# The problem With practicing WC and other arts...



## geezer (Nov 21, 2012)

A lot of people try to pick up some WC to use along with other martial arts. Sometimes it can work to a degree, but more often not. There's a huge problem. And it has nothing to do with politics, egos, or which approach is best. It has to do with the fact that WC is an integrated system that's based on efficiency and simplicity. It's a paired down system in which each movement performs essential functions, and all redundant movements are discarded. The best WC is that which gets the job done as simply, directly, and effortlessly as possible.

Ok, so what happens if you practice another pugilistic art that uses different movements? Well, _learning_ about other arts is fine. _Sparring_ against them is essential_. _But _training_ them will defeat the purpose of WC. WC demands simplicity, so your responses become automatic according to the force you receive. Tacking on an extra "bag or tricks" will complicate and slow your responses, Rather than just moving automatically according to the force of your opponent's attack (objective response), you now will have to _think. _You will have to sort through your "menu" of tricks and choose which response you think will work (subjective response). Normally, pausing to think is a good thing. But not in the middle of a fight. Any thoughts?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 21, 2012)

Had not thought about it, but I see your point.

I had not given any thought to adding training in a different striking art to my training - I have enough on my plate with Isshin-Ryu!  However, at some point in the future, it is on my list of things to do to add some training in some sort of ground art, such as Judo.  I have also given some thought to Tai Chi or Aikido.  No decisions yet, I have so much more to accomplish inside my own art before I could even think about trying to absorb other types of training.

But I have seen how very different the body structure and strikes are in WC as compared to many arts.  I can see how it could cause a person confusion if they were training in WC and another striking art that had a different underlying philosophy.


----------



## seasoned (Nov 21, 2012)

I liken it to walking, learning to drive a car and so on. The best moves and the fastest ones are the ones we don't have to think about. 
As babies and are beginning to walk, the steps are labored jerky and not smooth. In time the walking movements become automatic with the thought process taken out of the picture. Same with driving a car, with much practice everything begins to happen absent of thought. 
Now, as martial artist, IMHO, start an art and stick with it until you no longer know the art, but you "own that art". 
As stated, in competition we sometimes have the luxury to think and calculate our moves with a perceived outcome. But, in a life and death situation, we need to transcend the natural thought process and allow our training to surface.
I have heard it many many times in law enforcement situations, when asked, "what do you owe your success to in saving your life or the life of someone else. Unequivocally it always falls back on training and the ability to not think but "just do".


Side note for those that have driven a standard car for many years. Switch the brake and gas peddle around and get into a drag race and you're right back to thinking your moves again.  :asian:


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 21, 2012)

It's not only the "log jam effect" with too many responses  and conflicting reflexes that is the problem.
Many people try to integrate Wing Chun techniques into their style , but they don't use the Wing Chun stance.
They tack on a few Wing Chun techniques and continue to use the stance from their core system.

It doesn't work like that , Wing Chun techniques are designed to work optimally from the platform of the Wing Chun stance , attempting to use them from a different stance means generating and overcoming force correctly will be a very difficult proposition.

The techniques will be an empty facsimile because they don't have the correct "engine" to power them.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 21, 2012)

Then train them separately, not complementary

And it is highly likely if you train them well, when and if a fight comes, all will be automaitc and you will not be thinking at all about which way to go.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2012)

Wing Chun and the FMAs work very nicely together. In JKD we would practice boxing-style techniques sometimes and WC-style techniques other times, then practice switching between them--you were in boxing mode for a while, then dropped into a straight blast scenario when an opening occurred and used trapping as needed then. It worked fine as long as you did only one of them at a time. In my opinion the martial arts are mostly paper-scissors-rock (or Pokemon, given all the different types of styles) and so knowing when and how to switch approaches based on what's happening is beneficial--flowing, as we say in arnis.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 21, 2012)

Straight blast isn't the only Wing Chun type technique, but it seems this is what many want to add to thier current training 

The OP is correct in that WC is an integrated system, as in the hand works because the rest of the body is positioned correctly to support the hands.  Feet work same way.  If you take a technique from WC, such as lom lun quin or chain punches, the technique becomes much weaker if the supporting body structures are not there to support it.  I quite often see other schools or systems try to incorporate "Wing Chun techniques" into thier own training, but then decide those techniques are weak and dimiss WC as a fighting art.  In fact, those techniques are quite strong if trained correctly.  An example of this is tan sau.  An aquantance of mine was telling me how it was a useless technique because it callapsed when any real pressure was applied to it.  I asked him to apply pressure to my tan sau and he could not cause it to collapse no matter how hard he struck and later pushed on it.  That isn't because I'm really strong, but rather have been trained on the proper angles and body structure to have to keep it from collapsing.  His tan sau collapsed because he had not been trained in those things.  He just took what he saw and tried to use it, then made a decision on its effectiveness from very limited information.


----------



## geezer (Nov 21, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Then train them separately, not complementary
> 
> And it is highly likely if you train them well, when and if a fight comes, all will be automaitc and you will not be thinking at all about which way to go.



That works more easily when there is a clear distinction of method and objective, or at least of range between the styles practiced. For example, practicing a long range kicking art, a close range striking art (like WC) and a grappling art. Each has it's own domain and there would be limited areas pf contradiction. Along this line, I practice WC, Eskrima and I used to do a bit of grappling (until age and injuries ended that). I could employ each when appropriate without compromising the integrity of each. 

Even so I've encountered some conflicts. Many Filipino martial arts use some variant of the well known contact/"sensitivity" drill called _hubud_. I don't make much use of it in the Escrima I teach. I find that it overlaps too much with chi-sau, but it trains responses that are less efficient and even _counterproductive_ from a WC point of view. Since most of my Escrima students are WC practitioners, I've made some adjustments to keep the arts distinct and compatible. 

To get back to the your comment _Xue_, if we were just learning self defense sequences and combinations, then maybe you'd respond to a given attack by going onto "automatic-setting" and doing what you'd trained ...regardless of which art it came from. But WC isn't based on responding with trained sequences like, say a lot of Kenpo, etc. WC is based on using a particular type of flexible energy and forward pressure together with specific structures to yield a truly spontaneous response dictated by the energy you receive from your opponent rather than from a memorized sequence. It's taking me my whole life just to get this right. I'm not going to mess it up by training stuff based on conflicting principles! And I'd say others who try that are ill advised. 

I've visited quit a few "chop suey" schools that teach "MMA-BJJ-Boxing-Karate-Kung-fu-Taichi-Weapons-You-name-it". If you ask the Sensei-Sifu-Guro, they'll tell your that they know it all because after you get to be a "Master" you see that under the surface, "it's all the same". Yeah, sure it is.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 21, 2012)

geezer said:


> That works more easily when there is a clear distinction of method and objective, or at least of range between the styles practiced. For example, practicing a long range kicking art, a close range striking art (like WC) and a grappling art. Each has it's own domain and there would be limited areas pf contradiction. Along this line, I practice WC, Eskrima and I used to do a bit of grappling (until age and injuries ended that). I could employ each when appropriate without compromising the integrity of each.
> 
> Even so I've encountered some conflicts. Many Filipino martial arts use some variant of the well known contact/"sensitivity" drill called _hubud_. I don't make much use of it in the Escrima I teach. I find that it overlaps too much with chi-sau, but it trains responses that are less efficient and even _counterproductive_ from a WC point of view. Since most of my Escrima students are WC practitioners, I've made some adjustments to keep the arts distinct and compatible.
> 
> ...



That post seemed more specific to me so.....

I look at this from the POV of Taijiquan and Wing Chun based on what style I do and what you do which are not as different as many believe. However I do see an issue if you are talking a style like Okinawan Karate and Taijiquan or sports Sanshou and taijiquan but I still do not think you will get the hesitation you are talking about but you will likely end up with either Karate or Sanshou not Taijiquan.

A few months back I saw a Combat Taiji demo that was a Kenpo guy that learned 24 form and applied kenpo to it and although it would likely be effective, it was not taijiquan so I know what you are talking about. There are styles that do not mix well together and those woild be hard to keep seperate


----------



## J W (Nov 21, 2012)

I began training Wing Chun last year; before that, I spent about a year training Kenpo. When I first started with Kenpo, I began brushing up on some of my Tae Kwon Do techniques (kicks mostly, of course) because they seemed to compliment what I was learning. Revisiting kicking techniques that I learned years ago in TKD seemed not only to help my Kenpo kicks (which are very similar, just with a lower target range), but also to augment my repertoire. 

When I made the switch to WC, I immediately stopped practicing everything I had learned in Kenpo and TKD. This was because I suspected what you are saying here. I thought that continuing to practice Kenpo or TKD alongside my new art of WC would actually hinder my progress rather than help. The systems are too different. I felt that I needed to "undo" alot of what I had learned previously in order to properly learn WC. I've heard some of the guys refer to prior training as "poison", that it's actually easier to learn WC starting with a blank slate.

As a side note: "WC isn't based on responding with trained sequences like, say a lot of Kenpo, etc." The understanding that I got during my admittedly short stint as a Kenpoist was that the "techniques" (as they call the sequences) that they use are not intended as pre-programmed responses. Ed Parker stated in his Infinite Insights books that the ultimate goal was to spontaneously react without thinking, same as our goal in WC. The purpose of the techniques is to teach the student how to flow from one movement to the next. We train chi sao, they study the techniques. Two very different training methodologies, but ultimately the same goal.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Nov 21, 2012)

I personally believe that the underlying factor towards integration is, as someone called it the "engine that drives the techniques"... namely the stance and footwork. If these don't share the same objective, then the following techs will lack substance.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 21, 2012)

Thunder Foot said:


> I personally believe that the underlying factor towards integration is, as someone called it the "engine that drives the techniques"... namely the stance and footwork. If these don't share the same objective, then the following techs will lack substance.



We have to be careful about believing our own PR, though. While things may work very well "as designed" it may also be possible to "absorb what is useful" and take some material from the system and use it with different footwork and stances. If done in a happenstance manner it's not likely to be very good but it's also not a house of cards. I've sometimes hit people pretty hard in practice when I've been in a pretty lousy stance because the guy wasn't standing still and was resisting me. That's not a plan, but it's an indication that not everything has to be perfectly aligned--indeed, if that were the case the system would be useless. Sometimes we overthink these things.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 22, 2012)

See I'm a person that believes everything does have to be perfectly aligned , that's why we have to keep training.
Wing Chun uses the YCKYM  stance for a reason.
This is an excerpt from a transcript of a seminar given by Tsui Seung Tin
I quote:

"The Two Adduction Stance is the stance which is only seen in Wing Chun Kung Fu.
On the face of it , one may feel that such a stance is unstable and difficult to move around.
It is also thought that the lower part of such a stance is wide open for attack.

However if you look at it more carefully, you will find that the Two Adduction Stance consists of plenty of advantages including the invincible attack and effective defence.
It will also enable you to suck in the opponents force for your own use when coming into contact with the opponent.

This means that your own body weight will increase whilst the body weight of the opponent will decrease.
This special effect of increasing in body weight will therefore give you an enormous power in counter-attack.

On the other hand , the structural performance of the Two Adduction Stance completely fits into the logic of force.
It can gather up the strength of the whole body onto a point of attack.

In other words whether you punch or kick , the attack will contain the strength of the whole body.
It may take pages for me to explain how this is happening in black and white.
I therefore decide to talk about the theory and structure of how to gather up the strength of the whole body during my demonstration.
End quote.
He then goes on to explain the structure and theory of Tan Sau , Bong Sau and Fook Sau.


----------



## WTchap (Nov 22, 2012)

I've had time away from Wing Tsun (often due to work and changing where [country] I live), and I took the opportunity to play around with different arts to see what else was out there, how things work, etc. Some arts do have various 'connections' or 'similarities' with Wing Tsun, but....

My Xingyi instructor said I did Xingyi which looked like it still had WT as its engine; and my Aikido instructor often just smiled and shook his head when watching me (by the way, Aikido is simply a _fascinating_ art - I would recommend any martial artist with an open mind giving it some time).

Despite some dedicated training in these other arts... the WT was inside my movements and use of the body - I just couldn't get it out  :ultracool


----------



## yak sao (Nov 22, 2012)

WC is not a collection of techniques strewn together and called a system.
It isn't even techniques as much as its techniques are a physical manifestation of WC principles at work.

WC is a very technical art, but you have to get beyond that and see the concept. WC is quite simply, (yea, right) body mechanics. How can I move my body in such a way to deliver devastating stopping power, while at the same time, keeping my opponent from doing that to me?
The step and punch isnt just me stepping in so I can get close enough to hit with my fist. Its about me getting close enough so I can deliver my body weight into my opponent, using my fist as the delivery system, and having it backed up from proper stance, body alignment, etc.
As my opponent launches a powerful attack to my face, the sensitivity Ive gained through countless hours of chi sau practice, isnt about me being sensitive to his attack so that I can respond with the proper arm structure. Its about me being sensitive to my own body so that I am able to respond in such a way so that I am still balanced and in control of my structure.

In order to do these things properly, you can't just cherry pick. You can't have some of this style and some of that style with a little WC thrown in for good measure. In order for WC to work as it should, you need to have it from the ground up.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> See I'm a person that believes everything does have to be perfectly aligned , that's why we have to keep training.



I've studied WC proper and I likes it a lot, but I've also used aspects of it as taught in JKD with a boxing-style stance and had success there too. If things have to be _perfectly aligned_, how could the art ever be used in the heat of combat? I don't disagree with what you say as an ideal but it really isn't a house of cards where removing one collapses the whole structure--no such system could ever be useful in a fight.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2012)

yak sao said:


> In order to do these things properly, you can't just cherry pick. You can't have some of this style and some of that style with a little WC thrown in for good measure. In order for WC to work as it should, you need to have it from the ground up.



And yet I've seen aspects of WC integrated well and successfully into JKD. It isn't WC and doesn't use anything like the WC strategy but you can take some techniques and ideas and, with though, practice, and care, work them into something else. After all, WC came from earlier arts too.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 22, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I've studied WC proper and I likes it a lot, but I've also used aspects of it as taught in JKD with a boxing-style stance and had success there too. If things have to be _perfectly aligned_, how could the art ever be used in the heat of combat? I don't disagree with what you say as an ideal but it really isn't a house of cards where removing one collapses the whole structure--no such system could ever be useful in a fight.



You will never achieve perfect body alignment, especially when looking at the unpredictability of a fight, such as terrain, etc. That said, the closer you can get to achieving total body unity in practice, the better it will serve you when you have to deviate from that structure when suddenly you find yourslef with a fist or body propelling toward you.
WC is not all or nothing...there are redundancies built into the system as a backup to either our shortcomings, or the unpredictability of our opponent or whatever.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 22, 2012)

geezer said:


> A lot of people try to pick up some WC to use along with other martial arts. Sometimes it can work to a degree, but more often not. There's a huge problem. And it has nothing to do with politics, egos, or which approach is best. It has to do with the fact that WC is an integrated system that's based on efficiency and simplicity. It's a paired down system in which each movement performs essential functions, and all redundant movements are discarded. The best WC is that which gets the job done as simply, directly, and effortlessly as possible.
> 
> Ok, so what happens if you practice another pugilistic art that uses different movements? Well, _learning_ about other arts is fine. _Sparring_ against them is essential_. _But _training_ them will defeat the purpose of WC. WC demands simplicity, so your responses become automatic according to the force you receive. Tacking on an extra "bag or tricks" will complicate and slow your responses, Rather than just moving automatically according to the force of your opponent's attack (objective response), you now will have to _think. _You will have to sort through your "menu" of tricks and choose which response you think will work (subjective response). Normally, pausing to think is a good thing. But not in the middle of a fight. Any thoughts?



It is the picking up of some WC and attempting to use itwithout understanding physically and tactilely. No different from someoneattempting to pick up some parts of any other training system without anunderstanding of what or why.

I learned and trained WC while training boxing, muay thai,and later silat, tai chi, and fma. I have taught and continue to teach manystudents training in wing chun, muay thai, grappling arts, fma, karate systems, hapkido, and a host of other arts or any mixof them. Depending upon the individual and the amount of time they put inwithin 5-7 years they are highly skilled in all the systems they train. Formost between the 3[SUP]rd [/SUP]& 4[SUP]th[/SUP] year they begin to transitionfreely and efficiently within the different ranges, the spatial relationships,and forces being applied and/or encountered. I do not believe I alone am fortunate to have so many students with greater abilities than other instructors.

As to having to stop to think..., I practiced and played baseball (and other sports) from my youth into my mid 30's; I also played golf starting in my early teens. Using these two sports utilizing two different instruments to strike with and the manner of striking being quite different I was a good hitter in baseball and a very strong driver in golf. Didn't have much concerns with confusing a baseball bat with a golf club or the swinging of them. I played football and never got confused between tagging someone in baseball and tackling them as they were running to a base.

Most of the greatest masters in all the martial arts trained more than one methodology. How did wing chun get the bart dom jo and the pole? A practitioner trained something else with someone, added to what they did, passed it on, and in time it became a part of what is now the system. For it to become intergrated in the system it seems logical it would have to have been trained would it not?

All the systems I have trained to any advanced level in there is a intergration of the material. Unfortunately one must train for a long time 10-20 years in may cases before getting keys or have a understanding of the intergration and efficiences in the combat aspects. Wing Chun teaches that from the beginning and that is one of its strongest suits.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 22, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I've studied WC proper and I likes it a lot, but I've also used aspects of it as taught in JKD with a boxing-style stance and had success there too. If things have to be _perfectly aligned_, how could the art ever be used in the heat of combat? I don't disagree with what you say as an ideal but it really isn't a house of cards where removing one collapses the whole structure--no such system could ever be useful in a fight.



In Wing Chun precision is measured in mere millimetres , If my Fook Sau is off the centerline by a tiny bit it will allow a strike to get through , get it back on the centerline and try as they might they wont be able to strike me.

I can also demonstrate when my Bong Sau or Fook Sau is off the centerline , I cannot effect the persons balance , soon as I get them on the centerline and focused at the right point on the opponent  the oppponents toes will start lifting and using my stance I can move them back effortlessly.

The thing that separates us from the top Wing Chun masters is their correctness in technique , and being able to consistently aim towards this focal point on the opponent , we can do it some of the time , they do it 100% of the time.

You maybe able to take some things like a Pak Sau and use them with a boxing style stance and body orientation , but I stand by my assertion that they will not work optimally.

Due to not being in the correct Wing Chun stance with the toes pointing inwards to the focal point , the body mass will not be properly transferred into the technique at the point of contact on the opponent.

Without the support of the correct Wing Chun stance you will probably be using upper body strength to generate the force for the technique instead of the force coming from the stance.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> In Wing Chun precision is measured in mere millimetres , If my Fook Sau is off the centerline by a tiny bit it will allow a strike to get through



Such a system would be _entirely worthless _in an actual combat encounter. I've studied WC and while yes it is more precise than most arts I've studied it isn't so dependent on millimeter-level precision.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 22, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Such a system would be _entirely worthless _in an actual combat encounter. I've studied WC and while yes it is more precise than most arts I've studied it isn't so dependent on millimeter-level precision.



Depends who your fighting doesn't it , if some idiot on the street takes a swing at me and my deflecting Dai Sau is quite a bit off the center line it's not much of a drama as long as I get my counter punch in at the same time.

But if I am engaged in Chi Sau or close range combat with another skilled Wing Chun player then you better believe millimetres count.
A Fook Sau slightly off and they will wedge through it with their Tan Sau and before you know it you've been hit in the neck , any slightly outward or downward pressure and they will exploit that too.

At the higher levels of the Wing Chun martial art precision and the correct focusing of force matter a great deal , show me someone who's force is going anywhere but center or angles are incorrect and I will show you a technique to exploit it.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 22, 2012)

I'd respond that a non-sport system in which you principally train to fight someone who fights just like you might not be adequately well-rounded.

If everything has to be right, it's not going to work. That it does work is evidence that pieces are not so weakest-link fragile as indicated here. It's great to _strive _for perfection but a bad idea to use a system that would _require _it.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 22, 2012)

Striving for and training to become perfect is good and is where the art aspect is important for many in the martial arts. For some of us striving for the same perfection keeps us working hard but competent functionabilty in many situations against different kinds of actions is far more important. For me it has to work against different kinds of attacks and attackers who are determined to hurt me. So it must be simple, direct, economical, and adaptable for combat. In a fight it has to be effective not perfect.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 22, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I'd respond that a non-sport system in which you principally train to fight someone who fights just like you might not be adequately well-rounded.
> 
> If everything has to be right, it's not going to work. That it does work is evidence that pieces are not so weakest-link fragile as indicated here. It's great to _strive _for perfection but a bad idea to use a system that would _require _it.



We don't principally train to fight someone who fights just like us.
But the fact remains if there are gaps in your Chi Sau , that means there is a weakness somewhere in your defence and you will be hit.

It is irrelevant whether someone fights like us or not , what we are dealing with in Chi Sau are different types of forces , whether the force comes in straight like Wing Chun or circular from some other type of style.
Is the force coming directly at our center or slightly off center , we must choose the correct technique to counter that force.

Consistant training of the Sil Lum Tau form and the practice of Chi Sau will foster a habit of constantly keeping your wrists on the centerline and being in your stance.
This is why there is so much repetition in Wing Chun and we don't have a gazillion forms , the secret is to just keep your damn hands on the centerline and be in your stance.

Even crappy Wing Chun will still work to a degree , but if you want to reach the higher levels and attain effortless power then things are required to be spot on.
Near enough is not good enough.

As an example It wasn't uncommon when training under Yip Man for Sigung Tsui to just practice pivoting for five hours in order to find his center , just think about that for a second , can you imagine being in your stance for five hours pivoting 45 degrees from side to side. 
Most people probably couldn't think of anything more boring , but it wasn't boring to him because he was concentrating on the details.

So if your just interested in smashing people in the face and being a bit more freestyle with your  movement you can go and learn boxing or something else , but if you are interested in studying something that you will be trying to perfect until the day you die then learn Wing Chun.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2012)

I think all of us spend a long time trying to perfect our martial arts and worrying about the details. For each art there is the possibility of improving form and (hence) function. Wing Chun is particularly technical, I agree, but if "things are required to be spot on" and "Near enough is not good enough" then when you meet an opponent of some skill but from a different art then you'll be pressed, slightly off your game, and perfection won't happen. In arnis we do practice very complicated, precision techniques that we figure would be unlikely to work in the heat of combat under the theory that in a real fight we'll lose a large percentage of our in-the-training-hall, warmed-up-and-ready-to-go best performance and want that percentage to drop from the highest starting point we can achieve. Real fights happen in imperfect situations. If "Near enough is not good enough" then you're practicing something that won't help you. I don't believe that of WC--I believe you're overselling the need for perfection. If your art is as you say it is, it's too fragile in design to be practicable. All real-world systems have failsafes that allow for less-than-desirable conditions, like the guy who punches harder than anyone you've ever trained with (for example).

Striving for perfection is great. Needing it is not.

One senior martial artist I know says you must train to fight three different types of opponents: An untrained (but dangerous) fighter, a trained fighter from a different style, and a trained fighter from a style similar to your own. We tend to spend a lot of time in the last of these modes because it's so very intellectually interesting and physically challenging, but it is dangerous thinking to get too taken with that one type of opponent.

I think you're selling WC short in saying that it must be "just so" to work. I wouldn't rely on a car that had no tolerance for changes in conditions--I wouldn't rely on such a martial art, either.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 23, 2012)

I didnt read the whole thread but,In terms of perfect technique. A millimeter off here and there will turn into a gapping hole when more and more pressure is applied. So WC should be an art either done right or not at all. Mix what you like, but just be aware that if it means not adhering to the core principles then the integrity of each art may be lost.

It's kinda like driving fast . At slow speed you can be more sloppy with the movement of the steering wheel. But as the speed increasing so does the need to keep a tighter tolerance of control .otherwise a millimeter either way could mean driving of the road. 
It's the same with fighting . Maybe sloppy WC may work against someone unskilled or smaller but when your dealing with larger and maybe more skilled opponents percision is key.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 23, 2012)

arnisador said:


> I think all of us spend a long time trying to perfect our martial arts and worrying about the details. For each art there is the possibility of improving form and (hence) function. Wing Chun is particularly technical, I agree, but if "things are required to be spot on" and "Near enough is not good enough" then when you meet an opponent of some skill but from a different art then you'll be pressed, slightly off your game, and perfection won't happen. In arnis we do practice very complicated, precision techniques that we figure would be unlikely to work in the heat of combat under the theory that in a real fight we'll lose a large percentage of our in-the-training-hall, warmed-up-and-ready-to-go best performance and want that percentage to drop from the highest starting point we can achieve. Real fights happen in imperfect situations. If "Near enough is not good enough" then you're practicing something that won't help you. I don't believe that of WC--I believe you're overselling the need for perfection. If your art is as you say it is, it's too fragile in design to be practicable. All real-world systems have failsafes that allow for less-than-desirable conditions, like the guy who punches harder than anyone you've ever trained with (for example).
> 
> Striving for perfection is great. Needing it is not.
> 
> ...



It is probably not as critical if your facing a non Wing Chun opponent and weight , size and strength are about equal , added to that most people wouldn't know their centerline from their backside so you could probably get by on superior speed and just being able to throw a semi straight punch

But I will use the example of Chi Sau again because it really is the essence of the whole system , the higher the skill level of the two partners and the closer they are in skill , then the level of refinement and correctness of technique must be higher in order to not get hit.

The slightest gap will be taken advantage of , as will any uneven flow of "forward force"
Against a beginner I could have the centerline wide open and because I'm faster and more experienced I could still stop the hits coming in , but against someone good I am going to get a port hole punched through my chest.


----------



## WTchap (Nov 23, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> In Wing Chun precision is measured in mere millimetres , If my Fook Sau is off the centerline by a tiny bit it will allow a strike to get through , get it back on the centerline and try as they might they wont be able to strike me.



I find myself agreeing with most of what Mook writes, but I'd beg to differ on the point above. I would say that there is, of course, potentially good structure and bad structure (or let's say, no Wing Tsun structure) in an exchange. But the idea that this is measured in a few millimeters is not correct, IMHO. If this were true, WT/WC would only work if you were 100% perfect in every motion and body method, 100% of the time. 

Not even our systems' 'masters' could ever claim that  :mst: (I choose this emoticon thingy purely as it looks like Leung Ting when he had the little beard).


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 23, 2012)

WTchap said:


> I find myself agreeing with most of what Mook writes, but I'd beg to differ on the point above. I would say that there is, of course, potentially good structure and bad structure (or let's say, no Wing Tsun structure) in an exchange. But the idea that this is measured in a few millimeters is not correct, IMHO. If this were true, WT/WC would only work if you were 100% perfect in every motion and body method, 100% of the time.
> 
> Not even our systems' 'masters' could ever claim that  :mst: (I choose this emoticon thingy purely as it looks like Leung Ting when he had the little beard).



Well probably the term millimetres is stretching it a bit , but its got to at least be within a few centimetres in my opinion.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 23, 2012)

It isn't required that techniques in Wing Chun need to be perfect to be effective.  However, perfect technique does the job much better and leaves you less vulnerable than imperfect technique.  The difference between imperfect technique and perfect techniue can indeed be a difference of millimeters.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 23, 2012)

Heard Sifu Donald Mak say something interesting about how westerners get too hung up on thinks like the proper angle and proper weight distribution and how it would probably work better to understand the philosophy behind it. I will have to find the direct quote and post it.

The reason I bring this up is that I see this in Taiji all the time, how much weight on this foot hwo much on this one what angle how should I breath.... a while back I found that when I stopped looking at things mathematically and started trying to look at it from a Chinese perspective (less compartmentalized) it started to make a lot more sense and my Taiji got better. 

To bring this back to a bit of a Wing Chun example, I recently was given a bit of a Wing Chun demo from a guy that impressed the hell out of me. He said I do not need to see who hit me I just need to know that there is a head on the other side of that fist.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 23, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> The reason I bring this up is that I see this in Taiji all the time, how much weight on this foot hwo much on this one what angle how should I breath.... a while back I found that when I stopped looking at things mathematically and started trying to look at it from a Chinese perspective (less compartmentalized) it started to make a lot more sense and my Taiji got better.
> .



Funny you should say this. I've always been very detail oriented in my MA training. 
Lately, when practicing chi sau, I've been seeing it from more of a whole body approach and less about what each arm is doing. As a result, my chi sau seems to have improved tremendously.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 23, 2012)

I have a few students who are, let's say, girthy; compared to me. Perfection in the presentation of their tools is impractical due to their mid section and yet are extemely efficient and effective in 'their' expression of wing chun. Their sensitivity is very good, their ability to angle to control the attack lines are excellent, and they are deceptively quick. Could they be better IF they lost the mass, yes. In the Art of wing chun they have much to work on. In their Martial ability against multiple types of attackers they are high on the list of those I would not want to have to face for real. 

Training for perfection is great. Howerver, we are imperfect beings, and must deal with that. As we go through life, our attributes change as well as different abilities. I have a student who sustained an arm injury. That arm is no longer straight and he has very little movement in the wrist. Can't do a perfect huen sao or taun sao yet is still an amazing practitioner. His will never be perfect in his presentation of the wing chun but his expression of wing chun is very very good.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> It is probably not as critical if your facing a non Wing Chun opponent and weight , size and strength are about equal , added to that most people wouldn't know their centerline from their backside so you could probably get by on superior speed and just being able to throw a semi straight punch
> 
> But I will use the example of Chi Sau again because it really is the essence of the whole system , the higher the skill level of the two partners and the closer they are in skill , then the level of refinement and correctness of technique must be higher in order to not get hit.
> 
> The slightest gap will be taken advantage of , as will any uneven flow of "forward force"



I don't doubt that when two WC players of relatively equal skill are playing that the little things matter a lot--it's the same for us in arnis--but millimeter accuracy is just not humanly achievable in a fighting situation. Look at soldiers' marksmanship scores in training and actual hit rates in battle--widely different. How often do you see a picture of a boxer landing a KO blow with his rear foot off the ground? It happens. You need some tolerance for stress within any system.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Heard Sifu Donald Mak say something interesting about how westerners get too hung up on thinks like the proper angle and proper weight distribution and how it would probably work better to understand the philosophy behind it. I will have to find the direct quote and post it.
> 
> The reason I bring this up is that I see this in Taiji all the time, how much weight on this foot hwo much on this one what angle how should I breath.... a while back I found that when I stopped looking at things mathematically and started trying to look at it from a Chinese perspective (less compartmentalized) it started to make a lot more sense and my Taiji got better.



Been there. I am very guilty of this--seeing free-body force diagrams in every technique. A BJJ instructor I had once quoted _his _instructor, who would say that "the hardest people to teach are smart guys and strong guys: smart guys keep trying to figure out the technique instead of just feeling it, and strong guys can get by with muscling through enough to keep them from having to really learn the technique."


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 23, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Been there. I am very guilty of this--seeing free-body force diagrams in every technique. A BJJ instructor I had once quoted _his _instructor, who would say that "the hardest people to teach are smart guys and strong guys: smart guys keep trying to figure out the technique instead of just feeling it, and strong guys can get by with muscling through enough to keep them from having to really learn the technique."




WOW!!!!

A double whammy.... no wonder why I was having problems :lfao:


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2012)

...and I didn't even mention what he said about good-looking guys!


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 23, 2012)

arnisador said:


> ...and I didn't even mention what he said about good-looking guys!



Good thing or I would have had to quit :lfao:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 23, 2012)

Here is what I was referring to in post #32 as to what Sifu Donald Mak said 



> The Chinese more like the culture, the philosophy, tend to generalization. When we do the Wing Chun and you sit on the stance, in foreign countries westerner or America they would say, oh forty-five degree or twenty-two point five degree. Actually the degrees are some reference. Which is the reference. When we learned, we never learnt degree. We just learned we have to lead the attack to the shoulder. We generalize like that
> 
> Another example is the stance. We say ninety ten. Ten percent of the weight is on the front leg. Or ninety percent is on the rear. Some say no it should be fifty-fifty. Or it should be seventy thirty. Dwell in the numbers the figures!
> 
> ...



In a discussion about the Yang Taijiquan long form someone was asking my sifu about the 108 form and why the different numbers for the same form (88, 108, etc.) He later told me we never counted, we just called it the long form. They never used numbers of degrees or percentages to describe anything. He is also from Southern China, although he is a little older that Sifu Donald Mak


----------



## geezer (Nov 23, 2012)

_"The Chinese more like the culture, the philosophy, tend to generalization. When we do the Wing Chun and you sit on the stance, in foreign countries westerner or America they would say, oh forty-five degree or twenty-two point five degree. Actually the degrees are some reference. Which is the reference. When we learned, we never learnt degree. We just learned we have to lead the attack to the shoulder. We generalize like that

Another example is the stance. We say ninety ten. Ten percent of the weight is on the front leg. Or ninety percent is on the rear. Some say no it should be fifty-fifty. Or it should be seventy thirty. Dwell in the numbers the figures!

Actually in our time we learned never to say numbers or figures. We just have to sit in the stance, we have to ba able to lift our front leg without moving the body.

So I understand the western mentality is to be analytical. Shall I face there? Is the degree 45? Or shall I face there?

No, its fighting and it is not concerned about the angles. Once we get it it goes to the shoulder! I lead it to the empty. That will serve the purpose already."_

*--Sifu Donald Mak*; Wing Chun  A Documentary. Empty Mind Films


I suppose this quote by _Sifu Donald Mak_ may be somewhat true in a very broad sense, but like all generalizations, it can't be taken too far. in my case, it was my _Chinese Sifu_ from Hong Kong who insisted that in his "WT" be trained with exactly 100% of the weight on the rear leg, that in stance turning,  the feet turn precisely 45 degrees, and so forth.  He used to get quite impatient with those who took a more relaxed attitude about any of the movements, as some of his American students were inclined to do.

Now on the other hand, this sifu's German branch was known for being even more _hyper-technical._ They analyzed and systematized the training to an even more extreme degree than the Chinese branch. I guess that would fit into the stereotype of the Western analytic outlook, and certainly with the stereotype we have of "Germanic culture". Still, it probably has more to do with the leadership of their organization. There are other German WC clubs in other lineages that have very different reputations.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 23, 2012)

geezer said:


> I suppose this quote by _Sifu Donald Mak_ may be somewhat true in a very broad sense, but like all generalizations, it can't be taken too far. in my case, it was my _Chinese Sifu_ from Hong Kong who insisted that in his "WT" be trained with exactly 100% of the weight on the rear leg, that in stance turning,  the feet turn precisely 45 degrees, and so forth.  He used to get quite impatient with those who took a more relaxed attitude about any of the movements, as some of his American students were inclined to do.
> 
> Now on the other hand, this sifu's German branch was known for being even more _hyper-technical._ They analyzed and systematized the training to an even more extreme degree than the Chinese branch. I guess that would fit into the stereotype of the Western analytic outlook, and certainly with the stereotype we have of "Germanic culture". Still, it probably has more to do with the leadership of their organization. There are other German WC clubs in other lineages that have very different reputations.



It may best be described as lack of compartmentalization but actually generalization is very true as it is described by Donald Mak for a whole lot more than Martial Arts in China both north and south, you can find it in all sorts of things, much more than here in the USA, but not 100% of Chinese or Chinese sifus think that way. Almost everything I have read about Xingyiquan from old books and most new books rarely talks about percentage or degrees but the santi shi stance is best described that way. Also one of the newer books, by Di Gouyong (which I like)  is heavy on weight percentage and degrees of bend. My Yang sifu (Hong Kong) could not care less about such things, my Sanda sifu (Harbin) does not care about them either (however he did use numbers...500 kicks per leg per day..hit the tree 300 times per side... :anic:.) and I do not think it is all that important to Chen Zhanglei (Henan Chenjiagou) either. And from what I can tell Fak Tak Ling (Hong Kong - Wing Chun) does not care about them, but I could be wrong there I have never meant him, just his students and my first Wing Chun sifu (American, student of Ip Ching) never talked about percentages or degrees but I did not really learn more that Siu Lim Tao so he may talk about them to those more advanced than me.  But none of this means that all sifus in China think this way. This is also not to say that they will not adopt our way of thinking, when teaching us, to get the message across if need be. It also does not mean looking at in percentages and angles is wrong, it does imply that we may be over thinking it though.

Understand translating from Chinese to English sometimes get messed up even by the Chinese person speaking English (I hear it all the time in my own home) so it is possible the term generalization may not have been the best one to use for what he was trying to say but then, maybe it was exactly what he was trying to say.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 23, 2012)

I reckon western Wing Chun instructors have to use more descriptive language , because they don't seem to be as hands on.
My Chinese master would say " If someone try to hit you like this then you do this ".
There wasn't a real big discussion of the mechanical aspects of the technique at all for the most part.

Probably because he would physically put his hands on you and put your arms in the correct position , touch your back to straighten it etc.
He was always touching your shoulder or quadriceps to see how relaxed you were and physically setting up your stance as you were doing the technique.
So that you were in no doubt where your arms were supposed to be or how straight your back was.

Western instructors don't seem to be as touchy feely as Chinese ones , they will demo the technique on you so you can feel it , but the Chinese ones will demo the technique and also put their hands on you and run you through the movement.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 23, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> I reckon western Wing Chun instructors have to use more descriptive language , because they don't seem to be as hands on.
> My Chinese master would say " If someone try to hit you like this then you do this ".
> There wasn't a real big discussion of the mechanical aspects of the technique at all for the most part.
> 
> ...



Mook, Sounds a lot like my instructor. (he is from Hong Kong under Jiu Wan) 
He would put me in place, apply pressure and his explainations were usually, "do this" or "feel this? Now you do it".
When doing a demo, he would say thing like: "at this moment he punches like this, you do like this" or "you move like this". "you have to feel then you will understand. It doesn't matter with I tell you or show you. When you feel, you will know."


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> I reckon western Wing Chun instructors have to use more descriptive language , because they don't seem to be as hands on.
> My Chinese master would say " If someone try to hit you like this then you do this ".
> There wasn't a real big discussion of the mechanical aspects of the technique at all for the most part.
> 
> ...




This reminds me of similar experiences in karate, esp. w.r.t. Sanchin--American instructors using measurements to tell me where I should be, and Japanese instructors moving me to where they wanted me to be.


----------



## rickster (Nov 24, 2012)

Its a no brainer and/or no wonder why JKD can accept WT...:headbangin::headbangin:


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 25, 2012)

rickster said:


> Its a no brainer and/or no wonder why JKD can accept WT...:headbangin::headbangin:



Yeah, except the guy I briefly trained JKD with (student of Jerry Poteet and Lamar Davis) thought you needed Wing Chun or Jun Fan for a solid foundatoin to really understand JKD. He actually thought Wing Chun was pretty good.


----------



## Danny T (Nov 25, 2012)

JKD 'can accept' wing chun!!  There is no accepting wing chun in JKD; wing chun is the foundation of Jan Fan which is a major foundation of JKD. Wing Chun, Boxing, and Fencing are the cornerstones to learn and understand the JKD Framework (where the guiding principles were developed and understood) 

It is not until AFTER this framework is ingrained through training that the practitioner then utilizes the JKD framework along with any techniques from any other style or system to construct their personal system (their personal JKD). JKD is not just a bunch of techniques one likes that are thrown together but ones used through the understanding of the framework of JKD: which wing chun is a large part of.


----------



## Thunder Foot (Nov 25, 2012)

arnisador said:


> And yet I've seen aspects of WC integrated well and successfully into JKD. It isn't WC and doesn't use anything like the WC strategy but you can take some techniques and ideas and, with though, practice, and care, work them into something else. After all, WC came from earlier arts too.


Arnisador,
I respectfully disagree with "not using anything like WC strategy". There is actually heavy WC strategy in JKD, the core JKD principles are all WC... save being "non-classical" which is where JKD starts its individualistic beginnings. In addition WC wasnt integrated into JKD, as that was its starting point; foundation of the art, as I`m sure you already knew. 

That aside, i believe i understand the essence of your point made. I agree, perfection isn't required BUT is certainly recommended. There will always be exceptions where bad technique will and can work. I would be hard pressed however to find a situation where proper tech could not do the job as effeciently if not better than the compromised version (your "foot up" haymaker analogy). And I believe the folks in response may also be of similar thought.
Bruce called it "formless form". The objective being perfect execution of the form, and its within that mastery of such that we understand the many variations in which we can execute. Eventually we come to simply "doing it" as the situation demands no longer needing to rely on perfect form. Yet in still it begins and ends with the form because we simply "do" it. Just some thoughts.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 25, 2012)

I think we largely agree! The WC approach is important in JKD but other strategies are used too--it's switching between them that's the key.


----------



## cwk (Nov 26, 2012)

wow. good thread, can't believe I missed it all. Good points made on all sides.
Just Like to say that I've cross trained in a number of arts and found that the easiest to integrate, for me anyway, was muay thai.
 I trained it here in Thailand where there is a stronger emphasis on clinching because of the rule set. I was lucky to be training at a gym with top level fighters ( lumpinee and ratchadamnoen champions among them) and through clinch training with them I learned that some of those boys have sensitivity that would put some WC guys to shame. I learned a lot from that training and have integrated some of the clinch work and sweeps into my own personal fighting style. I've been playing with flowing in and out of chi sao range and clinch range and I'm happy with it.
But I understand where some of you guys are coming from, if you don't have a solid foundation in WC to start with it could mess with your mechanics if you train something that deviated away from the WC mechanics/principles.
just my tuppence worth


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 26, 2012)

Thunder Foot said:


> Arnisador,
> I respectfully disagree with "not using anything like WC strategy". There is actually heavy WC strategy in JKD, the core JKD principles are all WC... save being "non-classical" which is where JKD starts its individualistic beginnings. In addition WC wasnt integrated into JKD, as that was its starting point; foundation of the art, as I`m sure you already knew.
> 
> That aside, i believe i understand the essence of your point made. I agree, perfection isn't required BUT is certainly recommended. There will always be exceptions where bad technique will and can work. I would be hard pressed however to find a situation where proper tech could not do the job as effeciently if not better than the compromised version (your "foot up" haymaker analogy). And I believe the folks in response may also be of similar thought.
> Bruce called it "formless form". The objective being perfect execution of the form, and its within that mastery of such that we understand the many variations in which we can execute. Eventually we come to simply "doing it" as the situation demands no longer needing to rely on perfect form. Yet in still it begins and ends with the form because we simply "do" it. Just some thoughts.



Agreed

And I have no way of verifying this but according to Kong Chi Keung (Ip Man >> Au Chi Sing >> Kong Chi Keung) who is a Wing Chun Sifu in Hong Kong who also studied JKD, His JKD teacher told him that Bruce Lee had said that JKD was basically high level Wing Chun


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 26, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> Agreed
> 
> And I have no way of verifying this but according to Kong Chi Keung (Ip Man >> Au Chi Sing >> Kong Chi Keung) who is a Wing Chun Sifu in Hong Kong who also studied JKD, His JKD teacher told him that Bruce Lee had said that JKD was basically high level Wing Chun



We were always told that JKD was just Wing Chun on the side.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 26, 2012)

I have to disagree with JKD being high level WC.  Remember that Bruce Lee did not progress past an intermediate level of Wing Chun.  I am not denigrating JKD.  It is valid and has some great stuff to it.  It also shares a lot with Wing Chun, but it is not high level Wing Chun...at least not the high level Wing Chun I have experienced.  It is quite different in the operation at higher levels.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 26, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I have to disagree with JKD being high level WC.  Remember that Bruce Lee did not progress past an intermediate level of Wing Chun.  I am not denigrating JKD.  It is valid and has some great stuff to it.  It also shares a lot with Wing Chun, but it is not high level Wing Chun...at least not the high level Wing Chun I have experienced.  It is quite different in the operation at higher levels.



From what I've read I don't think he even got up to learning Chum Kiu did he?


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 26, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> From what I've read I don't think he even got up to learning Chum Kiu did he?



Not that I have seen, though it looks like he had some experience with chi sau. 

 For those not in Wing Chun, Chum Kiu is the form one needs to be proficient in the be considered intermediate level for most schools.  It is Wing Chun's second of three empty handed forms.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 26, 2012)

mook jong man said:


> From what I've read I don't think he even got up to learning Chum Kiu did he?




There are those that say he didn't and those that say he did but I have never heard anyone worth listening to say he learned Biu Jee


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 26, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I have to disagree with JKD being high level WC.  Remember that Bruce Lee did not progress past an intermediate level of Wing Chun.  I am not denigrating JKD.  It is valid and has some great stuff to it.  It also shares a lot with Wing Chun, but it is not high level Wing Chun...at least not the high level Wing Chun I have experienced.  It is quite different in the operation at higher levels.




No one here is saying it is, there is simply a reference that Bruce Lee may have said it was which is only to show that there is a possibility that the Founder of JKD would not agree with what some say as it applies to Wing Chun not being important to JKD


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 26, 2012)

yak sao said:


> WC is not a collection of techniques strewn together and called a system.
> It isn't even techniques as much as its techniques are a physical manifestation of WC principles at work.



funny, I've been using almost this exact language in describing Tibetan White Crane, and the importance of understaning the principles that drive the system, rather than just collecting the techniques.

This discussion isn't really about Wing Chun and other arts.  Rather, it's really about practicing multiple arts, or mixing various arts together.  There's a similar discussion going on over on Kenpotalk as well.

The issue to me is this:  a well-designed system should have an underlying methodology that drives everything.  Understanding how that works, and working to develop skill thru that methodology is what is important.  I think a lot of people don't understand this, and instead they just look at the techniques and collect techniques.  If that is how you look at the big picture, then you will be inclined to believe that you can just do that: collect techniques from where ever, and mix it all together and it'll be fine.  THe problem lies in conflicting methodologies that may reside in different systems.  The methodology gives you an approach to training and a consistency in how you do everything, no matter what technique you are doing.  If you try to simultaneously practice several systems that each have a different underlying methodology, then you will have problems.  If you punch in X sytem, and punch in Y system, and punch in Z system, but each system differs in how it teaches you to harness the power of the body to deliver that punch, then you are always kinda fighting yourself because you keep jumping from X to Y to Z methodology, instead of staying focused on one method and excelling at that.

The end result of the punch in X and Y and Z systems may all be the same, but the road you take in practicing each of them may be different, and that's where it's a waste of your time if you are trying to pursue them all.

It is possible to mix things, or practice more than one system at a time.  But I think you need to be careful of what you mix and make sure it isn't creating a conflict in the methodology.  If you just collect techniques and don't consider the underlying methodology, then your mix is likely to be dysfunctional and even schitzophrenic.  And it's really really really easy to clutter your curriculum with junk that doesn't fit well with what you are doing, and you really do not need in the first place.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 26, 2012)

Some additional thoughts:

I've seen people do the forms in my system, without any understanding of the underlying methodology.  They were taught the forms more from a "collection" approach to learning.  There was no teaching of the fundamentals and basics, as they are done in my system.  Just the choreography of the form itself.

It's easy to tell when that was done, because even tho the choreography is "correct", everything about HOW it is being done is wrong.  The rooting and stances and rotation and delivery of technique is all wrong.  It's just some guy waving his arms about in imitation of our system.  And as a tool for practicing and developing skill, it makes the form worthless.

I admit: I was guilty of that for a long time, as I also failed to properly understand the fundamentals.  The instruction I was getting wasn't adequate in that regard.  Once I got the necessary instruction, it changed everything.  Nothing about how I practice my forms is the same as it was, even tho the choreography hasn't changed.

that's what happens when you just collect things.  On the surface, it looks "right", but underneath it all, there's nothing driving it properly. It's like putting a lawn mower engine in a Ferrarri.  It looks good sitting in the driveway, but as soon as you take it out for a drive you realize something isn't right about this.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> Some additional thoughts:
> 
> I've seen people do the forms in my system, without any understanding of the underlying methodology.  They were taught the forms more from a "collection" approach to learning.  There was no teaching of the fundamentals and basics, as they are done in my system.  Just the choreography of the form itself.
> 
> It's easy to tell when that was done, because even tho the choreography is "correct", everything about HOW it is being done is wrong.  The rooting and stances and rotation and delivery of technique is all wrong.  It's just some guy waving his arms about in imitation of our system.  And as a tool for practicing and developing skill, it makes the form worthless.



You can train one style and only one style and see the same thing; You can train one style and only one style for years and all of a sudden realize you were not doing it correctly. The rooting, stances, movement and possibly the delivery (not sure about that one) of technique is all correct..... but the intent is wrong, the understanding of the forms as to what the applications really are is wrong due to improper intent.

As for the delivery; I am not sure if that would be correct or not since it could be correct in that it works and works rather well but it is incorrect based on what the style you are training is trying to do since you have had the wrong intent and wrong visualization due to having the wrong intent.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 26, 2012)

Xue Sheng said:


> You can train one style and only one style and see the same thing; You can train one style and only one style for years and all of a sudden realize you were not doing it correctly. The rooting, stances, movement and possibly the delivery (not sure about that one) of technique is all correct..... but the intent is wrong, the understanding of the forms as to what the applications really are is wrong due to improper intent.
> 
> As for the delivery; I am not sure if that would be correct or not since it could be correct in that it works and works rather well but it is incorrect based on what the style you are training is trying to do since you have had the wrong intent and wrong visualization due to having the wrong intent.



I think we've got to remember that it's really not difficult to hurt someone.  You don't need perfect technique, nor a superior method to do that.  

But that being said, at least from my experience, that underlying method is teaching one to engage the full body in delivery of every technique.  This gives the technique the maximum amount of power that the individual is capable of, but without relying on raw physical strength in, for example, the arms and shoulders when throwing a punch.  Rather, the full strength of the entire body is harnessed.

One could certainly just muscle their way thru our techniques, and they would "work", i.e., they could hurt someone.  But doing so lacks an understanding of the method that our system is teaching.  If the method is understood and skill is built, the potential of those techniques is much greater, and that's what gets lost when the wrong things get mixed together.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> I think we've got to remember that it's really not difficult to hurt someone.  You don't need perfect technique, nor a superior method to do that.
> 
> But that being said, at least from my experience, that underlying method is teaching one to engage the full body in delivery of every technique.  This gives the technique the maximum amount of power that the individual is capable of, but without relying on raw physical strength in, for example, the arms and shoulders when throwing a punch.  Rather, the full strength of the entire body is harnessed.
> 
> One could certainly just muscle their way thru our techniques, and they would "work", i.e., they could hurt someone.  But doing so lacks an understanding of the method that our system is teaching.  If the method is understood and skill is built, the potential of those techniques is much greater, and that's what gets lost when the wrong things get mixed together.



true, but with something like Yang style Taijiquan it can simply be impatiences... and I am trying to figure out a way to describe this in words and it is proving to be rather difficult. I guess the best way I can put it at the moment is to say I look for or manufacture the opening for an attack instead of waiting for it to be obvious and/or waiting for the opponent to make me attack them. In visualization in the form visualizing an attack or a defense instead of visualizing stick and follow and feel


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 26, 2012)

Excellent post, Flying Crane.  I'd rep you, but I guess I already have recently


----------



## yak sao (Nov 26, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> funny, I've been using almost this exact language in describing Tibetan White Crane, and the importance of understaning the principles that drive the system, rather than just collecting the techniques.
> 
> This discussion isn't really about Wing Chun and other arts. Rather, it's really about practicing multiple arts, or mixing various arts together. There's a similar discussion going on over on Kenpotalk as well.
> 
> ...



Probably won't win any popularity contests with this but here goes.....

I think Bruce Lee in many ways hurt martial arts. I know, I know, he in many ways brought reality back to MA, .something that was sadly lacking,  and I find him an inspiration in many ways.
But he created a bunch of half baked immitators who learned pieces and parts of different systems and "created their own systems".

Very few study their art in depth anymore.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 26, 2012)

yak sao said:


> Probably won't win any popularity contests with this but here goes.....
> 
> I think Bruce Lee in many ways hurt martial arts. I know, I know, he in many ways brought reality back to MA, .something that was sadly lacking, and I find him an inspiration in many ways.
> But he created a bunch of half baked immitators who learned pieces and parts of different systems and "created their own systems".
> ...



You're not the only one who's thought this.  He kinda gave license to everyone to just kinda make up their own crap, make up their own rules and their own standards, and call it "great".  And people then justify it by quoting Bruce.  If I never saw another person quote Bruce to justify what they are doing, I'd be happier for it.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 26, 2012)

Bruce Lee interested many many people in the martial arts. I cannot see this as a bad thing.  He was not a god, which many think he is, but I believe that is on them.  Others take what he taught out of context to support thier own flawed thoughts on martial arts, but if Bruce Lee didnt exsist, they'd just find some other justification.

Even as great as Bruce lee was, his Wing Chun was not advanced.  Read the stuff he wrote and watch him work out and it is pretty easy to tell this.  He was a great martial artist, but he was not a great Wing Chunner.  The Wing Chun in JKD is a product of his limited training in WC.  That doesn't mean it is bad, but it does miss things that a Wing Chun player would think essential for good Wing Chun.  I don't believe the mixture that is JKd is supurior to WC, just different.  Part of that is because there is training missing from the WC.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 26, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I have to disagree with JKD being high level WC.



I do too, but JKD lineages vary greatly. The one I studied comes through Paul Vunak and includes a heavy emphasis on Muay Thai and eskrima and while WC, esp. the "straight blast" but also trapping, is an important part, I'd say (kick-)boxing and fencing form a larger part of the overall strategy.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 26, 2012)

yak sao said:


> Probably won't win any popularity contests with this but here goes.....
> 
> I think Bruce Lee in many ways hurt martial arts. I know, I know, he in many ways brought reality back to MA, .something that was sadly lacking,  and I find him an inspiration in many ways.
> But he created a bunch of half baked immitators who learned pieces and parts of different systems and "created their own systems".
> ...



I know what you mean, but that applies to so many arts--I don't think "absorb what is useful" is really to blame. It seems that when a founder of a recently-created art dies, everyone was his chosen successor and the art fractures.

I can remember in the 80s when some chains were advertising that if you had a green belt in anything then they'd give you a black belt in their "art", train you to teach ultimate self-defense, and set you up with a storefront. There are a lot of factors here.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 26, 2012)

yak sao said:


> Probably won't win any popularity contests with this but here goes.....
> 
> I think Bruce Lee in many ways hurt martial arts. I know, I know, he in many ways brought reality back to MA, .something that was sadly lacking, and I find him an inspiration in many ways.
> But he created a bunch of half baked immitators who learned pieces and parts of different systems and "created their own systems".
> Very few study their art in depth anymore.



Nah, he did not do that, it was going on long before he came along, some good and some bad, he is just the most recent excuse people use.

If it wasn't for the cultural revolution people maybe saying the same of Wang Xiangzhai. He too created his own system based on multiple styles he trained however he was considerably further along in Xingyiquan than Bruce Lee was in Wing Chun when he created Yiquan



Flying Crane said:


> You're not the only one who's thought this. He kinda gave license to everyone to just kinda make up their own crap, make up their own rules and their own standards, and call it "great". And people then justify it by quoting Bruce. If I never saw another person quote Bruce to justify what they are doing, I'd be happier for it.



And Li Tianji played a major role in the development of the Beijing 24 form and he was not really a Taiji guy either there have been multiple people inventing multiple styles they refer to as taijiquan as well as others long before Bruce Lee came along, some good, some horrible. Sanshou is a conglomeration actually. Bruce Lee just happens to be the most famous. As for quote from Bruce Lee and not meaning to upset you but this one I have always liked and there are a whole lot of people out there apparently never read it.



> let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back



People did not need Bruce Lee to make stuff up, it has been going on for centuries, he just happens to be the most famous and the most recent. 

I do not deify Bruce Lee but I do not vilify him either,actually I learned a heck of a lot about Xingyi, Taiji and Wing Chun in my short stint in JKD. Saw a lot of similarity to Xingyiquan actually, it was not enough to make me a JKD guy but I did learn awful lot in a very short time.. and that impressed me.


----------



## rickster (Nov 27, 2012)

Still...whoud have been great to train-workout with him


----------



## yak sao (Nov 27, 2012)

rickster said:


> Still...whoud have been great to train-workout with him




I'd jump at the chance


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 27, 2012)

Sure it would have been great to work with him.  There's martial artist now that aren't Wing Chun that I'd love to work with.  I wasn't trying to take anything away from Bruce Lee with my comments, but it is important to understand that Bruce was not a high level Wing Chun guy and that JKD, while a great art, is not based upon high level Wing Chun.  What Wing Chun techniques are in JKD have the same weakness that any other art mixed with Wing Chun have...the engine driving those techniques is not the one designed to drive them.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 27, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Sure it would have been great to work with him.  There's martial artist now that aren't Wing Chun that I'd love to work with.  I wasn't trying to take anything away from Bruce Lee with my comments, but it is important to understand that Bruce was not a high level Wing Chun guy and that JKD, while a great art, is not based upon high level Wing Chun.  What Wing Chun techniques are in JKD have the same weakness that any other art mixed with Wing Chun have...the engine driving those techniques is not the one designed to drive them.



Again no one ever said it was; it was simply a reference to something Kong Chi Keung (Ip Man >> Au Chi Sing >> Kong Chi Keung) said who is a Wing Chun Sifu in Hong Kong who also studied JKD that was stating what his JKD teacher told him that Bruce Lee may have said it was only to show that there is a possibility that the Founder of JKD would not agree with what some say as it applies to Wing Chun not being important to JKD.


----------



## yak sao (Nov 27, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Sure it would have been great to work with him. There's martial artist now that aren't Wing Chun that I'd love to work with. I wasn't trying to take anything away from Bruce Lee with my comments, but it is important to understand that Bruce was not a high level Wing Chun guy and that JKD, while a great art, is not based upon high level Wing Chun. What Wing Chun techniques are in JKD have the same weakness that any other art mixed with Wing Chun have...the engine driving those techniques is not the one designed to drive them.




Bruce Lee seems to have been a pretty smart guy and I think his understanding of WC surpassed his ability in WC.
I think in many ways he saw beyond technique, into concept, and although he did not train very far into the system, he was able to adapt other things to fit the mold.
Had he not made it big in the movies, I'm sure he would have went on to be a very high level WC man.


----------

