# "Wing Chun" as an Adjective vs Noun



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

Hey everybody, hope this doesn't come across as heresy, but wanted to share a perspective I've more and more been leaning into. That is of treating the phrase "Wing Chun" as an adjective as in addition to as a noun. The way I've understood Wing Chun, and I believe many of you have too, is as a principle based art that selects for movement based on a set of criteria. If a movement meets that criteria, then it is Wing Chun. If it doesn't, then it's not.

This leads me to look at the phrase "Wing Chun" as a filter on movement (or adjective for movement) as well as the name of an art in an interchangeable way. You can watch a UFC fight, or boxing match, and if a movement follows the criteria, say something like "that was some good Wing Chun right there."

I feel like this is how Wing Chun stays fresh and the blades stay sharp. Improving the criteria over time to optimize for best performance. Eliminating movements that don't fit that criteria or train the right habits to support those movements. Assessing other arts for movements that can have Wing Chun principles applied to them and feeling comfortable adopting them into the art with proper attribution.

It's important to give credit where due in terms of where movement originated. For example, an arm bar from Jiu Jitsu, or a redirection from Aikido should have attribution so that when you're teaching it as part of Wing Chun, we know where it came from. But then, after applying WC principles, feel comfortable saying "this movement is Wing Chun."

Anyone else share this perspective?


----------



## Danny T (Aug 2, 2018)

I think wc is a training system. The system is rather specific as to training structures, movements, and responses but at the same time isn’t specific to application of the above. Train the system, internalize the training, pressure test your ability to function with your skills that works for yourself. Don’t enslave yourself to the system.


----------



## ShortBridge (Aug 2, 2018)

I get what you are saying and I've heard the term "Kung Fu" used that way, not just with fighting,but with...closing a sale or making a bowl of noodles. 

It doesn't seem right to me, though to watch a boxing match and say "that was good Wing Chun". That person trained as a boxer, I don't want to take credit for their skill by associating it with what I do.

Wing Chun stays fresh because we train it and apply it, not because we try to make it something else. Conversely, I don't want to claim that other things are Wing Chun.

But I get what you're saying, even if I wouldn't say it.


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

ShortBridge said:


> I get what you are saying and I've heard the term "Kung Fu" used that way, not just with fighting,but with...closing a sale or making a bowl of noodles.
> 
> It doesn't seem right to me, though to watch a boxing match and say "that was good Wing Chun". That person trained as a boxer, I don't want to take credit for their skill by associating it with what I do.
> 
> ...



That makes sense. I don’t mean for this to mean we take credit for other arts’ work. I just feel that we should be free to advance the art with contributions from other systems, give them attribution to their source, apply Wing Chun principles, and add them to the system. Not about taking credit at all, but about updating the central library with findings from our environment.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2018)

lansao said:


> That makes sense. I don’t mean for this to mean we take credit for other arts’ work. I just feel that we should be free to advance the art with contributions from other systems, give them attribution to their source, apply Wing Chun principles, and add them to the system. Not about taking credit at all, but about updating the central library with findings from our environment.



Then that, IMHO, becomes something else....see Jeet Kune Do for example


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> Then that, IMHO, becomes something else....see Jeet Kune Do for example



I struggle with that. Didn’t the art originate from a combination of “what worked” from several arts of the day?


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 2, 2018)

lansao said:


> That makes sense. I don’t mean for this to mean we take credit for other arts’ work. I just feel that we should be free to advance the art with contributions from other systems, give them attribution to their source, apply Wing Chun principles, and add them to the system. Not about taking credit at all, but about updating the central library with findings from our environment.



Eh, that sounds like a very eclectic Wing Chun approach though honestly. I am reminded of some of the WSL guys who used to frequent this forum who used to espouse their philosophy that (and I am generously paraphrasing here) - WC/VT is a very specific tool, and should remain so, not have lots of things added to it and overcomplicate it. It was a very narrow view but I had a hard time disagreeing with them. WC/VT/WT is a very specific way of fighting, like a very sharp knife which can cut many ways, not a jumbo swiss army knife.

People will always be eclectic in how they fight, incorporating anything and everything they have learned, but if Wing Chun is a coherent system, seems like it makes sense to leave it that way.

I think I will agree with you that Wing Chun can spill over into regular (i.e. non-fighting) life though. Important maxims like "When the way is clear, move forward" and "If you meet a greater force, give way". Can't count how many times those reminders have come to mind in situations that had absolutely nothing to do with physical fighting.


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> Eh, that sounds like a very eclectic Wing Chun approach though honestly. I am reminded of some of the WSL guys who used to frequent this forum who used to espouse their philosophy that (and I am generously paraphrasing here) - WC/VT is a very specific tool, and should remain so, not have lots of things added to it and overcomplicate it. It was a very narrow view but I had a hard time disagreeing with them. WC/VT/WT is a very specific way of fighting, like a very sharp knife which can cut many ways, not a jumbo swiss army knife.
> 
> People will always be eclectic in how they fight, incorporating anything and everything they have learned, but if Wing Chun is a coherent system, seems like it makes sense to leave it that way.
> 
> I think I will agree with you that Wing Chun can spill over into regular (i.e. non-fighting) life though. Important maxims like "When the way is clear, move forward" and "If you meet a greater force, give way". Can't count how many times those reminders have come to mind in situations that had absolutely nothing to do with physical fighting.



That makes sense, don’t mean to stir the pot. Just wanted to be able to share philosophical thoughts on the art. Engage in dialogue over this stuff. 

I struggle a bit with the narrow sliver too. Should the narrow sliver stay the same forever? What were the assumptions upon which the narrow sliver was originally designed? Should those assumptions be challenged regularly? Can we source challenges to our assumptions by testing them against different arts of our day? If as a result of this testing, should an assumption change, should we update the design? 

These are the kinds of questions I find myself asking. Can we learn from geometry, calculus, musical rhythm notation? Things like the deflective properties of cubic diagonals I know are useful in at least how I practice (and I imagine the way others here practice as well).

Sorry for rambling but figure this is a good space to talk through these thoughts with other practitioners.


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2018)

Back in the 80s our local clique of young WT enthusiasts would use "Wing Tsun" as an adjective  when hanging out together. Our sifu had told us that conceptually,  Wing Tsun went way beyond fighting, that anytime you confront a challenging obstacle or situation,_ use WT  ..._that is, use efficiency, be flexible, and deflect the problem, or better yet, borrow the force and turn it to your advantage.

So, in our crowd you'd hear statements like, "My boss was being a total jerk and wanted me to work overtime doing inventory, but I totally _wing-chunned_ the situation and came out with a better schedule _and _a raise!"

Looking back, it seems a little silly, but really no different than the way people have similarly expanded the use of _Jiu Jitsu,_ as for example when they say things like, "I used verbal jiu jitsu to convince him."


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

geezer said:


> Back in the 80s our local clique of young WT enthusiasts would use "Wing Tsun" as an adjective  when hanging out together. Our sifu had told us that conceptually,  Wing Tsun went way beyond fighting, that anytime you confront a challenging obstacle or situation,_ use WT  ..._that is, use efficiency, be flexible, and deflect the problem, or better yet, borrow the force and turn it to your advantage.
> 
> So, in our crowd you'd hear statements like, "My boss was being a total jerk and wanted me to work overtime doing inventory, but I totally _wing-chunned_ the situation and came out with a better schedule _and _a raise!"
> 
> Looking back, it seems a little silly, but really no different than the way people have similarly expanded the use of _Jiu Jitsu,_ as for example when they say things like, "I used verbal jiu jitsu to convince him."




Sharing a related answer I posted on Quora:
The best way to make a living off of your martial arts training is to find ways to integrate the concepts from your martial arts training into your profession.

For example, the epiphany you get after practicing an abstract movement until it simplifies to something obvious isn’t exclusive to your martial art. That same experience is felt by musicians, painters, writers, and programmers all the time.

When a cc-bomb email comes in and seems to target you for some issue, how should you react to it? What if it was a punch that landed in a fight? Would you lash out and over react? Would you accelerate movement and pace? No! That would leave your guard even more open and sloppy exposing you to extra attacks. You would calmly recover your guard and maintain focus on your centerline as if the punch never landed.

What is your professional centerline? What is the simplest response to that email within the realm of your safety that best maintains that centerline?

If you’re competing in business, maybe in marketing, do you target markets that your competition has invested heavily in? Would you brawl with a fighter twice your size? No! You’d look for openings, stay agile, look for the path of least resistance and avoid force against force confrontation.

So much of what you learn in your martial arts study applies to the world around you including your profession. It makes you better and less afraid because you have experience dissecting, understanding, and consequently removing layers of fear from something as vicious, complex, and wildly unpredictable as combat.

You are truly on the path of the martial artist if you take your training and apply it to your world, professional or otherwise.


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

lansao said:


> Sharing a related answer I posted on Quora:
> The best way to make a living off of your martial arts training is to find ways to integrate the concepts from your martial arts training into your profession.
> 
> For example, the epiphany you get after practicing an abstract movement until it simplifies to something obvious isn’t exclusive to your martial art. That same experience is felt by musicians, painters, writers, and programmers all the time.
> ...



This is in response to a question asking how one could apply their martial arts training to other professions.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2018)

lansao said:


> I struggle with that. Didn’t the art originate from a combination of “what worked” from several arts of the day?



Not sure but if it did then Several arts not called Wing Chun that when combined became wing chun


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> Not sure but if it did then Several arts not called Wing Chun that when combined became wing chun



Happy to get different perspectives on the history. My understanding was that it was and the reason was to create an art that could defeat the systems of the day.

Are there other takes on the history/what drove it’s development?


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2018)

lansao said:


> ...My understanding was that it was and the reason was to create an art that could defeat the systems of the day.



Yep. And that's true of just about every martial art ever invented, if you think about it! BJJ for example. The Gracies didn't get together and say, hey let's come up with something that will get our butts kicked!


----------



## geezer (Aug 2, 2018)

However, Xue is in accord with the best historical guesses I've come across, based on the limited factual evidence we have. We don't really know much before the time of Leung Jan. Several earlier systems probably contributed to the development of Wing Chun. Coming from a bit to the north of Guandong, Fujianese yongchun baihe or in Cantonese, wingchun bakhok (white crane) is often mentioned, as are the southern Hakka systems and emei snake. Others have suggested influences from the southwest of China coming along trade routes.


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

geezer said:


> However, Xue is in accord with the best historical guesses I've come across, based on the limited factual evidence we have. We don't really know much before the time of Leung Jan. Several earlier systems probably contributed to the development of Wing Chun. Coming from a bit to the north of Guandong, Fujianese yongchun baihe or in Cantonese, wingchun bakhok (white crane) is often mentioned, as are the southern Hakka systems and emei snake. Others have suggested influences from the southwest of China coming along trade routes.



The story I was told was framed as a useful anecdote for understanding the impetus for the development of the art.

As I’ve heard it, it was developed ~300-350 years ago in Shaolin temple to teach weak rice farmers how to defend themselves against much stronger and well trained warriors who were oppressing them. 

The art needed to avoid force against force as the rice farmers couldn’t beat the stronger invading warriors that way. It needed to be able to defeat the classical animal systems those warriors were trained in. It also needed to be able to be learned very quickly (not 20 years but 2). It goes on to say there were 5 masters from different systems who contributed what they felt worked best from their respective disciplines and developed the art. 

Before they could teach it widely the temple was overthrown. But, a nun from the temple survived and passed the art on.

I mean, it sounds a bit fanciful but the core reasons the story expresses for what motivated the art’s development I think make for a good set of principles.


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

ShortBridge said:


> I get what you are saying and I've heard the term "Kung Fu" used that way, not just with fighting,but with...closing a sale or making a bowl of noodles.
> 
> It doesn't seem right to me, though to watch a boxing match and say "that was good Wing Chun". That person trained as a boxer, I don't want to take credit for their skill by associating it with what I do.
> 
> ...


Even more important than advancing the art with what other arts are doing is knowing how to respond to what other arts of our day are doing. Keeping an eye on other arts and training drills expressed in the language of Wing Chun to counter and handle for new and varying techniques from other arts. In that spirit, also seeking opportunities to test those counters against experts of the arts they focus on.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 2, 2018)

lansao said:


> Happy to get different perspectives on the history. My understanding was that it was and the reason was to create an art that could defeat the systems of the day.
> 
> Are there other takes on the history/what drove it’s development?



There are a plethora of arts in China throughout its history that say they were created to defeat the other systems of the day..... and there are a whole lot of masters of those styles throughout Chinese martial arts history who are said to be undefeated.....there are also many styles that claim to be from some historical figure too.....and a lot of it is not true....finding the truth in CMA history is not as cut and dried as reading it from some old master...or it was told to you by your Shifu


----------



## lansao (Aug 2, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> There are a plethora of arts in China throughout its history that say they were created to defeat the other systems of the day..... and there are a whole lot of masters of those styles throughout Chinese martial arts history who are said to be undefeated.....there are also many styles that claim to be from some historical figure too.....and a lot of it is not true....finding the truth in CMA history is not as cut and dried as reading it from some old master...or it was told to you by your Shifu


I agree with that. Don't really know that the history is accurate, honestly can't say it is. Just dumping what was shared with me out so that we can have this conversation. Also appreciate that the story is shared as anecdotal in large part to just help explain the need for some of the principles of the art.

I think it's really liberating that we don't really know. It gives us some license to experiment with it and make it what we feel is most effective for us. There is something really beautiful about that. 

I don't believe the art ever took the scientific method into account. I imagine not given its rediscovery/refinement in Western Europe. The same thing with other useful concepts like music notation, in particular rhythmic. I mention this in part because things like "proof by authority is meaningless" are useful concepts for making sure you dig to understand the logical physics-based proof for why what you're doing works to its most granular units of expression.

Rhythmic notation can be super useful too. For example, if we're talking about landing the foot just after the impact of a punch (I know there are different takes on this but bare with me) we can talk about the time in between the punch and the foot landing as being an 8th note. Then we can practice reducing time by decreasing length to a 16th note punch, 32nd note punch..., 64th note punch..., etc. That we ultimately want the time in between to approach 0 but that the punch land before the step (same could be said the other way around - foot landing before the punch).


----------



## KPM (Aug 3, 2018)

geezer said:


> Back in the 80s our local clique of young WT enthusiasts would use "Wing Tsun" as an adjective  when hanging out together. Our sifu had told us that conceptually,  Wing Tsun went way beyond fighting, that anytime you confront a challenging obstacle or situation,_ use WT  ..._that is, use efficiency, be flexible, and deflect the problem, or better yet, borrow the force and turn it to your advantage.
> 
> So, in our crowd you'd hear statements like, "My boss was being a total jerk and wanted me to work overtime doing inventory, but I totally _wing-chunned_ the situation and came out with a better schedule _and _a raise!"
> 
> Looking back, it seems a little silly, but really no different than the way people have similarly expanded the use of _Jiu Jitsu,_ as for example when they say things like, "I used verbal jiu jitsu to convince him."



In one of his books Dan Inosanto has written that after Bruce Lee developed the term "Jeet Kune Do", he and his students would use the term "JKD" in exactly the same way you have described.  If they saw something they thought was pretty cool they would say "that's really JKD!"   Another term Bruce liked was "walk on."  Instead instead of saying "have a good one!" as we might today they would say "walk on!"


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> I agree with that. Don't really know that the history is accurate, honestly can't say it is. Just dumping what was shared with me out so that we can have this conversation. Also appreciate that the story is shared as anecdotal in large part to just help explain the need for some of the principles of the art.
> 
> I think it's really liberating that we don't really know. It gives us some license to experiment with it and make it what we feel is most effective for us. There is something really beautiful about that.
> 
> ...



I had a xingyiquan shifu who was also a musician and he taught things rhythmically. Also liked to watch  his opponent and figure out their rhythm....and then attack on the off beat.

Experimentation within an art is a good thing, but if you want to keep the same name, IMO, you need to keep the basic structure of that art. Also take into account there are things that do not work today because of changes in other types of fighting and there are those things that do not work today because people do not take the time they need to better understand the art. Sometimes that is due to people being impatient, sometimes it is due to the fact that life is a whole lot faster paced today than it was a 100 years ago in China


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> I had a xingyiquan shifu who was also a musician and he taught things rhythmically. Also liked to watch  his opponent and figure out their rhythm....and then attack on the off beat.
> 
> Experimentation within an art is a good thing, but if you want to keep the same name, IMO, you need to keep the basic structure of that art. Also take into account there are things that do not work today because of changes in other types of fighting and there are those things that do not work today because people do not take the time they need to better understand the art. Sometimes that is due to people being impatient, sometimes it is due to the fact that life is a whole lot faster paced today than it was a 100 years ago in China



Funny you say that. I feel like we keep the foundations largely the same. Rarely is there a need to calibrate but when there is we take the liberty. That said we do use the language/syntax it gives us to design counters to new offensive movements introduced by other arts.

So if we needed to design a response to a BJJ shoot-in, it would be good to know in detail how they work and what their objective is, and then ask how we can defend against it in a way that avoids force against force, simplifies/unifies movement, incorporates deflection or a strike, and leaves us in an advantageous position. 

But I feel like to understand that we need to go and train with BJJ pros, fail, get back up and ask why we failed, work on a counter, then test that counter over and over again until it’s calibrated enough to introduce to the art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> Hey everybody, hope this doesn't come across as heresy, but wanted to share a perspective I've more and more been leaning into. That is of treating the phrase "Wing Chun" as an adjective as in addition to as a noun. The way I've understood Wing Chun, and I believe many of you have too, is as a principle based art that selects for movement based on a set of criteria. If a movement meets that criteria, then it is Wing Chun. If it doesn't, then it's not.
> 
> This leads me to look at the phrase "Wing Chun" as a filter on movement (or adjective for movement) as well as the name of an art in an interchangeable way. You can watch a UFC fight, or boxing match, and if a movement follows the criteria, say something like "that was some good Wing Chun right there."
> 
> ...


As usual, I've shown up with no WC knowledge to post about a WC topic. Enjoy!

This is the same approach I take with what I teach. If it fits the principles ("criteria") of my curriculum, it can be part of my curriculum. I often reference other arts in doing so, but after a point, it's just a technique. So, I might introduce "a Boxing-inspired jab", but after I teach it a couple of times, it's just "a jab". Why? Because at some point, it needs to stop being separate. So, if you found a way to incorporate the direct entering version of our Unbendable Arm classical technique, you might teach it initially as "this comes from NGA's Unbendable Arm". But at some point, if it's working well for you and your students, it should become part of WC by naming. Whether that means just dropping the "this comes from NGA's", or actually finding a suitable WC-ish name for it (probably by using one of your standard arm positions and whatever term you use for entering toward center), it should stop being an NGA technique and start being a WC technique.

_(Almost entirely unrelated note - about half the time I type "WC" my mind goes back to French, where that would be the borrowed term to refer to the "water closet" or restroom. Makes me giggle, because I'm obviously still 12 years old.)_


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2018)

ShortBridge said:


> I get what you are saying and I've heard the term "Kung Fu" used that way, not just with fighting,but with...closing a sale or making a bowl of noodles.
> 
> It doesn't seem right to me, though to watch a boxing match and say "that was good Wing Chun". That person trained as a boxer, I don't want to take credit for their skill by associating it with what I do.
> 
> ...


I took it more as watching that same boxing and saying "That'd make good Wing Chun."


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2018)

Xue Sheng said:


> Then that, IMHO, becomes something else....see Jeet Kune Do for example


I agree it eventually does. The question is at what point? How much does the content have to change for it not to be WC? One technique clearly isn't enough. Certainly neither is two. 100 is more than enough to say it's different.

Of course, if the entire art were to accept (over time) 50 new techniques into it, we'd just see it as the progression of the art. If one school integrates 50 new techniques (and no others do), they're probably not actually doing what's recognized as WC any more, and ought to give it a new name to avoid confusion.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> As usual, I've shown up with no WC knowledge to post about a WC topic. Enjoy!
> 
> This is the same approach I take with what I teach. If it fits the principles ("criteria") of my curriculum, it can be part of my curriculum. I often reference other arts in doing so, but after a point, it's just a technique. So, I might introduce "a Boxing-inspired jab", but after I teach it a couple of times, it's just "a jab". Why? Because at some point, it needs to stop being separate. So, if you found a way to incorporate the direct entering version of our Unbendable Arm classical technique, you might teach it initially as "this comes from NGA's Unbendable Arm". But at some point, if it's working well for you and your students, it should become part of WC by naming. Whether that means just dropping the "this comes from NGA's", or actually finding a suitable WC-ish name for it (probably by using one of your standard arm positions and whatever term you use for entering toward center), it should stop being an NGA technique and start being a WC technique.
> 
> _(Almost entirely unrelated note - about half the time I type "WC" my mind goes back to French, where that would be the borrowed term to refer to the "water closet" or restroom. Makes me giggle, because I'm obviously still 12 years old.)_



Very cool. I feel like remembering where the movement came from is useful for remembering the context for it’s application. To know something came from BJJ out of a need to defend against a particular set of movements, etc.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> Eh, that sounds like a very eclectic Wing Chun approach though honestly. I am reminded of some of the WSL guys who used to frequent this forum who used to espouse their philosophy that (and I am generously paraphrasing here) - WC/VT is a very specific tool, and should remain so, not have lots of things added to it and overcomplicate it. It was a very narrow view but I had a hard time disagreeing with them. WC/VT/WT is a very specific way of fighting, like a very sharp knife which can cut many ways, not a jumbo swiss army knife.
> 
> People will always be eclectic in how they fight, incorporating anything and everything they have learned, but if Wing Chun is a coherent system, seems like it makes sense to leave it that way.
> 
> I think I will agree with you that Wing Chun can spill over into regular (i.e. non-fighting) life though. Important maxims like "When the way is clear, move forward" and "If you meet a greater force, give way". Can't count how many times those reminders have come to mind in situations that had absolutely nothing to do with physical fighting.


I can't agree at all with that view of any art, except where the limitation is inherent in the focus. A sword art could reasonable say "we don't do ground grappling - that's not swordwork". And I could even see someone who sees WC as strikes-only (clearly there are many who don't see it that way) saying "we don't do groundwork - that's grappling". But, if WC (and that's a difficult term to refer to - so many difference within that grouping) contains a leg trip throw (don't know if it does, so just play along - there are plenty of other techniques we could use as examples), it's a small step to both a leg sweep and a hip throw, if those fit the basic movement principles (at least one of them probably doesn't, but you get the point). So, if they're similar in principle, are you really adding anything? The individual techniques are never actually the art - the principles are. The techniques are how an art is taught/learned, and in the "grey areas" between those techniques are a bunch of similar techniques that apply the principles a bit differently.


----------



## now disabled (Aug 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> The techniques are how an art is taught/learned, and in the "grey areas" between those techniques are a bunch of similar techniques that apply the principles a bit differently.




Firstly I know nothing about wing chun so I cannot and will not make commen

However the part I have quoted from @gpseymour post makes a heck of a lot of sense, as he said techniques are how any art is taught and learned (in fact in life everything is learned by technique basically) to me I would add that to the grey areas as in you can have a very gifted teacher who is technically excellent and can execute all the techs etc to me where a great teacher emerges is in the grey area as he/she has to be able to breakdown the techs and any similarities between same in a way that is understandable to students and that may have to be more than one way (not everyone gets it first time) and let them see that although things look very similar they are different but also that in reality things from one can be combined into or flow through another. 

The key is in the grey area and in that thereby lies the competent from the good from the great teacher and that is where maybe things do get confused or muddied


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I can't agree at all with that view of any art, except where the limitation is inherent in the focus. A sword art could reasonable say "we don't do ground grappling - that's not swordwork". And I could even see someone who sees WC as strikes-only (clearly there are many who don't see it that way) saying "we don't do groundwork - that's grappling". But, if WC (and that's a difficult term to refer to - so many difference within that grouping) contains a leg trip throw (don't know if it does, so just play along - there are plenty of other techniques we could use as examples), it's a small step to both a leg sweep and a hip throw, if those fit the basic movement principles (at least one of them probably doesn't, but you get the point). So, if they're similar in principle, are you really adding anything? The individual techniques are never actually the art - the principles are. The techniques are how an art is taught/learned, and in the "grey areas" between those techniques are a bunch of similar techniques that apply the principles a bit differently.



Yes! In the end, the principles of the system are what define it, not the techniques. I agree with you and that's actually where I am coming from, even if we seem to disagree.

Would Akido have a technique such as a right jab feint to distract an opponent, followed by a left hooking punch to the liver? I don't know much about Aikido but my suspicion would be that it does not have such a technique. Why? Because it is likely out of step, or does not harmonize with underlying Aikido principles or strategy. I think the same analogy applies to WC, or can apply to it. If something does not fit coherently into the system, it might still be a valid technique, but it might be better viewed as distinct from the WC system, rather than try and make it a part of the WC system.


----------



## geezer (Aug 3, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> ..._Almost entirely unrelated note - about half the time I type "WC" my mind goes back to French, where that would be the borrowed term to refer to the "water closet" or restroom. Makes me giggle, because I'm obviously still 12 years old._



Yeah, the late GM Yip Man made the same association with that term "WC" referring to the restroom, what with Hong Kong being a British colony and all, which is purportedly why he started using the English spelling "Ving Chun" or "VT" instead. Later Leung Ting adopted his "WT" spelling, partly to distinguish his personal version of the style, and also to avoid the "WC/Water Closet" connection as well!


----------



## geezer (Aug 3, 2018)

geezer said:


> Yeah, the late GM Yip Man made the same association with that term "WC" referring to the restroom, what with Hong Kong being a British colony and all, which is purportedly why he started using the English spelling "Ving Chun" or "VT" instead. Later Leung Ting adopted his "WT" spelling, partly to distinguish his personal version of the style, and also to avoid the "WC/Water Closet" connection as well!



BTW ...anyone want to cross _WC sticky hands?  _...didn't think so!


----------



## now disabled (Aug 3, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> Yes! In the end, the principles of the system are what define it, not the techniques. I agree with you and that's actually where I am coming from, even if we seem to disagree.
> 
> Would Akido have a technique such as a right jab feint to distract an opponent, followed by a left hooking punch to the liver? I don't know much about Aikido but my suspicion would be that it does not have such a technique. Why? Because it is likely out of step, or does not harmonize with underlying Aikido principles or strategy. I think the same analogy applies to WC, or can apply to it. If something does not fit coherently into the system, it might still be a valid technique, but it might be better viewed as distinct from the WC system, rather than try and make it a part of the WC system.




It depends totally on the Aikido you choose and how you choose to interpret it and do not get over tied up in what harmonizing means as there most certainly is atemi to anywhere on the body in Aikido and nothing is really out of step.

It is hard to fully explain in words what harmonizing actually means as all the vids you guys watch are mostly demos and well that does give off a somewhat false sense of things but it looks very impressive. Also well without going into it in depth alot of this peace and love thing about Aikido is one misunderstood and well there are reasons for same.

I am only speaking from my Aikido stand point not the NGA style


----------



## now disabled (Aug 3, 2018)

Oh and if ya think that in a fight if the opponent gave me the opening to jab his kidney then ummm yup i most certainly would lol


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

geezer said:


> BTW ...anyone want to cross _WC sticky hands?  _...didn't think so!


Chi Yuck.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> That makes sense. I don’t mean for this to mean we take credit for other arts’ work. I just feel that we should be free to advance the art with contributions from other systems, give them attribution to their source, apply Wing Chun principles, and add them to the system. Not about taking credit at all, but about updating the central library with findings from our environment.



Does wing chun need updating? 

Personally I believe the art of wing chun is fine. There may be a case for updating the culture and by extension the training methods traditionally associated with wing chun, but to me this is a different questions than updating the art.

Any update needs a solid reason for being added and the real nature of the problem assessed.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Does wing chun need updating?
> 
> Personally I believe the art of wing chun is fine. There may be a case for updating the culture and by extension the training methods traditionally associated with wing chun, but to me this is a different questions than updating the art.
> 
> Any update needs a solid reason for being added and the real nature of the problem assessed.


I believe it does. Regular review, critique of foundations, assessments of new techniques introduced by other arts, and the development of technique to counter them. Sometimes the updates are as simple as just observing a new aspect of something we already practice. For example, my Si Gung felt the art needed a variant of the hook punch and added what he called our "hook angle side punch." Not a traditional hook but with footwork it cuts about the same angle as one.

How should our footwork evolve to address the increased popularity of BJJ to counter shoot-ins? I keep hearing Wing Chun has no ground work, and sure we'd rather not stay on the ground, but what are the techniques and forms we train to help us get back up in the event that we end up on it? Do we just accept the ground as a blind spot in our training and go elsewhere to learn how to handle that?


----------



## now disabled (Aug 3, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> Yes! In the end, the principles of the system are what define it, not the techniques. I agree with you and that's actually where I am coming from, even if we seem to disagree.
> 
> Would Akido have a technique such as a right jab feint to distract an opponent, followed by a left hooking punch to the liver? I don't know much about Aikido but my suspicion would be that it does not have such a technique. Why? Because it is likely out of step, or does not harmonize with underlying Aikido principles or strategy. I think the same analogy applies to WC, or can apply to it. If something does not fit coherently into the system, it might still be a valid technique, but it might be better viewed as distinct from the WC system, rather than try and make it a part of the WC system.



Also do bear in mind that umm certain pure Aikido techs in reality you have to tweak them ...The principles you learn remain the same it the application that you tweak ... to great examples are kotegaeshi ...the big cicle demo version in reality if you do that will get you a nice smack in the mouth so you tweak it ...small circle and add atemi then it works ...the other easy one is hiji waza as yup in the dojo it will work in reality it won't as your opponent might need "encouraged" to allow you to either break his elbow joint or break it and throw him so you tweak it to gain that opening (ok guys simplistic examples).

So don't think that Aikido won't do something as it will it just comes over to many as it won't lol....also to actually learn the basics does take longer imo and the concepts and I mean dynamics can seem odd until you understand the base it coming from


----------



## DaveB (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> I believe it does. Regular review, critique of foundations, assessments of new techniques introduced by other arts, and the development of technique to counter them. Sometimes the updates are as simple as just observing a new aspect of something we already practice. For example, my Si Gung felt the art needed a variant of the hook punch and added what he called our "hook angle side punch." Not a traditional hook but with footwork it cuts about the same angle as one.
> 
> How should our footwork evolve to address the increased popularity of BJJ to counter shoot-ins? I keep hearing Wing Chun has no ground work, and sure we'd rather not stay on the ground, but what are the techniques and forms we train to help us get back up in the event that we end up on it? Do we just accept the ground as a blind spot in our training and go elsewhere to learn how to handle that?



The questions that needs answering are, why are these things important, and do the principles as they stand provide workable solutions to these questions?

Challenge matches between styles are basically why mma exists, so yes, just do mma and fill in the gaps with other arts that specialise.

The constant Wing chun Fail videos on the Internet don't ever highlight a problem with the art, only with the way the individuals involved have trained. If you only apply footwork to attacks and do nothing for ring craft or distancing, is that the art or your lack of sparring experience? 

Similarly if you freeze after your first gloved fist to the face or hold a low guard because you don't know that your not fast enough to coordinate your blocks against a moving opponent, that's on you for living in a combatless bubble. 

And any answers to those problems that come from reinterpretation of the core principles is not to my mind a change to the art.


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

DaveB said:


> The questions that needs answering are, why are these things important, and do the principles as they stand provide workable solutions to these questions?


I don't disagree with that.



DaveB said:


> Challenge matches between styles are basically why mma exists, so yes, just do mma and fill in the gaps with other arts that specialise.



Agree with this too. Spend time with MMA fighters and learn how to respond to their movements.



DaveB said:


> The constant Wing chun Fail videos on the Internet don't ever highlight a problem with the art, only with the way the individuals involved have trained. If you only apply footwork to attacks and do nothing for ring craft or distancing, is that the art or your lack of sparring experience?
> 
> Similarly if you freeze after your first gloved fist to the face or hold a low guard because you don't know that your not fast enough to coordinate your blocks against a moving opponent, that's on you for living in a combatless bubble.



Agree with this too to some degree although I see a lot of "combatless bubbles" being justified based on principle. Often with excuses centered around Wing Chun being designed for survival versus competition. But I struggle with that a lot.



DaveB said:


> And any answers to those problems that come from reinterpretation of the core principles is not to my mind a change to the art.


I agree with this the most! The core principles should change way less often than the tapestry of movements that form as a consequence of them. That said, even laws of physics undergo scrutiny, new axioms are introduced in mathematics, and I don't believe our principles should be treated any differently.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> Yes! In the end, the principles of the system are what define it, not the techniques. I agree with you and that's actually where I am coming from, even if we seem to disagree.
> 
> Would Akido have a technique such as a right jab feint to distract an opponent, followed by a left hooking punch to the liver? I don't know much about Aikido but my suspicion would be that it does not have such a technique. Why? Because it is likely out of step, or does not harmonize with underlying Aikido principles or strategy. I think the same analogy applies to WC, or can apply to it. If something does not fit coherently into the system, it might still be a valid technique, but it might be better viewed as distinct from the WC system, rather than try and make it a part of the WC system.


Ah, stated that way, I agree. I tend to end up integrating more than that, but thay’s my curriculum (my system), not Nihon Goshin Aikido.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 3, 2018)

DaveB said:


> Does wing chun need updating?
> 
> Personally I believe the art of wing chun is fine. There may be a case for updating the culture and by extension the training methods traditionally associated with wing chun, but to me this is a different questions than updating the art.
> 
> Any update needs a solid reason for being added and the real nature of the problem assessed.


IMO, every art needs updating. We (humans) learn new things and arts can benefit from these advancements. It doesn’t mean anything is wrong with an art - just that there’s something it can do better. There always is, for every art, every skill.


----------



## KPM (Aug 3, 2018)

lansao said:


> IAgree with this too. Spend time with MMA fighters and learn how to respond to their movements.
> 
> .


 
And, interestingly enough, the Wing Chun guys that take this approach to heart and spend time with MMA fighters tend to end up looking more and more like MMA fighters and less like Wing Chun guys when they spar/fight!


----------



## lansao (Aug 3, 2018)

KPM said:


> And, interestingly enough, the Wing Chun guys that take this approach to heart and spend time with MMA fighters tend to end up looking more and more like MMA fighters and less like Wing Chun guys when they spar/fight!



So to that I’d ask: If that were the case, and they were better fighters for it, why would that matter?


----------



## KPM (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> So to that I’d ask: If that were the case, and they were better fighters for it, why would that matter?



Exactly!  But my point was really directed towards the poster that YOU were responding to that stated that Wing Chun did not need to be  "updated" and was fine as is and the problem was simply that Wing Chun people needed to spend more time sparring with people that actually knew how to fight.  So, if his point was true, why would the Wing Chun people that actually do that end up looking less and less like Wing Chun people?  If their Wing Chun was fine "as is", then why would it change?


----------



## lansao (Aug 4, 2018)

KPM said:


> Exactly!  But my point was really directed towards the poster that YOU were responding to that stated that Wing Chun did not need to be  "updated" and was fine as is and the problem was simply that Wing Chun people needed to spend more time sparring with people that actually knew how to fight.  So, if his point was true, why would the Wing Chun people that actually do that end up looking less and less like Wing Chun people?  If their Wing Chun was fine "as is", then why would it change?



Gotcha, I misread that. Agree with that in it’s entirety.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 4, 2018)

lansao said:


> So to that I’d ask: If that were the case, and they were better fighters for it, why would that matter?





KPM said:


> Exactly!  But my point was really directed towards the poster that YOU were responding to that stated that Wing Chun did not need to be  "updated" and was fine as is and the problem was simply that Wing Chun people needed to spend more time sparring with people that actually knew how to fight.  So, if his point was true, why would the Wing Chun people that actually do that end up looking less and less like Wing Chun people?  If their Wing Chun was fine "as is", then why would it change?



I was actually suggesting that if inter-style combat was the goal, then one should abandon wing chun altogether because their just isn't the frame work in place to make it a reality in comparison to MMA.

People do what they train. It's not superior effectiveness that makes people change to look more like mma fighters it's that they are in an environment that only has non wing chun answers to whatever the problem is.

Also some answers, like the boxing guard, are genuinely more straightforward than something like a standard wing chun guard. But, taking the easier route to do better in sparring is fine in the short term but there are reasons for the more difficult guard and you lose them if you are unwilling to take your lumps while you develop the skill to use it.

If your aim is just to get good at fighting then just switch to mma. If your aim is to fight using wing chun then that takes more.

The wing chun guy who lost to the one armed boxer just couldn't block a non wing chun punch. He didn't recognise the signals that it was being thrown, he didn't understand the shape it took or the distance it came from. 

All of that is easily developed through training, but he hadn't done so and he paid the price.


----------



## PiedmontChun (Aug 6, 2018)

lansao said:


> Do we just accept the ground as a blind spot in our training and go elsewhere to learn how to handle that?



Yes. People have been working relentlessly on grappling in many different forms for a long time now. Its much better to go to the source and learn from people who know what they are doing, rather then to try and reinvent the wheel, or worse - have false confidence in some homegrown techniques / strategies just because they work on your unwitting fellow students. A determined wrestler will eat a punch or half-hearted elbow to take you down if they want, and there is little you can do from the ground to get back up if you don't spend time training on the ground.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> IMO, every art needs updating. We (humans) learn new things and arts can benefit from these advancements. It doesn’t mean anything is wrong with an art - just that there’s something it can do better. There always is, for every art, every skill.


I would go one further and say that not only should a good system continually refine itself, but how each individual expresses a style should also continually refine itself, and grow. Once a system, or person, stops taking new input, they are practicing a dead system.


----------



## Callen (Aug 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> IMO, every art needs updating. We (humans) learn new things and arts can benefit from these advancements. It doesn’t mean anything is wrong with an art - just that there’s something it can do better. There always is, for every art, every skill.


 Well said.

I'll also add that because Wing Chun is concept based, it is the practitioner's responsibility to do the refining and updating of how they utilize the system. After a certain point of training Wing Chun, the level of development and skill is guided by the individual's understanding of the system. The combinations that are available from the concepts of the system itself are endless and ready to be applied.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 6, 2018)

Callen said:


> Well said.
> 
> I'll also add that because Wing Chun is concept based, it is the practitioner's responsibility to do the refining and updating of how they utilize the system. After a certain point of training Wing Chun, the level of development and skill is guided by the individual's understanding of the system. The combinations that are available from the concepts of the system itself are endless and ready to be applied.


I agree with everything in this, as long as you aren't saying it's _entirely_ the practitioner's responsibility. I think every instructor bears the responsibility to pass along something somehow better than they learned (because it will always be somehow worse, as well).


----------



## Callen (Aug 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I agree with everything in this, as long as you aren't saying it's _entirely_ the practitioner's responsibility. I think every instructor bears the responsibility to pass along something somehow better than they learned (because it will always be somehow worse, as well).


I like what you're saying and I agree completely. Clearly, an open-minded instructor is needed to guide the learner towards updating their understanding of the system.

However, good Wing Chun instructors are still practitioners themselves. With the system being concept based, any practitioner at any level can discover new ways to hone their craft. There will always be a certain burden of responsibility on the practitioner (student or instructor) to excel.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 6, 2018)

Callen said:


> I like what you're saying and I agree completely. Clearly, an open-minded instructor is needed to guide the learner towards updating their understanding of the system.
> 
> However, good Wing Chun instructors are still practitioners themselves. With the system being concept based, any practitioner at any level can discover new ways to hone their craft. There will always be a certain burden of responsibility on the practitioner (student or instructor) to excel.


And this is why we have 300 different strains of Wing Chun now. People learn, grow, adapt and evolve in local populations until 'speciation' happens. Eventually cross breeding becomes impossible and...

Wait am I talking about martial arts or evolutionary biology?


----------



## lansao (Aug 6, 2018)

PiedmontChun said:


> Yes. People have been working relentlessly on grappling in many different forms for a long time now. Its much better to go to the source and learn from people who know what they are doing, rather then to try and reinvent the wheel, or worse - have false confidence in some homegrown techniques / strategies just because they work on your unwitting fellow students. A determined wrestler will eat a punch or half-hearted elbow to take you down if they want, and there is little you can do from the ground to get back up if you don't spend time training on the ground.


That's fair. We wouldn't want to just invent things out of the blue. One of my Si Hings is doing that now at a BJJ school. Why can't we go out and seek other arts, learn them deeply, and find ways to incorporate them into the kung fu where they meet WC criteria? Master the movements, learn how to break them down using the vernacular of WC, and be able to teach them to others in the system in a way that is consistent with WC principles.


----------



## Martial D (Aug 6, 2018)

lansao said:


> That's fair. We wouldn't want to just invent things out of the blue. One of my Si Hings is doing that now at a BJJ school. Why can't we go out and seek other arts, learn them deeply, and find ways to incorporate them into the kung fu where they meet WC criteria? Master the movements, learn how to break them down using the vernacular of WC, and be able to teach them to others in the system in a way that is consistent with WC principles.


Not only that, but learning functional stuff from other sources will also give you a more robust understanding of your own techniques.

My WC improved more between last April and today(the time I've been training MMA with pros and ex pros) than it did for the ten years prior. So many 'a ha' moments


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 6, 2018)

lansao said:


> That's fair. We wouldn't want to just invent things out of the blue. One of my Si Hings is doing that now at a BJJ school. Why can't we go out and seek other arts, learn them deeply, and find ways to incorporate them into the kung fu where they meet WC criteria? Master the movements, learn how to break them down using the vernacular of WC, and be able to teach them to others in the system in a way that is consistent with WC principles.


Over a couple of generations, that should be entirely possible.


----------



## DaveB (Aug 6, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Not only that, but learning functional stuff from other sources will also give you a more robust understanding of your own techniques.
> 
> My WC improved more between last April and today(the time I've been training MMA with pros and ex pros) than it did for the ten years prior. So many 'a ha' moments


MD, can you update us on some of these "aha" moments? I've been meaning to ask how the wing chun in mma project is going?


----------



## Martial D (Aug 6, 2018)

DaveB said:


> MD, can you update us on some of these "aha" moments? I've been meaning to ask how the wing chun in mma project is going?


Heh, I actually forgot about that thread. It's so buried now it's looking up a dinosaur fossils.

There's so much! It seems every day I'm tripping over WC things masquerading as other things(or vice versa?) Or finding completely new(or maybe very old) uses for movements and hand positions I just never got from the forms and the chi sau.

I'll get up to posting about it in greater detail sometime in the near future.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Aug 7, 2018)

Martial D said:


> Heh, I actually forgot about that thread. It's so buried now it's looking up a dinosaur fossils.
> 
> There's so much! It seems every day I'm tripping over WC things masquerading as other things(or vice versa?) Or finding completely new(or maybe very old) uses for movements and hand positions I just never got from the forms and the chi sau.
> 
> I'll get up to posting about it in greater detail sometime in the near future.


I'm interested in hearing this, too, MD. Every time I've cross-trained (even half-day seminars), I've found something I understood the application for better from another source. Whether this is because "NGA teaches it wrong" or it's because Gerry needs a different explanation (or maybe just a lot more explanations) I can't say. But boxing slips really informed my entry to techniques, etc. I'll be interested in seeing what lights came on when you saw a different approach to something you originally saw in WC.


----------

