A quite different 1st form!
- Thread starter wckf92
- Start date
The 1st form in your MA system is like the 1st chapter of your 1st grade elementary school book.
"Come, come, come, come to school. Go, go, go, go to study. Let's all study our new books together. In my new book, there is a national flag. Flag, flag, I love you, I respect you." (Donald Trump will like this.)
Now you have graduated from high school, or college. Will you still read your 1st grade book the same way as you did when you were 5 years old?
Of course today that you train your 1st form is different from the day that you trained your 1st form many years ago. Today, you are no longer a beginner.
You just don't talk like "Goo Goo Ga Ga" when you are 80 years old.
"Come, come, come, come to school. Go, go, go, go to study. Let's all study our new books together. In my new book, there is a national flag. Flag, flag, I love you, I respect you." (Donald Trump will like this.)
Now you have graduated from high school, or college. Will you still read your 1st grade book the same way as you did when you were 5 years old?
Of course today that you train your 1st form is different from the day that you trained your 1st form many years ago. Today, you are no longer a beginner.
You just don't talk like "Goo Goo Ga Ga" when you are 80 years old.
Last edited:
I like this. One of the challenges in teaching is not to try to teach the first form (or whatever its equivalent is in each system) the way you currently understand it, but the way the students can.
I have said all along its messy to understand or unraval and have given my opinion and with supporting links being the most common view but with some common sense you can at least appreciate what is possibly a solution to the story.
----You've posted an awful lot of pointless links and memes. Maybe there was something good in there. But it kind of got lost in the "noise." Again, it would be much better if you simply responded to questions and points made and actually attempted to "discuss."
But you and others are just baiting an argument and "Stoking the fire" and so to speak and a Forum Moderator should just lock this thread and give you and a few others a private warning.
---No one is "baiting" anything. We are simply trying to get you to engage in an actual discussion rather than just stating your opinion as if it was known fact.
I have read all and understand all the info found online and the link to Kung Fu Tea you linked great stuff, but sadly you have missed my point of view entirely and its why talking on Forums makes things difficult and cumbersome.
----And we have been asking you to elaborate on your point and support it better. If we've "missed it", its because you failed to "make it" so far! So far we have that you think there is just "one" Wing Chun...an "original" Wing Chun and that the differences between different systems and lineages of Wing Chun are insignificant. We also have that you think this "original" Wing Chun was derived from the "116 dummy form" that was developed from the dummy techniques used in the "Shaolin Wooden Man hall." Is that accurate? I've asked this question before and you have avoided answering it. So don't blame me if I have "missed your point"!
My only absolute last answer is study the "Chinese Culture" in that era then the roots and the issues of that time period and at least settle the matter for yourself thats what I did, why is this so hard for you or anyone to understand., we will never know 100%.
---If that's what you truly did, then you will have discovered that it was very common not so long ago to have "martial stories" that circulated around. They were often "mixed and matched." These were legends that talked about martial heroes and founders of systems. Just look at the founding legends in Fukien White Crane and you will find that they are very very similar to those of Wing Chun! LOTS of martial systems have stories and legends that link their origins to the Shaolin temple! They saw this as giving more credibility to their method, regardless of its true origins!
Here is something that might help I don't know but again its all about choice how you chose to settle the matter or understand it...............
"Wing Chun is a traditional Chinese martial arts form which originates from South China(Guang Zhou & Fu Jian Province ). There is an interesting story about how and why Wing Chun has created. During the Qing dynasty, In order to revolt against the tyrannies of Qing Dynasty government’s reign, the southern shaolin temple had a fight with the government. The government destroyed the southern shaolin temple. The monks left the temple and became homeless. One of the five greatest martial arts artists that escaped was a girl named WuMei. She fled to the mountains. One day when she was out searching for food she saw a snake and a crane fighting. She studied their moves and tactics with intense focus, and with her knowledge of Shaolin Kung fu then created Wing Chun."
*Online Reference:- Wing Chun training in China | Dragon Mountain Kung Fu School
----Yes, this is a very common version of the legend of the founding of Wing Chun. The problem is, no one has firmly and historically established that their was a Southern Shaolin temple that taught martial arts. Secondly, the Shaolin temple in the North never admitted female Nuns. So it would be assumed that a Southern Shaolin temple wouldn't have either. And how can a mere "girl" have been accepted as "one of the five greatest martial artists"? Its a cool legend, but nothing more. And I'll point out again that this legend says nothing about Wing Chun being derived from "116 Wooden dummy form" from the "Shaolin Wooden Man hall." So I'll ask for a third time.....where is this idea coming from? What is your source for this? Why are you avoiding answering this question????
My opinion on the matter is sorted, and I have come to a final belief many years ago as stated earlier that there is only one Wing Chun form of 116 techniques ever taught rooted from the Shaolin monks and the rest is crap just changes added and people passing on the style and variances of the original. I also say this because of the current dilemma we have now being a circus show of who has a better form and who's origins are more accurate than the other, just online madness that has done more harm than good hence all my previous posts in thread.
----Ok. So I will ask another question for at least the second, maybe third time? Who still has this version of the original "one Wing Chun form of 116 techniques"? What is your reference point for this in order to say others have made changes and added to this original?
Again its pointless to keep talking believe what you want so will I and on that note why don't you guys explain to the community what your opinions and beliefs are? mm
----We have! You just weren't paying attention!
----You've posted an awful lot of pointless links and memes. Maybe there was something good in there. But it kind of got lost in the "noise." Again, it would be much better if you simply responded to questions and points made and actually attempted to "discuss."
But you and others are just baiting an argument and "Stoking the fire" and so to speak and a Forum Moderator should just lock this thread and give you and a few others a private warning.
---No one is "baiting" anything. We are simply trying to get you to engage in an actual discussion rather than just stating your opinion as if it was known fact.
I have read all and understand all the info found online and the link to Kung Fu Tea you linked great stuff, but sadly you have missed my point of view entirely and its why talking on Forums makes things difficult and cumbersome.
----And we have been asking you to elaborate on your point and support it better. If we've "missed it", its because you failed to "make it" so far! So far we have that you think there is just "one" Wing Chun...an "original" Wing Chun and that the differences between different systems and lineages of Wing Chun are insignificant. We also have that you think this "original" Wing Chun was derived from the "116 dummy form" that was developed from the dummy techniques used in the "Shaolin Wooden Man hall." Is that accurate? I've asked this question before and you have avoided answering it. So don't blame me if I have "missed your point"!
My only absolute last answer is study the "Chinese Culture" in that era then the roots and the issues of that time period and at least settle the matter for yourself thats what I did, why is this so hard for you or anyone to understand., we will never know 100%.
---If that's what you truly did, then you will have discovered that it was very common not so long ago to have "martial stories" that circulated around. They were often "mixed and matched." These were legends that talked about martial heroes and founders of systems. Just look at the founding legends in Fukien White Crane and you will find that they are very very similar to those of Wing Chun! LOTS of martial systems have stories and legends that link their origins to the Shaolin temple! They saw this as giving more credibility to their method, regardless of its true origins!
Here is something that might help I don't know but again its all about choice how you chose to settle the matter or understand it...............
"Wing Chun is a traditional Chinese martial arts form which originates from South China(Guang Zhou & Fu Jian Province ). There is an interesting story about how and why Wing Chun has created. During the Qing dynasty, In order to revolt against the tyrannies of Qing Dynasty government’s reign, the southern shaolin temple had a fight with the government. The government destroyed the southern shaolin temple. The monks left the temple and became homeless. One of the five greatest martial arts artists that escaped was a girl named WuMei. She fled to the mountains. One day when she was out searching for food she saw a snake and a crane fighting. She studied their moves and tactics with intense focus, and with her knowledge of Shaolin Kung fu then created Wing Chun."
*Online Reference:- Wing Chun training in China | Dragon Mountain Kung Fu School
----Yes, this is a very common version of the legend of the founding of Wing Chun. The problem is, no one has firmly and historically established that their was a Southern Shaolin temple that taught martial arts. Secondly, the Shaolin temple in the North never admitted female Nuns. So it would be assumed that a Southern Shaolin temple wouldn't have either. And how can a mere "girl" have been accepted as "one of the five greatest martial artists"? Its a cool legend, but nothing more. And I'll point out again that this legend says nothing about Wing Chun being derived from "116 Wooden dummy form" from the "Shaolin Wooden Man hall." So I'll ask for a third time.....where is this idea coming from? What is your source for this? Why are you avoiding answering this question????
My opinion on the matter is sorted, and I have come to a final belief many years ago as stated earlier that there is only one Wing Chun form of 116 techniques ever taught rooted from the Shaolin monks and the rest is crap just changes added and people passing on the style and variances of the original. I also say this because of the current dilemma we have now being a circus show of who has a better form and who's origins are more accurate than the other, just online madness that has done more harm than good hence all my previous posts in thread.
----Ok. So I will ask another question for at least the second, maybe third time? Who still has this version of the original "one Wing Chun form of 116 techniques"? What is your reference point for this in order to say others have made changes and added to this original?
Again its pointless to keep talking believe what you want so will I and on that note why don't you guys explain to the community what your opinions and beliefs are? mm
----We have! You just weren't paying attention!
To teach new students and to train yourself are different things. You may teach new students how to say, "Goo Goo Ga Ga." You don't say "Goo Goo Ga Ga" when you are alone at home by yourself.
Not so far as anyone knows, anyway.
MA_Student
Black Belt
It always feels like more work to me.
Responding to FighterTwister seems like too much work for me. For example, I could try and explain to him that my old sifu, Leung Ting was the actual author of the original book titled 116 Wooden Dummy Techniques in the link FighterTwister provided. LT had Yip Chun sign on as "author" for political reasons during the Wing Chun lineage feuds of the 1980s. In fact, when he first had it printed, LT gave me an autographed copy. I still have it, complete with my marginal notes correcting some deliberate errors LT inserted to keep the "real version" private for his disciples.
In that very same book, that Fighter Twister sited as a "source", Leung Ting explained that the earliest known Wing Chun Dummy forms from the mainland were significantly longer than 116 movements and that for most of his years teaching, Grandmaster Yip Man had trimmed down and simplified the older versions of the form to the culturally significant number of 108. Only in his last years (the late 1960s or early 70s) did GM Yip re-introduce a handful of movements previously left out to come up with the 116 movement form. And nobody else in WC outside of those now (or previously) associated with Leung Ting's "WT" branch even uses the number 116.
And as far as there being only one version of Wing Chun, Leung Ting, the very person that wrote the "Yip Chun" 116 movement dummy, also wrote Roots and Branches of Wing Tsun in which he considers various theories of WC's origins and it's divergent lineages. Whether you like LT's conclusions or not, it's clear he doesn't think that there is only one Wing Chun/Tsun!
So in conclusion, I believe that for me to continue in this debate with Fighter Twister would be exhausting and pointless. It would be as bootless as debating the origins of man and the universe with a certain good friend of mine (and a great Wing Chunner) who happens to be a Christian fundamentalist.
He firmly believes that the world was created some six thousand years ago by an anthropomorphic god who also literally created Adam and Eve out of clay with his hands. By contrast, I am an agnostic with degrees in anthropology and art. For me, the age of the earth, solar system, and universe is calculated on the scale of billions of years, and the gradual evolution of humans from earlier life-forms is an obvious and indisputable fact.
So, with worldviews so vastly different, certain kinds of debate are simply not productive, and maybe it's best for us to do as Fighter-Twister also suggested ...and just drop the subject.
At least that's how I approach things with my religious fundamentalist friend. And I must say, that as a potter and sculptor, I rather like the story of God fashioning the first man and woman out of clay!
Last edited:
Since this thread wandered off into talking about Wing Chun origins and history, I thought I would add this link to the collection. I think Zuti made some pretty good points here!
Penglai Martial Arts : True origin of Wing Chun
Penglai Martial Arts : True origin of Wing Chun
And I found a related source that may have been used by Zuti for his conclusions:
Understanding the Red Boats of the Cantonese Opera: Economics, Social Structure and Violence 1850-1950.
Understanding the Red Boats of the Cantonese Opera: Economics, Social Structure and Violence 1850-1950.
Now, if you want to talk about applying "Occam's Razor", this article provides an excellent example using the actual historical information that is available, rather than legends and lineage stories.
Cantonese Popular Culture and the Creation of Wing Chun’s “Opera Rebels.”
Cantonese Popular Culture and the Creation of Wing Chun’s “Opera Rebels.”
Juany118
Senior Master
You know what I am wondering there? One of the things drilled into my head, as you withdraw the wu, is that you should still be maintaining forwarding energy. This change essentially eliminates the need of trying to get the hang/feel for maintenance of forwarding energy while withdrawing because you are moving forward. It seems to be a K.I.S.S change.
I agree. I've read that this was Sifu Chow's reasoning. Wu is most often used in a forward direction with forward energy and Fook is most often used with a withdrawing energy leading to a Huen Sau or Jut Sau. So it does make some sense to do it that way in the form.
