Diferences between L. Ting's & W. Cheung's style of Wimg Chun

[KamonGuy2]

If I go to a Tae Kwan Do school I'm going to learn Tae Kwan Do. If I leave that school and go to another Tae Kwan Do school I'm going to learn virtualy the same thing. Obviously there will be small differances but a front kick is a front kick in the overall style.
I have had three experiences with Wing Chun.

1) A real world experience.
2) A school I trained at for a year
3) 10 years later I trained at another school for a few years

There was maybe 50% similarities between the three experiences. The hand movements where fairly similar but the foot work was completely differant, the movement was completely differant, and for the two schools the teaching methodology was very very differant.

This isn't intended to be an attack on Wing Chun. I really enjoyed my times training and my experience of the real world situation confirmed to me the validity of its aggressive nature but is Wing Chun a style unto itself or does one need to add aspects of other martial arts to it (or the other way around) to keep it a viable style?

Are you joking? I train in a multitude of styles including TaeKwon Do.
I have been to severla TKD schools and they all have a different way of teaching the front kick. Some push forward with the back foot (so you move through the target), some plant the foot, some balance 50/50 on the foot.

In wing chun, this is no different. There are differences in forms, differences in stances, differences in punching.

But it still has, three hand forms, three non hand forms, chi sao, stamp kicks, chain punching, lok/lap sao and stancework. If your wing chun school doesn't then they are not technically wing chun, but some kind of arrogant derivative.

There are alos a lot of fakes out there. My brother went to a wing chun school up in Sheffield and it turned out he knew more than the instructor!!!

CheukMo - you would be surprised at fights on concrete. I saw someone attempt a belly to belly suplex on a guy on concrete and they both got hurt!!!

 

[gblnking]

The last school claimed to come from Leung Sheung (sp?). I won’t get into its more recent line so as not to criticize it. My first school’s lineage I don’t recall off hand. It wasn’t something that was focused on. In both schools the forms where similar in movements and how they were to be done. But that is pretty much when the similarities ended. While one (the first school) was taught as a very hard and aggressive style utilizing movement to advance into an opponent’s space in order to overwhelm and beat them down. The other school was nearly the exact opposite. The style was taught in a much softer manor. The focus was much more emphasized on waiting for your opponent to come to you. The various two person drills while sharing the same names were practiced very differently. When I say differently I’m talking polar opposites. And that’s where my confusion about Wing Chun comes into. How is it that something that comes from such a supposedly tight lineage varies so much from school to school? I know about the “bad” teacher argument and I agree, trust me. I’ve experienced the king of bad Wing Chun teachers. But the differences between the two schools that I trained at were so dramatic.

Are you joking? I train in a multitude of styles including TaeKwon Do.
I have been to severla TKD schools and they all have a different way of teaching the front kick. Some push forward with the back foot (so you move through the target), some plant the foot, some balance 50/50 on the foot.

I have since the age of 12 trained in four different TKD schools. The first was a nationally recognized competition school the second was a very traditional school taught mainly in Korean. The third was a cult like group that took from 8 various styles (mainly Korean). And the fourth was an average neighborhood TKD school. In all of these schools a front kick was a front kick. The knee of the front leg comes up, toes are pulled back to avoid injury, the front leg is snapped out hitting the target with the ball of the foot. All the other stuff is semantics. My point was that it follows a standard curriculum. And because of this it’s a lot easier to identify the bad schools from the good ones.

In wing chun, this is no different. There are differences in forms, differences in stances, differences in punching.

But it still has, three hand forms, three non hand forms, chi sao, stamp kicks, chain punching, lok/lap sao and stancework. If your wing chun school doesn't then they are not technically wing chun, but some kind of arrogant derivative.

You obviously have very little experience with different Wing Chun schools. I’ve been at one school where the stance wasn’t a main focus, it was fluid and movement was quick. The other school was completely opposite. The stance was rooted like cement and footwork (along with movement) wasn’t even taught until after the first year and even then it was awkward and not encouraged. There was a student who moved from a different area who came to train. His understanding of the first form was very different than what I had been taught. His chi sao was more fluid than what was being taught to us, and his stance was different in both weight distribution and detail. Be careful in what you claim as “arrogant derivative”. It wouldn’t be a hard leap for someone to make that claim about you and the style you practice in.

 

[CheukMo]

Leung Seung's school of Wing Chun is very heavily focused on rooting and softness. I trained in Leung Seung lineage WC. I never went beyond yi ji kim yeung ma and punching. His style and the way it is taught is similar to how WC was taught very early on, by Yip Man and his predecessors.

 

[KamonGuy2]

I have since the age of 12 trained in four different TKD schools. The first was a nationally recognized competition school the second was a very traditional school taught mainly in Korean. The third was a cult like group that took from 8 various styles (mainly Korean). And the fourth was an average neighborhood TKD school. In all of these schools a front kick was a front kick. The knee of the front leg comes up, toes are pulled back to avoid injury, the front leg is snapped out hitting the target with the ball of the foot. All the other stuff is semantics. My point was that it follows a standard curriculum. And because of this it’s a lot easier to identify the bad schools from the good ones.

Not at all. I have been to schools where they do not perform knees. Other schools rely on them. Some do backfists, some do them differently, some don't do them. If you want - you can give me a private message and I will reply with the different names of the schools I have been to and the differences between the styles. As for belts (tags) I won't even go there about the differences!!! I also currently train in CKD which is nothing like TKD but still flies under the TKD banner

You obviously have very little experience with different Wing Chun schools. I’ve been at one school where the stance wasn’t a main focus, it was fluid and movement was quick. The other school was completely opposite. The stance was rooted like cement and footwork (along with movement) wasn’t even taught until after the first year and even then it was awkward and not encouraged. There was a student who moved from a different area who came to train. His understanding of the first form was very different than what I had been taught. His chi sao was more fluid than what was being taught to us, and his stance was different in both weight distribution and detail. Be careful in what you claim as “arrogant derivative”. It wouldn’t be a hard leap for someone to make that claim about you and the style you practice in.

Yeah but the stancework still existed right? At Kamon there are some instructors who train the stance to be relied up on and others that are more fluid. I can do both and you need to train both. If you had stuck with wing chun you would realise this

Hey if someone wants to call us arrogant and can back that statement up, then fine. But so far you have not given me anything to suggest that wing chun is completely different from school to school. I know that some schools out there are almost carbon copies of what Kamon does (or vice versa). Small independent schools or WT (which I do not really categorize as wing chun by the way) might do things different, but then that is a DERIVATIVE of the core wing chun that has been passed down by Yip Man
It doesn't make it worse but they should not be claiming that it is 'original wing chun' or nonsense like that

Just like in TKD - I have been to schools where the forms (patterns) are completely different from other schools. And they train their kicks harder or their punches harder.

You also have to remember that TKD, like boxing is a sport based art.
It is not really a self defence based art. Don't get me wrong, some of the best practitioners of the art are extremely good at what they do, but in a close quarter situation (bar fight, club, kebab shop etc) you are going to be hard pressed to perform spinning/jumping kicks etc.

Because it is a sport based art, the moves are limited by rules.

 

[gblnking]

[/size][/font][/size][/color]

Not at all. I have been to schools where they do not perform knees. Other schools rely on them. Some do backfists, some do them differently, some don't do them. If you want - you can give me a private message and I will reply with the different names of the schools I have been to and the differences between the styles. As for belts (tags) I won't even go there about the differences!!! I also currently train in CKD which is nothing like TKD but still flies under the TKD banner


Yeah but the stancework still existed right? At Kamon there are some instructors who train the stance to be relied up on and others that are more fluid. I can do both and you need to train both. If you had stuck with wing chun you would realise this

Hey if someone wants to call us arrogant and can back that statement up, then fine. But so far you have not given me anything to suggest that wing chun is completely different from school to school. I know that some schools out there are almost carbon copies of what Kamon does (or vice versa). Small independent schools or WT (which I do not really categorize as wing chun by the way) might do things different, but then that is a DERIVATIVE of the core wing chun that has been passed down by Yip Man
It doesn't make it worse but they should not be claiming that it is 'original wing chun' or nonsense like that

Just like in TKD - I have been to schools where the forms (patterns) are completely different from other schools. And they train their kicks harder or their punches harder.

You also have to remember that TKD, like boxing is a sport based art.
It is not really a self defence based art. Don't get me wrong, some of the best practitioners of the art are extremely good at what they do, but in a close quarter situation (bar fight, club, kebab shop etc) you are going to be hard pressed to perform spinning/jumping kicks etc.

Because it is a sport based art, the moves are limited by rules.

***sigh*** The only response I can offer here is that you incorrect. I can confidently say this because TKD as I've been exposed to is governed under large orginizations. While there will be small differances, every school [I've] attended or visited has the same basic syllabus. Every single one of them. With Wing Chun I've found that the same is almost true. They all (the ones I've attended or visited) teach the same forms but the differances in them from spelling to practise have varied greatly. From the two schools I attended to the two that I visited to the one real world situation I witnessed, the stance was differant in all five instances. The footwork was so dramatically differant from situation to situation, and the only other similarities were the hand positioning. There is absolutely no end in trying to make my point because your so completely rooted in your "style" of Wing Chun that you've got a hard on for it. I mean it's all said in your name. That's great that you've found something that is so near and dear to your hart, but your experiences must be dramatically differant from mine. Some how we've completely deviated from the original post***nuff said***

 

[KamonGuy2]

***sigh*** The only response I can offer here is that you incorrect. I can confidently say this because TKD as I've been exposed to is governed under large orginizations. While there will be small differances, every school [I've] attended or visited has the same basic syllabus. Every single one of them. With Wing Chun I've found that the same is almost true. They all (the ones I've attended or visited) teach the same forms but the differances in them from spelling to practise have varied greatly. From the two schools I attended to the two that I visited to the one real world situation I witnessed, the stance was differant in all five instances. The footwork was so dramatically differant from situation to situation, and the only other similarities were the hand positioning. There is absolutely no end in trying to make my point because your so completely rooted in your "style" of Wing Chun that you've got a hard on for it. I mean it's all said in your name. That's great that you've found something that is so near and dear to your hart, but your experiences must be dramatically differant from mine. Some how we've completely deviated from the original post***nuff said***

Not at all. I have trained with and under James Sinclair, Wai Po Tan, Alan Orr, Viktor Khan, Sam Kwok, WT, Austin Goh and several wing chun instructors. This has culminated in twenty years of wing chun experience

Yes I do like and love Kamon as it is the most progressive and I have found Master Chan and some of the senior instructors to be the best in the business. But that doesn't mean I won't criticize the art

As I said I currently train in CKD which is basically TKD BUT SPELT DIFFERENTLY!!!
This is because Master Choi wanted to deviate slightly from TKD so has called it Choi Kwang Do. There are differences, but it is still a TKD system

Just like WT and WC

I have been to several TKD schools where the syllabus varies greatly.

I would agree that there are more 'unified arts' such as Karate, where styles within the art follow a similar syllabus but I have still seen differences in these arts. (It's why some black belts are exceptional and others are dreadful)

The Yip Man lineage of WC should all have the same stance which is developed for training. If an independent school is not training it this way then they should give a reason

It would be like me doing a punch and a kick and calling it TKD. When people ask why it is TKD I can just say it is becaue I am doing a punch and a kick

Can I also just point out that you seem to have only visited these wing chun schools rather than trained in them. In Kamon we change drills week to week to keep the class exciting and less static. So that means that one week we may be doing drills involving stance and the next week looser drills/sparring where stance isn't trained so much.

If a person just visits they will not know/appreciate everything that we do.

 

[brocklee]

Not at all. I have trained with and under James Sinclair, Wai Po Tan, Alan Orr, Viktor Khan, Sam Kwok, WT, Austin Goh and several wing chun instructors. This has culminated in twenty years of wing chun experience

Yes I do like and love Kamon as it is the most progressive and I have found Master Chan and some of the senior instructors to be the best in the business. But that doesn't mean I won't criticize the art

As I said I currently train in CKD which is basically TKD BUT SPELT DIFFERENTLY!!!
This is because Master Choi wanted to deviate slightly from TKD so has called it Choi Kwang Do. There are differences, but it is still a TKD system

Just like WT and WC

I have been to several TKD schools where the syllabus varies greatly.

I would agree that there are more 'unified arts' such as Karate, where styles within the art follow a similar syllabus but I have still seen differences in these arts. (It's why some black belts are exceptional and others are dreadful)

The Yip Man lineage of WC should all have the same stance which is developed for training. If an independent school is not training it this way then they should give a reason

It would be like me doing a punch and a kick and calling it TKD. When people ask why it is TKD I can just say it is becaue I am doing a punch and a kick

Can I also just point out that you seem to have only visited these wing chun schools rather than trained in them. In Kamon we change drills week to week to keep the class exciting and less static. So that means that one week we may be doing drills involving stance and the next week looser drills/sparring where stance isn't trained so much.

If a person just visits they will not know/appreciate everything that we do.

If a person just visits ANY school, the will not know/appreciate everything that is done.

 

[KamonGuy2]

Exactly. I'm not saying people on here are not experienced, I would just ask that people slow down and think about what they have actually seen and what they have heard.

I heard that boxing was full of criminals and violent fools who just wanted to hurt people, before I started doing it. When I did train, I found that many of the boxers were awesome individuals who love what they do.