# A quite different 1st form!



## wckf92 (Sep 25, 2017)

Check this out. 
I wonder if this is how he was taught,  or is it an adaptation he created?


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 25, 2017)

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I've never been clear on the origin of Sifu Chow's Wing Chun. His website doesn't clarify that in the way that I'm used to seeing either.


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 25, 2017)

ShortBridge said:


> I don't mean this disrespectfully, but I've never been clear on the origin of Sifu Chow's Wing Chun. His website doesn't clarify that in the way that I'm used to seeing either.



I don't know much about him either...
Just thought it weird how he seems to have added 2nd form turning to his 1st form.


----------



## ShortBridge (Sep 25, 2017)

Maybe someone from his organization can clarify for us. It's been a while since I've looked at their website, but what I recall, it said things about living near Yip Man in Hong Kong and having tea with them and even Yip Man stopping by his class on occasion. It didn't (as I recall) say that he studied with Yip Man. I also kind of remember it not having a lineage chart or clearly stating where his Wing Chun came from.

Again, not a judgement, just confusing. I know that not all Wing Chun came through Yip Man, but it's tough to know how to take form differences if I don't know where to track his forms back to.


----------



## KPM (Sep 25, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Check this out.
> I wonder if this is how he was taught,  or is it an adaptation he created?


 
My guess is that it is his own adaptation.  Did you notice that during the opening section he goes out with Wu and back with Fook....opposite of the "traditional" way?  I've been told in the past that this was his own adaptation, so the shifting likely is as well.

But no big deal.  In Pin Sun Wing Chun the level 1 sets are done stationary first.  Then later shifting is included.  At an even later stage the 2nd hand is added.


----------



## geezer (Sep 25, 2017)

KPM said:


> My guess is that it is his own adaptation.  Did you notice that during the opening section he goes out with Wu and back with Fook....opposite of the "traditional" way?  I've been told in the past that this was his own adaptation, so the shifting likely is as well.
> 
> But no big deal.  In Pin Sun Wing Chun the level 1 sets are done stationary first.  Then later shifting is included.  At an even later stage the 2nd hand is added.



Yeah, I noticed the extending wu-sau and withdrawing fook-sau, and also that the way he sets up his stance in not the usual way it's done in most Yip Man lineages. Quite odd since, he claims to have been a student of Ng Sum Wah who was a student of Leung Sheung, Yip Man's first to-dai in Hong Kong. He also refer's to Leung Sheung as his Si-Gung in the Mook Yang Jong video on his website. I didn't catch any references to other Wing Chun teachers or other WC lineages he studied with, although he does mention studying a lot of _other_ _styles_ of kung fu.

My guess is that his  so-called "Integrative Wing Chun" is his own combination of some of these diverse influences with his Wing Chun.


----------



## OzPaul (Sep 25, 2017)

He is a student of the late Ng Wah Sum.  He moved from Hong Kong to New York in the 70's or 80's.  His Wing Chun is very good and similar to most other students of the Leung Sheung lineage.  This is just a form he made up.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 25, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Check this out.
> I wonder if this is how he was taught,  or is it an adaptation he created?


After 1.35, I can see some "body unification" that I don't see in many other WC clips. He understands that "only moving the arm without moving the body" is a bad idea.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 25, 2017)

From other videos I've seen of him over the years he teaches SNT in the same manner as most and this is a personal adaptation of his. It is a all good; probably a pre Chum Kiu training.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 25, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Check this out.
> I wonder if this is how he was taught,  or is it an adaptation he created?




Personally I just don't see anything different than what I have been taught and learn't from Wing Chun.

All I see is that first he is teaching it slightly different by not doing the full set of movements I think intentionally to illustrate the body shifting footwork also he is simply expressing it in his own person (body type) meaning height, length of arms, execution and  precision of each move and looks fit and healthy, not like other YouTube examples that poorly represent Wing Chun.

Again its about the individual the body type and body mechanics, that in itself creates the illusion there is something new here, when really it's just the same form expressed by a different person.

The emphasis on the footwork is all part of Wing Chun forming the triangle shape shifting from center-line to left and right as a parry/block and deflection counter attack.

As its commonly seen and demonstrated on YouTube that Wing Chun is using allot of close quarter arm/hands movement, but its always been allot more than that, its utilizing the whole core and body structure including foot shifting and weight distribution as part of each movement and energy transfer through the feet all the way up to the hands final snap or position.

You see this allot more effectively when doing it on the Mook Jong, just remember what are drill exercises and what are actual movements expressed in real sparring for example.

I really don't see what the fuss is here, other than seeing someone who is doing it better than most that I have seen on YouTube by combining the footwork and body structure that most either intentionally leave out or poorly put into practice as an entire movement.

Remember Wing Chun is about angles of economy protecting the center-line where the focus is body shifting and trapping hands as a way to overcome your opponent.

People need to learn the theory then application and see the greatness of Wing Chun then this will demystify all the nonsense by dispelling what is fact from what is make believe by followers or people trying to disprove the system or simply not understanding its foundations.

Watch how Ip Man expresses the movements and when he applies them...............








Creating foot angle placement with purpose







Its all about theory in principles applied when necessary here are some images to illustrate what I mean...............































Here is another video I found that might help clarify............







Simply said another person perception and interpretation of the same foundations of the Wing Chun form in 116 moves basically this here..............  https://www.amazon.com/Wing-Dummy-Techniques-Demonstrated-Grandmaster/dp/9627284033

I hope I have given some food for thought and a better explanation on this that its all the same original base form being Wing Chun, without writing a book so to speak.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> by combining the footwork and body structure that most either intentionally leave out or poorly put into practice as an entire movement.


- To combine structure is important.
- To combine the footwork is even more important.
- Intentional leave out is bad idea.
- Poorly put into practice is no no.

I can see someone finally understands what are truely important in CMA training. "Only moving the arm and freeze the body" is bad, bad, and still bad.

Good habit needs to be developed during day one.


----------



## KPM (Sep 26, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Again its about the individual the body type and body mechanics, that in itself creates the illusion there is something new here, when really it's just the same form expressed by a different person.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I have given some food for thought and a better explanation on this that its all the same original base form being Wing Chun, without writing a book so to speak.



Well, I think the point of the OP was that you typically don't see people shifting in their SNT form.   The SNT form is meant to teach basic structure and placement, not footwork.  Footwork is in the Chum Kiu form.   So its really not the "same form".  It is Sifu Chow's version of SNT with shifting.  Which again, is no big deal.  Like Danny T said my guess is that he teaches this as an intermediate level expression of the SNT form before teaching the Chum Kiu form.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 26, 2017)

Well what Wing Chun have you learn't is the question?

Yes there is or suppose to be movement in the actual sets as its part of the frame work and positioning following the hands.

The problem is people teach differently thats all and to add people also have different body mechanics when people observe forms and precision of movement which varies from person to person.   

For example in the above video he tends to thrust his hand movement with a snap on the end when others don't, that one thing I noticed straight away.

But we will most likely disagree here because its more about how people teach it, thats where most have difficulty interpreting forms and styles, but there is only one WING CHUN LoL


----------



## wckf92 (Sep 26, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Well what Wing Chun have you learn't is the question?
> 
> Yes there is or suppose to be movement in the actual sets as its part of the frame work and positioning following the hands.
> 
> ...



Who are you talking about? (Use the quote function)


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 26, 2017)

Anyone or you LoL

Pointless question its not personal, but constructive feedback LoL


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 26, 2017)

*Chum Kiu Form*













*Siu Nim Tao Form Application with Foot Work*













You see how each person practices slightly different but still the same form and only one Wing Chun system ever taught.

Or what could be said is that its broken over the three sets meaning:-


Step 1 -  do this .......then

Step 2  - do this....... and combine footwork.

Step 3  - then do this.......and combine footwork and add this hand movement.

The sequence of learning,  does that help, but the footwork is always their its not another system or new branch of Wing Chun.

(The internet and the darn YouTubes create confusion) although I love it, it can be a problem I will see if I can find better videos.

But then again with a global following of Wing Chun there is bound to be differences but that does not mean there is various Wing Chun types of branches its just common sense I guess that things will change over time or variances with teachers in their approach.

Some teachers in order to focus on the lesson might choose to leave out the foot work to make a point about the form or center-line or whatever he is teaching the student or part of that lesson this is not uncommon when instructing a class or a student is the point.

This myth that there are many forms and branches of Wing Chun is fake untrue.

Problem is way to many YouTubes with people teaching slightly differently or making a point thats not properly well thought out from an audience point of view.

Like maybe the video Youtube Title in the first post he obviously did not do the full set but he did however emphasize that he will be speaking about the footwork and shift movement, do you see what I mean.

Maybe I'm not expressing this clearly enough, but I understand this having spent 5 years in Wing Chun myself.

I just get annoyed how people make claims there are other branches of it.

Just study the the root from the Shaolin monks and you'll see what I mean there is only one Wing Chun that simple!


----------



## geezer (Sep 26, 2017)

OzPaul said:


> He is a student of the late Ng Wah Sum.  He moved from Hong Kong to New York in the 70's or 80's.  His Wing Chun is very good and similar to most other students of the Leung Sheung lineage.  This is just a form he made up.



The weight-shift (and corresponding centerline shift) is familiar to me, but is turning on the _heels_ the standard method in Leung Sheung WC? Somehow I thought maybe they also turned on the center of the foot as some other Yip Man branches do.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 26, 2017)

That first video and all the darn YouTubes are a pain in the rear to be honest because people either mix crap up to explain something or make it a new thing when it is not, to develop their style for a modern culture or other reasons, its a real problem I'm seeing.

Its people that cause confusion, leave things as they are I would strongly suggest! 

There is only one Wing Chun system with all the drills or steps whatever people address in the original form which has it all in the full package / concept so to speak.

There are no branches just long linage of teachers and maybe thats where there is poor explanations or subtle errors made in the process of conveying various important aspects of Wing Chun techniques.

Similar to whats happened here:- The point of testing students

I say this because there is allot of drama around this subject which has led to strong arguments online due to the validity of claims as to who's branch teaches this and that and there isn't such a case its all misunderstandings and errors.

Feel free to roam the web and see for yourself the drama, the.......... "Land of Confusion"...............







LOL


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2017)

KPM said:


> It is Sifu Chow's version of SNT with shifting.


If you have mastered the

1. beginner level form,
2. intermediate level form, and
3. advance level form.

When you go back and do your beginner level form (not teach to your students), will you still use your beginner level method, or will you use your advance level method?

When the long fist master Han Ching-Tan did his beginner level Tantui form, he used the intermediate level "toe push kick (taught in 3rd road Pao Chuan)" that was not taught during the beginner level Tantui training stage.

As far as for teaching, whether you should teach intermediate method, or even advance method during the beginner training stage, that can be another discussion subject. I like to address important principles during day one.

In the following clip, you can see GM Han's front toe push kick is a downward curve (intermediate method)  instead of a upward curve (beginner method).


----------



## Marnetmar (Sep 26, 2017)

To clarify the origin of Chow's Wing Chun, he learned from Ng Wah Sum. The system and forms he teaches are his own because he integrates other methods into his training, that's why it's called Integrative Wing Chun.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you have mastered the
> 
> 1. beginner level form,
> 2. intermediate level form, and
> ...


If one has mastered the form why is one still doing it. Teaching yes, but if one has already mastered it why do it?
Would be a waste of time and energy. 
However, one may feel they haven't mastered it. It would be up to that individual to decide and no one else.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2017)

Danny T said:


> If one has mastered the form why is one still doing it?


1. In school when training partners are available, you use

- "partner training" to "develop" your skill.
- "sparring/wrestling" to "test" your skill.

2. At home when you are alone by yourself, you use:

- "solo form/drill" to "polish" your skill.
- "equipment training" to "enhance" your skill.

At home, I don't train forms. I only train drills. In that GM Han's clip, he let someone to record his form. He was not teaching.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 26, 2017)

Ok. And?
As I said, It is up to the individual.
If one has mastered something why is one 'developing' one's skill? If you have master there is no need to 'test'...it is mastered.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2017)

Danny T said:


> If you have master there is no need to 'test'...it is mastered.


Even after you have mastered a skill, you still need to "test" it weekly so you won't lose it. If you don't use it, you will lose it.

Back to the WC discussion, it's very common for someone to replace the beginner level training by the more advance level training in any CMA system.


----------



## KPM (Sep 26, 2017)

*This myth that there are many forms and branches of Wing Chun is fake untrue.*

---I disagree.   Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun is quite different from Ip Man Wing Chun.  It doesn't even use the 3 form (SNT, CK, BG) format.   Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun is quite different from Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nung Wing Chun.   To say that it is untrue that there are different forms and branches of Wing Chun would be to ignore the obvious and sometimes quite large technical differences between them.  And its not just a matter of personal expression or a poorly thought out youtube video.

*
I just get annoyed how people make claims there are other branches of it.*

---If we assume that you haven't been around enough to see the different styles/systems of Wing Chun, and that your comments are really meant to say "other branches of Ip Man Wing Chun"....then there might be some truth to what you are trying to get across.

*Just study the the root from the Shaolin monks and you'll see what I mean there is only one Wing Chun that simple!*

---You do realize that it is very unlikely that Wing Chun has anything to do with the Shaolin temple?  And, again, giving you the benefit of the doubt.....just what specific "root from the Shaolin monks" are you suggesting we study?


----------



## Danny T (Sep 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Even after you have mastered a skill, you still need to "test" it weekly so you won't lose it. If you don't use it, you will lose it.
> 
> Back to the WC discussion, it's very common for someone to replace the beginner level training by the more advance level training in any CMA system.


I agree and not arguing against it.
Even stated that it is all good.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> but there is only one WING CHUN LoL


This WC is quite different. This is the kind of training that I like. You only see the body move and you don't see the arm move. That's called "身法 (Shen Fa) - body method".

I do believe that the "身法 (Shen Fa) - body method" should be taught on day one.






Here is another his clip.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Danny T said: ↑
> "there is only one Wing Chun that simple!"


Nope, I did not say that. That quote came from Twisted Fighter in post #18 of this thread.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 26, 2017)

Danny T said:


> Nope, I did not say that. That quote came from Twisted Fighter in post #18 of this thread.


Sorry! It's fixed.


----------



## OzPaul (Sep 26, 2017)

geezer said:


> The weight-shift (and corresponding centerline shift) is familiar to me, but is turning on the _heels_ the standard method in Leung Sheung WC? Somehow I thought maybe they also turned on the center of the foot as some other Yip Man branches do.



I can't speak for all Leung Sheung Wing Chun but turning on the heels is the way it was taught by Master Ng Wah Sum.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 26, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This WC is quite different. This is the kind of training that I like. You only see the body move and you don't see the arm move. That's called "身法 (Shen Fa) - body method".
> 
> I do believe that the "身法 (Shen Fa) - body method" should be taught on day one.
> 
> ...




You guys don't get it then!

There is still only "ONE WING CHUN" (116 WING TSUN)  and whats happened over time especially the last say 20 years is that people have added crap to it, thats what I have said all along.

I mean what the heck is that guy doing its some form of Wushu, look fella's I just piss my self laughing at all the mess that people make its just crap and its ruined a base form.

Wing Chun is Wing Chun in the original 116 techniques the drills/sets etc are all essentially phases of learning the actual style is a simple form due to emphasis on the motion of economy, its really that simple believe it or not, but I personally don't care what others think although I find it annoying how stupid things have become.

If you developed a new system derived from Wing Chun then call it something else, is really the point because its not Wing Chun then if you are adding new content or movements etc

I'm going to stop here because I know where this is going and I really don't care to argue over the roots, I know the truth for myself others can spend their entire life and never sort out anything because they want to believe in the mess we have now.

I also have read that this has been discussed before in this Forum and its also been fought over to death in other places online.

I simply see it all as a joke as its become and with YouTube and the internet certain Martial Arts are just going to keep breeding hybrids, people want to give themselves an image and also make claims that their system has evolved .........hahaha........ I piss myself laughing honestly.

In old times you would be privately challenged on this and told to stop, but we live in the modern world now the "INTERNET+ YOUTUBE" mayhem.

However what I can respect is yes learn new system styles and incorporate that as part of your circle of training systems or tools from other martial arts.

Like for example calling your self say  .............."Combined Progressive Martial Arts Club".

That has under its umbrella of styles that are taught being :-

Wushu
Chin-na
Tai Chi Quan
Kung-Fu San Soo
Filiopino Arts
BBJ
Tae Kwoon Do
Jeet Kune Do

and Wing Chun

But for petes sake leave each system intact stop messing with its core principles just confusing everyone, also thats stealing and its not burrowing which I would accept as someone who takes joy in all styles and tools to learn and acquire widening their knowledge and experience in the martial arts.

Anyway thats my stance and surely the MA world will have its own but there is always a beginning a root an idea or concept start and Wing Chun started when 108 separate wooden dummies from the Shaolin Temple were combined into one by the Nun Ng Mui to make training more efficient and effective. The Wing Chun wooden dummy uses three arms and a leg configuration designed to cultivate fighting skill and chi simultaneously which allowed 116 moves to be developed as a complete system and taught ever since.

*Links:- *

Mu ren zhuang - Wikipedia

108 (number) - Wikipedia
https://www.amazon.com/108-Movements-Shaolin-Wooden-Men-Hall/dp/9627284149
https://www.amazon.com/Wing-Dummy-Techniques-Demonstrated-Grandmaster/dp/9627284033

As to whether their was a disagreement and a break in the ranks or simply a new finding or development that led to either a fire or burning of the Shaolin final chamber of 108 wooden men, we won't know but thats the birth of Wing Chun system and the Wooden Dummy 116 techniques as we know now.

Thats fact or the root, that simple, there is no magic or complicated tree of various systems of Wing Chun.

But carry on..............the darn internet and YouTube and social media with its conjecture, assumptions and interpretations who can stop.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 27, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> To clarify the origin of Chow's Wing Chun, he learned from Ng Wah Sum. The system and forms he teaches are his own because he integrates other methods into his training, that's why it's called Integrative Wing Chun.



I understand that and thats part of the confusion with all these Wing Chun places of teaching now, however he does give credit and some historical background on his webpage honoring the roots of Wing Chun - What is Wing Chun? | Sifu Chow's Integrative Wing Chun

Although in my opinion the problem is still.............  




That should not say Wing Chun but maybe Sifu Chows Integrative Martial Arts incorporating:-


Wing Chun
Jeet Kune Do
BBJ
Filipino Arts

Boxing
Silat
etc

Because of what he says here................



			
				Sifu Chung Kwok Chow said:
			
		

> * INTEGRATIVE WING CHUN GOES TO 360 ALL RANGE*
> 
> What is the definition of a Complete Fighter? Someone who can defeat an opponent in all ranges of combat (distance, close range, takedowns, ground grappling). What is "sticky hands"? A close-range hand and arm training used in Wing Chun Kung Fu. What does "sticky body" mean? A natural companion to and more penetrating approach of sticky hands, in which the entire body is involved in fighting. What can offer this transitional type of fighting? Sifu Chow's Integrative Wing Chun System. Practitioners of Wing Chun are familiar with single and double sticky-hands (chi-sao). These drills allow the student to develop sensitivity and timing through feeling an opponent's commitment. Sifu Chung Chow cautions his students to be conscious of whether or not they feel commitment (or energy) on their wrist or elbow. If an opponent grabs his wrist, the student brings up the elbow into a Bong-Sao (Wing Block). Conversely, energy applied to the elbow should cause the student to immediately drop the elbow into a Tan-Sao (Upper Side Block). The main concept to remember is to "be like water" as Bruce Lee often told his students, and to flow with the energy.
> 
> ...




He mentions Bruce Lee and if you know about Jeet Kune do its a philosophy combining many arts as a way of fighting in a scientific and practical way.

Do you guys see what I mean the dilemma the confusion the problems.

Look he obviously has good intentions no doubt as I don't know the man but the many arguments online as to what is Wing Chun and what style and what Sifu made a better system and all other disputes online is because people keep using the Wing Chun title in their new found art expressing something different, is the problem.

Its just bad and at least Bruce Lee decided to make his own name "JEET-KUNE-DO" ( The way of the intercepting fist)  where Wing chun is its base form whilst adding other tools from other fighting methods/styles etc.

The problem is these hybrids using the same name thats where most people get confused and adds fuel to the fire. I really don't care I'm 45 and out LoL but is more of keeping systems intact true and historically correct to its roots and foundations, that is concerning and really the point I'm making.

C'mon what else can really be said here.....................


----------



## KPM (Sep 27, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> You guys don't get it then!
> 
> There is still only "ONE WING CHUN" (116 WING TSUN)  and whats happened over time especially the last say 20 years is that people have added crap to it, thats what I have said all along.



Oh!  So you are taking the "original Wing Chun" approach!  Ok.  So just what is "original Wing Chun"?  Wing Chun has changed somewhat with nearly every generation that has taught it.  So, was Leung Jun "original Wing Chun"?   We really don't even know what Leung Jan's system was like.   What he taught to the Ku Lo Villagers in his retirement is quite a bit different than today's Ip Man Wing Chun. 

My guess is that you are using Ip Man Wing Chun as your yardstick.   But even Ip Man had more than one teacher and changed things around throughout his teaching career. 

There is no such thing as "original Wing Chun" still around today.  People being what they are, things change and evolve (hopefully for he better but not always!) over generations.   No one has a time machine to go back to the Red Boat era to find "original Wing Chun." 

My guess....and my personal opinion....is that Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun or Yui Choi Wing Chun is likely the closest to what was being taught in Leung Jan's generation, simply because they seem to have been "tinkered with" the least.

And dude....you really do need to do some real historical research!      Where are you getting this baloney  about Shaolin wooden dummy hall?      And just one check on your fantasy....no two Wing Chun lineages teach the  same dummy form!


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 27, 2017)

Hey we go on the crazy Wing Chun super fun park ride.............







LoL

Here is a great example some guy stands out in the open gives credit to Ip Man and openly unveils a new Wing Chun system to the world, I just fall back into my chair and laugh my head off.......... but you get these Ip Man wannabe popping out like weeds.............

*YouTube title given ........... "Wing Chun Siu Lim Tau - New Style小念頭"*

Hence the the comment --  New Style LoL for crying out loud!








See and I quote..... "my new style from my old style I change a little bit"....... my point exactly........ Pfft LoL

Give me a break please, leave it alone there is only one Wing Chun, please!

People got nothing better to do so they wake up one morning and say hey I'm going to make it to the top I'll create a new Wing Chun system LoL

Its all a joke a "Circus Freak Show" .............








Leave it alone, please!

There is only one Wing Chun system make your own name and for example something like Modern "Chinese Combat Arts" or whatever you like.

Just stop stealing someones elses spot light and good standing on the original system!

Ip Man would be ripping his clothes off now and challenging everyone to a fight like just like this..............






To many copy cats wannabes its a circus show it really is and its been happening for at least 10 good years time to stop this and preserve the the original Wing Tsun 116 techniques derived from the Shaolin Monks before they get lost into the mire of confusion with rhetoric of some farmers  and what not and with YouTubes popping up like weeds LoL

Just Google how many Wing Chun family tree types there is from the root of Shaolin to Ip Man and so on ..............so much fake stuff created..............its incredible people are just making money out of what once was a good thing now a joke........... 

So with me you or anyone else around just aint' going to win this one!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 27, 2017)

(Note: I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I may be repeating what others have said.)

Something I noticed in this that I haven't noticed in looking at other WC forms (not saying it's not there - you guys know about how much I know of WC) - his shift with a punch takes his head off-line from an incoming straight attack. It was most obvious (to me) at about 5:00. Is this shifting to slip off-line common?


----------



## geezer (Sep 27, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> (Note: I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so I may be repeating what others have said.)
> 
> Something I noticed in this that I haven't noticed in looking at other WC forms (not saying it's not there - you guys know about how much I know of WC) - *his shift with a punch takes his head off-line* from an incoming straight attack. It was most obvious (to me)* at about 5:00*. Is this shifting to slip off-line common?



Are you talking about the video of the guy in the black tank-top in the previous post???

I didn't see any lateral stance shifting at around 5:00. At that point he was bending forward at the waist and then straightening up again ( a movement seen in the  Biu Tze set in the Yip Man lineage).


----------



## Danny T (Sep 27, 2017)

Transferring the center of gravity over one foot and shifting is developed early in our footwork training. And yes it moves the whole body off line and to a different angle to counter attack or to enter. Others may do things differently.


----------



## geezer (Sep 27, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Hey we go on the crazy Wing Chun super fun park ride.............



I don't know where you are coming from with all this. First of all, your knowledge of Wing Chun history is totally inaccurate and seems to be very influenced by the fantasy versions of Wing Chun's origins as seen in old kung fu movies and some of the oral traditions erroneously taught as fact in some WC clubs.

I mean, do you really,_ literally_ believe _wu-xia_ stories like the tale of the Shaolin Hall of 108 Wooden Men? ...or Ng Mui teaching Yim Wing Tsun to defeat a local bully who was trying to force her to marry him? Do you also believe that George Washington chopped down his father's cherry tree and threw a silver dollar across the Potomac? How about stories about Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill?

Dude, _you_ seem to be the one who needs to get off Youtube and do some legitimate research. I, for one, studied Wing Chun/ Wing Tsun/ Ving Tsun with legitimate sifus starting back in the 70s when there was_ no internet._ I did _bai si _and became a disciple of one of Yip Man's direct students back in the early 80s, so with over forty years in Kung Fu, and most of it in WC, I've been around the block, so to speak. And there are a number of people posting here who are _way_ senior to me.

You apparently have studied _some_ Wing Chun. Well, there's an old Chinese saying, _"The bottle that's half-full makes the most noise when shaken!"_ Let me spell that out for you. Bottles that are either empty or very full don't slosh and make noise. Similarly a martial-arts _noob_ and a _master_ both tend to keep quiet, while those with a little knowledge are often overly proud and full of themselves. Another way of putting it: _A little knowledge is a dangerous thing._

...So, here's a bit of friendly advice.  Get off your high horse, show a little humility (like in your avatar/picture), and try emptying your cup. You might actually learn something.


----------



## KPM (Sep 27, 2017)

^^^^^ Yes.  It seems he is very good at posting pictures and videos but not so good at actually listening to what other people are saying.


----------



## geezer (Sep 27, 2017)

geezer said:


> Are you talking about the video of the guy in the black tank-top in the previous post???.



Oh!  Now I get it. You mean in the _original_ video. Yeah, we don't turn exactly like that, but we _do_ shift our weight, and consequently, our centerline. Like what Danny T. said.


----------



## geezer (Sep 27, 2017)




----------



## geezer (Sep 27, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^^ Yes.  It seems he is very good at posting pictures and videos but not so good at actually listening to what other people are saying.



Noisy bottle!!!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 27, 2017)

geezer said:


> Are you talking about the video of the guy in the black tank-top in the previous post???
> 
> I didn't see any lateral stance shifting at around 5:00. At that point he was bending forward at the waist and then straightening up again ( a movement seen in the  Biu Tze set in the Yip Man lineage).


I should have been clear - I was referring to the OP video.


----------



## Danny T (Sep 27, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> You guys don't get it then!
> 
> There is still only "ONE WING CHUN" (116 WING TSUN)
> 
> Wing Chun is Wing Chun in the original 116 techniques


Really???
So Wing Chun has had no evolution?
When was the dummy incorporated into original wing chun?
When was the Pole incorporated into original wing chun?
When were the knives incorporated into original wing chun?
No additions to training methods, no evolution, no changes from one person down to another?

More in-depth research and study on your part is needed.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 27, 2017)

geezer said:


> I don't know where you are coming from with all this. First of all, your knowledge of Wing Chun history is totally inaccurate and seems to be very influenced by the fantasy versions of Wing Chun's origins as seen in old kung fu movies and some of the oral traditions erroneously taught as fact in some WC clubs.
> 
> I mean, do you really,_ literally_ believe _wu-xia_ stories like the tale of the Shaolin Hall of 108 Wooden Men? ...or Ng Mui teaching Yim Wing Tsun to defeat a local bully who was trying to force her to marry him? Do you also believe that George Washington chopped down his father's cherry tree and threw a silver dollar across the Potomac? How about stories about Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill?
> 
> ...




Pfft,  say's the guy that quotes me his martial arts resume LoL get over yourself m8 that doesn't impress me at all, but this is the internet LoL and thats the point you missed entirely as a focal point of my constructive feedback on the first post being the thread discussion

I know quite allot about Wing Chun and the Mook Jong Wooden Dummy in practice and theory but I wasn't born in the 15-16-17 century neither were you LoL

Its you who has not taken the time to listen nor have understood the thread in content and context because you are choosing to quack like a duck that is not really a duck defending its own, only just following the crowd.

Also you are coming from an American western point of view in the modern era, I might add meaning your are not Chinese with direct roots or knowledge that could shed some light on this subject but just studied whatever was given or handed down to you as we all have unless you make your own studies and pursue things further.

So its you who is still a noob in real matters of the Shoalin, Kung Fu and Wing Chun roots and history or even its teachings or linage that is very difficult to follow without some common sense and seeking the correct information.

So don't even raise your voice at me M8 when your ready to give proper input on the discussion as to the validity of the system as to whether or not there is such a thing or not of shifting feet then quote my post if you like for constructive feedback but this childish nonsense of calling me out, m8 grow a brain first and just post good discussion  just talk to me m8 without the crap you posted, do you understand now.

However to emphasize do not insert provocation online when you would not do it person would be my best bet choosing to be personal calling someone derogatory and ridiculing names that I have not made to any on this Forum as a personal attack on character, the discussion is and I copy paste in bold..............

*"A quite different 1st form!"*

............... for you to respect with your input anytime you want m8

Because that what I'm addressing first as a concept stating that there is only one Wing chun and not what we see now with people popping up like weeds claiming they have something new as a Wing Chun practice also there is no clear documentation but certain views by Ip Man and others put forward as factual information provided.

Its a mess to follow but some common sense and articles that I have and read adding them up make some sense to many that I have trained with.

However if you study the start of the root you will find some clear answers that links the concept also tracking the linage and sifu's etc. thats not easy but do it..........


Here are some  good Links:-


Ng Mui - Wikipedia
Wing Chun History and Family Tree
The History of Wing Chun


I did my homework many years ago with printed material by my teachers and fellow Chinese students answering some questions.

Also what did you not understand when I said and I quote ......"I'm going to stop here because I know where this is going and I really don't care to argue over the roots" post #31

Obviously its you who has trouble listening and in your words - _"The bottle that's half-full makes the most noise when shaken!"_

You made the noise by making things personal how silly are you now for doing so, comes off a little arrogant and foolishly aggressive for no reason at all, sadly on your part!

The point to my feedback is that there are many people distorting the actual style these days with changes in forms and methods that are confusing when people title it Wing Chun hence again............. *"A quite different 1st form!"* .................  its the very reason that has led to much argument and debate online that is what I'm addressing not its roots is that clear now, because thats another issue and debate as I mentioned earlier.

M8 its very simple you believe what you want so will I but the point was to preserve the original form of Wing Chun by Ip Man for future students as a discussion I joined, I'm 45 and out so to speak.

The important points of my input or replies are to keep the Wing Chun system intact or true so that other arts like Jeet Kune Do will also have that supporting backbone for future students studying these arts. I have good intentions for what I was posting but the internet and people like yourself make things difficult for others to even speak. I also answered a post with some humor to break the tension and still keep to the core of my argument (feedback or point of view) being that many try to modify a simple form that was or is the very intent and concept being a concise concept based on the economy of motion in close quarter combat that does combine shifting feet in application protecting the center-line and you say you study this so why aren't you commenting and ensuring the system stays true to its original form and concept.

Your unwillingness creates doubt that your understanding of Wing Chun is even solid enough to convey a good discussion so I will see what happens next LoL

Please enlighten us all with your pearls of wisdom???

Aggh, I'm not bothered and its no skin off my nose this is the internet ............... so whatever carry on............
_
_


----------



## Danny T (Sep 27, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Pfft,  say's the guy that quotes me his martial arts resume LoL get over yourself m8 that doesn't impress me at all, but this is the internet LoL and thats the point you missed entirely as a focal point of my constructive feedback on the first post being the thread discussion
> 
> I know quite allot about Wing Chun and the Mook Jong Wooden Dummy in practice and theory but I wasn't born in the 15-16-17 century neither were you LoL
> 
> ...


Oh...so now it is the "original form of Wing Chun by Ip Man"; of which he made several changes...which of course is fine because after all, it is Ip Man who made the changes. But if someone else makes a change  Oh, no, no, no!! That is wrong!! 
What about Ip Man's brothers who also made changes? Or Ip Man's different instructors who also made changes?


----------



## geezer (Sep 27, 2017)




----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 27, 2017)

Mr Geezer the Mentor LoL

Exactly, just like I thought you would reply and act like a two year old!

So next time be quiet or really provide good feedback!

Please work on your humor because that was sad.

So you choose what best direction helps the community at large?


----------



## KPM (Sep 27, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Pfft,  say's the guy that quotes me his martial arts resume LoL get over yourself m8 that doesn't impress me at all, but this is the internet LoL and thats the point you missed entirely as a focal point of my constructive feedback on the first post being the thread discussion



Wacko alert!  Wacko alert!     And just what the heck does "M8" mean?


----------



## geezer (Sep 27, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Mr Geezer ..Exactly, just like I thought you would reply and act *like a two year old!*



Yes, I try to nurture my _inner child!_ 

Now back to what you were saying about there being _only one Wing Chun_. I actually _do_ see strong connections between most of the different lineages, _unlike_ one forum member (who hasn't posted much lately)._ He_ held that only the particular branch that he studied was an effective system, even among other closely related Yip Man lineage groups. Several times he went so far as to state that _the Ving Tsun he studied should be considered an altogether different style_ from other Wing/Chun/Ving Tsun groups.

You, on the other hand, are at the extreme opposite end of the spectrum, insisting that _all Wing Chun is essentially the same system_, even when different groups claim different lineages, have different forms, or no forms at all and instead stress san sik, and often have very different, even contradictory conceptual bases.

Now these different branches are nothing new. They did not sprout up in the last 20 years.They can be traced well back into the 19th Century. And, FYI, you should know that regardless of the internet sources you sited, there really isn't much reliable historical evidence that Wing Chun even existed as a distinct and recognizable system before the era of Leung Jan. It _may_ go back a ways further, but the records from before that time are unreliable. Your faith in the literal truth of the old stories of the Five Elders of Southern Shaolin, of Ng Mui and Yim Wing Chun, and so forth ...is just that.. I.e."faith". It isn't history.

BTW @ KPM: I can only assume that M8 = "mate". So this guy must be down in OZ, and if like you suggest, he is a "wacko", at least I'm relatively safe here on the other side of the globe! LOL.


----------



## KPM (Sep 28, 2017)

Ok Twistyfighter.  Now that you've gone through and disliked everyone's posts, how about engaging in an actual discussion?  Drop the silly memes, drop the repeatitive declarative statements, etc.  and simply answer some of the questions and points that have been put to you so far. 

So how do you define this "original" or "one" Wing Chun that you keep referring to?  Whose system do you see as an example of that?

How do you support saying that there is only "one" Wing Chun when there exists a Wing Chun system that is Ku Lo Pin Sun and is organized around 18 short sets and does not use the typical SNT/CK/BG form format?  Or when there exists Wing Chun systems that are as technically different as Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun is from Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun?  Or when it is well-established that Ip Man himself had different teachers, changed his own Wing Chun somewhat, and taught it differently in various stages of his career?   Maybe we are all missing your true meaning or intent and you can elaborate on it a bit?

You seem to have said that Wing Chun is based upon the 116 dummy?  How do you see that working given that every Wing Chun branch seems to have a different dummy form?  Ip Man's dummy is not the same as Yuen Kay Shan's or Yiu Choi's.   Ku Lo Pin Sun doesn't even have a dummy "form", but practices all of the sets individually on the dummy and then links them together at will "freestyle."   If the base is the dummy, yet everyone has a different dummy form, then how can all be "one"?

Your version of the legendary origins of Wing Chun is different than most others.  I don't recall hearing anyone in the past say that a person combined all of the dummy techniques from the Shaolin hall into one 116 move form and that this was the first example of Wing Chun.   Most of the legends talk about someone combining movements from each of the  standard Shaolin 5 animal forms, or innovating from knowledge of the Shaolin system after watching a fight between a snake and a crane (some say a fox and a crane).  Who did you learn this version of the legend from?   What are your sources for what you are calling the "history" of Wing Chun?

You said something about how we all just needed to study the root from the Shaolin monks, then how Wing Chun is based on the 116 dummy form from the Shaolin Wooden man hall.  This sort of implies that you think this original dummy form is still around?  True or not?

Thanks!


----------



## Danny T (Sep 28, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> LoL
> Exactly, just like I thought you would reply and act like a two year old!
> So next time be quiet or really provide good feedback!
> So you choose what best direction helps the community at large?


Now this is comical.
You tell gezzer he is acting as a two year old as you go about disliking any discussion that disagrees with you while also not providing any substantial reasoning for your thoughts on 'original wing chun'. Only that Ip Man's wc is the original even when it is known that he as well as instructors before him modified, added, & changed things within the system and their teachings. Would not that mean that even Ip Man's wc is not original?


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 28, 2017)

@KPM - You and others already stated you don’t share my opinion so why continue to ask what is mine?

Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.

Its to much to cover in a thread and you won’t respect it or accept either so why would I bother.

You will only reduce this conversation to personal ridiculing mocking commentary lacking in decorum and behavior.

However last chance I will take and all I will give you are some clues to put you on the correct path or at least have some info to have an opinion if you are keen to follow it through.

But let me be clear you believe what you want and I will believe what I want from the historical accounts, okay! 


Here you go…………

First - Occam's razor – "The simplest explanation must be the right one"!






More info here:- https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

The unfortnate event of misunderstanding and disagreements over time do happen hence Chinese Whispers:- a game in which a message is distorted by being passed around in a whisper. –











Communication break down can cause people to think one thing when it really is another hence all the drama in the Wing Chun history.

Also wars or other powers in that era had an effect on the Chinese culture in that time period might want to look into Sun Tze philosophies of deceit and tactical advantage - http://www.puppetpress.com/classics/ArtofWarbySunTzu.pdf

More info here:-


Chinese whispers - Wikipedia
Roots of Wing Chun -                                 
International Wing Chun Organization

Confucius:-  Confucius - Wikipedia

Shaolin:- Shaolin - Wikipedia






Links:-


Ving Tsun Athletic Association
Family Tree
The Chinese LoHan of Kung Fu - KaiMen
Return of Wing Chun to Shaolin Temple Grandmaster William Cheung's Global Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu Association

Watch this...........







Again my view is there is only one Wing Chun system based on the theory and principles being a simple form and not complicated, we only have 2 arms 2 legs so to speak hence the 116 techniques in Wing Chun are the base form tried and tested on the frame work of economy of motion hand trapping techniques closing the gap demonstrated on the Mook Jong (Wooden Dummy that traces back to Shaolin versions of Wooden men types as training equipment.)

Link:-  116 Wing Chun Dummy Techniques

The internet has given birth to confusion and much debate over political correctness and simply said nonsense.

Again you can disagree with my view but my view is also the view of many others hence why I base my opinion on links as some form or factual findings being the most common of all beliefs.

Lets not make this a problem its not a religion but just to establish some root going back centuries as a form of acknowledgment to end the online madness.

You are entitled to your view but then you can't complain when there is more mess created over time and needing explanations and fixing some are trying to correct the path and have done all they can as you can see by peoples research and historical writings in those links and going back the Shaolin origins so on.

Cheers


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> @KPM - You and others already stated you don’t share my opinion so why continue to ask what is mine?
> 
> Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.
> 
> ...


Asking for clarification and evidence of another's position is how discussions work. If you just want to give your opinion and never have it questioned, start a blog (and turn off comments). Forums are for discussion. Discussion frequently includes disagreement, questioning, and challenges. That's how we all learn.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 28, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Asking for clarification and evidence of another's position is how discussions work. If you just want to give your opinion and never have it questioned, start a blog (and turn off comments). Forums are for discussion. Discussion frequently includes disagreement, questioning, and challenges. That's how we all learn.




Discuss this over a PM if you like I wont drag this thread out with off topic conversation only attracting negative feedback if thats okay!

Also people can discuss this thread in private with me also if anyone likes!

Cheers


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 28, 2017)

FighterTwister said:


> Discuss this over a PM if you like I wont drag this thread out with off topic conversation only attracting negative feedback if thats okay!
> 
> Also people can discuss this thread in private with me also if anyone likes!
> 
> Cheers


Nope. Not sure there's much to discuss.


----------



## KPM (Sep 28, 2017)

*You and others already stated you don’t share my opinion so why continue to ask what is mine?*

---Yeah we know your opinion.  We have just been asking for you to elaborate on it and support it.  That's what a discussion is!

*Discussing this any further is pointless already most of you guys have made up your mind.*

---I'm always open to new ideas....as long as there is some evidence to back them up.  You have refused to discuss or detail any evidence or even the "why" of what you believe.

*Its to much to cover in a thread and you won’t respect it or accept either so why would I bother.*

---Why it is too much to cover?  The answers to the questions I asked of you in my prior post wouldn't be too much to write.  After all you just made this long post and hunted up all kinds of links to add to it.  You could have used that time to actually enter into a discussion by addressing the questions I asked.


*You will only reduce this conversation to personal ridiculing mocking commentary lacking in decorum and behavior.*

---And you invite that by your evasive behavior, dismissiveness of what other people have  said, and unwillingness to actually discuss and answer questions.  And I do believe you turned around and used just as much personal ridiculing and mocking directed at Geezer!


*However last chance I will take and all I will give you are some clues to put you on the correct path or at least have some info to have an opinion if you are keen to follow it through.*

----Rather than playing the "chinese master" trying to "put me on the path", how about just simply answering the questions I asked in a direct fashion?  That is what a discussion forum is for, after all!  Do you know how to conduct a simple discussion on a topic without resorting to all kinds of memes and youtube videos and links?

*But let me be clear you believe what you want and I will believe what I want from the historical accounts, okay! *

---You haven't provided any historical accounts.


*First - Occam's razor – "The simplest explanation must be the right one"!*

---I know what Occam's Razor is, no need for youtube videos!  The simplest explanation is usually the best explanation.  There is no documentation from the time of the Shaolin temple that links Wing Chun to the temple.  That is all just legendary stories.   There is documentation of Leung Jan's era.  In fact, Leung Jan's generation is the only one that has been shown to be real people.  And the spoke of Wing Chun on the Red Boats.  So the simplest explanation is that Wing Chun likely developed on the Red Boats and was refined by Leung Jan's generation.   Occam's Razor.  



*The unfortnate event of misunderstanding and disagreements over time do happen hence Chinese Whispers:- a game in which a message is distorted by being passed around in a whisper. –*

----If you spent as much time actually engaging in discussion as you did hunting for and posting links, we might be making better progress here!  


*Communication break down can cause people to think one thing when it really is another hence all the drama in the Wing Chun history.*

----And you really think there would be no "communication breakdown" by taking this attitude of "putting people on the path" rather than just answering questions and engaging in discussion in a straight-forward way?   So who is the owner of the original "communication" that has the Wing Chun wisdom before is was broken down by all these "chinese whispers" over time?


Roots of Wing Chun -  


That link gives a pretty standard history.  Nothing there about Wing Chun being the distillation of the moves from the wooden dummy halll, or the system originally being 116 dummy moves.
 
International Wing Chun Organization
----So is that your answer to one of my questions?  Chow Tze Tsun is your source of "original Wing Chun"?




Return of Wing Chun to Shaolin Temple Grandmaster William Cheung's Global Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu Association
----Just because William Cheung bought into the myth of Shaolin origins for Wing Chun doesn't make it true.








---Did you watch it?  Sifu Kwok actually says that in Ng Mui's day nothing was written down and that this is legend.  He also says nothing about the Shaolin Wooden man hall being the origin of Wing Chun.   I didn't see that in any of your many links.  Where is that idea coming from?



*The internet has given birth to confusion and much debate over political correctness and simply said nonsense.*

---No, people putting crap on the internet as if it was the gospel truth with nothing backing it up is what creates confusion.  

*Again you can disagree with my view but my view is also the view of many others *

----Who exactly?  What "many others"?   Like I said before, you are the only one I have seen that says Wing Chun derived from the combination of moves from the Shaolin wooden man hall.  None of your links said that.  So just who says this besides you?


----Let me suggest that you spend some time reading through this site:

Kung Fu Tea

Ben Judkins is an actual historian.


----------



## Marnetmar (Sep 29, 2017)

It's pretty obvious to me that FT is mentally ill. Don't engage him.


----------



## FighterTwister (Sep 29, 2017)

Marnetmar said:


> It's pretty obvious to me that FT is mentally ill. Don't engage him.



Is that all you can come up with at least share your opinion and leave it at that, but keep respect to all other members and don't abuse your posting privileges on this Forum can't be any clearer!

Or do you go around calling people ill because you cant settle a matter, how empty of thought or any sense of being able to communicate are you.

I have said all along its messy to understand or unraval and have given my opinion and with supporting links being the most common view but with some common sense you can at least appreciate what is possibly a solution to the story. But you and others are just baiting an argument and "Stoking the fire" and  so to speak and a Forum Moderator should just lock this thread and give you and a few others a private warning.






KPM said:


> *You and others already stated you don’t share my opinion so why continue to ask what is mine?*
> 
> ---Yeah we know your opinion.  We have just been asking for you to elaborate on it and support it.  That's what a discussion is!
> 
> ...





I have read all and understand all the info found online and the link to Kung Fu Tea you linked great stuff, but sadly you have missed my point of view entirely and its why talking on Forums makes things difficult and cumbersome.

My only absolute last answer is study the "Chinese Culture" in that era then the roots and the issues of that time period and at least settle the matter for yourself thats what I did, why is this so hard for you or anyone to understand., we will never know 100%.

Here is something that might help I don't know but again its all about choice how you chose to settle the matter or understand it...............

*"Wing Chun is a traditional Chinese martial arts form which originates from South China(Guang Zhou & Fu Jian Province ). There is an interesting story about how and why Wing Chun has created. During the Qing dynasty, In order to revolt against the tyrannies of Qing Dynasty government’s reign, the southern shaolin temple had a fight with the government. The government destroyed the southern shaolin temple. The monks left the temple and became homeless. One of the five greatest martial arts artists that escaped was a girl named WuMei. She fled to the mountains. One day when she was out searching for food she saw a snake and a crane fighting. She studied their moves and tactics with intense focus, and with her knowledge of Shaolin Kung fu then created Wing Chun."*
*
*Online Reference:- Wing Chun training in China | Dragon Mountain Kung Fu School*



So again, all the information and my stance on the subject are in those links given over a few posts now thats my historical accounts you ask as those links have provided or noted  as doing all possible research and if your browse through each link and read the entire Webpage of each link there is great material and info to base an opinion on, you seem to keep insisting I have to prove myself on what exactly, that I have a time machine and went back in time to discover the secrets LoL do you no know the meaning of an opinion or stance on a subject to resolve the matter at least for oneself.

My opinion on the matter is sorted, and I have come to a final belief many years ago as stated earlier that there is only one Wing Chun form of 116 techniques ever taught rooted from the Shaolin monks and the rest is crap just changes added and people passing on the style and variances of the original. I also say this because of the current dilemma we have now being a circus show of who has a better form and who's origins are more accurate than the other, just online madness that has done more harm than good hence all my previous posts in thread.

*Again its pointless to keep talking believe what you want so will I and on that note why don't you guys explain to the community what your opinions and beliefs are? mm*

Using facts or documented views either legends or historical research none here has given any substantial discussion as to what or how they see this matter to be.

By now you know what mine is trying to filter me through a swifter ain't going to cut it since we really are basing the origins on a messy historical view with so much conjecture and misinterpretations so on.

Where now everyone in the world claims a story or an origin but only one is more common that the others and its more about culture than origins thats key in this discussion some are missing altogether and thats what i have had to learn more than just Wing Chun to have a view of my own.

In the end I am entitled to have an opinion a belief based on facts, historical records and legends and so are you/ others, enough said!

Can we end this now and move on I wonder!


----------



## Grenadier (Sep 29, 2017)

*Admin's Note:*

Keep it civil, and on-topic, y'all.  Further occasions of such behavior will result in warning points being issued.


----------



## VPT (Sep 29, 2017)

The Spanish Inquisition no one expected: The Southern Shaolin Temple never existed. The only genuine Shaolin Temple close to Dengfeng, Henan Province, has never taught any Five Animals.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2017)

The 1st form in your MA system is like the 1st chapter of your 1st grade elementary school book.

"Come, come, come, come to school. Go, go, go, go to study. Let's all study our new books together. In my new book, there is a national flag. Flag, flag, I love you, I respect you." (Donald Trump will like this.)

Now you have graduated from high school, or college. Will you still read your 1st grade book the same way as you did when you were 5 years old?

Of course today that you train your 1st form is different from the day that you trained your 1st form many years ago. Today, you are no longer a beginner.

You just don't talk like "Goo Goo Ga Ga" when you are 80 years old.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The 1st form in your MA system is like the 1st chapter of your 1st grade elementary school book.
> 
> "Come, come, come, come to school. Go, go, go, go to study. Let's all study our new books together. In my new book, there is a national flag. Flag, flag, I love you, I respect you." (Donald Trump will like this.)
> 
> ...


I like this. One of the challenges in teaching is not to try to teach the first form (or whatever its equivalent is in each system) the way you currently understand it, but the way the students can.


----------



## KPM (Sep 29, 2017)

*I have said all along its messy to understand or unraval and have given my opinion and with supporting links being the most common view but with some common sense you can at least appreciate what is possibly a solution to the story.*

----You've posted an awful lot of pointless links and memes.  Maybe there was something good in there.  But it kind of got lost in the "noise."  Again, it would be much better if you simply responded to questions and points made and actually attempted to "discuss."

*But you and others are just baiting an argument and "Stoking the fire" and  so to speak and a Forum Moderator should just lock this thread and give you and a few others a private warning.*

---No one is "baiting" anything.  We are simply trying to get you to engage in an actual discussion rather than just stating your opinion as if it was known fact.


*I have read all and understand all the info found online and the link to Kung Fu Tea you linked great stuff, but sadly you have missed my point of view entirely and its why talking on Forums makes things difficult and cumbersome.*

----And we have been asking you to elaborate on your point and support it better.  If we've "missed it", its because you failed to "make it" so far!   So far we have that you think there is just "one" Wing Chun...an "original" Wing Chun and that the differences between different systems and lineages of Wing Chun are insignificant.  We also have that you think this "original" Wing Chun was derived from the "116 dummy form" that was developed from the dummy techniques used in the "Shaolin Wooden Man hall."  Is that accurate?  I've asked this question before and you have avoided answering it.  So don't blame me if I have "missed your point"!  


*My only absolute last answer is study the "Chinese Culture" in that era then the roots and the issues of that time period and at least settle the matter for yourself thats what I did, why is this so hard for you or anyone to understand., we will never know 100%.*

---If that's what you truly did, then you will have discovered that it was very common not so long ago to have "martial stories" that circulated around.  They were often "mixed and matched."  These  were legends that talked about martial heroes and founders of systems.  Just look at the founding legends in Fukien White Crane and you will find that they are very very similar to those of Wing Chun!   LOTS of martial systems have stories and legends that link their origins to the Shaolin temple!  They saw this as giving more credibility to their method, regardless of its true origins!  

*Here is something that might help I don't know but again its all about choice how you chose to settle the matter or understand it.............*..

*"Wing Chun is a traditional Chinese martial arts form which originates from South China(Guang Zhou & Fu Jian Province ). There is an interesting story about how and why Wing Chun has created. During the Qing dynasty, In order to revolt against the tyrannies of Qing Dynasty government’s reign, the southern shaolin temple had a fight with the government. The government destroyed the southern shaolin temple. The monks left the temple and became homeless. One of the five greatest martial arts artists that escaped was a girl named WuMei. She fled to the mountains. One day when she was out searching for food she saw a snake and a crane fighting. She studied their moves and tactics with intense focus, and with her knowledge of Shaolin Kung fu then created Wing Chun."*
*
*Online Reference:- Wing Chun training in China | Dragon Mountain Kung Fu School*

----Yes, this is a very common version of the legend of the founding of Wing Chun.  The problem is, no one has firmly and historically established that their was a Southern Shaolin temple that taught martial arts.   Secondly, the Shaolin temple in the North never admitted female Nuns.  So it would be assumed that a Southern Shaolin temple wouldn't have either.  And how can a mere "girl" have been accepted as "one of the five greatest martial artists"?  Its a cool legend, but nothing more.    And I'll point out again that this legend says nothing about Wing Chun being derived from "116 Wooden dummy form" from the "Shaolin Wooden Man hall."  So I'll ask for a third time.....where is this idea coming from?  What is your source for this?   Why are you avoiding answering this question????



*My opinion on the matter is sorted, and I have come to a final belief many years ago as stated earlier that there is only one Wing Chun form of 116 techniques ever taught rooted from the Shaolin monks and the rest is crap just changes added and people passing on the style and variances of the original. I also say this because of the current dilemma we have now being a circus show of who has a better form and who's origins are more accurate than the other, just online madness that has done more harm than good hence all my previous posts in thread.*

----Ok.  So I will ask another question for at least the second, maybe third time?   Who still has this version of the original "one Wing Chun form of 116 techniques"?  What is your reference point for this in order to say others have made changes and added to this original?

*Again its pointless to keep talking believe what you want so will I and on that note why don't you guys explain to the community what your opinions and beliefs are? mm
*
----We have!  You just weren't paying attention!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Sep 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I like this. One of the challenges in teaching is not to try to teach the first form (or whatever its equivalent is in each system) the way you currently understand it, but the way the students can.


To teach new students and to train yourself are different things. You may teach new students how to say, "Goo Goo Ga Ga." You don't say "Goo Goo Ga Ga" when you are alone at home by yourself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 29, 2017)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> You don't say "Goo Goo Ga Ga" when you are alone at home by yourself.


Not so far as anyone knows, anyway.


----------



## MA_Student (Sep 29, 2017)

KPM said:


> Wacko alert!  Wacko alert!     And just what the heck does "M8" mean?


It's the lazy people's way of writing mate....for some reason people don't seem to write 2 extra letters...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Sep 29, 2017)

MA_Student said:


> It's the lazy people's way of writing mate....for some reason people don't seem to write 2 extra letters...


It always feels like more work to me.


----------



## geezer (Sep 29, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> It always feels like *more work* to me.



Responding to _FighterTwister_ seems like_ too much work_ for me. For example, I could try and explain to him that my old sifu, _Leung Ting_ was the _actual author_ of the original book titled _116 Wooden Dummy Techniques_ in the link _FighterTwister_ provided. LT had Yip Chun sign on as "author" for political reasons during the Wing Chun lineage feuds of the 1980s. In fact, when he first had it printed, LT gave me an autographed copy. I still have it, complete with my marginal notes correcting some deliberate errors LT inserted to keep the "real version"  private for his disciples.

In _that very same book_, that _Fighter Twister_ sited as a "source", Leung Ting explained that the earliest known Wing Chun Dummy forms from the mainland _were significantly longer_ than 116 movements and that for most of his years teaching, Grandmaster Yip Man had trimmed down and simplified the older versions of the form to _the culturally significant number of 108_. Only in his last years (the late 1960s or early 70s) did GM Yip re-introduce a handful of movements previously left out to come up with the 116 movement form. And nobody else in WC outside of those now (or previously) associated with Leung Ting's "WT" branch even uses the number 116.

And as far as there being _only one version_ of Wing Chun, Leung Ting, the very person that wrote the "Yip Chun" 116 movement dummy, also wrote _Roots and Branches of Wing Tsun_ in which he considers various theories of WC's origins and it's divergent lineages. Whether you like LT's conclusions or not, it's clear he doesn't think that there is only one Wing Chun/Tsun!

So in conclusion, I believe that for me to continue in this debate with _Fighter Twister_ would be exhausting and pointless. It would be as bootless as debating the origins of man and the universe with a certain good friend of mine (and a great Wing Chunner) who happens to be a Christian fundamentalist.

He firmly believes that the world was created some six thousand years ago by an anthropomorphic god who also literally created Adam and Eve out of clay with his hands. By contrast, I am an agnostic with degrees in anthropology and art.  For me, the age of the earth, solar system, and universe is  calculated on the scale of billions of years, and the gradual evolution of humans from earlier life-forms is an obvious and indisputable fact.

So, with worldviews so vastly different, certain kinds of debate are simply not productive, and maybe it's best for us to do as _Fighter-Twister_ also suggested ...and just drop the subject.

At least that's how I approach things with my religious fundamentalist friend. And I must say, that as a potter and sculptor, I rather like the story of God fashioning the first man and woman _out of clay!_


----------



## KPM (Sep 29, 2017)

^^^^^ Yes.  As we have certainly discovered here in the past, it is rather pointless to try and have any kind of real discussion with a "true believer"!


----------



## KPM (Oct 1, 2017)

Since this thread wandered off into talking about Wing Chun origins and history, I thought I would add this link to the collection.  I think Zuti made some pretty good points here!

Penglai Martial Arts : True origin of Wing Chun


----------



## KPM (Oct 2, 2017)

And I found a related source that may have been used by Zuti for his conclusions:

Understanding the Red Boats of the Cantonese Opera: Economics, Social Structure and Violence 1850-1950.


----------



## KPM (Oct 2, 2017)

Now, if you want to talk about applying "Occam's Razor", this article provides an excellent example using the actual historical information that is available, rather than legends and lineage stories.

Cantonese Popular Culture and the Creation of Wing Chun’s “Opera Rebels.”


----------



## wckf92 (Oct 2, 2017)

KPM said:


> Since this thread wandered off into talking about Wing Chun origins and history, I thought I would add this link to the collection.  I think Zuti made some pretty good points here!
> 
> Penglai Martial Arts : True origin of Wing Chun



Interesting artile. Thx for posting. 
Is Zuti banned from this forum or the KFO forum? I'd like to ask him a question about part of his article?


----------



## Juany118 (Oct 4, 2017)

KPM said:


> My guess is that it is his own adaptation.  Did you notice that during the opening section he goes out with Wu and back with Fook....opposite of the "traditional" way?  I've been told in the past that this was his own adaptation, so the shifting likely is as well.
> 
> But no big deal.  In Pin Sun Wing Chun the level 1 sets are done stationary first.  Then later shifting is included.  At an even later stage the 2nd hand is added.



You know what I am wondering there?  One of the things drilled into my head, as you withdraw the wu, is that you should still be maintaining forwarding energy.  This change essentially eliminates the need of trying to get the hang/feel for maintenance of forwarding energy while withdrawing because you are moving forward.  It seems to be a K.I.S.S change.


----------



## KPM (Oct 4, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> You know what I am wondering there?  One of the things drilled into my head, as you withdraw the wu, is that you should still be maintaining forwarding energy.  This change essentially eliminates the need of trying to get the hang/feel for maintenance of forwarding energy while withdrawing because you are moving forward.  It seems to be a K.I.S.S change.



I agree.  I've read that this was Sifu Chow's reasoning.  Wu is most often used in a forward direction with forward energy and Fook is most often used with a withdrawing energy leading to a Huen Sau or Jut Sau.  So it does make some sense to do it that way in the form.


----------

