# An Inclusive Perspective on WC



## geezer (Feb 29, 2020)

I'm starting this thread as a follow up on a comment I made on Ed Cruz's thread about "WC vs. Arm Wrestling". In my comment I reiterated a point I have made numerous times over the years about using a _risk-benefit analysis_ rather than an authoritarian _right vs. wrong_ criterion for evaluating the relative merit of Wing Chun techniques.

When first training in a school, of course you need to respect your instructors and do your best to build a solid foundation based on doing exactly what they teach, exactly as they teach it. But ultimately, as we progress to a more advanced level, we will encounter a variety of different interpretations of the art. Are we to continue to believe that whatever we were taught is the only correct and optimal WC for everybody? Is the _"my sifu sez" _perspective our sole lens through which we forever view the art?

Or does there come a stage when this _authoritarian_ view replaced by a more flexible and inclusive perspective where we can honestly consider many approaches to our art, and examine each using something more akin to a risk-benefit analysis to understand the legitimate value of different methods to different individuals in different contexts? 

Can we separate ourselves from our "politics" and openly and objectively try to judge what works and what doesn't, and maybe even admit it when some of our own ideas may be problematic, or when others also have effective approaches in a given situation? Can we ever admit that the scope of _worthy_ WC/WT/VT is bigger than our own lineage or branch?


----------



## ShortBridge (Feb 29, 2020)

Your question is posted from a student perspective. 

From a teacher's perspective, I expect and require students to learn my way when they come to me. That's what I have to teach, I've tried a lot of things, I've tested most of it. If someone asks to be my student, then they need to trust me and give my approach a chance. If they can't do that, they why chose to learn from me?

But at some point, as their sifu, I release them from that. I encourage them to question what we do and why and consider other perspectives and other approaches. My SiFu was the same way with me. I realize that not everyone is.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 29, 2020)

Beginner / lower intermediate level is about learning structure, center of gravity, elbow positioning, arm positioning, moving the body as a unit while maintaining elbow positioning. From there I believe the practitioner needs to learn to play, be innovative, experimenting, testing, and learning what works for that individual and why it works. One learns what to do and how to do first; then one learns the when and why through the playing. I give my intermediate level the freedom to experiment, to question what works for them and if it doesn't work (yet) why doesn't it work.

I don't believe in it's always done in a specific manner.
Let's take shifting for example: many teach to shift on the heels, some teach shifting on the center, others on the ball. Who's right? I say all are correct. It's a matter of "When" is one correct and the other are not. So those who say only shift on the heels and the center of gravity doesn't move. What happens when the other person has the advantage, they have the line and you can't shift and control it? What do you do? Get Hit or get taken off balance and taken down? No, you shift with a moving of the line to a different angle. In such an instance you must shift different or with a step. You learn to use what is best for you in the moment. A good WC person has both the mental flexibility and physical attributes to adjust as needed and not simply doing because Sifu Says!


----------



## geezer (Feb 29, 2020)

So far, everybody is _on the same page_ here. I also insist that my students learn what I have to teach, as I teach it, but I encourage questions and explain why de do what we do, at least up to their level of understanding. With advanced students, I will go beyond that and encourage broader experimentation and inquiry, and I admit that I don't have all the answers. Some things are learned by experience.

For example, I currently train under the guidance of my _si-dai, _who although _junior _in our lineage hence the title "si-dai" or "younger brother", has more skill and knowledge in our system and curriculum, and has trained with several branches of my lineage, here in the States, in Europe, and in Hong Kong. To his credit, he has a nearly photographic memory for forms, curriculum, and technique and has great natural aptitude.

Yet, in spite of his knowledge and skill, I do certain techniques differently than he teaches, by choice. Some things I still prefer to do as I was first taught them in the 1980s by our mutual sifu, even though since then my si-dai has made changes according to his experiences in the EWTO when in Europe. Other movements I have changed myself as they work best for me.

I typically do _not _discuss these deliberate adaptations with my si-dai/instructor since he is of the old _authoritarian_ mindset and might feel insulted that I do not follow his instruction in every detail. Nor do I discuss the times I have met and worked with WC people from other branches and lineages.

Let me be clear, I _do _value his instruction, and pay well for it. But I after many decades in this art, I have the right ...heck, _the responsibility_ to think for myself, and I encourage my advanced students to do the same. And. unlike my WC instructors, I encourage them to share and discuss their findings with me.


----------



## Danny T (Feb 29, 2020)

Aren't we instructing, then guiding, then mentoring individuals to be individuals? I don't want clones of me or to be a cookie cutter instructor. We aren't slaves to the system or to any particular person or method of doing. Find out what works best for you. I apply many techniques differently than my instructor. He often has have me and other senior students show how we apply the same technique differently or in different situations. "Oh that's good, that's good! Show that again." Other times "uhh...I wouldn't do it that way but I can see why you do it like that."  Now when he is teaching we stay on the system and how he teaches it. But he gives everyone the freedom to experiment and is constantly saying "It's not what I can do. You have to be able to do for yourself. You have to find a way to make it work for you. My way may never work for you. Train to find your way."


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 5, 2020)

Okay.  Risk benefit.  Of what exactly?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Mar 5, 2020)

Admit it, @geezer, you knew I'd eventually weigh in on an interesting thread in the WC forum. 

I do think everyone is posting a very similar view, and I'm not entirely sure why it isn't the most common view I've run into in MA in general, at least in the US that I've seen, and that's mostly in JMA. My theory with JMA is that so many GI's came back during the post-WWII period with a solid foundation, but never having reached the point where their instructor in Japan transitioned to that "think for yourself" level of training. Is there a similar parallel in CMA (particularly in WC) somehow?

As @Danny T said,  I don't want clones. Those I've seen who tried to be clones were, by the nature of the learning process, less than the instructor they imitated. Usually those instructors had made changes to their approach to better fit their body, metal attitudes, and the kinds of students they attracted. Failing to make similar adjustments for themselves and their students, the clones couldn't deliver at the same level. I think it's entirely possible for a student of mine to be better than me at almost any area. Heck, I hope for it. But they won't get there by trying to replicate me.


----------



## Cynik75 (Mar 5, 2020)

There are two main problems with WC:
- practitioners are too focused on structure, techniques etc, and are not focused on the goals
- lack of practical testing

MT, BOXING,BJJ, JUDO, etc are focused on goals and main strategy. For example BJJ goal is: defeat your opponent, strategy is: by submitting him on the ground. HOWEVER YOU LIKE (excluding sport competition rules).  Milions of sparrings and fights let to separate good stuff from the wrong stuff and let to establish right principles, techniques and training methodology. But if somebody creates new technique and proves it's value nobody will tell him "it's not bjj - your left leg is 2 inches to far and right arm is 1 inch too close". If it fis in goals and main strategy that's ok. Rather everone will try adapt those technique into his arsenal or to find good defence/counter. And everyone accepts that different persons can use different tactics and techniques to win. Practice shows which tools are the best in a given strategy.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 5, 2020)

Cynik75 said:


> There are two main problems with WC:
> - practitioners are too focused on structure, techniques etc, and are not focused on the goals
> - lack of practical testing
> 
> MT, BOXING,BJJ, JUDO, etc are focused on goals and main strategy. For example BJJ goal is: defeat your opponent, strategy is: by submitting him on the ground. HOWEVER YOU LIKE (excluding sport competition rules).  Milions of sparrings and fights let to separate good stuff from the wrong stuff and let to establish right principles, techniques and training methodology. But if somebody creates new technique and proves it's value nobody will tell him "it's not bjj - your left leg is 2 inches to far and right arm is 1 inch too close". If it fis in goals and main strategy that's ok. Rather everone will try adapt those technique into his arsenal or to find good defence/counter. And everyone accepts that different persons can use different tactics and techniques to win. Practice shows which tools are the best in a given strategy.



That is a change of what the topic is by the way, just wanted to point that out before the flames begin


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 5, 2020)

Funny how a good Wing Chun discussion can pull be back in for a bit



geezer said:


> I'm starting this thread as a follow up on a comment I made on Ed Cruz's thread about "WC vs. Arm Wrestling". In my comment I reiterated a point I have made numerous times over the years about using a _risk-benefit analysis_ rather than an authoritarian _right vs. wrong_ criterion for evaluating the relative merit of Wing Chun techniques.
> 
> When first training in a school, of course you need to respect your instructors and do your best to build a solid foundation based on doing exactly what they teach, exactly as they teach it. But ultimately, as we progress to a more advanced level, we will encounter a variety of different interpretations of the art. Are we to continue to believe that whatever we were taught is the only correct and optimal WC for everybody? Is the _"my sifu sez" _perspective our sole lens through which we forever view the art?



First train, follow shifu, that is why you are there



geezer said:


> Or does there come a stage when this _authoritarian_ view replaced by a more flexible and inclusive perspective where we can honestly consider many approaches to our art, and examine each using something more akin to a risk-benefit analysis to understand the legitimate value of different methods to different individuals in different contexts?



There should be, but like with so many things, that depends on the indivudual



geezer said:


> I
> Can we separate ourselves from our "politics" and openly and objectively try to judge what works and what doesn't, and maybe even admit it when some of our own ideas may be problematic, or when others also have effective approaches in a given situation? Can we ever admit that the scope of _worthy_ WC/WT/VT is bigger than our own lineage or branch?



Why thems fighten' words 

Again, we should, but some can and some cannot. 

I have trained in 2 slightly different Wing Chun lineages, but only Siu Nim Tau and some Chi Sau. Based purely on the teachers; One, much closer to the Ip Family seemed a little more political, the other a couple generations removed seemed a bit less political. But amongst the less political teachers students, there were some politics


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 5, 2020)

Danny T said:


> Aren't we instructing, then guiding, then mentoring individuals to be individuals? *I don't want clones of me or to be a cookie cutter instructor.* We aren't slaves to the system or to any particular person or method of doing. Find out what works best for you. I apply many techniques differently than my instructor. He often has have me and other senior students show how we apply the same technique differently or in different situations. "Oh that's good, that's good! Show that again." Other times "uhh...I wouldn't do it that way but I can see why you do it like that."  Now when he is teaching we stay on the system and how he teaches it. But he gives everyone the freedom to experiment and is constantly saying "It's not what I can do. You have to be able to do for yourself. You have to find a way to make it work for you. My way may never work for you. Train to find your way."



From the perspective of my Yang Taijiquan Shifu.... "no two people are alike, no two bodies are alike, why would someone be expected to do anything in Taijiquan exactly like someone else. Same can be said to Wing Chun, or any MA for that matter


----------



## Flying Crane (Mar 5, 2020)

Something to remember:  none of this stuff has one single authority, whose rule is law.

And:  there is no single correct, with all else being incorrect.


----------



## geezer (Mar 5, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Something to remember:  none of this stuff has one single authority, whose rule is law.
> 
> And:  there is no single correct, with all else being incorrect.



You are correct.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 5, 2020)

For me I think it depends on what you mean and within what timeframe you are talking. I also see the deficiencies in most of the wing chun that is floating around a bit different to most people judging by various forum comments that I read (mostly on facebook).

For years I would expect a person I teach to do their best to do it exactly as I tell them with none of their own “interpretation” of anything. Once they have it all however, THEN its up to them to do it how it fits them personally.

I see learning and teaching wing chun as a quite detailed and interlocking process in which a person has to go through a number of stages: eg. Foundations (including principles), learn all the components, learn to simply DO all those components (including learning to combine them), learn then how to USE those components (including how to combine them), and this last one is really where I see a lot of sparring being useful.

I see part of this being because of the way wing chun is divided up in the different forms. Unless you know it all, from opening Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma all the way through the knife form, you cant really have an overall picture and understand the context of a lot of it, and if you don’t have adequate foundations to actually drive it all you won’t actually be able to use some (or most) of it. I think without this it can lead to the old “keep what’s good and discard what’s useless” ending up actually meaning “I can’t actually do this stuff, so its useless” where it should actually be “I don’t have the knowledge, understanding or training to actually be able to do this stuff so I should have trained harder and learned better”.

For me until a person has that decent foundation, understanding of the principles, adequate enough training to actually use the stuff and at least enough of an overview of the system as a whole to understand it, they aught to be doing it exactly as I tell them. Once they have all of that, then its up to them to make it their own.


----------



## geezer (Mar 5, 2020)

APL76 said:


> ...For years I would expect a person I teach to do their best to do it exactly as I tell them with none of their own “interpretation” of anything. ... Unless you know it all, from opening Yi Ji Kim Yeung Ma all the way through the knife form, you cant really have an overall picture and understand the context of a lot of it, and if you don’t have adequate foundations to actually drive it all* you won’t actually be able to use some (or most) of it.*  Once they have all of that, then its up to them to make it their own.



How many years of training would you say is typically necessary befor a reasonably dedicated student to reach a level where, as you put it, they can "actually be able to use some (or most) of it"?

...I ask in part because in my lineage, it may take _decades_ to get the entire system. I still haven't learned the entire Bart Cham Dao form, and being of modest resources, may never get it, at least as taught in my lineage! On the other hand, I feel that I can make good use of what I do know ...or I'd have left the system long ago!


----------



## APL76 (Mar 5, 2020)

geezer said:


> How many years of training would you say is typically necessary befor a reasonably dedicated student to reach a level where, as you put it, they can "actually be able to use some (or most) of it"?
> 
> ...I ask in part because in my lineage, it may take _decades_ to get the entire system. I still haven't learned the entire Bart Cham Dao form, and being of modest resources, may never get it, at least as taught in my lineage! On the other hand, I feel that I can make good use of what I do know ...or I'd have left the system long ago!



Always depends on the student of course, however, in the YM style I teach...………...I don't know, maybe, training 3 days a week in class and another day or two at home (and assuming the training is effective)… I think I might be able to start teaching a student the knives by 6 or 7 to maybe 10 years in, I'd lean more to the 10 year mark probably; to have it all completed to a standard that I would call acceptable (in terms of what I have to teach) 10-15 years. It took me about 12 but for much of that I did a heap of Guangzhou style foundation training).

In the Guangzhou style, in which I haven't learned it all myself yet, I think the timeframe is different but what happens with Guangzhou style is that it starts off excruciatingly slow but almost exponentially speeds up once the foundations start setting in. Hard to say without having gotten there myself, and there is an enormous amount of that I haven't learned yet too so currently I do EXACTLY what my Sifu tells me, or at least to the best of my ability. But when one is recovering from long term chronic pain and degenerative spinal disease it tends to put a dent in your training, hopefully I can be a bit more informative in a few years time.

What I have noticed however is something interesting. I start off teaching YM style to my students, and those that show a good amount of dedication, I start teaching Guangzhou style once they have a good amount of the YM style out of the way. They are still learning YM style, but mostly they end up training in mostly Guangzhou style. They go through the YM style about two thirds to three quarters faster once they start doing a lot of Guangzhou style foundation training. This is why I have ended up putting so much emphasis on foundation training in my own school; my Sifu didn't do it unless you were his private student and learning Guangzhou style, I have tried to adapt the same idea for the YM style in the class. This has led to me having to reduce my estimates of how long I should be teaching people at each stage.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 6, 2020)

geezer said:


> How many years of training would you say is typically necessary befor a reasonably dedicated student to reach a level where, as you put it, they can "actually be able to use some (or most) of it"?
> 
> ...I ask in part because in my lineage, it may take _decades_ to get the entire system. I still haven't learned the entire Bart Cham Dao form, and being of modest resources, may never get it, at least as taught in my lineage! On the other hand, I feel that I can make good use of what I do know ...or I'd have left the system long ago!



How would you prevent people putting their own flavor on the art?

Even if you controlled the move list people would still have their favorites.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 6, 2020)

drop bear said:


> How would you prevent people putting their own flavor on the art?
> 
> Even if you controlled the move list people would still have their favorites.



People will naturally do things as their body and intellect can do it. But If I tell them something like "don't try to slip punches, just keep everything in alignment and do [lets say] tan da" I would expect them to do it. It doesn't mean that one can't slip punches, hell, I have watched my sifu duck under a round house kick to the head, so that kinda stuff is all there, it just means that as far as I'm concerned they need to work on more important things at that point in time. 

You can't put your own flavour on the art if you can't even do the art in the first place.


----------



## wckf92 (Mar 6, 2020)

wayfaring said:


> Okay.  Risk benefit.  Of what exactly?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Who are you quoting? Or replying to?


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 6, 2020)

wckf92 said:


> Who are you quoting? Or replying to?



The original post which proposed a risk benefit analysis of I guess Wing Chun.  The fact you are asking this illustrates that this conversation currently kind of has nothing to do with the original post?  I’m still trying to figure out what people are trying to measure.  All I hear is not trying to make cookie cutters of something or other and whether people learned all of the knife form that some say many top masters never learned from Yip Man anyway as a foundation for talking about measuring some intangible thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShortBridge (Mar 6, 2020)

My read of the original question, summerized, is something like this:

Do you tell your students that you have the one source of truth? Do you prevent them from considering other perspectives? Etc...


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 6, 2020)

I tell my students I am one of the sources of truth for them in martial arts not the only source.   Their primary source is to be proving things for themself through testing it and verifying the multiple sources of truth for themselves in whichever way that makes the most sense to them.  I’m not a fight promoter or a tournament organizer.

Geezer,  any other meaning you wanted to highlight from your OP since you’ve been saying it for years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yak sao (Mar 6, 2020)

geezer said:


> I still haven't learned the entire Bart Cham Dao form, and being of modest resources, may never get it, at least as taught in my lineage! On the other hand, I feel that I can make good use of what I do know ...or I'd have left the system long ago!



Come to Ky.....I'm sure we could work something out.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 6, 2020)

wayfaring said:


> The original post which proposed a risk benefit analysis of I guess Wing Chun.  The fact you are asking this illustrates that this conversation currently kind of has nothing to do with the original post?  I’m still trying to figure out what people are trying to measure.  All I hear is not trying to make cookie cutters of something or other and whether people learned all of the knife form that some say many top masters never learned from Yip Man anyway as a foundation for talking about measuring some intangible thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I think the discussion has to this point revolved around answering the risk/benefit question in that people are saying, implicitly if not explicitly, that once someone knows they system to a level of adequacy and proficiency they should be able to make that call themselves. Until they know and understand enough of it people really can’t (to a sliding level of degree) make that call.

And when one is teaching, you can only teach what you learned and of course anyone with any competence should be able to provide good reasons for doing it they way they do and not some other way. One should also have a completish picture and know how each thing integrates with other elements of the art. If a student improvises something in sui lim tao they might inadvertently stuff up something in bui ji they haven’t even come close to learning yet. Doing such improvisation is an enormous risk. Without an adequately wholistic picture of as much of the art as possible one just can’t know all of the risks or all of the benefits in doing a given element of the system one way or another.

The footwork is an example. It takes a lot of training to be able to do wing chun footwork properly. You won’t have even learned all of the elements of a basic step, lets say, cutting a diagonal line on someone, until you know at least the first three forms. Then to make it actually work takes a huge amount of training on top of that; and some of the most useful footwork for perusing a fast retreating opponent is from the knife form. So, what do we encourage students to do? Just do as they are told and train so that one day it will work for them provided they put in the training? Or do we encourage them to improvise and do what works for them? If we do the latter they will decide: “this doesn’t work, the risk is I get punched or kicked. I’ll do it this other way instead, that stops me getting punched or kicked”. Chances are too that whatever way they figure out themselves to do it will have inherent risks or very low benefit compared to risk that they don’t even know about. Is that not all dealing with a risk to benefit ratio?

And as far as top masters never having learned the knife form from Yip Man: I don’t know who learned what from Yip Man but I suspect there are plenty getting around who are top masters for little other reason than that they learned from Yip Man. All of the forms in wing chun are mutually supportive, in both directions, including the knife form. That isn’t to say you can’t have good wing chun without it, all I’m saying is that you can’t have a complete picture and contextualization of everything without it; example, the knife form footwork is great for when someone retreats very fast, better than the stepping from chum kue, if you don’t have the knife form you wouldn’t know that or be able to do it.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 6, 2020)

geezer said:


> How many years of training would you say is typically necessary befor a reasonably dedicated student to reach a level where, as you put it, they can "actually be able to use some (or most) of it"?
> 
> ...I ask in part because in my lineage, it may take _decades_ to get the entire system. I still haven't learned the entire Bart Cham Dao form, and being of modest resources, may never get it, at least as taught in my lineage! On the other hand, I feel that I can make good use of what I do know ...or I'd have left the system long ago!




Just in case anyone suspects I'm trying to say that one can’t have good wing chun, or what they have learned won’t be useful, I want to add: I’m not saying that. What I’m trying to get at is that unless a student has an adequately large enough picture of the art and see how enough of it is interlocking, and why, they won’t be able to have a full appreciation of the risks v benefits of doing any given thing in the particular way they are shown. Obviously the more one learns the more complete that picture gets; but given that it is integrated right through from opening the stance to the knife form, unless you have that there will be gaps. The footwork for pursuit being a good example.

Conversely, if one has good foundations, understands how to use what they have, and has trained hard, they can be very good. The best example I can give of that is my first student. When my sifu “retired” (so finished up with his wing chun school and took a hiatus from teaching for a while) one of his other students asked me to take him as a private student. That was in 2008/9. I started teaching him Guangzhou wing chun in about 2009/10 once I received permission to teach it from my sifu. To this day that student still hasn’t learned past about half way through the Guangzhou style sui lim tao. But, the guy is a weapon because the only time he doesn’t train is when he is asleep (wheeeeeelll not quite, but he does train a LOT), has extremely good foundations, and very good sup yi sik and knows how to use it. Yet, every time we go to my Sifu’s house and learn from him (at least once a week) we are blown away by how much we DON’T know about stuff we both have been able to do for years. When I’m confronted by that depth of knowledge and understanding, I sure as hell do EXACTLY as I’m told because to go improvising and trying to do “what works for me” without having a complete picture is simply too much of a risk.


----------



## geezer (Mar 7, 2020)

APL76 said:


> Just in case anyone suspects I'm trying to say that one can’t have good wing chun, or what they have learned won’t be useful, I want to add: I’m not saying that...



I've long felt that we need another button at the bottom for _"Thanks for a thoughtful and well written reply"._ This forum needs more quality input like this.


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 7, 2020)

APL76 said:


> I think the discussion has to this point revolved around answering the risk/benefit question in that people are saying, implicitly if not explicitly, that once someone knows they system to a level of adequacy and proficiency they should be able to make that call themselves. Until they know and understand enough of it people really can’t (to a sliding level of degree) make that call.
> 
> And when one is teaching, you can only teach what you learned and of course anyone with any competence should be able to provide good reasons for doing it they way they do and not some other way. One should also have a completish picture and know how each thing integrates with other elements of the art. If a student improvises something in sui lim tao they might inadvertently stuff up something in bui ji they haven’t even come close to learning yet. Doing such improvisation is an enormous risk. Without an adequately wholistic picture of as much of the art as possible one just can’t know all of the risks or all of the benefits in doing a given element of the system one way or another.
> 
> ...



This is a fairly long response that basically says we don’t know what we are measuring from a risk/benefit perspective but if you have “enough” then you can subjectively decide for yourself what is good or not?

Are you not kind of highlighting the general problem with wing chun?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 7, 2020)

Ok so to address footwork for example.  You say in HK wt you need all 3 open hand forms plus the knife form to deal with a retreating opponent and make it effective.  In our lineage I feel we handle this in the first footwork taught.  Bun yut ma and Leung yi ma.  Our front and side footwork in HFY.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 7, 2020)

Students coming up testing things out is a little different than universal objective measurement.  Or risk / benefit analysis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 7, 2020)

Completish?

Is this a wing chun specific term?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 7, 2020)

APL76 what is Guangzhou version of SLT?  

Is this some special mainland lineage version you learned from someone to augment HK wt training?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## APL76 (Mar 8, 2020)

wayfaring said:


> This is a fairly long response that basically says we don’t know what we are measuring from a risk/benefit perspective but if you have “enough” then you can subjectively decide for yourself what is good or not?
> 
> Are you not kind of highlighting the general problem with wing chun?
> 
> ...





wayfaring said:


> APL76 what is Guangzhou version of SLT?
> 
> Is this some special mainland lineage version you learned from someone to augment HK wt training?
> 
> ...



Ok. I’ll deal with all of it in one post.

Risk/benefit. Essentially certain structures work relatively easily others don’t work as effectively. When people learn correct structure, it won’t work until they have practiced it for a while; however, in some instances using the incorrect structure works easily at first but is not as good as the correct structure in the long run. Example: Tan sao to block an incoming punch circling in towards about jaw level. To do the tan sao takes a fair amount of practice and at first it is really hard to get it to work. However, if one uses the outwards sweeping technique from chum kue (It comes right after the three turns in the beginning, I don’t know what it’s called) it works more easily than tan sao at first and will work pretty much straight away provided you aren’t facing a really hard punch. However, when someone hits really hard, that technique will buckle and possibly hurt the shoulder whereas tan sao won’t once its trained enough. The difference is the structure. Once students have trained enough, they can make their own assessment of the risks and benefits and judge what works and where. So no, it isn’t a long post without really knowing what we are measuring. We are measuring where things work and where they don’t. Before one has put in the training and has the knowledge to really know, the won’t have an overall enough picture to have a good judgment of what works and what doesn’t and under what conditions.

Completish= as far as I know it isn’t a wing chun term, I thought it was simply something I typed. I would say its when you have a reasonably complete picture of wing chun as a whole, not “complete” (in terms of knowing the entirety of the forms and accompanying material) but pretty close. I’d say generally knowing the first three forms and most of the way through the dummy form, if not all of it, is completish. One knows most of it but not all = completish.

Guangzhou version of Sui Lim Tao = My Sifu learned Yip Man wing chun from Yip Chun but later became a disciple of Sum Nung and learned Guangzhou wing chun from him. We refer to them as Hong Kong wing chun and Guangzhou wing chun respectively as those are the places my Sifu learned them (he is a native of Hong Kong). Others call Guangzhou wing chun Yuen Kay San style or sometimes Sum Nung style. It is not some Mainland thing to augment Yip Man wing chun, it is an entirely different style of wing chun from beginning to end. Totally different in every way other than in general overview. It tends to be much more difficult than the Yip Man stuff. My sifu taught them as totally separate things, and I follow his example and also teach them separately.


----------



## APL76 (Mar 8, 2020)

wayfaring said:


> Ok so to address footwork for example.  You say in HK wt you need all 3 open hand forms plus the knife form to deal with a retreating opponent and make it effective.  In our lineage I feel we handle this in the first footwork taught.  Bun yut ma and Leung yi ma.  Our front and side footwork in HFY.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Sure, I can see how that might be the case. In the Guangzhou style of wing chun you also learn to deal with it in the sup yi sik (training drill you do before the forms) so fairly early on. That is not to say however you can get a complete picture of the system as a whole without learning all of it however.


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 8, 2020)

APL76 said:


> Ok. I’ll deal with all of it in one post.
> 
> Risk/benefit. Essentially certain structures work relatively easily others don’t work as effectively. When people learn correct structure, it won’t work until they have practiced it for a while; however, in some instances using the incorrect structure works easily at first but is not as good as the correct structure in the long run. Example: Tan sao to block an incoming punch circling in towards about jaw level. To do the tan sao takes a fair amount of practice and at first it is really hard to get it to work. However, if one uses the outwards sweeping technique from chum kue (It comes right after the three turns in the beginning, I don’t know what it’s called) it works more easily than tan sao at first and will work pretty much straight away provided you aren’t facing a really hard punch. However, when someone hits really hard, that technique will buckle and possibly hurt the shoulder whereas tan sao won’t once its trained enough. The difference is the structure. Once students have trained enough, they can make their own assessment of the risks and benefits and judge what works and where. So no, it isn’t a long post without really knowing what we are measuring. We are measuring where things work and where they don’t. Before one has put in the training and has the knowledge to really know, the won’t have an overall enough picture to have a good judgment of what works and what doesn’t and under what conditions.
> 
> ...



So to relate to your background more, HFY origins are southern mainland which I don’t know if are more like your YKS.  I don’t think so.  The Pin San stuff I’ve seen is quite different.  

I’m writing on a phone so posts will be more piecemeal.  

On your risk / benefit analysis on the collapsing tan sao.  We utilize 3 tan sao depending on energy and range.  For a hook punch or rounded punch biu da is more effective and efficient from any risk / benefit analysis I can use.

On specific HK form references I can kind of relate as my first sifu was Moy Yat lineage before we all switched over to HFY.  So I learned all the HK open hand forms but I don’t currently practice them only HFY forms.  I watched Yip Man chum kiu and after the initial 3 turns it looks like double biu to double tan.  Is that what you are speaking of?

As to completish our progression is different so I don’t think it is apples to apples comparison there.  Our SNT is so long and involved with supporting drills and concepts that I feel most would call completish after getting through all that.  It has threads of supporting training including an intro dummy form, kiu sau, chi kiu, chi sau progressions, skill challenges, and other kinds of drills.  I think the depth is why most of us switched over and stuck with it.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wayfaring (Mar 12, 2020)

Also in discussion is structure.  That seems to be a common topic thread.  Our structure is taught, developed, and built from the Hung Fa Yi formula, which is a series of six introductory concepts, measurements, and physical movements with correct form.  Over time these develop the 10 bright points, or sup ming dim in the student where the body seeks natural wing chun alignment in knee hip elbow.  This to me has been most beneficial.  This carries over into checkpoints in our SNT for structure.

Other lineages build structure in different ways with drills exercises concepts.

How does yours?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## geezer (Mar 12, 2020)

wayfaring said:


> Also in discussion is structure.  That seems to be a common topic thread.  Our structure is taught, developed, and built from the Hung Fa Yi formula, which is a series of six introductory concepts, measurements, and physical movements with correct form.  Over time these develop the 10 bright points, or sup ming dim in the student where the body seeks natural wing chun alignment in knee hip elbow.  This to me has been most beneficial.  This carries over into checkpoints in our SNT for structure.
> 
> Other lineages build structure in different ways with drills exercises concepts.
> How does yours?



Sounds like a good topic for a new thread. I'm just getting organized to start the day here at work. I will have a free moment in a few hours ...maybe I can get back to this then.


----------



## Buka (Mar 13, 2020)

Danny T said:


> Aren't we instructing, then guiding, then mentoring individuals to be individuals? I don't want clones of me or to be a cookie cutter instructor. We aren't slaves to the system or to any particular person or method of doing. Find out what works best for you. I apply many techniques differently than my instructor. He often has have me and other senior students show how we apply the same technique differently or in different situations. "Oh that's good, that's good! Show that again." Other times "uhh...I wouldn't do it that way but I can see why you do it like that."  Now when he is teaching we stay on the system and how he teaches it. But he gives everyone the freedom to experiment and is constantly saying "It's not what I can do. You have to be able to do for yourself. You have to find a way to make it work for you. My way may never work for you. Train to find your way."





Xue Sheng said:


> From the perspective of my Yang Taijiquan Shifu.... "no two people are alike, no two bodies are alike, why would someone be expected to do anything in Taijiquan exactly like someone else. Same can be said to Wing Chun, or any MA for that matter



Gospel.


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 3, 2020)

Yip Man knowledge still resides in lineage like Yuen Kay San. So it's definetely still alive. But bad teachers turn into good sellsman. . Not "knowledge" meaning secrets or just ideas which can be passed as original or 'trade secret', but something like techniques from original red opera era. It's a lack of willing to share NOT lack of clueless teachers.  .


----------



## APL76 (Aug 3, 2020)

Yip Man knowledge still resides in lineage like Yuen Kay San. 

Them's fightin words for some people!!!

While it might rise the ire of some Yip Man people, knowing both Yip Man and Yuen Kay San wing chun, in my opinion, Yuen Kay San probably had a wealth of knowledge Yip Man could only dream of. If Yip Man ever knew it I am not convinced he really passed it on, particularly during his Hong Kong period.


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 3, 2020)

APL76 said:


> Yip Man knowledge still resides in lineage like Yuen Kay San.
> 
> Them's fightin words for some people!!!
> 
> While it might rise the ire of some Yip Man people, knowing both Yip Man and Yuen Kay San wing chun, in my opinion, Yuen Kay San probably had a wealth of knowledge Yip Man could only dream of. If Yip Man ever knew it I am not convinced he really passed it on, particularly during his Hong Kong period.



This is true


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 4, 2020)

Also, why no dart form in Yip Man wc ?


----------



## APL76 (Aug 4, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> Also, why no dart form in Yip Man wc ?



To be fair the darts are most likely something passed on to Yuen Kay San by Fung Sui Ching and possibly peculiar to him (among wing chun people at least). Yuen Kay San taught Sum Nung the darts, however he gave up practicing them and decided that the time spent to get good at them would be better spent refining his punches. Sum Nung told my sifu about them but didn't teach him how to do them. Darts are, most likely, a lost art now, unless Sum Nung passed them on to another of his disciples, which I doubt.


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 4, 2020)

APL76 said:


> To be fair the darts are most likely something passed on to Yuen Kay San by Fung Sui Ching and possibly peculiar to him (among wing chun people at least). Yuen Kay San taught Sum Nung the darts, however he gave up practicing them and decided that the time spent to get good at them would be better spent refining his punches. Sum Nung told my sifu about them but didn't teach him how to do them. Darts are, most likely, a lost art now, unless Sum Nung passed them on to another of his disciples, which I doubt.




Dart form


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 4, 2020)

APL76 said:


> To be fair the darts are most likely something passed on to Yuen Kay San by Fung Sui Ching and possibly peculiar to him (among wing chun people at least). Yuen Kay San taught Sum Nung the darts, however he gave up practicing them and decided that the time spent to get good at them would be better spent refining his punches. Sum Nung told my sifu about them but didn't teach him how to do them. Darts are, most likely, a lost art now, unless Sum Nung passed them on to another of his disciples, which I doubt.




How do you know Sum Nung "knows" about the darts if you say yourself he didn't pass it on to anyone. You said yourself he gave up. There fore he doesn't know the form. (Sum Nung) not YKS. You can't know how to throw darts (or whatever) if you didn't practice it or gave it up. Lost art only happen if nobody knows at that time.


----------



## APL76 (Aug 4, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> How do you know Sum Nung "knows" about the darts if you say yourself he didn't pass it on to anyone. You said yourself he gave up. There fore he doesn't know the form. (Sum Nung) not YKS. You can't know how to throw darts (or whatever) if you didn't practice it or gave it up. Lost art only happen if nobody knows at that time.



He did practice them, he learned it from Yuen Kay San, he spent quite some amount of time working at it. He knew the ins and outs of how to throw the darts (told my Sifu that everything you need to train at in order to have the foundation to throw them is contained in Sui Lim Tao) however decided that he would have to spend a large amount of his time training at them to get really good at them and figured that that time would be better spent improving something he was much more likely to use fairly often (which he did) his punches. 

He described to my Sifu how they work, and told him about training at them, and how he saw Yuen Kay San actually use them. He didn't however actually teach the technique to my Sifu. So unless he passed the actual technique and training on to another of his disciples the knowledge died with Sum Nung.


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 4, 2020)

APL76 said:


> He did practice them, he learned it from Yuen Kay San, he spent quite some amount of time working at it. He knew the ins and outs of how to throw the darts (told my Sifu that everything you need to train at in order to have the foundation to throw them is contained in Sui Lim Tao) however decided that he would have to spend a large amount of his time training at them to get really good at them and figured that that time would be better spent improving something he was much more likely to use fairly often (which he did) his punches.
> 
> He described to my Sifu how they work, and told him about training at them, and how he saw Yuen Kay San actually use them. He didn't however actually teach the technique to my Sifu. So unless he passed the actual technique and training on to another of his disciples the knowledge died with Sum Nung.



It did not die with Sum Nung. Your so inconsistent who is your Sifu anyway? 
Look what you are saying man

"He described to my Sifu how they work, and told him about training at them," 

"He didn't however actually teach the technique to my Sifu."


Is this guy serious? 

Loser lol


----------



## isshinryuronin (Aug 4, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> It did not die with Sum Nung. Your so inconsistent who is your Sifu anyway?
> Look what you are saying man
> 
> "He described to my Sifu how they work, and told him about training at them,"
> ...


There is nothing contradictory here!!  Describing and telling about something does NOT equate teaching it.  Take that chip off your shoulder.


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 4, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> It did not die with Sum Nung. Your so inconsistent who is your Sifu anyway?
> Look what you are saying man
> 
> "He described to my Sifu how they work, and told him about training at them,"
> ...



Who is your sifu?


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 4, 2020)

isshinryuronin said:


> There is nothing contradictory here!!  Describing and telling about something does NOT equate teaching it.  Take that chip off your shoulder.




Are you dumb or blind? You don't know what teach means?

teach
/tiːtʃ/
Learn to pronounce

_verb_

1.
impart knowledge to or instruct (someone) as to how to do something.

So did he? Or did he not? If he did not, then how can you say he knows the dart form? Hahahaha. Your information is only he-say she-say at most. And not satisfying or concrete. But you said already he didn't. How confused are you?

Btw proof of learning the dart form. There is no dart form. Its a culmination of sum bai fat and other hand techniques. I guess you don't know that. 

And yes, I do mean with a dart or 'flying' object/weapon. I guess you really do know nothing.


----------



## APL76 (Aug 4, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> It did not die with Sum Nung. Your so inconsistent who is your Sifu anyway?
> Look what you are saying man
> 
> "He described to my Sifu how they work, and told him about training at them,"
> ...



OK. If you and I sit at the dinner table with you drinking cognac, which Sum Nung loved to do by the way, and I tell you when you do a kick you kick from your front leg, if you are in gok ma, and sweep the foot in a semi circle back and up to your supporting knee, then as your foot comes past your knee you cross the centreline and then twist the kick forwards and into the centreline until you reach full extension with the toes pointed out to the side and the strike of the kick focused on your heel. 

Now, did I just tell you all about how to do the kick or did I just teach you the kick? 

I suspect I just told you all about how to do the kick without actually teaching you the kick because I guarantee you won't ever be able to actually do the kick based on what I just told you. 
So, yes indeed one can tell someone all about how things work without actually teaching them to people. Just look at half the wing chun floating around the world today, I suspect it looks like it does because too many people can't tell the difference between being told something and actually being taught/learning something. If you can't tell the difference maybe you should toddle off and re-evaluate what you think you know rather than cast aspersions on others. 

As for who my Sifu is. Well, its easy enough to find out, I don't go bandying his name about the internet because for all intents and purposes he is "retired" and he has always shunned publicity of any type anyway. But you could find out easy enough. Hell, if you were anyone involved in Yuen Kay San/Sum Nung wing chun you would already know who he is, if you pay attention to reading Renee Richie's book you would know who he is. If you had a copy of the recent publication coming out of the Guangzhou wing chun association you would see a full page article on who he is, Sh#&, if you had a copy of that you'd even see pictures of little old me in it.  

And if the darts didn't die with Sum Nung, which I have always maintained that I suspect they had as I am not convinced he passed them on to any others (i.e. I have not made a definitive statement that they were never been passed on but taken pains to point out that it is merely my belief and opinion), show me someone doing wing chun today who can to them.


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 5, 2020)

I feel you are trying to persuade me too much. 

Please check your understanding of what teach and explaining means then I wonder which web-page you are going to copy and paste next from.


----------



## hunschuld (Aug 5, 2020)

Everyone who claims that some mainland wing chun is better than Yip Man or some Sifu knew more than Yip man and relies on books written in the 1990's or later always skip or never mention that there was on person that knew them all. Yip Man ,YKS,Sum Nung, Yui Choi etc. All the supposed deep research always conveniently leave this person out of their research.
I was fortunate that my first teacher was a student of both Moy Yat and Jui Wan. Jui Wan's school is the only school that Yip Man publicly endorsed and while Yip Bo Ching was Yip mans top student Jui Wan was both a friend and a peer and they trained together in Fatshan. Jui Wan said to his son and other close students that when in Fatshan Yip's wing chun was like everyone else's. They all trained and spent time together  with NG Chun So. YKS Yu Choi Yip Man Jui Wan's uncle etc. Jui Wan would know since he was there and knew what everyone did. He said that after he came to Hong Kong and met up with YM Yips wing chun was different and being friends Yip told him where he learned the different things and he taught it to Jui Wan.

The fact that Yip man taught differently and streamlined things does not mean he did not know them and did not teach them to some. Yip taught 18 san sik but you find very very few students that know it. He taught 2 types of Chi Sao yet you only see one type practiced. He taught Yip Bo Ching the 12 section knife form since he was the knife man. Everyone else got 8 sections or less and some got different sections and different footwork.. Yip needed to support himself through teaching so he taught some short cuts so people could fight early on in their training and he held things back and only par celled some things out to those that could pay.


----------



## APL76 (Aug 5, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> I feel you are trying to persuade me too much.
> 
> Please check your understanding of what teach and explaining means then I wonder which web-page you are going to copy and paste next from.


Hang on. Are you accusing me of copying and pasting that from a web page? I didn't, but if so, whatever makes you feel good about yourself, makes no difference to me. I have tried to interact with you civilly and in good faith, if you can't do the same, that's your problem not mine.


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 5, 2020)

hunschuld said:


> Everyone who claims that some mainland wing chun is better than Yip Man or some Sifu knew more than Yip man and relies on books written in the 1990's or later always skip or never mention that there was on person that knew them all. Yip Man ,YKS,Sum Nung, Yui Choi etc. All the supposed deep research always conveniently leave this person out of their research.
> I was fortunate that my first teacher was a student of both Moy Yat and Jui Wan. Jui Wan's school is the only school that Yip Man publicly endorsed and while Yip Bo Ching was Yip mans top student Jui Wan was both a friend and a peer and they trained together in Fatshan. Jui Wan said to his son and other close students that when in Fatshan Yip's wing chun was like everyone else's. They all trained and spent time together  with NG Chun So. YKS Yu Choi Yip Man Jui Wan's uncle etc. Jui Wan would know since he was there and knew what everyone did. He said that after he came to Hong Kong and met up with YM Yips wing chun was different and being friends Yip told him where he learned the different things and he taught it to Jui Wan.
> 
> The fact that Yip man taught differently and streamlined things does not mean he did not know them and did not teach them to some. Yip taught 18 san sik but you find very very few students that know it. He taught 2 types of Chi Sao yet you only see one type practiced. He taught Yip Bo Ching the 12 section knife form since he was the knife man. Everyone else got 8 sections or less and some got different sections and different footwork.. Yip needed to support himself through teaching so he taught some short cuts so people could fight early on in their training and he held things back and only par celled some things out to those that could pay.



Yes but as knowledge increases the will to show hidden meaning to people even students decreases.


For example, "I.P M.A.N"


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 5, 2020)

hunschuld said:


> Yip taught 18 san sik but you find very very few students that know it.



That is interesting. And I'd heard this before. Do you know what the 18 san sik were or are? I was trained primarily in the san sik way so I'm curious to know what his 18 were. 



hunschuld said:


> He taught 2 types of Chi Sao yet you only see one type practiced.



Wow! I've NEVER heard of this. Do you know what two "types" he taught?



hunschuld said:


> He taught Yip Bo Ching the 12 section knife form since he was the knife man.



Hmmm...wonder if Yip Bo Ching passed the 12 down to future generations?


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 5, 2020)

Wing Chun will thrive as long as people practice wc, but skill is not a factor, only to high-ups as people progress


----------



## hunschuld (Aug 5, 2020)

wckf92 said:


> That is interesting. And I'd heard this before. Do you know what the 18 san sik were or are? I was trained primarily in the san sik way so I'm curious to know what his 18 were.
> 
> For the exact names I would have to go search through my notebooks. Most everything comes out in other training. However the kneeling horse is notable in being a san sik but very few of his students have it in any form. Probably because as you get older it can be a pain in the knees,hip and back to perform so Ip probably stopped doing it.
> 
> ...


Yes and no. Yip Bo Ching died young, about 38 -40  I think in the late 60's. He taught about 6 people that were his friends. he did not charge or have a school . Ip Man told him that he needed to teach to round out his knowledge so that's why he did it. he was very wealthy and came from a wealthy family. While involved in some business negotiations in the late 90's early 2000's it turned out that one of the people I was working with was an old friend of YPC and had learned from him.  When we found we both shared the same hobby and both had 12 section knife forms we swapped forms. The forms we very similar even though mine came from Lo Kwai . Our discussions gave me a lot of insight into what IP Man taught since YPC was with Ip Man from 1952 until his death and was the first to learn the dummy,pole and knives.. We also swapped other things like the San Sik.

I have no doubt other people know Yip Bo Chings wing chun however I doubt any of them ever taught publicly or for money and I think most are dead now.
I was told that after YPC died Ip Man taught WSL some additional knife sections or methods and that he asked WSL to pass these on to his son's but I don't think he ever did. WSL did not care for IP Chun at all. I have seen a couple of different knife forms from WSL students but I have no idea about what WSL really taught and to whom just gathered  a lot of interesting stories in my travels


----------



## wckf92 (Aug 5, 2020)

hunschuld said:


> Yes and no. Yip Bo Ching died young, about 38 -40  I think in the late 60's. He taught about 6 people that were his friends. he did not charge or have a school . Ip Man told him that he needed to teach to round out his knowledge so that's why he did it. he was very wealthy and came from a wealthy family. While involved in some business negotiations in the late 90's early 2000's it turned out that one of the people I was working with was an old friend of YPC and had learned from him.  When we found we both shared the same hobby and both had 12 section knife forms we swapped forms. The forms we very similar even though mine came from Lo Kwai . Our discussions gave me a lot of insight into what IP Man taught since YPC was with Ip Man from 1952 until his death and was the first to learn the dummy,pole and knives.. We also swapped other things like the San Sik.
> 
> I have no doubt other people know Yip Bo Chings wing chun however I doubt any of them ever taught publicly or for money and I think most are dead now.
> I was told that after YPC died Ip Man taught WSL some additional knife sections or methods and that he asked WSL to pass these on to his son's but I don't think he ever did. WSL did not care for IP Chun at all. I have seen a couple of different knife forms from WSL students but I have no idea about what WSL really taught and to whom just gathered  a lot of interesting stories in my travels



Thanks!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 5, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> For example, "I.P M.A.N"



for example, its not actually Ip Man.... it is actually 葉問.....Ip Man is a westernization of the Chinese characters......also written, in the west as Yip Man


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Aug 5, 2020)

葉問 Yeh Wen or Ye Wen


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 5, 2020)

Xue Sheng said:


> for example, its not actually Ip Man.... it is actually 葉問.....Ip Man is a westernization of the Chinese characters......also written, in the west as Yip Man




wow. obviously?


----------



## Buka (Aug 5, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> Are you dumb or blind? You don't know what teach means?
> 
> teach
> /tiːtʃ/
> ...


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 5, 2020)

FinalStreet said:


> wow. obviously?


Don’t be that guy.  Seriously.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 5, 2020)

Flying Crane said:


> Don’t be that guy.  Seriously.



to late


----------



## Flying Crane (Aug 5, 2020)

Xue Sheng said:


> to late


Yeah, he is that guy.


----------



## FinalStreet (Aug 6, 2020)

Jealousy is a b itch right? .


----------

