# Wing Chun vs MMA



## abe_tz

Hi everyone. My friend and I have been going back and forth over which is superior for self defense, wing chun or mma. No martial art is truly superior, however he has been relentlessly insulting Wing Chun even though he literally knows nothing about it. He told me it is the "laughing-stock" of martial arts. I thought I would seek help here for arguments as to why Wing Chun is better for self defense. Thanks.


----------



## dudewingchun

Here we go


----------



## mograph

There's no way to win this argument with your friend. Really, can you think of a single thing to tell him that would convince him that he's wrong? No matter which WC guy beat up which MMA guy once, he wouldn't be convinced. No matter which WC technique has been shown to beat which MMA technique, he won't be convinced. History? Nope. Street vs. ring? Nope. 

I have no idea which is better for self-defence, I'm just saying that no arguments in favour of WC would convince your friend. He has too much invested in his beliefs.

Wise martial artists appreciate each other's style and learn from each other. Your friend doesn't sound like this kind of person. I'd just let it drop.


----------



## Steve

Wong chun is better than MMA, unless you're in a situation where MMA is better.  Than MMA is better.    Unless it's not; then it isn't.


----------



## abe_tz

mograph said:


> There's no way to win this argument with your friend. Really, can you think of a single thing to tell him that would convince him that he's wrong? No matter which WC guy beat up which MMA guy once, he wouldn't be convinced. No matter which WC technique has been shown to beat which MMA technique, he won't be convinced. History? Nope. Street vs. ring? Nope.
> 
> I have no idea which is better for self-defence, I'm just saying that no arguments in favour of WC would convince your friend. He has too much invested in his beliefs.
> 
> Wise martial artists appreciate each other's style and learn from each other. Your friend doesn't sound like this kind of person. I'd just let it drop.


are you sure you dont know him? that is quite an accurate description.


----------



## mograph

Steve said:


> Wong chun is better than MMA, unless you're in a situation where MMA is better.  Than MMA is better.    Unless it's not; then it isn't.


Damn your logic! I must seek revenge!


----------



## mograph

abe_tz said:


> are you sure you dont know him? that is quite an accurate description.


Finally, those psych courses are paying off!


----------



## Danny T

Steve said:


> Wong chun is better than MMA, unless you're in a situation where MMA is better.  Than MMA is better.    Unless it's not; then it isn't.


NO!! You are Wrong!
Everyone with any sense knows that it is; "MMA is better than Wing Chun, unless you're in a situation where Wing Chun is better. Then Wing Chun is better."
I'm correct in this because I'm not wrong you are, unless we're in a situation where you are correct. Then I'm wrong.
So get right.


----------



## Phobius

So to conclude. If someone is *crazy enough to fight for a living, in for instance UFC, he is probably someone you should not attack on the street. (*crazy as in it is a gamble in terms of cash and health)

Long fighting experience trumps style. Most arguments always brings up UFC or fights of that nature and compare them to an average joe training a traditional martial art. Truth is if you fight a fighter, expect to lose while always go for win. Some day you might win or simply you continue to train until the day you realize you are one of those fighters as well.


----------



## wckf92

Steve said:


> Wong chun is better than MMA, unless you're in a situation where MMA is better.  Than MMA is better.    Unless it's not; then it isn't.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Sorry to bring some seriousness to this playful discussion which I admit is highly amusing. And this argument has been done to death I know. But something came to my mind about this the other day. 

So I wonder how much the MMA fighter's image is engraved into out consciousness or/and maybe subconsciousness. When I think MMA, I can't help but think some cut dude with tats and elite level fitness and conditioning. In fact, I usually unconsciously bring up an image of a famous fighter. How much of this imagery is burnt into our consciousness and how much does this influence our views and opinions about MMA as a method? 

Because if someone said to me "You will never be able to beat Conor MacGreggor with wing chun" (I actually remember someone saying something like this to me before but a different fighter) ..... well newsflash buddy! I wouldn't be able to beat Conor MacGreggor even if I did MMA! 

But I agree arguments like these are dumb.


----------



## yak sao

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Sorry to bring some seriousness to this playful discussion which I admit is highly amusing. And this argument has been done to death I know. But something came to my mind about this the other day.
> 
> So I wonder how much the MMA fighter's image is engraved into out consciousness or/and maybe subconsciousness. When I think MMA, I can't help but think some cut dude with tats and elite level fitness and conditioning. In fact, I usually unconsciously bring up an image of a famous fighter. How much of this imagery is burnt into our consciousness and how much does this influence our views and opinions about MMA as a method?
> 
> Because if someone said to me "You will never be able to beat Conor MacGreggor with wing chun" (I actually remember someone saying something like this to me before but a different fighter) ..... well newsflash buddy! I wouldn't be able to beat Conor MacGreggor even if I did MMA!
> 
> But I agree arguments like these are dumb.



My old si-fu addressed this once. He said that an argument like this is rubbish because you aren't going to be fighting a professional level fighter.
He said don't be concerned because your opponent knows a little boxing or a little wrestling or whatever. He said, so what, you know a little wing tsun.  Train it to the point where they have to worry about what you do.


----------



## Zeny

The guy in blue is an extremely skilled wc practitioner. Watch how he spars.


----------



## wckf92

Zeny said:


> The guy in blue is an extremely skilled wc practitioner. Watch how he spars.


 
Are you the guy in blue?

Is this what you believe 'sparring' is?


----------



## Phobius

If anything that would be a preparation for sparring, at least I hope this is not considered sparring.

Can see the value in mentally teach your students to become more aggressive and perhaps this could lead to such a behavioural change but then I hope it increases in intensity with time. (Increased intensity of above I would still not consider sparring but rather, if your student may learn to not see himself as being picked on but rather trying to pick on his opponent that would be a win)


----------



## Tez3

This is the same thread as posted in the self defence section.


----------



## Zeny

If that guy in blue is me, why would i refer to myself in the third person or praise myself?

That blue dude is a 3 times sanda champion. Have you joined any competition, let alone win one? Below is a whole list of his qualifications, copied from their facebook page:

• 1989 started practicing Ving Tsun under the coaching of Master Wong Shun Leung.
• 1997 Assisted in the establishment of the Ving Tsun Martial Arts Institute.
• 2001 Participated in Hong Kong Wushu Sanda Opens and gained recognition for 3 consecutive years
• 2004 Invited to join the HKSAR Sanda Team and represented Hong Kong to participate in the 7th World Wushu Championships
• 2004 to 2010 Participated in mnore than 10 contest of Sanda, Kick-boxing and various kinds of ring games since then until 2010.
• 2009 Acquired the Level 1 Instructor recognition awarded by the Hong Kong Wing Chun Union.
• 2010 Acquired the Level 2 Instructor recognition awarded by the Hong Kong Wing Chun Union.
• 2010 Founded Pure Ving Tsun (PVT Group)
• 2010 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at the HKSAR Customs and Excise Martial Arts Club
• 2011 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at PCCW Recreation Club
• 2011 Invited to coach Kick-Boxing at PCCW Credit Union
• 2011 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at the Hong Kong Craigengower Cricket Club
• 2012 Participated as a co-host of Kung Fu Quest II TV programme Produced by RTHK
• 2012 Invited to be Ving Tsun Instructor by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups
• 2012 Acquired Ving Tsun Instructor Certificate from Ving Tsun Athletic Association
• co-host of Kung Fu Quest II TV programme produced by RTHK, 功夫傳奇II之再戰江湖:形意本源

My point is this is one good example how traditional wc looks like in a close range fight. It looks like boxing but with some differences. Most chunners merely do chi sau and believe they can take on the world.


----------



## mograph

Tez3 said:


> This is the same thread as posted in the self defence section.


Is that thread as clever and witty as this one?


----------



## Danny T

Zeny said:


> If that guy in blue is me, why would i refer to myself in the third person or praise myself?
> 
> That blue dude is a 3 times sanda champion. Have you joined any competition, let alone win one? Below is a whole list of his qualifications, copied from their facebook page:



_• 1989 started practicing Ving Tsun under the coaching of Master Wong Shun Leung.
• 1997 Assisted in the establishment of the Ving Tsun Martial Arts Institute._
He trained for about 6 years and opened a training facility. Great.

_• 2001 Participated in Hong Kong Wushu Sanda Opens and gained recognition for 3 consecutive years_
Participated and received a certificate/medal/or trophy for having participated. Yeah.

_• 2004 Invited to join the HKSAR Sanda Team and represented Hong Kong to participate in the 7th World Wushu Championships
• 2004 to 2010 Participated in mnore than 10 contest of Sanda, Kick-boxing and various kinds of ring games since then until 2010._
Again participated in some contests or sport competitions. Good for him.

_• 2009 Acquired the Level 1 Instructor recognition awarded by the Hong Kong Wing Chun Union.
• 2010 Acquired the Level 2 Instructor recognition awarded by the Hong Kong Wing Chun Union._
Congratulations your hard work is paying off.
_
• 2010 Founded Pure Ving Tsun (PVT Group)_
Founded an new training group

_• 2010 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at the HKSAR Customs and Excise Martial Arts Club
• 2011 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at PCCW Recreation Club
• 2011 Invited to coach Kick-Boxing at PCCW Credit Union
• 2011 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at the Hong Kong Craigengower Cricket Club_
Was a guest instructor or a paid seminar/workshop instructor. Good for him hope all had an excellent time.

_• 2012 Participated as a co-host of Kung Fu Quest II TV programme Produced by RTHK_
Nice, got some good marketing from that I'm sure.

_• 2012 Invited to be Ving Tsun Instructor by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups_
Another seminar/workshop instructing opportunity.

_• 2012 Acquired Ving Tsun Instructor Certificate from Ving Tsun Athletic Association_
Congratulations again. Keep up the good work.

_• co-host of Kung Fu Quest II TV programme produced by RTHK._
Market as much as you can. Great for name and face recognition.



Zeny said:


> IMy point is this is one good example how traditional wc looks like in a close range fight. It looks like boxing but with some differences. Most chunners merely do chi sau and believe they can take on the world.


My opinion is this is nothing more than an example of heavy chi sao, poon sao exercising. Giving and taking. Nothing more.


----------



## Tez3

mograph said:


> Is that thread as clever and witty as this one?



Wing Chun vs MMA | Page 2 | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

have a look!


----------



## Xue Sheng

This is silly Wing Chun vs MMA...really!!!!!

Foolish mortals....... NOTHING!!!! beats Anbo-Jitsu..."the ultimate evolution in the martial arts"


----------



## wckf92

Xue Sheng said:


> This is silly Wing Chun vs MMA...really!!!!!
> 
> Foolish mortals....... NOTHING!!!! beats Anbo-Jitsu..."the ultimate evolution in the martial arts"



hahahahahaha....you Trekkie!!!


----------



## mograph

Tez3 said:


> Wing Chun vs MMA | Page 2 | MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community
> 
> have a look!


Naah. We're wittier. And more handsome. With _Trek_ references.


----------



## kakkattekoi

Zeny said:


> The guy in blue is an extremely skilled wc practitioner. Watch how he spars.



skilled wc practitioner?





  (starting from 22:22) and (starting from 39:05)

many wc practitioners commented on these two fights after the show was aired

most comments were he is not as skilled as he claim to be and he only have one move which is neck grab


----------



## dudewingchun

Zeny said:


> If that guy in blue is me, why would i refer to myself in the third person or praise myself?
> 
> That blue dude is a 3 times sanda champion. Have you joined any competition, let alone win one? Below is a whole list of his qualifications, copied from their facebook page:
> 
> • 1989 started practicing Ving Tsun under the coaching of Master Wong Shun Leung.
> • 1997 Assisted in the establishment of the Ving Tsun Martial Arts Institute.
> • 2001 Participated in Hong Kong Wushu Sanda Opens and gained recognition for 3 consecutive years
> • 2004 Invited to join the HKSAR Sanda Team and represented Hong Kong to participate in the 7th World Wushu Championships
> • 2004 to 2010 Participated in mnore than 10 contest of Sanda, Kick-boxing and various kinds of ring games since then until 2010.
> • 2009 Acquired the Level 1 Instructor recognition awarded by the Hong Kong Wing Chun Union.
> • 2010 Acquired the Level 2 Instructor recognition awarded by the Hong Kong Wing Chun Union.
> • 2010 Founded Pure Ving Tsun (PVT Group)
> • 2010 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at the HKSAR Customs and Excise Martial Arts Club
> • 2011 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at PCCW Recreation Club
> • 2011 Invited to coach Kick-Boxing at PCCW Credit Union
> • 2011 Invited to coach Ving Tsun at the Hong Kong Craigengower Cricket Club
> • 2012 Participated as a co-host of Kung Fu Quest II TV programme Produced by RTHK
> • 2012 Invited to be Ving Tsun Instructor by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups
> • 2012 Acquired Ving Tsun Instructor Certificate from Ving Tsun Athletic Association
> • co-host of Kung Fu Quest II TV programme produced by RTHK, 功夫傳奇II之再戰江湖:形意本源
> 
> My point is this is one good example how traditional wc looks like in a close range fight. It looks like boxing but with some differences. Most chunners merely do chi sau and believe they can take on the world.



Are there any videos of his San da fights ?

The video of him vsing the Muay Chaiya guy was what I expected.. Which is what most wing chun guys look like. It was better then most on youtube atm though.


----------



## Zeny

Danny, ok fine, he is not a god. What about you list down your own achievements and let us have a look?

Kakka, thanks for linking that video, haven't seen it before. Some fights you win, some fights you lose. However bear in mind as head coach of PVT he is not afraid to put his reputation on the line and use his wc to spar on TV. And when he lost he took it with humility.


----------



## kakkattekoi

Zeny said:


> Danny, ok fine, he is not a god. What about you list down your own achievements and let us have a look?
> 
> Kakka, thanks for linking that video, haven't seen it before. Some fights you win, some fights you lose. However bear in mind as head coach of PVT he is not afraid to put his reputation on the line and use his wc to spar on TV. And when he lost he took it with humility.



Personally I enjoyed the show
For me, there is always things to learn when watching these sparring


----------



## Mephisto

MMA is > than Wing Chun because MMA could potentially include wing chun. WC is a style MMA is not a style per se although a common but changing formula for success has been established. MMA is jkd applied to sport context, what works and gets results is what is respected. When wing chun training starts giving fighters an edge on the competition we'll see it get more mainstream respect until that day it's gonna have it's critics.


----------



## sifulane

Wing Chun is a Southern style, typically more oriented to upper body techniques with low kicks.  Wing chun is also a branch of Crane style, as are most styles of karate.  Sokon Matsumura once commented that karate worked well against someone who doesn't know how to fight.  I would suspect that could also be true of Wing Chun. 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## KPM

sifulane said:


> Wing Chun is a Southern style, typically more oriented to upper body techniques with low kicks.  Wing chun is also a branch of Crane style, as are most styles of karate.  Sokon Matsumura once commented that karate worked well against someone who doesn't know how to fight.  I would suspect that could also be true of Wing Chun.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


 
While White Crane was likely one of Wing Chun's "roots" back in the day, I don't think I would say that "Wing Chun is a branch of Crane style."  That's kind of like saying that the Southern Baptist Church is a branch of the Catholic Church.   It may have its roots back in history in the Catholic Church, but saying its a  "branch" implies a closer relationship than what actually exists!  ;-)


----------



## sifulane

I agree, maybe "branch" is a bit too binding.  You're right, it would be better to just say that Crane was a root.  *salute*

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Zeny

Why would you say wc has its roots in white crane?


----------



## geezer

Zeny said:


> Why would you say wc has its roots in white crane?



That's one popular theory... many believe that the Wing Chun we know that emerged in 19th Century Fo'shan was, in part descended from Fukien Wing Chun White Crane (Youngchun Bai He) maybe a century or so earlier.


----------



## guy b.

If it's derived from white crane then they gutted it in the process, then replaced the guts with something entirely different.


----------



## Zeny

Personally i think we are moving into fiction territory (ng mui etc) when we say wc is derived from white crane.

Wc's primary attack, the sun punch, is not emphasized at all in white crane.

Would anyone like to point out similarities between wc and white crane?

Otherwise don't believe everything you read on the internet.

At least karate can somewhat trace its roots in white crane, as it has a form by the same name (san zhan or three battles) as the form in white crane, and acknowledges the white crane master (xie zhong xian) as having taught the japanese dude who then returned to japan to start the karate system.


----------



## guy b.

Zeny said:


> Personally i think we are moving into fiction territory (ng mui etc) when we say wc is derived from white crane.
> 
> Wc's primary attack, the sun punch, is not emphasized at all in white crane.
> 
> Would anyone like to point out similarities between wc and white crane?
> 
> Otherwise don't believe everything you read on the internet.
> 
> At least karate can somewhat trace its roots in white crane, as it has a form by the same name (san zhan or three battles) as the form in white crane, and acknowledges the white crane master (xie zhong xian) as having taught the japanese dude who then returned to japan to start the karate system.



Agree


----------



## LFJ

Zeny said:


> That blue dude is a 3 times sanda champion. Have you joined any competition, let alone win one?



The list of qualifications don't say anything about becoming a champion or winning anything. It only says "participated" and "gained recognition", whatever that means. In any case, I've not been able to find any record of it. Do you happen to know where they can be found?


----------



## Zeny

LFJ,

I saw it mentioned here, but of course I'm in no position to confirm the truth of it:

Biography : Cranes Production,  - Exquisite Martial Arts Products

Perhaps a more reliable source of information can be found here:

http://hkie.rotary3450.org/Newsletter/2013-2014/Tung Feng 16   2013-10-30.pdf


----------



## LFJ

I was thinking more along the lines of official event records. 

But thanks for trying.


----------



## KPM

Zeny said:


> Why would you say wc has its roots in white crane?


 
The old legends and stories often have a kernel of truth to them.   Wing Chun legend says that Ng Mui developed Wing Chun after seeing a fight between a Snake and a Crane.   The legend says Ng Mui lived at the White Crane temple, and some stories say that her art prior to developing Wing Chun was White Crane.  There is even a White Crane system called Fukien Weng Chun Bak Hok......Fukien Weng Chun White Crane.   But this is a topic for another thread.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> The old legends and stories often have a kernel of truth to them.



There are also many creation legends that are pure fiction. Chinese are great with fiction.



> There is even a White Crane system called Fukien Weng Chun Bak Hok......Fukien Weng Chun White Crane.   But this is a topic for another thread.



That's just the name of the city it's from. Doesn't have any hidden meaning within the style.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> There are also many creation legends that are pure fiction



Like most or all of them. 

Case in point is the Bak Mei, Tong Long, Lung Ying trio of styles. They are basically all the same Hakka boxing thing. Slap a creation story and some fake tradition on it and voila, 3 different styles and associated politics.

Wing chun no different I think.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> That's just the name of the city it's from. Doesn't have any hidden meaning within the style.


 
If I remember correctly it was the county/region.  But "Wing Chun" is the name of a girl, or a hall at Shaolin.....take your pick from the stories.  The name had to come from somewhere.  One story is as good as another.  The poster asked why anyone would think that White Crane was a root art of Wing Chun.  I told him why.  I think it is as plausible an idea as anything else.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> If I remember correctly it was the county/region.



Ugh, yeah, you're right... I was just having a conversation with someone about the ambiguity of the term "city" in Chinese. You see, Yongchun County is under the administration of Quanzhou City, which sounds backward to Americans.



> But "Wing Chun" is the name of a girl, or a hall at Shaolin.....take your pick from the stories.  The name had to come from somewhere.



No one knows anymore. But I'm quite certain it has nothing to do with Shaolin. The "Southern Shaolin" monasteries have fake histories. There was no such thing. The original is up in Henan Province and I've spent a number of years studying there and in the surrounding villages that are sprinkled about the mountains, researching the styles of the area and their histories. Never once came across any mention of the term Yongchun.

Nowadays they do have Wing Chun there, but what it is, is the teachers watching tutorial videos on Youku.com then turning around to teach it. WC has nothing to do with Shaolin.


----------



## KPM

I like the idea that whole "burning of Shaolin" story was just a cover story.  That it might have actually been the burning of one of the union halls where the rebels groups were headquartered.  "Chi Sim" was also possibly just a cover story for one of the  rebel leaders that was hiding form the government and using a false identity to avoid capture.  It has been said that the primary martial art used by Lee Mau Man and a large part of the rebel groups at that time was White Crane.  So here is another story connecting White Crane and Wing Chun.  Since this connection comes from several different angles, it makes the idea of White Crane as a "root" art of Wing Chun as plausible or even more plausible than other theories.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I like the idea that whole "burning of Shaolin" story was just a cover story.  That it might have actually been the burning of one of the union halls where the rebels groups were headquartered.  "Chi Sim" was also possibly just a cover story for one of the  rebel leaders that was hiding form the government and using a false identity to avoid capture.  It has been said that the primary martial art used by Lee Mau Man and a large part of the rebel groups at that time was White Crane.  So here is another story connecting White Crane and Wing Chun.  Since this connection comes from several different angles, it makes the idea of White Crane as a "root" art of Wing Chun as plausible or even more plausible than other theories.



Apart from the fact that white crane doesn't work like wing chun in any way. 

I would say that the whole thing, rebel groups, shaolin, red boats is all highly suspect.

All we really know is that Leung Jan from Foshan taught something in the 19th century that later became wing chun. Beyond that we don't know anything.


----------



## KPM

The whole rebellion during this period, the rebel groups, Lee Man Mau, the burning of the Fine Jade Hall, the ban of the Opera performances on the Red Boats for 15 years....this is all a documented part of Chinese history.  The Wing Chun connection is the part that is not well documented.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> The whole rebellion during this period, the rebel groups, Lee Man Mau, the burning of the Fine Jade Hall, the ban of the Opera performances on the Red Boats for 15 years....this is all a documented part of Chinese history.  The Wing Chun connection is the part that is not well documented.



Googling these all I can find are wing chun related sources

Where is it in this list?

List of rebellions in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Googling these all I can find are wing chun related sources
> 
> Where is it in this list?
> 
> List of rebellions in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Southern China was a real hot-bed of rebellion!   The Wing Chun history is tied to the Tai Ping rebellion and a movement that grew out of it called the Hung Gam  (Red Turban) Rebellion.  The Red Turbans were led by Lee Man-Mao, and was formed largely of Opera Performers from the Red Boats.


----------



## KPM

Apart from the fact that white crane doesn't work like wing chun in any way.

---I would disagree.  Any connection to White Crane would have been about 150 years ago.  Both White Crane and Wing Chun have evolved in different ways since that time.  So sure, they no longer share the same power generation methods.  But they still share some similarities.  White Crane has evolved and split into different versions including "Eating Crane", "Screaming Crane" etc.  But it is thought that Fukien White Crane is the closest to that "ancestral" version.

Here is Sifu Lee Kong demonstrating his White Crane.  I see similarities in structure and techniques.  I see Tan Sau, Gan Sau, Biu Sau, Huen Sau, etc.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Southern China was a real hot-bed of rebellion!   The Wing Chun history is tied to the Tai Ping rebellion and a movement that grew out of it called the Hung Gam  (Red Turban) Rebellion.  The Red Turbans were led by Lee Man-Mao, and was formed largely of Opera Performers from the Red Boats.



Source?

Everyone likes to imagine that they were at the centre of things historically, MA system creators and history writers no different..majority of Chinese village peasants, if involved at all, would be running about the countryside in militias either looting raping and pillaging or trying to prevent looting, rapingand pillaging. Not much time for red boats, operas and romance I would think. Not much time for wing chun. 

Imagine something like Helmand province or Syria today, only with long spears and knives rather than AK47s. Easy to write an exciting story about it with the perspective of time and non-involvement. Not so easy if you are there.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Apart from the fact that white crane doesn't work like wing chun in any way.
> 
> ---I would disagree.  Any connection to White Crane would have been about 150 years ago.  Both White Crane and Wing Chun have evolved in different ways since that time.  So sure, they no longer share the same power generation methods.  But they still share some similarities.  White Crane has evolved and split into different versions including "Eating Crane", "Screaming Crane" etc.  But it is thought that Fukien White Crane is the closest to that "ancestral" version.
> 
> Here is Sifu Lee Kong demonstrating his White Crane.  I see similarities in structure and techniques.  I see Tan Sau, Gan Sau, Biu Sau, Huen Sau, etc.



Second clip better, first is Sifu Sergio looking for the roots of wing chun so I would probably discount on that basis. 

First clip shows no body method at all, second only very weak uncoordinated movement. He isn't doing it because he is being filmed I would guess. 

Here is a better clip , watch guy with top off. Body method completely different.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Second clip better, first is Sifu Sergio looking for the roots of wing chun so I would probably discount on that basis.
> 
> First clip shows no body method at all, second only very weak uncoordinated movement. He isn't doing it because he is being filmed I would guess.
> 
> Here is a better clip , watch guy with top off. Body method completely different.



If it was Sergio himself doing the demo, yeah you could discount it.  But its not.  Its Master Lee Kong, a very well-known White Crane teacher in Hong Kong.  If you can't see the similarities with Wing Chun, that's on you not me.  I think others will see what I'm talking about.  With all due respect, you haven't proven to have the most "open" of minds.  ;-)


----------



## Zeny

Most southern chinese martial arts look similar to each other. You can link a hung gar form video and easily point out similarities between hung gar form and wing chun form. Having such similarities does not mean that hung gar is the root of wing chun.


----------



## geezer

Zeny said:


> Most southern chinese martial arts look similar to each other. You can link a hung gar form video and easily point out similarities between hung gar form and wing chun form. Having such similarities does not mean that hung gar is the root of wing chun.



Yes, what you say is true of the southern short-bridge systems, mainly the Hakka arts that Guy mentioned. They do resemble Wing Chun. The heavier, "long-bridge" systems with their deep horses and long punches like Hung -Gar ...not so much. And, as KPM noted, Fukien White Crane also has many WC like movements, as well as (in the case of the Yougchun branch) the same name. Moreover, although an older art, it has essentially the same legendary history as WC, just with the names and details slightly changed. It's origin legend claims that the art was founded by a woman boxer, "Qiniang" who was inspired to create the art after observing the fighting postures of a crane.

It is held that Crane boxing was widely established and better known at earlier date than WC's emergence. Based on this, it seems quite plausible that Crane boxing may have been a source for what later evolved into Wing Chun. Of course "plausible" doesn't make it so. Granted the paucity of reliable records, _it's all speculation._


----------



## KPM

Information on the "Red Turban Rebellion"

http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2009/articles/1473.pdf

A lot of good information in this blog post from Ben Judkins.  Its rather long, and actually speaks against a White Crane or even Red Boat link for Wing Chun.  But Ben is a historian and is sticking to the known facts as much as possible.  Beyond that you have to start talking about what seems most plausible and then we are in the realm of conjecture and competing theories.  I think another problem with Judkin's conclusions is that he doesn't take into account Weng Chun's history and stories at all.  He seems to pin everything on Leung Jan.  Anyway, kind of long but worth reading:

Hing Chao Discusses Southern Boxing, White Crane and the “Eastern Theory” of Wing Chun’s Origins.


----------



## geezer

Thanks for that link to Ben Judkins article, KPM. It's about as good an overview of the topic of WC's origins as I have seen. One thing worth mulling over is what he said about the influence of the knives and WC's formation, and how many aspects of WC have the unmistakable quality of a _fencing_ system.

Personally, I can't help but wonder if fencing with the old style twin-knives of the mid 19th Century might have contributed more to formation the system than what you would imagine based on the much shorter 20th Century BCD we are familiar with.







If you look at those old-style paired long knives and compare how they would have been used to the use of similar weapons in HEMA and FMA, I believe you can see a lot that could explain WCs efficient and evasive steps, emphasis on centerline parrying and deflection, forward intent, simultaneous defense and attack ...even the way we remain square to our opponent so both hands come into play. That's not something you see in pole or long weapon fencing, but you do see in double sword fencing.

Just compare tan-da or gan-da with an off-lining turn (a la LT's WT) to the side to a low or mid-level parry with rapier and poigniard. The emphasis on double-handed movement, supreme economy and efficiency, shifting center aside to evade the blade, and a certain indifference to generating excessive power (unecessary with sharp blades). _It explains a lot_, including some aspects of WC that don't work as well with empty handed pugilism.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Zeny said:


> Most southern chinese martial arts look similar to each other.


You can find Tang Shou, Fu Shou, chain punch, Biao Xee, and YJKYM in the southern praying mantis system as well.


----------



## KPM

^^^^True!  But to my eye, that looks less like Wing Chun than Lee Kong's White Crane does!  But I should qualify that statement by also saying I am thinking of generic Wing Chun as a grouping and not any one specific Wing Chun lineage.   It might not look anything like WSLVT, for instance.  But WSLVT does not define all of Wing Chun.  For that matter, Ip Man Wing Chun in general does not define all of Wing Chun either.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> ...It might not look anything like WSLVT, for instance.  But WSLVT does not define all of Wing Chun...



AAAARRRGGGGHHHH.... Sacriledge!!!!


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> If it was Sergio himself doing the demo, yeah you could discount it.  But its not.  Its Master Lee Kong, a very well-known White Crane teacher in Hong Kong.  If you can't see the similarities with Wing Chun, that's on you not me.  I think others will see what I'm talking about.  With all due respect, you haven't proven to have the most "open" of minds.  ;-)




Doesn't really matter who he is..in the first clip he is doing no body method at all, only hands. Second he is doing it half heartedly or badly. 

There is absolutely no similarity between this and wing chun other than they are both Chinese ways of hitting people. You might as well say that karate and wing chun are similar. 

Here is some more decent white crane:


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> It is held that Crane boxing was widely established and better known at earlier date than WC's emergence. Based on this, it seems quite plausible that Crane boxing may have been a source for what later evolved into Wing Chun. Of course "plausible" doesn't make it so. Granted the paucity of reliable records, _it's all speculation._



It's baseless speculation though. It works in a different way to wing chun. If you were claiming that Goju ryu had similarities to white crane then you would be correct, they share body mechanics and forms. Wing chun just isn't similar, apart from the fact that it involves punching and kicking


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You can find Tang Shou, Fu Shou, chain punch, Biao Xee, and YJKYM in the southern praying mantis system as well.



Again very different to wing chun


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

guy b. said:


> Again very different to wing chun


What will happen if you have cross trained both WC and southern praying mantis? Will you try to find a common ground between both systems, or will you use WC to fight on Mon, Wed, Fri, and use southern praying mantis to fight on Tu, Th, and Sat?


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What will happen if you have cross trained both WC and southern praying mantis? Will you try to find a common ground between both systems, or will you use WC to fight on Mon, Wed, Fri, and use southern praying mantis to fight on Tu, Th, and Sat?



Since they aren't conceptually compatible.you will either do one or the other, or a horrible confused combination of both


----------



## yak sao

Kung Fu Wang said:


> What will happen if you have cross trained both WC and southern praying mantis? Will you try to find a common ground between both systems, or will you use WC to fight on Mon, Wed, Fri, and use southern praying mantis to fight on Tu, Th, and Sat?



This of course assumes you don't  have to fight on Sundays.....then what?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> It's baseless speculation though. It works in a different way to wing chun. If you were claiming that Goju ryu had similarities to white crane then you would be correct, they share body mechanics and forms. Wing chun just isn't similar, apart from the fact that it involves punching and kicking



Maybe so.  But you yourself have admitted that Wing Chun may have evolved from one of the southern village arts.  Ben Judkins seems to suggest the same thing in his blog.  These southern systems all have similarities.   Like I've pointed out, we have about 150 years of divergent development to explain differences.  Who knows what that original southern village art was?  An older form of White Crane?  An older form of Hakka art?  All speculation at this point.  But given convergent legends and historical hints, an older version of White Crane would seem to be as likely a candidate as anything.  Start with that and then add something to stimulate a "Wing Chun-like" path of development.....say a Snake element?.....or say inspiration and input from the Luk Dim Boon Kwun?...... or inspiration and input from a double long knife fencing system as Judkins suggests?........  It really doesn't matter at this point. But it makes for interesting investigation and discussion.


----------



## LFJ

I think it's more important to analyze how similarly different systems work, rather than how similar their forms might look. Appearance is superficial and means nothing if the interpretations and ultimate methods of fighting differ greatly. 

If another system has a _taan-sau_ action in its forms, it really doesn't mean anything unless it shares the same interpretation, and then only maybe. It could be entirely different and not actually share any historical ties, or it could be the same and still not share any historical ties! 

Visual appearance is not enough to go on, because as a matter of fact, I can take apart each of the Wing Chun forms and explain the actions from a Northern perspective, because I can find actions that are visually similar or even identical from the North. 

Problem is, their interpretations are completely different and they obviously don't have a shared history. Shared visual appearance really means nothing. It's to be expected, because we are all humans. I saw a gorilla fight on Youtube where they were using Longfist methods. Does that have any historical value?


----------



## LFJ

Ugh, someone was talking to me as I was typing that post. Lost my train of thought. My point is this; visual appearance alone means very little. If two systems are visually similar _and _function similarly, then _that_ is interesting. Then we can start to look into the historical questions. 

And the questions we need to answer are who taught what to whom, when and where. In my experience researching TCMAs in the North, if two systems are related, some information somewhere can be found to link them historically. Villagers often have stories that may match up with those from another village of some figure entering the village and teaching a style that is in some interesting ways similar to another. It gives clues as to who taught what to whom, when and where.

If there's absolutely nothing like that, it usually means there's no connection. Or at least, the connection is too far removed for it to mean anything anymore...

It's foolish to notice visual similarities, then jump to conclusions and declare Wing Chun's mother and father arts to be Emei Snake and White Crane without answering any of those essential historical questions, even if there are similarities in function. Because I can find the same similarities in the North where there is obviously no historical connection whatsoever.

But that's exactly what Beetlejuice did on the other forum, while tampering with terminology and applications to fit their theory. If you have 0 clue as to who taught what to whom, when and where, you've really got nothing, but especially if the similarities are only visual!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I
> 
> If another system has a _taan-sau_ action in its forms, it really doesn't mean anything unless it shares the same interpretation, and then only maybe. It could be entirely different and not actually share any historical ties, or it could be the same and still not share any historical ties!


 
Good point!  One could look at the Tan Sau in WSLVT compared to the  Tan Sau in Ip Ching or Ip Chun Wing Chun and conclude, even though they are visually similar, since they have a totally different interpretations the systems could not possibly have come from the same teacher!  ;-)


----------



## KPM

I agree that people only move in so many ways.  So you look at the total package....narrow stance, short bridge, centerline structure, short power......doubtful that all of these elements emerged independently in multiple martial arts from the same region.   So visual appearance does make a difference when looking for connections.


----------



## LFJ

I would think it normal that fighting systems would to some degree be influenced by what is common around them, either by using similar ideas or devising ways to deal with those ideas. 

Those are pretty general ideas you list, and a system may still function quite differently while sharing those elements. I don't think there is enough at all to say White Crane is a "mother art" of Wing Chun.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Good point!  One could look at the Tan Sau in WSLVT compared to the  Tan Sau in Ip Ching or Ip Chun Wing Chun and conclude, even though they are visually similar, since they have a totally different interpretations the systems could not possibly have come from the same teacher!  ;-)



And that would be correct in the most likely of all likelihoods!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I would think it normal that fighting systems would to some degree be influenced by what is common around them, either by using similar ideas or devising ways to deal with those ideas.
> 
> Those are pretty general ideas you list, and a system may still function quite differently while sharing those elements. I don't think there is enough at all to say White Crane is a "mother art" of Wing Chun.


 
Its only one possible theory.  And to me, it makes more sense than saying that Wing Chun empty hand was derived from the 6 1/2 point pole form.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> And that would be correct in the most likely of all likelihoods!


 
But it isn't correct.   So there you have Wing Chun from the same teacher that doesn't match in interpretation.  So your idea that visual similarity means nothing and interpretation is the key is just as wrong as saying everything should be based on visual appearance.  It has to be somewhat of a "gestalt" of everything.  My point was simply that you cannot discount visual similarities entirely.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But it isn't correct.   So there you have Wing Chun from the same teacher that doesn't match in interpretation.



So you think Yip Man taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?

I wouldn't trust you to analyze possible relationships between any two styles then! Common sense must be applied.



> It has to be somewhat of a "gestalt" of everything.  My point was simply that you cannot discount visual similarities entirely.



I agree. But in many cases that is in fact all people have, and yet they still come to definite conclusions based on that, or even alter their Wing Chun method and terminology to fit their theories.


----------



## KPM

[So you think Yip Man taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?

---So you think Yip Man didn't teach Ip Ching, Ip Chun, and Wong Shun Leung all three?  That he wouldn't have corrected Ip Ching and Ip Chun's idea of Tan Sau if they had learned it improperly from someone else?   You think Ip Man taught ONLY Wong Shun Leung the correct interpretation of Tan Sau?   Even if that was true, you would then have a whole lot of people teaching "Ip Man Wing Chun" that don't interpret Tan Sau the same way that WSL does.  Therefore, by your standard, an outside observer would have to conclude that WSLVT and most other Wing Chun doesn't come from the same source.


I wouldn't trust you to analyze possible relationships between any two styles then! Common sense must be applied.

---Right back atcha buddy!  ;-)


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> "...I wouldn't trust you to analyze possible relationships between any two styles then! Common sense must be applied."
> 
> ---Right back atcha buddy!  ;-)



@KPM:  I agree. It's not that Guy is wrong or ill-informed. I mean we've all agreed that what with the paucity of good historical records, we are all just speculating on WC's connections to these other systems. However, it is clear that you and Guy have very different ways of viewing the subject. For what little it's worth, my outlook is open and inclusive ....that is to say more like yours, Keith. It has nothing to do with knowledge or facts. It's a matter of _worldview._ I focus on the connections and commonalities between things and people. Many others fixate on differences and distinctions. The "truth" (whatever that is) demands a balance of both perspectives. So...carry on gentlemen.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^Actually Steve, that was LFJ saying those most recent things.  Not Guy.  But they seem to think alike.  Must be part of that "True Believer Syndrome."      I just think it is rather ironic that I was told I was not using common sense by a guy that is convinced that Ip Man taught ONLY WSL the "correct" interpretation of Wing Chun!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ^^^^^Actually Steve, that was LFJ saying those most recent things.  Not Guy.  But they seem to think alike.  Must be part of that "True Believer Syndrome."      I just think it is rather ironic that I was told I was not using common sense by a guy that is convinced that Ip Man taught ONLY WSL the "correct" interpretation of Wing Chun!



I never said that. WSL never made that claim, and none of his students do. This is unlike LTWT and TWC, the founders of which both claim to have learned either the "final version" or the "traditional version" from YM, and their students "truly believe" it.

We just have thousands of people coming from other lineages, including these two, noticing what is taught as Yip Man derived Wing Chun by various others, and coming to a logical conclusion based on the merits of each system.

Show me someone who has trained 20+ years in WSLVT then completely renounced it in favor of LTWT, TWC, or another YM lineage. There are none. But I can show you literally hundreds from each lineage going in the reverse.

You once pulled out Occam's Razor here. Why not take it to this question of how there are so many conflicting versions of what YM taught?

Is it the simplest explanation of things to say YM must have taught several different versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways? Or could he have perhaps put more effort into a particularly talented student who was also an active fighter, and the others mostly copied each other and filled in gaps on their own?

Anyway, we've had this debate numerous times. Just take that as a rhetorical question. If you still believe the first theory, then I don't know what to say to you. Must be part of that "Gullible Hippie Syndrome".


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Maybe so.  But you yourself have admitted that Wing Chun may have evolved from one of the southern village arts.  Ben Judkins seems to suggest the same thing in his blog.  These southern systems all have similarities.   Like I've pointed out, we have about 150 years of divergent development to explain differences.



Why would you assume the same Southern village art as a starting point for all? Why assume crossover between Hakka and non-Hakka?

As you know my theory is that wing chun is based on pole, while others are not. I have reasons for saying this. 



> Who knows what that original southern village art was?  An older form of White Crane?  An older form of Hakka art?  All speculation at this point.  But given convergent legends and historical hints, an older version of White Crane would seem to be as likely a candidate as anything.



White Crane is a sanchin system. This means that it works in a completely different way to the way that wing chun works. No reason to insert it into wing chun history.


----------



## DaveB

guy b. said:


> White Crane is a sanchin system. This means that it works in a completely different way to the way that wing chun works. No reason to insert it into wing chun history.



Can you expand on this please? I have some training in white crane and was only told of the similarities to wing chun.


----------



## KPM

As you know my theory is that wing chun is based on pole, while others are not. I have reasons for saying this.

---True.  But I (and others I think) believe there is more reason to theorize a White Crane origin than a Luk Dim Boon Kwun origin.  But its all just conjecture.  One has to look at the available resources and come up with a "best guess."



White Crane is a sanchin system. This means that it works in a completely different way to the way that wing chun works. No reason to insert it into wing chun history.

---And I have pointed out, several times now, that we have at least 150 years of divergent evolution and development.  Which is plenty of time for Wing Chun to vary significantly from a "proto-White Crane" base and come up with its own power generation methods.


----------



## KPM

I never said that. WSL never made that claim, and none of his students do.

----Then you need to clarify that point! Because exchanges like this:

I said:
_Good point! One could look at the Tan Sau in WSLVT compared to the Tan Sau in Ip Ching or Ip Chun Wing Chun and conclude, even though they are visually similar, since they have a totally different interpretations the systems could not possibly have come from the same teacher! ;-)_

You replied:
_And that would be correct in the most likely of all likelihoods!_

And you later asked:
_So you think Yip Man taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?_

All of that and other things you have said certainly seem to imply that WSL was the only one that was taught the "real" interpretation of Wing Chun!  But maybe I have misunderstood.  So can you clarify what you actually believe?



Show me someone who has trained 20+ years in WSLVT then completely renounced it in favor of LTWT, TWC, or another YM lineage. There are none. But I can show you literally hundreds from each lineage going in the reverse.

---That implies to me that Wong Shun Leung develop his own really good interpretation of Wing Chun!  Not necessarily that he was the only one favored enough or smart enough to "get" the real thing from Ip Man!



You once pulled out Occam's Razor here. Why not take it to this question of how there are so many conflicting versions of what YM taught?

---And why don't you apply  Occam's Razor and common sense in the case of WSLVT?  If WSLVT has a unique interpretation of Wing Chun that varies from everyone else that learned from Ip Man, the common sense conclusion is that this is likely an interpretation that originated with Wong Shun Leung himself.  

1.  Leung Ting and Ip Ching trained directly with Ip Man.  Leung Ting has photos of Ip Man teaching him the wooden dummy with Ip Ching standing in the background. There are photos of Ip Man going through the forms with Ip Ching watching.  You don't think that at some point Ip Man would have said...."Hold on Ah Ting!  Hold on Ah Ching! Why are using the Tan Sau that  way?  Remember, Tan Sau is only for training the elbow.  Don't try and use it as a parry like that!"????   To believe that he would just ignore such a fundamental thing in people training directly with him in private lessons...one being his own son!.....just goes against common sense.

2.  To suggest that Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about any of his students (including his own sons) that spent many many years with him enough to teach them a "correct" interpretation of Tan Sau......to correct their error in something so fundamental......just goes against common sense.

3. To suggest that people we know to be sharp guys....like Ho Kam Ming and Tsui Tsun Ting just were not smart enough to understand the concept of Tan Sau like Wong Shun Leung was.... that just goes against common sense.

4.  To assume that Ip Man would favor one person out all the many loyal students that spent many years with him and only teach one person the "real thing" implies that Ip Man was both a horrible person and a horrible teacher.  That goes against common sense.

So when I apply common sense to this situation, my conclusion is that Wong Shun  Leung himself had his own understanding and interpretation of the Wing Chun he learned from Ip Man and had "upgraded" his system to  suit himself based upon his own fighting experience.  After all, he called it "Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun" to differentiate it from everyone else's Wing Chun, didn't he?  Nothing wrong with that!  What IS wrong is to disparage everyone else's version of  Wing Chun as being somehow substandard because they must have "missed" these teachings that WSL includes.   Now, maybe these things are great improvements!  Nothing wrong with that either!  But what IS wrong is the suggestion that Ip Man played favorites for only one person and was somehow such a horrible teacher as I pointed out above.

So LFJ, maybe I have misunderstood what you have been trying to say throughout multiple threads.  So I welcome any clarifications.

How do you explain the fact that WSLVT has major differences from every other branch of Ip Man's Wing Chun, without saying that WSL likely made these changes himself?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---And why don't you apply  Occam's Razor and common sense in the case of WSLVT?  If WSLVT has a unique interpretation of Wing Chun that varies from everyone else that learned from Ip Man, the common sense conclusion is that this is likely an interpretation that originated with Wong Shun Leung himself.



The problem still remains that the others differ among themselves too, drastically in many cases, yet they all claim to be teaching what YM taught them.

If you believe that, then you believe the asinine theory that YM taught contradictory versions of the same system to all these different people.

Do you realize you make assumptions about how YM would or would not have likely treated his students as if you knew him? And then you call your assumptions "common sense". Interesting....

Earlier I posted text from an interview with WSL where he explained YM's temperament and teaching style. He said YM _wasn't_ careful to make sure information was evenly distributed and he didn't waste time on students he thought not worth it. He said YM was the type of guy who'd rather teach one good student than 10 lousy ones.

Now, if that makes you think YM was a "horrible" person and teacher, that's your opinion. It doesn't mean it's "common sense" that YM wasn't like that because it doesn't sit well with you. Other students of his have said similar things regarding his teaching style. Like it or not, it is what it is.

It is clear that due to this uneven distribution of information and lack of attention, many classmates resorted to visual learning, copying each other and filling in gaps themselves.

Hearing the name "sticky hands" and watching the exercise, most laymen's assumption would be that the point is to stick to your opponent's arms to control them in a fight.

Having seen the shape and heard the name "spreading hand", most laymen's assumption would be that it's used to parry an incoming punch.

It's no wonder some guys teach exactly what the first visual assumption would be! The answer is they just went through the motions in training without receiving much information on what they were doing.



> After all, he called it "Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun" to differentiate it from everyone else's Wing Chun, didn't he?



Not to my knowledge. I know he kept the Ving Tsun spelling favored by YM. He later started using the term Ving Tsun Kuen Hok or "Combat Science" to show that Ving Tsun is not an art but a skill. It's not open to "interpretation". It's either correct or incorrect. But he was still talking about YM's Ving Tsun. He said he never changed a thing as there was no need. Why are others different? He said you'll have to ask them...


----------



## KPM

The problem still remains that the others differ among themselves too, drastically in many cases, yet they all claim to be teaching what YM taught them.

---I'm not saying that people didn't get some things and miss others.  I'm not saying that some people didn't learn a particular thing correctly or completely.  I'm not saying that others didn't ALSO change a few things to suit themselves!  What I AM saying is that if you take one fundamental thing....the interpretation of Tan Sau.....in which WSLVT differs from every other branch of Ip Man Wing Chun....then the common sense conclusion using Occam's Razor is that this particular interpretation of Tan Sau originated with WSL himself, given that all the other branches of Ip Man Wing Chun agree on their fundamental interpretation of Tan Sau.  Again, just common sense.   Either Ip Man purposefully withheld this interpretation of Tan Sau from everyone other than Wong Shun Leung, or Wong Shun Leung came up with it himself.  Which is it in your belief system?


Do you realize you make assumptions about how YM would or would not have likely treated his students as if you knew him? And then you call your assumptions "common sense". Interesting....

---You didn't know him either!  You are making the same assumptions in the opposite direction!   Go back and reread my prior post.  It just seems unbelievable to me that people that were close to Ip Man and spent years with him as his primary students would be treated that way.  That isn't the description of a reluctant or bad teacher.  That is the description of someone with some sort of personality disorder!!!!



It is clear that due to this uneven distribution of information and lack of attention, many classmates resorted to visual learning, copying each other and filling in gaps themselves.

---That may be true of his "public students" in a group class.  But I just don't believe that he would treat his closest and primary students that way.  The students that trained privately with him and that he knew would go on to represent him and Wing Chun by having schools of their own.  That just defies common sense.  You really don't think he would NOT have corrected Ho Kam Ming's interpretation of Tan Sau if he saw it was wrong?  Or Tsui Tsun Ting's?  Or Wang Kiu's  Or Leung Sheung's?  Or Ip Ching's?  Or Ip Chun's?  Or Chow Tze Chuen's?  Or Duncan Leung's?


---You still have not really answered my questions or clarified your position.   Did Ip Man teach WSL and ONLY WSL the "real" version of Wing Chun or not?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> What I AM saying is that if you take one fundamental thing....the interpretation of Tan Sau.....in which WSLVT differs from every other branch of Ip Man Wing Chun....then the common sense conclusion using Occam's Razor is that this particular interpretation of Tan Sau originated with WSL himself, given that all the other branches of Ip Man Wing Chun agree on their fundamental interpretation of Tan Sau.  Again, just common sense.



Their interpretation of _taan-sau_ (like _chi-sau_) is the same any layman would make just seeing the shape and hearing the name. I find that curious...

A lot more visual learning and sharing / copying of each other among classmates went on at that time than did YM spending the time and effort to develop a deeper idea in each one of them.

It's natural for people to always think in terms of applications, and _taan-sau_ as a block is a simple idea to be tossed around and it satisfies quickly.

It would be more suspect if all those guys had a more abstract interpretation of _taan-sau_ as a developmental tool and only WSL didn't share that understanding but taught it as any layman would assume it to be, a "spreading" block.

But that's not the case.



> ---You didn't know him either!  You are making the same assumptions in the opposite direction!



I didn't know YM, but I've only quoted what students of his have said regarding his temperament and teaching style. I haven't commented on how it makes me feel or let my feeling affect what I believe.



> It just seems unbelievable to me that people that were close to Ip Man and spent years with him as his primary students would be treated that way.  That isn't the description of a reluctant or bad teacher.  That is the description of someone with some sort of personality disorder!!!!



Your disbelief, disgust, or insults don't change the way he taught according to his students to a way you'd like better.



> ---You still have not really answered my questions or clarified your position.   Did Ip Man teach WSL and ONLY WSL the "real" version of Wing Chun or not?



How would I know? I was not there. There were many students who didn't go on to become mainstream Sifus known to the world today. All I can do is examine the facts and the systems of those popular guys, and sorry to report, in my opinion none of them compare. Doesn't mean there were no others.

If hypothetically WSL was in fact the only one to properly learn the complete system, there'd still be no way to convince you and you'd still call me a "true believer" even with truth actually being on my side. So, I think it is a pointless question since it can't be proven. You are just trying to paint me into a corner.

Just take each individual and examine what they teach; their level of coherency and degree to which they are functional. No need to make claims about the "real" version... or "final" version, or "traditional" version...


----------



## KPM

If hypothetically WSL was in fact the only one to properly learn the complete system, there'd still be no way to convince you and you'd still call me a "true believer" even with truth actually being on my side. So, I think it is a pointless question since it can't be proven. You are just trying to paint me into a corner.

---I am only using "Occam's Razor" and "Common sense" as you suggested.  What I have said is a logical conclusion.  What you have said is based upon a "sifu sez" mentality.  Its hard to argue rationally with someone who isn't using rational methods to arrive at their conclusions.  So I guess that's the end of this particular conversation!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---I am only using "Occam's Razor" and "Common sense" as you suggested.  What I have said is a logical conclusion.



You're doing it wrong. Your conclusion is asinine, but you're sticking to it because it doesn't feel nice to you to believe otherwise.



> What you have said is based upon a "sifu sez" mentality.



Which sifu? Sez what?


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> But that's exactly what Beetlejuice did on the other forum, while tampering with terminology and applications to fit their theory. If you have 0 clue as to who taught what to whom, when and where, you've really got nothing, but especially if the similarities are only visual!



There's another forum?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> If hypothetically WSL was in fact the only one to properly learn the complete system, there'd still be no way to convince you and you'd still call me a "true believer" even with truth actually being on my side. So, I think it is a pointless question since it can't be proven. You are just trying to paint me into a corner.
> 
> ---I am only using "Occam's Razor" and "Common sense" as you suggested.  What I have said is a logical conclusion.  What you have said is based upon a "sifu sez" mentality.  Its hard to argue rationally with someone who isn't using rational methods to arrive at their conclusions.  So I guess that's the end of this particular conversation!



Lol, actually the opposite is the case You are not a good logical arguer and you get emotional easily.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> The problem still remains that the others differ among themselves too, drastically in many cases, yet they all claim to be teaching what YM taught them.
> 
> If you believe that, then you believe the asinine theory that YM taught contradictory versions of the same system to all these different people.
> 
> Do you realize you make assumptions about how YM would or would not have likely treated his students as if you knew him? And then you call your assumptions "common sense". Interesting....
> 
> Earlier I posted text from an interview with WSL where he explained YM's temperament and teaching style. He said YM _wasn't_ careful to make sure information was evenly distributed and he didn't waste time on students he thought not worth it. He said YM was the type of guy who'd rather teach one good student than 10 lousy ones.
> 
> Now, if that makes you think YM was a "horrible" person and teacher, that's your opinion. It doesn't mean it's "common sense" that YM wasn't like that because it doesn't sit well with you. Other students of his have said similar things regarding his teaching style. Like it or not, it is what it is.
> 
> It is clear that due to this uneven distribution of information and lack of attention, many classmates resorted to visual learning, copying each other and filling in gaps themselves.
> 
> Hearing the name "sticky hands" and watching the exercise, most laymen's assumption would be that the point is to stick to your opponent's arms to control them in a fight.
> 
> Having seen the shape and heard the name "spreading hand", most laymen's assumption would be that it's used to parry an incoming punch.
> 
> It's no wonder some guys teach exactly what the first visual assumption would be! The answer is they just went through the motions in training without receiving much information on what they were doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to my knowledge. I know he kept the Ving Tsun spelling favored by YM. He later started using the term Ving Tsun Kuen Hok or "Combat Science" to show that Ving Tsun is not an art but a skill. It's not open to "interpretation". It's either correct or incorrect. But he was still talking about YM's Ving Tsun. He said he never changed a thing as there was no need. Why are others different? He said you'll have to ask them...




Good post


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> As you know my theory is that wing chun is based on pole, while others are not. I have reasons for saying this.
> 
> ---True.  But I (and others I think) believe there is more reason to theorize a White Crane origin than a Luk Dim Boon Kwun origin.  But its all just conjecture.  One has to look at the available resources and come up with a "best guess."



You haven't given any reason to theorize a white crane origin other than the fact that Yong Chun sounds a bit like Wing Chun, and that both white crane and wing chun come from China and feature kicking and punching.

In fact White Crane is one of the least likely origins for wing chun due to the very different (completely different!) body mechanics involved. Sanchin mechanics are simply not compatible with wing chun. Karate is a well known white crane derivative. Would you say that it is in any way close to being wing chun, apart from being an Asian fighting system?




> White Crane is a sanchin system. This means that it works in a completely different way to the way that wing chun works. No reason to insert it into wing chun history.
> 
> ---And I have pointed out, several times now, that we have at least 150 years of divergent evolution and development.  Which is plenty of time for Wing Chun to vary significantly from a "proto-White Crane" base and come up with its own power generation methods.



What would it matter if wing chun had derived from a proto-white crane 150 years ago if in the process it had its mechanics, concepts and principles completely eviscerated and replaced with different ones. This would tell us absolutely nothing about wing chun and would be fairly irrelevant. What would be more interesting would be to discuss where the new mechanics and new conceptual base came from.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> If hypothetically WSL was in fact the only one to properly learn the complete system, there'd still be no way to convince you and you'd still call me a "true believer" even with truth actually being on my side. So, I think it is a pointless question since it can't be proven. You are just trying to paint me into a corner.



What are you talking about? If WSL was the only one to properly learn the system then you would be wrong and LFJ would be correct



> ---I am only using "Occam's Razor" and "Common sense" as you suggested.  What I have said is a logical conclusion.  What you have said is based upon a "sifu sez" mentality.  Its hard to argue rationally with someone who isn't using rational methods to arrive at their conclusions.  So I guess that's the end of this particular conversation!



This is a common tactic for you. LFJ's conclusion is in fact simpler than yours as he has demonstrated. You are doing the opposite of what you think you are doing.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You're doing it wrong. Your conclusion is asinine, but you're sticking to it because it doesn't feel nice to you to believe otherwise.
> ?



What is asinine about my conclusion?   Where is my logic wrong?  And how about you answer this one simple question that I have now asked more than once?

_You really don't think he would NOT have corrected Ho Kam Ming's interpretation of Tan Sau if he saw it was wrong? Or Tsui Tsun Ting's? Or Wang Kiu's Or Leung Sheung's? Or Ip Ching's? Or Ip Chun's? Or Chow Tze Chuen's? Or Duncan Leung's?_


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Lol, actually the opposite is the case You are not a good logical arguer and you get emotional easily.


 
Again, as with LFJ, I invite you to describe where my logic is wrong and answer the question above.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> You haven't given any reason to theorize a white crane origin other than the fact that Yong Chun sounds a bit like Wing Chun, and that both white crane and wing chun come from China and feature kicking and punching.
> 
> .



You obviously haven't been paying attention!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> What are you talking about? If WSL was the only one to properly learn the system then you would be wrong and LFJ would be correct
> .



Once again....you are proving that you seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.  I didn't say that!  LFJ did!


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Once again....you are proving that you seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem.  I didn't say that!  LFJ did!



When you don't use quotations to differentiate between what you and others have said sometimes it is difficult to see where one ends and the next begins. Your reply however is just as deficient with or without the first part. It is interesting that you didn't reply to the part which responded to what you wrote.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> You obviously haven't been paying attention!



Point me to the post where you expand on your idea about white crane being the origin of wing chun. I don't see anything beyond the fact that you think they look the same. I know they don't function the same. Will you respond?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> TWhat I AM saying is that if you take one fundamental thing....the interpretation of Tan Sau.....in which WSLVT differs from every other branch of Ip Man Wing Chun....then the common sense conclusion using Occam's Razor is that this particular interpretation of Tan Sau originated with WSL himself, given that all the other branches of Ip Man Wing Chun agree on their fundamental interpretation of Tan Sau.



But they don't agree on their interpretation of Tan sau. All they agree upon is that it is some kind of bridging or chi sau or blocking technique. Leung Ting disagrees with Duncan leung. But all of these interpretations are ones that could be extrapolated from seeing it being trained. They are basic, easy to arrive at conclusions. 

It is far simpler to assume that WSL came up with his nuanced understanding of something like Tan by learning it correctly from his teacher, rather than assuming he came up with such awesome detail and conceptual clarity all by himself. What WSL VT communicates is obviously the work of generations, not of one man.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Point me to the post where you expand on your idea about white crane being the origin of wing chun. I don't see anything beyond the fact that you think they look the same. I know they don't function the same. Will you respond?



I'm not doing the work for you.  If you actually cared you'd would go back and look for it yourself.  Why aren't you answering my question about Tan Sau?

_You really don't think he would NOT have corrected Ho Kam Ming's interpretation of Tan Sau if he saw it was wrong? Or Tsui Tsun Ting's? Or Wang Kiu's Or Leung Sheung's? Or Ip Ching's? Or Ip Chun's? Or Chow Tze Chuen's? Or Duncan Leung's?_


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> But they don't agree on their interpretation of Tan sau. .


 
Well, again, you don't seem to be paying very good attention to things.  Because all of them interpret Tan Sau as a defensive parry.  WSL is the only one that says it isn't applied or used defensively and is only for training the elbow.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Well, again, you don't seem to be paying very good attention to things.  Because all of them interpret Tan Sau as a defensive parry.  WSL is the only one that says it isn't applied or used defensively and is only for training the elbow.



They don't all interpret it as a defensive parry though. Some see it as a block which can stop a hook punch. Others see it as a force swallowing bridge hand which is applied during a kind of contacted fighting that looks like chi sau. These are entirely different things. Which thing that YM apparently said of these two was correct? And why did he lie to the other guy?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> _You really don't think he would NOT have corrected Ho Kam Ming's interpretation of Tan Sau if he saw it was wrong? Or Tsui Tsun Ting's? Or Wang Kiu's Or Leung Sheung's? Or Ip Ching's? Or Ip Chun's? Or Chow Tze Chuen's? Or Duncan Leung's?_



I have no idea about what YM said to these guys. But I do know that the wing chun produced by some of them is not very good, to put it mildly.


----------



## geezer

Very interesting discussion. Personally, I use a "Bic" razor. Inexpensive and gets the job done. Haven't seen any "Occams" at Walgreen's.

Now as far as "true-believers" go. I can spot 'em a mile away. Remember I was a disciple of LT for over a decade. I lived amongst them. Heck, I was one of them. LFJ is right, a lot of "WT" guys and "TWC" guys suffer from that. And a fair number finally woke up and moved on. Or woke up and stayed with their sifus, but with their eyes open and their mouths shut. Whatever makes you happy. The fact that some may have gone over to WSL VT is fine too. I"ll bet it's a good system, ...._if _you can stay away from their "true believers!" 

Now about that common sense thing. I will preface my remarks by saying I am famous for my lack of it. Regardless, it seems very likely to me that GM Yip Man did teach differently to different students at different periods of his life. And that he certainly would have spent more time with favored students whose personalities, aptitudes and, in some cases, fat pocket books made them stand out. That's all pretty normal in old school TCMA.

So if we can pretty much agree on this, what are we to assume? Simply that different YM students came away from their training with diverse skill sets and understandings of YM VT. Then as time passed they built upon their foundation and their own systems diverged even more. That's how evolution works. And just because no two YM disciples interpret their WC the same way (i.e. Guy's tan sau example above) doesn't mean they are _lying_. IMO Such reductivist, black and white thinking is very limiting. But that's fine if it makes you happy.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> What is asinine about my conclusion?



Your conclusion means YM would have taught contradictory systems to dozens of people.



> Where is my logic wrong?



You employ nothing but logical fallacies such as Appeals to Emotion;

Like "wishful thinking" where your decision is based on what is pleasing to imagine for you, rather than on reason and evidence.

For example, you refuse to believe what YM's students said about his temperament and teaching style because in your opinion it would make him a "horrible" person and you don't like that.

The idea that everyone can be right in their own way is also pleasing to you, so you simply ignore points I've made that suggest some might have been wrong.

And another appeal to emotion called "appeal to ridicule", where you present the opponent's argument in a way that it appears absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration. 

For example, you try to paint me into a corner where I must make the claim that only WSL received the "real version" of VT so that you may then label my argument as "true believer syndrome" and discount it on that alone, which you would do even if the cold hard truth were on my side. You even ignored all my points in post #87 to pick out that short hypothetical and end your argument on it.

You are now pressing me to say each mainstream Sifu by name didn't learn correctly so that you can label me something else without actually addressing my points. This is just another logical fallacy known as Appeal to the Majority. 

You want me to say all these guys were wrong and only WSL was right because that seems improbable to you and you are more interested in hearing me say such an improbable thing so that you might make an appeal to the majority rather than actually address the points I've made in my argument!

You have completely suspended all logic and reason for the sake of group hugs, and that is a symptom of Gullible Hippie Syndrome.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And how about you answer this one simple question that I have now asked more than once?
> 
> _You really don't think he would NOT have corrected Ho Kam Ming's interpretation of Tan Sau if he saw it was wrong? Or Tsui Tsun Ting's? Or Wang Kiu's Or Leung Sheung's? Or Ip Ching's? Or Ip Chun's? Or Chow Tze Chuen's? Or Duncan Leung's?_



It is entirely possible that they simply went through the motions of the forms and _chi-sau_ drills in class without receiving much information on what they were doing, and so their interpretations were unseen and uncorrected.

Unlike WSL who was testing his skills in fights and discussing his experience with his teacher, it's entirely possible that these guys never had to give much thought to the "applications" until such time that they decided to become teachers.

And as I said, I find it curious that their interpretations are no different than what any layman would assume to be the application of things after only seeing the shapes and hearing the names. Whether that be blocking with _taan-sau_, breaking a wrist grab at the end of SNT, or sticking to arms in _chi-sau_. 

They would never reach a more abstract understanding without careful instruction. That suggests that what took place was mostly visual learning, sharing and copying ideas among one another, and gap filling on their own. And that such things were the norm in YM's school due to his temperament and teaching style is something his students have said.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ....They would never reach a more abstract understanding without careful instruction. That suggests that what took place was mostly visual learning, sharing and copying ideas among one another, and gap filling on their own. And that such things were the norm in YM's school due to his temperament and teaching style is something his students have said.



Yet, there is a level of  "abstract understanding" that my old sifu expressed to some of us, that he got directly from Yip Man, mostly imparted after the time he spent physically training, rather shared over tea, etc. and that abstract understanding wasn't the same as what WSL learned a decade or so earlier. It could be that one was right and the other was wrong as you suggest. Or it could be that YM VT was actually broad enough to allow for such differences.

Sometimes two seemingly contradictory points of view can_ both_ be right.That is to say that an apparent paradox can resolved when you see the bigger picture. Or perhaps I'm just manifesting symptoms of  GHS (Gullible Hippie Syndrome) again!


----------



## LFJ

As I've seen from LTWT, "spreading hand", "freeing hand", and "sticky hands" are all taken and applied quite literally.

Some think that "two seemingly contradictory points of view can _both_ be right" because VT is concept and principle based and that gives them a creativity license. 

But this is a profound misunderstanding of VT. It's really a simple approach to fighting with a crystal clear set of concepts and principles that aren't open to interpretation. It is either correct or incorrect.

But so many people get let off with impractical ideas because it's "conceptual" and therefore not open to judgement. 

This is why WSL started calling it "combat science". Because art can be freely interpreted and all can be correct, but skill is immediately verifiable with the outcome of a fight.

Many people are just training an art.


----------



## guy b.

KPM, here is what you have said regarding why you think wing chun is derived from white crane:



> While White Crane was likely one of Wing Chun's "roots" back in the day, I don't think I would say that "Wing Chun is a branch of Crane style." That's kind of like saying that the Southern Baptist Church is a branch of the Catholic Church. It may have its roots back in history in the Catholic Church, but saying its a "branch" implies a closer relationship than what actually exists! ;-)



You appear just to believe this is self evident- no reason given



> If I remember correctly it was the county/region. But "Wing Chun" is the name of a girl, or a hall at Shaolin.....take your pick from the stories. The name had to come from somewhere. One story is as good as another. The poster asked why anyone would think that White Crane was a root art of Wing Chun. I told him why. I think it is as plausible an idea as anything else



You think that the name wing chun sounds a bit like yong chun. Ok



> I like the idea that whole "burning of Shaolin" story was just a cover story. That it might have actually been the burning of one of the union halls where the rebels groups were headquartered. "Chi Sim" was also possibly just a cover story for one of the rebel leaders that was hiding form the government and using a false identity to avoid capture. It has been said that the primary martial art used by Lee Mau Man and a large part of the rebel groups at that time was White Crane. So here is another story connecting White Crane and Wing Chun. Since this connection comes from several different angles, it makes the idea of White Crane as a "root" art of Wing Chun as plausible or even more plausible than other theories.



This story doesn't connect wing chun to white crane in any way. One of the documents you linked to mentions that Lee was a wandering illiterate who became a Red Turban leader. That is all.

The other document disagrees that white crane is a root art of wing chun. While it gets certain things very wrong (i.e. it thinks Bak Mei is closer to wing chun than to white crane) I agree with what the uthor says regarding wing chun and white crane. I don't see how you feel this material supports any argument for white crane and wing chun being connected.



> Master Lee Kong, a very well-known White Crane teacher in Hong Kong. If you can't see the similarities with Wing Chun, that's on you not me. I think others will see what I'm talking about.



What are the similarities with wing chun? I don't see any body mechanics in common, and having done both sanchin based systems and wing chun I don't really see what you are getting at. Movement is very different. This is a particularly poor demo by the way. See clips I posted for better ones.



> I agree that people only move in so many ways. So you look at the total package....narrow stance, short bridge, centerline structure, short power......doubtful that all of these elements emerged independently in multiple martial arts from the same region. So visual appearance does make a difference when looking for connections



Completely different body mechanics? Conception of short power entirely different. Footwork and stance different. Centreline? Lol


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> Your conclusion means YM would have taught contradictory systems to dozens of people.
> 
> 
> 
> You employ nothing but logical fallacies such as Appeals to Emotion;
> 
> Like "wishful thinking" where your decision is based on what is pleasing to imagine for you, rather than on reason and evidence.
> 
> For example, you refuse to believe what YM's students said about his temperament and teaching style because in your opinion it would make him a "horrible" person and you don't like that.
> 
> The idea that everyone can be right in their own way is also pleasing to you, so you simply ignore points I've made that suggest some might have been wrong.
> 
> And another appeal to emotion called "appeal to ridicule", where you present the opponent's argument in a way that it appears absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.
> 
> For example, you try to paint me into a corner where I must make the claim that only WSL received the "real version" of VT so that you may then label my argument as "true believer syndrome" and discount it on that alone, which you would do even if the cold hard truth were on my side. You even ignored all my points in post #87 to pick out that short hypothetical and end your argument on it.
> 
> You are now pressing me to say each mainstream Sifu by name didn't learn correctly so that you can label me something else without actually addressing my points. This is just another logical fallacy known as Appeal to the Majority.
> 
> You want me to say all these guys were wrong and only WSL was right because that seems improbable to you and you are more interested in hearing me say such an improbable thing so that you might make an appeal to the majority rather than actually address the points I've made in my argument!
> 
> You have completely suspended all logic and reason for the sake of group hugs, and that is a symptom of Gullible Hippie Syndrome.



Genuinely good analysis of KPM's arguing style. I am glad you had the patience to write this


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> As I've seen from LTWT, "spreading hand", "freeing hand", and "sticky hands" are all taken and applied quite literally.
> 
> Some think that "two seemingly contradictory points of view can _both_ be right" because VT is concept and principle based and that gives them a creativity license.
> 
> But this is a profound misunderstanding of VT. It's really a simple approach to fighting with a crystal clear set of concepts and principles that aren't open to interpretation. It is either correct or incorrect.
> 
> .



And, once again, you are showing that your entire understanding of Wing Chun centers on WSLVT.   You generalize what you have learned from WSLVT to all Wing Chun....which isn't always necessarily accurate.   And besides, wasn't it WSL himself that said in regards to Wing Chun...."be its Master, not its Slave!".....????


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Information on the "Red Turban Rebellion"
> 
> http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2009/articles/1473.pdf
> 
> A lot of good information in this blog post from Ben Judkins.  Its rather long, and actually speaks against a White Crane or even Red Boat link for Wing Chun.  But Ben is a historian and is sticking to the known facts as much as possible.  Beyond that you have to start talking about what seems most plausible and then we are in the realm of conjecture and competing theories.  I think another problem with Judkin's conclusions is that he doesn't take into account Weng Chun's history and stories at all.  He seems to pin everything on Leung Jan.  Anyway, kind of long but worth reading:
> 
> Hing Chao Discusses Southern Boxing, White Crane and the “Eastern Theory” of Wing Chun’s Origins.




Ben Judkins reply regarding a question about Lee Man Mao: 



> Hi, Ben. I am a huge fan of your work and have been reading your articles for months. I have read almost all of them. Fantastic work you’re doing here.
> I just want to point out a few things though. I’ve noticed that you keep referring to Leung Jan as a reference point. There are quite a few students from his ‘generation’ (e.g. Fok Bo Chun and Fung Siu Ching) who have learnt from opera performers other than Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai (e.g. Yik Kam and Dai Fa Min Kam). I think that maybe Wing Chun might have been created in the earlier 19th century rather than the mid 19th century.
> Also, have you tried looking into characters such as Li Wenmao (Lee Man Mao)? He’s associated with the Tiandihui (fairly high ranked) and apparently was also associated with the King Fa Wui Goon (the opera troupe where these supposed performers are from). Also, rumour has it he’s trained in Yong Chun White Crane.
> Here’s an article on the Red Turban Rebellion that I think you might find really useful.
> http://www.scientificjournals.org/journals2009/articles/1473.pdf
> Thanks a lot for your blog. Keep up the good work.
> POSTED BY *LEON* | JULY 17, 2013, 9:17 AM
> *REPLY TO THIS COMMENT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Hi Leon,
> Thanks for the kind words and the valuable feedback. I am a big fan of Kim’s article and think that the breakdown of the leadership of the (highly splintered) Red Turban movement is particularly valuable.
> You are correct that I see the genesis of the modern art with Leung Jan. Nor am I unaware of the creation myths and folklore of the Yuen Kay-San clan or the other, non-Ip Man, Wing Chun movements. There are a number of reasons that I approach the history of Wing Chun in this way. To begin with, in historical terms, we know some things about Leung Jan that we do not know about these other individuals. In fact, he is a historically verifiable figure to a degree that the rest are not.
> That does not mean that stories or “memories” of the rest are not widespread. They certainly are. Ip Ching remembers (or to be more accurate, remembers hearing) stories about Fung Siu Ching for instance. Yet these figures tend to be really hard to deal with in actual historical and academic terms. Why? Because of the nature of the creation myths in all of these lineages. Most of these stories are an attempt to differentiate a clan or affiliation from the Ip Man line. Yet the creation narrative of his lineage probably only dates to the 1930s. That means the rest of these stories, explicitly reacting against it, are even later (at least in their current form). While these figures may have existed, pretty much everything I know about them is folklore (sometimes pretty late folklore).
> There may have been other students doing something similar to what Leung Jan was doing in the mid 19th century. Indeed, nothing happens in a vacuum, so that seems rather likely. But not only do I not have any actual verifiable historical information about these figures, I don’t think there is very much that is knowable about them at all. Even Leung Jan is interesting in this regards. We have evidence of his existence, but how much hard proof (not folklore mind you, actual publicly accessible contemporary documents) do we have that he was a martial artists prior to the Republic period? The answer is that we have basically nothing.
> Now I certainly believe that he was a martial artist. I don’t know if he was actually aware that the art he practiced was named Wing Chun or not. Remember, most martial practices at the start of the 19th century did not actually have names (thats one of the odd things about this story). But what we know about Leung Jan comes either from Ip Man’s reminisces of what Leung Bik and Ng Chung So said, or Republic era pulp martial arts stories. Would historians consider either of these to be trustworthy sources? No.
> And the situation is generally downhill from there. The Opera singers? We don’t have any idea if any of these figures actually existed. It seems like a plausible story. There were certainly unemployed opera singers in the area (at least some escaped the White Terror that followed the Red Turban uprising). But any particular story about any given singer? Impossible to verify. This is the big reason that I try to focus my discussions on the historical environment (things that are knowable and useful no matter what your lineage) and not get into discussions taking the various lineage legends as concrete facts.
> On a certain level, none of this really matters. The Wing Chun that we practice now is pretty distant from whatever happening in the 19th century. When is the first time that the name Wing Chun, in conjunction with a martial arts style, actually appears in a document? A reader asked me that question recently and its pretty late.
> The art was massively reformed and gained its initial public character during the 1920s and 1930s. This is critical as it is how we all know Wing Chun, as a public commercial martial art. And without Ip Man (and Bruce Lee) expanding its appeal and modernizing the system in the 1950s, we would not be having this discussion right now. So when I sit down to talk about the origins of a modern practice, where should I look? Obviously I look to the lineage that succeeded in making the art a mass phenomenon, and I try to stick as close to the verifiable sources as I possibly can.
> I realize that this may seem unfair or one-sided to practitioners from other lineages, but again, I want to explore the martial milieu of the period. That is actually my job as a academic blog. Not all that many people are interested in the history of Wing Chun in isolation.
> I want to talk about the evolution of China’s martial culture in broader terms. The historical study of Wing Chun is really only useful or interesting so far as it sheds light on important questions about the development of popular culture in southern China more generally. Ip Man managed to impact that environment in a way that Yuen Kay-San (who remained a lone practitioner) never did for instance.
> “Also, have you tried looking into characters such as Li Wenmao”
> For what purpose? In terms of basic historical research? Yes, I have looked at him in a fair degree of detail. My academic book manuscript (still under review) spends a couple of chapters on the Red Turban Revolt and its aftermath.
> In terms of Wing Chun? To be totally honest this is where we start to get into trouble. Wing Chun really appears to be a product of the aftermath of the Red Turban revolt, not one of the things that helped to incite it. Lets say that the Opera singers in the various creations myths were real, and that their teaching was an important part of what would become Wing Chun. All of this teaching is supposed to be starting (or still happening) in the 1850s. What was going on at that point in time?
> To begin with the government was rounding and butchering anyone associated with the revolt. How many people did they kill? Hundreds of thousands, by some estimates up to 1 million people in the Pearl River Delta alone. And at this point almost all of the surviving opera rebels had left Guangdong to form their own “Taiping Kingdom” a little to the north-west which would survive for years. We know where most of those guys were, and it wasn’t in Foshan (which would have been suicidal).
> So what do we know (circumstantially) about figures like Wong Wah Bo or Leung Yi Tai? To begin with, they were not dead (which is sort of surprising, I have a theory about that but its so speculative I will keep it to myself). And secondly, they were not fighting to support the new kingdom with the rest of the actual rebels. Instead they were sitting in still smoking ruins of Foshan, looking for someone to support them.
> What does all of this mean? Its almost impossible to say, which is why I like to stick to real history. But if I were to push it, I would probably conclude that there are two possibilities. Either they were super secret rebel agents who were refusing to leave, or they had nothing to do with the uprising (which was at heart a tax revolt) and everyone around them knew it. For a variety of reasons the second possibility seems vastly more plausible.
> Remember, the governor had given the local gentry of Foshan and other areas large quotas of “rebels” and other undesirables that they had to turn over for execution or face punishment themselves. That is why there were all of those 100,000s of executions. If there had been even a shred of evidence connecting the Opera stars to the rebellion it seems unlikely they would have survived the purge. Even if they had any important enemies they probably would have ended up in a mass gave in Guangzhou. Remember, many, probably most, of the people who were being executed by the end of this period were simply local undesirables. The actual rebels had died, fled or melted back into the mountains at the end of the uprising.
> During the late 19th century rebel figures tended not to be as popular as they later became, and people avoided associating themselves with these causes. Too many individuals remembered what had happened and they blamed the rebels for nearly destroying the country. Martial artists have a hard time accepting this fact, but the government was actually fairly popular in the late 19th century, especially when it was seen as standing up to (or being victimized by) foreigners. The Boxer Uprising, for instance, was an uprising in support of Beijing, not opposing it. Actually that is a good example of what I am talking about. In the immediate aftermath of that disaster people tended to blame the Boxers (and even martial artists in general) for what had happened, not the government.
> There have always been stories about righteous rebels in Chinese literature (see “Water Margin”) but this stuff really came to the fore in the wake of the 1911 revolution, and then again in the 1920s-1930s. This is when there were powerful social and political forces promoting the idea of “revolution,” romanticizing it, and filling popular culture with it. This is when people started to get all misty-eyed when discussing the “opera rebels” (as opposed to “those dirty thugs”).
> So yeah, when I hear these stories about “Opera Rebels” and the origins of Wing Chun, they sound pretty anachronistic. They reek of the 1930s (and the 1950s). Most of the very small number of people who were actually doing Wing Chun in the 19th century (Leung Jan, Fung Sun Ching, Chan Wah Shun ect…) were pretty much establishment types, and not the sort you would expect to go in for treason or assassination. While I am certainly aware of Li Wenmao I don’t associate him all that closely with the creation of Wing Chun.
> As a matter of fact, for as far back as we have solid data, Wing Chun is a martial art that has been associated with the wealthy and powerful. Its the kind of thing that was studied by the sons of business owners and landlord. If you looking for something with a little more possibility for rebellion and class conflict I would go with Choy Li Fut. The Shaolin inspired stories of righteous rebellion are a constant across the martial arts of Guangdong. Each and everyone of the Hung Mun stories simply has a slightly different varient of the same basic narrative. What is interesting about Wing Chun is the degree to which it breaks out of this mold. In an era when most martial arts were associated with poverty and “working class” individuals, Wing Chun was an establishment art. I think that this is the much more interesting mystery to solve.
> I guess that ended up being a more extensive answer than I had planned on giving, but hopefully it better illustrates the position that I am coming from in these posts.
> POSTED BY *BENJUDKINS* | JULY 17, 2013, 1:25 PM
> *REPLY TO THIS COMMENT*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Part II
> With regards to the more specific question of whether we should think of Wing Chun as pre or post 1850. Again, this is really tough. There are so few verifiable sources that almost anything that you say will end up being an “argument from silence.” There are really very few sources available to contradict anything, so practically any date or theory becomes “plausible.” This is exactly how we ended up with so many theories of Wing Chun’s origins in the first place. A lot of the discussions of Wing Chun’s origins that you find seem to be an attempt to open a space for rational belief of a theory that some group already holds. The silent nature of the historical record makes that possible.
> Of course another name for arguments like this is “apologetics.” That is what we would call them if we were discussing religion, and its something that I am explicitly trying to avoid. This can be hard. I am very interested in Cantonese opera and its historical association with the martial arts. I would love to be able to use Wong Wah Bo, Painted Face Kam and Leung Yee Tie in all sorts of conversations. Part of me would like them to be a solid part of Wing Chun’s history, rather than a mere suggestion. But most of the things I have thought about saying about them end up being just different types of apologetics. This is a different type of exercise than historal or social scientific discussions.
> Apologetics is not bad in and of its self. It can be quite useful. There are college professors who do this sort of thing professionally. But apologetic arguments are different from historical ones, and its important to keep that distinction at the forefront of your mind when writing about a topic like this.
> Obviously there is stuff in the Wing Chun system that predates the mid 19th century. The six and a half point pole would be a good place to start. As would the swords. We perform that form with butterfly swords now but my Sifu believes (and I think he has good reason to assert) that it has many movements that work much better with two sabers (inverted guards, complex bridging ect) and hudiedao. I am trying to get him to write a guest post on that, and I may yet succeed.
> So yeah, there is clearly a lot of material here that is much older than the mid 19th century. These styles evolve through time, and assigning a start date (“ok, from this point forward it will be called…….”) is always a sort of arbitrary act. As I have argued in another post, the boundaries between styles are basically socially constructed. They are certainly never as firm and fast as our current “lineage framework” makes things out to be.
> I have attempted to explain above why I focus on Leung Jan as a starting point for historically grounded discussions of Wing Chun. When you take his life in isolation from a lot of the other folklore, and you look at his age, career, his father, local events and all of that, a start date in the mid. 19th century seems most plausible (at least it does to me). When you start to add in other elements of Wing Chun folklore, especially stories about the Opera Rebels, yeah, that pushes things back a decade or two. But I don’t think we can actually use these stories as independent witnesses. Specifically, many of them seem to have been composed with the explicit aim of critiquing the “received wisdom.” That means they post-date said wisdom. From a historical standpoint they seem like dangerous sources to lean on. No professional historian would rely on them to try and make definitive statements about the period. And if you can explain something about the development of Wing Chun without them (at least in a certain area) that seems to be the safer thing to do.
> I hope I have addressed all of your questions. Thanks for taking the time to read and engage with my posts.[/QUOTE


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Genuinely good analysis of KPM's arguing style. I am glad you had the patience to write this



LOL!   You know, I'm pretty passionate about Wing Chun, so sometimes I let that show in my posting.  But what gets really frustrating is trying to discuss something with people who aren't really here to discuss.  It is very frustrating when I make points that are completely dismissed and ignored, questions that aren't answered, and someone just keeps repeating the  same thing over and over and ignoring the point that refutes what they are saying.  That isn't a discussion.  That's more like a crusade on the part of the person that is ignoring the other parties points and just repeating their own belief over and over....as if by saying it over and over it become more true.  I capitalize things sometimes, not because I am so "emotional" but because the person I am replying to has shown a pattern of ignoring what I say.  So I capitalize in hopes of emphasizing and catching their attention.  I don't know why I let you guys get me caught up in pointless discussions with you that I know are going nowhere because you don't really care what anyone else thinks.   I guess I find it entertaining to an extent.


----------



## wckf92

abe_tz said:


> Hi everyone. My friend and I have been going back and forth over which is superior for self defense, wing chun or mma. No martial art is truly superior, however he has been relentlessly insulting Wing Chun even though he literally knows nothing about it. He told me it is the "laughing-stock" of martial arts. I thought I would seek help here for arguments as to why Wing Chun is better for self defense. Thanks.



Can anyone remember the days way back when....the OP asked a question and it would get responses aligned with it? hahaha 

This thread nowadays has spiraled into a conversation (argument?) between KPM and Guy regarding WC and White Crane; and another "conversation" between KPM and LFJ/Guy on whether WSLVT is the "real deal"...


----------



## KPM

KPM, here is what you have said regarding why you think wing chun is derived from white crane:

---Ah!  So you did bother to go back and look!  You didn't find it all, but at least you made an effort. 


You think that the name wing chun sounds a bit like yong chun. Ok

---Uh...."Wing Chun" is Cantonese...."Yong Chun" is Mandarin for the exact same characters.  They are the same words.  So its more than "sound alike", they are the same thing! 



This story doesn't connect wing chun to white crane in any way. One of the documents you linked to mentions that Lee was a wandering illiterate who became a Red Turban leader. That is all.

---I pointed out that Lee Man Mao was part of the Taiping Uprising but the Wikipedia article you found didn't mention him.  You then asked for a source.  I provided a source explaining how Lee Man Mao and the Red Turbans were part of the Taiping Uprising. 



The other document disagrees that white crane is a root art of wing chun. While it gets certain things very wrong (i.e. it thinks Bak Mei is closer to wing chun than to white crane) I agree with what the uthor says regarding wing chun and white crane. I don't see how you feel this material supports any argument for white crane and wing chun being connected.

---Here is a very brief rundown of what I see as evidence to suggest a connection between Wing Chun and some older version of White Crane. 

1.  Wing Chun's own origin stories and legends talk about Ng Mui seeing a fight between a Snake and a Crane and being inspired to create Wing Chun.  The stories talk about Ng Mui being a resident of the White Crane temple.  While these are just stories, the old legends sometimes have a nugget of truth to them and are actually metaphorical.  So this suggests a possible connection to White Crane.  I mentioned this before.

2.  The story of Yim Wing Chun and Ng Mui is practically the same as White Crane's own origin story.  They are likely both fictional.  But this could also suggest a connection, or at least that whoever decided to take White Crane's story and adapt it to Wing Chun may have done so because THEY saw a connection.  And of course they were closer in history to it all than we are!

3.  White Crane has evolved and developed over time into several branch systems.  But if you look at the version that is considered to be closest to the "ancestral" White Crane, it has a lot of similarities to Wing Chun.  In the videos posted you can spot a lot of techniques shared with Wing Chun like Tan Sau, Biu Sau, Bong Sau (which some lineages even refer to as a "Crane's Wing block") Fook Sau, etc.  You can see footwork and stances that are similar as well.  Now again, these may not be very similar to WSLVT!  But WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged!  These things from White Crane tend to be more similar to the mainland China versions of Wing Chun like Pin Sun and Yuen Kay Shan WCK.

4.   Fukien White Crane and Wing Chun may not share the same power generation mechanics,  but they have had 150 years of divergent development and evolution.  To me, that is plenty of time to come up with different power generation mechanics or different "engines."

5.  The whole name of the version of White Crane thought to be closest to the "ancestral" Crane style includes the words "Yong Chun" which is simply the mandarin version of "Wing Chun" and is the same characters in Chinese.  For White Crane this is said to identify the County of its origin.  In the White Crane stories they also have a ancestral character named "Fong Wing Chun."

6.  The Wing Chun stories say that several of the ancestors were Red Boat Opera performers. The Red Boat Opera performers were highly involved in the Taiping Rebellion.  Lee Man Mau was a Red Boat performer documented in Chinese history that started his own spin off "Red Turban" rebellion that drew a large number of its members from the Red Boat performers. Lee Man Mau was a White Crane guy and said to have trained his followers in that style.  So we have both newly developing Wing Chun and an older version of White Crane both associated with the Red Boat Opera performers at the same era in history.

I'm sure I can come up with other possible connections that could suggest that White Crane and Wing Chun were related given time.  But its all just a theory and conjecture.  Like I said before, one has to just look at the "most likely" based on available evidence and then decided what to believe.  And after that, one should continue to remain a bit skeptical and open to other evidence and theories that come along.  Like your pole theory.  That started out interesting, but I will point out that the ONLY evidence you provided for your theory that Wing Chun is derived from the pole methods was a short description of 7 pole concepts stated by Wong Shun Leung.   So as I stated before, in my opinion there is a lot more reason to theorize that Wing Chun may have developed from a "proto-White Crane" style than that Wing Chun developed from someone adapting the pole methods to empty hand fighting!

Now if you want to actually discuss this any further I suggest you start a new thread.


----------



## KPM

wckf92 said:


> Can anyone remember the days way back when....the OP asked a question and it would get responses aligned with it? hahaha
> 
> This thread nowadays has spiraled into a conversation (argument?) between KPM and Guy regarding WC and White Crane; and another "conversation" between KPM and LFJ/Guy on whether WSLVT is the "real deal"...



True!  And each time I have begun respond to a point that was off-topic from the thread I have noted that it was a topic for another thread or suggested another thread be started, but have been ignored and people have just run with it anyway!  I guess that's just the nature of conversation, whether in person or on a forum.  It tends to wander it many directions!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And, once again, you are showing that your entire understanding of Wing Chun centers on WSLVT.   You generalize what you have learned from WSLVT to all Wing Chun....which isn't always necessarily accurate.   And besides, wasn't it WSL himself that said in regards to Wing Chun...."be its Master, not its Slave!".....????



Actually, I've come to an idea of what YM most likely taught as VT through examining various lineages, taking what those teachers say and teach into account (coherency/functionality), as well as their training time and fighting experience. 

I think YMVT was meant to be one thing, not dozens of contradictory methods. I've explained why I think many are teaching deficient systems, and it has nothing to do with biased generalization, just an objective review of the facts.

Also, that quote from WSL has been taken out of context and misused by many as yet another "creative license" to justify their version of the "art" that is beyond judgement because it's "conceptual" and if you don't agree with them you're just a slave to your art...


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> LOL!   You know, I'm pretty passionate about Wing Chun, so sometimes I let that show in my posting.  But what gets really frustrating is trying to discuss something with people who aren't really here to discuss.  It is very frustrating when I make points that are completely dismissed and ignored, questions that aren't answered, and someone just keeps repeating the  same thing over and over and ignoring the point that refutes what they are saying.  That isn't a discussion.  That's more like a crusade on the part of the person that is ignoring the other parties points and just repeating their own belief over and over....as if by saying it over and over it become more true.  I capitalize things sometimes, not because I am so "emotional" but because the person I am replying to has shown a pattern of ignoring what I say.  So I capitalize in hopes of emphasizing and catching their attention.  I don't know why I let you guys get me caught up in pointless discussions with you that I know are going nowhere because you don't really care what anyone else thinks.   I guess I find it entertaining to an extent.



Wow... That is surreal, the way you're imagining you're in my position where your points are the ones being ignored. Haha! You talk about YM and personality disorders. You seem to have some sort of dissociative identity disorder.

I've addressed your points on _taan-sau_ and answered each question you've raised. What have I missed? Or have you forgotten now that you have taken on a new identity and side in this whole discussion?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Uh...."Wing Chun" is Cantonese...."Yong Chun" is Mandarin for the exact same characters.  They are the same words.  So its more than "sound alike", they are the same thing!



They aren't the same thing.

The characters we use are 詠春. The characters for the county White Crane comes from are 永春.

You can scratch #5 off your list.



> In the videos posted you can spot a lot of techniques shared with Wing Chun like Tan Sau, Biu Sau, Bong Sau (which some lineages even refer to as a "Crane's Wing block") Fook Sau, etc.  You can see footwork and stances that are similar as well.



I can find those same shapes/actions in Northern styles too. All it suggests is that it was created by another human. #3 scratched.

Points #1 and #2 are fiction, unless they point to a common historical figure, scratched and scratched.

#4 was evidence of connection? What? ...Scratched.

That leaves you with only #6, and at least according to Judkins; scratched.


----------



## Vajramusti

guy b. said:


> I have no idea about what YM said to these guys. But I do know that the wing chun produced by some of them is not very good, to put it mildly.


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



guy b. said:


> I have no idea about what YM said to these guys. But I do know that the wing chun produced by some of them is not very good, to put it mildly.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silly underinformed generalization


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> I've addressed your points on _taan-sau_ and answered each question you've raised. What have I missed? Or have you forgotten now that you have taken on a new identity and side in this whole discussion?



You've missed a lot!  Let me see if I can summarize it.  Let's just take the Tan Sau all by itself to simply things.

The basic question that you haven't really addressed is why would Ip Man teach only Wong Shun Leung the idea that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and is not to be used as a defensive movement?  Because all other students of Ip Man that I have come across interpret Tan Sau as a defensive movement.  You could say that guys in his public class that didn't really get much personal attention may have missed it and gotten the wrong understanding.  But how do you explain the fact that Ip Man didn't teach this idea of Tan Sau to the men that were closest to him and spent the most time with him.  How do you explain that Ip Man didn't teach the correct idea of Tan Sau to the very people that he knew were going to establish schools and represent his name and the good name of Wing Chun?  How do you explain the fact that this idea of Tan Sau was not  taught to close senior students of Ip Man like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, Wang Kiu, ....or his own sons Ip Ching and Ip Chun?

I've brought this up several times now and you kind step around it without really answering it.  You've pointed to other people saying Ip Man was a bad teacher.  Maybe so, but I just don't buy that as a reason for not teaching something so basic to anyone but Wong Shun Leung.   You've pointed to Wong Shun Leung reportedly telling someone else that he learned this from Ip Man and can't say why others didn't.  But you weren't there to hear him say that and neither was I.   Both of these points are based upon heresy and "sifu sez."

You talked about common sense and Occam's Razor.  I still say that the simplest explanation and the most common sense explanation for why Wong Shun Leung taught this interpretation of Tan Sau and no one else does....is simply because Wong Shun Leung came up with that interpretation himself!  It seems pretty straight-forward to me.  But you haven't adequately answered why this wouldn't be the case.


----------



## KPM

The characters we use are 詠春. The characters for the county White Crane comes from are 永春.

You can scratch #5 off your list.

---Nope.  The characters for "Wing" or "beautiful" and "Weng" or "everlasting" have pretty much been used interchangeably through the years.  More than one account says that "Weng" was the original version and it was changed later by Leung Jan. At some point, Chan Wah Shun or his son even changed it back to "Weng" for their particular branch. 



I can find those same shapes/actions in Northern styles too. All it suggests is that it was created by another human. #3 scratched.

---Nope.  Like I said.  Its a gestalt.  You have to take the sum total into account.  Show me a single northern style that shares ALL of those common elements with Wing Chun.


Points #1 and #2 are fiction, unless they point to a common historical figure, scratched and scratched.

---Nope.  I stated that the stories were likely fiction.  But the fact the that such similar stories were used for both White Crane and Wing Chun suggests a connection of some sort is possible. 

#4 was evidence of connection? What? ...Scratched.

----Haven't you been paying attention?  Guy has repeated over and over that since that power generation methods are different that they couldn't possibly be related.  #4 points out why that is not necessarily true.

That leaves you with only #6, and at least according to Judkins; scratched..

---Nope.   I said only that this points to another overlap and possible connection between Wing Chun and  White Crane.

---I didn't say any of this was proof of anything.  I pointed out that my list simply suggested connections between White Crane and Wing Chun.  You can choose to believe that these suggested connections are enough to posit that Wing Chun developed from a "proto-White Crane" or not.  But you cannot discount the fact that these suggested connections exist.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Uh...."Wing Chun" is Cantonese...."Yong Chun" is Mandarin for the exact same characters.  They are the same words.  So its more than "sound alike", they are the same thing!



Yes they sound the same. They don't necessarily mean the same, as LFJ already addressed. 



> I pointed out that Lee Man Mao was part of the Taiping Uprising but the Wikipedia article you found didn't mention him.  You then asked for a source.  I provided a source explaining how Lee Man Mao and the Red Turbans were part of the Taiping Uprising.



As I said this story doesn't connect minor rebel LMM to wing chun or even to white crane in any way. What does this person have to do with this topic?



> Wing Chun's own origin stories and legends talk about Ng Mui seeing a fight between a Snake and a Crane and being inspired to create Wing Chun.  The stories talk about Ng Mui being a resident of the White Crane temple.  While these are just stories, the old legends sometimes have a nugget of truth to them and are actually metaphorical.  So this suggests a possible connection to White Crane.  I mentioned this before.



This is addressed very well by Judkins who debunks it thoroughly.  It is a 20th C fabrication, as are most or all such stories. The trashy novel containing the wing chun origin story has even been identified, I believe.



> The story of Yim Wing Chun and Ng Mui is practically the same as White Crane's own origin story.  They are likely both fictional.  But this could also suggest a connection, or at least that whoever decided to take White Crane's story and adapt it to Wing Chun may have done so because THEY saw a connection.  And of course they were closer in history to it all than we are!



They are both modern fabrications along the same lines. Haven't you noticed this trend in nearly all Southern Chinese MA? Again Judkins blows this out of the water in the article you linked to or comments after it



> White Crane has evolved and developed over time into several branch systems.  But if you look at the version that is considered to be closest to the "ancestral" White Crane, it has a lot of similarities to Wing Chun.  In the videos posted you can spot a lot of techniques shared with Wing Chun like Tan Sau, Biu Sau, Bong Sau (which some lineages even refer to as a "Crane's Wing block") Fook Sau, etc.  You can see footwork and stances that are similar as well.  Now again, these may not be very similar to WSLVT!  But WSLVT is not the standard by which all Wing Chun is judged!  These things from White Crane tend to be more similar to the mainland China versions of Wing Chun like Pin Sun and Yuen Kay Shan WCK.



Wing chun doesn't work by hand shapes, and neither does white crane. Both are conceptually based systems which are very specifically delineated. You need to talk about conceptual similarity if you want to talk about similarity. LJF addressed this point very well. 

I am interested to know how you think white crane works in reality? Can you describe it please, and identify why you think such an approach to combat is similar to the one taken by wing chun?



> Fukien White Crane and Wing Chun may not share the same power generation mechanics,  but they have had 150 years of divergent development and evolution.  To me, that is plenty of time to come up with different power generation mechanics or different "engines.



Neither do they share conceptual similarities. In which case, even if wing chun did derive from some proto-white crane, any comparison would be meaningless since they no longer share any important thing. In this case it would be more interesting to look at why wing chun is different, not which fragments might remain. 



> The whole name of the version of White Crane thought to be closest to the "ancestral" Crane style includes the words "Yong Chun" which is simply the mandarin version of "Wing Chun" and is the same characters in Chinese.



It is the place of origin. Why would you assume this had anything to do with the wing chun system?



> The Wing Chun stories say that several of the ancestors were Red Boat Opera performers. The Red Boat Opera performers were highly involved in the Taiping Rebellion.



Virtually all Southern Chinese systems identify themselves as being anti Qing. It is part and parcel of the origin legends. As Judkins discusses in the post above, there is no reason to assume that these are anything more than stories tacked on at a later date.There are no historically verifiable Opera performers that did wing chun. There is no historical link to Red Boats. If anything wing chun is a system associated with the landed gentry and to moneyed merchant classes. Why would such people have anything to do with the Taiping rebellion?  



> Lee Man Mau was a Red Boat performer documented in Chinese history that started his own spin off "Red Turban" rebellion that drew a large number of its members from the Red Boat performers. Lee Man Mau was a White Crane guy and said to have trained his followers in that style.  So we have both newly developing Wing Chun and an older version of White Crane both associated with the Red Boat Opera performers at the same era in history.



I haven't read anything historcally credible that identifies Lee Man Mau as a white crane practitioner (notwithstanding the fact that white crane as a named martial arts style likely did not exist at that time). I haven't read any historically verifiable info linking wing chun to Opera performers. 



> I'm sure I can come up with other possible connections that could suggest that White Crane and Wing Chun were related given time.



You haven't come up with any credible connections



> Like I said before, one has to just look at the "most likely" based on available evidence and then decided what to believe.



White crane is not likely, see above



> And after that, one should continue to remain a bit skeptical and open to other evidence and theories that come along



I am completely agnostic about the origins of wing chun. I don not think that you are.  



> Like your pole theory.  That started out interesting, but I will point out that the ONLY evidence you provided for your theory that Wing Chun is derived from the pole methods was a short description of 7 pole concepts stated by Wong Shun Leung.



I can only suggest that you try WSL wing chun.


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Silly underinformed generalization



I have done a few different versions of wing chun. I haven't seen anything that worked before I saw WSL wing chun.

If you have functional wing chun then please show or discuss.


----------



## Vajramusti

guy b. said:


> I have done a few different versions of wing chun. I haven't seen anything that worked before I saw WSL wing chun.
> 
> If you have functional wing chun then please show or discuss.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have to show  you a thing. You and LFJ seem to floating in an ego swirl.
Cheers and bye.


----------



## KPM

I am completely agnostic about the origins of wing chun. I don not think that you are. 

----That's funny!  I seem to recall you distinctly stating that Wing Chun was derived from the Pole in no uncertain terms like it was fact!  


White crane is not likely, see above

----I can only assume that, once again, you weren't paying very close attention.  So I will refer you to post #124 where I have already answered pretty much everything you bring up.   But I will state again, just for the record:

_I didn't say any of this was proof of anything. I pointed out that my list simply suggested connections between White Crane and Wing Chun. You can choose to believe that these suggested connections are enough to posit that Wing Chun developed from a "proto-White Crane" or not. But you cannot discount the fact that these suggested connections exist.

_


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> You've missed a lot!  Let me see if I can summarize it.  Let's just take the Tan Sau all by itself to simply things.
> 
> The basic question that you haven't really addressed is why would Ip Man teach only Wong Shun Leung the idea that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and is not to be used as a defensive movement?  Because all other students of Ip Man that I have come across interpret Tan Sau as a defensive movement.  You could say that guys in his public class that didn't really get much personal attention may have missed it and gotten the wrong understanding.  But how do you explain the fact that Ip Man didn't teach this idea of Tan Sau to the men that were closest to him and spent the most time with him.  How do you explain that Ip Man didn't teach the correct idea of Tan Sau to the very people that he knew were going to establish schools and represent his name and the good name of Wing Chun?  How do you explain the fact that this idea of Tan Sau was not  taught to close senior students of Ip Man like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, Wang Kiu, ....or his own sons Ip Ching and Ip Chun?



You are being disingenuous or forgetful in your argument again. Several people did address this thoroughly earlier in the thread. You are just re-asserting your original argument and not replying to the criticisms of it. 



> You talked about common sense and Occam's Razor.  I still say that the simplest explanation and the most common sense explanation for why Wong Shun Leung taught this interpretation of Tan Sau and no one else does....is simply because Wong Shun Leung came up with that interpretation himself!  It seems pretty straight-forward to me.  But you haven't adequately answered why this wouldn't be the case.



It is very unlikely that WSL came up with a such a conceptually coherent, perfectly designed, and yet beautifully simple system all by himself, from the morass of contradictory and non-functional nonsense that was YM wing chun, if that is indeed what is reflected in the teaching of the other wing chun I have tried. A more simple explanation is that WSL simply learned YM wing chun. Other people might also have learned it- I have not experienced all of wing chun.


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't have to show  you a thing. You and LFJ seem to floating in an ego swirl.
> Cheers and bye.



Why bother even adding this to the thread?


----------



## KPM

[You are being disingenuous or forgetful in your argument again. Several people did address this thoroughly earlier in the thread. You are just re-asserting your original argument and not replying to the criticisms of it.

---"several people"?  Its you and LFJ.  That's hardly "several people"!!   Earlier in this thread?  Thoroughly addressed?  Are you sure you are in the right forum?   All you and LFJ have managed to say is that someone told you Ip Man was a poor teacher and didn't teach everyone the same, and that someone said that WSL said he learned his Tan Sau idea from Ip Man and can't explain why others didn't learn it the same way.  Oh....and you both managed to say that everyone's Wing Chun other than WSL is total crap.   Anyway......Just how does that refute anything I've said or constitute "criticisms" of what I've said?


It is very unlikely that WSL came up with a such a conceptually coherent, perfectly designed, and yet beautifully simple system all by himself,

---That's your opinion.  I think you've underestimated Wong Shun Leung.


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I don't have to show  you a thing. You and LFJ seem to floating in an ego swirl.
> Cheers and bye.



You also don't have to post on the forum to tell me that you still aren't going to bother typing anything meaningful. Just remaining quiet will convey the same info


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Thoroughly addressed?  Are you sure you are in the right forum?   All you and LFJ have managed to say is that someone told you Ip Man was a poor teacher and didn't teach everyone the same



People have made comments about YM's teaching style. This is information we have.



> someone said that WSL said he learned his Tan Sau idea from Ip Man and can't explain why others didn't learn it the same way.



There is an easy explanation for why the tan of WSL is different from the tan of person x. The same explanation also explains why the tans of other people are also different. Two different defensive actions are still different. Only one explanation fits the facts.



> Oh....and you both managed to say that everyone's Wing Chun other than WSL is total crap.



I have never said that. I have said that some wing chun I have experienced has not been good. That is all.



> Anyway......Just how does that refute anything I've said or constitute "criticisms" of what I've said?



It answers what you said and provides a simpler explanation for it, your misrepresentations notwithstanding



> That's your opinion.  I think you've underestimated Wong Shun Leung.



It isn't a matter of opinion; it is one of probability. It is simply more unlikely that WSL managed what is usually the work of several generations by himself, than YM not being a diligent teacher, especially given evidence about his teaching style. But if WSL was in fact a superhuman genius who reformulated WC from something awful into something incredibly efficient and simple, while also incredibly profound, then good for him. Well done. I would never have believed it.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Nope.  Like I said.  Its a gestalt.  You have to take the sum total into account.  Show me a single northern style that shares ALL of those common elements with Wing Chun.



Please explain your understanding of how white crane functions


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I am completely agnostic about the origins of wing chun. I don not think that you are.
> 
> ----That's funny!  I seem to recall you distinctly stating that Wing Chun was derived from the Pole in no uncertain terms like it was fact!
> 
> 
> White crane is not likely, see above
> 
> ----I can only assume that, once again, you weren't paying very close attention.  So I will refer you to post #124 where I have already answered pretty much everything you bring up.   But I will state again, just for the record:
> 
> _I didn't say any of this was proof of anything. I pointed out that my list simply suggested connections between White Crane and Wing Chun. You can choose to believe that these suggested connections are enough to posit that Wing Chun developed from a "proto-White Crane" or not. But you cannot discount the fact that these suggested connections exist.
> _




This is an incredibly weak answer given the work I did in replying to your claims about lee man mau, Taiping rebels, white crane and other nonsense. Again you appear to be a basically dishonest person.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> This is an incredibly weak answer given the work I did in replying to your claims about lee man mau, Taiping rebels, white crane and other nonsense. Again you appear to be a basically dishonest person.



Calling me a liar again?  For the third time?    Ok.  That's it.  I'm done trying to have any kind of discussion with you.  You've proven to be not only a poor conversationalist, but basically not worth even talking to.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Calling me a liar again?  For the third time?    Ok.  That's it.  I'm done trying to have any kind of discussion with you.  You've proven to be not only a poor conversationalist, but basically not worth even talking to.



When you avoid following up on answers to your points which show you to be wrong then that is dishonest. I wouldn't say you are a liar, that's too strong a word. Your dishonesty is more passive than that. Call it cowardice maybe?


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> When you avoid following up on answers to your points which show you to be wrong then that is dishonest. I wouldn't say you are a liar, that's too strong a word. Your dishonesty is more passive than that. Call it cowardice maybe?



C'mon _Guy,_ can't you disagree without making it personal, using terms like _dishonest_ and _cowardice_? You may feel KPM is mistaken, even _stubborn_ in his supposed misconceptions, but let's keep it polite.

BTW, I don't even believe Keith ever said he personally believed that White Crane was the ancestor to WC, he just entertained that it was a plausible theory. I said as much, and_ Judkins_, in his article, expressed a similar position. Honestly, it's beginning to look like the three main WSL posters on this forum (you, LFJ and T-Ray) are hostile to everybody else. That's a shame, and I hope you prove me wrong in the future.


----------



## KPM

^^^^T-Ray is a good guy.  I wouldn't lump him in with LFJ and Guy.


----------



## geezer

Oh, one more thing. In English, the word "art" can be applied to the largely subjective category of "fine art" and it can_ also_ be used to describe the functional skills of a craftsman when taken to the highest level of sophistication as, for example, in describing the "art" of smithing, carpentry, ceramics, etc. "Art" when used in this latter sense, has virtually the same meaning as the Cantonese term "gung-fu" i.e. the mastery or skill resulting from hard work. Used in this sense, the word _art_ describes Wing Chun quite accurately, including what I have seen of WSL VT.

This is of concern to me as a person who has worked as an artist and a craftsman, received the terminal degree in the field, an M.F.A. and who has spent nearly a quarter of a century teaching the art and craft of ceramics.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> ^^^^T-Ray is a good guy.  I wouldn't lump him in with LFJ and Guy.



Noted. My apologies.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You've missed a lot!  Let me see if I can summarize it.  Let's just take the Tan Sau all by itself to simply things.
> 
> The basic question that you haven't really addressed is why would Ip Man teach only Wong Shun Leung the idea that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and is not to be used as a defensive movement?...
> ...But how do you explain the fact that Ip Man didn't teach this idea of Tan Sau to the men that were closest to him and spent the most time with him.  How do you explain that Ip Man didn't teach the correct idea of Tan Sau to the very people that he knew were going to establish schools and represent his name and the good name of Wing Chun?  How do you explain the fact that this idea of Tan Sau was not  taught to close senior students of Ip Man like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, Wang Kiu, ....or his own sons Ip Ching and Ip Chun?



You ignored all my points addressing these questions back on post #87 and #108. 

Respond to those points.



> You've pointed to other people saying Ip Man was a bad teacher.  Maybe so, but I just don't buy that as a reason for not teaching something so basic to anyone but Wong Shun Leung.



I never said he only taught it to WSL. That's just what you're trying to force me into claiming. I wasn't there watching YM teach everyone, and there were many students that didn't go on to become famous sifus. There may well have been others.

But it is not exactly "something so basic". It would take careful guiding throughout the system at each stage to properly develop. We know from various accounts that YM was not attentive to all students. So it is entirely likely that many didn't receive such careful training.



> You've pointed to Wong Shun Leung reportedly telling someone else that he learned this from Ip Man and can't say why others didn't.  But you weren't there to hear him say that and neither was I.   Both of these points are based upon heresy and "sifu sez."



The point to be taken from this is that you'll have to examine the facts yourself. You've ignored most of the facts. Again, please respond to my previous posts I just linked to.



> You talked about common sense and Occam's Razor.  I still say that the simplest explanation and the most common sense explanation for why Wong Shun Leung taught this interpretation of Tan Sau and no one else does....is simply because Wong Shun Leung came up with that interpretation himself!  It seems pretty straight-forward to me.  But you haven't adequately answered why this wouldn't be the case.



It seems so simple to you because you are ignoring the details. 

Posts #87 and #108. Respond.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Nope.  The characters for "Wing" or "beautiful" and "Weng" or "everlasting" have pretty much been used interchangeably through the years.  More than one account says that "Weng" was the original version and it was changed later by Leung Jan. At some point, Chan Wah Shun or his son even changed it back to "Weng" for their particular branch.



Unless you can verifiably trace the original and the change, what we have are different characters.



> ---Nope.  Like I said.  Its a gestalt.  You have to take the sum total into account.  Show me a single northern style that shares ALL of those common elements with Wing Chun.



There's a style in Henan from the mid-1600's based on Rooster fighting that was a precursor to _Xinyi Liuhequan_ and shares all those hand techniques and uses narrow stances and footwork. It too functions quite differently from Wing Chun in major ways, but all those superficial similarities can be pointed to just the same as with White Crane.

Again, it just means it was created by another human being moving his arms and legs in a similar way. There is obviously no historical connection there though.



> ---Nope.  I stated that the stories were likely fiction.  But the fact the that such similar stories were used for both White Crane and Wing Chun suggests a connection of some sort is possible.



Do you believe Jesus, Krishna, and Horus all pointed to the same historical figure or that their stories suggest a connection between the religions? Each "born to a virgin" and blah blah blah. Or is it just likely that humans tend to have similar imaginations and want to disassociate the "impure" act of sex with the birth of their god?

Even if the creation legends were borrowed, it doesn't point to a technical connection between the styles.



> ----Haven't you been paying attention?  Guy has repeated over and over that since that power generation methods are different that they couldn't possibly be related.  #4 points out why that is not necessarily true.



So, the possibility that they might have had similar power generation methods 150 years ago, though there is no trace of it left today, is evidence of a connection??



> ---I didn't say any of this was proof of anything.  I pointed out that my list simply suggested connections between White Crane and Wing Chun.  You can choose to believe that these suggested connections are enough to posit that Wing Chun developed from a "proto-White Crane" or not.  But you cannot discount the fact that these suggested connections exist.



You introduced each point as "evidence" for your theory, and I just discounted them all. Unless you can more solidly support them, they point to nothing.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> Honestly, it's beginning to look like the three main WSL posters on this forum (you, LFJ and T-Ray) are hostile to everybody else.





KPM said:


> ^^^^T-Ray is a good guy.  I wouldn't lump him in with LFJ and Guy.



Eh? So, I'm hostile and a bad guy because KPM and others get upset and frustrated when I make apparently irrefutable points?

I think I've been pretty calm and patient with my postings here. Don't take an attack on what you believe as hostility. Just address the points if possible, especially if I'm wrong.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> C'mon _Guy,_ can't you disagree without making it personal, using terms like _dishonest_ and _cowardice_? You may feel KPM is mistaken, even _stubborn_ in his supposed misconceptions, but let's keep it polite.



KPM ignores what he doesn't want to answer which makes it pretty difficult to have a coherent argument with him. But you are correct that I don't know the reason for this. Perhaps he has poor vision, too many things happening in his very busy life, or a memory impairment? I just don't know and I retract any assumptions I have made about the character of KPM. Making such assumptions was a mistake and I apologise.



> Honestly, it's beginning to look like the three main WSL posters on this forum (you, LFJ and T-Ray) are hostile to everybody else. That's a shame, and I hope you prove me wrong in the future.



I think it is a bit unfair to say this. Any people feeling this way should be aware that what I write is not meant as a personal attack (apart from the above much regretted comment on the good character of KPM) and I hope that we can discuss in a more dispassionate way in future.


----------



## KPM

Eh? So, I'm hostile and a bad guy because KPM and others get upset and frustrated when I make apparently irrefutable points?

---"Irrefutable points"???  Now that's rich!  

----Ok.  I'll take one more pass at it since you've demanded it twice now.   Although I did address your points.  But like Guy, you don't seem to read very closely.


Their interpretation of _taan-sau_ (like _chi-sau_) is the same any layman would make just seeing the shape and hearing the name. I find that curious...

---#1  Maybe because there are different levels of understanding?  And the basic level is to actually use the technique for what it was designed for....based on its shape....reflected in its name.....and as other systems with almost the same technique use it?  That's not "curious", that's simply common sense!


A lot more visual learning and sharing / copying of each other among classmates went on at that time than did YM spending the time and effort to develop a deeper idea in each one of them.

--- #2 As I said, very likely true for the "mainstream" students in public classes.  But likely not true for his closest students who were going to carry on the system and teach in his name.   Wouldn't you ensure that someone that was going to represent you was going to do it well?  You really believe that Ip Man would not have corrected men like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, Ip Chun, Ip Ching, etc. if he saw that they had such a basic misunderstanding of Tan Sau?  Oh but wait, you always skirt around that point by saying you weren't there and don't know what Ip Man did.  So let me rephrase......There are a good number of students that were Ip Man's friends, that spent many years with him, that trained privately with him, and that went on to establish schools representing Ip Man's name and Ip Man's Wing Chun.  It should be obvious that Ip Man would notice and correct such a basic misunderstanding of the use of one of the core 3 techniques in Wing Chun (Bong, Tan, Fook) and would not want them teaching a misunderstanding to their own students in Ip Man's name.


It's natural for people to always think in terms of applications, and _taan-sau_ as a block is a simple idea to be tossed around and it satisfies quickly.

---See #1 response above.



It would be more suspect if all those guys had a more abstract interpretation of _taan-sau_ as a developmental tool and only WSL didn't share that understanding but taught it as any layman would assume it to be, a "spreading" block.

---That would just imply that ONE person missed out on a deeper level of learning, which is quite different that implying that everyone BUT one person missed out on a deeper level of learning!  


It is entirely possible that they simply went through the motions of the forms and _chi-sau_ drills in class without receiving much information on what they were doing, and so their interpretations were unseen and uncorrected.

---See #2 response above


Unlike WSL who was testing his skills in fights and discussing his experience with his teacher, it's entirely possible that these guys never had to give much thought to the "applications" until such time that they decided to become teachers.

---See #2 response above

And as I said, I find it curious that their interpretations are no different than what any layman would assume to be the application of things after only seeing the shapes and hearing the names. Whether that be blocking with _taan-sau_, breaking a wrist grab at the end of SNT, or sticking to arms in _chi-sau_.

---See #1 response above.

They would never reach a more abstract understanding without careful instruction. That suggests that what took place was mostly visual learning, sharing and copying ideas among one another, and gap filling on their own. And that such things were the norm in YM's school due to his temperament and teaching style is something his students have said.

---See #2 response above.

---Like I said already.  Your essential argument is really only that people have said that Ip Man was a poor and inattentive teacher.  While that may be true, that is not "irrefutable evidence" that he would have neglected to teach such an essential idea to all of his closest students other than Wong Shun Leung!   And I know....you will respond that you don't know who may have learned this and there may very well be unknown Ip Man students out there that got it!   For that, I can only refer you to #2 response above.   When you have a group of students that are known to have been close to Ip Man, to have spent many years with him, and to have trained privately with him and not just in public classes....I think that kind of negates the "unknown" student argument. 

---But that's it. I'm done.  You haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you.  No need to go any further with this topic.


----------



## KPM

There's a style in Henan from the mid-1600's based on Rooster fighting that was a precursor to _Xinyi Liuhequan_ and shares all those hand techniques and uses narrow stances and footwork. It too functions quite differently from Wing Chun in major ways, but all those superficial similarities can be pointed to just the same as with White Crane.

---I said "show me" not "tell me".   I provided videos of White Crane so that anyone could watch and decide if it looked similar to Wing Chun for themselves.   Where are the videos of this "Rooster fighting" so that people can do the same?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---"Irrefutable points"???  Now that's rich!



I said apparently, given the fact that you've been avoiding them. An attempt to get you to finally address them, because I'm getting to know how you work.



> ---#1  Maybe because there are different levels of understanding?  And the basic level is to actually use the technique for what it was designed for....based on its shape....reflected in its name.....and as other systems with almost the same technique use it?  That's not "curious", that's simply common sense!



So you're admitting they never passed a basic level of understanding.



> --- #2 As I said, very likely true for the "mainstream" students in public classes.  But likely not true for his closest students who were going to carry on the system and teach in his name.   Wouldn't you ensure that someone that was going to represent you was going to do it well?  You really believe that Ip Man would not have corrected men like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, Ip Chun, Ip Ching, etc. if he saw that they had such a basic misunderstanding of Tan Sau?  Oh but wait, you always skirt around that point by saying you weren't there and don't know what Ip Man did.  So let me rephrase......There are a good number of students that were Ip Man's friends, that spent many years with him, that trained privately with him, and that went on to establish schools representing Ip Man's name and Ip Man's Wing Chun.  It should be obvious that Ip Man would notice and correct such a basic misunderstanding of the use of one of the core 3 techniques in Wing Chun (Bong, Tan, Fook) and would not want them teaching a misunderstanding to their own students in Ip Man's name.



You make a lot of assumptions about what YM would want or how he'd treat certain students based only on your own opinions and preferences, not on any facts like what his students said about his temperament, teaching style, and how he didn't waste energy on those not worth it (like non-fighters).

I honestly don't think YM cared as much as you think he did. His teaching in HK was mainly to cover his financial difficulties there. Duncan Leung said YM used tuition money to support his opium addiction! It's really not likely he gave two sh!ts what some non-fighters learned or went out and taught.

In the case of WSL, he was a fighter by all accounts. He regularly went out and tested his skills and discussed his experience with YM, unlike most of his contemporaries. This is undisputed. It's no wonder he came out with a clearer understanding of the system.

Now, that may not sit well with you, but it's not based on what feels good to believe.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> I honestly don't think YM cared as much as you think he did. His teaching in HK was mainly to cover his financial difficulties there. Duncan Leung said YM used tuition money to support his opium addiction! It's really not likely he gave two sh!ts what some non-fighters learned or went out and taught



I'd heard that too. DL said (in his book maybe?) that due to him paying YM lots of money, he got YM's undivided attention. He also was told by YM to go out and get into fights so he could understand what YM was teaching him. YM apparently did not care too much about the majority since they were only paying miniscule amounts of tuition. Heck, who knows if any of this is true or not, but it is interesting to ponder. Even DL's wing chun has many different aspects to it from the rest of the WC world. Not saying its good or bad but DL (and WSL) are departures from the 'norm' apparently.


----------



## Danny T

I find every single person I have done wc training with has something different.
I run into the same thing in Kali, in Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling, Karate, Silat and I'm betting it is the same in every aspect of life. Everyone has a different perspective and does things just a bit different. Get the fundamentals afterward there is no right or wrong just the consequence. 

It take two or more to argue.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> I said apparently, given the fact that you've been avoiding them. An attempt to get you to finally address them, because I'm getting to know how you work.



You are doing better than me. KPM is done with me (again)

Oddly it came at a point in the conversation where KPM's claims about Taiping rebels, wing chun and white crane were shown to be full of holes


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> You are doing better than me. KPM is done with me (again)
> 
> Oddly it came at a point in the conversation where KPM's claims about Taiping rebels, wing chun and white crane were shown to be full of holes



One last response to you and LFJ......you haven't shown anything.  You are just as bad about not answering questions or addressing points as me or anyone else.  So get off of your high horse and actually try to have polite and honest discussions.  That's all I've got to say.


----------



## Phobius

Can we get someone in here to put an end to this derailed topic?

In the beginning it felt informative but now this has become nothing more than a propaganda thread for LFJ and guy b. to bash on KPM. Problem is not that any discussion here is won with proof but because two against one usually is better odds. Sorry KPM but you are losing the fight which is ironic as LFJ has not provided any proof to below statement.

What was best for WSL is not best for all, so WSLVT is what was best for WSL. If you are not him, there is no proof it is what is best for you. Any such statement would be claiming that WSLVT is the best martial art in the world. (If that is the case we can invite the UFC/MMA fanatics here again to argue once more)


----------



## wtxs

geezer said:


> Sometimes two seemingly contradictory points of view can_ both_ be right.That is to say that an apparent paradox can resolved when you see the bigger picture. Or perhaps I'm just manifesting symptoms of  GHS (Gullible Hippie Syndrome) again!



How about sharing a little of that smoke, maybe we all could finally see the big picture instead of arguing of what we do see from our little corners ... like ... far out ... peace,  man ... hit me again


----------



## dudewingchun

I went from Ip ching/Lo man kam for a while. Met up with a wsl guy who wasted me. Went along to there class and appreciated how good it was. Went an met a chu shong tin guy who could produce alot more force and structure then any of the WSL guys ( he always has good structure in every movement , wsl guys just blitz in and overwhelm you but get hit alot still) then met Alan orr who blew me away with his skill. So now I do CST and CSL . WSL was good just there way of fighting isnt for me.

Chu shong tin lineage has way better force and structure then most Ip man lineages including WSL. I respect WSL style but they would get handled by an amateur mma fighter like most wing chun guys ( only mentioned cause alot seem to think they the only lineage who can fight). Duncan leung has even said " WSL  was wild and just threw a kick then chain punched" in all of his fights and also said he would hit them but also get hit and was never a clear cut winner, infact i think it was Duncan watching WSL fight some other kung fu guy, he was so disapointed that his senior was **** so he told Ip man he was quitting to which Ip replied " practice a few years and you will be good" D.L replied " All my seniors have practiced a few years and they cant fight" Ip" do you have money to learn" DL " yes" and there we go. WSL also entered a tournament and got Ko'd by a kick.. but his students still call him undefeated.

in Siu nim tao there are 3 tan saos each done differently.. so in WSL they are all just for elbow positioning ? Seems a bit silly. Meanwhile Duncan Leung who is an actual private disciple of Ip man has the first one for elbow power ( can someone from D.L lineage correct any of my mistakes ! ) a whipping tan sao and dont remember the idea for the 3rd one. So I guess Ip man taught his actual private disciple who paid more then anyone to learn from him in private the wrong way ? Highly doubt it. I read that WSL even changed the dummy so your arms dont stick to it from his fighting experience.. wouldnt it be likely to be the same with tan sao ?  im not coming up with any conclusions just stating some things I have read about.


----------



## KPM

^^^^Watch out Sean!  You are using common sense.  That doesn't seem to work when discussing with some people!  

This is a perfect example of what I was saying above:

_Meanwhile Duncan Leung who is an actual private disciple of Ip man has the first one for elbow power ( can someone from D.L lineage correct any of my mistakes ! ) a whipping tan sao and dont remember the idea for the 3rd one. So I guess Ip man taught his actual private disciple who paid more then anyone to learn from him in private the wrong way ? Highly doubt it._


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> One last response to you and LFJ......you haven't shown anything.  You are just as bad about not answering questions or addressing points as me or anyone else.  So get off of your high horse and actually try to have polite and honest discussions.  That's all I've got to say.



In the nicest possible way, I think you are projecting a bit here.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> One last response to you and LFJ......you haven't shown anything.  You are just as bad about not answering questions or addressing points as me or anyone else.  So get off of your high horse and actually try to have polite and honest discussions.  That's all I've got to say.



You're dodging and saying I'm the one doing it again??

You gave response #1 and #2 to all my points.

I addressed them both honestly and I have not been impolite to you.

If you think I'm wrong based on anything more than opinion or preference for what is true, as I've been forming my views on available evidence, you could explain your reasons.

If you dodge each time, I'm led to believe you only have opinion and preference and are having a hard time refuting what has been said.


----------



## LFJ

dudewingchun said:


> I respect WSL style but they would get handled by an amateur mma fighter like most wing chun guys ( only mentioned cause alot seem to think they the only lineage who can fight).



Who are "they"? There is a ton of useless mess within "WSLVT", just like YMVT. Quality WSLVT is mostly rooted in Northern Europe; Germany/Netherlands. I wouldn't recommend much outside of there, unless from the same stream.



> in Siu nim tao there are 3 tan saos each done differently.. so in WSL they are all just for elbow positioning ? Seems a bit silly. Meanwhile Duncan Leung who is an actual private disciple of Ip man has the first one for elbow power ( can someone from D.L lineage correct any of my mistakes ! ) a whipping tan sao and dont remember the idea for the 3rd one.



I think his 3rd is the whipping one, done after _bong-sau _by flopping his hand over like a downward backslap used against round punches.

Here we keep the hand up and recover the elbow to punching position after being up and out. Not thinking in terms of applications. Just elbow recovery and alignment. Can't think about applications to deal with an opponent's actions before one has even basic control of their own actions!



> So I guess Ip man taught his actual private disciple who paid more then anyone to learn from him in private the wrong way ? Highly doubt it.



Well, all I can do, like with others, is examine the facts and look at what they teach. It would make sense that he'd be missing the _taan_ elbow idea, because he also seems to be missing the counterpart, _jam_ elbow. They are a double edged sword, inside and outside forearm.

Saw a video of him teaching DCS and his _jam-sau_ pulled the incoming palm strike toward himself. He actually said "pull" their arm, then strike. So his response to an opening action is to pull it into himself, then strike; a two-step response to a single action, if he doesn't end up just pulling another punching into his face, that is.

Inefficient, not VT thinking. We just strike with built-in defense capabilities. _Taan_ elbow vs _jam_ elbow, strike vs strike.

So, it sounds like his tuition money went more toward YM's opium addiction than it did his learning. 



> I read that WSL even changed the dummy so your arms dont stick to it from his fighting experience.. wouldnt it be likely to be the same with tan sao ?



Why would you stick to the dummy arms? Sensitivity? Control? The thing is a stationary lump of wood. There's no need for him to have made that change. It's a silly idea from someone who doesn't know what the thing is used for.

It seems simple enough to say he changed the idea of _taan-sau_, but that's if you haven't been through the system to see the detail and how it all fits together. It would be much easier to reduce it to an obvious application any layman could come up with, than it would be to turn it into an abstract training method, counterpart of _jam_, and integrate it into each stage of training where it is slowly developed step by step. He would have to gut the entire system and rebuild it. All other guys had to do is just say, when someone throws a punch, turn your palm up and block/deflect it.


----------



## dudewingchun

LFJ said:


> Who are "they"? There is a ton of useless mess within "WSLVT", just like YMVT. Quality WSLVT is mostly rooted in Northern Europe; Germany/Netherlands. I wouldn't recommend much outside of there, unless from the same stream.
> 
> 
> 
> I think his 3rd is the whipping one, done after _bong-sau _by flopping his hand over like a downward backslap used against round punches.
> 
> Here we keep the hand up and recover the elbow to punching position after being up and out. Not thinking in terms of applications. Just elbow recovery and alignment. Can't think about applications to deal with an opponent's actions before one has even basic control of their own actions!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, all I can do, like with others, is examine the facts and look at what they teach. It would make sense that he'd be missing the _taan_ elbow idea, because he also seems to be missing the counterpart, _jam_ elbow. They are a double edged sword, inside and outside forearm.
> 
> Saw a video of him teaching DCS and his _jam-sau_ pulled the incoming palm strike toward himself. He actually said "pull" their arm, then strike. So his response to an opening action is to pull it into himself, then strike; a two-step response to a single action, if he doesn't end up just pulling another punching into his face, that is.
> 
> Inefficient, not VT thinking. We just strike with built-in defense capabilities. _Taan_ elbow vs _jam_ elbow, strike vs strike.
> 
> So, it sounds like his tuition money went more toward YM's opium addiction than it did his learning.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you stick to the dummy arms? Sensitivity? Control? The thing is a stationary lump of wood. There's no need for him to have made that change. It's a silly idea from someone who doesn't know what the thing is used for.
> 
> It seems simple enough to say he changed the idea of _taan-sau_, but that's if you haven't been through the system to see the detail and how it all fits together. It would be much easier to reduce it to an obvious application any layman could come up with, than it would be to turn it into an abstract training method, counterpart of _jam_, and integrate it into each stage of training where it is slowly developed step by step. He would have to gut the entire system and rebuild it. All other guys had to do is just say, when someone throws a punch, turn your palm up and block/deflect it.



David Peterson lineage through Darren Elvey. I guess you have trained everywhere at every school so you know right....

I dont agree at all with your thoughts on Duncan Leungs wing chun. ALL of his students were paying for opium money.. including WSL and mate if I was an opium addict id actually value students who paid a fuckton more then someone who paid pittens.. You appreciate people who can get you drugs. Duncan paid alot which = more drugs which= Happy Ip man which= good tuition if thats the logic we are going on.  You really seriously think WSL is the only person who got taught right ? If he was so efficient why would Duncan go to quit wing chun after watching him fight in real life. (one of the "beimos" WSL guys like to talk about but never mention he got ko'd in an actual tournament by one kick ) Why would he say " he just kicks and punches" " hits but get hit" . 

Maybe someone who actually does Duncan Leung lineage can comment about the Dan Chi sao. 

The thing about the dummy is something that came out of wsl mouth on an article he did. Maybe it is wrong Idk. You guys strike and get hit alot too ( or I guess I havent seen the real WSL wing chun right ? ) 

I respect Duncan Leung alot because from what iv seen and heard from him he is a no ********, straight to the point. His stuff iv learnt a bit of works quite well when I spar ( I actually test my wing chun every week and you learn what works fast) First time I tried what I learnt at WSL i ran into a hook.. aswell as every other time.. When I try Duncan Leungs stuff I dont get hit.. Wonder why ! 

Saying all that I still think WSL is one of the better lineages and seems to produce more consistently good chunners. Most wing chun guys cant fight unfortunately. 

Sorry for the scattered reply.


----------



## geezer

Now for something a bit more random. Check out these two "brothers by a different mother." Never knew WSL had an American cousin.

WSL:
http://www.vingtsun-trainer.de/sites/default/files/ving_tsun_kung_fu_kungfu_trainer.jpg

Charles Bronson:
http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...047/t/5457c3d2e4b0633d101e3451/1415037906512/


----------



## LFJ

dudewingchun said:


> David Peterson lineage through Darren Elvey.





> First time I tried what I learnt at WSL i ran into a hook.. aswell as every other time.. When I try Duncan Leungs stuff I dont get hit.. Wonder why !



Well, that's one lineage that teaches people to walk into hooks with a _taan-sau_, so...



> I dont agree at all with your thoughts on Duncan Leungs wing chun. ALL of his students were paying for opium money.. including WSL and mate if I was an opium addict id actually value students who paid a fuckton more then someone who paid pittens.. You appreciate people who can get you drugs. Duncan paid alot which = more drugs which= Happy Ip man which= good tuition if thats the logic we are going on.



All I can do is look at the kind of things he teaches. His money could have gotten him more time, but that doesn't say anything about what he was actually taught during that time. For that, we have to examine what he teaches.



> You really seriously think WSL is the only person who got taught right ? If he was so efficient why would Duncan go to quit wing chun after watching him fight in real life. (one of the "beimos" WSL guys like to talk about but never mention he got ko'd in an actual tournament by one kick ) Why would he say " he just kicks and punches" " hits but get hit" .



I just see basic VT principles violated by what others teach. What am I to assume?

Getting hit is the nature of fighting. Which fighter has never taken a hit? I didn't witness WSL's fights and can't prove wins or losses, but I would be glad to say he lost more than one. That means he faced tough competition. That's how you learn and improve. It's stupid to want to quit because someone got hit. Duncan doesn't sound like a very realistic person if invincibility is what he was looking for.



> The thing about the dummy is something that came out of wsl mouth on an article he did. Maybe it is wrong Idk.



Source? Saying it's a mistake to stick to the dummy, doesn't mean he changed anything. That means those who stick to it don't know what they're doing.



> I respect Duncan Leung alot because from what iv seen and heard from him he is a no ********, straight to the point. His stuff iv learnt a bit of works quite well when I spar



He appears much more aggressive than others, I'll give him that. But does it violate many VT principles, I think so. Can things still be made to work when violating VT principles? Of course, like the many other martial arts. But they aren't proper VT, are they?


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> ...He appears much more aggressive than others, I'll give him that. But does it violate many VT principles, I think so. Can things still be made to work when violating VT principles? Of course, like the many other martial arts. But *they aren't proper VT, are they?*



See. This is why people get ticked-off. You are so quick to pronounce other branches of WC "right" or "wrong", using terms like "violating VT principles". I get the same attitude from a lot of TWC guys and WT guys. Their way is always right. Sounds bloody arrogant.

A more modest position would be to point out that other methods violate the principles of _*your *_VT, as you understand it. But honestly, who are _you _(or any of us) to make sweeping judgements about WC/VT/WT_ in general?
_
BTW I have no opinion on Duncan Leung's VT. I don't know anything about it. And I do have strong opinions about what is effective WC/VT and what isn't. Really, it boils down to expressing opinions with humility and respect. Can't you see my point? 

...Or do you want to be the "Donald" of the forum.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> See. This is why people get ticked-off. You are so quick to pronounce other branches of WC "right" or "wrong", using terms like "violating VT principles". I get the same attitude from a lot of TWC guys and WT guys. Their way is always right. Sounds bloody arrogant.
> 
> A more modest position would be to point out that other methods violate the principles of _*your *_VT, as you understand it. But honestly, who are _you _(or any of us) to make sweeping judgements about WC/VT/WT_ in general?_



No. They violate principles we all agree on, like economy of motion; directness, efficiency, not chasing hands. All these things are agreed upon, but easier said than done, apparently.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> No. They violate principles we all agree on, like economy of motion; directness, efficiency, not chasing hands. All these things are agreed upon, but easier said than done, apparently.



It would have been helpful if you had stated that. Those _are_ points we could all agree on.


----------



## LFJ

geezer said:


> It would have been helpful if you had stated that. Those _are_ points we could all agree on.



That's what I was talking about with the DCS method. Same point I made on the HKM thread. And I think the same violations show up in their free fighting techniques. DL lineage seems to like to attack the arms a lot, _then_ turn to the person. Limb destruction is a valid tactic, but in other TCMAs.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I said "show me" not "tell me".   I provided videos of White Crane so that anyone could watch and decide if it looked similar to Wing Chun for themselves.   Where are the videos of this "Rooster fighting" so that people can do the same?



Your idea of similarity is a superficial one though based on what you perceive to be similar looking bits and pieces of arm movements.

The fact that it functions in a completely different way to wing chun, both mechanically and conceptually, has been pointed out to you and yet you have ignored it for some reason.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> No. They violate principles we all agree on, like economy of motion; directness, efficiency, not chasing hands. All these things are agreed upon, but easier said than done, apparently.



No biggie...lots of WC/WT/VT violates these...even the PB folks. This is based on how each of us define subjective things.
And again, everything hinges on the "why" and "how" and definitions etc behind their training, drilling... 
Obviously, WSLVT thinks they train DCS for X reasons, while others train it for Y reasons. Who cares?
Like I said earlier, I learn a lot about others' WC from reading these forums; and that is a good thing. I disagree on a lot of it, but I'm not going to attempt to sway others' opinions one way or another.
I'm not going to comment on WSLVT chi sau because I've never personally experienced it...but from watching video clips I see a gap or flaw in their methodology which violates the above mentioned principles. Again, who cares. They firmly believe they are doing it right, just as I think my way is right.
DL's first form tan sao's...there are more than three, and each one trains a different aspect of the Tan shape.
DL's DCS, haven't seen that clip in a long time but if he pulls, the pull is down and back, not straight back like some / most do. Again he has his reasons for it, which are based on his ideas on why DCS is done that way and what attributes he is training. DCS is not fighting. It is simply a drill.
Sorry for the rant gents...its early...  now carry on!


----------



## wckf92

dudewingchun said:


> I respect Duncan Leung alot because from what iv seen and heard from him he is a no ********, straight to the point. His stuff iv learnt a bit of works quite well when I spar. When I try Duncan Leungs stuff I dont get hit.. Wonder why !



Awesome dude!


----------



## guy b.

wckf92 said:


> No biggie...lots of WC/WT/VT violates these...even the PB folks. This is based on how each of us define subjective things.
> And again, everything hinges on the "why" and "how" and definitions etc behind their training, drilling...
> Obviously, WSLVT thinks they train DCS for X reasons, while others train it for Y reasons. Who cares?



Reasons are both interesting and important. Reasons make the system what it is. Why not discuss these reasons?



> I'm not going to comment on WSLVT chi sau because I've never personally experienced it...but from watching video clips I see a gap or flaw in their methodology which violates the above mentioned principles. Again, who cares. They firmly believe they are doing it right, just as I think my way is right.



I care. Please let me know. If you are correct then I will have a lot to think about.



> DCS is not fighting. It is simply a drill.
> Sorry for the rant gents...its early...  now carry on!



Why drill if not important in some way?


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> I'm not going to comment on WSLVT chi sau because I've never personally experienced it...but from watching video clips I see a gap or flaw in their methodology which violates the above mentioned principles. Again, who cares.



I care! Because sometimes we can't see flaws in what we do and need someone to point it out. I would love to hear someone pick it apart, either from experience with it, or just from their perspective and what they perceive.

Most often though, people say they respect WSLVT and acknowledge that it's a good lineage, even if they do things differently. Rarely do I hear an honest critique of its possible negatives. And when I do, it's usually against those I also disagree with (the guys with application-based thinking).

You say you see PB guys violating directness, efficiency, or chasing hands? There are tons of videos from this lineage. Can you point out what you're referring to?

To do my own work, this is an example of what I mean from DL lineage.

At :48 he shows turning completely sideways and chopping a round kick with his lead arm. Then he turns the other way and chops the guy's arm. In neither case is he attacking the person at the same time or even facing them. He's facing and attacking the limb. Throughout the clip you'll see this common tactic where they attack the limbs first, then the person.

This is not direct, not efficient, and is limb chasing to the extreme. If it's in such severe violation of basic VT principles that make the system, it can't be considered VT proper anymore. As I said, limb destruction is a valid tactic, but in other TCMAs, or at least not like this in VT.

However, I think chopping kicks like that only works in training when they have those bulky shin and forearm guards. For real, against a strong kicker, shin vs forearm, that's a broken ulna.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> in Siu nim tao there are 3 tan saos each done differently.. so in WSL they are all just for elbow positioning ?



Yes



> Seems a bit silly.



Why do you think it sounds silly? Sounds consistent to me. Also sounds unlikely to be made up by someone who misunderstood what they were taught. 



> Meanwhile Duncan Leung who is an actual private disciple of Ip man has the first one for elbow power ( can someone from D.L lineage correct any of my mistakes ! ) a whipping tan sao and dont remember the idea for the 3rd one.



Sounds like someone I learned VT from when I first made the switch from other wing chun to WSL. They were a seminar and second hand learner mostly. They didn't understand the thinking and so they made things up to explain certain actions. Three tans three energies/applications is what this person taught. Later I learned differently.



> So I guess Ip man taught his actual private disciple who paid more then anyone to learn from him in private the wrong way ? Highly doubt it.



Open your eyes, look at the results. This is all anyone can do



> I read that WSL even changed the dummy so your arms dont stick to it from his fighting experience.. wouldnt it be likely to be the same with tan sao ?



Incredibly unlikely that WSL hollowed the whole WC system out and replaced it with something he thought up all by himself, especially given the complexity, coherence, deep simplicity and effectiveness of the result. I think it is just wing chun, standard method.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> I dont agree at all with your thoughts on Duncan Leungs wing chun. ALL of his students were paying for opium money.. including WSL and mate if I was an opium addict id actually value students who paid a fuckton more then someone who paid pittens.. You appreciate people who can get you drugs. Duncan paid alot which = more drugs which= Happy Ip man which= good tuition if thats the logic we are going on.



There is record of YM's teaching method.



> You really seriously think WSL is the only person who got taught right ? If he was so efficient why would Duncan go to quit wing chun after watching him fight in real life. (one of the "beimos" WSL guys like to talk about but never mention he got ko'd in an actual tournament by one kick ) Why would he say " he just kicks and punches" " hits but get hit" .



WSL is a person who appears to have received a lot or all of the system. This is evidenced by the lack of contradiction and adherence to concepts in his method. WSL method is not invincible, it is just good real kung fu. This makes it valuable compared to other wing chun I have seen. Other people might also have YM's kung fu. I don't know who they are and if they exist at all, but then I have not seen all wing chun. 

The above quotes make Duncal Leung look a bit stupid. Or maybe he was just young and inexperienced- who knows. Fighting tends to involve getting punched.

Maybe someone who actually does Duncan Leung lineage can comment about the Dan Chi sao.



> The thing about the dummy is something that came out of wsl mouth on an article he did. Maybe it is wrong Idk. You guys strike and get hit alot too ( or I guess I havent seen the real WSL wing chun right ? )



What did WSL say about the dummy? Please provide a link. Fighting involves getting hit including fighting with wing chun. 



> I respect Duncan Leung alot because from what iv seen and heard from him he is a no ********, straight to the point. His stuff iv learnt a bit of works quite well when I spar ( I actually test my wing chun every week and you learn what works fast) First time I tried what I learnt at WSL i ran into a hook.. aswell as every other time.. When I try Duncan Leungs stuff I dont get hit.. Wonder why !



Maybe it is lack of understanding or inability to make WSL approach work? It isn't easy. Or maybe Duncan Leung approach is better. Let experience be your guide and follow the path that you think is correct. 



> Most wing chun guys cant fight unfortunately.



This is true


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> Reasons are both interesting and important. Reasons make the system what it is. Why not discuss these reasons? I care. Please let me know. If you are correct then I will have a lot to think about. Why drill if not important in some way?



Hi Guy. Yes, I agree, drills are important. I did not mean to imply they are not. My point is each of us have different ideas on what is important or why it is important. Thx.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> I care! Because sometimes we can't see flaws in what we do and need someone to point it out. I would love to hear someone pick it apart, either from experience with it, or just from their perspective and what they perceive.
> You say you see PB guys violating directness, efficiency, or chasing hands? There are tons of videos from this lineage. Can you point out what you're referring to?



Quite true! This is always a wise course of action, and a humble one IMO. I will try to find a video to illustrate...but its hard to find videos of PB actually moving slow enough! haha...he seems pretty fast!






LFJ said:


> To do my own work, this is an example of what I mean from DL lineage.
> 
> At :48 he shows turning completely sideways and chopping a round kick with his lead arm. Then he turns the other way and chops the guy's arm. In neither case is he attacking the person at the same time or even facing them. He's facing and attacking the limb. Throughout the clip you'll see this common tactic where they attack the limbs first, then the person.
> 
> This is not direct, not efficient, and is limb chasing to the extreme. If it's in such severe violation of basic VT principles that make the system, it can't be considered VT proper anymore. As I said, limb destruction is a valid tactic, but in other TCMAs, or at least not like this in VT.
> 
> However, I think chopping kicks like that only works in training when they have those bulky shin and forearm guards. For real, against a strong kicker, shin vs forearm, that's a broken ulna.



Thanks for doing the work on your end. I've no comment on the clip you posted. I completely agree with you that turning sideways like that (eyes) doesn't seem smart...I was trained to always keep eyes on the bad guy.  (I'm thinking of that Bruce Lee scene haha...."never take your eyes off your opponent...even when you bow".  But, I digress...

So, I'm headed to the airport in a few minutes but to get some discussion going...here is what popped up on youtube with a quick search for Philip bayer...






I see this all the time, from most everyone's WC/WT/VT but as we are discussing supposed violations of intrinsic principles...watch what happens at the :52 mark. Again, I do not wish to descend into an argument about who is right or wrong...but if PB's VT is "proper" (your word), then why does his hand retract and chase upstairs? Why wouldn't his limb/body/strategy follow the adage "follow what goes" at that moment and punch that dude right in the gut? IMO he just violated the very reasons you stated above to toss "proper VT" out into the cold.
Now, like I said...it is a matter of perspective on all accounts...you, me, anyone could just as easily scratch up videos from probably most chunners out there who do the same thing.

Same thing here:






They begin in chi sau drill/range...then, when one of them retreats and/or creates a gap or loses pressure...a step back and kick is being drilled.

Anyway, l already regret my post (168) because I knew it would generate / necessitate further descriptive responses which is something I'm not that good at. But, hopefully you can kind of see what I mean...if WC is supposed to be "direct" and "not chasing hands"...then...
Gotta run for now...gotta catch a plane ride...be back on via cell later...peace my brothers from other mothers!


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> Let experience be your guide and follow the path that you think is correct.



Yep! That's all any of us can do...


----------



## guy b.

wckf92 said:


> I see this all the time, from most everyone's WC/WT/VT but as we are discussing supposed violations of intrinsic principles...watch what happens at the :52 mark. Again, I do not wish to descend into an argument about who is right or wrong...but if PB's VT is "proper" (your word), then why does his hand retract and chase upstairs? Why wouldn't his limb/body/strategy follow the adage "follow what goes" at that moment and punch that dude right in the gut?



He bounces the opponent away (removes obstruction to hitting from his arm) and punches into space. Punching straight from where hand was would hit the same obstruction which was still close. I think it maybe could have been done better with bigger bounce and more direct step in and hit but I think it is in line with VT concepts. Bear in mind that PB is not perfect, would not claim to be perfect, and anyone can make mistakes. He often corrects himself in training or demoing.. Chi/Gor sau is a training methodology. Fighting is fighting. And VT is difficult!

Anyone that expects their teacher to execute everything perfectly every time is in for a disappointing life. Knowing what you did wrong and being able to identify it in yourself and others is the important thing. VT doesn't have masters who must be revered and must never be seen to do something that could have been done better. We are all here to question and test each other so that we all might improve. 



> They begin in chi sau drill/range...then, when one of them retreats and/or creates a gap or loses pressure...a step back and kick is being drilled.



They are stepping to angle off the line of a kick, then kicking back along a new line. I think this is in line with VT concepts and don't see any problem with this one.



> Anyway, l already regret my post (168) because I knew it would generate / necessitate further descriptive responses which is something I'm not that good at. But, hopefully you can kind of see what I mean...if WC is supposed to be "direct" and "not chasing hands"...then...



I don't regret your post and think you are fine at describing what you mean. It is great to have someone critique VT from outside because it means we have to think about it. I think I agree that PB could have moved better in the first clip you identified, but I think that what he intended to do was in line with VT concepts. I look forward to hearing what LFJ thinks about it, whether he thinks I am talking crap, or whether he agrees. It isn't something I am going to take personally. 

Enjoy your flight.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> watch what happens at the :52 mark. Again, I do not wish to descend into an argument about who is right or wrong...but if PB's VT is "proper" (your word), then why does his hand retract and chase upstairs? Why wouldn't his limb/body/strategy follow the adage "follow what goes" at that moment and punch that dude right in the gut? IMO he just violated the very reasons you stated above to toss "proper VT" out into the cold.



I think I'm having trouble seeing what you're seeing. They are just rolling, exchanging force as per usual with changes from outside to inside. Then basic _seung-ma_ vs _teui-ma_ drill as PB pressures in with his left to check for correct _jam _vs _taan _elbow, angle, alignment, footwork, etc.. Following, PB does inside _paak_ + punch. It's responded to with "wrong" _bong _and immediately _jat-da_. PB goes to _bong_ + _wu_ and they continue.

Where does he retract and chase upstairs? Chase what? Do you mean after _paak_ with the right he should do a gut punch from there? The arm is already extended and from that angle a body shot would be weak and a poor trade for a punch to the face, so the hand is swiftly recovered to _wu_ position behind _bong_. I fail to see what principle has been violated.

Keep in mind, these drills are abstract and mutual. If you look at the rolling as trying to feel intent and get strikes on each other, you completely miss the point of exchanging force to mutually check each other's alignments and ability to handle force and respond correctly at each stage as the speed increases. 

Sometimes we hit or even allow ourselves to be hit to show whether or not the partner is making the correct lines and force. It's for individual development of VT structures and behaviors in practice with a partner, not just offense/defense with a confrontational mindset. It's like live dummy training. We are using each other, but the focus is on controlling our own behaviors, not fighting an opponent. Abstract and mutual, see? PB is helping his student. If you look at the rolling and exchanging in this light, you might come away with a different understanding of what you're looking at.



> They begin in chi sau drill/range...then, when one of them retreats and/or creates a gap or loses pressure...a step back and kick is being drilled.



It's a kicking drill. As guy b. said, they are drilling footwork, distance, timing... Footwork to get off line of the first kick but at the right distance and angle, and timing to deliver a kick in return. Unlike some teach, we don't want to block kicks with the hands. WSLVT is highly mobile and uses this to manage range, rather than walking into round punches with a _taan-sau_ or blocking kicks with the hands. Don't want to end up like this guy below? Move your butt and keep your hands away from kicks!


----------



## Vajramusti

The thread has become quite muddled.


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> The thread has become quite muddled.



It's valuable discussion which you've added nothing to with your pointless one-liners. 

Either add your value or... well, I'm not forum police. Don't let me stop your whining.


----------



## mograph

Vajramusti said:


> The thread has become quite muddled.


Well, arguably, it's improved since its beginning. 

... but it _is_ considerably less witty.


----------



## Xue Sheng

I'm still trying to figure out what Wing Chun has against the Maine Maritime Academy


----------



## wckf92

Xue Sheng said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what Wing Chun has against the Maine Maritime Academy



I agree...that establishment has never done anything against WC as far as I know. Hahaha


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> The thread has become quite muddled.



Feel free to de-muddle it with your superior experience and insight.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Incredibly unlikely that WSL hollowed the whole WC system out and replaced it with something he thought up all by himself, especially given the complexity, coherence, deep simplicity and effectiveness of the result. I think it is just wing chun, standard method.


 

Pan Nam Lineage:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/l-jpEHsP97w/maxresdefault.jpg

Snake-Crane Lineage:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Nn_a9trnHsg/VcDYK4TxgTI/AAAAAAAAAPw/U2iGcWUF8nU/s1600/tan+sao+1.jpg

KuLo22 Lineage:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ejJdNfQdE0Q/maxresdefault.jpg

It seems more likely to me that viewing Tan Sau primarily as a defensive movement is the standard method in ALL Wing Chun....and Weng Chun!


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Pan Nam Lineage:
> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/l-jpEHsP97w/maxresdefault.jpg
> 
> Snake-Crane Lineage:
> http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Nn_a9trnHsg/VcDYK4TxgTI/AAAAAAAAAPw/U2iGcWUF8nU/s1600/tan+sao+1.jpg
> 
> KuLo22 Lineage:
> https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ejJdNfQdE0Q/maxresdefault.jpg
> 
> It seems more likely to me that viewing Tan Sau primarily as a defensive movement is the standard method in ALL Wing Chun....and Weng Chun!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well FWIW while we are expressing opinions and calling some of them when convenient as facts-
my opinions after reading and watching things on this list--
1. Of course tan sao is an important movement-one of the three seeds- tan, fok and bong- from the development of those three seeds-other motions arise  to be properly used- provided structure and footwork
are coordinated.
2. WSL was a good fighter but he was not always a good analyst IMO.Joe Frazier was a great boxer but not necessarily a good analyst. WSL folks's principles like "efficiency" are quite loose and can be interpreted in quite different ways. Neither of the two supposedly WSL guys on this list  have been directly trained by WSL- so they depend on PB a lot.More dogmatic Gledhills.
3. PB is fast but that is only one attribute. In many videos he quickly rolls. strikes and then predictably just pushes the other fella.
4. He doesn't do much tan sao- because he can't. He has good substitutes-  but mechanically imitating PB does not give you much IMO.
5. I have rolled with WSL. He has his limitations.
Any system when poorly executed can have his limitations. You can watch the "sparring" clip of WSL and Cheung- pretty sloppy.
6. We can learn from each other rather than being insecure and assuming that everyone else is wrong
on everything.


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> 1. Of course tan sao is an important movement-one of the three seeds- tan, fok and bong- from the development of those three seeds-other motions arise  to be properly used- provided structure and footwork are coordinated.



I agree, and I don't think anyone is disputing this.



> 2. WSL was a good fighter but he was not always a good analyst IMO.Joe Frazier was a great boxer but not necessarily a good analyst. WSL folks's principles like "efficiency" are quite loose and can be interpreted in quite different ways.



Please illustrate with an example



> Neither of the two supposedly WSL guys on this list  have been directly trained by WSL- so they depend on PB a lot.More dogmatic Gledhills.



All sorts of people train with PB. Speaking personally PB is not the only WSL person I have trained with. I believe the same is true for LFJ.



> 3. PB is fast but that is only one attribute. In many videos he quickly rolls. strikes and then predictably just pushes the other fella



Post a clip to show what you mean



> 4. He doesn't do much tan sao- because he can't.



He is using tan all of the time in the clip that wckf92 posted. You would like to see him do more tan? Why exactly?



> He has good substitutes-  but mechanically imitating PB does not give you much IMO.



What does PB substitute for tan? Who is mechanically imitating PB? Again clips would be useful to pin down what you mean



> 5. I have rolled with WSL. He has his limitations.



I think everyone has limitations. Which limitations did you think were particularly limiting in the case of WSL?



> Any system when poorly executed can have his limitations. You can watch the "sparring" clip of WSL and Cheung- pretty sloppy.



Again post a clip so that we can discuss specifically what you mean



> 6. We can learn from each other rather than being insecure and assuming that everyone else is wrong
> on everything.



I don't think there is a person on this forum who assumes everyone else is wrong on everything. Everyone has at least something to teach. I have learned a lot from you and from KPM for example, and for that I am grateful.


----------



## dudewingchun

Just for the record. I do Chu sau Lei and Chu shong tin. I just really like Duncan Leungs lineage too for the long bridge stuff. You guy think theres no way WSL would of come up with that himself. Well the same for Duncan Leung. One thing WSL doesnt have is body structure.. a bit of hip stuff but thats all. Just put a palm on there face and blitz in seems to be the most common thing iv seen in the lineage. 

Whats your guys opinion on David peterson then ? And who has the real WSL wing chun ? cause you are slightly right that was what I learnt on first lesson lol step into a hook with a fuk sao ( not tan ). 

The reason he went to Ip man after seeing WSL fight was because WSL did almost zero wing chun. He just threw a kick and chain punched. He wasnt trying to be invicible. He just saw his senior who was supposed to be great look average and not do wing chun at all.

He also entered a tournament and got ko'd. You guys seem to pretend that never happened.

I will try to find the article that WSL did. It mentioned his thoughts on how Ip man taught and how he teaches differently. If anyone knows where to find it cause I cant

Also are you guy.b and LFJ sparring regularly against non wing chun guys ? Just curious.

I really dont care about this though. All this over tan sau now.. first it was jam sau lol Not even going to get started on how we Tan in chu sau lei ( which is my most used and effective hand right now in sparring against my boxing/muay thai sparring partner and its not just for elbow placement....)


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> Just for the record. I do Chu sau Lei and Chu shong tin. I just really like Duncan Leungs lineage too for the long bridge stuff. You guy think theres no way WSL would of come up with that himself. Well the same for Duncan Leung. One thing WSL doesnt have is body structure.. a bit of hip stuff but thats all. Just put a palm on there face and blitz in seems to be the most common thing iv seen in the lineage.



I think WSL wing chun trains body structure a lot and it is an integral part of the method. It is introduced right after about dan chisau stage has been taken on board and it continues throughout. Most people would be doing it daily, both solo with the pole and via the partner drill.



> Whats your guys opinion on David peterson then ? And who has the real WSL wing chun ? cause you are slightly right that was what I learnt on first lesson lol step into a hook with a fuk sao ( not tan )



How would you fook a hook punch? Was it DP that showed you this?



> The reason he went to Ip man after seeing WSL fight was because WSL did almost zero wing chun. He just threw a kick and chain punched. He wasnt trying to be invicible. He just saw his senior who was supposed to be great look average and not do wing chun at all.
> 
> He also entered a tournament and got ko'd. You guys seem to pretend that never happened.



What does wing chun look like?

In fighting people win and people lose. There is no problem in losing. There is a problem in never trying.



> I will try to find the article that WSL did. It mentioned his thoughts on how Ip man taught and how he teaches differently. If anyone knows where to find it cause I cant



I look forward to reading it



> Also are you guy.b and LFJ sparring regularly against non wing chun guys ? Just curious.



I trained sport combat MA from early 2000s. VT more important to me now. Of course I test it. 



> Not even going to get started on how we Tan in chu sau lei ( which is my most used and effective hand right now in sparring against my boxing/muay thai sparring partner and its not just for elbow placement....)



Please do, I would be very interested to hear


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> No. They violate principles we all agree on, like economy of motion; directness, efficiency, not chasing hands. All these things are agreed upon, but easier said than done, apparently.



In fighting for every rule you make there is an exception. This is because fighting has contradictions you cannot easily control with principles.


----------



## guy b.

drop bear said:


> In fighting for every rule you make there is an exception. This is because fighting has contradictions you cannot easily control with principles.



Not relevant. The comment is in relation to a Duncan Leung seminar, not a fight, where he is teaching to attack limbs as first line action by the looks of it.


----------



## drop bear

guy b. said:


> Not relevant. The comment is in relation to a Duncan Leung seminar, not a fight, where he is teaching to attack limbs as first line action by the looks of it.



So he is not teaching something  that has relevance to fighting?


----------



## geezer

drop bear said:


> So he is not teaching something  that has relevance to fighting?



In WC, _generally speaking_--not WSL VT in particular--, you strike directly to the center rather than "chasing hands". The same question, whether to attack limbs or "go direct" is also debated in the FMA circles I frequent. Some advocate first "de-fanging the snake". We do not. In the FMA I practice, like WC, when possible, we "go direct" and "kill the snake".

Of course like all "rules" this is a simplification and has exceptions. We also say "nearest weapon to closest target" ...so if on our way in we encounter a limb first, we hurt it. Of course that is more effective in a weapons based art. In WC we attack to the center. If we encounter an obstructing limb on the way in we move it aside (pak, bong, etc.) or move around it (huen, kau, etc.) or even use it to control and unbalance our opponent opening up a path for the other hand. There are different approaches, but in short, we do not forget that our objective is to strike to the center: _Jieu ying, bat jieu sau _(Chase center, don't chase hands).


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b. said:


> I think WSL wing chun trains body structure a lot and it is an integral part of the method. It is introduced right after about dan chisau stage has been taken on board and it continues throughout. Most people would be doing it daily, both solo with the pole and via the partner drill.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you fook a hook punch? Was it DP that showed you this?
> 
> 
> 
> What does wing chun look like?
> 
> In fighting people win and people lose. There is no problem in losing. There is a problem in never trying.
> 
> 
> 
> I look forward to reading it
> 
> 
> 
> I trained sport combat MA from early 2000s. VT more important to me now. Of course I test it.
> 
> 
> 
> Please do, I would be very interested to hear



Well thats good. Wing chun without structure is nothing imo.

It was a high fuk sao that wsl does in his chum kiu ? after the 3 turns, where both your hands extend out then do that movement that alot take for an arm break.. if that makes sense.  No I have never met David Peterson. It was a student of Darren Elvey. 

Not throwing a kick and just chain punching... I know its impossible to not get hit ofcourse but I would much rather not get hit as much as possible. 
I agree. But everyone claims that WSL was " The king of talking hands". Infact I just searched WSL beimo and this came up on the article " What I learned through beimo". 

"" sifu Wong is said to have never lost a fight, and most witnesses claim that the majority of exchanges took no more than three techniques to determine his victory. "
But he got ko'd in a tournament fight by someone who was actually skilled. But who cares. Lets just agree to disagree.

Just watch a video Alan has done on it. I highly doubt you will agree but I dont care because it works for me. I only come on the forum when im bored really. Its kind of annoying you cant edit or delete posts because im always changing my opinion on something and it really is just a snapshot of what I was thinking that moment.

To be clear I have nothing against any lineage of wing chun ( except maybe William cheung and Leung ting...) A WSL guy was the first to open my eyes to good wing chun aswell. I met up with him who was an ex classmate of my old school Lo man Kam/Ip ching wing chun . I couldnt do anythnig against him in chi sao. Same as with Chu shong tin and Chu Sau Lei.. Iv touched hands only one time with a william cheung guy and really wasnt impressed.

here is the article. Its on facebook though so have to click next picture to get the next page of article.

Mario Bonafe - Grand Master Wong Shun Leung | Facebook


----------



## yak sao

geezer said:


> In WC, _generally speaking_--not WSL VT in particular--, you strike directly to the center rather than "chasing hands". The same question, whether to attack limbs or "go direct" is also debated in the FMA circles I frequent. Some advocate first "de-fanging the snake". We do not. In the FMA I practice, like WC, when possible, we "go direct" and "kill the snake".
> 
> Of course like all "rules" this is a simplification and has exceptions. We also say "nearest weapon to closest target" ...so if on our way in we encounter a limb first, we hurt it. Of course that is more effective in a weapons based art. In WC we attack to the center. If we encounter an obstructing limb on the way in we move it aside (pak, bong, etc.) or move around it (huen, kau, etc.) or even use it to control and unbalance our opponent opening up a path for the other hand. There are different approaches, but in short, we do not forget that our objective is to strike to the center: _Jieu ying, bat jieu sau _(Chase center, don't chase hands).



Agreed, but I would add that a good gaun sau hurts like a son of a b!tch


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> WSL was a good fighter but he was not always a good analyst





> WSL folks's principles like "efficiency" are quite loose and can be interpreted in quite different ways.





> I have rolled with WSL. He has his limitations.



Vague sideswipes again.

You see the previous page where people posted videos and described in detail why they agree or disagree with specific things? Yeah? That's how constructive conversation is done. You might try it.

It appears you care more about building your image though, by making these vague criticisms but never giving details, lest it be revealed that after decades of training you lack any real substance.



> He doesn't do much tan sao- because he can't.



Can't? That's about the stupidest thing you've said in a while.



> Neither of the two supposedly WSL guys on this list  have been directly trained by WSL- so they depend on PB a lot.



My, how presumptuous of you to declare who I train/ed with. Who are you again? How do we know each other? You're wrong, btw.


----------



## LFJ

dudewingchun said:


> You guy think theres no way WSL would of come up with that himself. Well the same for Duncan Leung.



One guy couldn't have come up with the idea of whacking arms with _taan-sau_?? That takes generations?!



> Just put a palm on there face and blitz in seems to be the most common thing iv seen in the lineage.



You've seen a poor example of the lineage, IMO. Another thing they do is grab each other's necks and waltz around the room together, as if that accomplished anything.



> Whats your guys opinion on David peterson then ? And who has the real WSL wing chun ? cause you are slightly right that was what I learnt on first lesson lol step into a hook with a fuk sao ( not tan ).



Those were mainstream sort of ideas shown at public seminars. WSL always said "just for show" or "maybe YOU can do it", lol. His longterm, legit students don't do that because it doesn't work. I've said before, IMO, quality WSLVT is based in Northern Europe. Several German direct students of his, including PB as the most well-known, all share the same thinking.



> The reason he went to Ip man after seeing WSL fight was because WSL did almost zero wing chun. He just threw a kick and chain punched. He wasnt trying to be invicible. He just saw his senior who was supposed to be great look average and not do wing chun at all.



Alan Orr deals with this exact criticism all the time. As a student of his, you should know better. He shakes his head at people expecting to see basic drills and fantasy-fu like trapping hands in free fighting. "It's just kickboxing, not Wing Chun!" VT is a Chinese kickboxing style, albeit with very unique and highly refined strategies. Kicking and punching is what you should expect to see. Show me an Iron Wolves fight where they aren't just punching and kicking, and using BJJ...

This just shows that DL was stuck at a basic level and didn't understand how VT was supposed to work in free fighting, not like basic abstract drills.



> He also entered a tournament and got ko'd. You guys seem to pretend that never happened.



I don't. But the only source I've seen for that is something that was written about Bruce Lee some 40+ years after the alleged event. No other record can be found, but I'm not afraid to admit he lost more than one fight.

Unlike his fanboys (like the lineage you encountered) who like to claim he was undefeated, I think that's a stupid claim. If he beat everyone he ever fought within three punches, that suggests he never faced any tough competition. If he lost or took hits, that means he did, and that gave him experience to learn from.

Fact is, none of his wins or losses can be proven. All that is known for sure, through various eyewitness accounts, is that he fought regularly. Regardless of the outcome, this undoubtedly gave him more insight into what works and what doesn't. Unlike those students of YM who never had a fight in their lives!



> I will try to find the article that WSL did. It mentioned his thoughts on how Ip man taught and how he teaches differently.



All he said about the dummy was that he taught it in different stages, with BJ taught in the middle before completing the set. He didn't change any of the actions, nor did he change it from a sticking device to something else. You imagined that yourself.



> Also are you guy.b and LFJ sparring regularly against non wing chun guys ? Just curious.



It's far more rare that I spar against other Wing Chun guys, as there aren't that many in my area. I mostly deal with Sanda fighters and other TCMAs.



> All this over tan sau now.. first it was jam sau



They are two sides of a double edge sword. Can't be separated.


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> WSL folks's principles like "efficiency" are quite loose and can be interpreted in quite different ways.



I'm intrigued by this. It's news to me. I wonder where you got this idea. Can you give examples showing how we interpret the efficiency principle in two different ways, or loosely?

When I talk about seeing inefficiency and indirectness in other Wing Chun, I'm referring to the most common mistakes I see. That is, using two arms to perform what could be accomplished by one, and using two or more steps where one is enough.

This is done because they don't have methods of using a single arm for simultaneous attack and defense (no _taan_/_jam_ elbow), so they either have to use two arms or multiple steps.

Directness and efficiency are always defined by us as using as few steps and tools as it takes to do the job. In what other way do you think we interpret them? Or are you saying you think our definition is loose and YOU can interpret it differently? I think the definition is pretty straightforward.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> I'm intrigued by this. It's news to me. I wonder where you got this idea. Can you give examples showing how we interpret the efficiency principle in two different ways, or loosely?



Good luck with that


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> Well thats good. Wing chun without structure is nothing imo.



Why did you think that WSL VT doesn't have a training method for power and structure? What does CSL wing chun do differently and better in your view? You were quite definite about this so I would be interested to hear.



> It was a high fuk sao that wsl does in his chum kiu ? after the 3 turns, where both your hands extend out then do that movement that alot take for an arm break.. if that makes sense.



Doesn't really make sense to me, but I have no way of knowing what they showed. I think as LFJ said probably a seminar type application. Doesn't sound representative of WSL VT



> No I have never met David Peterson. It was a student of Darren Elvey.



Seems a small sample upon which to make a decision about the method



> Not throwing a kick and just chain punching... I know its impossible to not get hit ofcourse but I would much rather not get hit as much as possible.
> I agree. But everyone claims that WSL was " The king of talking hands". Infact I just searched WSL beimo and this came up on the article " What I learned through beimo".
> 
> "" sifu Wong is said to have never lost a fight, and most witnesses claim that the majority of exchanges took no more than three techniques to determine his victory. "
> But he got ko'd in a tournament fight by someone who was actually skilled. But who cares. Lets just agree to disagree.



I don't know about WSL getting ko'd in a fight, never seen any evidence. Have you? If he did then no big deal, I think most good fighters have been ko'd, chocked unconscious, or otherwise overwhelmed at some point. It happens. If it doesn't then chances are you aren't testing yourself enough. Testing is how you improve.



> Just watch a video Alan has done on it. I highly doubt you will agree but I dont care because it works for me.



I have watched some videos of Alan and have been to is school in London. Also trained mma with some of his guys and of course asked about VT. When I try to describe what I think Alan is doing KPM generally says I have it wrong. Since you are training directly with Alan it would be useful if you could help me to understand the structure training and how you feel it differs from other approaches.



> I only come on the forum when im bored really. Its kind of annoying you cant edit or delete posts because im always changing my opinion on something and it really is just a snapshot of what I was thinking that moment.



You can edit if you do it fairly quickly after posting



> Mario Bonafe - Grand Master Wong Shun Leung | Facebook



Yes I have read this interview before. WSL is saying that YM liked to have favourites, liked to be cryptic, didn't care if students understood or not, liked intelligence and curiosity over financial reward. He is also saying that he teaches differently treating all the same. It is true that when he taught, whether at seminar or in classes, he was a fair and open teacher by all accounts. But I think you will find that the material covered varied depending on venue. I have heard that he was also keen not to cause offence or embarrassment.


----------



## LFJ

guy b. said:


> Doesn't really make sense to me, but I have no way of knowing what they showed. I think as LFJ said probably a seminar type application. Doesn't sound representative of WSL VT.



This video shows it. They call these round punches, but they are more like retard punches. That's the only reason it's working for them.

Quality WSLVT does _not_ walk into round punches like this! The reason they do this is because they lack mobility ideas and believe in charging forwards at all costs.

They also use the last actions at the end of CK for blocking kicks with their hands. All crazy application-based ideas.


----------



## dudewingchun

Okay Okay. I agree with alot of what you both just replied. And disagree with some.

I need to be able to edit later because its always a while after I post and mull over something in the back of my head while training or whatever that my thoughts are " updated".

I think I must of gotten the article mixed up. That was not the one that talked about dummy at all. Now I dont know where to find it. Im pretty sure I didnt make it up. But who cares. I was just giving some counterbalance to the WSL is the only person who knows wing chun. Seeing your counter points to my counter points I see where you guys are coming from logically.

I thought david peterson was a personal student of WSL howcome he seems to have " wrong" stuff? 

In the end who cares. You guys do your wing chun and we do our wing chun. This is just a forum.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> I think I must of gotten the article mixed up. That was not the one that talked about dummy at all. Now I dont know where to find it. Im pretty sure I didnt make it up. But who cares. I was just giving some counterbalance to the WSL is the only person who knows wing chun. Seeing your counter points to my counter points I see where you guys are coming from logically.



I care! Nobody is saying WSL is the only person that learned wing chun from YM. All we are doing is talking from personal and group experience. If CSL wing chun works for you then stick with it. I think it is a good approach and the emphasis on fighting in comps keeps it very real. 



> I thought david peterson was a personal student of WSL howcome he seems to have " wrong" stuff?



I don't know DP personally and so can't comment. I have been to a couple of his seminars in UK. He showed typical seminar stuff. Even that was enough to blow some people out of the water back in 2000's UK, lol. We were starting from a pretty low level here 



> In the end who cares. You guys do your wing chun and we do our wing chun. This is just a forum.



By sharing info we learn and improve. I would still love to hear your thoughts on CSL power generation methods. I met a CSL guy called Neil Broadbent a few years ago and he certainly impressed with his power. It is my understanding that CSL trains body movement for power generation consciously and explicitly, while WSL VT trains it implicitly in certain drills and equipment, poon sau and pole being the most important. Would you like to comment on that?


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b. said:


> I care! Nobody is saying WSL is the only person that learned wing chun from YM. All we are doing is talking from personal and group experience. If CSL wing chun works for you then stick with it. I think it is a good approach and the emphasis on fighting in comps keeps it very real.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know DP personally and so can't comment. I have been to a couple of his seminars in UK. He showed typical seminar stuff. Even that was enough to blow some people out of the water back in 2000's UK, lol. We were starting from a pretty low level here
> 
> 
> 
> By sharing info we learn and improve. I would still love to hear your thoughts on CSL power generation methods. I met a CSL guy called Neil Broadbent a few years ago and he certainly impressed with his power. It is my understanding that CSL trains body movement for power generation consciously and explicitly, while WSL VT trains it implicitly in certain drills and equipment, poon sau and pole being the most important. Would you like to comment on that?



It certainly seemed like you guys were saying that. Well good wing chun atleast.

I would like to comment on that. But I only started learning both CST in like march last year and CSL around july/september. So im still a beginner in those ones. But I have made more improvement and seen better results in sparring with them then my whole 9 years at my first school. But obviously the foundation from the first school helped but then didnt at the same time. 

Well they seem to use it quite effectively. Not going to comment on that application video.. though that is the one I tried in sparring and never got to work.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> You see the previous page where people posted videos and described in detail why they agree or disagree with specific things? Yeah? That's how constructive conversation is done. You might try it.


 
Where is the video of that "Rooster Fighting" you talked about so that we can all see how closely it resembles Wing Chun?


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> This video shows it. They call these round punches, but they are more like retard punches. That's the only reason it's working for them.
> 
> Quality WSLVT does _not_ walk into round punches like this! The reason they do this is because they lack mobility ideas and believe in charging forwards at all costs.
> 
> They also use the last actions at the end of CK for blocking kicks with their hands. All crazy application-based ideas.



A tight lead hook would cause them real problems. Nobody steps in and throws a telegraphed slow, low and wide hook like that in reality. They have matched the hook to the way they want to stop it. More seriously, if you chase hands in that way you are always reacting which allows opponent to impose upon you. This sort of trained response is a gift to combination punchers.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Those were mainstream sort of ideas shown at public seminars. WSL always said "just for show" or "maybe YOU can do it", lol.
> 
> 
> .


 
So WSL taught a substandard inaccurate version of Wing Chun at public seminars?   You mean he cheated seminar attendees who thought they were learning "real" Wing Chun?    He cheated David Petersen, who spent lots of time and money traveling to HK to train with WSL and hosting him for seminars in Australia?

Or........could it be that WSL taught the use of Tan Sau as a defensive move....just like everyone else, and as shown in the pictures I posted.....and at a more advanced level taught the idea of using it to train the elbow?   You wouldn't always get into the more "in-depth" things at seminars, depending on the level of the people attending.   And....this would mean that those people in WSLVT lineage today that try to say that using Tan Sau as a defensive move is wrong and look down on other lineages are really not teaching what WSL himself taught, but have simply taken an idea to the extreme and made things a bit "one-dimensional" compared to what WSL himself probably did.  Could it be that some of WSL's students have taken that idea that Tan Sau trains the elbow, and run with it....to the exclusion of other things, which WSL himself may have never really intended?

Just a thought......


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Where is the video of that "Rooster Fighting" you talked about so that we can all see how closely it resembles Wing Chun?



It doesn't closely resemble Wing Chun and neither does White Crane. That's the point. Similar hand shapes and arm motions don't mean anything at all, other than that we're all humans.

You said it has to be taken into consideration together with other pieces of evidence for a connection, but each one you presented has been shot down. So it doesn't matter and I haven't bothered looking for a video for you.



KPM said:


> So WSL taught a substandard inaccurate version of Wing Chun at public seminars?   You mean he cheated seminar attendees who thought they were learning "real" Wing Chun?    He cheated David Petersen, who spent lots of time and money traveling to HK to train with WSL and hosting him for seminars in Australia?
> 
> Or........could it be that WSL taught the use of Tan Sau as a defensive move....just like everyone else, and as shown in the pictures I posted.....and at a more advanced level taught the idea of using it to train the elbow?   You wouldn't always get into the more "in-depth" things at seminars, depending on the level of the people attending.   And....this would mean that those people in WSLVT lineage today that try to say that using Tan Sau as a defensive move is wrong and look down on other lineages are really not teaching what WSL himself taught, but have simply taken an idea to the extreme and made things a bit "one-dimensional" compared to what WSL himself probably did.  Could it be that some of WSL's students have taken that idea that Tan Sau trains the elbow, and run with it....to the exclusion of other things, which WSL himself may have never really intended?
> 
> Just a thought......



WSL taught people of various lineage backgrounds at public seminars. He often demoed basic ideas taught in mainstream Wing Chun, often what those who invited him out were teaching so as not to cause embarrassment or offense.

His method takes careful guidance through a systematic development of the idea, and is not just applications. But applications are easy illustrations, satisfy quickly, and can be taken home by people. He always said "just for show" or "maybe YOU can do it".

DP learned this material and filled in gaps with previous experience and looking at what others in Wing Chun do when he went home. I've seen him quote LT to justify the way he does certain parts of the forms. That's something no one who understood WSL's method would ever do. There are droves of ex-LTWT guys who wouldn't return to their old ways even if forced at gunpoint.

DP is just an articulate teacher and has done well to market himself with "my Sifu this, my Sifu that". Pay attention to the way he talks. If not for the namedropping, no one would care what he says. But to his credit, what he teaches is already much better than a lot of stuff that's out there. It's just not WSL's full system. It's all application-based.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> this would mean that those people in WSLVT lineage today that try to say that using Tan Sau as a defensive move is wrong and look down on other lineages are really not teaching what WSL himself taught



I have seen some wing chun that didn't work. I don't think you were personally involved. Please get over it.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> It doesn't closely resemble Wing Chun and neither does White Crane. That's the point. Similar hand shapes and arm motions don't mean anything at all, other than that we're all humans.
> 
> You said it has to be taken into consideration together with other pieces of evidence for a connection, but each one you presented has been shot down. So it doesn't matter and I haven't bothered looking for a video for you.
> 
> 
> .


 
Once again, I will point out that you didn't shoot anything down!  I listed the things that suggest a connection between Wing Chun and White Crane.  I never said they were proof, only suggestive.  You can choose to believe whether that it is enough to theorize an actual historical connection between Wing Chun and White Crane or not.  But you cannot deny that these things exist that suggest a connection.

Now.  One of ways you seemed to think you "shot down" one of these suggested connections was to say that "Rooster Fighting" had all of the elements I attributed to White Crane, implying that it would look just as much like Wing Chun as the White Crane I showed in the video.  So naturally, if you want anyone to believe this is the case....you need to produce a similar video so people can judge whether or not this "Rooster Fighting" does indeed look just as much like Wing Chun as does the White Crane video I supplied.  That is how "constructive conversation" is done!


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> DP is just an articulate teacher and has done well to market himself with "my Sifu this, my Sifu that". Pay attention to the way he talks. If not for the namedropping, no one would care what he says. .


 
That must by why he was invited to deliver the eulogy at WSL's funeral!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I listed the things that suggest a connection between Wing Chun and White Crane.  I never said they were proof, only suggestive.



Not proof, but "evidence" is what you said.



> You can choose to believe whether that it is enough to theorize an actual historical connection between Wing Chun and White Crane or not.  But you cannot deny that these things exist that suggest a connection.



I can and I did. They don't.



> Now.  One of ways you seemed to think you "shot down" one of these suggested connections was to say that "Rooster Fighting" had all of the elements I attributed to White Crane, implying that it would look just as much like Wing Chun as the White Crane I showed in the video.



But White Crane doesn't look like Wing Chun. You can find videos of Western Boxers doing actions like _bong-sau_, _paak-sau_, _laan-sau_, _biu-sau_. But Western Boxing still doesn't look like Wing Chun, doesn't work like Wing Chun, and isn't related to Wing Chun. What does that suggest to you?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Once again, I will point out that you didn't shoot anything down!  I listed the things that suggest a connection between Wing Chun and White Crane.  I never said they were proof, only suggestive.  You can choose to believe whether that it is enough to theorize an actual historical connection between Wing Chun and White Crane or not.  But you cannot deny that these things exist that suggest a connection.



But they don't suggest a connection, precisely because the way they work differs in such a fundamental way. 

There is quite a lot of interesting work on the parallels between Goju Ryu karate and white crane. This is fruitful because they work in similar ways providing evidence of a connection. Goju Ryu and White crane in a fight looks similar. Wing chun and White Crane in a fight do not look similar at all. In fact there are ways in which they are fundamentally at odds with each other. 

Simply pointing at arm shapes and saying "see they look the same" is trivial. Once this has been pointed out to you, continuing to do it looks a bit odd. Like your brain is not working properly. You need to move the argument on if you want to continue with it.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Not proof, but "evidence" is what you said.


 
I said it was evidence of suggested connections.  Look, this started when Zeny asked why anyone would theorize that Wing Chun and White Crane are connected.   I simply summarized why people may think this.   I didn't make it up.  I'm not the only one that sees these possible connections.   You can come after me all you want.  It won't make it go away.  Because these are the things that others have seen that make them think that an historical connection between White Crane and Wing Chun is possible.  Its as simple as that!

I am not the only that sees Lee Kong's White Crane and thinks it bears some similarities to Wing Chun that are more than mere coincidence.  You said this "Rooster Fighting" has the same similarities in an attempt to discount what others see in White Crane.  So produce a video that shows that "Rooster Fighting" is indeed as similar to Wing Chun as White Crane and maybe someone will start taking you seriously.  Otherwise stop saying you have "shot down" anything.  Because you haven't.

And Guy, you can stop it  with the whole "it doesn't function the same" routine.  We've heard that now upteen times.  And I have pointed out that 150 years of divergent evolution and development would certainly be enough time for Wing Chun too develop its own power base and way of doing things differently from any possible White Crane root art.   You just keep repeating the same thing despite that.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I'm not the only one that sees these possible connections.



Like HS Beetlejuice who tampers with things to fit the facts to his theory? Good company you've got.



> You said this "Rooster Fighting" has the same similarities in an attempt to discount what others see in White Crane.  So produce a video that shows that "Rooster Fighting" is indeed as similar to Wing Chun as White Crane and maybe someone will start taking you seriously.



Honestly, I just had a quick look but can't find a video. It's from a rural village in the mountains of Henan. A lot of stuff there hasn't been filmed. But regardless, many Wing Chun "hands" can be found in various Northern styles. I'm sure John Wang can recognize some of these just by name.

For example,
_
Taan-sau_ = _Qiangshou_ (spear hand),
_Fuk-sau_ = _Diaoshou_ or _Goushou_ (hook hand),
_Wu-sau_ = _Tuizhang_ (pushing palm),
_Gaang-sau_ = _Qiezhang_ (slicing palm),
_Biu-sau_ = _Renshou_ (threading hand),
_Po-paai_ = _Shizi Zhang Kou _(lion opens mouth),
_Gwai-jaang_ = _Panzhou _(coiling elbow, done with the fist on the sternum to create a solid triangle connected to the body similar to the BJ form. Bet you thought that was unique, huh?)
_Kwan-sau_ = _Kaoshou_ (handcuffs, because the arms roll as if tied together, which is what _kwan-sau_ means. _Bong-sau_ is contained within this and an entire system is based on permutations of it.)

That's just off the top of my head. There's surely a lot more. I could go through the VT forms and give each action a Northern style application without changing anything. So, what are you gonna say? All kung fu is related? So your theory is still proven? Wing Chun and White Crane are related!



> And Guy, you can stop it  with the whole "it doesn't function the same" routine.  We've heard that now upteen times.  And I have pointed out that 150 years of divergent evolution and development would certainly be enough time for Wing Chun too develop its own power base and way of doing things differently from any possible White Crane root art.   You just keep repeating the same thing despite that.



Because you ignore the fact that if it has completely changed in 150 years to the point that no similarity remains, and you can't prove they were ever similar, your point is entirely... pointless.


----------



## KPM

Like HS Beetlejuice who tampers with things to fit the facts to his theory? Good company you've got.

---Nope.  You really need to get out more!



Honestly, I just had a quick look but can't find a video. It's from a rural village in the mountains of Henan. A lot of stuff there hasn't been filmed. But regardless, many Wing Chun "hands" can be found in various Northern styles. I'm sure John Wang can recognize some of these just by name.

---I'm growing tired of having to repeat myself.   You have to take the total package...the gestalt.  Sure you can find similar techniques here and there in ANY martial art.   But are they ALL found in one martial art?    I guess we can discount "Rooster Fighting" since you don't have a visual for us to prove that all of the same techniques are found within that one style...like they are in White Crane....and Wing Chun.


Because you ignore the fact that if it has completely changed in 150 years to the point that no similarity remains, and you can't prove they were ever similar, your point is entirely... pointless.

---Again, here I go repeating myself again because some people can't seem to follow a discussion.   You have to take a gestalt...the total package.   That includes visual similarities as well as biomechanical similarities.  The videos show visual similarities.  The footwork is even similar.  If there are notable biomechanical differences, they could have occurred with time.....150 years of time.  But the visual similarities can remain and still suggest a connection.   Likewise, if there was an art that showed showed very similar biomechanics and power generation but different techniques, one could also posit a possible connection.  But I don't know of one.  And if there was one, then we would have to look and see if it shared as similar a legendary history and other connections like White Crane and Wing Chun.  Total package.  Get it?

---And let me repeat one more thing, because I sense that you guys have been missing it.  WSLVT is not the standard by which ALL Wing Chun is judged.   Maybe White Crane doesn't look much like WSLVT.  But it bears a lot of similarities to the mainland styles of Wing Chun.

---So you guys can go on repeating yourselves all you want.  If you come up with anything new, then maybe we can discuss it.


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> Agreed, but I would add that a good gaun sau hurts like a son of a b!tch



It certainly does, but a good gaun sau is _not_ chasing hands. It never crosses the vertical mid-line. Basically it can be seen as a simultaneous attack and defense ("attacking arm is defending arm") since it defends the lower torso, clears obstructions, and flows seamlessly into a lower level punch.

Also, if somebody fakes low and pulls their arm out of the way, the gaun sau just continues forward like a low fak sau. If it hurts the wrist like a bugger, it also hurts plenty when it hits your opponent's lower gut or bladder region ...and if  you've ever caught one in the _groin_... well you get the point!


----------



## LFJ

@KPM So, you're just gonna ignore the whole list of common techniques I posted? Haha! These are all found within Songshan systems, like Hongquan. And in many other single systems from the Songshan area in Henan Province.

It's obviously Northern, so the body methods are different, footwork is exaggerated, and its forms don't look like Wing Chun forms at all, but all the hands are there with similar or exact functions, which is just as much if not more than in White Crane.

It's difficult to see without having it broken down slowly and the details taught to you though. It's something more easily shown in person. But every last hand is in there. I'll get you some pictures.

Ask John Wang (@Kung Fu Wang) if he recognizes those techniques from his Northern style experience. I'm sure he can name equivalents in his styles too.


----------



## geezer

One more thing about that DP WSL-VT clip showing students stepping in with a fook-da-sau to deal with a round punch. That can really work if you apply it offensively and pre-emptively rather than as a defensive response to a punch that is already on it's way.

In other words, if you find yourself attacking on the inside, up the center (_not_ my favorite place!), you need to control your opponent's opposite hand. If you are attentive to his body dynamics, you can pre-empt a round-punch this way before it becomes a threat. Since you have already committed yourself up the center and in close, it my be your best bet.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> ---And *let me repeat* one more thing, because I sense that you guys have been missing it.  WSLVT is not the standard by which ALL Wing Chun is judged.   Maybe White Crane doesn't look much like WSLVT.  But it bears a lot of similarities to the mainland styles of Wing Chun.
> 
> ---So *you guys can go on repeating* yourselves all you want.



Seems like a lot of _repetition_ going on here all around. Which just goes to prove that, contrary to what some folks believe, repetition alone does_ not_ promote learning! 

@KPM -- I never use the _ignore feature_ on this forum. I like to be able to read a thread and grasp both sides of a discussion rather than feel like I'm listening in on a cell phone conversation and only hearing half of what's being said.

Instead, I've learned to_ read and then willfully ignore_ certain individuals with whom I simply can't seem to communicate, no matter how hard I try. It has made me a happier person, and I'd like to recommend it to you and anyone else on this forum who feels that certain other parties "just don't get it". Take Joy, for example, he has got this technique mastered. Basically he seems to always keep in mind that this is just a forum, and what people say here is, frankly, _unimportant. _


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> @KPM So, you're just gonna ignore the whole list of common techniques I posted? Haha! These are all found within Songshan systems, like Hongquan. And in many other single systems from the Songshan area in Henan Province.
> 
> .


 
Geez!  I ignored nothing.  So I will repeat myself....again, since you seem to have missed it.  Which ONE northern system shares the same number of techniques that White Crane and Wing Chun have in common?  T..O..T...A...L   P...A...C...K....A...G...E   Get it yet?


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> Seems like a lot of _repetition_ going on here all around. Which just goes to prove that, contrary to what some folks believe, repetition alone does_ not_ promote learning!
> 
> @KPM -- I never use the _ignore feature_ on this forum. I like to be able to read a thread and grasp both sides of a discussion rather than feel like I'm listening in on a cell phone conversation and only hearing half of what's being said.
> 
> Instead, I've learned to_ read and then willfully ignore_ certain individuals with whom I simply can't seem to communicate, no matter how hard I try. It has made me a happier person, and I'd like to recommend it to you and anyone else on this forum who feels that certain other parties "just don't get it". Take Joy, for example, he has got this technique mastered. Basically he seems to always keep in mind that this is just a forum, and what people say here is, frankly, _unimportant. _


 
Thank you Steve.  You are, of course, very right!  I will do my best to follow that policy from here on out!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Geez!  I ignored nothing.  So I will repeat myself....again, since you seem to have missed it.  Which ONE northern system shares the same number of techniques that White Crane and Wing Chun have in common?  T..O..T...A...L   P...A...C...K....A...G...E   Get it yet?


Are you legally blind then? I know they have special computers for those people. It's in what you just quoted. I'll post you some pics or clips tomorrow to illustrate. It's late here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b. said:


> Apart from the fact that white crane doesn't work like wing chun in any way.



_Caveat: I'm speaking entirely out-of-school here. I know nearly nothing of CMA, and am referring only to the concept in this one sentence._

I don't think the fact that they don't work the same way can actually be used to definitively state that two arts/styles are unrelated. I actually recall an instructor I trained alongside. He was slightly senior to me in hierarchy, and had several years more experience. His Nihon Goshin Aikido didn't work at all like mine. If you didn't know we were from the same lineage (same 3 primary instructors in our training history to that point), you wouldn't be sure we were even using the same art. Our individual interpretations of the movements and techniques were that different.

And if he and I started two branches of the art, in 30 years you'd never know they were related. What would have happened in 150 years?

Mind you, that's not saying the disparity doesn't matter in the case of WC and WC - just that it's not conclusive in my mind.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> And let me repeat one more thing, because I sense that you guys have been missing it.  WSLVT is not the standard by which ALL Wing Chun is judged.   Maybe White Crane doesn't look much like WSLVT.  But it bears a lot of similarities to the mainland styles of Wing Chun.



Please describe how white crane looks (you probably won't find it on youtube)


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> Please describe how white crane looks (you probably won't find it on youtube)



A white crane looks just like a seal to me! Or maybe a bear? 

Seriously, suppose WC could be compared to a _seal_, slick and streamlined, whereas White Crane is something totally different, like say, a _dog_. And let's compare Karate to  ..._a bear_....

Just because two things look different or work in totally different ways today doesn't mean that they might not have had a common ancestor. Neither does it mean that they do. So either party in this discussion _may_ be correct. See below:

Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals

So how about we move on?


----------



## Vajramusti

geezer said:


> A white crane looks just like a seal to me! Or maybe a bear?
> 
> Just because two things work in totally different ways today doesn't mean that they might not have had a common ancestor. Neither does it mean that they do. So either party in this discussion _may_ be correct. See below:
> 
> Dogs And Bears Are Closely Related To Seals
> 
> So how about we move on?


----------------------------------------------------------
Steve- thanks for sealing the non issue that was dogging the list.


----------



## guy b.

edit


----------



## yak sao

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Steve- thanks for sealing the non issue that was dogging the list.



Yes it was getting more than I could bear


----------



## LFJ

@KPM

So, in addition to having all those techniques I listed on the last page, this style also has this unique idea of bracing with the fist against the sternum to create a solid triangle connected to the body for the _gwai-jaang_ technique as the wrist and elbow are rolled over, called _panzhou_ (coiling elbow), similar to how it's done in the BJ form with the same function. I haven't really come across this idea in other styles. Does White Crane do this?


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> @KPM
> 
> So, in addition to having all those techniques I listed on the last page, this style also has this unique idea of bracing with the fist against the sternum to create a solid triangle connected to the body for the _gwai-jaang_ technique as the wrist and elbow are rolled over, called _panzhou_ (coiling elbow), similar to how it's done in the BJ form with the same function. I haven't really come across this idea in other styles. Does White Crane do this?


 
Your image didn't load.  Where is the video of this style so we can all judge how closely it resembles Wing Chun?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Your image didn't load.  Where is the video of this style so we can all judge how closely it resembles Wing Chun?



I think this is it?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Where is the video of this style so we can all judge how closely it resembles Wing Chun?


Can you tell whether this is praying mantis "刁手Diao Shou" of WC "Fu Shou"?






Can you find some similarity between WC sticky hand and praying mantis training?


----------



## KPM

Wing Chun and the Hakka Arts:  Is there a connection?


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> I think this is it?



----This doesn't look anything like Wing Chun to me.  Certainly not even close to the similarities from White Crane.  



_has this unique idea of bracing with the fist against the sternum to create a solid triangle connected to the body for the gwai-jaang technique as the wrist and elbow are rolled over, called panzhou (coiling elbow), similar to how it's done in the BJ form with the same function. 

----Huh?  You brace your fist against your sternum in the Biu Gee form?  I never learned to do that!  _


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> ----This doesn't look anything like Wing Chun to me.  Certainly not even close to the similarities from White Crane.
> 
> 
> 
> _has this unique idea of bracing with the fist against the sternum to create a solid triangle connected to the body for the gwai-jaang technique as the wrist and elbow are rolled over, called panzhou (coiling elbow), similar to how it's done in the BJ form with the same function.
> 
> ----Huh?  You brace your fist against your sternum in the Biu Gee form?  I never learned to do that!  _



I'm not sure Keith, but looking at that picture Guy posted I'd say that your concept of looking at the whole package, or _gestalt _doesn't seem to have gotten through. Or for that matter the idea expressed in the Judkins article on Hakka boxing which implies a crane connection there too.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----This doesn't look anything like Wing Chun to me.  Certainly not even close to the similarities from White Crane.



Of course it doesn't. It's a Northern style. You're missing the point and demonstrating that you have no idea how to analyze similarities between TCMAs.

You used to complain to Alan Orr that his stuff doesn't "look like Wing Chun". Then you started his online program and learned how it functions, and now you agree with him.

You should have learned from that, that looking for the presence or absence of superficial similarities is trivial, and you must look deeper.

You told me I need to get out more. I've spent all but a few years of my adult life in China pursuing TCMAs, learning and researching them from North to South. I haven't even been back stateside for a visit in about half a decade. I still need to get out more? Have you ever been out of the country, your state, your backyard?

What I have found is that all the Wing Chun "hands" have equivalents up North, in single systems, and each action of the Wing Chun forms could be given applications from a northern perspective, because there are similarities in human movement and fighting instincts.

Between villages I've encountered the same forms done differently due to a separation and isolation of 300+ years. Looking for visual similarities would lead one to believe they were completely unrelated because they looked absolutely nothing alike. But learning the sequences and functions, you then realize they are actually the same form, or rather, came from a common ancestor.

You can't be stuck at a superficial level and pretend to be doing "research" or "analysis" of TCMAs, looking for visual similarities in forms on Youtube. You have to get in there and learn how they function. I think to be a serious researcher of TCMAs, you have to have learned at least one northern and one southern style.



> _----Huh?  You brace your fist against your sternum in the Biu Gee form?  I never learned to do that!  _



No, dude. I said it's "similar" to how it is done in the BJ form. Every lineage does it by placing the back of the wrist into the sternum to create a solid triangle connected to the body. I was struck by this exact concept in a northern style because it is rather unique.

The picture I posted shows this unique concept with the exact same function as in VT. That is, when your hands are up and someone grabs your wrist and swings at you, the elbow is rolled over to break the grip (_panzhou_, "coiling elbow") while the other arm covers. In the BJ form, only the elbow portion is done, but the other arm would be free to do what it needs to do.

In this northern style it is done with a bow stance in the form, but in application it means to be moving _into_ the opponent. Stances in northern styles are exaggerated for training purposes, but in use, it is done in a natural upright stance just like VT, moving forward. Same footwork. If you only look for visual similarities in forms you're missing everything that's important about how the styles function.

Now, this is quite a unique concept I haven't seen in other styles. Does White Crane do it? If not, it seems to have fewer similarities than a completely unrelated style from the North which also contains equivalents to each Wing Chun "hand", as I listed on a previous page. I don't think White Crane even contains all of those.


----------



## LFJ

Here's something else for you, @KPM 

Beetlejuice on the other forum used to post pictures of this posture from Emei and his Wing Chun, positing a suggested connection based on nothing more than that. No answers to who taught what to whom, when and where. Just common postures, and didn't even explain their functions.

I posted the exact same posture found in this same northern system I'm talking about. You see it's the same monk as in the elbow technique picture above. And boy, did that upset him, because it completely destroyed his theory.

You talk about a necessary gestalt. Well, these are all contained within the same system, and they are lacking in White Crane AFAIK.

So, as it stands, there is more material to posit a "suggested connection" between Wing Chun and this northern system, than there is with White Crane, based on your standards of "looking alike", plus function. 

But it would be foolish to suggest a historical connection like that without answering the essential questions of who taught what to whom, when and where. If you can't do that, you've really got nothing more than a few visual similarities, which is less than what I can show from an unrelated style.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> I'm not sure Keith, but looking at that picture Guy posted I'd say that your concept of looking at the whole package, or _gestalt _doesn't seem to have gotten through. Or for that matter the idea expressed in the Judkins article on Hakka boxing which implies a crane connection there too.



Judkins is a good historian and is great at cutting through the red boats BS that surrounds wing chun. He excels at getting time lines, finding out who was a real person and who was a myth. That kind of thing. Judkins rejects anything that is not supported by historical evidence and so has a picture of wing chun that originates with Leung Jan in Foshan around the time when the only rebel in Foshan would be found in a mass grave, with wing chun as a system of the establishment, not of rebel groups. He shows this story to be fiction, which is a good thing.He shows the origin of wing chun to (most likely) be quite recent, which is a good thing. .

Where I find his analyses fall down is when he attempts to make system comparisons and contrasts based upon his knowledge of wing chun and other systems. For example he rejects white crane as similar to wing chun on a historical basis, and he is correct to do so. However at the same time he has a theory that wing chun and the Hakka arts are related because they look similar to him. In fact SPM, Bak Mei and Lung Ying share a lot more with white crane than they do with wing chun. All are sanchin (3 battles/arrows) styles. All approach the opponent in the same way as white crane, and all finish in the same way. All are conceptually similar to white crane in terms of the way they deal with the fight. Wing chun is different to all of these.

Given that neither you nor KPM will talk in any sensible way about what system similarity is, beyond KPM saying that the arm motions look a bit similar (which is trivial), and then shouting about a whole picture he has entirely failed to demonstrate, I don't really want to go into the way that the Hakka arts and wing chun are different in any detail, since I will only be educating someone that is not honest in their attempts to discuss anything. Put something forward and be honest and I will discuss. I am/was involved in SPM and I am involved in VT. I love both of these systems. I do not wish to cause damage to either of them by giving someone only interested in trolling for info anything real or potentially damaging.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Wing Chun and the Hakka Arts:  Is there a connection?



Beyond the trivial? No


----------



## KPM

---Well LFJ, this reply of yours pretty much shows that about half the time you don't know what the h3ll you're talking about!  

Of course it doesn't. It's a Northern style. You're missing the point and demonstrating that you have no idea how to analyze similarities between TCMAs.

---That's rich!    G...E...S...T...A...L....T   Dude, clearly you are the one that continues to miss the point and have no idea to how to analyze physical structure.   I talked about the total package.  Not one isolated technique from a Northern style that shares no similarities in legends and history or background with Wing Chun.  But you clearly don't get that for some reason.


You used to complain to Alan Orr that his stuff doesn't "look like Wing Chun". Then you started his online program and learned how it functions, and now you agree with him.

----You have no idea what you are talking about.



You told me I need to get out more. I've spent all but a few years of my adult life in China pursuing TCMAs, learning and researching them from North to South. I haven't even been back stateside for a visit in about half a decade. I still need to get out more? Have you ever been out of the country, your state, your backyard?

---Well, if you are such a world traveler then, you really need to open your eyes and open your mind.  Otherwise it sounds like you've been wasting a lot of time.


What I have found is that all the Wing Chun "hands" have equivalents up North, in single systems, and each action of the Wing Chun forms could be given applications from a northern perspective, because there are similarities in human movement and fighting instincts.

---Total Package.   Gestalt.   Why is that so hard to get?   I don't deny that individual things from Wing Chun can be found in other styles.  Human movement is human movement.  Heck, I see more similarities between Maul Mornies Kuntau/Silat and Wing Chun than I do between most Northern Kung Fu styles and Wing Chun.   But Silat does not also share such things as locale, very similar legends and history, and a lot of people through the years saying there may be a connection between Wing Chun and White Crane.   And, in anticipation of the reply I know is coming.....if you haven't heard anyone other than me and Hendrik Santo talk about a possible connection between Wing Chun and White Crane, then you obviously haven't been paying attention!  Hence my comment that you need to get out more!!   And it sounds like you have "been out".....but maybe not paying attention?????


. I think to be a serious researcher of TCMAs, you have to have learned at least one northern and one southern style.

---To be ANY kind of researcher you have to keep an open mind and be willing to look at what is right in front of you.  So I think we can discount you as a "serious researcher."  



No, dude. I said it's "similar" to how it is done in the BJ form. Every lineage does it by placing the back of the wrist into the sternum to create a solid triangle connected to the body. I was struck by this exact concept in a northern style because it is rather unique.

---Well there you go!  You are world traveler and a serious researcher yet you think "every lineage does it by placing the back of the wrist into the sternum"!   No lineage that I have learned taught it that way!   I was taught distinctly NOT to rest the wrist against the chest.  The wrist is bent and placed near the sternum simply to make it easier to bring the elbow close to the centerline.



Now, this is quite a unique concept I haven't seen in other styles. Does White Crane do it? If not, it seems to have fewer similarities than a completely unrelated style from the North which also contains equivalents to each Wing Chun "hand", as I listed on a previous page. I don't think White Crane even contains all of those.

---Ok.  So where's the  video so people can compare and decide for themselves?


----------



## KPM

geezer said:


> I'm not sure Keith, but looking at that picture Guy posted I'd say that your concept of looking at the whole package, or _gestalt _doesn't seem to have gotten through. Or for that matter the idea expressed in the Judkins article on Hakka boxing which implies a crane connection there too.


 
Clearly true Steve!  Thanks for saying so.  I realize in these forums that everyone could be agreeing with what I am saying to LFJ and Guy but if no one speaks up, they think they are presenting such wonderful arguments with their 2 on 1 strategy.  That's what gets frustrating and why I find myself being repeatedly drawn back into their BS.  But I will try to resist better in the future!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Given that neither you nor KPM will talk in any sensible way about what system similarity is, beyond KPM saying that the arm motions look a bit similar (which is trivial), and then shouting about a whole picture he has entirely failed to demonstrate, I don't really want to go into the way that the Hakka arts and wing chun are different in any detail, since I will only be educating someone that is not honest in their attempts to discuss anything. Put something forward and be honest and I will discuss. I am/was involved in SPM and I am involved in VT. I love both of these systems. I do not wish to cause damage to either of them by giving someone only interested in trolling for info anything real or potentially damaging.


 
This really doesn't even deserve a reply.  And I am doing so against my better judgment, which I really need to correct going forward.  But this statement is so......I can't even write it for fear of being banned.  Guy, you are so full of it, and can't even see it!  You twist and turn and make statements that have no foundation simply to incite and inflame.   I gave you a summary of the Wing Chun/White Crane connection theory that went well beyond "trivial arm motions."   You have called me dishonest, a coward, a troll, and a liar on these boards multiple times now.  You are welcome to disagree with the connections I and others see.  I didn't make this up.  I simply summarized what people have been seeing for awhile now.  You are welcome to formulate your own theory and present your logic and evidence.  But it is poor form to launch an attack on someone else's ideas and try to totally discount them when everything I've said is pretty self-evident.  What I have presented are historical facts.   Whether you think these historical facts are enough to connect Wing Chun and White Crane is up to you.  You are welcome to believe that they are not.  But again, you can't simply dismiss them.   And there is no need to be nasty about the whole thing.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> G...E...S...T...A...L....T   Dude, clearly you are the one that continues to miss the point and have no idea to how to analyze physical structure.   I talked about the total package.  Not one isolated technique from a Northern style that shares no similarities in legends and history or background with Wing Chun.



Anything you can point to in White Crane and Wing Chun I can point to its equivalent in Songshan. White Crane is also said to be related to northern styles, with actual historical evidence, and Wing Chun is always called a "Shaolin" style. So, they do share similar legends and history. What exactly do you think is missing from the "gestalt"? Please be specific.



> ---Well there you go!  You are world traveler and a serious researcher yet you think "every lineage does it by placing the back of the wrist into the sternum"!   No lineage that I have learned taught it that way!   I was taught distinctly NOT to rest the wrist against the chest.  The wrist is bent and placed near the sternum simply to make it easier to bring the elbow close to the centerline.



We can look at the BJ form of each lineage and see them doing it. If they don't understand why, that's another issue. And AFAIK, it's not in White Crane.



> ---Ok.  So where's the  video so people can compare and decide for themselves?



That's not how it's done. You won't see similarities just by watching Youtube. I didn't see visual similarities between two versions of the _same form_ separated and isolated for 300+ years until I learned them in detail. Then things became clear. You need to learn the function to understand how they work in free fighting. You are stuck at a superficial level. You can't learn kung fu on Youtube.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I talked about the total package. Not one isolated technique from a Northern style that shares no similarities in legends and history or background with Wing Chun.



The 'total package' of white crane is not similar to wing chun. So what is your argument again?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Silat does not also share such things as locale, very similar legends and history, and a lot of people through the years saying there may be a connection between Wing Chun and White Crane.



All nonsense which Judkins demolishes. Similarity in nonsense legends is irrelevant. All of these styles emerged as styles late 19th C to early 20th C. They all tagged on mythology that was popular at the time and all copied each other in doing so. Similarity of origin legend lifted from same trashy novel is not relevant.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I realize in these forums that everyone could be agreeing with what I am saying to LFJ and Guy but if no one speaks up, they think they are presenting such wonderful arguments with their 2 on 1 strategy.



You think you have the silent majority on your side but they just won't speak up? 

I don't know Guy from beyond the forum. We don't PM each other to plan our tag-team strategy together. lol It just happens to be that neither of us agree you have presented any solid evidence for your theory. Could be because you haven't.

The reason our arguments seem tough on you is because you learn kung fu online and know very little about TCMAs in general, technically and historically.


----------



## Phobius

Many of us others are just bored of this now I believe.

After all discussing the history in aspect of what must be true is probably no longer of value to anyone. Reason being that it is starting to become more and more certain we will never figure out the actual truth to it.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> The reason our arguments seem tough on you is because you learn kung fu online and know very little about TCMAs in general, technically and historically.


 
You don't know me or anything about me.  But Ok.  That clinches it.  If you are going to start making it personal, I'm done trying to have any kind of effective conversation with both you and Guy.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> I gave you a summary of the Wing Chun/White Crane connection theory that went well beyond "trivial arm motions.



Nope, you didn't. You invoked similar legend which is easily explained. And you pointed to similar hand motions in a poorly performed form. Whenever I have tried to get you to expand further by talking about how the hand motions are similar and in what way white crane and wing chun resemble each other, you fail to respond because you haven't a clue how white crane actually works in practice. You don't understand white crane concepts, movement, tactics or anything else about it. And so we are left with similar looking hand motions. Which are also in any number of Northern or other styles.

Better get googling again.



KPM said:


> You have called me dishonest, a coward, a troll, and a liar on these boards multiple times now.



If you don't like it then don't continue to do it.



KPM said:


> I simply summarized what people have been seeing for awhile now.



Argument from consensus is a fallacy. Argument from authority is a fallacy. Make your own argument. I'm happy to talk white crane or Hakka arts but I'm not going to feed you the info because you aren't an honest person.



KPM said:


> You are welcome to formulate your own theory and present your logic and evidence.



Wrong way around at this point. 



KPM said:


> Whether you think these historical facts are enough to connect Wing Chun and White Crane is up to you. You are welcome to believe that they are not. But again, you can't simply dismiss them.



I just did dismiss them


----------



## Vajramusti

Wow- these threads lately-is Mark Twain relevant?

*Mark Twain* — 'Never argue with stupid people, *they will* drag you down to their level and then *beat you with* experience.'


----------



## geezer

ba



guy b. said:


> .... I don't really want to go into the way that the Hakka arts and wing chun are different in any detail, since I will only be educating someone that is *not honest* in their attempts to discuss anything ...Put something forward and *be honest and I will discuss*.



Hmmm... in other words, _"Geezer, you lying b*stard!"._ Finally I know how the President feels! 






I have to hand it to you Guy. You figured me out. _Mendacity_ is my middle name. ...Or perhaps ...I'm not being honest again .

OK seriously now, I don't know what the distant roots of WC are, and we actually agree that WC as a distinct entity didn't emerge until the time of Leung Jan. I say we bury the hatchet and move on. This topic is a dead horse.


----------



## KPM

"Yongchun Quan was derived from Southern White Crane during the Qing Qian Long period.  There is a saying that Yongchun Quan was started by the lady Yan, Yong-Chun who learned Southern White Crane techniques from the Buddhist nun Wumei in the mountains of Yunnan Province.  Wumei's original name was Lu, Si-Niang.  Later, Yong-Chun brought the techniques back to Canton, where they became the Yongchun Fist."

Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming, "The Essense of Shaolin White Crane", YMAA Publication Center, 1996.

Now this doesn't prove anything.....other than the fact that this is not something I made up, that it goes back a few years, and that even people from outside Wing Chun circles have this theory.  For anyone that has actually paid attention...this is a fairly accepted and widespread idea.  Majority consensus doesn't prove anything either....other than you are a closed-minded fool to not honestly look at what is out there rather than just dismissing it out of hand.  Enough said on this topic.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Enough said on this topic.



Heck yes and AMEN.


----------



## yak sao

KPM said:


> "  Enough said on this topic.



I don't know, I think we could squeeze another dozen or so pages out if we put our minds to it.


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> I don't know, I think we could squeeze another dozen or so pages out if we put our minds to it.



.....Sure, since nothing said for pages has anything to do with the OP anyway. And honestly, the OP was a dumb topic (another TMA vs. MMA thread? Really?!) ...except for everybody's witty comments. At first, anyway.

So now I'm off to start a new thread. So we can all go on that and insult each other. Like watching a train wreck. It will be fun. Now for my new mystery slogan: _LFJ, the Hanzou of WC! _If you like it click agree. If not, take it out on KPM.

Honestly guys, I'm just here to hang out, talk about WC, and have fun. If you are trying to do much more than that, I'd say consider where you are_. It's a stinkin' internet forum for Gawd'sake!_ (...a good one, but c'mon!).


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> "Yongchun Quan was derived from Southern White Crane during the Qing Qian Long period.  There is a saying that Yongchun Quan was started by the lady Yan, Yong-Chun who learned Southern White Crane techniques from the Buddhist nun Wumei in the mountains of Yunnan Province.  Wumei's original name was Lu, Si-Niang.  Later, Yong-Chun brought the techniques back to Canton, where they became the Yongchun Fist."
> 
> Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming, "The Essense of Shaolin White Crane", YMAA Publication Center, 1996.
> 
> Now this doesn't prove anything.....other than the fact that this is not something I made up, that it goes back a few years, and that even people from outside Wing Chun circles have this theory.



It proves that white crane also has silly made up stores, just like wing chun. This is fiction and it is pretty blatant. Chinese people take this kind of thing in a different way to Western people.



> For anyone that has actually paid attention...this is a fairly accepted and widespread idea.  Majority consensus doesn't prove anything either....other than you are a closed-minded fool to not honestly look at what is out there rather than just dismissing it out of hand.  Enough said on this topic.



Nobody is dismissing anything out of hand, don't lie


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> Honestly guys, I'm just here to hang out, talk about WC, and have fun. If you are trying to do much more than that, I'd say consider where you are_. It's a stinkin' internet forum for Gawd'sake!_ (...a good one, but c'mon!).



Me too. Unfortunately talking about wing chun is something that doesn't happen here very often.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> Me too. Unfortunately talking about wing chun is something that doesn't happen here very often.



Keep trying, Bro.


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Nobody is dismissing anything out of hand, don't lie



I can't believe you just called me a liar....again!  For what...the 4th time??


I wrote just upthread:    

_Whether you think these historical facts are enough to connect Wing Chun and White Crane is up to you. You are welcome to believe that they are not. But again, you can't simply dismiss them._

And your reply was:

_I just did dismiss them_

Why is it that this guy can call me a troll, a liar, dishonest, and a coward and nothing happens?  He can write inflammatory comments that are simply meant to incite and nothing happens?  But when I tell him he is full of Sh1t and an a55hole I get a warning from the moderators????


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Me too. Unfortunately talking about wing chun is something that doesn't happen here very often.



If you think so, then go elsewhere.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Why is it that this guy can call me a troll, a liar, dishonest, and a coward and nothing happens?  He can write inflammatory comments that are simply meant to incite and nothing happens?  But when I tell him he is full of Sh1t and an a55hole I get a warning from the moderators????



Maybe because nobody is taking those comments seriously? Feel free to report any thread you feel crosses the line, but personally I'd rather get a grip and work out our problems amongst ourselves here on the WC forum. Don't want to further tarnish our reputation for excessive bickering, you know.

And, actually I sometimes find it instructive watching those people wig-out online. For one thing, I notice that the rest of us are treating each other with greater respect, perhaps to distance ourselves from that other kind of behavior?

BTW I believe I was being called dishonest too. I think he meant _intellectually dishonest _as in lying to and deceiving myself with my outlandish ideas about WC. Whatever. Anyway, what did you think of my "liar" videoclip?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I can't believe you just called me a liar....again!  For what...the 4th time??



You said we're dismissing things out of hand. Evidenced by the last few pages of this thread with quotes from historians, videos, and pictures accompanied with explanations and ample reason for disagreeing with your theory... that is a blatant lie.

_



			you can't simply dismiss them.
		
Click to expand...

_
No one has "simply" dismissed them as you say, "out of hand". In fact, quite a bit of effort has been put into explaining why they are invalid.

You'll have to explain why they can't simply be dismissed with more than a few logical fallacies like Appeal to the Majority and Wishful Thinking.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> You said we're dismissing things out of hand. ... that is a blatant *lie.*








LFJ: Somebody may disagree with you vehemently and may see things very differently than you do. They may look at the same subject matter and draw very different conclusions. They may be mistaken, but _that is not a lie and you know it. _So whose the liar now? Huh? huh?  






So, what'ya say we tone down the rhetoric and get back to discussing WC? And for God's sake let's not get another thread locked because people can't be civil!


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> LFJ: Somebody may disagree with you vehemently and may see things very differently than you do. They may look at the same subject matter and draw very different conclusions. They may be mistaken, but _that is not a lie and you know it. _So whose the liar now? Huh? huh?



If everything is relative then truth has no meaning

I think that it is fair to say that KPM either has a warped perception of reality or is lying when he calls this enormous silly thread a simple dismissal of his ideas


----------



## wckf92

dudewingchun said:


> His stuff iv learnt a bit of works quite well when I spar. First time I tried what I learnt at WSL i ran into a hook.. as well as every other time.. When I try Duncan Leungs stuff I dont get hit.. Wonder why !.



Good for you man! Awesome to hear!

One possible reason why IMO is because Duncan (whether he was taught something "secret" or "special" as YM's private disciple; or whether it is something he figured out on his own) advocates the idea of "covering". Cover is synonymous with attack. One hand covers (attacks) a space as you enter or whatever...while the other attacks the target.
I think its awesome you have trained in several lineages and are finding what works for you. Keep it up dude.


----------



## KPM

Maybe because nobody is taking those comments seriously?

---Maybe so!  But nobody likes being called a liar and a coward.   Its just interesting to me  what gets "moderated" and what doesn't!   Someone can be inflammatory and insulting and incite someone else to call them an appropriate name that describes them well....and that is the person that gets censored rather than the one inciting the response!  Yes, I need a thicker skin!  I'm just used to interacting with more polite and respectful people I guess.  Maybe I need to go back to my "Vulcan Wing Chun" approach from the old forum!  


And, actually I sometimes find it instructive watching those people wig-out online. For one thing, I notice that the rest of us are treating each other with greater respect, perhaps to distance ourselves from that other kind of behavior?

---Maybe so!  I guess every cloud has a silver lining!  

BTW I believe I was being called dishonest too. I think he meant _intellectually dishonest _as in lying to and deceiving myself with my outlandish ideas about WC. Whatever. Anyway, what did you think of my "liar" videoclip?

---Yeah, that  was pretty good!


----------



## mograph

... and this thread started out so well. (sigh)


----------



## yak sao

mograph said:


> ... and this thread started out so well. (sigh)



I figured it was doomed to failure the second I saw the title.
What I didn't see coming was all the in fighting amongst ourselves. I thought it would be all of us vs Hanzou and the rest of the BJJ/MMA crowd


----------



## Tez3

yak sao said:


> I figured it was doomed to failure the second I saw the title.



Quoted for truth.


----------



## geezer

yak sao said:


> I figured it was doomed to failure the second I saw the title.
> What I didn't see coming was all the in fighting amongst ourselves. I thought it would be all of us vs* Hanzou *and the rest of the BJJ/MMA crowd



Hanzou isn't just a forum member. _Hanzou _is a state of mind. One best avoided.


----------



## mograph

yak sao said:


> I figured it was doomed to failure the second I saw the title.
> What I didn't see coming was all the in fighting amongst ourselves. I thought it would be all of us vs Hanzou and the rest of the BJJ/MMA crowd


Props to the BJJ crowd for staying out of it?


----------



## dudewingchun

mograph said:


> Props to the BJJ crowd for staying out of it?



I do bjj aswell. I personally dont think Wing chun has anything to counter the groundfighting skill of Bjj. When I started training it too, that was confirmed quite fast.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> If everything is relative then truth has no meaning



This should be common knowledge, or you actually believe the stuff you are reading in a newspaper? Ever heard of "history is written by the winners"? Truth does not exist, it is just when one person´s opinion has silenced enough of others. Sometimes with the aid of military actions.



dudewingchun said:


> I do bjj aswell. I personally dont think Wing chun has anything to counter the groundfighting skill of Bjj. When I started training it too, that was confirmed quite fast.



This I hope more people realize with time, some of those anti-grapple videos we see are just too wild and crazy for my flavor. All arts have those, especially from pre-YouTube time period.

Why would BJJ have to get involved, we can destroy a WC thread perfectly well ourselves. As others say, our stuff works best when fighting one of our own kind.


----------



## Tez3

mograph said:


> Props to the BJJ crowd for staying out of it?



It's only because it's a duplicate thread and they are on the other one.


----------



## LFJ

Back on topic then...


----------



## drop bear

mograph said:


> Props to the BJJ crowd for staying out of it?



Meh.. linage wars who cares.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> Back on topic then...



*No.* Time for _random comments! _Am I the only one who noticed that when he was talking about the "octagon" he showed a picture of a _hexagon _(see 2:23 in the following clip):






Another thought: If _everything is relative _(as discussed above) then all sexual acts are _incest_. 

Finally this: "Anti-grappling" is to grappling what a quick course in self-defense is to competence in the martial arts. If you are serious about learning to handle yourself in a physical confrontation, you will need to spend a lot of time learning a solid martial art. So if you want to deal with serious grapplers, learn some _serious grappling!
_
...or if you live in the States, _buy a gun._ ...'cause we all know that solves everything!


----------



## Tez3

geezer said:


> Another thought: If _everything is relative _(as discussed above) then all sexual acts are _incest_.



Incest _is_ relatively interesting though necrophilia is dead boring............... just saying


----------



## dudewingchun

LFJ said:


> Back on topic then...



That video has some decent points. But still dont agree. If you are good you should be able to manifest some of your skill in an mma fight in a ring. Wing chun cant be the only art that uses power from the ground. Boxers dont seem to have a problem throwing power punches. I disagree with the " everybody is using wing chun punches", Not really, maybe a few people do like Conor Mcgregor and Demetrious Johnson and that time when Vitor ko'd Wanderlei as shown in the video. 

Most of the rules are there to protect people from unnecessary damage. Its the most closely simulated way of fighting without been completely barbaric imo,but there are some rules which obviously do protect the more wresting/bjj based fighters. Though training to fight a Skilled martial artist vs just a joe normal throwing an adrenaline fueled punch is quite different. But I reckon if you can handle a skilled fighter with your wing chun you can handle most joe normals...

When I watch UFC fights I look at them and think I need to get my WC to the level where I can take these guys on and win convincingly. But it seems most wing chun guys end up like this


----------



## Hanzou

dudewingchun said:


> When I watch UFC fights I look at them and think I need to get my WC to the level where I can take these guys on and win convincingly. But it seems most wing chun guys end up like this



Damn.


----------



## wckf92

wow...kid just stood there trying to impersonate Donnie yen or something... what the heck is up the his right arm being all straight out like that? WTH? Weird.


----------



## dudewingchun

wckf92 said:


> wow...kid just stood there trying to impersonate Donnie yen or something... what the heck is up the his right arm being all straight out like that? WTH? Weird.



People like that are representing us ( everyone who does Wing chun) as well 

Edit: Atleast he had the balls to fight I guess.


----------



## Hanzou

dudewingchun said:


> People like that are representing us ( everyone who does Wing chun) as well



He still gets respect for stepping up to the plate and putting his skills to the test.

It's more than what can be said about some other styles out there.


----------



## dudewingchun

Hanzou said:


> He still gets respect for stepping up to the plate and putting his skills to the test.
> 
> It's more than what can be said about some other styles out there.



Yeap I agree. But then theres also the thought that before you enter a tournament like that you should atleast realise what level of competition you are fighting. The way it seemed was he had done typical Wing chun training and went in thinking he was just going to chun the chin out of them without ever doing proper sparring or any proper fight camp type of training.


----------



## wckf92

dudewingchun said:


> ...*chun the chin* out of them



 hahahahahahahahaha...love it.


----------



## geezer

dudewingchun said:


> When I watch UFC fights I look at them and think I need to get my WC to the level where I can take these guys on and win convincingly. But it seems most wing chun guys end up like this



In that case you better cross train and build up a ground game, ...not just "anti-grappling".  Some long range stuff wouldn't hurt either. And spar the _other_ guys! _...a lot._

...When you get it together, post some clips and we'll be your biggest fans.


----------



## dudewingchun

geezer said:


> In that case you better cross train and build up a ground game, ...not just "anti-grappling".  Some long range stuff wouldn't hurt either. And spar the _other_ guys! _...a lot._
> 
> ...When you get it together, post some clips and we'll be your biggest fans.



In the process right now. Give me 3 years and I will be ready for Amateur fights. Id rather be overcooked then undercooked in this situation.


----------



## Phobius

dudewingchun said:


> In the process right now. Give me 3 years and I will be ready for Amateur fights. Id rather be overcooked then undercooked in this situation.



Good for you, remember also that it is learn by doing. Not learn then do.

Most, like maybe the kid in the video, sadly just throw themselves in their expecting beautiful victories and then think defeat is something terrible and unrecoverable. If people would be masters the first time they try something, they are either A. Naturals or B. Lucky. Most get their *** handed to them while learning to improve.

Of course this can and should be mitigated, something I believe, dont know for sure, many MMA gyms do well.


----------



## Tez3

Advice from a great fighter 
In the words of Ali…

*“The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses – behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights.”*


----------



## drop bear

dudewingchun said:


> In the process right now. Give me 3 years and I will be ready for Amateur fights. Id rather be overcooked then undercooked in this situation.



What country are you in?


----------



## wtxs

yak sao said:


> I figured it was doomed to failure the second I saw the title.
> What I didn't see coming was _*all the in fighting amongst ourselves*_. I thought it would be all of us vs Hanzou and the rest of the BJJ/MMA crowd



WTF!  And all this time I thought WC is for self defense.  Never really understand why the WSL training video is titled "The science of in-fighting".


----------

