# Ip Man wing chun- some thoughts



## Vajramusti (Sep 1, 2015)

Wing chun has spread IMO much too unevenly.Although Ip Man remains the central figure in the rise of wing chun-the movies are just movies.

The important thing in Ip Man's wing chun are the interlinked concepts that are not easy to learn properly
enough to be deeply embedded in one's movements.

The concepts are not techniques in themselves and the frequent lack of distinction between developmental training and application makes for a lot of confusion.

I don't want to go on and on-just touching on a classical point of view.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 1, 2015)

Good points.
It's funny how we all drink our own particular brand of cool-aid. Haha
If these forums have taught me anything... it's that there are MANY branches and lineages of Wing Chun, Weng Chun, VT, WT, etc etc and that we all think our concepts and their interpretations are the one and true.... blah blah blah...
On another point... you stated "the rise" of wing Chun. While this may be true on a cultural level...IMHO the overall art has and/or is diminishing through each generation. The farther we get away from the Yip Man's; Yuen Kay San's; etc the more of the systems' "details" are lost over time.
Oh well, perhaps it is to be expected...


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 1, 2015)

One thing is for certain.... even amongst first gen students of Yip Man.... there are A LOT of interpretations of the combative aspects of WC. Some good.... some not.


----------



## geezer (Sep 1, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> Wing chun has spread IMO much too unevenly...



I agree, Joy. Even what I consider "high quality" WC from the Yip Man lineage has diverged widely. For example, I consider your WC, and certainly Master Augustine Fong's WC  to be high quality, and I equally respect what I've seen of some of the WSL branch, the TST branch, and of course my old Sifu's branch, as well as other branches. The best representatives of each these branches are indisputably skilled, yet they have interpreted core concepts very differently.



Vajramusti said:


> The important thing in Ip Man's wing chun are the interlinked concepts that are not easy to learn properly enough to be deeply embedded in one's movements.



Again I agree, although as I noted above some of the concepts are interpreted and applied very differently. This is expressed in such fundamentally basic things as  the stance structure, stance-turning, and steps, as well as the energy and feel of the "seed" techniques: tan, bong, and fook. Unfortunately, the prevailing "I'm right and you're wrong" attitudes encountered everywhere, _even on this forum,_ stifle any meaningful discussion that might uncover some common ground.



wckf92 said:


> ...If these forums have taught me anything... it's that there are MANY branches and lineages of Wing Chun, Weng Chun, VT, WT, etc etc and that we all think our concepts and their interpretations are the one and true.... blah blah blah...



Ain"t it the truth.



wckf92 said:


> ...IMHO the overall art has and/or is diminishing through each generation. The farther we get away from the Yip Man's; Yuen Kay San's; etc the more of the systems' *"details" are lost over time*...



I don't really think that is the problem. The important stuff in WC isn't about details and arcana, it's being able to understand and express the essence... the structures, movement and energy in a spontaneous  and efficacious manner. If the core concepts are well understood, the _details will emerge_.



wckf92 said:


> One thing is for certain.... even amongst first gen students of Yip Man.... there are A LOT of interpretations of the combative aspects of WC. Some good.... some not.



_This,_ more than anything, is the downfall of WC. With no venue for testing what we do, or at least what the best representatives of each branch can do, everything ... the good, the bad, the practical and the fantasy stuff, _all becomes equal_... a mere opinion to argue over.

If we could test our art, perhaps we would have a more objective way to evaluate what works. And I suspect that we would find valuable, workable approaches within many of our divergent branches.


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

geezer said:


> With no venue for testing what we do, or at least what the best representatives of each branch can do, everything ... the good, the bad, the practical and the fantasy stuff, _all becomes equal_... a mere opinion to argue over.
> 
> If we could test our art, perhaps we would have a more objective way to evaluate what works. And I suspect that we would find valuable, workable approaches within many of our divergent branches.



I don't follow you here. There are plenty of venues for testing what we do. How could there not be? It's a martial art like any other. Why can't you test it?

Some do, some don't. Most actually avoid it.


----------



## Phobius (Sep 2, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I don't follow you here. There are plenty of venues for testing what we do. How could there not be? It's a martial art like any other. Why can't you test it?
> 
> Some do, some don't. Most actually avoid it.



You can test your own skill but you cant compare with other martial arts or styles. Since you can not find two or more identical persons to study styles until they are considered masters on equal terms and then fight it out, simply because they are never the same and their experience and body type will put them apart.

  Since you can validate your own skill, this in no way rules out that other styles dont work just as well. There is no supreme style and if we want to be as close to Ip Man as possible we should not study what he taught but rather follow his masters teaching. 

And then comes the problem, they would not teach us same way they taught Ip Man so even then we would be different.

Most styles I believe to be equal, just personalized.


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

I remember someone on another forum telling how they had people put headgear on and face a line up of people throwing serious round punches at them and they needed to use _taan-da_ as the defense. It failed each time, for each person.

Then we have literally hundreds of people from certain not-to-be-named lineages who reached high ranks and honestly felt they were pretty skilled with what they had been taught... within _chi-sau_ / _gwo-sau_ practice with other classmates. But they found when they went to free sparring, suddenly none of the techniques worked anymore.

These examples make it pretty clear that certain ideas don't work, especially because there are no counterexamples that they do work. But there are still people who avoid heavy free sparring and believe in their techniques that work in drills and imagine they'll be able to use them for real.



> And then comes the problem, they would not teach us same way they taught Ip Man so even then we would be different.



What makes you believe they would teach differently? What makes you think YM taught differently? Why could it not be that YM taught in the same way and people either got it or didn't depending on their own intelligence and natural ability? I think this is an excuse some people use to justify why there are so many variations of "Yip Man Wing Chun". I think many people just didn't learn the whole system properly, or at all.

The only thing I see about YM having taught differently, is that his approach to fighting evolved over the years and therefore his training system, but I highly doubt he would preserve less effective methods and teach them separately to different people. That would be terribly difficult to do. A major shift in thinking really alters your fighting behaviors that would be difficult to revert. It would be even more difficult to maintain many contradictory ideas and teach them as different systems. But people will believe all kinds of things.


----------



## Phobius (Sep 2, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I remember someone on another forum telling how they had people put headgear on and face a line up of people throwing serious round punches at them and they needed to use _taan-da_ as the defense. It failed each time, for each person.



This is so sad, things like this show something that worries me a bit. WC is about concepts and not techniques. Also the mentioned event is like asking people to defend against incoming kicks their head by knocking down their opponents using mind or kinetic ability only (or Qi if you like).

What we need to make sure here though is never to say our own style is the one true style that teaches people how to fight, all other styles fail. That marketing bull is saddening. Something I find funny however are the styles that say "we removed this technique from our repertoire and now our style finally works in fighting in difference to all others", as if a fighting martial artist wont learn through experience when something does not work for him and remove it despite what he/her was taught.



LFJ said:


> The only thing I see about YM having taught differently, is that his approach to fighting evolved over the years and therefore his training system, but I highly doubt he would preserve less effective methods and teach them separately to different people. That would be terribly difficult to do. A major shift in thinking really alters your fighting behaviors that would be difficult to revert. It would be even more difficult to maintain many contradictory ideas and teach them as different systems. But people will believe all kinds of things.



I think this should be obvious to any martial artist. If two people attend the same training and do the same practises and techniques, they will both pick up different things simply because he/she keeps what works more than what doesnt. People pick up the purpose of training differently and also has different goals and interests.

A good teacher always try to adapt his teaching to the mentality of his class and students. As soon as you get set in a locked pattern the teaching normally seem to degrade. This goes for regular education, I find no point in thinking same does not apply in this matter.

Besides, you should always make sure your teacher/sifu is interested in evolving. If he/her gets stuck in their own path then what possibility will you have to validate what you are being taught? After all you learn nothing else.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 2, 2015)

geezer said:


> The important stuff in WC isn't about details and arcana, it's being able to understand and express the essence... the structures, movement and energy in a spontaneous  and efficacious manner. If the core concepts are well understood, the _details will emerge_.



Ok, gotta agree with you there...essence is a much better word.  
However isn't the problem still there? The issue of defining, learning, interpreting and expressing what one perceives to be the 'essence' of Wing Chun?


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

Phobius said:


> WC is about concepts and not techniques.



Yeaaah, people say this all the time, but it seems to me they confuse concepts with principles, and then techniques from the forms become their theoretical fighting tactics. So they say they are concept based, but still use techniques in 1:1 application ideas, like _taan-da_ against a given attack.

In most lineages of Wing Chun, _taan-da_ is a representative technique, often done (theoretically) as a round punch defense, or at least it's a technique taught in their system; i.e. "_When he does this, I can taan-da. It's a spread and hit concept_" they say. They'll cling to the idea of it representing some concept or other, but it's still dealing in 1:1 applications.

What I mean by confusing concepts with principles, is that when people talk about being concept based they often mean things like economy of motion, chasing center of mass and not limbs, centerline theory, etc.. But these are all principles that make up the overall fighting strategy.

Concepts are the tactics used to carry out that strategy in combat in adherence to those principles, such as tactical footwork, angling, and striking methods that sweep and clear the centerline with the elbow, should anything be in the way, while chasing and striking to the target. (_Taan_ and _fuk_ shapes in the forms and partner drills are preliminary training positions for these punches/strikes).

These concepts/tactics function under the principles of the system to make the strategy work. If you are confused at any point (applying _taan_ and _fuk_ as literal hand techniques to be used in fighting), it ceases to function properly and loses effectiveness.

Principles = Strategy
Concepts = Tactics

_Taan-da_ = Technique

See the difference?


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 2, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Yeaaah, people say this all the time, but it seems to me they confuse concepts with principles, and then techniques from the forms become their theoretical fighting tactics. So they say they are concept based, but still use techniques in 1:1 application ideas, like _taan-da_ against a given attack.
> 
> In most lineages of Wing Chun, _taan-da_ is a representative technique, often done (theoretically) as a round punch defense, or at least it's a technique taught in their system; i.e. "_When he does this, I can taan-da. It's a spread and hit concept_" they say. They'll cling to the idea of it representing some concept or other, but it's still dealing in 1:1 applications.
> 
> ...



So you are saying that in your VT the tan da would be (in your above list example) in the concepts category(?)


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> So you are saying that in your VT the tan da would be (in your above list example) in the concepts category(?)



No, not at all. It's not even used in my VT. 

You see, it's in the technique category, and we aren't technique based.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 2, 2015)

LFJ said:


> No, not at all. It's not even used in my VT.
> 
> You see, it's in the technique category, and we aren't technique based.



You're saying you never use the 'shape'; just the idea embedded in the elbow energy of Tan while striking? Correct?


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

Phobius said:


> Something I find funny however are the styles that say "we removed this technique from our repertoire and now our style finally works in fighting in difference to all others", as if a fighting martial artist wont learn through experience when something does not work for him and remove it despite what he/her was taught.



I don't think it was just that YM removed certain techniques and that's what makes his approach better. It was an entire shift in fighting strategy, and he adapted the system to match and develop a fighter in that way.



> A good teacher always try to adapt his teaching to the mentality of his class and students.



Sure. The VT system I think YM developed is very simple and effective the way it is. Different teaching methods can be adapted to the individual to correct their errors and suit their natural abilities. But the overall fighting strategy and tactics should not change, especially not to the degree of creating vastly different types of fighters, which different Wing Chun systems certainly do.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 2, 2015)

Let me be clear... when I strike, depending on what happens to it while en route... a certain idea from the forms may come into play during the exchange. For example, my strike could sail right through an opening and hit its target. If it encounters any obstruction(s) while en route my arm will naturally and spontaneously adopt the appropriate energy (i.e. elbow energy/pressure) to deal with the obstacle. This may be tan elbow energy; fook elbow energy; jum elbow energy; etc...


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> You're saying you never use the 'shape'; just the idea embedded in the elbow energy of Tan while striking? Correct?



Correct. 

It's to train and develop a tactical striking concept, not a technique against a given attack.


----------



## Mephisto (Sep 2, 2015)

geezer said:


> _This,_ more than anything, is the downfall of WC. With no venue for testing what we do, or at least what the best representatives of each branch can do, everything ... the good, the bad, the practical and the fantasy stuff, _all becomes equal_... a mere opinion to argue over.
> 
> If we could test our art, perhaps we would have a more objective way to evaluate what works. And I suspect that we would find valuable, workable approaches within many of our divergent branches.


I think your point is dead on here. Fighting will solve the issues and descerpencies from lineage to lineage. If you can make it work against a resisting opponent authenticity or differences don't matter. Look at another striking based style, boxing. You never hear boxers label one another as inauthentic, sure they'll criticize each other but that's usually an individual criticism. Boxers realize that different body types move and apply the art differently, a lanky long range fighter knows a stocky short fighter will not apply the art in the same manner, he doesn't say infighting and close range tactics are ineffective or inauthentic. I was even having a discussion the other day about some successful boxers that seem to be sloppy in their approach of certain strategies and techniques, but if they are successful who can criticize them? Imo opinion WC could take a lesson or two and follow in the footsteps of boxing. WC can be tested, there may be done techniques that you have to leave out (eye gouges, ect.) but much of the system can be tested and applied to a resisting partner. I'd recommend finding a ruleset that develops the proncipals of WC and discriminates against non WC guys.you could test WC in a boxing ruleset but boxing has been adapted and developed to take full advantage of those rules, so perhaps a unique ruleset would be in order.


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Let me be clear... when I strike, depending on what happens to it while en route... a certain idea from the forms may come into play during the exchange. For example, my strike could sail right through an opening and hit its target. If it encounters any obstruction(s) while en route my arm will naturally and spontaneously adopt the appropriate energy (i.e. elbow energy/pressure) to deal with the obstacle. This may be tan elbow energy; fook elbow energy; jum elbow energy; etc...



Okay, but I think there is no time for that. The different elbow energies are there no matter what to intersect the line while striking. IF something is in the way, the elbow will mindlessly work to clear the line as you continue to strike. But it's not dependant on what the opponent does, as that takes a conscious moment to change your energy midway, and there's simply no time for that.

Some people tell me they will extend a _taan-sau _and if nothing is there, it will automatically turn into a punch. But that requires thinking time to change your hand shape and energy. It means your mind was not in the punch from the start. That often means you will create a delay, a hesitation, and then reaction and loss of speed and power. If you're going to punch, it should be a punch from the start with built-in defensive functions by use of the elbow. But always punch to punch. Don't anticipate or worse search for limb connection. Just punch to target.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 2, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Okay, but I think there is no time for that. The different elbow energies are there no matter what to intersect the line while striking. IF something is in the way, the elbow will mindlessly work to clear the line as you continue to strike. But it's not dependant on what the opponent does, as that takes a conscious moment to change your energy midway, and there's simply no time for that.
> 
> Some people tell me they will extend a _taan-sau _and if nothing is there, it will automatically turn into a punch. But that requires thinking time to change your hand shape and energy. It means your mind was not in the punch from the start. That often means you will create a delay, a hesitation, and then reaction and loss of speed and power. If you're going to punch, it should be a punch from the start with built-in defensive functions by use of the elbow. But always punch to punch. Don't anticipate or worse search for limb connection. Just punch to target.



Yes, agreed. Apparently I can't type well or get my meaning across. Must have drank too much last night.


----------



## Mephisto (Sep 2, 2015)

Phobius said:


> You can test your own skill but you cant compare with other martial arts or styles. Since you can not find two or more identical persons to study styles until they are considered masters on equal terms and then fight it out, simply because they are never the same and their experience and body type will put them apart.
> 
> Since you can validate your own skill, this in no way rules out that other styles dont work just as well. There is no supreme style and if we want to be as close to Ip Man as possible we should not study what he taught but rather follow his masters teaching.
> 
> ...


I gotta disagree. You can compare styles, you can examine general trends among fighters and see what is and isn't typically successful. But that doesn't concern Geezer's point. Testing through sparring can be done, it's not about proving what style of chun is best is about developing the style and applying it to a resisting opponents. Different people will need to apply the art differently. After a generation or so of wing chun competition you'll likely have a number of valid approaches that are effective.


----------



## Phobius (Sep 2, 2015)

LFJ said:


> Yeaaah, people say this all the time, but it seems to me they confuse concepts with principles, and then techniques from the forms become their theoretical fighting tactics. So they say they are concept based, but still use techniques in 1:1 application ideas, like _taan-da_ against a given attack.



Agreed, it felt really cliché to write it but had no better way of describing what I meant. The word concept gets thrown around a lot from people that later state "If they do this.... you can counter with a <insert technique>". My meaning differs from yours as in I count all "techniques" as being shapes which comes natural to me based on own experience. If I experience something new then I pick the closest and should I get punched I have to train in countering it more properly. So the concept is emphasis during training, in application it is not techniques but rather my training that gets me through, a feeling of sorts.



LFJ said:


> In most lineages of Wing Chun, _taan-da_ is a representative technique, often done (theoretically) as a round punch defense, or at least it's a technique taught in their system; i.e. "_When he does this, I can taan-da. It's a spread and hit concept_" they say. They'll cling to the idea of it representing some concept or other, but it's still dealing in 1:1 applications.



You bring up another good point. Not sure I would consider taan-da as a "technique" to counter a round punch. My understanding is that whenever I try to enforce a technique on my opponent they either have to A) Follow my rules. B) Continue their punch and hurt me. Not the kind of situation I want to put myself in. I cant say how I would counter a round punch myself, especially when it has been a large theme of ours, because it depends on so many factors not only limited to opponents force, will and angles.



LFJ said:


> What I mean by confusing concepts with principles, is that when people talk about being concept based they often mean things like economy of motion, chasing center of mass and not limbs, centerline theory, etc.. But these are all principles that make up the overall fighting strategy.
> 
> ...



Actually this is the main part of why I reply to this message.

Want to say thanks for explaining your view, means I now understand what you mean when saying stuff such as principals and concepts. Not sharing the same view of course, but that would be a given on any forum. People rarely shares same view. 

My own view is that concepts are what you call principals. Techniques to me are rather a way to learn my body proper angle and force generation, a sense of how a movement should feel in the body itself. Sorry to sound as if I am smoking something I shouldnt but it is hard subject to explain but easy to understand when doing it. I do not mean some magical state of supreme body knowledge. More like how a golf player knows how to swing a club without thinking every moment about it and still get the desired outcome.

Now I have some questions if you wish to enlighten me further with how you mean.

- It was stated in separate thread that WSL VT had different principals to LT WT. LT WT has the same "principals" or concepts pending on what you call it as WC. What differs for WSL VT? Of course this is based on my own experience of WT, we state that nothing here is altered compared to YM's teachings.
- YM displayed taan-da in first section of wooden dummy form, however WSL VT does not have this "technique"? So, sorry for my ignorance, WSL VT has modified forms?
(To note I have no WSL VT club nearby and feel curious but lacking a lot of knowledge of that style of the art)


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 2, 2015)

geezer said:


> I agree, Joy. Even what I consider "high quality" WC from the Yip Man lineage has diverged widely. For example, I consider your WC, and certainly Master Augustine Fong's WC  to be high quality, and I equally respect what I've seen of some of the WSL branch, the TST branch, and of course my old Sifu's branch, as well as other branches. The best representatives of each these branches are indisputably skilled, yet they have interpreted core concepts very differently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

Phobius said:


> Now I have some questions if you wish to enlighten me further with how you mean.
> 
> - It was stated in separate thread that WSL VT had different principals to LT WT. LT WT has the same "principals" or concepts pending on what you call it as WC. What differs for WSL VT? Of course this is based on my own experience of WT, we state that nothing here is altered compared to YM's teachings.



Yeah, Leung Ting is the "principal" of LTWT.  We don't have him in our lineage.

Okay, "principles" as in fighting strategy? LTWT as I gather by some accounts is about being soft and yielding, and as I would interpret many of its tactics, passive, although you hate that word.

WSLVT is a very direct and aggressive approach to fighting. There's no shifting off line or turning ourselves, except to face our attack lines. There's no sticking and leading into emptiness, but rather ballistic displacement of limbs to clear the line for striking in the most direct and efficient way, without turning ourselves or the redundant use of two arms. We use a single arm with both attack and defense functions. Two such arms working in rotation work effectively as four arms. This removes the need to use passive, turning footwork and two arms to defend and attack. Comparatively very simple, direct, and efficient.



> - YM displayed taan-da in first section of wooden dummy form, however WSL VT does not have this "technique"? So, sorry for my ignorance, WSL VT has modified forms?
> (To note I have no WSL VT club nearby and feel curious but lacking a lot of knowledge of that style of the art)



You mean following the first _bong-sau_, as you step in from the side? We do this too, but it's not in consideration of some sort of _taan-da_ application. We come in from the side making contact with the lead leg and both hands to train facing, distancing, synchronicity of upper and lower body movements and full body force delivery, not to trap a leg while we block with _taan_ and palm strike the opponent's ribs.

We don't see the dummy as representing a human being. It is just a tool for solo training of our structures and attributes. The reference is ourselves, not an opponent coming with a hypothetical attack. Some people will even stick to the dummy arm from _bong-sau_ and turn into _taan-da _as an application idea. That's completely wrong for us, because we must disengage completely from the dummy to properly perform the next action... And of course we're not fighting an imaginary opponent.

The _taan_ arm and side palm are both training striking concepts. When flanking an opponent from the left we'll strike with right _taan_ elbow energy or left _jam_ elbow energy to displace to the right as we cycle our attacks on a flanked opponent struggling to recover facing. But we don't know yet if we'll be punching the right or left arm, so we use both to train our facing, distancing, and synchronicity. One is higher and one lower only because they can't occupy the same space. Again, it's not a _taan-da_ consideration. It's several things going on at once for training purposes only. Of course we won't be throwing two punches at the same time. We must step back and look at it in a more abstract way.

Hopefully you can start to see now how we interpret the actions in a purely abstract way in training forms and drills. Many people extract them and give them 1:1 application meanings. That totally misses the point the system is trying to teach us. It's not at all a collection of techniques. It's solo development training.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 2, 2015)

Vajramusti

I am enjoying reading this thread, thanks

I cannot comment since my time in Wing Chun was rather short and I never got past sil lum tao, but I will say the lineages I trained in all went back to Ip Man and the concepts were all pretty much the same, the differences came in the forms

Ip Man > Ip Ching > 1st teacher
Ip Man > Leung Sheng > Fak Tak Ling > 2nd teacher
Ip Man > Ho Kam Ming > Fong Chi Wing > 2nd teacher

And before I forget
Ip Man > Bruce Lee > Jerry Poteet > JKD teacher...sorry, just couldn't resist


----------



## Eric_H (Sep 2, 2015)

LFJ said:


> I remember someone on another forum telling how they had people put headgear on and face a line up of people throwing serious round punches at them and they needed to use _taan-da_ as the defense. It failed each time, for each person.



Because that doesn't work. Wrong structure for that timeframe.


----------



## geezer (Sep 2, 2015)

Phobius said:


> Want to say thanks for explaining your view, means I now understand what you mean when saying stuff such as principals and concepts. Not sharing the same view of course, but that would be a given on any forum. People rarely shares same view.



_Phobius_, I use the term "concept" much as you do, and agree with this. I'm glad _LFJ_ clarified his use of the terms. Goodness knows, we have enough legitimate differences on this forum without making it worse through misunderstanding the terms we are using.




LFJ said:


> WSLVT is a very direct and aggressive approach to fighting. There's no shifting off line or turning ourselves, except to face our attack lines. There's no sticking and leading into emptiness, but rather ballistic displacement of limbs to clear the line for striking in the most direct and efficient way, without turning ourselves or the redundant use of two arms. We use a single arm with both attack and defense functions. Two such arms working in rotation work effectively as four arms. This removes the need to use passive, turning footwork and two arms to defend and attack. Comparatively very simple, direct, and efficient.



_LFJ _Thanks for this succinct overview of the WSL approach. I do not know any WSL WC practitioners in my area but your description seems totally consistent with what I've seen on youtube and read on forums by people that belong to that lineage.




Mephisto said:


> Testing through sparring can be done, it's not about proving what style of chun is best is about developing the style and applying it to a resisting opponents. Different people will need to apply the art differently. After a generation or so of wing chun competition you'll likely have a number of valid approaches that are effective.



_Exactly_. My point about "testing" was that if a large number of people _openly_ test their WC skills we can begin to accumulate stats, see trends and can come to some broader conclusions about what works best depending on the specific situation and circumstances.



Mephisto said:


> Boxers realize that different body types move and apply the art differently, a lanky long range fighter knows a stocky short fighter will not apply the art in the same manner, he doesn't say infighting and close range tactics are ineffective or inauthentic.



Again, spot on. This is the point I was trying to convey to LFJ. It's not just about having one superior approach that works fo everybody. Some boxer's take the fight to their opponent, others back off and counterpunch. Some wrestlers immediately go for the takedown, others prefer to sprawl and counter. Stats show what works best most of the time, but also show how certain types of fighter can sometime be more successful with a different approach. The same applies to Wing Chun.

In WSL WC I see a sort of aggressive and "yang" approach. In LT WC I often see more of a "yin" and yielding energy, especially with regard to the stance and the energy of the WT bong sau. Very different, ant yet both lineages have produced effective fighters.

Personally I see merit in _both_ approaches and do not believe that they are mutually exclusive. Speaking in a general sense and not to the specific lineages, I've seen fighters use both methods effectively, shifting from one to the other depending on the situation. Am I alone in this delusion?


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 2, 2015)

LFJ said:


> .... *ballistic displacement* of limbs...



Yep... this is how I was trained. Very aggressive, very "yang" approach compared to some other WC/WT/VT as far as I know. Not saying it is better or worse... just a different approach.
BTW LFJ...I love that term!


----------



## yak sao (Sep 2, 2015)

I find WT to be a mix of the two approaches.
My 1st sifu, while very powerful, was also quite yielding , while my 2nd sifu.while very soft, is also very aggressive if needed.

LFJ, if only you and I could get together you would see much common ground.


----------



## Phobius (Sep 2, 2015)

yak sao said:


> I find WT to be a mix of the two approaches.
> My 1st sifu, while very powerful, was also quite yielding , while my 2nd sifu.while very soft, is also very aggressive if needed.
> 
> LFJ, if only you and I could get together you would see much common ground.



Agree, WT is my style as well but to us it is important to not yield until your force is met up with a stronger force from the opponent. Of course yielding is taught initially to new students in terms of spring force, the more force put in the larger force can be exerted on your opponent.

Now however I can agree with LFJ in saying that there are quite a bunch of schools out there, at least if YouTube, god forbid, can be trusted. Those schools seem to put so much focus in proper yielding that it might be forgotten that no force should be yielded unless it is superior to your own.

So my version of WT would definitively incorporate both, yielding would break the concept unless the goal was to avoid yielding in the first place.


----------



## JPinAZ (Sep 2, 2015)

geezer said:


> In WSL WC I see a sort of aggressive and "yang" approach. In LT WC I often see more of a "yin" and yielding energy, especially with regard to the stance and the energy of the WT bong sau. Very different, ant yet both lineages have produced effective fighters.
> 
> Personally I see merit in _both_ approaches and do not believe that they are mutually exclusive. Speaking in a general sense and not to the specific lineages, I've seen fighters use both methods effectively, shifting from one to the other depending on the situation. Am I alone in this delusion?



I agree that it should be both. You can't have Yin without Yang and visa versa while still being a fully balanced fighter - or in anything else really..
One example that quickly comes to mind: In WC we have the idea of Loi Lau Hoi Sung, Lat Sau JIk Chun. This is all about Yin and Yang and there is a correct time for each. If you only use parts of this kiut (either 'crashing' or always looking to receive/absorb), or fail to realize when to do which, you're going to have give up something in terms of either attack or defense resulting in more struggles in the long run.

Now, I'm not saying any one lineage is all yang or all yin, as that is too limiting of a view IMO. And I have seen where some lineages favor one idea over the other in their intial approach. But from a purely WC Principle POV, if we consider LLHS/LSJC as aprt of our bridging & fighting strategy, it is clear that there has to be equal balance between both Yin & Yang - if we want to both neutralize/harmonize/deal-with incoming energy safely and attack/defeat our opponent in the _most efficient & effective_ way (which IMO is what WC is all about).


----------



## Jake104 (Sep 2, 2015)

wckf92 said:


> Ok, gotta agree with you there...essence is a much better word.
> However isn't the problem still there? The issue of defining, learning, interpreting and expressing what one perceives to be the 'essence' of Wing Chun?


The 'essence' of wing Chun is being able to use it. The proof is in the puddin! I can use what I'm being taught. So I must have the 'Essence'..if not, I don't want the essence. If the 'essence' means practicing a MA that doesn't work?


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 2, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Vajramusti
> 
> I am enjoying reading this thread, thanks
> 
> ...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curious- who was it in  the HKM.Fong line that you knew or worked with.?Not trying to be catty. Thanks.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 2, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Curious- who was it in  the HKM.Fong line that you knew or worked with.?Not trying to be catty. Thanks.



Told you before, I shall PM you again. 

Moved to NY and started training with Fak Tak Ling


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 2, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Told you before, I shall PM you again.
> 
> Moved to NY and started training with Fak Tak Ling


--------------------------------------

Thanks, I remember.


----------



## LFJ (Sep 2, 2015)

yak sao said:


> I find WT to be a mix of the two approaches.
> My 1st sifu, while very powerful, was also quite yielding , while my 2nd sifu.while very soft, is also very aggressive if needed.
> 
> LFJ, if only you and I could get together you would see much common ground.



In the broad sense of being aggressive maybe. But as I've seen of WT, our tactics couldn't be more different. It's not just a matter of yielding vs aggressive. It stems from our overall fighting strategies differing so that our tactics are very different even from the very basics of how to stand, how to move, how to hold and use _man_+_wu_, and of course striking methods and defense tactics when clashing with an opponent. 

These are all concepts (general ideas/tactics) that need to be in agreement with our principles (fighting strategy) in order for it all to be effective. If I used WT footwork, it would no longer work. If I used WT hands, it would no longer work. If I used WT defense tactics (hand and/or body methods), it would no longer work.


----------



## Phobius (Sep 3, 2015)

LFJ said:


> In the broad sense of being aggressive maybe. But as I've seen of WT, our tactics couldn't be more different. It's not just a matter of yielding vs aggressive. It stems from our overall fighting strategies differing so that our tactics are very different even from the very basics of how to stand, how to move, how to hold and use _man_+_wu_, and of course striking methods and defense tactics when clashing with an opponent.



From the sound of it, it does seem as if you have a fundamental difference in footwork. Does not sound as if you are in any way open to a 'yin' approach in your body or footwork.
In my style non technical students have a more 'yin' type training and once increasing in grades (student grades as introduced by LT, not technical) the 'yang' element becomes more dominant along with self control. Note though that in order to teach 'yin' another needs to know 'yang' so students dont get only one side of teaching, strictly talking emphasis.

Very curious to see this in more detail, do you happend to have some good source of information on this or some YouTube videos that in your view well describes or displays this subject be it the intent or not of that video? Just to try and see if I understand what you mean about the fundamental difference.

Have not seen such difference with other styles of WC, in regards to such fundamentals, except that the WT I train might be slightly more aggressive, 'yang', even when forced to yield. Could of course just be because of teacher preference of those schools.


----------



## LFJ (Sep 3, 2015)

I don't spend time thinking about _yin_ or _yang_, just what works and what doesn't. It was also my understanding that Yip Man removed a lot of yin-yang and five elements type of theories that came from the mainland, as he was a skeptic and considered that type of thing superstitious.

I'm in a country that blocks YouTube, and vpn probably won't work for the next few days while they "celebrate" WW2 events...  So, I can't link you to anything right now. I don't think you will find free fighting videos on YT anyway, and training drills may be misunderstood if seen through the lens of another lineage. But I think some of the best VT I like on YT is that of Michael Kurth, a student of PB. He has many good training videos.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Sep 3, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks, I remember.



I think I told you the wrong state last time, that was my bad, he moved from Arizona to here. I think I may have said Texas last time, sorry about that


----------



## Vajramusti (Sep 3, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> I think I told you the wrong state last time, that was my bad, he moved from Arizona to here. I think I may have said Texas last time, sorry about that


------------------------------------------
No problem. I don't remember him. Lots of folks train with Fong- but few are called Fong instructors by him,


----------

