# Old School and New School WC....



## geezer (Apr 27, 2014)

This is really an attempt to look at a topic that has caused some really rancorous debates (on another WC Forum) from a more neutral perspective. Basically, I'm seeing what I call "Old School" and "New School" arguing right past each other. In fact, comparing old school WC to new school is to compare apples and oranges. 

Let me begin by explaining my terms. I'm using the phrase "old school" regardless of lineage to refer to folks that like WC that looks and feels old-style, like what they presume was practiced and even used in fights back in the fifties and before. "Old schoolers" tend to train with self defense in mind and may or may not choose to spar and "pressure-test" their art against other kinds of fighters. "New School" would be a way to describe those who are unconcerned with the outward "look" of their WC and put primary emphasis on it's functionality as proven in the modern competitive arena. 

Since several authorities on this forum have described WC as "Chinese Boxing", perhaps an analogy to Western Boxing could be useful. I believe I can approach this best visually:

"Old School" Western Boxing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...livan_1898.jpg

Contemporary Western Boxing

http://blog.vtheaterboxoffice.com/wp...manny_1116.jpg

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/...holyfield-.jpg


"Old School WC" 

http://www.wingchun.si/images/thumbs/yipman10.jpg

"New School" WC

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PCR8wo0Afv...2B146%2529.jpg

http://www.alanorr.co.uk/wp-content/...03/AlanOrr.jpg


Now here's the Youtube video that started the whole debate. Notice that it's titled, _*Best Wing Chun KO in MMA*_







OK, now assuming the links I posted work, everyone will get a pretty clear picture of what I mean by "old" and "new". My real point is that late 19th Century Western boxing and Chinese boxing obviously had a lot in common. Western boxing has changed over more than a century. It shouldn't surprise anybody that Chinese boxing would similarly evolve. Especially in a competitive sporting environment where it is subject to a rule set not unlike what Western boxing came to use. 

There are some today who still claim that "Old School Western boxing" was very effective in a bare knuckle environment and the rule set of the times. Actually I hear there are people who still train that way. Perhaps "Old School and New School" WC each have their place too. Maybe, if we can view all WC as one extended family, we can learn something from each other? I've primarily trained the "Old School" WC, and I'm too old now to ever want to go whole hog against some of these new guys. But I am certainly interested in what they can do! If I can learn from the "New" approach, I'm willing. On the other hand, I'd sure like to see a fighter emerge who could win using a bit more of the old style in his mix. Or maybe that's not practical. Maybe I should be satisfied that they are still using a lot of the same concepts, and just accept that it doesn't matter how it looks when used under pressure. Opinions?​


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 27, 2014)

Old school WC - you are fighting against a WC guy.
New school WC - you are fighting against a non-WC guy.


----------



## Marnetmar (Apr 27, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Old school WC - you are fighting against a WC guy.
> New school WC - you are fighting against a non-WC guy.



I don't think it's quite that clear cut.  

I'd modify it more to be bad WC versus good WC. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that sparring against techniques from your style and your style alone is never going to turn out well.

In all honesty I don't think there's such at thing as "old" versus "new" wing chun unless you're talking about _Andreas Hoffman_ versus Emin Boztepe/Alan Orr or something along those lines.


----------



## geezer (Apr 27, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> I don't think it's quite that clear cut.
> 
> I'd modify it more to be bad WC versus good WC. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that sparring against techniques from your style and your style alone is never going to turn out well.
> 
> In all honesty I don't think there's such at thing as "old" versus "new" wing chun unless you're talking about _Andreas Hoffman_ versus Emin Boztepe/Alan Orr or something along those lines.



Actually, many feel that _Hoffman's Weng Chun_ is not even the same art as Wing Chun. Rather it's held to be a similar southern Chinese boxing art that had some contact and sharing with Wing Chun in the mid 1800s. If so, it wouldn't really enter into this discussion.

As far as_ Emin Boztepe's_ "EBMAS" goes, it's pretty traditional, deviating only superficially from the EWTO interpretation of LT's "Wing Tsun", so it would still be "Old School" in that it outwardly takes a form that pretty much everybody would immediately recognize as Wing Chun.

_Alan Orr's_ stuff, especially as it appears in actual fights, is what I had in mind as "New School" since at first glance, it's hard to see the Wing Chun in it. But when Alan breaks it down, it's clear that it uses Wing Chun conceptually, but adapted in a way that works in an MMA context.


----------



## WcForMe (Apr 28, 2014)

I


----------



## wingchun100 (Apr 28, 2014)

This might not be directly what you are referring to, but I want to throw this out there.

There seem to be two camps of wing chun. One camp believes there are certain things that don't "qualify" as wing chun, while the other believes each person can interpret wing chun in their own way. You can spot the latter easily because they come up with a name that doesn't mention just "wing chun." For example you have Randy Williams and his "close-range combat academy." Even at my school, it is called "Cichon's Wing Chun." The fact that Sifu puts his last name on it means he has a different take on it than, say, a Sifu I met in Colorado named Keith Worfel. He takes ownership by putting his name on it.

But here is the interesting thing: let's say you have a Sifu who believes in the personal interpretation thing. You show him footage of another Sifu who interprets wing chun differently. Now the guy watching the video (who believes wing chun can be interpeted in multiple ways!) says, "That isn't wing chun."

Huh??!?!?!?! But if you think it is open to interpretation, then how can you say what is and is not wing chun? I mean, where do you draw the line? Is there such a thing as TOO much interpretation? But who's to say? And who has the authority that would draw such a line?

The "real vs. fake," interpretation of wing chun issue reminds me of what I go through as a writer. I mean, you write a song that is simply about the thoughts that go through your head while you are waiting for an elevator...you put it out there in the world...and the next thing you know, someone comes back at you and says, "This is a song about how you want to sleep with your mother." (I guess it all depends on what thoughts you say go through your head while you wait for the elevator!) But seriously, if your lyrics are about how you are annoyed at how long the elevator takes to arrive, how can they make that interpretation? While I agree that other people can see things in a poem that you don't when you write it, I also believe there are readings where people dig a little TOO deep.

At any rate, I just wanted to share that. Sorry if it strays off-topic.


----------



## geezer (Apr 28, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> This might not be directly what you are referring to, but I want to throw this out there.
> 
> There seem to be two camps of wing chun. One camp believes there are certain things that don't "qualify" as wing chun, while the other believes each person can interpret wing chun in their own way. .



Actually, that's pretty close to what I was talking about. However, the two camps I've encountered on some other forums seem break down into the group that feels that "if it doesn't look like WC as I understand it, then it isn't WC" (Old School) and the other camp that believes that if it doesn't work in competition, regardless of what it looks like, then it's worthless. This second group is willing to deviate substancially from tradition --at least in "appearance" to achieve competitve wins (New School). Check out the clip I posted of Alan Orr's fighter Josh Kaldani to see what I mean.

Personally, I think _both_ approaches add to the art. Unfortunately judging from the threads I've been following, the two sides can barely tolerate each other.


----------



## mook jong man (Apr 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> Actually, that's pretty close to what I was talking about. However, the two camps I've encountered on some other forums seem break down into the group that feels that "if it doesn't look like WC as I understand it, then it isn't WC" (Old School) and the other camp that believes that if it doesn't work in competition, regardless of what it looks like, then it's worthless. This second group is willing to deviate substancially from tradition --at least in "appearance" to achieve competitve wins (New School). Check out the clip I posted of Alan Orr's fighter Josh Kaldani to see what I mean.
> 
> Personally, I think _both_ approaches add to the art. Unfortunately judging from the threads I've been following, the two sides can barely tolerate each other.



It's got to be said , I didn't see any Wing Chun in that Kaldani video clip.
If you punched like that in our school you would have failed the grading.
I think we all know what a straight line looks like , we know what the guard looks like , and excepting a few variations we know what the stance looks like.

I think these days you can pretty much get away with calling anything Wing Chun , because most people seem to be unaware of the core principles or are quite wiling to ignore them and do their own thing.

Good luck to them , but please don't call it Wing Chun.
If the thing wasn't designed with competition in mind why keep trying to fit it into a role it was not meant for.


----------



## WcForMe (Apr 28, 2014)

Interesting question this one. I am aware of the video from Mr Orr as I also saw it on another forum. However I have to say this forum is way better for a proper debate, FAQ etc.


I'm from what you guys would call "the new school" as I've only trained for a few years. Personally I am always told of stories from the 70s 80s when it seemed training was proper training. I am under the awareness that ALOT more people trained and trained to fight back then. Mentality seemed to be totally different and focused as opposed to most people today. From what I hear it's more now that we don't have the pressure testing within martial arts. I may well be wrong as I wasn't born before the middle of the 80s. But from what I hear from several different people this is correct. 


I personally find that martial arts and specially wing chun don't seem to create fighters anymore. The mentality has completely changed and for most (not all) it's more of a youth club or for kudos points. It think it was you geezer that told me 98% of people train now train so the other 3% that want to learn, train properly either for rings, cages or self defence can train at an affordable rate and train correctly. If this is all true surely we are training more old school now than ever! In fairness I do believe Wc and most martial arts seemed to be watered down and to try and find people that actually want to train properly, learn forms correctly and actually test it is very rare. 


Because of this I give Alan Orr massive respect! To get a group of fighters together, training Wc and using to some success in an mma setting plus still winning chi São comps etc is impressive. That video I really didn't think warranted that title to be fair as the punch in question is not a Wc punch I've ever learned. If you have ever done mma you will understand the massive difference of why Alan's fighters don't look like typical Wc. It just doesn't work if you stick to everything you do. (No fak saos to the throat, no kicks to knees etc) but if you use the concept it becomes a lot more affective. In my head everybody moans it doesn't look like Wc but let's be fair. Wc is a concept art. As long as the principles remain true and it works for you as a fighter then what's the issue? And at the end of the day isn't that what martial arts are about? Learning , adapting to what suits you best as a Wc practioneer for any occasion rising? 


For or instance one of my sifus is pretty tall gotta be 6ft 4 maybe more. I'm 5ft 7 1/2 so how I am ever going to be able to fight like him? Never is that answer. Il learn everything he wants me to do but I either adapt or find another way to do it or learn it won't ever work for me personally under pressure and learn don't do that again! Wc isn't rigid, it doesn't have when somebody does this you do that. It's a thinking mans art. When being used in fighting terms you learn more from your losses than you do from your wins!


----------



## wingchun100 (Apr 28, 2014)

I don't know what mentality you would say my Sifu is in. This is his stance lately: he believes in teaching new students Sil Lum Tao, Chum Kiu, chi sao, applications...and that's about it. There is no guarantee you will learn biu jee, the dummy, the pole or knives. His opinion (and I happen to agree, from what I know of the style) is that all you really need to know is in those two forms and chi sao. The dummy is basically applying the SLT and CK techniques to something that occupies physical space instead of just doing them in the air. From what I heard of the way Ip Man's school trained back in the day, I think we lean toward "old school."


----------



## Danny T (Apr 28, 2014)

My Sifu is from Hong Kong and trained under Jiu Wan. Don't know how you characterize it however, he states he was taught that Wing Chun is a "training system" not a fighting style or method. It is a system to training individuals to fight using specific principles and concepts. Once the individual has internalized the system there is no one specific way or method. What do you do, when do you do it, where do you do it, why do you do it, who do you do it with, gives the "HOW" do you do it and within the How is the what it will look like. I feel there are some specific aspects that stylizes the system and many are wanting that style, and that is ok. If that is you then you working within that 'style'.
Wing Chun is not about style but applying the principles at the proper time. 
That said weight distribution, use of the hip, economy of motion, centerline control, regaining control of the line if it is lost is all important for it to be Wing Chun. Doesn't mean one cannot use these principles in the mma environment but to do so using a completely different stance, movement, and platform; and call it wing chun doesn't make it wing chun.


----------



## geezer (Apr 28, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> I think these days you can pretty much get away with calling anything Wing Chun , because most people seem to be unaware of the core principles or are quite wiling to ignore them and do their own thing.
> 
> Good luck to them , but please don't call it Wing Chun.



I don't have any trouble with Alan Orr calling his art WC. Its just not _my_ WC. 

BTW if you watch the clips where he explains how his fighters train based on WC concepts, he makes a lot of sense. There are things he brings up that I can definitely learn from.  And I think it's great that his fighters are enjoying success. He's got some tough and talented boys.

....Still, it's not _my_ WC.


----------



## mook jong man (Apr 29, 2014)

geezer said:


> I don't have any trouble with Alan Orr calling his art WC. Its just not _my_ WC.
> 
> BTW if you watch the clips where he explains how his fighters train based on WC concepts, he makes a lot of sense. There are things he brings up that I can definitely learn from.  And I think it's great that his fighters are enjoying success. He's got some tough and talented boys.
> 
> ....Still, it's not _my_ WC.



Jkd trains based on Wing Chun concepts but it doesn't look like Wing Chun.
Anyone can say they train with Wing Chun concepts , but it takes more than the Wing Chun concepts alone.
You need to have the correct Wing Chun framework as well , otherwise the principles and concepts will not work optimally.

They are tough and talented boys , they also happen to be young and strong , which is also probably a factor in their success.

But what about those of us that are maybe not so young and strong , fit and talented , will this modified Wing Chun work for us as well , hazarding a guess I say probably not.

I will stick with the brand of Wing Chun that is like fine wine and gets better with age , where effortless power is not based on the size of the guns you are sporting.


----------



## wingchun100 (Apr 29, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Jkd trains based on Wing Chun concepts but it doesn't look like Wing Chun.
> Anyone can say they train with Wing Chun concepts , but it takes more than the Wing Chun concepts alone.
> You need to have the correct Wing Chun framework as well , otherwise the principles and concepts will not work optimally.
> 
> ...



Like I always say, I am several inches taller and several pounds heavier than Sifu Cichon, but he can hit much harder than me. I lift weights...he does not. It is his body mechanics that give him the edge and always will, long after my muscles have wasted away.


----------



## geezer (Apr 29, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> ...But what about those of us that are maybe not so young and strong , fit and talented , will this modified Wing Chun work for us as well , hazarding a guess I say probably not.



This is the big question. For me, and the majority of my students, this kind of physicality is no longer a realistic option.



mook jong man said:


> I will stick with the brand of Wing Chun that is like fine wine and gets better with age , where effortless power is not based on the size of the guns you are sporting.



To me, this is the highest goal in WC. But honestly, few attain that level and you aren't going to see it in MMA!


----------



## mook jong man (Apr 29, 2014)

geezer said:


> This is the big question. For me, and the majority of my students, this kind of physicality is no longer a realistic option.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, this is the highest goal in WC. But honestly, few attain that level and you aren't going to see it in MMA!



Put it this way , can you generate more power now with less effort and redirect heavier force now with less effort?
As opposed to the early years when you were young , strong and just starting out.
I reckon like me you would say yes.

So we must be doing something right then mustn't we.
I can generate a lot more power now that I am 46 than when I started out in my 20s , I was quite strong and buffed then too.

So what's changed , besides me having a beer gut and requiring the odd granny nap occasionally.
The skill level has changed , and I am better than I was then.
That's because Wing Chun is a system based on skill , not on strength , athleticism or youth.


----------



## wingchun100 (Apr 29, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> Put it this way , can you generate more power now with less effort and redirect heavier force now with less effort?
> As opposed to the early years when you were young , strong and just starting out.
> I reckon like me you would say yes.
> 
> ...



I look forward to reaching this skill level myself.


----------



## Seurot (Apr 29, 2014)

mook jong man said:


> They are tough and talented boys , they also happen to be young and strong , which is also probably a factor in their success.
> 
> But what about those of us that are maybe not so young and strong , fit and talented , will this modified Wing Chun work for us as well , hazarding a guess I say probably not.
> 
> I will stick with the brand of Wing Chun that is like fine wine and gets better with age , where effortless power is not based on the size of the guns you are sporting.



This is my thoughts exactly.  

I've seen alot of videos of this 'new school' wing chun in action, usually MMA type fights, and one thing I notice it always seems like those guys use a lot of muscle and you kinda need to be big and strong to do what they do.  Its so opposite of why I chose to learn wing chun.  They may all say they train wing chun style, but then when they apply it, it all seems to rely on strength based fighting again.

I had time to read the whole thread in the other forum.  Wow...  I dont think I'll post in there ever.  But, some of the things the Orr guys say as to why the way they fight is still wing chun..well, you can take what they say and use it to apply to almost any fighting style used in MMA.  Like the guy explaining why he doens't cover the center line.  He said he doesn't need to occupy the center line to defend the center line.  But couldn't any western boxer or any strking style pretty much say the same thing?

And western boxers can say they are always balanced, got structure behind their punches, and stay relaxed.  The Orr guys use alot of punches that come from the side and around the line just like western boxing does.  And I would never think wing chun if I saw that fight video without it labeled wing chun.  And going the other way, you can also take almost any MMA video, label it CSL wing chun, and noone would know that a guy wasn' t using CSL wing chun either since its pretty much the same.  Alot of the 'principle' they seem to stick with to 'stay wing chun' are ones that are common to alot of fighting styles.  Yes, its CSL wing chun, but I don't really see it as 'wing chun'...if you know what I mean.

I'll stick to trying to learn something I can do as I get even older.  I'm not a kid anymore, and was actually never close to as big as that Josh, or Alan or any of the other MMA fighters I see are, so I don't think I coulda pulled off any of the stuff they do even at my prime since it seems to really need a certain level of strength, size and athleticism to work.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Apr 29, 2014)

May be the 

- old WC uses the "WC original short power generation" method.
- new WC uses the "boxing long power generation" method.

If we can define what the WC original short power generation" method is, we can easily separate these two. There is no question that with the WC inward narrow horse stance without body rotation, a special power generation method would be needed.


----------



## mook jong man (Apr 29, 2014)

My opinion on this has been formed by experiences I have had over the years , training with people senior to me who could unleash a frightening amount of force.

Now to look at these individuals  , you would think a strong gust of wind would knock them over , they looked like the dudes in the back page of the old comic books getting sand kicked in their faces at the beach by the big bully.

But after throwing your hardest hook at one of these guys and feeling like your arm has almost come out its socket when it meets with their Bong Sau that they have just casually thrown up.

Or holding a 5 inch thick high density foam kick shield over your thigh for their hook kick and having the force penetrate straight through the pad , through your thigh and then into your nut sack.

When you experience things like that then you know there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.
You look at them and think where the hell is this force coming from , my technique as in terms of structure and correctness was the same as theirs , my stance at least on the surface was the same as theirs.
Why could I not do things like these guys?

After a lot of careful observation I came to the conclusion that relaxation was the factor.
They understood the power of relaxation and were able to implement a deep level of relaxation in the execution of their techniques which allowed their force to penetrate.

To me who was heavily into weight training when I was younger it did not make sense , how can you generate force without a lot of muscular effort?

But there it is , it's a paradox , when you are doing Wing Chun correctly it feels like you are doing nothing at all.


----------



## mook jong man (Apr 29, 2014)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> May be the
> 
> - old WC uses the "WC original short power generation" method.
> - new WC uses the "boxing long power generation" method.
> ...



That special power generation method would be the stance itself , it does not require upper body torque like boxing to generate power.
The knees and feet pointing inwards project the body mass out to a focal point on the centerline several feet in front of the body.

As long as any striking limb is targeted at the centerline , that blow will contain a rather large percentage of the practitioners bodyweight.
Along with careful coordination in timing of forward stepping and striking  movements the body mass can be efficiently delivered into the target.


----------

