# The tao of wing chun book has anyone read it?



## SOD-WC (Jul 26, 2017)

Hi all,
Recently really started to learn more about WC. Has anyone here read the book "The tao of Wing chun" by danny xuan and john little? Want to get your thoughts before i drop some money and time reading it.
thanks in advance!!!


----------



## DanT (Jul 26, 2017)

I've read it. I personally didn't like it. I found "The Wing Chun Compendium" by Sifu Wayne Belonoha to be a much better book.


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 26, 2017)

DanT said:


> I've read it. I personally didn't like it. I found "The Wing Chun Compendium" by Sifu Wayne Belonoha to be a much better book.


thanks dan, ill go and buy that one instead


----------



## KPM (Jul 26, 2017)

I have it but haven't read it yet.  I also have Belonoha's books.  But the "Tao" book is history and background while Belonoha's books are curriculum and technique.  To me they seem like two very different things and not comparable.


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> I have it but haven't read it yet.  I also have Belonoha's books.  But the "Tao" book is history and background while Belonoha's books are curriculum and technique.  To me they seem like two very different things and not comparable.


thanks.... while we are at it are there any other material thatsbworth getting my hands on? 
the internet has so much but requires lots of searching and going through lots of forum post.


----------



## ShortBridge (Jul 26, 2017)

Depends on what you are hoping to learn from them.

I am a Wing Chun sifu. Top 3 on my student's reading list are:

Strong On Defense by Sanford Strong
Meditations on Violence by Rory Miller
The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker

For Wing Chun, I recommend "Complete Wing Chun" by Rene Richie and friends

I have multiple copies and loan them all out, but also encourage owning copies because they are worth annotating and circling back to.

I think the Compendium books are really well done and professionally produced. There are a few chapters and verses that I have issues with, but mostly they are good reference materials. You're not going to learn Wing Chun from them, though and I discourage them to students starting out, but see value in them down the road, especially if you're a Moy Yat student.

That's just me, though. Everyone has opinions.


----------



## Juany118 (Jul 26, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> Hi all,
> Recently really started to learn more about WC. Has anyone here read the book "The tao of Wing chun" by danny xuan and john little? Want to get your thoughts before i drop some money and time reading it.
> thanks in advance!!!



I agree with KPM.  I have read it and I liked it but knew what it was about.  It was about the history, philosophy and over all methodology of Wing Chun.  It is basically something the enthusiast would read broaden their understanding beyond simple practice of the art and perhaps seeing a different view of Wing Chun.  I found it a very good read tbh but I am a fan of history and philosophy so when he does a chapter showing connections between Wing Chun and the Art of War in Chapter 7, I was happy


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 27, 2017)

thanks all, yeah i get it that you cant learn WC from books (unless u r some MA superstar) I'll be reading the books when im not training to fill my time, its that or watch youtube of random stuff till 3 am at dont wven know how i got to that topic.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 27, 2017)

The problem you're going to run into with  just about any book on WC is it will be lineage specific.  In other words, they will show things from their  lineage's  perspective, which may or may not be the way you're being taught.

As for the book itself, I liked it. It's a good overall look at WC with some good insights and good history.
As an aside, many MA books are very cheaply made, this one is very well made.


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 27, 2017)

yak sao said:


> The problem you're going to run into with  just about any book on WC is it will be lineage specific.  In other words, they will show things from their  lineage's  perspective, which may or may not be the way you're being taught.
> 
> As for the book itself, I liked it. It's a good overall look at WC with some good insights and good history.
> As an aside, many MA books are very cheaply made, this one is very well made.


i dont want to start a lineage war. but im assuming the basics would be similar. its WC after all and there is only so much difference u can have before it becomea another system


----------



## Parky (Jul 27, 2017)

Danny Xuan is an online friend of mine. I have corresponded with him quite regularly for 15 years. He's a great guy and quite knowledgeable. His lineage comes thru Wong Shun Leung, Moy Yat, and Lok Yiu. He has a pretty deep and broad understanding of WC. I would recommend his book.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 27, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> i dont want to start a lineage war. but im assuming the basics would be similar. its WC after all and there is only so much difference u can have before it becomea another system



New here aren't you

Yeah,  it's all the same except for forms, stance, footwork, terminology and concepts.
Is the stance 50/50, 60/40, 90/10, 100/0?
Is the pivot on the ball of the foot, the heels, the middle of the foot?
Soft and springy or harder and more forceful? Internal vs external........

What it comes down to is how your lineage does it, and how your si-fu teaches you. The debate over who is right and who is wrong will never be settled....especially here.

But again, a good book, just don't let it muddy the waters for you.


----------



## geezer (Jul 27, 2017)

_Yak_, isn't it funny that there are probably as many ways to approach boxing as WC/WT/VT. In-fighters, out-fighters, sluggers, counterpunchers ...some working from a relatively upright stance, others from a deep crouch, yet different kinds of boxers never accuse each other of not practicing the correct style. As to what's right or wrong, all you gottta do is look their record.

If different branches of WC/VT developed a way of testing their art, they might find out that very different branches can produce effective fighters, and we might be less obsessive about theoretical differences. So, for example, instead of endless arguing, LFJ and KPM look at the record to see how their style's fighters were doing. Then again, even with a mountain of stats, sports-fans do love to argue.


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 27, 2017)

yak sao said:


> New here aren't you
> 
> Yeah,  it's all the same except for forms, stance, footwork, terminology and concepts.
> Is the stance 50/50, 60/40, 90/10, 100/0?
> ...


lol made me kind of regret asking about how different one system can be . no wonder its so hard to learn wc online, im guess the teachers themselves usually dont say the lineage they are from until asked. So r u saying if i EVER change schools im going to start from the beginning


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 27, 2017)

geezer said:


> _Yak_, isn't it funny that there are probably as many ways to approach boxing as WC/WT/VT. In-fighters, out-fighters, sluggers, counterpunchers ...some working from a relatively upright stance, others from a deep crouch, yet different kinds of boxers never accuse each other of not practicing the correct style. As to what's right or wrong, all you gottta do is look their record.
> 
> If different branches of WC/VT developed a way of testing their art, they might find out that very different branches can produce effective fighters, and we might be less obsessive about theoretical differences. So, for example, instead of endless arguing, LFJ and KPM look at the record to see how their style's fighters were doing. Then again, even with a mountain of stats, sports-fans do love to argue.


best way to try out WC is at the local pub right? spill a drink on the biggest guy there and its training time. .


----------



## geezer (Jul 27, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> lol made me kind of regret asking about how different one system can be . no wonder its so hard to learn wc online, im guess the teachers themselves usually dont say the lineage they are from until asked. So r u saying if i EVER change schools im going to start from the beginning



At some schools, that's exactly what they do. It doesn't matter if you have 15 years in with another group. You start right at the bottom.


----------



## geezer (Jul 27, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> best way to try out WC is at the local pub right? spill a drink on the biggest guy there and its training time. .



Just watch this first:


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 28, 2017)

geezer said:


> Just watch this first:


20 mins into it lol i love this guy, he really doesnt mess around!!! maybe i should quit WC and use improvised fighting techniques from this video, everything is a weapon.
Are you hinting fighting big drunk guys are not the same as fighting a MA bloke.


----------



## geezer (Jul 28, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> 20 mins into it lol i love this guy, he really doesnt mess around!!! maybe i should quit WC and use improvised fighting techniques from this video, everything is a weapon.
> Are you hinting fighting big drunk guys are not the same as fighting a MA bloke.



Dunno. How about big, drunk MA guys? 

...Just came across the video and thought it too funny to leave out!


----------



## ShortBridge (Jul 28, 2017)

No offense intended to Bas Rutten and I am not suggesting that he isn't credible, but I find it interesting that this video has been posted in a Wing Chun forum for a full day and none of the usual voices of discontent have any issues with the compliant attacker.

A Wing Chun video making similar claims (or not) that featured this level of acting and cooperation would have been ripped to shreds by now.


----------



## geezer (Jul 28, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> No offense intended to Bas Rutten and I am not suggesting that he isn't credible, but I find it interesting that this video has been posted in a Wing Chun forum for a full day and none of the usual voices of discontent have any issues with the compliant attacker.
> 
> A Wing Chun video making similar claims (or not) that featured this level of acting and cooperation would have been ripped to shreds by now.



Of course! Wing Chun = bad. Bas Rutten = good. 

Seriously though, I'm _not_ being serious.


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 28, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> No offense intended to Bas Rutten and I am not suggesting that he isn't credible, but I find it interesting that this video has been posted in a Wing Chun forum for a full day and none of the usual voices of discontent have any issues with the compliant attacker.
> 
> A Wing Chun video making similar claims (or not) that featured this level of acting and cooperation would have been ripped to shreds by now.


could be that not many WC ppl look as bad *** as him? i wont want to mess with him he reminds me of master ken lol


----------



## LFJ (Jul 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> _Yak_, isn't it funny that there are probably as many ways to approach boxing as WC/WT/VT. In-fighters, out-fighters, sluggers, counterpunchers ...some working from a relatively upright stance, others from a deep crouch, yet different kinds of boxers never accuse each other of not practicing the correct style.



Because "boxing" is not a system. It's a certain ruleset for ringsport. There are many styles of fighting under the ruleset. They are all called boxing because that's what they're doing, but they are not the same style. What joins them is that they are all equally restricted to functioning under the same ring rules.

Yip Man didn't teach a ruleset or multiple styles. So, there's no reason for dozens of contradictory methods to have derived from this one man.


----------



## SOD-WC (Jul 29, 2017)

fr


LFJ said:


> Because "boxing" is not a system. It's a certain ruleset for ringsport. There are many styles of fighting under the ruleset. They are all called boxing because that's what they're doing, but they are not the same style. What joins them is that they are all equally restricted to functioning under the same ring rules.
> 
> Yip Man didn't teach a ruleset or multiple styles. So, there's no reason for dozens of contradictory methods to have derived from this one man.


From what i read online (take with grain of salt) is that yip man teaches each student differently to customise it to them, plus all students would have translated differently. could that be the where it all started from?


----------



## geezer (Jul 29, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Yip Man didn't teach a ruleset or multiple styles. So, there's no reason for dozens of contradictory methods to have derived from this one man.



Boxers, even coming from the same gym with the same coach or coaches, often adopt different personal styles. Why? ...Different body types, different abilities? A _good _coach recognizes this and works to help each fighter reach their optimum potential.

Many believe that Yip Man was a good coach and did the same.


----------



## geezer (Jul 29, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Because *"boxing" is not a system.* It's a certain ruleset for ringsport....



So that's how you view the "sweet science". Any boxers out there want of weigh in on this comment?


----------



## LFJ (Jul 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> Boxers, even coming from the same gym with the same coach or coaches, often adopt different personal styles. Why? ...Different body types, different abilities? A _good _coach recognizes this and works to help each fighter reach their optimum potential.
> 
> Many believe that Yip Man was a good coach and did the same.



Boxing coaches can do this because they aren't teaching a set curriculum. They can literally teach anything that is allowed under the ring rules of the sport.

YM was teaching a specific martial art he had learned, with a set curriculum.

It is beyond unrealistic that he would have taught dozens of contradictory interpretations of _daan-chi-sau_, for example, where he trained some to stick and follow and others to use the same method to specifically avoid or detrain exactly that.



geezer said:


> So that's how you view the "sweet science". Any boxers out there want of weigh in on this comment?



That's how you see it, too, by acknowledging there is no one system of boxing.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 29, 2017)

SOD-WC said:


> From what i read online (take with grain of salt) is that yip man teaches each student differently to customise it to them, plus all students would have translated differently. could that be the where it all started from?



You can buy that if you want, but I seriously doubt one man is going to teach dozens of contradictory understandings of the same material.


----------



## geezer (Jul 29, 2017)

LFJ said:


> You can buy that if you want, but I seriously doubt one man is going to teach dozens of contradictory understandings of the same material.



One intellectually curious man over the course of a lifetime will often explore many different, even apparently contradictory ideas. This is especially true of brilliant men and women. What their followers make of their legacy is often more limited and more contradictory, like the well known parable of the blind man and the elephant. They simply cannot see the bigger picture.

If you doubt this, just look at the religious wars that have raged since time immemorial. Especially in so called missionary religions like Christianity and Islam with each group, sect and sub-sect thinking they have the one true teaching. That's how you sound right now, LFJ!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> That's how you sound right now, LFJ!



Whatever. If they directly contradict one another, they can't all be right.

In regards to YMVT, it's just nonsensical that he'd teach one person to train this way to develop this thing, then teach another to train this same way to avoid developing that same thing. One of them will not work.


----------



## geezer (Jul 29, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Whatever. If they directly contradict one another, they can't all be right.
> 
> In regards to YMVT, it's just nonsensical that he'd teach one person to train this way to develop this thing, then teach another to train this same way to avoid developing that same thing. One of them will not work.



No, what you are saying is nonsense!  ...In truth, it is highly probable, to the point of being almost a certainty that Yip Man taught and practiced VT_ differently _at different stages of his life. Granted the span of his life and the circumstances he lived through, _to think otherwise is illogical._

So, even Yip Man's closest students differed in what they received and took away from their time with him. That's just natural variation. Offspring are not clones of their parents! If some of these "offspring" or students, and in turn_ their _students, branched out even further, that again is in accordance with nature ...it is the _only_ logical possibility. And that eventually some of these student's teachings would contradict each other, is inevitable.

That leave's you and KPM debating as to who is _right_. Well, we know that a mouse, a man, and a sperm whale are all mammals evolving from a common ancestor. _Which of them is correct?_ Which is right? Which would win in a fight? ...The question is meaningless.  A whale can't live in a mouse-hole, a mouse can't program a computer, and a man can't swim naked thousands of feet below the ocean and eat a giant squid!

Now regarding WC/VT, your premise that Yip Man taught one consistent version of the art for his entire life is unsupportable, so your process of deduction becomes meaningless as does your conclusion that WSL-VT is the true and correct version of Yip Man VT.

All that is left, and frankly all that matters anyway, is your claim that WSL-VT is the _most effective_ version we have today. I am open to that possibility, but as KPM and others have pointed out, there needs to be persuasive evidence or proof. Not theoretical discussions about how it works as an integrated and complete system, but _actual proof _in repeated tests against qualified opponents, documented by videos and witnesses. Like boxing, and MMA. And sorry to say, you haven't provided the goods. So I remain agnostic and unconvinced.


----------



## KPM (Jul 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> So that's how you view the "sweet science". Any boxers out there want of weigh in on this comment?



Yeah, as usual LFJ is full of it.   Boxing is an rather open-ended system of fighting that allows for different styles to manifest.  Obviously it can operate outside of any ruleset as a method of self-defense.  It doesn't fall apart simply because there aren't any rules dictating what it is and isn't supposed to do!  And I would challenge anyone to find an example of a competitive boxer...of any "style" of boxing....that wouldn't be recognized and labeled a "boxer" by anyone familiar with boxing!     Mike Tyson's "style" was very different from Muhammed Ali's, but I don't think anyone would have a problem identifying them BOTH as "boxers"! 

Western boxing is just as much a "system" as any martial art.  And within that system there are different "styles" included.   Same with Karate....the "system" of Karate is recognizable, even though the actual style might be Shotokan, or Gogu-Ryu, or Shito-Ryu, etc.   Similarly with Wing Chun.  The "system" of Wing Chun is recognizable, even though the actual style or "lineage" may be Ip Man, or Sum Nun, or Pin Sun, or Yuen Chai Wan, or Snake/Crane, etc.


----------



## KPM (Jul 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> That leave's you and KPM debating as to who is _right_.



No, not really.  You seem to be putting me on the same footing with LFJ with your comment.  Please don't forget that typically LFJ is asserting a very narrow claim in our arguments and I end up disputing his claim.  That is not the same thing as me taking an opposite claim and then trying to fight over which "system" is the most "correct" or "true" or "right."   I have NEVER asserted that any Wing Chun system I practice is the "real" thing and that everyone else's is somehow "broken" or "incorrect" or "gap filled."  So please don't equate me to our resident religious zealot!


----------



## LFJ (Jul 29, 2017)

geezer said:


> In truth, it is highly probable, to the point of being almost a certainty that Yip Man taught and practiced VT_ differently _at different stages of his life. Granted the span of his life and the circumstances he lived through, _to think otherwise is illogical._



How did you determine this near certain probability?

Because his students taught different things, and you attribute that to YM changing his teachings and contradicting himself, rather than taking into account the students' time with him, their skill, intelligence, and fighting experience or lack thereof? 

And you think this is logical, based on what?



> that eventually some of these student's teachings would contradict each other, is inevitable.



We're not talking generations later. We're talking direct students of YM even from the same time period contradicting each other.



> Well, we know that a mouse, a man, and a sperm whale are all mammals evolving from a common ancestor. _Which of them is correct?_ Which is right? Which would win in a fight? ...The question is meaningless.



The question is meaningless not just because a whale can't live in a mouse hole, but because we're talking about 1st generation students.



> Now regarding WC/VT, your premise that Yip Man taught one consistent version of the art for his entire life is unsupportable, so your process of deduction becomes meaningless as does your conclusion that WSL-VT is the true and correct version of Yip Man VT.



It's more supportable than him contradicting himself and teaching what amounts to dozens of contradictory martial arts all through the same material.



> All that is left, and frankly all that matters anyway, is your claim that WSL-VT is the _most effective_ version we have today.



"The" has never been my claim. I've been looking for others that are effective.


----------



## LFJ (Jul 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> Boxing is an rather open-ended system of fighting that allows for different styles to manifest.



How do you define system vs style?

Obviously, different styles have different strategies and tactics, and different methods for developing them.

Those are distinct training systems.



> Obviously it can operate outside of any ruleset as a method of self-defense.  It doesn't fall apart simply because there aren't any rules dictating what it is and isn't supposed to do!



No one said that, so long as it is cross-trained to deal with other types of opponents.



> I would challenge anyone to find an example of a competitive boxer...of any "style" of boxing....that wouldn't be recognized and labeled a "boxer" by anyone familiar with boxing!     Mike Tyson's "style" was very different from Muhammed Ali's, but I don't think anyone would have a problem identifying them BOTH as "boxers"!



But, no one said the different styles aren't boxing.

Boxing is a literal name for what they are all doing. "Boxing" is just not one system or style, as you indicate between Tyson and Ali.



> Western boxing is just as much a "system" as any martial art.  And within that system there are different "styles" included.   Same with Karate....the "system" of Karate is recognizable, even though the actual style might be Shotokan, or Gogu-Ryu, or Shito-Ryu, etc.   Similarly with Wing Chun.  The "system" of Wing Chun is recognizable, even though the actual style or "lineage" may be Ip Man, or Sum Nun, or Pin Sun, or Yuen Chai Wan, or Snake/Crane, etc.



This is like saying "kung fu" is one system and all the thousands of styles are variations of this one system. That is ridiculous.


----------



## karatejj (Jul 31, 2017)

geezer said:


> So that's how you view the "sweet science". Any boxers out there want of weigh in on this comment?



Boxing not a martial art system like wing chun dude! 

Syatems organise nd take systematic approach to problem of fighting. That is why theyr systems!! Systems have some idea about how they want too deal with the mess of real fights. The system makes sense of confused mess, controls unknowns. All about control

Boxingyou can take any approach you like within limited ruleset comps. No ideas about the fight at all, only the comp so not a system. Since comp is very limited rules then creative ways get encourage within limited rule set to try and beat other guys. Only natural. 

Ideas in real system often better than in pure sport because at least attemps to deal with real fight. Some system better than others tho!!

Trainin method in sport is good too build them reflexts and make u aware of what it really takes. 

Best option is combine the 2 ways!!


----------



## Bino TWT (Aug 5, 2017)

Some of my top books on the subject are:
Wing Tsun Kuen by Leung Ting
Complete Wing Chun by Robert Chu
The Tao of Gung Fu by Bruce Lee
On Single Combat by Kieth Kernspecht 

I have many many books by many authors/Sifu's, but those are my top 4.


----------

