# Leung Jan's system(s)?



## wckf92 (Jul 3, 2018)

Ok, so on the FB WC forum there is an ongoing 'discussion' about who knows what and when etc etc but my questions are this:
1. Is Gulao wing chun the same as Pin Sun wing chun?
2. Is there a difference between the 12 point, 22 point, and 40 point "systems"?
3. Are the 12 and 22 contained within the 40?
4. Or, are each their own individual systems? And if so, are they all "Gulao" or "Pin Sun" or stem from Leung Jan's village / retirement years?

Thanks in advance for any clarifications. 

Oh, and bonus question: do all three systems turn their horse on the front part of the foot vs the rear part?


----------



## KPM (Jul 3, 2018)

1. Is Gulao wing chun the same as Pin Sun wing chun?

---Depends upon who you talk to!  The Boston guys under Henry Mui seem to claim "Pin Sun" as referring to their specific version of the system.  Others consider the "Pin Sun" and "Gulao" labels to be interchangeable.  But the guys in China just seem to say "Gulao Wing Chun" and don't use the "Pin Sun" label very often from what little I have seen.

2. Is there a difference between the 12 point, 22 point, and 40 point "systems"?

---Yes.  The 12 point system is the original.  And most are doing a 12 + 5 version because over the years some valuable additional points were added to Leung Jan's original 12. The 22 point system was developed by someone that changed things around quite a bit.  Some of the core motions are still the same, but some aren't.   The 40 point system is an "elaboration" upon the 12 point system.  Some of the "points" have been broken down into component parts to turn 1 point in 3 points.  It also includes basic motions as a "point."  For instance....just practicing the Bong Sau is one of the "points" in the 40 point system.   But realize that the 22 point system was developed by and is practiced by only 1 guy who still teaches in China and his students including John Fung.  It is a modern version of the system.  The 40 point system, as far as I know, is only practiced by Robert Chu and his students.   However, the 12 point system is the basis for what all the Gulao guys in China are doing...though there seem to be several variations.

3. Are the 12 and 22 contained within the 40?

---No.  Its not like the 22 pt system is the 12 + 10 more, or that the 40 pt system is the 12 + 28 more.


4. Or, are each their own individual systems? And if so, are they all "Gulao" or "Pin Sun" or stem from Leung Jan's village / retirement years?

---They are their own individual systems.   They can all claim a "Gulao root."   But, for instance, it has been said that Robert Chu and his students are doing the 40 pt system with the biomechanics from his CSL method, and not the original biomechanics as done by the guys still in Heshan China.  So can you really call it "Gulao"?  I think that would be open for debate! 

Oh, and bonus question: do all three systems turn their horse on the front part of the foot vs the rear part?

---Yes.  All the "Gulao-related" systems pivot on the K1 point and not on the heels.  This is also true of Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nun Wing Chun.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 3, 2018)

Thanks KPM. Appreciate the info and the input. 



KPM said:


> The Boston guys



Are they the only ones teaching "Gulao" / (Pin Sun) in the US that you know of?



KPM said:


> For instance....just practicing the Bong Sau is one of the "points" in the 40 point system.



Ok, this is super helpful in clarifying so appreciate that! 

So, if I understand correctly, the "12" is what distilled from all his WC knowledge and fighting experience and passed on in a village called Gulao. Correct?
Then, other folks, somewhere along the years broke it out into more "points"...

Is it also accurate to say that each system (the 12, the 22, and the 40) teach via san sik, along with muk yan jong, and pole/knives (just no hand forms?)


----------



## KPM (Jul 3, 2018)

Are they the only ones teaching "Gulao" / (Pin Sun) in the US that you know of?

---Yes.

So, if I understand correctly, the "12" is what distilled from all his WC knowledge and fighting experience and passed on in a village called Gulao. Correct?

---Yes.  The 12 sets are said to be Leung Jan's "condensed" version of Wing Chun.  He is said to have taken his experience in learning, teaching, and fighting with Wing Chun and distilled it down to what he thought was the most essential points and something that could be learned relatively quickly.


Then, other folks, somewhere along the years broke it out into more "points"...

---Yes.  At least 5 additional points were added to LJ's essential 12.   But remember, the 22 pt system and the 40 pt system don't have the basic 12.  They have their own version of San Sik.  Some are very similar, but some aren't.

Is it also accurate to say that each system (the 12, the 22, and the 40) teach via san sik, along with muk yan jong, and pole/knives (just no hand forms?)

---Yes.  Though Leung Jan taught only the 12 sets with dummy applications and a short 3 1/2 point pole form.  The knives were added later.  Some groups created a longer dummy form later.   And some of the Gulao guys will string the sets together for demo purposes so that it looks like one long form.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 3, 2018)

KPM said:


> Are they the only ones teaching "Gulao" / (Pin Sun) in the US that you know of?
> 
> ---Yes.
> 
> ...


Thanks kpm! This helped a lot! Much appreciated.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Jul 3, 2018)

KPM said:


> ---Yes. All the "Gulao-related" systems pivot on the K1 point and not on the heels. This is also true of Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nun Wing Chun.



Yuen kay san wing chun does not pivot on the "k1" point of the foot


----------



## KPM (Jul 4, 2018)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Yuen kay san wing chun does not pivot on the "k1" point of the foot



They don't pivot on the heel from what I've  seen.  So how would you describe it?


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Jul 4, 2018)

KPM said:


> They don't pivot on the heel from what I've  seen.  So how would you describe it?



I wouldnt describe it. Your right though it is not on the heels nor is it on the k1 point


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 4, 2018)

obi_juan_salami said:


> I wouldnt describe it. Your right though it is not on the heels nor is it on the k1 point



If it's not on the front of the foot, nor the middle (k1?), and not on the heels...where? I mean, the foot is only so big...


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 4, 2018)

@obi_juan_salami if you prefer not to say or just not say publicly then no worries man. I appreciate the input regardless. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of "Gulao"...but would also love to learn more about Yuen Kay San if your willing.


----------



## KPM (Jul 4, 2018)

obi_juan_salami said:


> I wouldnt describe it. Your right though it is not on the heels nor is it on the k1 point



Why so evasive with your answer?  Realize that saying the K1 point is just to give people the idea of the general area.  Its not on the heel.  Its not on the ball of the foot.  Its at the mid-foot behind the ball of the foot. No one pivots on an exact point.


----------



## Marnetmar (Jul 4, 2018)

KPM said:


> Why so evasive with your answer?  Realize that saying the K1 point is just to give people the idea of the general area.  Its not on the heel.  Its not on the ball of the foot.  Its at the mid-foot behind the ball of the foot. No one pivots on an exact point.



Gotta keep those ancient deadly techniques _secret, maaaaaaan._


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Jul 4, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> @obi_juan_salami if you prefer not to say or just not say publicly then no worries man. I appreciate the input regardless. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of "Gulao"...but would also love to learn more about Yuen Kay San if your willing.



Thanks for the understanding. I am not in a position to be giving out lessons or teaching the style. It is not mine to share. 

I just saw an incorrect comment on a style i practice and thought i would offer at least some clarity as we do not turn on the k1 point of the foot. 

There is plenty of info if you do some digging online or perhaps renee ritchies book which has a fairly comprehensive description of basic practice.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 5, 2018)

In the UK, it is slightly different, in the sense of any Chinese Whispers game through which Wing Chun appears to flourish.  Lee Shing (Shing Lei) showed the gulao system, 12 horses system in a form call Dai Lim Tau (the mysteriously named fourth form).  Whether Lee Shing "taught" the gualo system or not (as opposed to just showing the form for reference) is a matter of debate amongst the lineage, as is what first or second generation students of this lineage later invented themselves or were actually shown.  In either case, the terms Pin/Pien San and Gulao Wing Chun have been widely used interchangeably in the UK.


----------



## KPM (Jul 5, 2018)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Thanks for the understanding. I am not in a position to be giving out lessons or teaching the style. It is not mine to share.
> 
> I just saw an incorrect comment on a style i practice and thought i would offer at least some clarity as we do not turn on the k1 point of the foot.
> 
> There is plenty of info if you do some digging online or perhaps renee ritchies book which has a fairly comprehensive description of basic practice.



Since you brought it up.....providing clarification on what you meant is not exactly "teaching the style."  If my comment was incorrect, then what is correct?  If you don't turn on the heel or the K1 point....do you turn on the ball of the foot??  It is a relatively simple question and shouldn't be viewed as some kind of secret.  That attitude is just plain silly!

It seems you shared a lot more info here:

Let's talk about Tan Sau

So I"m not quite sure why you are so against sharing info that is so basic now.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Jul 5, 2018)

KPM said:


> Since you brought it up.....providing clarification on what you meant is not exactly "teaching the style."  If my comment was incorrect, then what is correct?  If you don't turn on the heel or the K1 point....do you turn on the ball of the foot??  It is a relatively simple question and shouldn't be viewed as some kind of secret.  That attitude is just plain silly!
> 
> It seems you shared a lot more info here:
> 
> ...



With all due respect, it is up to me what i share and what i don't. Also, the video in the thread i posted is about hong kong wing chun not guangzhou wing chun.


----------



## KPM (Jul 5, 2018)

obi_juan_salami said:


> With all due respect, it is up to me what i share and what i don't. Also, the video in the thread i posted is about hong kong wing chun not guangzhou wing chun.



With all due respect, why are you participating in a discussion forum in which you are unwilling to discuss?   And why even comment on this thread in the first place if you are unwilling to clarify what you meant?


----------



## APL76 (Jul 5, 2018)

KPM said:


> With all due respect, why are you participating in a discussion forum in which you are unwilling to discuss?   And why even comment on this thread in the first place if you are unwilling to clarify what you meant?



What Nick was doing is clarifying what he saw as an obvious error concerning Guangzhou (Yuen Kay San) style wing chun, that is why he made the comment. We don't turn on the K1 point of the foot. We don't turn on the heels either. That is why he commented; because what you said was dead wrong. As was your statement about no one turning on a specific point of the foot, where one turns on the foot in Guangzhou style wing chun is very specific and must be done correctly and consistently in order to do the turn correctly. If Nick wants to elaborate or not, that is up to him.

In the video you reposted all I do or talk about is the Yip Man wing chun we do, so there is no information about Guangzhou wing chun in it, that's why we are happy to put information about like that; we are totally open about our Yip Man style. When we practice Yip Man style wing chun we do however turn on the ball of the foot. (that is something I changed from turning on the heels for various reasons after discussing it with my sifu).

The reason why Nick is reticent in elaborating on how we do Guangzhou wing chun is in loyalty to our sifu (Nick learns from both my sifu and myself). This loyalty stems back to my sifu's sifu, Sum Nung, and the conditions he put on my sifu. That is that he was to keep Guangzhou wing chun 1) utterly separate from the Yip Man wing chun he learned, and 2) not to film, photograph the stuff, commit the lot to memory and not take notes, not to discuss it with outsiders and to only show it to people on the receiving end of it (i.e. beat the crap out of someone). Sum Nung himself was incredibly careful not to publicise what he did. The video of him doing su lim tao is the "public consumption" version of the form, and the dummy form in the air is also altered. It took my sifu about 4 or 5 years of trying to convince him to be filmed in the seminars he did here in Australia, and he only agreed to be filmed on the condition that the films never become public. So these are the reasons Nick is a bit tight lipped about just how we do Guangzhou wing chun.

But, then again. 1) my sifu has given us permission to film a little of it provided we don't give the essence of it away; something we might get round to eventually. 2) I think my sifu is a bit irritated about all the nonsense about Guangzhou wing chun floating about and is working on his own website to counter some of the nonsense; so a bit of stuff will become available eventually for people to have a look at if they feel like it; and 3) I think people here are a clever bunch, I'm sure if someone puts on their thinking cap they could figure it out, after all as someone else said, a foot is only so big, if it isn't on the heel, ball, K1 point, there aren't too many more places to chose from. Figure it out.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 5, 2018)

Not meaning any disrespect to those who feel they need to protect secrets of their art - just expressing myself. This kind of stuff drives me batty. I completely do not understand continuing secrecy in the modern environment. I can see no reason not to share what we know with each other. 

That doesn’t make you wrong, but it does make me frustrated.


----------



## KPM (Jul 5, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Not meaning any disrespect to those who feel they need to protect secrets of their art - just expressing myself. This kind of stuff drives me batty. I completely do not understand continuing secrecy in the modern environment. I can see no reason not to share what we know with each other.
> 
> That doesn’t make you wrong, but it does make me frustrated.



I absolutely agree.  All this secret stuff is ridiculous in this modern age.  In the past you might have wanted to keep things secret so the guy in the next village over wouldn't gain an advantage over you if you had to defend your village's wealth or honor.  But nowadays it serves no real purpose.  And it actually works against arts that are at a real risk of dying out, or of being transmitted with lots of bad information because the people that knew the important details wouldn't share that knowledge.  This is just one more in a long list of reasons I have become rather disenchanted and fed up with "traditional" martial arts.....Wing Chun included.  There is just too much BS that goes along with them.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 5, 2018)

KPM said:


> I absolutely agree.  All this secret stuff is ridiculous in this modern age.  In the past you might have wanted to keep things secret so the guy in the next village over wouldn't gain an advantage over you if you had to defend your village's wealth or honor.  But nowadays it serves no real purpose.  And it actually works against arts that are at a real risk of dying out, or of being transmitted with lots of bad information because the people that knew the important details wouldn't share that knowledge.  This is just one more in a long list of reasons I have become rather disenchanted and fed up with "traditional" martial arts.....Wing Chun included.  There is just too much BS that goes along with them.


For me, it's just about advancing knowledge. Keeping MA secrets feels like keeping management skills secrets in the business world - it just doesn't make sense to me from a "big picture" point of view. To your point about arts that are waning - I'd prefer to see my primary art's (or even my personal curriculum's) effect on some unrelated schools, rather than see it vanish entirely.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Not meaning any disrespect to those who feel they need to protect secrets of their art - just expressing myself. This kind of stuff drives me batty. I completely do not understand continuing secrecy in the modern environment. I can see no reason not to share what we know with each other.
> 
> That doesn’t make you wrong, but it does make me frustrated.



Sure, I can totally see why that might irritate people, and that they may even think it's silly/unhelpful. And you are entirely welcome to your opinion, no problem for me.

However being on the other side of it, beholden to keep some things to myself (and obijuansalami is in the same position) out of respect and loyalty to my sifu, and respect to his sifu, I also understand why they kept and keep things to themselves. I know the background to the secrecy, and it goes back to Yuen Kay San. Firstly, it wasn't just about defending yourself against someone and seeing that they don't get your "secret deadly techniques", it was a lot about politics. Politics I'm not going to go it to, but very real politics that is still very present in some wing chun circles today. Secondly its about people making claims to knowledge that they don't have, claiming certain things that some people might claim they know and where they got it from. Essentially, at the moment, it is excruciatingly easy to spot the frauds. The deeper their knowledge is the harder that will get. And I can tell you that since Sum Nung died they have come out of the woodwork in droves.

I disagree that this stuff is ridiculous in the modern age, indeed I would argue that the levels of BS have not only increased but with the internet its getting easier to BS and its more important now than before.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 6, 2018)

Whilst I can understand that every school has things that are not for outside, hell every school has things which are not openly taught internally.... this entire disagreement has arisen over which part of the foot the YKS lineage may pivot on.  I don't think it's helpful or remotely respectful to say someone is incorrect and then refuse to answer them or assist in answering them.  It's the equivalent of just sitting in the corner of the room and shouting "wrong!" at people.  It would be polite just to not comment at all.


----------



## obi_juan_salami (Jul 6, 2018)

Snark said:


> Whilst I can understand that every school has things that are not for outside, hell every school has things which are not openly taught internally.... this entire disagreement has arisen over which part of the foot the YKS lineage may pivot on.  I don't think it's helpful or remotely respectful to say someone is incorrect and then refuse to answer them or assist in answering them.  It's the equivalent of just sitting in the corner of the room and shouting "wrong!" at people.  It would be polite just to not comment at all.



Its not polite to make comment about systems you dont practice either.


----------



## KPM (Jul 6, 2018)

I remember....it must have been about 20 years ago now.....Guro Ted Lucaylucay traveled around the US doing a series of seminars for FMA.   His entire intent was to share with people some of the nuances and small things or "secrets" they might have missed out on in their training in an attempt to help raise the standard of FMA in the US.  Its a crying shame that in the 21st century people still feel the need to play politics and hide things, and rather than help people out they sit back so they can point fingers and say...."Oh look!  He obviously didn't learn the REAL thing!"


----------



## KPM (Jul 6, 2018)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Its not polite to make comment about systems you dont practice either.



Total BS statement.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 6, 2018)

I can see both sides of this though...while I agree with KPM that wing chun is / may be dying due to the political BS and lineage squabbles, etc... @APL76 has a valid point. I mean, if a student or disciple spends years of hard work, lots of money etc to learn XYZ "special secret sauce training" that nobody else has...it's not right for others to simply demand they share it on some random forum for others to scoop up and then say "see, we have that special stuff too!"
Just my early morning .02  .... now back to drinking coffee


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 6, 2018)

one more thing...

In some WC circles, I'd imagine there are still such things as disciples and from what little I know of that...they are beholden to their Master / lineage under some sort of oath right?


----------



## Poppity (Jul 6, 2018)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Its not polite to make comment about systems you dont practice either.



maybe, but our kwoon does not measure itself by the conduct of other schools.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2018)

APL76 said:


> Sure, I can totally see why that might irritate people, and that they may even think it's silly/unhelpful. And you are entirely welcome to your opinion, no problem for me.
> 
> However being on the other side of it, beholden to keep some things to myself (and obijuansalami is in the same position) out of respect and loyalty to my sifu, and respect to his sifu, I also understand why they kept and keep things to themselves. I know the background to the secrecy, and it goes back to Yuen Kay San. Firstly, it wasn't just about defending yourself against someone and seeing that they don't get your "secret deadly techniques", it was a lot about politics. Politics I'm not going to go it to, but very real politics that is still very present in some wing chun circles today. Secondly its about people making claims to knowledge that they don't have, claiming certain things that some people might claim they know and where they got it from. Essentially, at the moment, it is excruciatingly easy to spot the frauds. The deeper their knowledge is the harder that will get. And I can tell you that since Sum Nung died they have come out of the woodwork in droves.
> 
> I disagree that this stuff is ridiculous in the modern age, indeed I would argue that the levels of BS have not only increased but with the internet its getting easier to BS and its more important now than before.


I can see that. And to the extent that it annoys me, it's not you (or objuansalami) that I get annoyed with, because you are keeping your word to someone. It is that someone (still with respect) I'd be annoyed with if I had the intimacy with them to do so. More on that in a moment.

But here's my counterpoint (and I don't expect everyone to agree - it's an opinion, and only worth what any such is worth). I don't really care much about lineage, except as a matter of understanding. By that, I mean that knowing who you studied with and the lineage back to someone of note only matters in understanding how that influences what you know and how that influences your understanding and action. And that only matters if I know something of significance about that lineage. So (using a non-WC example, because I know close to nothing of WC), knowing I studied under Steve Weber and two of his students can help someone within NGA guess some of my approaches, but it doesn't really lend me any legitimacy or expertise beyond that. I find lineage - especially in older arts than my own - a matter of intellectual curiosity, but not a matter of importance. What's taught now is what matters. As for frauds, BJJ is about as open as an art can be, and frauds don't last long in their system.

My biggest issue is that I think secrecy limits the group holding the secret more than anyone else. Because you cannot discuss foot position openly (an infinitesimally minor point, IMO), you also cannot discuss important points of the hows and whys of your system with the larger world. So you cannot debate different usages and approaches and evolve what you do from that, nor help others evolve what they do. It limits the development of the art and the individual in small but significant ways. And the reality (again, in my opinion, for what that's worth) is that a fraud won't be likely to grasp the important points, anyway. 

I appreciate you participating in this discussion.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2018)

obi_juan_salami said:


> Its not polite to make comment about systems you dont practice either.


I don't agree with that OJS. I comment on what I know or observe of many systems. I've often made comments (some of them even incorrect) about BJJ, and I've never formally studied that system. I have studied Judo and other arts that have a familial relationship to it, and so can understand enough about how BJJ works to make comments on it and ask intelligent questions. Someone who studies something somewhat related to your system shouldn't feel they cannot comment on what they think they know of it. That becomes even more reasonable if those who do study the system cannot speak much of it, so the best information people can share is what someone with related knowledge can tell.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 6, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> I can see both sides of this though...while I agree with KPM that wing chun is / may be dying due to the political BS and lineage squabbles, etc... @APL76 has a valid point. I mean, if a student or disciple spends years of hard work, lots of money etc to learn XYZ "special secret sauce training" that nobody else has...it's not right for others to simply demand they share it on some random forum for others to scoop up and then say "see, we have that special stuff too!"
> Just my early morning .02  .... now back to drinking coffee



I agree I think KPM is right in that TCMAs are dying out or becoming diluted as no traditional master will pass on all his knowledge and the knowledge a master does pass on is of different levels of detail to each student, with the greater detail only being given to a select proven few who do not always teach.  Also my understanding is that most traditional teachers are given a set curriculum by their master which authorises them to teach only specific things.

However, where this applies why say to anyone you have it wrong if you have no intention of relaying any further information.  It is only for ego.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2018)

Snark said:


> Whilst I can understand that every school has things that are not for outside, hell every school has things which are not openly taught internally.... this entire disagreement has arisen over which part of the foot the YKS lineage may pivot on.  I don't think it's helpful or remotely respectful to say someone is incorrect and then refuse to answer them or assist in answering them.  It's the equivalent of just sitting in the corner of the room and shouting "wrong!" at people.  It would be polite just to not comment at all.


I don't really understand the idea of secrets not taught to students. That baffles me. If I do that, the art degrades, because my students know less than I did, and if they follow my lead, the art gets more limited over time. Even if they add in some "new discoveries", the art doesn't grow and evolve well if something is purposely held back. I can't think of anything I know that I wouldn't teach to a student. I can, of course, think of students I wouldn't teach some things to - just because they're not ready for them.

And there's really nothing I wouldn't teach to the outside, either. If I was asked to do a seminar to a group outside NGA, there's nothing I'd feel the need to hold back. I'd teach whatever I thought could be communicated and they could absorb in the timeframe available. If someone decides to take my best material and make it part of what they teach - even in an entirely unrelated art - why would that bother me? If someone claims it as their own, I'd be annoyed, but can't see how it would really matter in the long run.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I don't really understand the idea of secrets not taught to students. That baffles me. If I do that, the art degrades, because my students know less than I did, and if they follow my lead, the art gets more limited over time. Even if they add in some "new discoveries", the art doesn't grow and evolve well if something is purposely held back. I can't think of anything I know that I wouldn't teach to a student. I can, of course, think of students I wouldn't teach some things to - just because they're not ready for them.
> 
> And there's really nothing I wouldn't teach to the outside, either. If I was asked to do a seminar to a group outside NGA, there's nothing I'd feel the need to hold back. I'd teach whatever I thought could be communicated and they could absorb in the timeframe available. If someone decides to take my best material and make it part of what they teach - even in an entirely unrelated art - why would that bother me? If someone claims it as their own, I'd be annoyed, but can't see how it would really matter in the long run.



I do not profess to understand all of the reasoning behind what is considered traditional.  Only that the chain of command is generally considered to be absolute, very hierarchical and unyielding but is discussed in terms of respect and honour.

With regards to secrets from students, I suppose an example might be if you had a student who has a problem with their temper or enjoyed fighting most weekends... maybe you would steer them away from eye gouges and throat strikes.... maybe you would not teach them those techniques at all.

I think that you have hit the nail on the head here....  "the art doesn't grow and evolve well if something is purposely held back"  and goes some way to explain why wing chun does not do well in the MMA arena.

However, my Sifu was often quite impressed with the "new discoveries" of modified wing chun where people had analysed and tested.  He said that it was an area that was improving all the time.

I think your approach to teaching is describing the western approach to teaching as opposed to the Chinese way.  The western way similar to Greek medicine and science is based upon testing hypothesis, conferring and discarding what does not work.  The Chinese medicine approach was based upon historical beliefs of life essence and this remained largely unchanged with later discoveries being added on to it.  The two different approaches develop different psychologies about what should be taught and how.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2018)

Snark said:


> I do not profess to understand all of the reasoning behind what is considered traditional.  Only that the chain of command is generally considered to be absolute, very hierarchical and unyielding but is discussed in terms of respect and honour.
> 
> With regards to secrets from students, I suppose an example might be if you had a student who has a problem with their temper or enjoyed fighting most weekends... maybe you would steer them away from eye gouges and throat strikes.... maybe you would not teach them those techniques at all.


Yes, that's the "they're not ready for it" point. Mind you, I have short tolerance for that kind of behavior, so if they weren't growing and learning to make better decisions, I'd likely stop teaching them, entirely. If they're growing _slowly, _I'd probably stop giving them any new material and put them on "forms duty" for a few weeks to work on their calmness.



> I think that you have hit the nail on the head here....  "the art doesn't grow and evolve well if something is purposely held back"  and goes some way to explain why wing chun does not do well in the MMA arena.
> 
> However, my Sifu was often quite impressed with the "new discoveries" of modified wing chun where people had analysed and tested.  He said that it was an area that was improving all the time.
> 
> I think your approach to teaching is describing the western approach to teaching as opposed to the Chinese way.  The western way similar to Greek medicine and science is based upon testing hypothesis, conferring and discarding what does not work.  The Chinese medicine approach was based upon historical beliefs of life essence passing to different reservoirs where the essence was converted and this remained largely unchanged with later discoveries being added on to it.  The two different approaches develop different psychologies about what should be taught and how.



I understand there's a difference in the traditional approach in CMA. I also don't think anyone should stick to any approach (traditional or modern, eastern or western) that doesn't serve them and their students. If I taught in Japan, I'd use a more Japanese-appropriate approach (which I've experienced in small bits). But I know that more information shared grows understanding, and that's not a cultural issue - it's a reality of how people (in groups) learn and develop concepts. By the way, I also strongly suspect that a lot of the claims of "secret teachings" and information withheld are legends. I suspect some instructors claimed secret knowledge to boost their reputation, but taught the same thing the guy on the other side of town taught. It's a nice marketing strategy, especially in a time when everyone is hiding what they do, so nobody can really tell if it's true or not.

The TCMA approach to forms seems to foster this, by the way. I find, in discussions with folks with deep TCMA konwledge and experience, that forms have a higher importance to the art and lineage than I see elsewhere. So the idea of someone "stealing a form" was a big issue. Of course, stealing a form (by seeing it and copying it) isn't anywhere near the same as getting the information that form is meant to teach. All of us who've used forms at any level know that copying the movement of a form doesn't really convey the information a good instructor will use that form to teach.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 6, 2018)

Well, you know what they say "there are no secrets in wing chun" and technically its true, its all there in the forms exactly as you stated.

However, what appears to be the case in wing chun especially is that there is a regimented approach to thinking, of my sifu did not show me what you might be doing, or my sifu only applied this movement in one way and so that other wing chun is wrong or is some how incorrect.  Which is a kind of upside down logic, where people are willingly putting blinkers on themselves.


----------



## KPM (Jul 6, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> I can see both sides of this though...while I agree with KPM that wing chun is / may be dying due to the political BS and lineage squabbles, etc... @APL76 has a valid point. I mean, if a student or disciple spends years of hard work, lots of money etc to learn XYZ "special secret sauce training" that nobody else has...it's not right for others to simply demand they share it on some random forum for others to scoop up and then say "see, we have that special stuff too!"
> Just my early morning .02  .... now back to drinking coffee



Well see, that's the other thing about "traditional" martial arts that I am disenchanted with......this whole idea that you are going to string things along for many years before you teach the "secret" or "good' things rather than just being up front about it and allow a student to progress at their natural pace.   Leung Ting guys do this.  You hear stories about being in the system for over 5 years before ever touching the weapons.  So sure, I can understand where they are coming from as well.  Why should someone share openly something that they had to spend years waiting for their teacher to share?  But then when does that attitude end?  How do you break that secretive cycle?  Someone "took an oath to their Sifu" that may have had some justification back in the day.  But then they feel the need to require the same oath of their students in modern times when it has become an anachronism.  I can see both sides as well.  I just think the "other side" is ridiculous in the 21st century.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2018)

Snark said:


> Well, you know what they say "there are no secrets in wing chun" and technically its true, its all there in the forms exactly as you stated.
> 
> However, what appears to be the case in wing chun especially is that there is a regimented approach to thinking, of my sifu did not show me what you might be doing, or my sifu only applied this movement in one way and so that other wing chun is wrong or is some how incorrect.  Which is a kind of upside down logic, where people are willingly putting blinkers on themselves.


And that's not unique to WC, of course. I know an NGA instructor who won't teach anything in NGA classes that wasn't shown to him by his current instructor (who wasn't his primary instructor until a few years ago). And this guy also holds rank in another art, which makes it even odder to me that he won't bring that knowledge to bear for his students. For instance, there's no reason he shouldn't teach what he thinks is the best kick for his students, rather than being limited to the exact kicks he was taught in NGA, but he probably will never teach his NGA students an even slightly better kick from his other training. And he won't even discuss different methods of taking falls, because they weren't shown to him by his current instructor.

In a less-egregious display of the same thinking Saito Sensei (Aikido) claims to teach only exactly what he was taught by Ueshiba, and only in exactly the same way as it was taught to him. Someone found one of Ueshiba's old manuals (from the period when he was training Saito) and showed it to Saito, who was pleased to find it supported his claim that he teaches exactly as he was taught. Saito appears to do a very good job teaching Aikido, and is apparently an exception to the general rule that exact copies are not a good idea. I don't know of any other exceptions to this rule, nor can I say with authority that even Saito is one. Given how flawed human memory is, it's unlikely everything Saito teaches is something he was taught by O-Sensei.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2018)

KPM said:


> Well see, that's the other thing about "traditional" martial arts that I am disenchanted with......this whole idea that you are going to string things along for many years before you teach the "secret" or "good' things rather than just being up front about it and allow a student to progress at their natural pace.   Leung Ting guys do this.  You hear stories about being in the system for over 5 years before ever touching the weapons.  So sure, I can understand where they are coming from as well.  Why should someone share openly something that they had to spend years waiting for their teacher to share?  But then when does that attitude end?  How do you break that secretive cycle?  Someone "took an oath to their Sifu" that may have had some justification back in the day.  But then they feel the need to require the same oath of their students in modern times when it has become an anachronism.  I can see both sides as well.  I just think the "other side" is ridiculous in the 21st century.


My view on holding information for later years is simply that something should be held for further intellectual study. But it should be information that is, while interesting, relatively unimportant. I have some techniques I don't bother with until a few years in, because they simply don't add much, but are fun for more advanced students to play with. I don't hide them, of course - if a pair of advanced students are in a class with beginners, the advanced students might well be practicing these very techniques, right out in the open. And if a less-experienced student gets curious (as one of mine did, quite regularly), I'd probably stop and at least show them the technique....maybe even teach it to them if I think they are ready for the fine detail of it. 

I've even considered adding another kata, or even two, for folks to tinker with later, because there's not much material left in my curriculum once they reach brown belt. If I added those, some students would get them much earlier, anyway, because some folks really seem to enjoy kata, and they are useful for folks with injuries or other limitations they need time to work on. So, not so much "secret" as "held back for later study". If that attitude drives some of what folks choose to hold back in some WC groups, there's nothing wrong with that. It's even possible the Leung Ting folks decided the weapons were less important, so held them back to focus on the empty hand work for the first few years. That would be a reasonable, um, reason for that decision.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jul 6, 2018)

APL76 said:


> I know the background to the secrecy, and it goes back to Yuen Kay San. Firstly, it wasn't just about defending yourself against someone and seeing that they don't get your "secret deadly techniques", it was a lot about politics. Politics I'm not going to go it to, but very real politics that is still very present in some wing chun circles today. Secondly its about people making claims to knowledge that they don't have, claiming certain things that some people might claim they know and where they got it from. Essentially, at the moment, it is excruciatingly easy to spot the frauds. The deeper their knowledge is the harder that will get. And I can tell you that since Sum Nung died they have come out of the woodwork in droves.





Snark said:


> Whilst I can understand that every school has things that are not for outside, hell every school has things which are not openly taught internally





wckf92 said:


> I mean, if a student or disciple spends years of hard work, lots of money etc to learn XYZ "special secret sauce training" that nobody else has...it's not right for others to simply demand they share it on some random forum for others to scoop up and then say "see, we have that special stuff too!"





gpseymour said:


> I can see that. And to the extent that it annoys me, it's not you (or objuansalami) that I get annoyed with, because you are keeping your word to someone. It is that someone (still with respect) I'd be annoyed with if I had the intimacy with them to do so. More on that in a moment.
> 
> But here's my counterpoint (and I don't expect everyone to agree - it's an opinion, and only worth what any such is worth). I don't really care much about lineage, except as a matter of understanding. By that, I mean that knowing who you studied with and the lineage back to someone of note only matters in understanding how that influences what you know and how that influences your understanding and action. And that only matters if I know something of significance about that lineage. So (using a non-WC example, because I know close to nothing of WC), knowing I studied under Steve Weber and two of his students can help someone within NGA guess some of my approaches, but it doesn't really lend me any legitimacy or expertise beyond that. I find lineage - especially in older arts than my own - a matter of intellectual curiosity, but not a matter of importance. What's taught now is what matters. As for frauds, BJJ is about as open as an art can be, and frauds don't last long in their system.
> 
> ...





gpseymour said:


> I don't really understand the idea of secrets not taught to students. That baffles me. If I do that, the art degrades, because my students know less than I did, and if they follow my lead, the art gets more limited over time. Even if they add in some "new discoveries", the art doesn't grow and evolve well if something is purposely held back. I can't think of anything I know that I wouldn't teach to a student. I can, of course, think of students I wouldn't teach some things to - just because they're not ready for them.
> 
> And there's really nothing I wouldn't teach to the outside, either. If I was asked to do a seminar to a group outside NGA, there's nothing I'd feel the need to hold back. I'd teach whatever I thought could be communicated and they could absorb in the timeframe available. If someone decides to take my best material and make it part of what they teach - even in an entirely unrelated art - why would that bother me? If someone claims it as their own, I'd be annoyed, but can't see how it would really matter in the long run.



There's another active thread right now titled "The problem with traditional martial arts." It's about sparring (or the lack thereof), but to my mind the fetishization of secrecy is a much bigger problem.

I've been training martial arts for 37 years and BJJ for 20+ years now. My knowledge has been paid for with plenty of hard work, money, broken bones, and so on. What information regarding my art do I hold back from my students? Nothing. What do I hold back from friends I work out with? Nothing. If any of you are ever in Lexington and drop by for a workout, I will be happy to share absolutely anything I know about BJJ or martial arts in general. If anyone on this forum has any questions regarding my art, I am happy to answer, although I am limited by the text medium and many subtle details are hard to communicate without physical demonstration.

Does this make it easy for pretenders to fraudulently claim knowledge of BJJ? Hasn't been a problem so far. When you step on to the mat, we can tell what you know.

Could someone gather all the technical details of BJJ that have been revealed online and use them to construct a fake online jiu-jitsu expert persona to fool the masses? That would actually be a difficult feat to pull off well. There's a ton of information in the art and you can't rely on any special secret detail to prove your authenticity. Every jiu-jiteiro does things a little differently. In order to be convincing you'd need to know _why_ an individual might perform a technique this way or that way. I'd actually be impressed by anyone who did a good job of faking that knowledge without putting in the mat time. (But why bother? It's more fun training for real.)


----------



## Danny T (Jul 6, 2018)

Tony Dismukes said:


> There's another active thread right now titled "The problem with traditional martial arts." It's about sparring (or the lack thereof), but to my mind the fetishization of secrecy is a much bigger problem.
> 
> I've been training martial arts for 37 years and BJJ for 20+ years now. My knowledge has been paid for with plenty of hard work, money, broken bones, and so on. What information regarding my art do I hold back from my students? Nothing. What do I hold back from friends I work out with? Nothing. If any of you are ever in Lexington and drop by for a workout, I will be happy to share absolutely anything I know about BJJ or martial arts in general. If anyone on this forum has any questions regarding my art, I am happy to answer, although I am limited by the text medium and many subtle details are hard to communicate without physical demonstration.
> 
> ...


^^^^^^^^ This.
Train, really train...against others who are more knowledgeable and with greater skills, spar...no I mean really spar vs other systems, have fun doing so and quit comparing styles. There are no secrets, just hard work learning to really use your skills.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 6, 2018)

Danny T said:


> ^^^^^^^^ This.
> Train, really train...against others who are more knowledgeable and with greater skills, spar...no I mean really spar vs other systems, have fun doing so and quit comparing styles. There are no secrets, just hard work learning to really use your skills.


Damn, Danny, that's almost a pre-game "fire 'em up" speech! I want to go get owned by someone with more skill than me, and I'm here stuck at the car shop.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 7, 2018)

KPM said:


> I can see both sides as well.  I just think the "other side" is ridiculous in the 21st century.






Why? Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant? Is it an anachronism to be taught something on good faith that you would stick to your word and not disseminate it to anyone other than your students, is it an anachronism to keep your word and have enough integrity to not simply give out information you have been entrusted with to people who for god knows why seem to have a sense of entitlement to that information? is honesty an anachronism in the 21st century? Why is it that now for some reason these values no longer apply?

For Obijaunsalami it has nothing to do with ego, what it is about are the things directly above. He saw an incorrect statement being made authoritatively about the wing chun we are dedicated to, and passionate about, and he pointed out it was incorrect; that's all. He isn't going into the how and why of Guangzhou style wing chun turns because he has integrity. 

You could ask him anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, we share that openly to anyone interested, but the Guangzhou style we keep close because that is the condition under which we learn it. It has nothing to do with ego.


----------



## KPM (Jul 7, 2018)

* Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant? *

---Yes it is.  Loyalty to the teacher and the art to make sure it is being passed on correctly and people have the correct understanding of it.  To do anything else is to  do an art injustice.

*Is it an anachronism to be taught something on good faith that you would stick to your word and not disseminate it to anyone other than your students, is it an anachronism to keep your word and have enough integrity to not simply give out information you have been entrusted with to people who for god knows why seem to have a sense of entitlement to that information? is honesty an anachronism in the 21st century?*

---No.  It is an anachronism for a teacher to expect that of you in the 21st century! 

*For Obijaunsalami it has nothing to do with ego, what it is about are the things directly above. He saw an incorrect statement being made authoritatively about the wing chun we are dedicated to, and passionate about, and he pointed out it was incorrect; that's all. He isn't going into the how and why of Guangzhou style wing chun turns because he has integrity. *

---It was not a statement made with authority.  It was a statement made in a conversation on a discussion forum.  If you aren't willing to actually discuss, then no comment was necessary.   If you aren't willing to elaborate and want to simply say...."No that's wrong!"....that isn't really necessary.   To me, integrity is to provide info when info is asked and it would clarify someone's misunderstanding.  That isn't "teaching the system".  That's simply being willing to discuss.  Which is what we are here for.


*You could ask him anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, we share that openly to anyone interested, but the Guangzhou style we keep close because that is the condition under which we learn it. It has nothing to do with ego.*

---And it has everything to do  with what is wrong with "traditional" martial arts and why they are likely to slowly die out.   Additionally....I would suggest that if you are using one version of mechanics and pivoting when doing your Ip Man Wing Chun, but a different mechanics and pivoting when doing your Guangzhu Wing Chun.....and switching back and forth between them....you are likely not doing either one as well as you could because that would somewhat confuse things.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 7, 2018)

KPM said:


> * Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant? *
> 
> ---Yes it is.  Loyalty to the teacher and the art to make sure it is being passed on correctly and people have the correct understanding of it.  To do anything else is to  do an art injustice.
> 
> ...


Keith, while I agree with the basic content of your argument, this post comes across as pretty strident. You're not so much discussing and debating here, as berating. For the two Guangzhu folks, their current situation is one they accepted to learn the style. I don't agree with the condition and - like you - think the instructor should dismiss it. But that's a different point. And if - which is possible - they promised to only teach/pass along the art under the same condition they learned it under, they bound themselves to that same issue. I agree it's an anachronism, and a shame, because that severely limits the ability of Guangzhu folks to impact and  influence (to say nothing of learning from) the rest of the MA world. But if it's what they agreed to, then it's what they'll do.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 7, 2018)

KPM said:


> * Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant? *
> 
> ---Yes it is.  Loyalty to the teacher and the art to make sure it is being passed on correctly and people have the correct understanding of it.  To do anything else is to  do an art injustice.
> 
> ...




We are having the art passed on to us, and one condition of that is that we keep it to ourselves. What right do you or anyone else have to demand that it be openly available to all and everyone? What right do you have to demand that a person who has it make it public just because you want it? It is being passed on. On our teachers terms, not yours.


Why is that an anachronism in the 21st century for a teacher to ask their students to keep an art to themselves only?, you simply assert it. its an anachronism just because you think it is it seems. Why would any master pass on anything to people who show they can't be trusted with it?

In terms of you comment, you made an incorrect statement about Guangzhou wing chun, now you know it was incorrect, we don't turn on the K1 point of the foot. What's wrong with that? I (or obijaunslami) wouldn't get my panties in a bunch if you pointed out something I said about Kulo wing chun was wrong (but then I wouldn't comment on details of Kulo wing chun in the first place). And I wouldn't get shirty if you decided that the correct information was to be kept to yourself for the reasons stated. I would accept that as your right and duty to your teacher. I wouldn't carry on as though I was entitled to an answer. And I disagree, integrity is to know where your loyalty lies and stick to it, not simply dish out information simply because someone thinks they are entitled to it.

Guangzhou wing chun isn't dying out its being passed on, but not to just anyone who thinks they should be able to simply demand it; indeed to walk up to someone who has it and demand it would be the quickest way to guarantee you will never get it. 

And in regard to the turns. Though I teach primarily Yip Man wing chun in my school, I haven't trained in it (beyond simply insuring I can teach it effectively) for 17 years. I have no problems getting them mixed up. Besides, you don't do Guangzhou wing chun, its different to what you do, what do you care where on our foot we turn? You couldn't use it anyway.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 7, 2018)

If memory serves...when a master accepts a student as a disciple...he is bound to teach that disciple the art in its entirety so that it doesn't die out. And isn't it tradition that the master must/shall pass on his knowledge to at least two disciples? So I guess in that sense, to the extent these traditions are true, an art will never degrade and never die out. And isn't that what a disciple is in CMA? A person of integrity and loyalty that is sworn to learn the ways of his master and eventually pass on his teachings?


----------



## APL76 (Jul 7, 2018)

KPM said:


> * Is loyalty to one's teacher no longer relevant? *
> 
> ---Yes it is.  Loyalty to the teacher and the art to make sure it is being passed on correctly and people have the correct understanding of it.  To do anything else is to  do an art injustice.
> 
> ...


And I will also add that myself and obijaunsalami are happy to discuss things, we are happy to go into absolutely anything concerning our Yip Man wing chun, and to a degree we are willing to discuss Guangzhou wing chun too, however we will reserve the right to not discuss details past the point of our duty and respect to our teacher. Its really that simple.


----------



## KPM (Jul 7, 2018)

*We are having the art passed on to us, and one condition of that is that we keep it to ourselves. What right do you or anyone else have to demand that it be openly available to all and everyone? What right do you have to demand that a person who has it make it public just because you want it? It is being passed on. On our teachers terms, not yours.*

---I'm not demanding anything.   I'm just pointing out why I think that is silly and an anachronism in the 21st century. 


*Why is that an anachronism in the 21st century for a teacher to ask their students to keep an art to themselves only?, you simply assert it. its an anachronism just because you think it is it seems. Why would any master pass on anything to people who show they can't be trusted with it?*

---Are you saying we (members of this forum) have shown that we can't be trusted with knowing how Guangzhu Wing Chun does the pivot?  Again, that's just silly!


* not simply dish out information simply because someone thinks they are entitled to it.*

---No one is "demanding" anything.  No one is feeling "entitled" to anything.  You are the one getting your panties all in a bunch simply because I pointed out that the attitude you are displaying is quite silly and anachronistic in this day and age.  Making a simple statement on what area of the foot you pivot on is not "teaching the system" or making any grand revelations.  You took an oath to your teacher.  Ok.  Good enough.  End of story.  But I still think requiring an oath like that is an anachronism in the 21st century.  You can continue to debate that point if you want.


* Besides, you don't do Guangzhou wing chun, its different to what you do, what do you care where on our foot we turn? You couldn't use it anyway.*

----Because....we all come here to discuss and share and learn from each other.  I like Wing Chun and learning about what others do regardless if it is something I am going to use myself.  Is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Poppity (Jul 7, 2018)

Just to separate the entwining points. Tcma and the secretive nature and approach to teaching is simply the way things are. I am not looking to break the mold, but will say it as i see it which we are all entitled to do.

With regard to traditional arts dying out, there are plenty of articles which state this is the case and plenty of torch bearers who say it is not, so everyone can form their own view .

With regard ego . I accept that you think it was not, but the reason i feel it was, is because i can see no other purpose to say someone was wrong and not elucidate further. If it was to educate, it does not, it simply states that someones understanding is inadequate. The only thing it did was point to that and the fact the poster regards his understanding as superior. I am not saying you must reveal secrets, only that if you go round saying you are wrong because you dont know the secrets i know, it looks a lot like ego.


----------



## VPT (Jul 7, 2018)

wckf92 said:


> Ok, so on the FB WC forum there is an ongoing 'discussion' about who knows what and when etc etc but my questions are this:
> 1. Is Gulao wing chun the same as Pin Sun wing chun?
> 2. Is there a difference between the 12 point, 22 point, and 40 point "systems"?
> 3. Are the 12 and 22 contained within the 40?
> ...



1. Pin Sun Wing Chun, as much as I've been able to realize, is the style of Gulao Wing Chun passed on from Leung Jan to Wong Waa Sam specifically and then to the Fung family. The other lineages would thus not be "Pin Sun".
2.-3. I will check this out.
4. I guess it's a matter of whether one wants to treat Pin Sun as distinct style from Gulao or not. My view is at #1.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 7, 2018)

KPM said:


> *We are having the art passed on to us, and one condition of that is that we keep it to ourselves. What right do you or anyone else have to demand that it be openly available to all and everyone? What right do you have to demand that a person who has it make it public just because you want it? It is being passed on. On our teachers terms, not yours.*
> 
> ---I'm not demanding anything.   I'm just pointing out why I think that is silly and an anachronism in the 21st century.
> 
> ...




I'd say you are/were demanding information. Nick pointed out that you were wrong, that's it, simply making a statement of fact, and then you and a few others wanted to know where on the foot one turns in Guangzhou wing chun. Nick then said something to the effect of that he was simply pointing out an error, and that he wasn't in a position to give out details. and that's when your panties bunched, I could almost hear the bunching from here. 

For what its worth, I was in the process of figuring out how to private message wckf92 to tell him because a) he seemed genuinely interested, b) he was willing to accept that Nick wasn't in a position to elaborate, and lastly, c) because that little bit of information by itself one cant do much with unless one is trying to make claims to having learned Guangzhou wing chun that are a little less than truthful, which I have no doubt wckf92 is NOT doing (Which has, however, been happening in increasing amounts since Sum Nung died).

And no, I am not making a comment on the trust-worthiness of members of this forum. 1) its a forum, anyone can look at it and see the information, not just members. 2) what I AM saying is that it is utterly disrespectful, dishonest and lacking in integrity to give your word that you will keep something to yourself, that that is the condition on which you learn stuff, and then to go straight away and blab about stuff on a public internet forum, and to do so would rightly show that you are both totally untrustworthy and don't deserve to learn what you had/are being taught. Do you really think that we are going to jeopardise learning Guangzhou wing chun from a disciple of Sum Nung because you seem to think that sort of condition is out of date?

It is a matter of respect, and a matter of trust, that simple. And that sort of thing is as valuable now as ever.

Ask us anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, my teacher has told me to do whatever I like with that, but the Guangzhou style wing chun we are simply not in a position to discuss in the depth and detail that some people might like for the reasons I have gone over.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 7, 2018)

If 


APL76 said:


> Ask us anything you want about our Yip Man wing chun, my teacher has told me to do whatever I like with that, but the Guangzhou style wing chun we are simply not in a position to discuss in the depth and detail that some people might like for the reasons I have gone over.



OK, let's use this as a jumping off point.
Where does your lineage of Yip Man come from?
 What do you see as the major differences between the two different methods ? 

 Obviously in light of the ongoing discussion I'm not asking for details as much as I am generalities. Strengths, weaknesses...that sort of thing.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 7, 2018)

yak sao said:


> If
> 
> 
> OK, let's use this as a jumping off point.
> ...



I learned both systems from my sifu. I wont name him here but for anyone interested the details are on our website. 
My Sifu was a private student of Yip Chun. He learned Yip Man wing chun from him. Then, after going around meeting the heads of different lineages he eventually tracked down Sum Nung who, after a few years of training with him, took him as a disciple. I have seen photos of him doing the Bai Si ceremony with Sum Nung.

However, as my sifu went around seeing different types of wing chun he got to see a good portion of Yip Man's Fat San wing chun and kinda liked what he saw; Sum Nung also told him a lot about Yip Mans wing chun, Sum Nung knew yip man well and had seen a lot of his wing chun in Fat San. So, when my teacher started his school in the late 80/early 90s he incorporated some modifications from what he saw in china. So things like the low stance, resting arm being pulled up and back, position of the hands when doing things like Sam Bai Fat. So our HK style wing chun tends to have a mainland china kind of flavour to it, so while t​echnically, its Yip Chun wing chun, my sifu has modified it. My sifu always taught the Yip Man style openly; and for anyone he decided to teach it to, he might start teaching the Guangzhou style. If you were very lucky he might take you as a private student (I was very lucky). In that case you learned the Guangzhou style in the traditional way at his house.

I run my school the same way.

In terms of the differences between the systems, the Guangzhou style is much tighter, is structurally much more solid and has a much more sophisticated and sensitive control and manipulation of force. It also has a completely different understanding of what efficiency of movement means. This different idea about efficiency is coupled with the structure that the body takes and is why the structure is so much tighter in the Guangzhou style. 

In terms of power generation we generate power generally (kind of) the same in both systems but the Guangzhou one is concentrated in the body in a different way which seems to make it hit a lot harder. The power generation is coupled with the structure and efficiency through the trajectory of the movements in a way that makes the Guangzhou style unspeakably more difficult than the Yip Man style, its more difficult to learn, to train at and to understand. However this different idea of efficiency gives the Guangzhou style a versatility that far out strips that of the Yip Man style.  

In a case where you have someone who is dedicated, will train in the traditional manner, and can understand Guangzhou style wing chun (Obijaunsalami is one of these), that person will be very, very, difficult for someone trained only in Yip Man style to deal with. All of that is an enormous strength of the Guangzhou style. However, unfortunately, it is also its biggest weakness.

It is very hard to do it right, and if you cut corners, if you think "near enough is good enough", you just have mediocre Guangzhou style wing chun; by my estimation what you have will not just be useless but an absolute detriment. You would be better of defending yourself with no training at all. So essentially, unless you are willing to do the training in the traditional manner, which puts a huge emphasis on foundation training (Stance, punches, turns, sup yi sik) you won't actually have the wherewithal to deploy your wing chun.

And this is where I think the Yip Man style shines. It is relatively easy (though still difficult), but the more open structure, the simpler ideas of efficiency (so from point A to point B as fast and directly as possible), the simpler ways of using force and the more basic and easier system of power generation make it a much more accessible system of wing chun. And, given the amount of training the average person is interested in doing, or able to dedicate to, it is easier to become proficient, to actually pretty good at. 

From my point of view as someone running a wing chun school, the Yip Man style is excellent, it is much more accessible for the average person who wants to learn a martial art and, if trained at properly, for that average person, has a level of effectiveness that should see them able to defend themselves (all things being considered). 
In these terms, in my opinion, the Guangzhou style is no good as a style to teach in the context of a wing chun school (generally speaking). It is much better kept back and given to people who are dedicated and willing to train hard; that is the only way that they would make it work. 

Far from holding it back as a bait, or as something to keep students paying fees in the hope that they will get it??? For me as a teacher its about giving a student a good solid system of self defence, that may one day save them from a beating; or giving them what they want and having them end up with a system of self defence that they don't actually have the physicality to use. they will cop a beating. Its better to have good, solid, functional Yip Man wing chun than mediocre Guangzhou style that they cant actually use.

That's a kind of general picture, sorry for the length, I'm happy to discuss an finer points anyone may have.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 7, 2018)

So, do you think these differences come from innovations from YM himself, or would you say it is more of a distinction between Leung Jan's branch and Fok Bo Chuen's branch?

From everything I've read about Leung Jan, he was on a constant quest to simplify his WC.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 8, 2018)

yak sao said:


> So, do you think these differences come from innovations from YM himself, or would you say it is more of a distinction between Leung Jan's branch and Fok Bo Chuen's branch?
> 
> From everything I've read about Leung Jan, he was on a constant quest to simplify his WC.




I think its undoubtable that Yip Man made a lot of changes to his wing chun. His Fat San wing chun is quite different, there he was famous for having a very powerful and low stance and when he taught Yip Chun the first time round he had him train in something like the traditional way (from what Yip Chun told my sifu Yip Man had him do nothing but Jun Ma for ages so he gave up). But when he got to HK it became quite different. Who knows why? My suspicion is that in order to survive he stripped some of it back to make it commercially viable. If that is what he did, why he changed it, I'd say he did a pretty good job of finding a balance between accessibility for students and functionality and effectiveness. And by extension a viable way to keep a roof over his head.

I couldn't say what Leung Jan's wing chun was like. I have never experienced any of it. However my sifu always credits Leung Jan as having said something like, "the person who can reduce wing chun to one form without losing the essence of it, will take wing chun further than anyone before". So yeah, from that I'm not surprised to hear that he was trying to simplify it. And just another little bit of information about Leung Jan: he defeated Wong Fe Hung in a duel with the pole. 

The gap between Guangzhou wing chun and Yip Man's wing chun I suspect closed a little with Yip Man. I would hazard a guess that back at Fok Bo Chun/Fung Sui Ching and Leung Jan's generation the styles were further apart. I know Yip Man learned a few fairly important  things from Yuen Kay San, that's pretty common knowledge, and I don't think that's controversial for most people. I suspect that the gap between the two styles closed somewhat at about that generation.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 8, 2018)

APL76 said:


> The gap between Guangzhou wing chun and Yip Man's wing chun I suspect closed a little with Yip Man. I would hazard a guess that back at Fok Bo Chun/Fung Sui Ching and Leung Jan's generation the styles were further apart. *I know Yip Man learned a few fairly important  things from Yuen Kay San, that's pretty common knowledge, *and I don't think that's controversial for most people. I suspect that the gap between the two styles closed somewhat at about that generation.



Interesting! I've suspected this for many years. I've read somewhere that he learned rolling hands / chi sau from him. But I suspected there must have been other things. I also think YM picked up other WC items from other WC masters of his day. Wish I knew exactly what but sadly I think this knowledge will never be known in our times...


----------



## APL76 (Jul 8, 2018)

Yeah, the chi sao was at least a major part of it, I would suspect that he also got a lot more, perhaps not being taught necessarily, but simply by doing chi sao with the likes of Yuen Kay San, if you had your head screwed on right, you could potentially lean an enormous amount just through doing that with him, just from feeling how he moved.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 8, 2018)

APL76 said:


> I think its undoubtable that Yip Man made a lot of changes to his wing chun.



I agree. It would account for all the differences in his students / disciples, etc.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 8, 2018)

I've always kind of had the impression that the HK WC was kind of the stripped down version.
Like you said, I believe YM did what he did because of the situation/ culture he found himself in at that time.
I also think he may have been carrying Leung Jan's torch of trying to simplify his method. HK  simply became the catalyst for change.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 8, 2018)

yak sao said:


> I've always kind of had the impression that the HK WC was kind of the stripped down version.
> Like you said, I believe YM did what he did because of the situation/ culture he found himself in at that time.
> I also think he may have been carrying Leung Jan's torch of trying to simplify his method. HK  simply became the catalyst for change.



Yeah dude...I mean...how else to explain all the changes/differences. 
1. turn on forward part of foot vs rear part of foot.
2. the way the opening of the forms happens
3. weight distributions
4. stepping vs sliding
5. the coreography of things like the jong, the pole, the knives, etc. 

It boggles the mind!!!


----------



## geezer (Jul 8, 2018)

yak sao said:


> I've always kind of had the impression that the HK WC was kind of the stripped down version.
> Like you said, I believe YM did what he did because of the situation/ culture he found himself in at that time.
> I also think he may have been carrying Leung Jan's torch of trying to simplify his method. HK  simply became the catalyst for change.



IMO "Stripping down" or streamlining the system would have contributed to its functionality as well as its commercial success. In the 50's in Hong Kong those young guys came to Yip Man looking for something that _worked._ Like the young guys today that go to MMA gyms.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 9, 2018)

especially in HK where after 1 or 2 years the other TCMA students would still be on footwork whilst Ip Man's students would be on Chum Kil.  I still strongly believe that in part at least, Ip Man's and wing chun's reputation in HK in the 50s/60s came about from this fact and the various beimos going on.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 9, 2018)

Maybe, in today's modern "MMA culture"...we need a stripped down version of Wing Chun!!!


----------



## Poppity (Jul 9, 2018)

...maybe, but as Ip Man's wing chun is already stripped back, you would have to find someone prepared to teach an older and more complete version and then re-examine what could be stripped out and leave a still functioning system...  which leaves the issue of how many bricks do you take out before the wall falls down.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 9, 2018)

Malos1979 said:


> Some people think they live in the early 1800's in China.
> 
> I think it's stupid and if a teacher would be so secretive it would be the last one I would be learning from.
> 
> I like transparency....




I'm still puzzled by this transparency in martial arts that many people seem to think it needs. I'm not saying this to be disrespectful of you or anyone else, it just puzzles me. Why is it any different to any other thing people do? Should the Colonel just give up the 11 secret herbs and spices just because its the 21st century? (And just quietly, I'm convinced Colonel Sanders was really Leon Trotsky. Do a google images search comparing them and tell me I'm wrong). Or should Boeing and Lockheed Martin simply share their research? How is it any different from a musician expecting people to buy their CDs (or maybe mp3? now) rather than illegally download their music, or Warner Brothers expecting people to go buy a movie ticket rather than illegally download their movie? Why is it, in the age of copyright and intellectual property protection, keeping what's yours is fine, EXCEPT in the context of a martial art, which people think aught to be a free for all?

Perhaps if someone can explain a few things like.

What do you expect to gain from having this information open and freely available? Do you just expect to get a bit of knowledge?, or are you looking for ways to modify, perhaps even improve, your own kung fu?

Do you think that different systems of wing chun, or even different systems of kung fu/martial arts can be fused together? and if so do you think you will end up with a better system of martial art in the end?

Do you feel like your wing chun is somehow …….incomplete?...………. or maybe shallow? and so hearing about what other systems of wing chun/martial arts do might fil in some gaps or add refinement or something?

Just some questions, again, I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything, nor do I have a problem with the idea that martial arts can or should be shared openly (in HK style I'm happy to do that), though I just don't really understand it. And while I'm quoting Malos1979, this is directed generally, not meaning to seem to be having a shot at you Malos1979.


----------



## KPM (Jul 9, 2018)

*Should the Colonel just give up the 11 secret herbs and spices just because its the 21st century? (And just quietly, I'm convinced Colonel Sanders was really Leon Trotsky. Do a google images search comparing them and tell me I'm wrong). Or should Boeing and Lockheed Martin simply share their research? How is it any different from a musician expecting people to buy their CDs (or maybe mp3? now) rather than illegally download their music, or Warner Brothers expecting people to go buy a movie ticket rather than illegally download their movie? Why is it, in the age of copyright and intellectual property protection, keeping what's yours is fine, EXCEPT in the context of a martial art, which people think aught to be a free for all?*

---Good points.  Except no one here is expecting you to teach your system to them for free.  Being willing to share a simple point like which part of the foot you are pivoting on is akin to someone sharing the fryer temp they cook the chicken at, not the secret herb recipe.  Or the type of aluminum used in their aircraft construction, not the blueprints to their latest project.  


*What do you expect to gain from having this information open and freely available? Do you just expect to get a bit of knowledge?, or are you looking for ways to modify, perhaps even improve, your own kung fu?*

---I already answered that question.  We are here to discuss Wing Chun.  I assume that most of the people here are like me....they are passionate about Wing Chun and about learning about other people's insights and ways they do their Wing Chun....even if they don't intend to alter or change their own Wing Chun.  No one here is trying to learn how to do Wing Chun from a discussion forum!  We are just here to share and to learn how other people do things.   Why are you here, if not to also discuss and learn how others do things and how others approach their Wing Chun?  Why would you assume that everyone is trying to "steal" something from you?  Why would you assume that everyone here has inferior Wing Chun and is trying to improve it with your secrets?  Again, no one is "demanding" that you share or feeling entitled to what you have to share.   I simply pointed out that the attitude you have displayed is an anachronism in the 21st century.  The oath your teacher required of you is an anachronism in the 21st century.  Why is your Guangzhu Wing Chun any more special than your Hong Kong Wing Chun?   Sum Nun had lots of students in China and there are still a good number of people teaching his Wing Chun in Guangzhu.  But you can share tidbits about one and not the other?  Again, I understand why.  You don't have to go into that again.  I just think the "why" is kind of ridiculous.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 9, 2018)

Calm down, have a deep breath and relax. I'm not accusing you or anyone here of wanting to steal stuff, nor am I asserting that everyone has inferior wing chun, so take it easy. What I made plain in other comments is that there are, and in increasing numbers, of people who are indeed doing just that, most of who don't even have the basics right. 

I'm not expecting you or anyone who is not within Yuen Kay San's line to know who is who (I myself only have a vague notion of really who is who, but I can look at their wing chun and immediately know who is telling the truth or not) or really just what is happening, but its going on. My sifu even gets grilled about what he, and or, his students are teaching every time he goes back to China and so much as anywhere near a Guangzhou wing chun association meeting (which he generally avoids because of the politics involved). So for us its actually pretty important to keep stuff to ourselves even just as a way to avoid getting tangled up in that sort of crap. And people within our lineage are back biting and undermining each other constantly. We want to stay away from all of that. One thing I will share with you was one of the first lessons Sum Nung taught my sifu, that was: to stay well away from wing chun politics. And so you know, yes Sum Nung did teach probably in the thousands of people, but he only had a very, very small number of disciples, and what he taught his disciples is an extremely different kettle of fish to what everyone else got, even 2nd or 3rd generation students if they themselves hadn't got it just as he taught his disciples; and that's one big reason for us not just dishing out whatever information people might want to have. Its not that we think anyone here will "steal" out stuff, its that people who were never entrusted with this stuff in the first place (you would have to ask Sum Nung why not) get what they were not given. Also, just so you know, my sifu is just as beholden to his oath to Sum Nung as we are to him, he is just staying true to his word too. As indeed was Sum Nung to Yuen Kay San. 

Don't look at just anything and think its a good representation of Guangzhou wing chun, the overwhelming majority of it has………….blemishes? You can make up your mind which is good and which is bad. I'm making no comment.

Why is our Guangzhou style more special than our Hong Kong style? Firstly, because we know both and can feel the difference, and experience the difference and outcome when we do it, and even then its only because we are willing to do the training to support the Guangzhou style. If we weren't willing to do that, and when you are learning it, doing the Guangzhou style feels impossible, I'd say anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the Guangzhou style is unworkable; some of my instructors came to that conclusion and gave up. For people like that, HK style is by far the superior style. And far from being happy to share "tidbits" of our HK style I'm happy to discuss that in depth and detail as much as anyone would like. Secondly, its a condition of us learning it that we don't share it. As it was for my sifu, as it was for Sum Nung.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 9, 2018)

APL76 said:


> ...  And people within our lineage are back biting and undermining each other constantly. We want to stay away from all of that. One thing I will share with you was one of the first lessons Sum Nung taught my sifu, that was: to stay well away from wing chun politics.



And here I thought all of the bad politics came from the HK WC.
It's nice to know that WC is one big happy dysfunctional family all across the board.


----------



## APL76 (Jul 9, 2018)

yak sao said:


> And here I thought all of the bad politics came from the HK WC.
> It's nice to know that WC is one big happy dysfunctional family all across the board.


nah, and I'm sure other branches have the same thing, too. It seems to have intesified since Sum Nung died though; probably intensified once Yip Man died in the Yip Man system.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 10, 2018)

I think that APL76 comment is spot on regarding looking at the wing chun demonstrated by form or application being a big reveal about who was taught a more traditional version and who has been taught a more modern approach.... just to caveat, I am not saying the modern approach (Ip Man from the 60s etc.) is not applicable or useful, only that there is a difference.

I also think the lineage politics is massively problematic to wing chun's development, the Lee Shing lineage in the UK has had issues for years, and this all adds to the general distrust and feelings that things cannot be shared. If there are problems internally, imagine the problems externally etc... so that old saying of all it takes is for a couple of bad apples to spoil the barrel springs to mind.

I can understand the secret side of teaching... in that knowledge held by a minority is considered of a greater value than knowledge which is widely disseminated (the latter generally being free and for everyone) but it feels, to me, a bit like security clearance, no-one gets top level access on their first day, just cause they applied for the job.... and if they start talking to the Russians or open up their own unofficial security branch, their clearance will get revoked.... I understand the response might be "we are not talking about security its a martial art in the service industry"....

and here... I do generally feel that there is a clash of cultures... the western approach of consumer and expectation of good service, where I have paid my money I expect to be taught what I have paid for, and the Chinese approach which is almost the reverse, of the consumer/student must show good character and "brand" loyalty over a prolonged period before they get the under-counter stuff.

 However, I think the which part of the foot do you pivot on might have blown out of proportion, but I think that this might be because you were cautious about providing a holistic answer.


----------



## KPM (Jul 10, 2018)

*Calm down, have a deep breath and relax. I'm not accusing you or anyone here of wanting to steal stuff, nor am I asserting that everyone has inferior wing chun, so take it easy. What I made plain in other comments is that there are, and in increasing numbers, of people who are indeed doing just that, most of who don't even have the basics right. *

---No one needs to "calm down", just like no one was "demanding" anything of you or feeling "entitled."  You certainly have a way of trying to "blow things out of proportion"! ;-)  And by the analogies you used and the questions you asked, you certainly implied that you felt people were trying to steal your secrets or improve their own Wing Chun with your knowledge.  Why else would you use those analogies or ask those specific questions?


* So for us its actually pretty important to keep stuff to ourselves even just as a way to avoid getting tangled up in that sort of crap.  And people within our lineage are back biting and undermining each other constantly.*

---You said it, not me.  Its a bunch of crap.   And you don't think that whole attitude is an anachronism in the 21st century?


* One thing I will share with you was one of the first lessons Sum Nung taught my sifu, that was: to stay well away from wing chun politics. *

---And you don't think this entire part of the conversation here hasn't been "playing politics"?  You have just been trying to justify your political stance.   I pointed out it was an anachronism in the 21st century and rather silly.   You could have said...."Yeah I agree, but its something I'm stuck with!".....rather than going on and on about how justified you think it is.

*
And so you know, yes Sum Nung did teach probably in the thousands of people, but he only had a very, very small number of disciples, and what he taught his disciples is an extremely different kettle of fish to what everyone else got, even 2nd or 3rd generation students if they themselves hadn't got it just as he taught his disciples; and that's one big reason for us not just dishing out whatever information people might want to have. *

---That's one good reason to be sharing with those people what they may have missed to bring up the quality and reputation of Sum Nun's Wing Chun as a whole!  Again, that is a rather crappy attitude to have in the 21st century.   Recall my story of Ted Lucaylucay traveling and doing seminars with the sole purpose of trying to increase the standard of FMA in the US.  That is the kind of attitude to have!  If they are your Guangzhu Wing Chun brothers, why are you not willing to help them out and help them to improve their Wing Chun?

*
Its not that we think anyone here will "steal" out stuff, its that people who were never entrusted with this stuff in the first place (you would have to ask Sum Nung why not) get what they were not given. Also, just so you know, my sifu is just as beholden to his oath to Sum Nung as we are to him, he is just staying true to his word too. As indeed was Sum Nung to Yuen Kay San. *

---That's nice.   You guys are displaying good integrity.  But you are saying Sum Nun taught many people crap?, and no one is  willing to help them sort out what is good and improve their knowledge?   Not so much integrity there!  ;-)  


*Don't look at just anything and think its a good representation of Guangzhou wing chun, the overwhelming majority of it has………….blemishes? You can make up your mind which is good and which is bad. I'm making no comment.*

---And again....why isn't anyone willing to help them became a better representation of Guangzhou Wing Chun and correct their errors or "blemishes"?  Why keep it a secret from them?  That attitude is an anachronism in the 21st century and doesn't display very good integrity IMHO!   Why not strive to raise the standard of Guangzhu Wing Chun as a whole and build its reputation?  Why hide it away?


----------



## KPM (Jul 10, 2018)

APL76 said:


> nah, and I'm sure other branches have the same thing, too. It seems to have intesified since Sum Nung died though; probably intensified once Yip Man died in the Yip Man system.



Intensified because all of the oaths and promises and unwillingness to share or help others?  Unwillingness to work together to raise everyone's standard?   And you think that attitude is not an anachronism in the 21st century and somewhat ridiculous????


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 10, 2018)

Dang...almost regretting starting this thread hahaha.

Methinks this issue will be alive and well for many years to come...


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2018)

APL76 said:


> I'm still puzzled by this transparency in martial arts that many people seem to think it needs. I'm not saying this to be disrespectful of you or anyone else, it just puzzles me. Why is it any different to any other thing people do? Should the Colonel just give up the 11 secret herbs and spices just because its the 21st century? (And just quietly, I'm convinced Colonel Sanders was really Leon Trotsky. Do a google images search comparing them and tell me I'm wrong). Or should Boeing and Lockheed Martin simply share their research? How is it any different from a musician expecting people to buy their CDs (or maybe mp3? now) rather than illegally download their music, or Warner Brothers expecting people to go buy a movie ticket rather than illegally download their movie? Why is it, in the age of copyright and intellectual property protection, keeping what's yours is fine, EXCEPT in the context of a martial art, which people think aught to be a free for all?
> 
> Perhaps if someone can explain a few things like.
> 
> ...


I see room for improvement and expansion in every art. As others innovate, any given art can be "left behind" by not adapting to changes in culture, environment, and common practice. Even worse, they can continue to rely on mistaken information (imagine if sports teams still thought it improved players if they didn't drink during practice). Sharing of information between groups makes this growth and development easier for all. My primary art traditionally has a weak ground game. It existed, so NGA was a step ahead of some arts in that area, but adding a few tweaks from Judo and BJJ (easy to do since the arts share principles) turns it into something useful. It's still not going to match BJJ or what used to be common in Judo, but it's better suited to the art's focus. And if others (from other arts) know what I'm doing, they can give feedback on what they see in it (good or bad) that can help feed my development.

To finish answering your question, though, I have to take the other side - the question you sort of asked: what's the risk in sharing that. For a high-profit marketing system, there's some risk. Here, I'm thinking of those systems that sell hard that they have that "special sauce" that nobody else has. Most of us don't do that, so there's no significant risk in sharing that information. There's quite literally nothing in what I teach that would begin to be analogous to the Colonel's blend of herbs and spices. You can already find every bit and piece somewhere else, though some of it has evolved or been refined differently. If there's something that nobody else (outside a specific art) has ever separately discovered and made part of a useful training system, it has to be either an extreme statistical anomaly (by now, with all the experimentation in fighting methods, it should have been discovered) or nobody else decided it was all that useful. Given that the latter is inherently more likely (statistical anomalies of that order being, by definition, extremely rare), I'd want to figure out why they didn't, and the best way to do that is to work with folks who are not invested in its value - people outside the art in question. It could be an anomaly. It could be something simple that makes it less useful in other systems than in mine (perhaps it only really works well when surrounded by other, specific principles and techniques), or it might be that I've missed something that would improve what I do and teach.

Long ago, it made sense to guard information about fighting styles. They were actually used for routine skirmishes between groups, and those skirmishes were rare enough that the other group wouldn't have a chance to figure out your special sauce. So if they could find out (by having someone spy out the information) what that special sauce was, they could train to defeat it and would have an advantage over your group. That doesn't really apply in any modern context I can perceive, except gang wars.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2018)

KPM said:


> Intensified because all of the oaths and promises and unwillingness to share or help others?  Unwillingness to work together to raise everyone's standard?   And you think that attitude is not an anachronism in the 21st century and somewhat ridiculous????


Keith, I don't know if you mean to be or not, but you sound like you're in "attack mode" in these responses. I don't see a good reason for the secrecy (though I commend folks for holding to oaths they made in good faith), but calm discussion is likely to go farther than the tone I read in these posts. And note the way I phrased the end of that previous sentence - it may be something I'm reading that's not there, but that's something that happens in text-only discussions.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I see room for improvement and expansion in every art. As others innovate, any given art can be "left behind" by not adapting to changes in culture, environment, and common practice. Even worse, they can continue to rely on mistaken information (imagine if sports teams still thought it improved players if they didn't drink during practice). Sharing of information between groups makes this growth and development easier for all. My primary art traditionally has a weak ground game. It existed, so NGA was a step ahead of some arts in that area, but adding a few tweaks from Judo and BJJ (easy to do since the arts share principles) turns it into something useful. It's still not going to match BJJ or what used to be common in Judo, but it's better suited to the art's focus. And if others (from other arts) know what I'm doing, they can give feedback on what they see in it (good or bad) that can help feed my development.
> 
> To finish answering your question, though, I have to take the other side - the question you sort of asked: what's the risk in sharing that. For a high-profit marketing system, there's some risk. Here, I'm thinking of those systems that sell hard that they have that "special sauce" that nobody else has. Most of us don't do that, so there's no significant risk in sharing that information. There's quite literally nothing in what I teach that would begin to be analogous to the Colonel's blend of herbs and spices. You can already find every bit and piece somewhere else, though some of it has evolved or been refined differently. If there's something that nobody else (outside a specific art) has ever separately discovered and made part of a useful training system, it has to be either an extreme statistical anomaly (by now, with all the experimentation in fighting methods, it should have been discovered) or nobody else decided it was all that useful. Given that the latter is inherently more likely (statistical anomalies of that order being, by definition, extremely rare), I'd want to figure out why they didn't, and the best way to do that is to work with folks who are not invested in its value - people outside the art in question. It could be an anomaly. It could be something simple that makes it less useful in other systems than in mine (perhaps it only really works well when surrounded by other, specific principles and techniques), or it might be that I've missed something that would improve what I do and teach.
> 
> Long ago, it made sense to guard information about fighting styles. They were actually used for routine skirmishes between groups, and those skirmishes were rare enough that the other group wouldn't have a chance to figure out your special sauce. So if they could find out (by having someone spy out the information) what that special sauce was, they could train to defeat it and would have an advantage over your group. That doesn't really apply in any modern context I can perceive, except gang wars.




These are excellent points in my opinion, but the threads like these only reinforce the perceived value of the closely held knowledge of wing chun.  In the sense that if a school says they have secret teachings or esoteric knowledge... so what, does it really matter anyway?

It does not detract from the effectiveness of your own style and fighting ability, and none of the secrets are going to enable anyone to leap several feet in the air or punch someone through three walls, and yet whenever a school says we have knowledge we don't share, people consider it highly valuable and want to know it.

Wing Chun is just a fighting system which has some secretive layers, and in a saturated market of martial arts, (from a western point of view) it is a niche selling point.

How effective are those closely held items of knowledge? until a fighter with that knowledge and ability comes forward to compete in an open arena its a moot point.  The argument that the techniques are too deadly has never held any water, if you have an expansive knowledge you should be able to apply it in a non-lethal way.  It is much more likely that if such a person lost in the tournament, the loss of face to the school and lineage would be too great for anyone to ever be authorised to do it in the first place.  Which comes back to the double edged sword of lineage, brand identity (or corporate identity) and an individuals wider responsibilities and obligations to the lineage itself.

Meanwhile.... the general unarmed martial arena continues to develop and progress by sharing, discussing and adapting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2018)

Snark said:


> These are excellent points in my opinion, but the threads like these only reinforce the perceived value of the closely held knowledge of wing chun.  In the sense that if a school says they have secret teachings or esoteric knowledge... so what, does it really matter anyway?
> 
> It does not detract from the effectiveness of your own style and fighting ability, and none of the secrets are going to enable anyone to leap several feet in the air or punch someone through three walls, and yet whenever a school says we have knowledge we don't share, people consider it highly valuable and want to know it.
> 
> ...


I don't think most folks value the information more because it's not shared. It's that we tend to value it as much as other information (and I'm an information fiend), and really don't like not being able to collect it. To me, it's like a closed door in a museum (or the Biltmore House, which is about 20 minutes from home). I don't expect there's anything behind it that's much different from what's in the room with the open door, but I want to know, because STUFF!

And I think more discussion comes up because folks are either curious about the reason for the secrecy, or become frustrated by an attitude they don't understand or agree with.

WC information probably has little impact on me - it's too far from my experience to draw much from at this point. For others in the WC community, it's of higher value. Let me give an example of something I thought early on in this discussion, based on some of APL's comments and knowing what I've read of Keith's personal approach to WC. I couldn't help thinking that perhaps the secretive styles of WC have some information that would help improve other styles of WC, and perhaps some of the more progressive approaches to WC could help shorten the long, difficult learning curve APL mentioned for Guanzhou style. Maybe neither of those "perhaps" statements is true, but we can't really know without open sharing between the two.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 10, 2018)

And, something else to keep in mind is that copious amounts of time and money are involved too...aside from loyalty, oaths, egos, etc.


----------



## Poppity (Jul 10, 2018)

Pro’s of secrets

Instantly creates a level of exclusivity associated with the school
Elevates outside perception of knowledge/potential ability of the school
Creates a greater brand identity which encourages brand loyalty
Students are beholden to the school rules in order to obtain secrets, leading to the school having greater control over students behaviour (for ensuring good character)
People will train at the school for longer and pay more


Con’s of secrets

Limits potential development of other styles
Students are beholden to the school rules in order to obtain secrets, leading to the school having greater control over students behaviour (for readjustments in thinking due to cognitive dissonance – a bit culty)
It’s a bit irritating


Secrets generally offer a lot of pros on a marketing level and internal brand identity and the only con is if people don’t buy into your marketing or brand they think its stupid.

Whether the secrets are any good… well that’s a different story.

But everyone knows that just knowing secrets is not going to make you a great fighter. 

Drills and forms are playing pop songs but fighting is pure jazz. So maybe some school knows some counterpointing so what, its not going to affect your jazz.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 10, 2018)

...and to add to it: secrets are not really secrets... just aspects of the curriculum and/or deeper levels of detail that are eventually passed down from instructor to student.  

for example...maybe a certain conditioning drill is withheld from students until they are sufficiently conditioned with other, more basic exercises. So for the months / years they do not have access to it, they may grow to spite it as a "secret" when really it is not. It's ready and waiting for them when their level or skill gets there to receive it.


----------



## Danny T (Jul 10, 2018)

The largest secrets are that patterns of movement, striking patterns, kicking patterns, are often nothing more than templates. Some drills are attribute development and not specific to application in fighting. Most movements, positions, etc. even when give a specific sounding name (like block) are not specific to that name. Some drills are timing development, some are range development, some are entering and/or egress drills. Practitioners tend to compartmentalize the information. It's like they put it in box and put up on the shelf..."Ok I've got that."  So they have a lot of boxes on the shelf never realizing how all the parts interrelate and that the sum of all the pieces in the boxes are greater than the whole.


----------



## geezer (Jul 10, 2018)

Malos1979 said:


> ...I like transparency....



Sure, what's not to like!
Listed on Depop by allielele


----------



## KPM (Jul 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Keith, I don't know if you mean to be or not, but you sound like you're in "attack mode" in these responses. I don't see a good reason for the secrecy (though I commend folks for holding to oaths they made in good faith), but calm discussion is likely to go farther than the tone I read in these posts. And note the way I phrased the end of that previous sentence - it may be something I'm reading that's not there, but that's something that happens in text-only discussions.



No.  Not in "attack mode" at all.  And I was out of this discussion and perfectly willing to let it lie until APL76 made that ridiculous post comparing things to Kentucky Fried Chicken and implying that someone was trying to steal his knowledge or fill in gaps in their own Wing Chun with his knowledge.  And I'm not the one telling people they are demanding things or are acting entitled.  Yes, tone it hard to tell on a discussion forum.  All you can really go by is content!     So I will refer you back to the comments I just made!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2018)

KPM said:


> No.  Not in "attack mode" at all.  And I was out of this discussion and perfectly willing to let it lie until APL76 made that ridiculous post comparing things to Kentucky Fried Chicken and implying that someone was trying to steal his knowledge or fill in gaps in their own Wing Chun with his knowledge.  And I'm not the one telling people they are demanding things or are acting entitled.  Yes, tone it hard to tell on a discussion forum.  All you can really go by is content!     So I will refer you back to the comments I just made!


I didn't find his KFC comment ridiculous, though I disagreed with the analogy. And I certainly didn't see him implying anyone was out to steal anything. I may have missed that implication, though.


----------



## geezer (Jul 10, 2018)

I think I understand where APL 76 is coming from. For years I followed a famous and very proficient sifu who convinced a lot of people that his system of Yip Man Ving Tsun was far more refined and effective than other lineages,_ including the branch of YMVT taught by Yip Chun that APL 76 studied_. Those of us who did _baisi _to this sifu and became his disciples learned the _true_ version of his system through personal training, not just the publicly taught version, and indeed, just like APL, we could immediately see and feel the difference! Just like what APL 76 says about his Sum Nung lineage training.

...Oh, perhaps a few did not really "get it" and were not able to benefit from this more refined teaching and quit. Perhaps they were better off with the simpler, public version of WC. But those of us who really worked at the finer points reaped the benefit, we got the real secret sauce.

Unfortunately, many if not most of those subtle differences _only work in the kwoon_, or playing the _chi sau game_ as your particular system plays it. At any rate these stylistic "secrets" haven't given any WC/VT/WT branch an objectively quantifiable advantage in any form of open fighting contest that I have seen. Far from it! Yes, a few tough and talented proponents may emerge from each special lineage, but to date there is no objective evidence that these kind of technical "secrets" consistently make any positive difference in real contests.

Is there a difference between close "indoor" training and superficial public instruction. _Absolutely._ Of course, great athletes working privately with great coaches will learn much more than what someone going to a weekend seminar or watching video by the same coach will learn. But in the final analysis, this is the result of intensive coaching. There is nothing gained by excessive secrecy. Only by open and transparent comparison and objective testing can WC/VT/WT progress as other fighting arts have. At least that's how I've come to see things.


----------



## geezer (Jul 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> I didn't find his KFC comment ridiculous, though I disagreed with the analogy. And I certainly didn't see him implying anyone was out to steal anything. I may have missed that implication, though.



Well now, everything is so subjective. As for me, reading about KFC, secret sauce, etc. is just making me_ hungry._


----------



## geezer (Jul 10, 2018)

On the other hand, I think Keith is a little grumpy. Maybe he's just had a little too much of the TCM "true believer" BS. I know I have. But then Keith and I have both been through that stuff, more than once. Maybe we need to just chill and remember that APL 76 is _not  LFJ _ or _Guy B. _He's just a sincere WC practitoner who has a different point of view. In fact, a point of view pretty similar to what we had at one time. I can accept that, ...but then, I'm pretty much a WC_ liberal. _Now excuse my while I go_ hug a tree.
_
Well, actually _beat on the wooden dummy_, but that's close enough.


----------



## wckf92 (Jul 10, 2018)

geezer said:


> Of course, great athletes working privately with great coaches will learn much more than what someone going to a weekend seminar or watching video by the same coach will learn.



Nicely said. This is what I was attempting to convey in an earlier post. 
Kind of like a magnifying glass being used to start a fire...unfocused, the area still recieves heat...but when focused on an individual piece with laser like strength, it ignites. 

Another analogy might be akin to somethink like google maps. You can input a town or city name and get "some" detail, but thats all you'll ever see unless you zoom in and see the finer points


----------



## ShortBridge (Jul 10, 2018)

My biggest "secrets" from my students is that it's okay to break the rules, but if you didn't follow them as beginners, they wouldn't develop the fundamentals that made us good at what we do. They need to really understand basic principals and tactics before they explore relaxing them.

So if I hold back techniques or forms or ideas, it's because it would conflict with what they are developing in themselves at this point. 

Not a secret, I'm honest about it and they are okay with it.


----------



## KPM (Jul 10, 2018)

geezer said:


> On the other hand, I think Keith is a little grumpy. Maybe he's just had a little too much of the TCM "true believer" BS. I know I have. But then Keith and I have both been through that stuff, more than once. Maybe we need to just chill and remember that APL 76 is _not  LFJ _ or _Guy B. _He's just a sincere WC practitoner who has a different point of view. In fact, a point of view pretty similar to what we had at one time. I can accept that, ...but then, I'm pretty much a WC_ liberal. _Now excuse my while I go_ hug a tree.
> _
> Well, actually _beat on the wooden dummy_, but that's close enough.



Good points Steve!  I have certainly become more and more disenchanted with "traditional" martial arts recently.  So maybe I am being a bit over-critical and a little grumpy!   So APL76....my apologies if my tone has been a bit antagonistic.  You are perfectly justified in keeping any oath you made to your teacher.  However anachronistic requiring such an oath may be!


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2018)

ShortBridge said:


> My biggest "secrets" from my students is that it's okay to break the rules, but if you didn't follow them as beginners, they wouldn't develop the fundamentals that made us good at what we do. They need to really understand basic principals and tactics before they explore relaxing them.
> 
> So if I hold back techniques or forms or ideas, it's because it would conflict with what they are developing in themselves at this point.
> 
> Not a secret, I'm honest about it and they are okay with it.


That's a good synopsis of the main reason I hold some stuff back for a while. I probably should actually hold more back than I do for that reason, actually. I tend to tell students too early what leeway there is in a technique, and some of them find that frustratingly unspecific.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2018)

geezer said:


> Well now, everything is so subjective. As for me, reading about KFC, secret sauce, etc. is just making me_ hungry._


You too? I need dinner, and I'm not at home, so I don't know where a damned KFC is around this joint.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 10, 2018)

geezer said:


> Well, actually _*beat on the wooden dummy*_, but that's close enough.


That just sounds dirty, man.


----------



## yak sao (Jul 10, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> That just sounds dirty, man.



Just wait till he tells you about his long Pole


----------

