Chi-Sau from lineage to lineage....
- Thread starter PiedmontChun
- Start date
Kwok Fu, Lun Kai, Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu would like to have a word with you about whether or not Yip Man changed his teachings as time went on.
They should first discuss what changes they made themselves before determining what Yip Man's teaching career looked like.
PiedmontChun
Purple Belt
It didn't take very long to veer from the original question.
Spoken like a true "VT snob."
On the contrary, the real conceit is to believe that people do not have responsibility for and ownership of the changes they make.
Pretending that everything calling itself something like wing chun is equal (and equally valuable) is the MA equivalent of the racism of lowered expectations. It is simple denial of reality because reality offends.
Believing that Ip Man never updated or changed what he taught over the years is delusional. Believing that you are currently doing exactly what Ip Man himself taught is a stretch. Believing that any deviation from what you think Ip Man actually taught automatically means something is no longer valuable is the height of snobbery. You are not one to talk about reality.
Yeah! What KPM said. Rah Rah. And now for a really shocking assertion:
I train Dan Chi Sau with steps. Yeah, that's right, advancing and retreating steps with varied pressure. And I like it!!!
Yep. It's very useful for linking our bong and tan to turning. When one party steps in with a more forceful palm or punch, the other party responds by borrowing the force and turning, and so dissolving the incoming energy without crashing force.
Linking "springy hands" to stance and steps is basic to my branch of VT. And I believe this comes from Yip Man. If anyone doesn't agree, fine by me.
Deviations from what YM taught have no value in terms of the VT system, because changes break the system. This is obvious if one considers what a coherent and non-contradictory system VT is.
If you wish to train something other than VT then it is a free world with many different choices and that is your decision. Own it and take pride in it. Do not expect me to validate your decision in order to make you feel good about yourself. Do not expect me to pretend that things are different to the way they really are.
Different systems may have value to you. That is your choice. Personally I am interested in VT.
Agree!
If you teach your MA system exactly the same way when you are 60 as when you were 40, you have not improved anything in the past 20 years. This is why many people may start to write their book but never finish it. If you publish your book today, 5 yeas later if you get any new or better idea, you won't be able to change your book.
For example, in the past 20 years I have found something new that I did not understand before. That is if I can "bend my opponent's spine side way", I can take away most (if not all) of his defense and counters. With this simple goal, my strategy can be simple and straight forward. IMO, knowledge and experience are accumulated through years of training and testing.
To assume that YM did not come up new and better idea when he got older is just not realistic.
Last edited:
The moving step training is the key to bridge your basic training into fighting.
fixing step skill training -> moving step skill training -> fighting
You were responding to KPM's post, and I believe you misquoted him in the bolded text above. He said "...deviations in what you think YM taught..." It is what you think because you never actually knew GM Yip. Those who did know him well have different opinions from yours.
wckf92
Master of Arts
I also train chi sau with and without steps. Each level has both static and dynamic footwork corresponding to WC's footwork patterns. This seems to be a no-brainer. And like Geezer said...its basic stuff.
Obviously, one must master their own horse prior to moving it. (stabilize before you mobilize)
But when the time is right...footwork is taught and integrated. After all, DCS and chi sau and "rolling" etc are just drills.
Have you ever trained your Dan Chi Shou like this with right arm against right arm?
It is not what I think. It is what YM taught to WSL, and which he passed down to others. I can evaluate different ideas of what YM taught by looking at their coherence and degree of non-contradiction. Some have lots, other have little, others none.
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
CSL chi sao is more about controlling/disrupting the other persons balance.
What constitutes as a "contradiction" though? How do you know that there's not a misunderstanding at play on your part of what other people are doing instead of on the part of others for their own system? (Not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just addressing what I see as a bit of a leap of logic)
I can use myself as an example here, in another thread I brought WSL's heel-pivoting mechanic into question, and from the discussion that resulted it turned out that, as an outsider, I was simply looking at it the wrong way. Who's to say that a VT guy can't make the same kind of error?
Plus, let's say that WSL's system is the most coherent and non-contradictory one out there out of all Yip Man systems. What's wrong with crediting WSL's own genius and talent for it? After all, he's one of Yip Man's students that actually went out and fought with Wing Chun. That sounds like a good way to find out what works and what doesn't and adjust your system accordingly.
A good example of this is the Tan Sau-Gan Sau-Tan Sau in section 6 of the form where it used to be Tan Sau-Jum Sau-Tan Sau. It's well known that WSL is the guy that pioneered that change not just in his own WC but in Yip Man WC as a whole after he brought the subject up with Yip Man. Why not say WSL was a smart guy and credit him for it?
Another way of looking at it: If we assume that WSL's system is the best, I think using that as evidence that it's the closest to what Yip Man taught is shakier ground than it is to say that Yip Man's teachings changed over time. You could look at Yip Man's Foshan students and speculate that perhaps taught the same things then as he did when he died and then his students added mainland WC into it later on. The problem with that is that we see a visible pattern in Yip Man's students from the Foshan, early HK and later HK days. Lineages from his Foshan days show a style very similar to other mainland styles, lineages from Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu show forms that are different but still similar mechanics to the mainland styles, with this same idea applying to Chu Sheung Tin, but to a less significant degree. Coincidentally, he started learning after LS and LY did. From WSL onward -- with the exception of Leung Ting who many aren't sure actually learned from YM in the first place -- we see systems that are basically the same as each other in terms of mechanics -- a good amount of them just have crappier instructors as a norm, based on what Sifu Youtube (I stole that from Geezer btw) has been able to tell me, compared to the WSL lineage
I take that as very credible evidence that Yip Man re-evaluated his teachings over time. It might not be full-on concrete proof, but IMO it stands up to scrutiny better than saying "WSL has the best system, therefore it's the closest to what Yip Man taught".
Last edited:
wckf92
Master of Arts
Guy, I think the concern of sum here, with statements like the one you made (above)...is this: were you there when YM taught WSL? Were you there when WSL taught XYZ? etc? Maybe you were(?)... But if you were not...then...
This is the main point.
Have any of you ever learned WC directly from YM? I have never met YM in person myself. So if you have never learned WC directly from YM, your opinion will have the same value as my opinion.
YM -> A -> X
YM -> B -> Y
For X and Y to argue about who is right and who is wrong just make no sense IMO.
The dragon has 9 sons. They all look different.
Last edited:
