# Regarding diverse approaches to WC...



## geezer (Nov 17, 2014)

Hey all, recently on another thread, a highly regarded member of our WC forum posted to the effect that when they watched how another particular WC lineage approached certain key techniques, they didn't even "recognize" it as WC. 

Reading these comments, I got to thinking about how in Western boxing, there are a lot of different styles a fighter can  adopt ... in-fighter, out-fighter, a slugger, a brawler, a counter-puncher, and so on... and a coach will train-up his fighter according to what works best for _that_ fighter.

Boxing styles and technique - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When a fighter confronts an opponent with a different personal style in the ring, nobody talks about "not recognizing" what the other guy does as "boxing". Why should it be different for WC _Chinese_ boxing? This is a question Alan Orr and others have raised, and honestly, they're onto something. Any thoughts?


----------



## yak sao (Nov 17, 2014)

I agree with the whole "Chinese Boxing" moniker. In fact,  I went with that for our group name (_Chinese Boxing Club_) instead of "kung fu" because I wanted people to see that WC is not about learning some magic formula or some secret techniques and then becoming some sort of invincible fighter.
I wanted them to understand WC is not a style of fighting but rather a training method that one uses to develop into a fighter.

To properly practice WC is not to be a carbon copy of your teacher. Each one of us is different. We all have various strengths and weaknesses and different personalities and temperaments. And while we all follow the same training methods, (forms, chi sau, lat sau, etc.) and adhere to core principles, the end result is not so we can all look and move and fight the same, but rather, just the opposite. Our training methodology was put together by the founders somewhat abstractly, I believe, on purpose so that each one of us learns to use WC to develop ourselves into the fighter that works best for each of us.

The end result is not being locked into structure and dead style but freely moving in an efficient, effective manner.


----------



## KPM (Nov 17, 2014)

I agree with you as well geezer.  Specifically defining what is and isn't Wing Chun is not easy.  Different lineages have different body mechanics and ways to generate power, yet to most people each would "look like" variations of Wing Chun.   Just because one version doesn't use exactly the same mechanics or strategies doesn't make it "not" Wing Chun.


----------



## Tames D (Nov 17, 2014)

yak sao said:


> I agree with the whole "Chinese Boxing" moniker. In fact,  I went with that for our group name (_Chinese Boxing Club_) instead of "kung fu" because I wanted people to see that WC is not about learning some magic formula or some secret techniques and then becoming some sort of invincible fighter.
> I wanted them to understand WC is not a style of fighting but rather a training method that one uses to develop into a fighter.
> 
> To properly practice WC is not to be a carbon copy of your teacher. Each one of us is different. We all have various strengths and weaknesses and different personalities and temperaments. And while we all follow the same training methods, (forms, chi sau, lat sau, etc.) and adhere to core principles, the end result is not so we can all look and move and fight the same, but rather, just the opposite. Our training methodology was put together by the founders somewhat abstractly, I believe, on purpose so that each one of us learns to use WC to develop ourselves into the fighter that works best for each of us.
> ...



Great post!


----------



## LFJ (Nov 17, 2014)

geezer said:


> member of our WC forum posted to the effect that when they watched how another particular WC lineage approached certain key techniques, they didn't even "recognize" it as WC.



I don't recall it being said, or meant, like that. I said I don't recognize them as the same system; a statement with which you agreed, right? You can call almost anything WC if it shares outward similarities in form, shapes, and terminology, but if the underlying concepts are vastly different, and ultimately a different type of fighter is developed, they are hardly the same system to me.

Regarding boxing, while it can be used effectively as a self-defense method, it's still very much a game in the ring. A game can be played with different styles and still fit within the boundaries of the game. Not a problem.

The VT I do is a cohesive system of training methods designed to develop certain specific behaviors for fighting. It's not an art, only a skill, as WSL used to say. Another thing he used to say which is often misinterpreted is for one to be the master of VT and not its slave. He was referring to the strict elbow training we go through in development and to not think about it in fighting, but to fight mindlessly making the elbows work for us. Otherwise we are a slave to the system. People often take this out of context and use it as a license to do whatever they want and still call it WC, for lack of understanding the system.

As far as the "interpretation" argument for why everyone under YM seems to have a different system, all from one man... I don't for a second buy that YM taught various different systems to different students, or taught a special version to secret closed-door students, or that what he taught was so open to interpretation that the entire system could be so vastly different. 

Some got it, some didn't, and they all developed according to their own understanding, or lack thereof. I think the fact that many lineages are roughly similar at the beginning of the system, but diverge greatly later in the system, especially with ideas of the BJ form, is a sign that not everyone completed the system and a lot of it has been made up to fill in the gaps. 

I think YM taught one system (although simplified over the years), and we should all be more similar in the underlying strategy and tactics, but not everyone got it. WSL discussed this in an interview:



> Interviewer: "How does the teaching of Yip Man differ from the way you teach?"
> 
> WSL: "Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. *Hence the information was not evenly distributed.* Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation.
> 
> ...


----------



## LFJ (Nov 18, 2014)

yak sao said:


> To properly practice WC is not to be a carbon copy of your teacher. Each one of us is different. We all have various strengths and weaknesses and different personalities and temperaments. And while we all follow the same training methods, (forms, chi sau, lat sau, etc.) and adhere to core principles, the end result is not so we can all look and move and fight the same, but rather, just the opposite. Our training methodology was put together by the founders somewhat abstractly, I believe, on purpose so that each one of us learns to use WC to develop ourselves into the fighter that works best for each of us.



I would have no problem agreeing with this. Evolution and adaptation to the individual is okay as long as the underlying concepts are intact. If the underlying concepts are changed though, that may be fine for your personal development as a fighter, but at that point we are no longer training the same system. There are many different fighting systems taught under the name of WC. The forms, shapes, _chi-sau_, etc. may outwardly appear similar... but that's about as far as it goes between some lineages. Better or worse, they can't be called the same system in my opinion.


----------



## KPM (Nov 18, 2014)

LFJ said:


> I would have no problem agreeing with this. Evolution and adaptation to the individual is okay as long as the underlying concepts are intact. If the underlying concepts are changed though, that may be fine for your personal development as a fighter, but at that point we are no longer training the same system. There are many different fighting systems taught under the name of WC. The forms, shapes, _chi-sau_, etc. may outwardly appear similar... but that's about as far as it goes between some lineages. Better or worse, they can't be called the same system in my opinion.


 
Of course.  I think that should be pretty obvious to everyone.  WSL Wing Chun is not the same Wing Chun system as Leung Ting Wing Chun, though both are Wing Chun.  I think your intent was misinterpreted and many thought by "system" you meant Wing Chun in general...not variations of Wing Chun.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 18, 2014)

Within the school that I attend, there are students senior to me that, even if similar length of time invested individually, use their WC/WT obviously very differently.
I think there is definitely truth in a good teacher trying to teach in a unified way, but still turn out students that are not carbon copies of themselves even if not deliberately.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 18, 2014)

Wing Chun is a system of training. Not a particular style of training or fighting.
  How one expresses what they have learned going to be different.

  Unfortunately, we now have a multitude of training styles that have been derived by how one expresses themselves.

  We are all different in attributes and skill sets. We all have different perspectives and many have now latched onto specific expressions as being the system.

  I teach WC principles, concepts, and the basic movements and positions. As the student develops, their personality as well as their skill set begins to manifest with-in their personal expression of the system. 

  I don&#8217;t believe we are to be slaves to the specific training methods but to use the methods to develop the individual.

  If one is an A type personality I find they tend to express  themselves a bit more straight forward and dynamically vs the B who tend to be a bit more reserve and  then there is the C type who is very yielding with-in their expression.

  It is all good. The System is Wing Chun; the expression of the system is based upon the individual and is the style.


  Use the system and be yourself for you are the art you are the style.


----------



## geezer (Nov 18, 2014)

LFJ said:


> ... Evolution and adaptation to the individual is okay as long as the underlying concepts are intact. If the underlying concepts are changed though, that may be fine for your personal development as a fighter, but at that point we are no longer training the same system. There are many different fighting systems taught under the name of WC. The forms, shapes, _chi-sau_, etc. may outwardly appear similar... but that's about as far as it goes between some lineages. Better or worse, they can't be called the same system in my opinion.



OK, this makes sense. So what do we call the different systems that emerge under the WC umbrella? Certainly there is no absolute litmus test for what is and what isn't WC.  I suppose we just continue with name prefixes like WSL WC, LT WT, Moy Yat WC, Ho Kam Ming WC, "TWC", etc. and recognise that while what we do may be similar, it is not interchangeable. 

Ironically, it reminds me of a discussion about what is a "dialect" vs. a "language". It turns out that the distinction is often more political than liguistic. Where there is a political impetus to show unity, though the differences are great, the term "dialect" is used, as with Cantonese and Mandarin. 

Conversely when the politics of division come into play, as with Hindi and Urdu, similar speech will be declared to be totally separate languages. And when the politics are complex, as with the Danes and Swedes, sometimes one group will express unity saying that they understand both forms while the other will insist that they are totally separate and can't understand a word that the other says.

WC is a _lot_ like that.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 19, 2014)

I agree WSL Ving Tsun, LT Wing Tsun, TWC, etc. are already good enough to distinguish different systems, so long as people realize they are really quite different approaches to fighting. I think it's problematic to call them all "Wing Chun" and say each is just another way of doing the same thing. This is difficult for beginners entering the world of WC.

Like if we both say we speak Romance language, it doesn't necessarily mean we can communicate if you're speaking French and I'm speaking Romanian and we haven't studied each other's language. Or worse yet, mixing the languages arbitrarily to speak in our own way, we're actually no longer speaking a functional language. 

So when I say I don't recognize things done in LTWT as the same system, I mean I speak WSLVT and don't understand you. In a funny way it seems related at first, but it really doesn't make sense to me. We're not speaking the same language. I would not be able to roll with LTWT because we have entirely different concepts, different ways of rolling, and roll for different reasons.


----------



## Kwan Sau (Nov 19, 2014)

LFJ said:


> I would not be able to roll with LTWT because we have entirely different concepts, different ways of rolling, and roll for different reasons.



I've found this to be true. Not every 'branch' of WC/VT/WT can 'roll' with the other. Differences in the ideas and angles of the required shapes (Tan, Bong, Fook, etc) cause immediate misalignments or tactical weaknesses that can be automatically expoited by either partners.


----------



## Vajramusti (Nov 19, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> I've found this to be true. Not every 'branch' of WC/VT/WT can 'roll' with the other. Differences in the ideas and angles of the required shapes (Tan, Bong, Fook, etc) cause immediate misalignments or tactical weaknesses that can be automatically expoited by either partners.[/QUOTE-------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Agree.


----------



## KPM (Nov 19, 2014)

LFJ said:


> I agree WSL Ving Tsun, LT Wing Tsun, TWC, etc. are already good enough to distinguish different systems, so long as people realize they are really quite different approaches to fighting. I think it's problematic to call them all "Wing Chun" and say each is just another way of doing the same thing.
> .


 
Then how would you refer to them as a group if not by calling them "Wing Chun"?


----------



## PiedmontChun (Nov 19, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> I've found this to be true. Not every 'branch' of WC/VT/WT can 'roll' with the other. Differences in the ideas and angles of the required shapes (Tan, Bong, Fook, etc) cause immediate misalignments or tactical weaknesses that can be automatically expoited by either partners.



When you say _"roll" with each other_, is that meant in a figurative sense? Or a literal sense, that being chi-sau?


----------



## Kwan Sau (Nov 19, 2014)

PiedmontChun said:


> When you say _"roll" with each other_, is that meant in a figurative sense? Or a literal sense, that being chi-sau?



Oops, sorry. Yes, I meant roll as in chi sau.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Nov 19, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> Oops, sorry. Yes, I meant roll as in chi sau.



I can't do multi-quotes, but I'm intrigued by this whole tangent that different styles/branches can't chi-sau with each other. Can you guys expand on this please?

How can they be so different that you can't roll with each other? Surely it only doesn't work for whoever 'loses'?

This is coming from someone still very much at the early stages of my WC journey so please forgive my ignorance!


----------



## Kwan Sau (Nov 19, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Can you guys expand on this please? How can they be so different that you can't roll with each other?



It's not that they can't; it's just that it doesn't last that long! haha. 

But seriously, take for example the tan/fook angles and pressures. If they are vastly different (due to forms, lineage, pressure, etc)...then it's only a matter of nano-seconds before one defeats the other. Then, after a quick reset, the process starts over again, and the same thing happens yet again! This quickly becomes old and tiresome...unless one of the two alters their core structures simply to "roll with a outsider". 

My earlier post was not to say that one or the other is correct or incorrect...simply that most times, the one whose chi sau tools were defeated fail to instantaneously adapt or change to accommodate / exploit the situation. This is either due to a gap in skill, timing, or simply a lack of understanding how to use what they were trained in.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 19, 2014)

KPM said:


> Then how would you refer to them as a group if not by calling them "Wing Chun"?



_ing _un.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 19, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> I can't do multi-quotes, but I'm intrigued by this whole tangent that different styles/branches can't chi-sau with each other. Can you guys expand on this please?
> 
> How can they be so different that you can't roll with each other? Surely it only doesn't work for whoever 'loses'?



We have different ways and reasons for rolling. You can't really roll properly, according to your system, if you put your arms together with someone doing it very differently. And it's pointless to try to adapt to the different style and hold your own against them, because ultimately our goal is not to be able to "defeat" people in _chi-sau_, but to survive a real fight. _Chi-sau_ is a developmental drilling platform for training the tools specific to your system. No point in throwing a wrench in there. So if you want to test against another system of _ing _un, I say do it in free sparring!


----------



## LFJ (Nov 19, 2014)

By the way, guys, another reason I think it's good to look at the various branches of _ing _un as indeed different systems, is because what's correct to someone else may be incorrect to us, but if we haven't studied their system and don't know why they do what they do, we have no place to say "you're doing it wrong". 

Better or worse, that can be discussed, but correct or incorrect is relative to the specific system you're doing. Haven't you all had some fool tell you you're doing an action in SNT wrong, but because they have some entirely different concept in mind? Simple response, common ancestor maybe, but we don't do the same MA system!


----------



## Danny T (Nov 20, 2014)

Kwan Sau said:


> It's not that they can't; it's just that it doesn't last that long! haha.
> 
> But seriously, take for example the tan/fook angles and pressures. If they are vastly different (due to forms, lineage, pressure, etc)...then it's only a matter of nano-seconds before one defeats the other. Then, after a quick reset, the process starts over again, and the same thing happens yet again! This quickly becomes old and tiresome...unless one of the two alters their core structures simply to "roll with a outsider".
> 
> My earlier post was not to say that one or the other is correct or incorrect...simply that most times, the one whose chi sau tools were defeated fail to instantaneously adapt or change to accommodate / exploit the situation. This is either due to a gap in skill, timing, or simply a lack of understanding how to use what they were trained in.



I also find this and the others opinions that are similar interesting. I certainly have not done chi sao with all the differing styles but have with several. 
If you are 'rolling' for the sake of rolling then yes I agree that the differences cause the roll to break down due to the differences in rolling. However if the roll is due to the cause and effect of attack and countering I disagree; unless there is a large difference in the skills of the participants
.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 20, 2014)

Danny T said:


> However if the roll is due to the cause and effect of attack and countering I disagree; unless there is a large difference in the skills of the participants
> .



That's still an issue with different systems. I need a partner to exchange force with me in a way that allows me to develop what it is I'm trying to develop in my system. Many others are working to control from the wrists, or doing some other such thing which means the force exchanged is different and it usually just turns into some sort of pseudo fight, losing the benefit of the entire exercise, in my opinion. If I want to test and compare things with someone I'll spar them, because the ultimate goal is free fighting skill. If you can convince me free-hand, I'm more likely to be interested in your _chi-sau_ theories.

When chunners get together it's more often "let's _chi-sau_" than "let's spar". I think that is a problem. To me, _chi-sau_ is a part of my personal training-time development, sort of private training to work on areas in my specific system. What goes out to meet practitioners of other systems/styles is sparring.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Nov 20, 2014)

I'm finding this so fascinating I started a new thread on it http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/63...tyles-branches-roll-together.html#post1668923


----------



## geezer (Nov 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> _ing _un.



Personally I hate that _"_ing _un"_ term. Except for the "Weng Chun" clan, they all use the same Chinese characters, so why not just keep it simple and unpretentious. When speaking broadly about different groups, just use the generic spelling "Wing Chun" and if necessary, specify the lineages. It's really no different from other arts like _Karate_ with all it's different _ryu_ or _FMA_ (Eskrima/Arnis/Kali) with all the different styles and systems. Honestly, just about every MA has divisions and conflicts. Why use a spelling (_"-ing -un"_) that calls attention to it in such a negative way.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 20, 2014)

geezer said:


> Why use a spelling (_"-ing -un"_) that calls attention to it in such a negative way.



Did not realize anyone would find that negative. Confused why you would.


----------



## KPM (Nov 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Did not realize anyone would find that negative. Confused why you would.


 
Mainly because its just silly!  ;-)  And its negative because it highlights the fact that there is so much devisiveness in Wing Chun that we can't even agree on how to spell the name of the system!  I'm with geezer.  I see no reason why we wouldn't just say...Leung Ting Wing Chun, or Wong Shun Leung Wing Chun, or Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun, etc.  Of course we can shorten it in conversation to LT Wing Chun, WSL Wing Chun, etc.   But like geezer pointed out, the Chinese characters are the same.  Spelling them out in multiple ways in English implies otherwise.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 20, 2014)

KPM said:


> Mainly because its just silly!  ;-)  And its negative because it highlights the fact that there is so much devisiveness in Wing Chun that we can't even agree on how to spell the name of the system!



I thought we established that there isn't "the system". That's why there are different spellings or lineage names in the first place. I see that as more reasonable than divisive. We may be great apes, but we always call ourselves humans and some of the other guys gorillas. Are we being silly and divisive, or reasonable in making the distinction clear? 



> I'm with geezer.  I see no reason why we wouldn't just say...Leung Ting Wing Chun, or Wong Shun Leung Wing Chun, or Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun, etc.  Of course we can shorten it in conversation to LT Wing Chun, WSL Wing Chun, etc.



You asked for a way to refer to the different systems collectively. I think calling them all the same thing is problematic, because people will make statements like "Wing Chun is this, Wing Chun is that". _ing _un, which is common on German forums at least, allows one to speak of them collectively yet not paint them all with the same brush, or show that we aren't speaking about any one lineage system in particular.



> But like geezer pointed out, the Chinese characters are the same. Spelling them out in multiple ways in English implies otherwise.



Well, there are two different Wing characters that are used which we show by Wing and Weng, but when speaking of them collectively in Chinese you can say "the various sects of", which is not so wordy in Chinese. But we're writing English, so we have the luxury of playing with the alphabet.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 20, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Did not realize anyone would find that negative. Confused why you would.




By using that spelling(or lack of), you are giving the appearance that yours is the only legit way and all others fall short.

I strongly believe that the method of WC I learned to be solid and legit, you obviously feel the same way about yours. With all their differences, they still have more in common with each other than they do with any other MA and are both wing chun, simply different families. 

 There are different families of tai chi as well but they're all still tai chi. To distinguish which one we're talking about if a distinction is needed, we put the family name first: Yang Tai Chi, Chen Tai Chi, Wu Tai Chi........

I'm with KPM on this...Yip Man wing chun, WSL wing chun, Moy Yat wing chun, Leung Ting wing chun..............


----------



## LFJ (Nov 21, 2014)

yak sao said:


> By using that spelling(or lack of), you are giving the appearance that yours is the only legit way and all others fall short.



What?! You get all that from writing it in a way that refers to them collectively but still allows them their individual identity? Interesting... :uhoh:



> There are different families of tai chi as well but they're all still tai chi.



The problem is you don't get sweeping statements like "Tai Chi forms are soft with no explosive movements like external styles", which would be false if Chen Style is included in that statement.

But you do get "Wing Chun is a soft and yielding art, based on sensitivity and stickiness", which is completely false if you're including WSLVT. People still talk about "the Wing Chun system" as if we're all doing the same thing with a little different flavor. I don't see it like that at all.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 21, 2014)

I think saying Wing Chun is almost like saying Kung Fu. Haven't we heard the simplistic deference between Kung Fu and Karate as Kung Fu being circular and Karate being linear? It really depends on what kind of Kung Fu you're talking about, doesn't it? CLF, Mantis, Longfist, etc.. They are all Kung Fu, but we can't make umbrella statements about them all as Kung Fu. 

Same goes with "the Wing Chun system", which no longer exists as one thing, if it ever did. LTWT, WSLVT, TWC, PSWC, etc. are all very different approaches to fighting, even if they share a close common ancestor. So we can't talk about them all as Wing Chun, unless in the broadest sense. The reason we can never come to any sort of consensus on things isn't because we're being too divisive and spelling things differently, but because we are indeed training different systems! A lot of bickering and politics would end if we'd simply acknowledge that, live and let live.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 21, 2014)

LFJ said:


> Same goes with "the Wing Chun system", which no longer exists as one thing, if it ever did. LTWT, WSLVT, TWC, PSWC, etc. are all very different approaches to fighting, even if they share a close common ancestor. So we can't talk about them all as Wing Chun, unless in the broadest sense. The reason we can never come to any sort of consensus on things isn't because we're being too divisive and spelling things differently, but because we are indeed training different systems! A lot of bickering and politics would end if we'd simply acknowledge that, live and let live.



I don't think we disagree here...too much.
WC, when practiced and developed properly is going to become "your WC". If a sifu has 10 students they are not going to all come out looking the same. You should end up with 10 variations of a theme. As time goes on and these 10 people each teach 10 people it further diversifies. But it is still WC.
We just have to be careful about something you said in an earlier post I believe, which is embracing everything and calling it WC.
As diverse as WC can become, there is a point where you've left the reservation


----------



## KPM (Nov 21, 2014)

I think saying Wing Chun is almost like saying Kung Fu. 

--Exactly!  "Kung Fu" is a very broad general term for all martial arts from China.   A little less broad and general but still not entirely specific is the term "Wing Chun."  What's wrong with using that?  "Wing Chun" refers to what is now a rather diverse collection of systems that can be somewhat different but still recognized as belonging to the same grouping.   There is not really a broad general term for all martial arts from Japan.   But I see the term "Karate" as equivalent to the term "Wing Chun."  There are many diverse versions of Karate, but all still recognized as belonging to the same grouping.  They are distinguished by saying "Shotokan" Karate, or "Goju Ryu" Karate, etc.   No one is coming out with clever ways to re-spell the familiar term "Karate."  I haven't seen anyone claiming to do "Kurite" or "Karotay", or "Keraty."  ;-)   Why should "Wing Chun" be any different?


----------



## LFJ (Nov 21, 2014)

Natural evolution is to be expected and it's totally fine if the core principles are intact to still call it the same thing. There are several old-school teachers under WSL who share more or less the same thinking. Each is a tad different of course, but still clearly WSLVT. 

Then there is Wan Kam Leung, who openly and completely overhauled the entire system to where it bears no resemblance to WSLVT. That, I think, cannot be called WSLVT anymore... and it isn't. He calls it "Practical Wing Chun". So again, it's a different system.

It may well be quite practical, but I don't much like the name, kind of like so-called "Traditional Wing Chun". But as long as we just take them as names of specific lineage systems, it's whatever.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 21, 2014)

@KPM

I suppose there's nothing wrong with calling them all "Wing Chun", it is accurate, but it's when people make sweeping statements to characterize "Wing Chun" that I take issue... because more often than not, it doesn't characterize what I do at all!


----------



## geezer (Nov 21, 2014)

LFJ said:


> @KPM
> 
> I suppose there's nothing wrong with calling them all "Wing Chun", it is accurate, but it's *when people make sweeping statements *to characterize "Wing Chun" that I take issue... because more often than not, it doesn't characterize what I do at all!



I agree.  We are each dedicated to our respective lineages and work hard to get things right --from the big things to the small details. Sweeping generalizations don't do justice to any of us.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey (Nov 21, 2014)

yak sao said:


> By using that spelling(or lack of), you are giving the appearance that yours is the only legit way and all others fall short.



I didn't get that impression at all. LFJ is the first person I've seen use it, but I actually thought it was quite clever and inclusive as it retains the letters that all WC spelling variations (that I've seen) have in common without the differences. I wouldn't adopt it myself though as it took me far too long to work out why it was used and wouldn't expect any non-chunners to get it, and it's so much easier to just type WC.

As as an aside to the general theme of different spellings, with reference to to WT I was under the impression that Wing Tsun was Leung Ting's tm, and anything called Wing T_un was an offshoot thereof. Does anyone know if that's correct or just stupid assumptions on my part?


----------



## geezer (Nov 21, 2014)

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> As as an aside to the general theme of different spellings, with reference to to *WT* I was under the impression that Wing Tsun was Leung Ting's tm, and anything called Wing T_un was an offshoot thereof. Does anyone know if that's correct or just stupid assumptions on my part?



Yeah HK, that's pretty much the way I see it, with one notable exception. One of LT's very top guys in the US and the chief administrator of his US organization for many years split away from him over business reasons that lead to a lawsuit. The outcome was some kind of settlement that apparently resulted in him agreeing not to use  the "WT" spelling in any form. He just went back to the classic "VT" spelling as used by his Si-Gung, Yip Man.  Ironic since IMO this guy teaches some of the best "WT" in North America. I know because I train with him. 

Anybody else ever play the WC spelling game? How many ways can you think of to spell WC? I'll start: Wing Chun, Ving Tsun, Ving Chun, Wing Tsun, Wingtsun, Wing Tzun, Wing Tjun, Wing Txun, Wing Tshun, Wing Tchun, Uingchun, Huingchon, Weng Chun, ....everybody Wang Chun tonight?


----------



## KPM (Nov 21, 2014)

Haven't I seen someone put a "j" in it?


----------



## geezer (Nov 21, 2014)

KPM said:


> Haven't I seen someone put a "j" in it?



Yeah. Sifu Sergio: WingTjun.com


----------



## LFJ (Nov 22, 2014)

geezer said:


> Anybody else ever play the WC spelling game? How many ways can you think of to spell WC? I'll start: Wing Chun, Ving Tsun, Ving Chun, Wing Tsun, Wingtsun, Wing Tzun, Wing Tjun, Wing Txun, Wing Tshun, Wing Tchun, Uingchun, Huingchon, Weng Chun, ....everybody Wang Chun tonight?



I'm surprised nobody just uses the Yale or Jyutping romanization systems for Cantonese, which would be like _Wing-cheun_ and _Wing Ceon_ without tone marks.

The standard Yale Romanization is what I always use, minus tone marks, e.g.; _taan-sau_, _jat-sau_, _hyun-sau_, _Siu-nim-tau_... _Wing-cheun-kyun_.


----------



## wtxs (Nov 22, 2014)

geezer said:


> ....everybody Wang Chun tonight?



Showing your age ...  bet you some don't even know it's not MA related.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 23, 2014)

As to spelling, does it really matter? It is marketing. Marketing and stylistic differences. If it works for you great. Force against force is not WC. Structure against structure and attempting to enforce yours against the other is not WC. It is about intercepting and redirecting the force through use of your structure; if you are overpowered then yield and or move your structure. I think diversity is good. It makes me look at situations from different perspectives.
There is no right or wrong just the consequence.


----------



## geezer (Nov 23, 2014)

wtxs said:


> Showing your age ...  bet you some don't even know it's not MA related.



Time for a history lesson: 




Now whre was I? oh yes... Winchun, Yong chun, JKD, ...oh wait, scratch that last one!


----------



## Danny T (Nov 23, 2014)

geezer said:


> Time for a history lesson:



*Wang Chung*: Was an English new wave musical group formed in 1980. Wang Chung - "yellow bell". The song: 'Everybody Have Fun Tonight'.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 28, 2014)

I recently ran into this video;




Clive Potter discussing the relevance of Tia Chi ideas into Ving Tsun. It's a long video but I really enjoyed it.

My first wing chun Sifu said " all MA will look the same at there highest level." He went on to explain that if you do something long enough. That eventually you will do things in the most efficient and direct way possible. A Martial art should always grow.

I believe this. I think most Martial artist do too, outside of WC community. There a stubborn bunch! This is why I distance my self from The cult oops.. I mean community. Even though Wing Chun is the only art I know/ think I know.

This is directed to Geezer/Steve. I think Jeff DTE gets it. That's  why he teaches principles that apply to any MA. He didn't try and sell me eskrima as a system or the only way. He knew I had WC background. So he taught me how to enhance and make thing more direct and effortless in my WC. That's a good teacher who knows what's up. Matter  fact he told me he hates Wing Chun. So I give him credit for even taking me in as a student!

Back to video I think Clive gets it and his VT is at a higher level than most. Allan Orr gets it so on so on. Ok enough nut swinging.


----------

