system (plus mechanics) is no longer workable. Awareness of the danger and recovery then becomes the priority instead. *It doesn't look like core VT because it isn't core VT*.”

_

You state that the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun. That those who believe that “larger” movements can be refined to “smaller” movements are mistaken. Yet you go on to state that Biu Jee is a method used to regain core mechanics and movement. I agree that it is, but how can it be a recovery method that leads back to what is considered “proper” without correction, redirection and refinement?

You say that the movements in Biu Jee are not “core” Wing Chun movements. Here is my perspective. Before a student begins the study of Wing Chun, they do not have Wing Chun movement, mechanics and structure. It is through the study of Wing Chun that they gain these things. My point all along has been, that while learning the movement of Wing Chun, a student will consistently violate the “core” by breaking structure and mechanics, lose power and balance in the course of their learning, etc. _How do they recover to proper form?_ If Biu Jee is a method of recovering to regain proper “core mechanics”, why is this methodology not being taught from the onset? If it’s not being used, then what _is_ being used to teach them to do this? Are people using another method, or are they outright ignoring the methodology presented in Biu Jee? Everything is about the “core”, focusing on maintaining this core is a priority, but during the process of learning failure to maintain it will occur, what method is used (that adheres to the methodology of the system) if it is not the methodology of Biu Jee?

If the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun (as you state), how then, can Biu Jee be said to be a method of recovery? You state that Biu Jee is not core Wing Chun. I disagree, it is my opinion that Biu Jee simply starts off “big” and ends “small”, metaphorically. It starts off as “outside” of Wing Chun mechanics to end up as “inside” Wing Chun mechanics. If you like, you can look at it as “incorrect” to “correct”. Isn’t this the same methodology used to teach? As I stated before no one enters into Wing Chun already “knowing” how to perform its techniques, utilize its theory or apply its structure, they are outside the core mechanics. Through practice they refine their “big” movement to proper “small” movement, incorrect to correct. And will need constant redirection and reinforcement of collapsed, compromised and poor structure to regain proper core mechanics as they stray. Is that not the purpose of Biu Jee?

Wing Chun, like any martial art, is a method of refinement. We refine to get better. There has to be a method to follow in order to correct, if Biu Jee isn’t this method of redirecting to right our course from the beginning, then what method is? If there is another method used in the beginning what use is Biu Jee at the end?


----------



## anerlich

Might be worth remembering that Bil Jee was originally a jealously guarded secret. You had to be training for many years before you got exposed to it. I've met a number of people I regarded as having pretty good fighting skills, including wing Chun skills, that were never taught it.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> Might be worth remembering that Bil Jee was originally a jealously guarded secret. You had to be training for many years before you got exposed to it. I've met a number of people I regarded as having pretty good fighting skills, including wing Chun skills, that were never taught it.


Some Wing Chun branches don't have a Biu Jee or Chum Kiu form, opting to instead, integrate the methodology into a version of Siu Lim Tau or something similar. Some branches integrate some of the principles of Biu Jee into Ji Ben training, prior to beginning forms. Seems to me only some of the Yip Man branches have issues with this philosophy.


----------



## wckf92

Nobody Important said:


> Some Wing Chun branches don't have a Biu Jee or Chum Kiu form, opting to instead, integrate the methodology into a version of Siu Lim Tau or something similar. Some branches integrate some of the principles of Biu Jee into Ji Ben training, prior to beginning forms. Seems to me only some of the Yip Man branches have issues with this philosophy.



Speaking of the three forms, etc...isn't it interesting how the first form contains seeds of the other two...perhaps, in essence, giving birth to them? 
But, on the other hand, I've always wondered if the original order or methods went like: 3rd form, 2nd form, and finally 1st form. And was it this reason that "they" were able to take aspects (seeds) of BJ and CK and embed them into SLT? Boggles the mind a bit. 
I mean, if one looks at life in general...don't we as a species gravitate towards constantly refining stuff until we feel it arrives in its simplest most efficient form?


----------



## KPM

Consider Weng Chun.   Weng Chun likely started out with just the "Weng Chun Kuen" form, the dummy form, and a version of the pole. The Weng Chun Kuen form is 11 sections and the only footwork is pivoting.  This is  said to be because this was developed in the Red Boats.  Later the Jong Kuen form  and the Sheung Kung form were added.  These were intended to take movements from the prior forms and add in much more footwork, because now the system had moved off of the Red Boats where footwork was constrained and had become "land based."  They contain a lot more footwork than either the Wing Chun CK or BJ forms.  This is also how the differences in the pole form is explained.  The rather short pole form with the pole held away from we find in Wing Chun is said to date back to the Red Boat era and is related to techniques used by the guys "poling" the big boats along.  The much more elaborate and mobile pole form from Weng Chun that holds the pole close to the body is said to be an updated version from when Weng Chun became "land based" rather than "boat based."

Now look at this the same way for Wing Chun.  The SNT form could very well be based on what was practiced on the Red Boats where not much footwork was included.  CK and BJ would build upon that, not the other way around.  Same thing in the short sets of Ku Lo Pin Sun.  The initial sets have no footwork, then pivoting is added in subsequent sets, then more mobile stepping is added in sets after that.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Consider Weng Chun.   Weng Chun likely started out with just the "Weng Chun Kuen" form, the dummy form, and a version of the pole. The Weng Chun Kuen form is 11 sections and the only footwork is pivoting.  This is  said to be because this was developed in the Red Boats.  Later the Jong Kuen form  and the Sheung Kung form were added.  These were intended to take movements from the prior forms and add in much more footwork, because now the system had moved off of the Red Boats where footwork was constrained and had become "land based."  They contain a lot more footwork than either the Wing Chun CK or BJ forms.  This is also how the differences in the pole form is explained.  The rather short pole form with the pole held away from we find in Wing Chun is said to date back to the Red Boat era and is related to techniques used by the guys "poling" the big boats along.  The much more elaborate and mobile pole form from Weng Chun that holds the pole close to the body is said to be an updated version from when Weng Chun became "land based" rather than "boat based."
> 
> Now look at this the same way for Wing Chun.  The SNT form could very well be based on what was practiced on the Red Boats where not much footwork was included.  CK and BJ would build upon that, not the other way around.  Same thing in the short sets of Ku Lo Pin Sun.  The initial sets have no footwork, then pivoting is added in subsequent sets, then more mobile stepping is added in sets after that.


Hi Keith,

It's interesting, it may even hold a kernel of truth, but there is a major flaw with this theory. 

1. The oral histories of Hung Kuen state that they also were at one time taught on the Red Boats, their system went from compact before the boats to expanded (movement) after the boats. 

2.The opera practitioners performed elaborate northern Kung Fu & gymnastics, so they they obviously we're not confined. They would often practice their craft on shore, not on the boats. When on the boats there was little leisure time outside of meals & sleeping.

3. There is an art called Suen Kuen ( Boat Fist) that states it's was developed by the boat people for defense, it looks like any other southern art, with heavy use of horse stance.


----------



## KPM

2.The opera practitioners performed elaborate northern Kung Fu & gymnastics, so they they obviously we're not confined. They would often practice their craft on shore, not on the boats. When on the boats there was little leisure time outside of meals & sleeping.

---Yes, this is a good point and one that I have thought of myself.  Just because you traveled around on the boats as a performer doesn't mean you spent all of your time on the boats!  And Painted Face Kam was said to know lots of elaborate martial arts for the performances other than his Weng Chun.  Weng Chun would not have been nearly "flashy" enough for the Opera troupes!  But it could be that being secret about things during a time of unrest and revolution was a factor.  It could be that the Wing/Weng Chun was not practiced openly as the performance styles were, requiring training in more confined spaces.  Hard to say.  But what I wrote above is what my Sifu said Tang Yik explained to him.


----------



## wckf92

KPM said:


> But what I wrote above is what my Sifu said Tang Yik explained to him.



Speaking of which...did you finish your Tang Yik pole form training yet? Or do you have to do more trips to Asia to conclude it?


----------



## Nobody Important

wckf92 said:


> Speaking of the three forms, etc...isn't it interesting how the first form contains seeds of the other two...perhaps, in essence, giving birth to them?
> But, on the other hand, I've always wondered if the original order or methods went like: 3rd form, 2nd form, and finally 1st form. And was it this reason that "they" were able to take aspects (seeds) of BJ and CK and embed them into SLT? Boggles the mind a bit.
> I mean, if one looks at life in general...don't we as a species gravitate towards constantly refining stuff until we feel it arrives in its simplest most efficient form?


Systems based on White Crane or influenced by it have a unique theoretical approach to their systems. Looking at Tibetan Crane, Yong Chun Crane, Hung Gar, Goju Ryu, Uechi Ryu and even Wing Chun IMO. These arts all revolve around a foundation set that they view as the beginning and ending of their systems. Its how the foundation set is viewed that sets it apart. Generally in the beginning it is viewed more as a "Body Building" method than anything else with generic Ji Ben exercises and methods assuming the role for basic instruction.This foundation set is then built upon and extrapolated as they progress, which is a standard approach. Much of the generic material used for basic training actually contains simplified advanced elements of training that will be continuously revisited and refined as progression is made. The foundation set is used to reinforce theory whereas the advanced material is used to teach practical application of theory. This is the White Crane method of circular training, where advanced is beginner and beginner is advanced, this is to avoid contradiction later on. It can be confusing if not methodically approached.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> Some Wing Chun branches don't have a Biu Jee or Chum Kiu form, opting to instead, integrate the methodology into a version of Siu Lim Tau or something similar. Some branches integrate some of the principles of Biu Jee into Ji Ben training, prior to beginning forms. Seems to me only some of the Yip Man branches have issues with this philosophy.



All the more reason IMO to avoid making huge leaps of logic and wild conjectures about these issues.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> All the more reason IMO to avoid making huge leaps of logic and wild conjectures about these issues.


Which issues specifically?


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> Systems based on White Crane or influenced by it have a unique theoretical approach to their systems. Looking at Tibetan Crane, Yong Chun Crane, Hung Gar, Goju Ryu, Uechi Ryu and even Wing Chun IMO. These arts all revolve around a foundation set that they view as the beginning and ending of their systems. Its how the foundation set is viewed that sets it apart. Generally in the beginning it is viewed more as a "Body Building" method than anything else with generic Ji Ben exercises and methods assuming the role for basic instruction.This foundation set is then built upon and extrapolated as they progress, which is a standard approach. Much of the generic material used for basic training actually contains simplified advanced elements of training that will be continuously revisited and refined as progression is made. The foundation set is used to reinforce theory whereas the advanced material is used to teach practical application of theory. This is the White Crane method of circular training, where advanced is beginner and beginner is advanced, this is to avoid contradiction later on. It can be confusing if not methodically approached.


Interesting way of putting it.  I find that I largely agree with you, but am also curious about what you know about Tibetan White Crane, and which set you understand to be the foundation set.  As a Tibetan crane guy myself, I'm curious about your observations on this.

I don't think I ever would have described it in quite this way, but feel your description is largely accurate, when the method is taught properly, which I think it often is not, which is a shame.  If it's not taught properly, then people will never understand this.  I gave up my involvement with several other systems once I was accepted to study under a teacher who could teach me properly, and the 5 or so years I spent with him were more valuable by far, than the 20+ years of training that I had prior to then.  Training with him completely changed my perspective and I no longer saw value in pursuing the other methods that I had been busy with.  It streamlined my training and to be honest, was a relief to dump all that other baggage.


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> Speaking of which...did you finish your Tang Yik pole form training yet? Or do you have to do more trips to Asia to conclude it?



No, its a long form and essentially its own system all unto itself.  It will take a few more trips to Hong Kong!


----------



## Nobody Important

Flying Crane said:


> Interesting way of putting it.  I find that I largely agree with you, but am also curious about what you know about Tibetan White Crane, and which set you understand to be the foundation set.  As a Tibetan crane guy myself, I'm curious about your observations on this.
> 
> I don't think I ever would have described it in quite this way, but feel your description is largely accurate, when the method is taught properly, which I think it often is not, which is a shame.  If it's not taught properly, then people will never understand this.  I gave up my involvement with several other systems once I was accepted to study under a teacher who could teach me properly, and the 5 or so years I spent with him were more valuable by far, than the 20+ years of training that I had prior to then.  Training with him completely changed my perspective and I no longer saw value in pursuing the other methods that I had been busy with.  It streamlined my training and to be honest, was a relief to dump all that other baggage.



My answer will not be applicable to all branches of Pak Hok Pai, but I will attempt a generalization.

Tough question actually, as it is going to vary on the branch of Lion's Roar. What the foundation is for Hop Gar (Deng & Ng) will not be the same for Pak Hok Pai or Lama Pai (Lo & Chan). I would surmise that for most branches of Pak Hok Pai that the central foundation set would be Chut Yap Bo, though Luk Lik Kuen is the set that actually sets a foundation for the six strengths used throughout the system. So in a sense Luk Lik Kuen would be the set that introduces concepts that are built upon later. But Chut Yap Bo being composed of two sets (Flying Crane & Shooting Stars), expands upon what is learned in Luk Lik Kuen and is the main form that expresses the concepts and theories of the art, to the point where Fei Hok Kuen (Flying Crane Fist) can even be performed in Cotton Needle fashion.


----------



## anerlich

Nobody Important said:


> Which issues specifically?



Bil Jee's origins, whether its techniques are "core" or not, whether it should be taught first, etc.


----------



## Nobody Important

anerlich said:


> Bil Jee's origins, whether its techniques are "core" or not, whether it should be taught first, etc.


Gotcha, wasn't exactly clear what you were referring to, thanks.


----------



## David Langford

I practice Wing Chun, but I've been training Southern Shaolin longer, my Shaolin teacher taught me that correct form isn't for being pretty, correct form is for having the most technical advantages. So I totally agree with the opening post, I always strive to have correct form and not give in to wild random flailing.


----------



## David Langford

KPM said:


> But face punching in any ole way?  Are boxers taught to keep good form when fighting?  Are they taught to keep a good guard?  Are they taught good biomechanics for power generation?  Are those things recognizable as "boxing" when in the ring?  Is the boxing coach critical of good form in training and then just tells his fighter to do whatever the heck he wants in the ring?  Or are boxers expected to adhere to the form and mechanics that their coach has been training them on in the gym?  Does that form and those mechanics "look" a certain way that lets an observer know they are doing them as trained?  Can you tell when a boxer is being "sloppy" and using poor technique just by watching?????



Yes! Boxing has a specific and correct form for body movement, striking, and footwork. Kung fu also has a specific and correct form for body movement, striking, and footwork. I don't understand why kung fu is not allowed to have its own correct nature.

It's not about looking pretty, the correct outward form simply gives the best technical advantages in a fight if trained properly.


----------



## Flying Crane

Nobody Important said:


> My answer will not be applicable to all branches of Pak Hok Pai, but I will attempt a generalization.
> 
> Tough question actually, as it is going to vary on the branch of Lion's Roar. What the foundation is for Hop Gar (Deng & Ng) will not be the same for Pak Hok Pai or Lama Pai (Lo & Chan). I would surmise that for most branches of Pak Hok Pai that the central foundation set would be Chut Yap Bo, though Luk Lik Kuen is the set that actually sets a foundation for the six strengths used throughout the system. So in a sense Luk Lik Kuen would be the set that introduces concepts that are built upon later. But Chut Yap Bo being composed of two sets (Flying Crane & Shooting Stars), expands upon what is learned in Luk Lik Kuen and is the main form that expresses the concepts and theories of the art, to the point where Fei Hok Kuen (Flying Crane Fist) can even be performed in Cotton Needle fashion.


Not a bad answer.  Where is your information/experience coming from?

I would suggest that Lok lik Kuen is by far the most important set, tho I think a lot of people would disagree because it is so "simple", being "only" a series of six different punches done in a row and return.  But that simplicity establishes the foundational rotation driven by the legs that the entire system is built upon.  Of course the fundamentals are established in the basic practice of the Chay San rotation practice and manifests in practice of basic punches, but that set then takes those fundamentals and tweeks them into something directly functional and less theoretical.  By the way, Sifu feels most people misunderstand the Six Power to be in reference to the six punching techniques practiced in that set.  He feels the real meaning is that the set gives you awareness of the six directions from which an enemy can attack and you must defend:  Front, Back, Left, Right, Up, and Down.  

The other sets, starting with chuit yap bo apply those fundamentals in a wider variety of ways, giving examples of how to use them in any situation, including smaller movements.  Incidentally, we do CYB as one long form, but if broken into two shorter sets we simply refer to them as CYB and the second half is Dae Saat (not sure if I'm spelling that correctly) which i believe means something like Ground Spirit/Demon.

As for the Shooting Star Fist, Sifu uses that term to describe the beginner level curriculum, which is Lok lik Kuen (basic level), CYB, Tit Lin Kuen, and Pak Hok Kuen.  This is where the student learns speed in his techniques and that is what Shooting Star refers to.

The Flying Crane Fist he uses in reference to the intermediate curriculum, which is Siu Kum Kong Kuen, Siu Lohan Kuen, and Siu Ng Hing Kuen.  This is means the long fist techniques, solidifying full body connection through big movements.

We don't have sets that are actually named Flying Crane, nor Shooting Star.  I wonder if there may have been an older curriculum that used those names, and that was morphed into the current series.  If so, my guess is that would have been done by Ng Siu-Chung, who established the Bak Hok lineage as separate from Hop Gar.  Either way, I don't remember sifu ever saying such a thing and he makes no mention of it in his books, to my recollection.

Cotton Needle is the last set.  People think it's White Crane's taiji, but it isn't.  Instead it takes the principles of the system, the rooted power and the rotation, and puts them into a compact form done slowly and deliberately and methodically.  It is practicing the same thing, the same principles, but refined and without the big movement.  Of course smaller movement is in the system well before cotton needle, but from what I've seen, that's cotton needle.  Sifu never talks about it in terms of taiji, or qi development and such.  I believe he has said straight out, it's not taiji.  I've not learned the set, but I've seen my sihing practice it many times with Sifu's guidance and the connected discussions, and I've seen Sifu do it many times as well, so I've definitely got some familiarity with it.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> You state that the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun. That those who believe that “larger” movements can be refined to “smaller” movements are mistaken. Yet you go on to state that Biu Jee is a method used to regain core mechanics and movement. I agree that it is, but how can it be a recovery method that leads back to what is considered “proper” without correction, redirection and refinement?



This appears to be a non sequitur.



Nobody Important said:


> Before a student begins the study of Wing Chun, they do not have Wing Chun movement, mechanics and structure. It is through the study of Wing Chun that they gain these things. My point all along has been, that while learning the movement of Wing Chun, a student will consistently violate the “core” by breaking structure and mechanics, lose power and balance in the course of their learning, etc. _How do they recover to proper form?_ If Biu Jee is a method of recovering to regain proper “core mechanics”, why is this methodology not being taught from the onset? If it’s not being used, then what _is_ being used to teach them to do this? Are people using another method, or are they outright ignoring the methodology presented in Biu Jee? Everything is about the “core”, focusing on maintaining this core is a priority, but during the process of learning failure to maintain it will occur, what method is used (that adheres to the methodology of the system) if it is not the methodology of Biu Jee?



VT is a system that works by building upon a foundation, not by chipping away at an unformed rock. Functioning VT has everything working within the VT system parameters. Methods of recovery found in BJ step outside of the normal parameters of VT. During training recovery is possible within those parameters, and BJ not required (and in fact confusing). The point of VT training is to build the VT parameter set within the mind and body of the practitioner. Once that is functional, then the practitioner looks outside of it. Not before.



Nobody Important said:


> If the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun (as you state), how then, can Biu Jee be said to be a method of recovery?



I don't see the logic here. BJ contains recovery methods not within the parameters of normal VT



Nobody Important said:


> no one enters into Wing Chun already “knowing” how to perform its techniques, utilize its theory or apply its structure, they are outside the core mechanics. Through practice they refine their “big” movement to proper “small” movement, incorrect to correct. And will need constant redirection and reinforcement of collapsed, compromised and poor structure to regain proper core mechanics as they stray. Is that not the purpose of Biu Jee?



No that is not the purpose of BJ. VT is a step by step process of building with progress and time dependent stages which need to be trained in the right order, at the right time, and in the correct way in order to work. 

BJ is not a long fist form that can be boiled down to yield the refined VT system, and VT is not a system that is erroneously trained in reverse. This idea comes from other systems, like those described in posts above. BJ trained before the core is made will break the core system. 



Nobody Important said:


> There has to be a method to follow in order to correct, if Biu Jee isn’t this method of redirecting to right our course from the beginning, then what method is?



You are confusing the training method of VT which contains its own error correcting methods in terms of building a functional core, with a form which is about stepping outside of the VT core to see what can go wrong, and how mistakes can be recovered.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Some Wing Chun branches don't have a Biu Jee or Chum Kiu form, opting to instead, integrate the methodology into a version of Siu Lim Tau or something similar. Some branches integrate some of the principles of Biu Jee into Ji Ben training, prior to beginning forms. Seems to me only some of the Yip Man branches have issues with this philosophy.



Different systems do different things. YM VT doesn't do this.


----------



## wingchun100

anerlich said:


> Might be worth remembering that Bil Jee was originally a jealously guarded secret. You had to be training for many years before you got exposed to it. I've met a number of people I regarded as having pretty good fighting skills, including wing Chun skills, that were never taught it.


 
People used to tell my first Sifu that he ought to make people engage in some kind of old school "tea ceremony" or something to that effect before he taught people BJ. Oh, and he should also ask them for a LOT of money up front too.


----------



## wingchun100

guy b said:


> Different systems do different things. YM VT doesn't do this.


 
And different systems also teach different moves in the forms. For example, I have seen videos of William Cheung doing kicks and stepping during his BJ.

By the way, I know that is one name around here that seems to inspire anger. I do not mean to do that, nor do I intend to say anything about his teaching, claims that only he knows the true WC, or anything of that nature. I am merely invoking his name to illustrate a point related to the topic at hand.

Why did I follow up with all of that? Because I have been jumped on for bringing up his name before.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> This appears to be a non sequitur.
> 
> 
> 
> VT is a system that works by building upon a foundation, not by chipping away at an unformed rock. Functioning VT has everything working within the VT system parameters. Methods of recovery found in BJ step outside of the normal parameters of VT. During training recovery is possible within those parameters, and BJ not required (and in fact confusing). The point of VT training is to build the VT parameter set within the mind and body of the practitioner. Once that is functional, then the practitioner looks outside of it. Not before.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logic here. BJ contains recovery methods not within the parameters of normal VT
> 
> 
> 
> No that is not the purpose of BJ. VT is a step by step process of building with progress and time dependent stages which need to be trained in the right order, at the right time, and in the correct way in order to work.
> 
> BJ is not a long fist form that can be boiled down to yield the refined VT system, and VT is not a system that is erroneously trained in reverse. This idea comes from other systems, like those described in posts above. BJ trained before the core is made will break the core system.
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing the training method of VT which contains its own error correcting methods in terms of building a functional core, with a form which is about stepping outside of the VT core to see what can go wrong, and how mistakes can be recovered.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

You state that the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun. That those who believe that “larger” movements can be refined to “smaller” movements are mistaken. Yet you go on to state that Biu Jee is a method used to regain core mechanics and movement. I agree that it is, but how can it be a recovery method that leads back to what is considered “proper” without correction, redirection and refinement?

*This appears to be a non sequitur.*


This only holds true if you are looking at the premise from a myopic perspective. An unwillingness to approach the premise with a perspective outside of your belief doesn’t make the conclusion invalid. The context of the argument I laid forth is valid, and from this perspective the conclusion is logical.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

Before a student begins the study of Wing Chun, they do not have Wing Chun movement, mechanics and structure. It is through the study of Wing Chun that they gain these things. My point all along has been, that while learning the movement of Wing Chun, a student will consistently violate the “core” by breaking structure and mechanics, lose power and balance in the course of their learning, etc. How do they recover to proper form? If Biu Jee is a method of recovering to regain proper “core mechanics”, why is this methodology not being taught from the onset? If it’s not being used, then what is being used to teach them to do this? Are people using another method, or are they outright ignoring the methodology presented in Biu Jee? Everything is about the “core”, focusing on maintaining this core is a priority, but during the process of learning failure to maintain it will occur, what method is used (that adheres to the methodology of the system) if it is not the methodology of Biu Jee?

*VT is a system that works by building upon a foundation, not by chipping away at an unformed rock. *


In order to lay the foundation for the student you have to mold them first. Semantics, when building a house, you start with the foundation and create by adding to, when sculpting a rock, you create by chipping away. Add or remove will vary depending on which process you prefer, both can be used to build.


*Functioning VT has everything working within the VT system parameters. Methods of recovery found in BJ step outside of the normal parameters of VT. *


How can using a method to correct course be outside the parameters of instruction? Again, if Biu Jee is about regaining what is lost, the recovery method has to be able to conform to the “normal” parameters of the system. Otherwise it’ll never conform or fit, hence, correction to “proper” form will never occur.


*During training recovery is possible within those parameters, and BJ not required (and in fact confusing). *


So what you’re saying is you use a different method of recovery. That’s fine, then no need for Biu Jee.


*The point of VT training is to build the VT parameter set within the mind and body of the practitioner. Once that is functional, then the practitioner looks outside of it. Not before.*


Those new to Wing Chun are already looking at it from the outside. Why study Wing Chun, learn its “Rules” only to later violate them by learning an add on that’s outside of its parameters? Here is my disagreement, I don’t believe Biu Jee to lie outside of “normal” Wing Chun parameters. I view it as unrefined Wing Chun parameters. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve to learn two sets of rules? One that contradicts the other. Shouldn’t instruction be progressive, cohesive, logical and functional? The goal isn’t to find something functional to disregard it, it is to maintain it. It appears that our disagreement is centered around my belief that Biu Jee is a method of refining & correcting to maintain “functional” parameters when lost, while you believe it to be a separate methodology.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

If the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun (as you state), how then, can Biu Jee be said to be a method of recovery?

*I don't see the logic here. BJ contains recovery methods not within the parameters of normal VT*


Have you ever considered that maybe perhaps Ving Tsun cannot be held as the standard for all Wing Chun methods? When you look at something with a myopic view, nothing else can be seen as “correct” because of your prejudice and bias. Just because you do not believe that Biu Jee does not contain recovery methods found within the normal parameters of Wing Chun, doesn’t make it true.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

no one enters into Wing Chun already “knowing” how to perform its techniques, utilize its theory or apply its structure, they are outside the core mechanics. Through practice they refine their “big” movement to proper “small” movement, incorrect to correct. And will need constant redirection and reinforcement of collapsed, compromised and poor structure to regain proper core mechanics as they stray. Is that not the purpose of Biu Jee?

*No that is not the purpose of BJ. VT is a step by step process of building with progress and time dependent stages which need to be trained in the right order, at the right time, and in the correct way in order to work. *


Says who, you? Instead of dismissing my view as incorrect usage, how about explaining why it isn’t. I too, believe that progression is built through calculated stages. Your argument is based upon the premise that my view of Biu Jee is incorrect, by simply dismissing it, not by addressing it. I have presented a logical approach that works within the context I laid out. Its premise is based upon the methodology of Biu Jee as being within the functional parameters of Wing Chun. If you cannot accept that it is so, state why and back it up without the rhetoric.

*BJ is not a long fist form that can be boiled down to yield the refined VT system, and VT is not a system that is erroneously trained in reverse. This idea comes from other systems, like those described in posts above. BJ trained before the core is made will break the core system.* 


I never said it was a long fist form. Here is my post in response to Geezer, it should clarify my position.


I'm not suggesting teaching the forms in reverse order per say, as much as I'm suggesting that the methodology of what lies in those forms. My rant about San Chin & SLT being the beginning & end of their perspective systems still holds true. I just believe in introducing some of the key concepts of Biu Jee early on. Things like moving, bobbing & weaving, elbows etc. These are things the student will return too, just as they will build upon the techniques learned in SNT.

No need to go outside the system, when these "bigger" body movements are already in the system. I simply feel it important for beginners to WC to have practical applicable movement from the start. Even if clumsy & awkward, it can be refined through SNT.

Not all branches of WC have dedicated Ji Ben exercises that teach them simple "boxing like" skills from the start. Exercises like bending waist (simple uprooting exercise based on emergency waist bend & iron half bridge), 12 San Sik (based on theory of position, bridge, control, hit, return), 8 San Sik ( based on common movements in SNT & BJ), gates drills (based on EWBIHB, Pak Sau, bong sau & gate punching). All these exercises use a lot of movement and are partner drills, & based mostly off of the methodology found in BJ, yet contain techniques from SNT. All learned before starting SNT in my lineage. We use SNT to refine, not teach, if that makes sense.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

There has to be a method to follow in order to correct, if Biu Jee isn’t this method of redirecting to right our course from the beginning, then what method is?

*You are confusing the training method of VT which contains its own error correcting methods in terms of building a functional core, with a form which is about stepping outside of the VT core to see what can go wrong, and how mistakes can be recovered.*

You’re talking in circles. No one willingly violates their structure “just to see what happens”, it just happens, mistakes occur. To have two recovery methods to regain and correct isn’t necessary. If you are using a separate method for regaining the parameters taught in SLT & CK, what use is Biu Jee?

Even if you are flailing around like you’re having a seizure, only one methodology is necessary to regain functional parameters.  Do you use Biu Jee to change to a different set of parameters? If so, why? Shouldn’t you seek to regain functional parameters instead of something that would be considered to violate functional parameters?

Or do you believe that sometimes Wing Chun mechanics fail and that Biu Jee is a separate art that can help you overcome? If so what use is Wing Chun, when you could use something else that doesn’t rely on abandoning the functional core of its methodology?

Any recovery should seek to regain a functional core. Biu Jee is that methodology and is found throughout the system. Seems to me your looking at technique, not principal, and trying to justify a lack of understanding of what Biu Jee is. Biu Jee is not something separate in my Wing chun, it is a part of the art in every sense and its methodology of recovery is taught from the beginning. It is the only method used to teach one how to recover when operating outside “functional parameters”.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Different systems do different things. YM VT doesn't do this.


Which makes your view myopic and biased.


----------



## anerlich

wingchun100 said:


> And different systems also teach different moves in the forms. For example, I have seen videos of William Cheung doing kicks and stepping during his BJ.
> 
> By the way, I know that is one name around here that seems to inspire anger. I do not mean to do that, nor do I intend to say anything about his teaching, claims that only he knows the true WC, or anything of that nature. I am merely invoking his name to illustrate a point related to the topic at hand.
> 
> Why did I follow up with all of that? Because I have been jumped on for bringing up his name before.



The TWC Bil Jee form does include kicks and stepping, yes. I've been training in TWC since 1989, and trained with a Cheung student who parted company with him in the late 1970s.

He's an outspoken character, more in the centre of a couple of storms 20-30 years ago. If that (still) makes someone angry, they need a hobby or a pet or a girlfriend or something.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> This only holds true if you are looking at the premise from a myopic perspective. An unwillingness to approach the premise with a perspective outside of your belief doesn’t make the conclusion invalid. The context of the argument I laid forth is valid, and from this perspective the conclusion is logical



Nothing to do with perspective, more to do with logic. Conclusion doesn't follow premise in a logical sense.



> In order to lay the foundation for the student you have to mold them first. Semantics, when building a house, you start with the foundation and create by adding to, when sculpting a rock, you create by chipping away. Add or remove will vary depending on which process you prefer, both can be used to build.



VT only works in one way. It isn't a grab bag from which you choose what you prefer



> How can using a method to correct course be outside the parameters of instruction? Again, if Biu Jee is about regaining what is lost, the recovery method has to be able to conform to the “normal” parameters of the system. Otherwise it’ll never conform or fit, hence, correction to “proper” form will never occur.



VT functions according to certain parameters or rules. BJ goes outside of these parameters and breaks these rules. To regain normal parameters once outside does not require one to function within normal parameters. This is again simply a failure of logic.



> So what you’re saying is you use a different method of recovery. That’s fine, then no need for Biu Jee.



Recovery within the VT system; BJ not required. Outside required.



> Those new to Wing Chun are already looking at it from the outside.



Disingenuous.



> Why study Wing Chun, learn its “Rules” only to later violate them by learning an add on that’s outside of its parameters?



Because that is how the system is designed to work. It is better never to step outside of the core system. BJ asks "what if". This is a good thing, but not a thing for beginners because it confuses and breaks the system.



> I don’t believe Biu Jee to lie outside of “normal” Wing Chun parameters.



Then you don't know VT. There are lots of systems a bit like VT that are not VT. I assume you do one of these instead.



> I view it as unrefined Wing Chun parameters



Couldn't be more wrong. You appear to have been influenced by other systems and to have assumed VT is the same. It is different.



> Otherwise, what purpose does it serve to learn two sets of rules? One that contradicts the other.



See above. No contradiction. Why do MMA fighers learn to fight standing and on the ground? Two diferent sets, different rules and parameters



> Shouldn’t instruction be progressive, cohesive, logical and functional? The goal isn’t to find something functional to disregard it, it is to maintain it.



VT is all about maintaining the fight within the VT parameters



> It appears that our disagreement is centered around my belief that Biu Jee is a method of refining & correcting to maintain “functional” parameters when lost, while you believe it to be a separate methodology.



The VT system is an error correcting method. This is all it is. Structured, progressive, buliding on foundations. It is a gross misunderstanding to believe that BJ is THE error correcting method of the system. BJ is a particular perspective on the system, one that is not suitable for the beginner with no internalised system at all.



> Have you ever considered that maybe perhaps Ving Tsun cannot be held as the standard for all Wing Chun methods?



I am interested in YM VT, not the various other systems calling themselves wing chun.



> Just because you do not believe that Biu Jee does not contain recovery methods found within the normal parameters of Wing Chun, doesn’t make it true.



Looking at BJ makes it true. Not a matter of belief.



> I have presented a logical approach that works within the context I laid out. Its premise is based upon the methodology of Biu Jee as being within the functional parameters of Wing Chun.



I don't believe you have done this. You say it is true, but you don't provide any detail.



> Things like moving, bobbing & weaving, elbows etc. These are things the student will return too, just as they will build upon the techniques learned in SNT.



Not part of core VT. Encouraging a student to internalise this kind of thing only damages their learning



> No one willingly violates their structure “just to see what happens”



The VT system is all about forcing and correcting mistakes. It is an error correcting system. That you don't know this is, frankly, very odd.



> To have two recovery methods to regain and correct isn’t necessary. If you are using a separate method for regaining the parameters taught in SLT & CK, what use is Biu Jee?



VT is an error correction method for fighting within the VT system parameters. BJ is error correction methods for situations outside the VT system



> do you believe that sometimes Wing Chun mechanics fail and that Biu Jee is a separate art that can help you overcome? If so what use is Wing Chun, when you could use something else that doesn’t rely on abandoning the functional core of its methodology?



BJ useless on its own. Only useful as a way to get back to VT



> Seems to me your looking at technique, not principal



The opposite I would say. You don't appear to know what the system is, or the underlying principles. BJ not in accord with these



> Biu Jee is not something separate in my Wing chun, it is a part of the art in every sense and its methodology of recovery is taught from the beginning. It is the only method used to teach one how to recover when operating outside “functional parameters”.



Sounds like a different system. One that is unlikely to work.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Nothing to do with perspective, more to do with logic. Conclusion doesn't follow premise in a logical sense.
> 
> 
> 
> VT only works in one way. It isn't a grab bag from which you choose what you prefer
> 
> 
> 
> VT functions according to certain parameters or rules. BJ goes outside of these parameters and breaks these rules. To regain normal parameters once outside does not require one to function within normal parameters. This is again simply a failure of logic.
> 
> 
> 
> Recovery within the VT system; BJ not required. Outside required.
> 
> 
> 
> Disingenuous.
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is how the system is designed to work. It is better never to step outside of the core system. BJ asks "what if". This is a good thing, but not a thing for beginners because it confuses and breaks the system.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you don't know VT. There are lots of systems a bit like VT that are not VT. I assume you do one of these instead.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't be more wrong. You appear to have been influenced by other systems and to have assumed VT is the same. It is different.
> 
> 
> 
> See above. No contradiction. Why do MMA fighers learn to fight standing and on the ground? Two diferent sets, different rules and parameters
> 
> 
> 
> VT is all about maintaining the fight within the VT parameters
> 
> 
> 
> The VT system is an error correcting method. This is all it is. Structured, progressive, buliding on foundations. It is a gross misunderstanding to believe that BJ is THE error correcting method of the system. BJ is a particular perspective on the system, one that is not suitable for the beginner with no internalised system at all.
> 
> 
> 
> I am interested in YM VT, not the various other systems calling themselves wing chun.
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at BJ makes it true. Not a matter of belief.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe you have done this. You say it is true, but you don't provide any detail.
> 
> 
> 
> Not part of core VT. Encouraging a student to internalise this kind of thing only damages their learning
> 
> 
> 
> The VT system is all about forcing and correcting mistakes. It is an error correcting system. That you don't know this is, frankly, very odd.
> 
> 
> 
> VT is an error correction method for fighting within the VT system parameters. BJ is error correction methods for situations outside the VT system
> 
> 
> 
> BJ useless on its own. Only useful as a way to get back to VT
> 
> 
> 
> The opposite I would say. You don't appear to know what the system is, or the underlying principles. BJ not in accord with these
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a different system. One that is unlikely to work.



NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

This only holds true if you are looking at the premise from a myopic perspective. An unwillingness to approach the premise with a perspective outside of your belief doesn’t make the conclusion invalid. The context of the argument I laid forth is valid, and from this perspective the conclusion is logical

*Nothing to do with perspective, more to do with logic. Conclusion doesn't follow premise in a logical sense.*

Yes it does, you simply are unable to comprehend it.

In order to lay the foundation for the student you have to mold them first. Semantics, when building a house, you start with the foundation and create by adding to, when sculpting a rock, you create by chipping away. Add or remove will vary depending on which process you prefer, both can be used to build.

*VT only works in one way. It isn't a grab bag from which you choose what you prefer*

Again, only according to you and the limited understanding you bring.

How can using a method to correct course be outside the parameters of instruction? Again, if Biu Jee is about regaining what is lost, the recovery method has to be able to conform to the “normal” parameters of the system. Otherwise it’ll never conform or fit, hence, correction to “proper” form will never occur.

*VT functions according to certain parameters or rules. BJ goes outside of these parameters and breaks these rules. To regain normal parameters once outside does not require one to function within normal parameters. This is again simply a failure of logic.*

You’re mincing words, subjecting and taking out of context. I did not say that it has to function within NORMAL parameters you did. I said outside the parameters of instruction and conform to normal parameters. You aren’t comprehending here. If one uses a method to regain normal parameters, it is a method of correction. A method of correction that relies on the precept of knowing how to regain normal parameters. The method of correction has to know what the standard is if it is to correct itself. To do this it will have to at some point enter back into normal parameters. If not how does it know how or when that course is corrected?

So what you’re saying is you use a different method of recovery. That’s fine, then no need for Biu Jee.

*Recovery within the VT system; BJ not required. Outside required.*

Again, I don’t believe Biu Jee to be “outside” the system, technique, theory or principle wise. In my system it is a full partner. In my view anything “outside” the system isn’t Wing Chun.

Those new to Wing Chun are already looking at it from the outside.

*Disingenuous.*

It’s a true statement

Why study Wing Chun, learn its “Rules” only to later violate them by learning an add on that’s outside of its parameters?

*Because that is how the system is designed to work. It is better never to step outside of the core system. BJ asks "what if". This is a good thing, but not a thing for beginners because it confuses and breaks the system*.

Again, only if you view Biu Jee as outside and separate to the system. This may be the method of Ving Tsun, but certainly doesn’t apply to all other branches that don’t ascribe to the belief that your method of Wing Chun is the “correct” one.

I don’t believe Biu Jee to lie outside of “normal” Wing Chun parameters.

*Then you don't know VT. There are lots of systems a bit like VT that are not VT. I assume you do one of these instead.*

I never claimed that I knew Ving Tsun, I practice Wing Chun. Contrary to your belief, you do not possess the “One Ring That Binds Them All” method of “pure” Wing Chun ideology.

I view it as unrefined Wing Chun parameters

*Couldn't be more wrong. You appear to have been influenced by other systems and to have assumed VT is the same. It is different.*

Again, a myopic view. I spoke to Wing Chun as an overview in context to the OP. Comments to WHY many WC practitioners look like “Sloppy Kickboxers”. I offered my input and put forth a solution to the question of how to rectify. The fact that you’ve taken what I’ve said personally as an affront to Ving Tsun methodology is interesting, as I was speaking in generalities. Your rose colored glasses cloud your vision. Your method isn’t the best way, only way or even a progressive way. It’s only your way. It’s limited in scope as long as you continue to pledge blind allegiance to a method that doesn’t allow for anything that questions its dogma.

Wing Chun isn't unique as a martial art, it wasn't created in a vacuum and it isn't more scientific or practical than any other method. To keep implying this is to perpetuate a lie.

Otherwise, what purpose does it serve to learn two sets of rules? One that contradicts the other.

*See above. No contradiction. Why do MMA fighers learn to fight standing and on the ground? Two diferent sets, different rules and parameters*

MMA has its own unique methodology that binds its techniques into a cohesive functional unit. Not fractured bits and bobs that may be useful. The parameters are bound by logical transitions created inside the system that allow for defensive and offensive applications and counters.

Shouldn’t instruction be progressive, cohesive, logical and functional? The goal isn’t to find something functional to disregard it, it is to maintain it.

*VT is all about maintaining the fight within the VT parameters*

Here we agree.

It appears that our disagreement is centered around my belief that Biu Jee is a method of refining & correcting to maintain “functional” parameters when lost, while you believe it to be a separate methodology.

*The VT system is an error correcting method. This is all it is. Structured, progressive, buliding on foundations. It is a gross misunderstanding to believe that BJ is THE error correcting method of the system. BJ is a particular perspective on the system, one that is not suitable for the beginner with no internalised system at all.*

I thought Wing Chun was a method of fighting. All martial systems teach you correct and optimized mechanics for Posture, Lifting, Locking, Winding and Releasing within the parameters they set forth. They teach them from the beginning, if not you don’t have a good teacher. These aspects will be reinforced and refined as progression is made. This isn’t contradictory for a beginner, it’s how they should be taught. Constant course correction.

Have you ever considered that maybe perhaps Ving Tsun cannot be held as the standard for all Wing Chun methods?

*I am interested in YM VT, not the various other systems calling themselves wing chun.*

Because of this your view will remain myopic.

Just because you do not believe that Biu Jee does not contain recovery methods found within the normal parameters of Wing Chun, doesn’t make it true.

*Looking at BJ makes it true. Not a matter of belief.*

Aside from the “Life After Death” movement at the end of Biu Jee, how is anything in it so drastically different from Siu Lim Tau or Chum Kiu that it constitutes classification as an “outside” method? It’s techniques aren’t really any different, it’s theory of use is. A theory that can be applied to any Wing Chun form.

I have presented a logical approach that works within the context I laid out. Its premise is based upon the methodology of Biu Jee as being within the functional parameters of Wing Chun.

*I don't believe you have done this. You say it is true, but you don't provide any detail.*

I’ve provided more than enough details throughout my posts. You on the other hand haven’t answered one question in any detail, instead opting to address with rhetoric and biased opinion.

Things like moving, bobbing & weaving, elbows etc. These are things the student will return too, just as they will build upon the techniques learned in SNT.

*Not part of core VT. Encouraging a student to internalise this kind of thing only damages their learning*

Why, its either part of the system or not? We have these methods in my system. Again only applicable to your method. You can’t dismiss it simply because you don’t have it.

No one willingly violates their structure “just to see what happens” 

To have two recovery methods to regain and correct isn’t necessary. If you are using a separate method for regaining the parameters taught in SLT & CK, what use is Biu Jee?


*The VT system is all about forcing and correcting mistakes. It is an error correcting system. That you don't know this is, frankly, very odd.*

*VT is an error correction method for fighting within the VT system parameters. BJ is error correction methods for situations outside the VT system*



I think it odd that you believe Wing Chun to be a system of forcing and correcting mistakes. I see it as a system of fighting, where Biu Jee is the theory of correcting to regain functional use of Wing Chun mechanics. Chum Kiu as the form containing fighting concepts and Siu Lim Tau as an ideal to achieve. A circular method of refinement for both theory and skill.

do you believe that sometimes Wing Chun mechanics fail and that Biu Jee is a separate art that can help you overcome? If so what use is Wing Chun, when you could use something else that doesn’t rely on abandoning the functional core of its methodology?

*BJ useless on its own. Only useful as a way to get back to VT*

Seems to me you believe it altogether useless, I’m OK with that, whatever works for you. Not how I view it.

Seems to me your looking at technique, not principal

*The opposite I would say. You don't appear to know what the system is, or the underlying principles. BJ not in accord with these*

Again, only applicable to your system of Ving Tsun and your awkward logic. You can’t use your narrow-minded, biased and limited view of Wing Chun as a litmus to test all others by, your dogma does not apply to all.

Biu Jee is not something separate in my Wing chun, it is a part of the art in every sense and its methodology of recovery is taught from the beginning. It is the only method used to teach one how to recover when operating outside “functional parameters”.

*Sounds like a different system. One that is unlikely to work.*


Believe what you want. I’m not here to convince you of anything, nor do I care to argue moot points with a ethnocentric narcissist with a closed minded view of anything that contradicts his beliefs.

This conversation is over. Thank you and have a good day.


----------



## KPM

Nice to see that Guy is still his same old charming self!


----------



## Juany118

anerlich said:


> The TWC Bil Jee form does include kicks and stepping, yes. I've been training in TWC since 1989, and trained with a Cheung student who parted company with him in the late 1970s.
> 
> He's an outspoken character, more in the centre of a couple of storms 20-30 years ago. If that (still) makes someone angry, they need a hobby or a pet or a girlfriend or something.



Yeah it's kinda sad really.  But one of the people who recently started responding in this thread has, more than once stopped arguing method and starting attacking GM Cheung and TWC in general.  It gets kinda old actually


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑
> 
> This only holds true if you are looking at the premise from a myopic perspective. An unwillingness to approach the premise with a perspective outside of your belief doesn’t make the conclusion invalid. The context of the argument I laid forth is valid, and from this perspective the conclusion is logical
> 
> *Nothing to do with perspective, more to do with logic. Conclusion doesn't follow premise in a logical sense.*
> 
> Yes it does, you simply are unable to comprehend it.
> 
> In order to lay the foundation for the student you have to mold them first. Semantics, when building a house, you start with the foundation and create by adding to, when sculpting a rock, you create by chipping away. Add or remove will vary depending on which process you prefer, both can be used to build.
> 
> *VT only works in one way. It isn't a grab bag from which you choose what you prefer*
> 
> Again, only according to you and the limited understanding you bring.
> 
> How can using a method to correct course be outside the parameters of instruction? Again, if Biu Jee is about regaining what is lost, the recovery method has to be able to conform to the “normal” parameters of the system. Otherwise it’ll never conform or fit, hence, correction to “proper” form will never occur.
> 
> *VT functions according to certain parameters or rules. BJ goes outside of these parameters and breaks these rules. To regain normal parameters once outside does not require one to function within normal parameters. This is again simply a failure of logic.*
> 
> You’re mincing words, subjecting and taking out of context. I did not say that it has to function within NORMAL parameters you did. I said outside the parameters of instruction and conform to normal parameters. You aren’t comprehending here. If one uses a method to regain normal parameters, it is a method of correction. A method of correction that relies on the precept of knowing how to regain normal parameters. The method of correction has to know what the standard is if it is to correct itself. To do this it will have to at some point enter back into normal parameters. If not how does it know how or when that course is corrected?
> 
> So what you’re saying is you use a different method of recovery. That’s fine, then no need for Biu Jee.
> 
> *Recovery within the VT system; BJ not required. Outside required.*
> 
> Again, I don’t believe Biu Jee to be “outside” the system, technique, theory or principle wise. In my system it is a full partner. In my view anything “outside” the system isn’t Wing Chun.
> 
> Those new to Wing Chun are already looking at it from the outside.
> 
> *Disingenuous.*
> 
> It’s a true statement
> 
> Why study Wing Chun, learn its “Rules” only to later violate them by learning an add on that’s outside of its parameters?
> 
> *Because that is how the system is designed to work. It is better never to step outside of the core system. BJ asks "what if". This is a good thing, but not a thing for beginners because it confuses and breaks the system*.
> 
> Again, only if you view Biu Jee as outside and separate to the system. This may be the method of Ving Tsun, but certainly doesn’t apply to all other branches that don’t ascribe to the belief that your method of Wing Chun is the “correct” one.
> 
> I don’t believe Biu Jee to lie outside of “normal” Wing Chun parameters.
> 
> *Then you don't know VT. There are lots of systems a bit like VT that are not VT. I assume you do one of these instead.*
> 
> I never claimed that I knew Ving Tsun, I practice Wing Chun. Contrary to your belief, you do not possess the “One Ring That Binds Them All” method of “pure” Wing Chun ideology.
> 
> I view it as unrefined Wing Chun parameters
> 
> *Couldn't be more wrong. You appear to have been influenced by other systems and to have assumed VT is the same. It is different.*
> 
> Again, a myopic view. I spoke to Wing Chun as an overview in context to the OP. Comments to WHY many WC practitioners look like “Sloppy Kickboxers”. I offered my input and put forth a solution to the question of how to rectify. The fact that you’ve taken what I’ve said personally as an affront to Ving Tsun methodology is interesting, as I was speaking in generalities. Your rose colored glasses cloud your vision. Your method isn’t the best way, only way or even a progressive way. It’s only your way. It’s limited in scope as long as you continue to pledge blind allegiance to a method that doesn’t allow for anything that questions its dogma.
> 
> Wing Chun isn't unique as a martial art, it wasn't created in a vacuum and it isn't more scientific or practical than any other method. To keep implying this is to perpetuate a lie.
> 
> Otherwise, what purpose does it serve to learn two sets of rules? One that contradicts the other.
> 
> *See above. No contradiction. Why do MMA fighers learn to fight standing and on the ground? Two diferent sets, different rules and parameters*
> 
> MMA has its own unique methodology that binds its techniques into a cohesive functional unit. Not fractured bits and bobs that may be useful. The parameters are bound by logical transitions created inside the system that allow for defensive and offensive applications and counters.
> 
> Shouldn’t instruction be progressive, cohesive, logical and functional? The goal isn’t to find something functional to disregard it, it is to maintain it.
> 
> *VT is all about maintaining the fight within the VT parameters*
> 
> Here we agree.
> 
> It appears that our disagreement is centered around my belief that Biu Jee is a method of refining & correcting to maintain “functional” parameters when lost, while you believe it to be a separate methodology.
> 
> *The VT system is an error correcting method. This is all it is. Structured, progressive, buliding on foundations. It is a gross misunderstanding to believe that BJ is THE error correcting method of the system. BJ is a particular perspective on the system, one that is not suitable for the beginner with no internalised system at all.*
> 
> I thought Wing Chun was a method of fighting. All martial systems teach you correct and optimized mechanics for Posture, Lifting, Locking, Winding and Releasing within the parameters they set forth. They teach them from the beginning, if not you don’t have a good teacher. These aspects will be reinforced and refined as progression is made. This isn’t contradictory for a beginner, it’s how they should be taught. Constant course correction.
> 
> Have you ever considered that maybe perhaps Ving Tsun cannot be held as the standard for all Wing Chun methods?
> 
> *I am interested in YM VT, not the various other systems calling themselves wing chun.*
> 
> Because of this your view will remain myopic.
> 
> Just because you do not believe that Biu Jee does not contain recovery methods found within the normal parameters of Wing Chun, doesn’t make it true.
> 
> *Looking at BJ makes it true. Not a matter of belief.*
> 
> Aside from the “Life After Death” movement at the end of Biu Jee, how is anything in it so drastically different from Siu Lim Tau or Chum Kiu that it constitutes classification as an “outside” method? It’s techniques aren’t really any different, it’s theory of use is. A theory that can be applied to any Wing Chun form.
> 
> I have presented a logical approach that works within the context I laid out. Its premise is based upon the methodology of Biu Jee as being within the functional parameters of Wing Chun.
> 
> *I don't believe you have done this. You say it is true, but you don't provide any detail.*
> 
> I’ve provided more than enough details throughout my posts. You on the other hand haven’t answered one question in any detail, instead opting to address with rhetoric and biased opinion.
> 
> Things like moving, bobbing & weaving, elbows etc. These are things the student will return too, just as they will build upon the techniques learned in SNT.
> 
> *Not part of core VT. Encouraging a student to internalise this kind of thing only damages their learning*
> 
> Why, its either part of the system or not? We have these methods in my system. Again only applicable to your method. You can’t dismiss it simply because you don’t have it.
> 
> No one willingly violates their structure “just to see what happens”
> 
> To have two recovery methods to regain and correct isn’t necessary. If you are using a separate method for regaining the parameters taught in SLT & CK, what use is Biu Jee?
> 
> 
> *The VT system is all about forcing and correcting mistakes. It is an error correcting system. That you don't know this is, frankly, very odd.*
> 
> *VT is an error correction method for fighting within the VT system parameters. BJ is error correction methods for situations outside the VT system*
> 
> 
> 
> I think it odd that you believe Wing Chun to be a system of forcing and correcting mistakes. I see it as a system of fighting, where Biu Jee is the theory of correcting to regain functional use of Wing Chun mechanics. Chum Kiu as the form containing fighting concepts and Siu Lim Tau as an ideal to achieve. A circular method of refinement for both theory and skill.
> 
> do you believe that sometimes Wing Chun mechanics fail and that Biu Jee is a separate art that can help you overcome? If so what use is Wing Chun, when you could use something else that doesn’t rely on abandoning the functional core of its methodology?
> 
> *BJ useless on its own. Only useful as a way to get back to VT*
> 
> Seems to me you believe it altogether useless, I’m OK with that, whatever works for you. Not how I view it.
> 
> Seems to me your looking at technique, not principal
> 
> *The opposite I would say. You don't appear to know what the system is, or the underlying principles. BJ not in accord with these*
> 
> Again, only applicable to your system of Ving Tsun and your awkward logic. You can’t use your narrow-minded, biased and limited view of Wing Chun as a litmus to test all others by, your dogma does not apply to all.
> 
> Biu Jee is not something separate in my Wing chun, it is a part of the art in every sense and its methodology of recovery is taught from the beginning. It is the only method used to teach one how to recover when operating outside “functional parameters”.
> 
> *Sounds like a different system. One that is unlikely to work.*
> 
> 
> Believe what you want. I’m not here to convince you of anything, nor do I care to argue moot points with a ethnocentric narcissist with a closed minded view of anything that contradicts his beliefs.
> 
> This conversation is over. Thank you and have a good day.



You are responding to the same myopic, and stubborn adherence to dogma (I say dogma because the thought process is far from logical) that resulted in how many pages of "there is only one way to through a _bong-sau_ and that is as a remedial action that rolls out of a _tan_.  Weird that not only GM Cheung but also Sifu Lam sees it as something that can be used as stand alone.  I would wager they have forgotten more than we know.


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> You are responding to the same myopic, and stubborn adherence to dogma (I say dogma because the thought process is far from logical) that resulted in how many pages of "there is only one way to through a _bong-sau_ and that is as a remedial action that rolls out of a _tan_.  Weird that not only GM Cheung but also Sifu Lam sees it as something that can be used as stand alone.  I would wager they have forgotten more than we know.



I responded to clarify my point and defend my position. No one has to accept it, believe it or adhere to it. It was my perspective alone and I did my best to answer any questions put forth to me. Take what I say with a grain of salt. If anyone gleaned something useful from it, great, if not just the same. As for this conversation I've said more than enough and and am done.

Its not much of a discussion board if people are going to be chided for thinking outside the box and presenting ideas that go against conventional thought. Especially when the proponents of conventional thought complain about why things don't work like they think it should. Only to whinge when presented with other ideas because they can't agree to or accept anything outside their own ideologies.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> I responded to clarify my point and defend my position. No one has to accept it, believe it or adhere to it. It was my perspective alone and I did my best to answer any questions put forth to me. Take what I say with a grain of salt. If anyone gleaned something useful from it, great, if not just the same. As for this conversation I've said more than enough and and am done.
> 
> Its not much of a discussion board if people are going to be chided for thinking outside the box and presenting ideas that go against conventional thought. Especially when the proponents of conventional thought complain about why things don't work like they think it should. Only to whinge when presented with other ideas because they can't agree to or accept anything outside their own ideologies.




Oh no I completely agree with you and would be chiming in if I wasn't simply going to sound redundant after your well thought out responses.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> If one uses a method to regain normal parameters, it is a method of correction. A method of correction that relies on the precept of knowing how to regain normal parameters. The method of correction has to know what the standard is if it is to correct itself. To do this it will have to at some point enter back into normal parameters.



Once within normal system parameters then the normal system applies. BJ is about looking at how the system can fail, and what to do about it. Learning this before learning how to operate within normal system parameters is both ineffecive and damaging to the learning process.

VT is a very plainly laid out system which contains various error correcting methods appropriate to different stages of development. Error correction is the heart of the learning process. BJ is not appropriate to the beginner because it relies on knowing the core system. 



Nobody Important said:


> We have these methods in my system. Again only applicable to your method. You can’t dismiss it simply because you don’t have it.



Then it is either a different system or a broken version of VT. I am not interested in different systems because generally they don't work. Broken VT is obviously not appealing when a working version is available. 



Nobody Important said:


> I think it odd that you believe Wing Chun to be a system of forcing and correcting mistakes



I find it odd that you would prefer to speculate about something rather than actually learn it. I don't see the appeal. The whole of the VT system involves using other people and equipment to internalise a fighting system which utilises a particular strategy. To this end it contains many attribute building and error correction methods. 

The dummy builds attributes and corrects errors. Chi sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Dan chi sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Seung ma tui ma builds attributes and corrects errors. Bong lap and the other drills build attributes and correct errors. Gwoh Sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Poon sau builds attributes and corrects errors. 

Doing these at the wrong time or in the wrong order is pointless, because the system is progressive and time dependant. 

Biu Jee and parts of the dummy form step outside of the shell of the functional system and look at particular problems and weaknesses, providing solutions to these should they occur.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b said:


> Once within normal system parameters then the normal system applies. BJ is about looking at how the system can fail, and what to do about it. Learning this before learning how to operate within normal system parameters is both ineffecive and damaging to the learning process.



We've already discussed this. Biu Jee is a method of achieving normal parameters, once lost or as a method to refine. You don't have to believe it.



guy b said:


> VT is a very plainly laid out system which contains various error correcting methods appropriate to different stages of development. Error correction is the heart of the learning process. BJ is not appropriate to the beginner because it relies on knowing the core system.



Again already discussed, in my system it is part of the core. Doesn't mean you have to agree, understand or accept.




guy b said:


> Then it is either a different system or a broken version of VT. I am not interested in different systems because generally they don't work. Broken VT is obviously not appealing when a working version is available.



What do you care? Believe what you want, I'm not trying to persuade or convert you. I have my belief you have yours. I could care less what you think is correct, true or real.




guy b said:


> I find it odd that you would prefer to speculate about something rather than actually learn it. I don't see the appeal. The whole of the VT system involves using other people and equipment to internalise a fighting system which utilises a particular strategy. To this end it contains many attribute building and error correction methods.



There has been no speculation on my part, only yours. You are simply to arrogant to recognize that.



guy b said:


> The dummy builds attributes and corrects errors. Chi sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Dan chi sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Seung ma tui ma builds attributes and corrects errors. Bong lap and the other drills build attributes and correct errors. Gwoh Sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Poon sau builds attributes and corrects errors.



"Error Correction" as you call it is contextual. There is a dependency on how one performs and reacts as well as how the opponent performs and reacts. If both parties are performing Wing Chun of the same or similar branch, results should be somewhat predictable and correction method identifiable. If one of the participants is using something vastly different for which the above said drills cannot or system cannot account for the "Error Correction" method that is would normally be used is no longer relevant. In your case you head to (in your own words) a separate method (Biu Jee) to correct. 

My system doesn't see the need for a confusing two system "Correction" method. Biu Jee is our correction and refinement method. I don't care whether you think it appropriate or not, I don't see the logic in your two method way, so were even.



guy b said:


> Doing these at the wrong time or in the wrong order is pointless, because the system is progressive and time dependant.



It is your speculation, based upon a lack of understanding in my system, that you think that the progression is wrong or that it isn't progressive.



guy b said:


> Biu Jee and parts of the dummy form step outside of the shell of the functional system and look at particular problems and weaknesses, providing solutions to these should they occur.



If that is how you view and understand it, who am I to tell you otherwise? It is not that generically defined in my system nor is it specifically used for that purpose. Continue to do things as you like, I don't care. 

You inquired about my system only to state, without any knowledge of it, how it is incorrect based on your limited, narrow, myopic, ethnocentric and narcissistic minded views of Wing Chun. I've seen the art of VT you practice, and if I am to be honest, I feel that it is a sloppy, disorganized and limited method. But that's just my opinion, don't let my remarks keep you and your ilk from believing that its the "Holy Grail" of Wing Chun.

Please don't bother replying, I truly have no desire to further this discussion with you.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> your limited, narrow, myopic, ethnocentric and narcissistic minded views of Wing Chun. I've seen the art of VT you practice, and if I am to be honest, I feel that it is a sloppy, disorganized and limited method



There isn't a thing called Wing Chun that is a very variable (yet equally valid) grab bag of whatever you fancy putting in there. 

There is YM VT, which is what I practice. It is a functional, coherent and non contradictory system that works in a particular way. There are broken versions of YM VT which are not functional and coherent. And there are other systems, some of which may work and some of which definately don't. 

Since you obviously don't practice YM VT, and have a garbled understanding from that perspective, you are practicing one of the other two options. If it is a different system then expecting it to contain common points of reference is a waste of time and we may as well be speaking a foreign language. Discussion is futile in all but the most general terms. If it is a broken version of VT then arguing to defend said non functional thing is a bit pointless, but up to you.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> your limited, narrow, myopic, ethnocentric and narcissistic minded views of Wing Chun. I've seen the art of VT you practice, and if I am to be honest, I feel that it is a sloppy, disorganized and limited method



Lol at ethnocentric and narcissistic by the way

So far YKS wing chun sounds like it might be a version of VT that was broken a very long time ago? All of these similar terms but garbled understanding.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> There isn't a thing called Wing Chun that is a very variable (yet equally valid) grab bag of whatever you fancy putting in there.
> 
> There is YM VT, which is what I practice. It is a functional, coherent and non contradictory system that works in a particular way. There are broken versions of YM VT which are not functional and coherent. And there are other systems, some of which may work and some of which definately don't.
> 
> Since you obviously don't practice YM VT, and have a garbled understanding from that perspective, you are practicing one of the other two options. If it is a different system then expecting it to contain common points of reference is a waste of time and we may as well be speaking a foreign language. Discussion is futile in all but the most general terms. If it is a broken version of VT then arguing to defend said non functional thing is a bit pointless, but up to you.


So you admit to being closed minded and dogmatic.  Thank you.  What you wrote above is similar to what a Religious fanatic would say about an opposing sect (Say Catholic vs Baptist or Shi'ite vs Sunni and vice versa)


It's only broken if it doesn't work and my YM WC works is real fights.  Can you say you have the same experience?  Note I am NOT saying that your YM WC doesn't work, all I am asking is if you can say it works, outside your school and irl street encounters, from personal experience?  Because remember YM Wing Chun itself isn't even "real" WC.  He changed it, simplified it by most accounts.  Thus it is ridiculous on it's face to hold up anything considered YM Lineage as some unalterable holy grail since he himself changed it more than a bit.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Jake104

If the Wing Chun 'community' would actually free spar. They would see pretty quick that most of it doesn't work in the way they train it. Not all, but a majority never do.. 

I remember hearing a story of WSL fighting and he got hit from some sorta low strike. So what did he do? He adapted. I think he added the low Gaun Sao back in the SLT? I think I read IP Man took that out? Point is, fighting or sparring shows you these things. Not internet arguing..

If you have the mentality that "my system is complete" go out and see for yourself.. It's probably not. Or at least not yet. Sparring and adaption might get you there? It's definitely a step in the right direction.

GuyB. 
What if someone takes you out of that particular way of how your system works, then what? If you can't adapt and are some sorta slave to it, you are going to get hurt.. It's this type of thinking and lack of engagement that really hurts WC and its credibility.


----------



## guy b

Jake104 said:


> GuyB.
> What if someone takes you out of that particular way of how your system works, then what? If you can't adapt and are some sorta slave to it, you are going to get hurt.. It's this type of thinking and lack of engagement that really hurts WC and its credibility.



Biu Jee contains various recovery methods. But if you end up grappling with someone then VT is not the place to look for answers. The best thing to do is to learn other non contradictory systems (BJJ is an obvious choice), which cover areas outwith the bubble of VT


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:
			
		

> Disagree x *1*
> List



There isn't another interpretation which is logical. Either you have a different system, or you have a broken VT


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> There isn't another interpretation which is logical. Either you have a different system, or you have a broken VT



Or maybe there are plenty of versions of Wing Chun that aren't quite so narrow in their view.  Logic is good.  But when logic defines a very narrow path and allows for no deviations from that path it can be a bit limiting.  I still maintain that WSLVT is indeed a very logical system.  But it got this way by Ip Man starting it down that path, Wong Shun Leung escorting it very far along that path, and guys like Phillip Bayer really putting sign posts on that path to point it out.  Now it seems WSLVT lineage people think that it is the only path and have forgotten that there are multiple routes to the same destination.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Or maybe there are plenty of versions of Wing Chun that aren't quite so narrow in their view.  Logic is good.  But when logic defines a very narrow path and allows for no deviations from that path it can be a bit limiting.  I still maintain that WSLVT is indeed a very logical system.  But it got this way by Ip Man starting it down that path, Wong Shun Leung escorting it very far along that path, and guys like Phillip Bayer really putting sign posts on that path to point it out.  Now it seems WSLVT lineage people think that it is the only path and have forgotten that there are multiple routes to the same destination.



WSLPB(Insert initials)VT is YM VT. There isn't another version.

The probability of forming a coherent and internally consistent system from a confused jumble is close to zero. The probability of going in the other direction is very high. It's a numbers game. Think entropy- bombs go off and create rubble. Rubble doesn't spontaneously rebuild itself into useful architecture with an obvious purpose.

For example if a person happens to think that a thing they call the Lap Sau drill, which looks superficially similar to a similarly named drill in YM VT, is actually a beginners application drill then we have a problem. It is very unlikely that YM moved from this general understanding, to the current position of that drill within the VT system, given the understanding it represents and the things it entrains, it's relations to other drills in the system, and the time and development dependent stage where it is introduced in the system. Impossible in fact.

So someone with an application driven understanding of a drill callled Lap Sau that looks like VT Lap sau has either (by some freak chance) developed said drill independently, or they have a broken understanding of what the drill is for and how to use it. Simple really. 

It doesn't matter when or where the break happened, and training systems older than YM VT doesn't guarantee coherence.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> WSLPB(Insert initials)VT is YM VT. There isn't another version....



And again with the dogma.  It actually makes more sense to explain things the way KPM is because more than one of YM's students started teaching on their own and each of them has their own methodology YET each of them also says (or said if they have passed om) "I teach what YM taught me." 

You also completely ignore an important point.  YM changed WC.  He was not teaching the WC he was taught.  Over the course of his life he changed things.  We have absolutely no real proof of what YM taught, other than what his students say and his students say different things.

So as much as you try to use pseudo-intellectual verbiage to mask that your arguments actually have no supporting evidence, they are actually simply a dogmatic view of WC supported only by fiat statements.  Heck more than once in other threads it has been pointed out that Sifus in your lineage actually contradict things you say and you resort to attacking them in a way that would be familiar to a religious fanatic attacking what they see as heretical thought.


----------



## Jake104

guy b said:


> Biu Jee contains various recovery methods. But if you end up grappling with someone then VT is not the place to look for answers. The best thing to do is to learn other non contradictory systems (BJJ is an obvious choice), which cover areas outwith the bubble of VT


There is nothing wrong with your answer. Cross training is good.. But let's look at Martial Arts like language.. let's say I have a friend who is hearing impaired. That persons language is still English? Would I learn to speak a different language to communicate? No I would learn to sign in English. So really I would ADAPT to communicate, right? Yes I'm learning something different but I would still be adapting what I already understand to be English..I wouldn't be changing the English language... I would just be expanding my learning. This is how I look at the MArtial Arts..


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> supporting evidence,



Mathematical probability


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> So someone with an application driven understanding of a drill callled Lap Sau that looks like VT Lap sau has either (by some freak chance) developed said drill independently, or they have a broken understanding of what the drill is for and how to use it. Simple really.
> .



Simple only in your own very simple and narrow mind.  The Lap Sau drill existed before Ip Man.  The Lap Sau drill is found in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, Sum Nun/Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, and even in Tang Yik Weng Chun!   And that certainly isn't by any "freak chance".  So there is a very strong possibility that Ip Man or Wong Shun Leung adapted or adjusted how this drill is understood and performed.  Maybe for the better, maybe not.  But to say that what others do is "broken" is just plain pompous and narrow-minded.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> The Lap Sau drill existed before Ip Man. The Lap Sau drill is found in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, Sum Nun/Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, and even in Tang Yik Weng Chun!



What is its purpose in these systems? How does it relate to the rest of the system and at which developmental point is it introduced, and why?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> there is a very strong possibility that Ip Man or Wong Shun Leung adapted or adjusted how this drill is understood and performed



Incredibly unlikely in probabilistic terms that YM took a load of non functional garbage and made it into a fully coherent and non contradictory fighting system. Incredibly unlikely. Much more likely that what happened was in the opposite direction. Irrelevant when the system break happened; YM obviously avoided it.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Mathematical probability



You need a basic structure/foundation as a basis for mathematical probabilities to be calculated with any validity.  In this case this structure has to be founded in practical application in real life.  Post after post you have shown to be limited to the dogmatic theories inside your own school with little, if any, experience in real life application.  Of course when sparing against someone using the exact same theory your way will seem THE way if you mind is closed to other possibilities, as yours clearly is but this dogmatic approach that you use creates a fatal flaw and this your "mathematical probabilities" end up being improbable in reality.

The best evidence for this is from your posts in response to others pointing out Sifu's in your own Lineage who contradict more than a couple of the ideas you have posted.


----------



## Phobius

guy b said:


> Mathematical probability



You need math to get a mathematical probability.

What you are stating is random text. Random text does not provide much in terms of statistical probability. In that regard we have one person stating one thing and multiple people stating something opposing that thought. In terms of probability it is likely you are wrong.


----------



## geezer

Why do you guys even waste your breath? Sheesh!

And for the record, I train YM VT too, but not the WSL lineage. Yip Man used the VT spelling. Any lineage coming from YM and recognized by the old Hong Kong Ving Tsun Athletic Assn. may be considered VT. Guy thinks any method other than WSL-PB-VT is flawed. He has said this so many times. OK then. _Conversation over._ 

BTW who trained _him _again???


----------



## anerlich

guy b said:


> Incredibly unlikely in probabilistic terms that YM took a load of non functional garbage and made it into a fully coherent and non contradictory fighting system. Incredibly unlikely. Much more likely that what happened was in the opposite direction. Irrelevant when the system break happened; YM obviously avoided it.



Assuming you accept the premises, this is in the ballpark of the second law of thermodynamics. Things are way more likely to go from organised to random in a closed system rather than the reverse, Much the same as the probability of an ice cube spontaneously forming in a glass of water at room temperature. Not totally impossible, but extremely improbable. Older readers may remember the Infinite Improbability drive from H2G2.

Assuming you accept the premises, and that this is an argument worth having.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ The flaws in Guy's logic have been pointed out multiple times in past threads.  But, like all true believers, this has little impact on him.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Guy thinks any method other than WSL-PB-VT is flawed. He has said this so many times. OK then. _Conversation over._



But I have never said that

I have said is that YM VT is an internally consistent and non contradictory system that works. It has a particular strategy for fighting which is readily available to anyone in written form. WSL VT is YM VT 

I have also used an argument from probability against the idea that YM VT derived from a non internally consistent and/or incoherent system

There is nothing in what I have said that denies other functional, non-contradictory and internally consistent systems also exist that are not VT. BJJ is an obvious example. There are also examples in Chinese MA. There are recently formulated examples and examples from a long time ago. 

What I don't accept is that systems calling themseves wing chun which contain contradictions or inconsistencies are something I need to accept as equally valid and workable. These are broken, and pointing out the way in which they are broken is not wong, arrogant, selfish or anything else. It is just a case of noticing reality instead of ignoring it. 

I have never denied that non-broken VT may exist that I am not aware of, from either before or after the time of YM. All of you (apart from KPM) may in fact be practicing such VT.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> The flaws in Guy's logic have been pointed out multiple times in past threads. But, like all true believers, this has little impact on him.



Nobody here apart from Anerlich appears to understand the argument, so hard to see how loical problms with this argument have been pointed out before


----------



## guy b

Phobius said:


> You need math to get a mathematical probability.



Mathematical ideas can be expounded verbally, as in this case


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Mathematical ideas can be expounded verbally, as in this case


No you haven't.  Expounding upon a mathematical principle occurs after you have proven the validity of the math and you have yet to do this.  Hell you have yet to even present faulty math.  The premise of every single post you make is founded in a faith based assumption.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> No you haven't.  Expounding upon a mathematical principle occurs after you have proven the validity of the math and you have yet to do this.  Hell you have yet to even present faulty math.  The premise of every single post you make is founded in a faith based assumption.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



There is a probabilistic argument is this thread. If you don't recognise it then you probably aren't going to be the best person to talk to about it


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> There is a probabilistic argument is this thread. If you don't recognise it then you probably aren't going to be the best person to talk to about it



No there isn't.  You attempt to create the illusion of one through fiat statements.  I hey aren't the same but you likely don't see the truth due to strict adherence to dogma devoid of independent testing.


----------



## moonhill99

KPM said:


> This was something that came up in another thread, so it probably got missed by many people who weren't following that thread.  But it seemed like a good topic for its own discussion, so I'm starting a new thread!
> 
> My viewpoint: Sparring should not be seen as a thing unto itself. It should be seen as a platform for training, just like Chi Sau is a platform for training. Everyone realizes that good technique goes to sh!t under pressure. Sparring is the opportunity to put a student under pressure and see what goes to sh!t. Then he knows what he needs to go back and work on. If you saw someone bobbing and weaving, breaking center, giving up their structure, etc in Chi Sau....wouldn't you point these things out as something to work on? Something that needs improvement? Why is it any different when it comes to sparring? Why does everyone get all offended if someone points out how they are losing their Wing Chun structure and technique when sparring? Are you training Wing Chun? Or are you training to be a good sparrer? Why do we have such a high standard for Wing Chun in our forms and drills and such a low standard for Wing Chun when it comes to sparring? Any good martial art should strive to train the way it fights and fight the way it trains. Sparring is a great environment to bring all those hours of training to the fight. But if you start being content with resorting to sloppy kickboxing, then you are wasting all those hours of training. Now, one might very well find adjustments and modifications to their Wing Chun that are more successful in sparring. That's great and how things progress and evolve! But if you aren't then going back and putting those modifications into your training, again you are wasting time and not training efficiently.
> 
> And I will assert that....yes....it should actually look somewhat like Wing Chun in action!  I'm NOT saying it has to be "picture perfect" Wing Chun as trained in the forms and drills.  But someone with even passing familiarity with Wing Chun should be able to recognize it....just like if they have even a passing familiarity with western boxing, kickboxing, or Muay Thai they would recognize those arts in the ring.  I think that if you put a Wing Chun guy in a sparring situation with a kickboxer and neutral observer can't tell who is who...then the Wing Chun probably needs to work on his technique!
> 
> So really, the key question to ask is this:  Are you training Wing Chun? Or are you training to be good at sparring? (general question for everyone)



So you want more action fighting Wing Chun like this Tampa bay area school?











You want more fighting and fast movements? Not drilling and trapping?


----------



## Danny T

moonhill99 said:


> So you want more action fighting Wing Chun like this Tampa bay area school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want more fighting and fast movements? Not drilling and trapping?


Very little fighting. A lot of flash, drilling and trapping. 
Demo and marketing videos not sparring or fighting.


----------



## anerlich

IMO the second law of thermodynamics is way more physics than maths. Just to continue the tangential argument.


----------



## guy b

anerlich said:


> IMO the second law of thermodynamics is way more physics than maths. Just to continue the tangential argument.



I'm not claiming that YM VT is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. Just making an argument based on probabilities


----------



## Phobius

moonhill99 said:


> So you want more action fighting Wing Chun like this Tampa bay area school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want more fighting and fast movements? Not drilling and trapping?



I am wondering why anyone wants to train at a school after seeing those demos. Do they not realize that the guy that is just standing there getting beat up is someone training at the school. So that is what you become?


----------



## Phobius

guy b said:


> I'm not claiming that YM VT is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. Just making an argument based on probabilities



(Because it is relevant in terms of the argumentative tactics.)

Off topic: A probability that is based on math that is not known to all parties is an opinion. Meaning we should probably not discuss probability in regards to what is and what has to be. The closest we can get until someone can provide facts that, like math, can be made undisputable we are stuck with opinions only.

As long as we make arguments with the knowledge that they are opinion based we are "probably" gonna have a more civil and contributing discussion.

Anyways, this was off topic and not really intended to target anyone but rather the discussion of probability as a whole. We are all way off since it is way too complicated to get some probability out of martial art lineages.


----------



## anerlich

guy b said:


> I'm not claiming that YM VT is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. Just making an argument based on probabilities



Good for you, bro. I'm just giving my opinion about the second law, no reference to WC.


----------



## moonhill99

Danny T said:


> Very little fighting. A lot of flash, drilling and trapping.
> Demo and marketing videos not sparring or fighting.



I'm talking about some schools that you stand xx away and the other person stands xx away and YOU DO NOT MOVE if any very little moving.

Like this school.





Well not been to that school I have no idea if they do sparring or not, just by looking at their youtube video. Only looking at a 3:30 clip.

Well may be really awesome for learning trapping but no idea how the school simulates live moving attacks or sparring.

Where in MMA or in self defense you will be moving not fighting by standing still or really little moving like in this video.

But anyways I think this clip wanted to show more learning trapping and the other clip wanted to show more flash a sorta of simulate moving attack on the person.


----------



## moonhill99

Phobius said:


> I am wondering why anyone wants to train at a school after seeing those demos. Do they not realize that the guy that is just standing there getting beat up is someone training at the school. So that is what you become?



Sorry I don't understand what you saying. Are you saying this school lacks sparring and you are just standing there well other guy goes on you?


----------



## anerlich

Phobius said:


> A probability that is based on math that is not known to all parties is an opinion.



That doesn't make sense. Math doesn't require everyone to know it to be fact, not opinion.


----------



## Phobius

anerlich said:


> That doesn't make sense. Math doesn't require everyone to know it to be fact, not opinion.



If I say that there is a probability of 0.7 that you are wrong and 0.29 that you misread what I wrote...

You see the problem?

Math is not the problem, the fact that you have no way of knowing what that math is means it is just än opinion of mine.

It all depends on how I calculate probability.


----------



## Phobius

moonhill99 said:


> Sorry I don't understand what you saying. Are you saying this school lacks sparring and you are just standing there well other guy goes on you?



Actually there were two videos with little to no sparring at all.

I am not saying anything about school lacking sparring. I would not know not care sorry.

I just commented on hilarious aspect of commercial demo videos where one student beating up another student that curls up and just allow the beating. How come those videos are deemed attractive? After all the student being beat up is also trained at same school.


----------



## anerlich

Phobius said:


> If I say that there is a probability of 0.7 that you are wrong and 0.29 that you misread what I wrote...
> 
> You see the problem?
> 
> Math is not the problem, the fact that you have no way of knowing what that math is means it is just än opinion of mine.
> 
> It all depends on how I calculate probability.



So "how [you] calculate probability" and "whatever arbitrary sh*t numbers you make up" have a 0.99% probability of being the same. Yes, I see the problem all right.

To humour you a little longer, what's the other 0.01, the way you "calculate probability"?


----------



## drop bear

Phobius said:


> Actually there were two videos with little to no sparring at all.
> 
> I am not saying anything about school lacking sparring. I would not know not care sorry.
> 
> I just commented on hilarious aspect of commercial demo videos where one student beating up another student that curls up and just allow the beating. How come those videos are deemed attractive? After all the student being beat up is also trained at same school.



I get what you are saying.


----------



## drop bear

Danny T said:


> Very little fighting. A lot of flash, drilling and trapping.
> Demo and marketing videos not sparring or fighting.



I don't have video at the moment. Was sifu och using the foom?


----------



## Phobius

anerlich said:


> So "how [you] calculate probability" and "whatever arbitrary sh*t numbers you make up" have a 0.99% probability of being the same. Yes, I see the problem all right.
> 
> To humour you a little longer, what's the other 0.01, the way you "calculate probability"?



The other 0.01 was me being full of sh*t. Which makes it a risk I am wrong in the first place.


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> I don't have video at the moment. Was sifu och using the foom?



Hey, don't knock the "foom"! 


Factually, I'm a fan of the foom.


----------



## Cephalopod

That's nothing.
I'm training with Little Cat Z. He's going to teach me how to use the Voom.


----------



## wingchun100

I wonder if we could come up with a math formula that would accurately determine how many comments one of these threads can get before it goes off the rails. An accurate number would probably be impossible to gauge, but maybe we could get a range?


----------



## wtxs

wingchun100 said:


> I wonder if we could come up with a math formula that would accurately determine how many comments one of these threads can get before it goes off the rails. An accurate number would probably be impossible to gauge, but maybe we could get a range?



Don't need no stinking formula to accurately predict how many post before the thread derails, it may very well could start its descent with the 1st reply post, with the high probability of never ever get back on track before the thread get shut down.


----------



## wingchun100

wtxs said:


> Don't need no stinking formula to accurately predict how many post before the thread derails, it may very well could start its descent with the 1st reply post, with the high probability of never ever get back on track before the thread get shut down.


 

Maybe so, but it would be a great time killer!


----------



## moonhill99

Phobius said:


> Actually there were two videos with little to no sparring at all.
> 
> I am not saying anything about school lacking sparring. I would not know not care sorry.
> 
> I just commented on hilarious aspect of commercial demo videos where one student beating up another student that curls up and just allow the beating. How come those videos are deemed attractive? After all the student being beat up is also trained at same school.



So you like to see more counter moves to those moves?I think this school wanted show more combative aggressive wing chun than showing lots of sparring or trapping.

 With out walking into that school I would have no idea how much sparring or trapping they do. You should just hope that sparring and trapping is not downplayed at this school.


----------



## guy b

Phobius said:


> Math is not the problem, the fact that you have no way of knowing what that math is means it is just än opinion of mine



The problem was stated in terms of an improbable thing vs a probable thing. You can work out that one is improbable and the other probable using reason, assuming you have the ability to think in abstract terms. It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a reasoned argument.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> The problem was stated in terms of an improbable thing vs a probable thing. You can work out that one is improbable and the other probable using reason, assuming you have the ability to think in abstract terms. It isn't a matter of opinion, it is a reasoned argument.


Pretty sure you were the one who started bouncing the "probability" thing about in the context you are choosing to use.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Pretty sure you were the one who started bouncing the "probability" thing about in the context you are choosing to use.



You aren't making any sense, sorry


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> You aren't making any sense, sorry



You said


> The problem was stated in terms of an improbable thing vs a probable thing...



Whats there not to understand? You are the one who started to try and use this idea to defend your argument.  People called you on this because while to work out the probable vs improbable you need to either present math, or as you state present logical reasoning.  The problem is you have presented neither, instead you have said...



> <series of self serving fiat statements to support my myopic view of what proper VT/WC is>.  Why? Because of probability



Logical reasoning need be based on demonstrable evidence.  You haven't presented said evidence you simply claim, by fiat, a result.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> People called you on this because while to work out the probable vs improbable you need to either present math, or as you state present logical reasoning



A reasoned argument in terms of probability has been presented in this thread and also in several other threads. It isn't my fault if you are incapable of perceiving the argument.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ I don't think many here have followed your argument.  Perhaps it is because of your presentation?  Why don't you try stating it in different terms?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ I don't think many here have followed your argument.  Perhaps it is because of your presentation?  Why don't you try stating it in different terms?



I don't think it is worth the effort. It is there if anyone is interested


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I don't think it is worth the effort. It is there if anyone is interested



Why not?  You've made quite the effort posting in 1/2 dozen other threads!  Try actually carrying on a friendly discussion without insulting everyone else involved for a change and see what happens.  Really!  Try it!  You might like it!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Why not?  You've made quite the effort posting in 1/2 dozen other threads!  Try actually carrying on a friendly discussion without insulting everyone else involved for a change and see what happens.  Really!  Try it!  You might like it!



Why would I volunteer to be trolled?


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Why would I volunteer to be trolled?



You certainly volunteer to stir up trouble in multiple threads.  So what's the difference?  If you actually engaged in a friendly discussion, everyone might benefit.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You certainly volunteer to stir up trouble in multiple threads.  So what's the difference?  If you actually engaged in a friendly discussion, everyone might benefit.



I am not feeling unfriendly towards anyone. I think trouble generally comes from misunderstanding, of which there is a lot. Posts need to be short in such cases because longer posts lead to more misunderstanding. Even the most simple points are generally ignored or misunderstood, I think because of a desperate desire not to agree. That isn't something I can help really- others control their own perception


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> I am not feeling unfriendly towards anyone. I think trouble generally comes from misunderstanding, of which there is a lot. Posts need to be short in such cases because longer posts lead to more misunderstanding. Even the most simple points are generally ignored or misunderstood, I think because of a desperate desire not to agree. That isn't something I can help really- others control their own perception


No, a shorter post is not necessarily clearer. Elaborating on a point, assuming the other person has a different understanding than you, will be much clearer to all involved. Most of us here actually like to find both people we agree with (validation, someone to discuss similar philosophies with, etc.) and people we don't agree with (new information, identifying gaps in our approach, better understanding different views, etc.).

Look for discussions with me and Drop Bear or me and Steve. We differ drastically on some points, and argue freely about them. On other points, we agree well. I've learned from both types of discussions with them, and have a better understanding of what others gain from styles like theirs, and why they choose them.

Your posts just generally display a disagreement without explaining your viewpoint enough for anyone to determine if there's a real disagreement or just a different vocabulary (which happens rather a lot).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> A reasoned argument in terms of probability has been presented in this thread and also in several other threads. It isn't my fault if you are incapable of perceiving the argument.


Actually, in terms of communication, it's precisely the fault of the one delivering the message if the receiver can't understand it.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Actually, in terms of communication, it's precisely the fault of the one delivering the message if the receiver can't understand it.



I can't be bothered going through it again. It isn't really important unless you are interested, in which case it is there


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> I can't be bothered going through it again. It isn't really important unless you are interested, in which case it is there


Except that people have already stated that it didn't make sense to them. Which means your communication was unsuccessful. The attitude displayed in this post is "I don't care if you understand or not." If that's true, I can't imagine why you'd bother to post.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Except that people have already stated that it didn't make sense to them. Which means your communication was unsuccessful. The attitude displayed in this post is "I don't care if you understand or not." If that's true, I can't imagine why you'd bother to post.



You can PM me if you want me to try and explain further


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> You can PM me if you want me to try and explain further


Nobody else gets to read that - this is a forum, and part of the value is the open discussion and ability to refer back to past discussions for clarification.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I can't be bothered going through it again.



Hence the problems you encounter here over and over again.


----------



## wingchun100

gpseymour said:


> Actually, in terms of communication, it's precisely the fault of the one delivering the message if the receiver can't understand it.


 

Not sure I agree with that 100%. Let's face it: there are some people out there who are dumber than a box of rocks. There is responsibility on both giving and receiving end when it comes to understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

wingchun100 said:


> Not sure I agree with that 100%. Let's face it: there are some people out there who are dumber than a box of rocks. There is responsibility on both giving and receiving end when it comes to understanding.


Oh, agreed, but there's a principle of communication involved. It's a point I make when teaching communication seminars. You can't control the other person, so if they don't understand, you first assume it's a problem with your transmission. Only after you've confirmed the transmission quality (in a forum, that means others aren't generally having trouble understanding), can you safely conclude the problem is on the receiving side.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Hence the problems you encounter here over and over again.



I have learned from typing pages and pages of explanation that it usually donesn't make any difference. In fact I think it might have been conversing with you KPM that led me to adopt a more abbreviated style. 

As it happens I don't find it a problem if you don't understand something. If you wish to understand then you will need to make more of an effort. But you don't wish to understand really, so here we are


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> I have learned from typing pages and pages of explanation that it usually donesn't make any difference.



I quite agree with _Guy_ here. I really don't think it would benefit anybody if he were to type out his views on VT yet again. Hearing it again isn't going to persuade me, and I doubt that it will reach many others either. 

Honestly, It's like trying to engage in civil discussion with the street corner evangelists thumping their bibles and telling me that I'm on the road to perdition. I'm not an easy convert, and they certainly aren't interested in my outlook!​


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Nobody else gets to read that - this is a forum, and part of the value is the open discussion and ability to refer back to past discussions for clarification.



It's right here in this thread, and several others. 

Tell you what, ask me a question about what you don't understand and I will do my best to help


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> I quite agree with _Guy_ here. I really don't think it would benefit anybody if he were to type out his views on VT yet again. Hearing it again isn't going to persuade me, and I doubt that it will reach many others either.
> 
> Honestly, It's like trying to engage in civil discussion with the street corner evangelists thumping their bibles and telling me that I'm on the road to perdition. I'm not an easy convert, and they certainly aren't interested in my outlook!​


Beyond that, even when he has gone into lengthy descriptions, it's ephemeral.  For the most part it end ups being platitudes and what amounts to something similar to talking to a pseudo-intellectual college student trying to sound knowledgeable about philosophy.

I don't know if it's because he is like the person he describes elsewhere, the person who can practice VT without understanding it because understanding is only necessary to teach, or because he has learned from experience what the weak points of his argument are and so has replaced them with the MA version of psycho-babel.


----------



## guy b

It's neither of these Juany. I recommend that you put me on ignore and save yourself the effort of negtive emotion


----------



## guy b

I will return the favour- I don't think I have ever gleaned anything useful from your postings and there are more important things to do in life than churn through yet more of them. Goodbye


----------



## guy b

What a relief


----------



## Juany118

No negative emotion at all.  I actually find these things humorous.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I have learned from typing pages and pages of explanation that it usually donesn't make any difference. In fact I think it might have been conversing with you KPM that led me to adopt a more abbreviated style.
> 
> As it happens I don't find it a problem if you don't understand something. If you wish to understand then you will need to make more of an effort. But you don't wish to understand really, so here we are



Well, there is a way to engage people in conversation that is productive and leads to further conversation, and there is a way that turns people off and ends up in an argument every time.   To start with, whenever you adopt the attitude that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are getting off on the wrong foot right away.  It quickly becomes clear that no matter what anyone else has to say, you have no intention of even trying to see where they are coming from or the point they are trying to make.  This is what leads to long drawn out threads were nothing is really accomplished other than everyone getting ticked off.  That is not a "friendly" discussion.  Short terse responses that don't really answer questions posed to you and don't really elaborate on what you are saying to try and clear up possible misunderstandings also lead to drawn out back and forth exchanges where you are "talking past" the other person.  Also not within the definition of a "friendly" discussion.   Having the attitude that you can't really be bothered to elaborate on a point or more clearly explain yourself doesn't help.  Also not within the definition of a "friendly" discussion.   Not taking the time to read someone else's posts (assuming you've even read this far)....also not in the definition of a "friendly" discussion.   But man....just use one "bad word" and look out!  The mods will come for you!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> It's right here in this thread, and several others.
> 
> Tell you what, ask me a question about what you don't understand and I will do my best to help


Okay, that's completely non-sequitur. You suggested I send you a private message, and I said nobody else would be able to read that. Where was I unclear in that?


----------



## guy b

Ask your question here in public if you like


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Well, there is a way to engage people in conversation that is productive and leads to further conversation, and there is a way that turns people off and ends up in an argument every time.   To start with, whenever you adopt the attitude that you are right and everyone else is wrong, you are getting off on the wrong foot right away.  It quickly becomes clear that no matter what anyone else has to say, you have no intention of even trying to see where they are coming from or the point they are trying to make.  This is what leads to long drawn out threads were nothing is really accomplished other than everyone getting ticked off.  That is not a "friendly" discussion.  Short terse responses that don't really answer questions posed to you and don't really elaborate on what you are saying to try and clear up possible misunderstandings also lead to drawn out back and forth exchanges where you are "talking past" the other person.  Also not within the definition of a "friendly" discussion.   Having the attitude that you can't really be bothered to elaborate on a point or more clearly explain yourself doesn't help.  Also not within the definition of a "friendly" discussion.   Not taking the time to read someone else's posts (assuming you've even read this far)....also not in the definition of a "friendly" discussion.   But man....just use one "bad word" and look out!  The mods will come for you!



Ok KPM, I will try harder. I didn't start with the belief that long answers were not worth typing, I just learned it over time. Happy to give it another go


----------

