Do you care if Your WC isn't "Authentic"?

[BFL]

I'll be honest and admit that this was so long ago (late 80's?, early '90's?) that I don't remember. But I can ask around. I know some other folks with less ...er "senior"... memories.

Anyway, now I really want to look at that Eddie (?) Chong video and see how what I learned compares. I would also love to see the other Pan Nam version. Although, in truth, its hard (for me,at least) to understand the meaning of variations in a form outside of the context of application. Many times a movement looks totally screwy and then, when you understand its application, it makes a lot of sense.

No worries, I was just curious. Shoot, I'll even try and vid myself doing the Pan Nam pole set with explanation and shoot it to you. It is very differrent from the standard Hong Kong/Yip man set, but Sigung Chongs representation of the Leung Sheung version is spot on with other Yip Man family pole sets. I've actually got about mmmmmmmmm, wait, brain fart... I think 4 or 5 pole sets to pool from and although I understand and hold fast to the standard H.K./Y.M. sets, I really like the Pan Nam set too. Have a super day and and a great turkey day upcoming.
Peace to all.

 

[martyg]

"Standard sets"? I have yet to see anything of "standard" among Yip family in the sets, they usually vary by generations/student groupings/allegiences.

As far as Pan Nam also having the Yip style pole form, Eddie's version of Pan Nam is Eddie's version of Pan Nam (and that's not intended as a knock). He's the one who created the "hong kong" vs. "fatshan" marketing, and tends to teach and explain from that perspective. Its not the same perspective across the board with other Pan family or even "mainland" people.

I do have to say regarding Pan Nam, I was most impressed with Pan doing his pole form on the video I have of him. Extra extra long pole, and someone of his age able to move it around fully extended like that was certainly a site to see.

 

[geezer]

I do have to say regarding Pan Nam, I was most impressed with Pan doing his pole form on the video I have of him. Extra extra long pole, and someone of his age able to move it around fully extended like that was certainly a site to see.

Personally, I'm always amazed by anybody who can really move the long pole around with precision, speed, power, and "snap". When it's an old guy and and extra heavy pole, that goes double.

...This gets me thinking about an idea for another thread on the pole...

 

[dungeonworks]

I think the standard usually implied by the term "authentic" is that it is genuine and original to the system. So for the Yip Man lineage, each form would be essentially performed as Grandmaster Yip taught it, with some minor variations. However there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Grandmaster Yip adapted and changed his teachings throughout his lifetime. In fact, it would be very odd if he didn't... So, even by this criterion, there should be considerable variation within what you could call "authentic".

However, for me, "authenticity", in the sense of being "honest", is more important than something being merely old and unchanged over a long period of time. If an instructor openly and honestly states that he has altered parts of a form, that's fine. His adaptations are either improvements, or they aren't, but there is no deception involved. On the other hand, if an instructor simply throws together a phony set of movements adapted from other systems, and falsely claims that his is the only "true and original" version, then, yes I have a problem with that.

In Wing Chun, the amount of variation between the forms increases as one moves to the higher level forms such as the dummy and weapons sets. In many cases, the variants may be equally "authentic", but often I believe it's the case that some Sifus haven't been taught the whole system. Rather than admit the fact, they borrow or concoct something and pass it off as the real thing. Personally, I feel better off training with people who are straight up with me. Of course, how do you ever really know? Well, if your instructor or system's headman is upfront and says that he changed this or that group of movements for such and such a reason...then, there you have it.

Geezer, we talkin' Wing Chun/Tsun or Jeet Kune Do here? J/K LOL

 

[BFL]

"Standard sets"? I have yet to see anything of "standard" among Yip family in the sets, they usually vary by generations/student groupings/allegiences.

As far as Pan Nam also having the Yip style pole form, Eddie's version of Pan Nam is Eddie's version of Pan Nam (and that's not intended as a knock). He's the one who created the "hong kong" vs. "fatshan" marketing, and tends to teach and explain from that perspective. Its not the same perspective across the board with other Pan family or even "mainland" people.

I do have to say regarding Pan Nam, I was most impressed with Pan doing his pole form on the video I have of him. Extra extra long pole, and someone of his age able to move it around fully extended like that was certainly a site to see.

Sigung Chong has been teaching Leung Sheung family (Yip Man lineage) since the 80's ( or longer) and the pole form presented is pretty much the same I've seen from many other Yip Man family schools. The Pan Nam pole set he teaches is the same as what Pan Nam represented and is the same presented by other Pan Nam Sifu's and Pan's students that I've seen, even on the publicly sold videos. Pan Nam's system has both but Pan's system has the (somewhat standard or typical) Hong Kong pole set as an excercise set and yes I've probably seen that same video you did. All the forms I've been taught of the Pan Nam system are almost identical to what they present with very minor variations as one would expect. One aspect of the Pan family perhaps finding disagreement with Sigung Chong is an aspect we find within almost all Wing Chun families/schools and can you guess what that might be......And no I do not take it as a "knock" so no worries there, just want to state some corrections as I see them. Also few, if not none of the Pan family teach Yip Man system so why would they make a comparison? I have complette respect for your knowledge of many Wing Chun families and versions and your experience however, I'm probably a bit more familiar with the system and some of the comparisons than those that have only viewed video's or spoken to some that might have issue's with him (Chong) Sigung is also quiet honest with any changes he might have made within the system however minor they might be but only with those he teaches etc, no need to put them on videos for the public, it is what it is if they want to learn it. My deepest respects to you Marty and I take nothign as negative.

 

[martyg]

Sigung Chong has been teaching Leung Sheung family (Yip Man lineage) since the 80's ( or longer) and the pole form presented is pretty much the same I've seen from many other Yip Man family schools.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that, I was commenting on your statement that said "The Pan Nam system actually has both the standard 6.5/Yip Man pole set and his pole set". I don't recall seeing Pan Nam with the Yip set, unless some of his students picked it up at a later date? I know some of the students from his branch and several other mainland branches started doing that with Sum Nung's material (adding it in to their personal system).

Also few, if not none of the Pan family teach Yip Man system so why would they make a comparison?

Which is why the above statement seemed confusing to me. Eddie teaches both, but I don't recall both being a part of Pan Nam's system.

I have complette respect for your knowledge of many Wing Chun families and versions and your experience however, I'm probably a bit more familiar with the system and some of the comparisons than those that have only viewed video's or spoken to some that might have issue's with him (Chong) Sigung is also quiet honest with any changes he might have made within the system however minor they might be but only with those he teaches etc, no need to put them on videos for the public, it is what it is if they want to learn it. My deepest respects to you Marty and I take nothign as negative.

Again, I don't recall stating Eddie changed material. My statement regarding Eddie's version being Eddie's version of Pan Nam was in regards to the "fatshan vs. hong kong" comparison marketing. As if "fatshan" were a system and that there's this "fathsan" system vs. everything else that simply falls under "hong kong". I've come across numerous students and grandstudents of Eddie's regurgitating that as some sort of actual factual system comparison. There's many other mainland branches besides Pan Nam's of course, and truthfully, just about all wing chun comes through Fatshan at one point and even other "mainland" and "fatshan" based systems have been in hong kong for quite some time as well. It just makes little sense from a geographical and historical perspective. Eddie could have just as easily done the comparison by publicly promoting "What I learned in the Leung Shung branch of the Yip Family vs. Pan Nam's system". I view it as similar to Leung Ting's marketing of labeling everything else as this generic "wing chun" system to compare against his "wing tsun" sytem. I've literally run across some of WT's european contingent that actually think that way in literal terms.

I guess that's why I get a little irked sometimes with that kind of talk, because I saw how, as soon as the mainland systems (and even Yip's pre Hong Kong students) started becoming popular and more well known, you suddenly had these people in Yip's HK family that were fighting against each other, all of a sudden band together to downplay the mainland systems and prop up Yip. I don't go for that kind of stuff in either direction. There's room enough for everyone, and if you suddenly find you're not alone in the house or that its not even your house to begin with, you don't downplay the other people living there and offer them space in the basement to protect your market share. Nor do you promote an over generalization of everyone else in the house to misrepresent them in relation to you.

 

[BFL]

Marty,
I understand your point now, my confusion as to your direction. I myself do not do a comparison persae' as to one being better than another. I simply offer both and depending on the student they will start with one or another but in time will learn both. I understand now where you were coming from, no worries.

 

[martyg]

Marty,
I understand your point now, my confusion as to your direction. I myself do not do a comparison persae' as to one being better than another.

That's my point though with this, what "one" being better than the other? There is no "fastshan" wing chun and there is no "hong kong" wing chun. Those are just locations, not actual styles or linneages. And you have many styles and linneages in both locations.

 

[KamonGuy2]

I think that is the trouble. Some people believe that they wil sell martial arts if it is the 'pure' style that has been handed down without change

Its nonsense. I've seen many federations in practice and the only one that really blew me away was Kamon, due to its simplicity and true nature. There is no emphasis on lineage. Kevin Chan started from within the Sam Kwok federation but went to Ip Chun in the end before developing his own wing chun through various talented training partners

He has a no bullsh*t approach. If you don't think something works, you can ask him about the move and he will demonstrate it in a very kindly way. I heard of one school (I will only name it via PM) where the Sifu kicked someone across the classroom because he caught him out during chi sao.

There are plenty of talented chunners such as Alan Orr and James Sinclair who are pretty much on the ball but it really does seem nowadays that it is rare to get a wing chun teacher who has no ego, no bullying nature and realistic knowledge

It just gets silly. Who honestly cares about lineage? Just because an instructor is good does not necessarily mean that all his students will be

 

[profesormental]

Greetings.

Many in Wing Chun after being taught go on to develop their Wing Chun and their flavor.

When you see them training and in person, you notice that we don't depend on our Si Fu for further development; as with fathers, we ask for guidance, yet our development is out own...

My Wing Chun execution is different thatn my Si Fu's, and that is ok. It works and when a hit is felt, it is like a car crash, yet little effort is apparent. That is Wing Chun no matter what.

Eternal Springtime... always growing, always renewing.

Juan M. Mercado

 

[punisher73]

ah, well, something borrowed from elsewhere isn't phony, it's just borrowed. Personally, I believe in truth in advertising, so if something is borrowed, it ought to be acknowledged as such. But it may be just as good or even better than the original material from the system.

I guess maybe I'm fixating on you choice of words with "phony". That conjures up an image of some guy sitting in his basement, just making stuff up off the top of his head with no basis of knowledge on which to place it, and no ability to put it into use. That to me, is phony.

But a sifu with a good background of training and knowlege may create his own drills, or make his own modifications to forms, or even create his own forms to augment what he learned from his sifu. As long as this person is skilled and knowledgeable to begin with, before he makes these changes and additions, I don't see that as phony. I just see that as innovative. Maybe I would like his innovations, maybe not. But I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with this. Obviously not every schmoe should be trying to do this, but there are teachers who I think can do this and produce good results for his students, and it is probably more common that we may realize.

Remember: all of this stuff was just created by people, not by gods. None of it is sacred and unchangeable. Other people can and do come along later and make changes. Some are for the better, others for the worse, still others may have little or no effect. But it happens. At what point does it become in-authentic? At what point has it changed so much that it is truly a different method? I don't know, but I think every sifu has his own flavor of his art. And it is all authentic, altho it could be "wing chun with some changes I made", or "wing chun with a bak mei influence", or even "wing chun, but I also teach some bak mei forms", for example.

Again, I think this comes back to truth in advertising. The Shaolin reference is a big one. I know that some kenpo systems like to insert Shaolin into their name, but I believe it would be shaky at best if you tried to trace an actual lineage to shaolin. I think that's deceptive advertising. But parhaps their material came from somewhere, and in it's own way it's still authentic SOMETHING, just not shaolin. Whether it's poorly or skillfully done is another matter altogether. But in the end, it's all made up by people.

To me that is what is most important. I can think of TONS of TMA's that have changed/added/created a new style or system and then have a story about it's origins to make it more marketable or mystical. Often times it was done for political reasons too. For example, Tang Soo Do claims that their "pinan" forms were brought back from China when the founder trained there. Why not admit their origin? Why not come out now and state where they were truly learned.

If you make the changes admit that you made the changes instead of making unfounded claims that you alone were shown the secret squirrel temple techniques and are now making them public to everyone.

As someone else stated, I think the "authentic" argument is really a lineage argument. Most styles are additions, combinations and modifications or previous styles. There really is nothing new under the sun. It just depends on how many people choose to follow the new branch. When enough people do, it is somehow "authentic" MA.

 

[chisauking]

If you went into a shop and asked for a Sony TV, would you mind being sold something else?

If you had paid for a Mercedes, would you take a Ford instead?

In both cases above, the substitutes may well be better than what you had asked for, but that's besides that point, isn't it?

So, if you had paid good money to learn wing chun, would you accept being taught chopsuey kungfu or kickboxing? One may argue that they are not concerned whether something is authentic or not as long as it's effective....I can't argue with this logic, but I have to ask, if all one is concerned about is the effectiveness of a particular method, then why not just buy yourself a 'crowbar'? One would surely save alot of time and money.

Personally, I feel the publics inability to descern between 'authentic' wing chun and 'chopsuey fist' is one of the major reasons for the current state of wing chun in the world. Some people may argue that there's no 'consistancy' with any of the wing chun schools and therefore there's no such thing as authentic, well, I would say that just like fighting, wing chun is a very personal thing, and no 2 wing chun practitioner would apply wing chun exactly the same anyway. However, what constitute 'authenticity' in my book is no matter what training methods one adopts, the methods conforms to wing chun principles. For no matter how far or much this art may evolve, the principles remain the same and is the guilding light in the way we train, and it's what seperates wing chun from other methods. That's why I always say 'wing chun starts from the mind'.

But of course, how many people even bother to research on wing chun before setting out to find an 'authentic' school? As long as it's effective, right? In that case, kickboxing is just the ideal thing: it's effective and it's far cheaper than wing chun classes (by name).

 

[KamonGuy2]

If you went into a shop and asked for a Sony TV, would you mind being sold something else?

If you had paid for a Mercedes, would you take a Ford instead?

In both cases above, the substitutes may well be better than what you had asked for, but that's besides that point, isn't it?

So, if you had paid good money to learn wing chun, would you accept being taught chopsuey kungfu or kickboxing? One may argue that they are not concerned whether something is authentic or not as long as it's effective....I can't argue with this logic, but I have to ask, if all one is concerned about is the effectiveness of a particular method, then why not just buy yourself a 'crowbar'? One would surely save alot of time and money.

Personally, I feel the publics inability to descern between 'authentic' wing chun and 'chopsuey fist' is one of the major reasons for the current state of wing chun in the world. Some people may argue that there's no 'consistancy' with any of the wing chun schools and therefore there's no such thing as authentic, well, I would say that just like fighting, wing chun is a very personal thing, and no 2 wing chun practitioner would apply wing chun exactly the same anyway. However, what constitute 'authenticity' in my book is no matter what training methods one adopts, the methods conforms to wing chun principles. For no matter how far or much this art may evolve, the principles remain the same and is the guilding light in the way we train, and it's what seperates wing chun from other methods. That's why I always say 'wing chun starts from the mind'.

But of course, how many people even bother to research on wing chun before setting out to find an 'authentic' school? As long as it's effective, right? In that case, kickboxing is just the ideal thing: it's effective and it's far cheaper than wing chun classes (by name).

Sorry to revert back to my evil goblin self, but NONSENSE!

We are not talking about wing chun that involves a spinning back fist or roundhouse kick. We are talking about involving moves that are wing chun in theory. Or refusing to train bull ***** moves that don't work

Not naming federations but I have seen moves done for the sake of tradition. Students truly believe that they will work in a fight. And that saddens me

I went to a seminar last year hosted by two of Ip Chun's top students (35 years training each)
They mentioned the movement from the second part of the first form which is a double gum sao from behind. They showed what the move was intended for and then demonstrated how it didn't work, or would only work on very rare occasions. Half the crowd watching let out a groan of disappointment and one person admitted to me afterwards that he had trained that move for years believibng it to work. I grabbed him and asked him to perform it. He couldn't. That is just one example of many, why 'authentic' is nonsense

I went on facebook yesterday and there is a group for Chelmsford wing chun (WT) where the main picture shows a girl holding her partner hands (double lap sao) and doing a high kick to the persons chin. The lap saos are past the girls body (ie non wing chun) and a kick that high, done in that position should only be done in a kung fu movie. In a real fight, she would be destroyed by her opponent. It is a very commercial poster. And yet I know that the die hard WT guys on here will insist that WT is authentic wing chun (which I'm not saying is or isn't)

Authenticity is a myth. I am sure Yip Man was accused by his peers of changing the style and involving new moves from when it was first created
I don't think he really cared...

 

[chisauking]

Kamon Guy sez: Sorry to revert back to my evil goblin self, but NONSENSE!

csk: In life, there's seldom absolutes. It all comes down to your depth of knowledge and experience.

KG: We are not talking about wing chun that involves a spinning back fist or roundhouse kick. We are talking about involving moves that are wing chun in theory. Or refusing to train bull ***** moves that don't work

csk: All techniques work. The question is, against whom, and what capacity of the practitioner.

KG: Not naming federations but I have seen moves done for the sake of tradition. Students truly believe that they will work in a fight. And that saddens me

csk: Again, it depends on one's comprehension of the system. It's not so much the adherence to 'tradtion', rather the practitioner's understanding of the method and his skill level.

KG: I went to a seminar last year hosted by two of Ip Chun's top students (35 years training each)
They mentioned the movement from the second part of the first form which is a double gum sao from behind. They showed what the move was intended for and then demonstrated how it didn't work, or would only work on very rare occasions. Half the crowd watching let out a groan of disappointment and one person admitted to me afterwards that he had trained that move for years believibng it to work. I grabbed him and asked him to perform it. He couldn't. That is just one example of many, why 'authentic' is nonsense

csk: What makes you think they were practising 'authentic' wing chun? Maybe it was the individual's limitations.

KG: I went on facebook yesterday and there is a group for Chelmsford wing chun (WT) where the main picture shows a girl holding her partner hands (double lap sao) and doing a high kick to the persons chin. The lap saos are past the girls body (ie non wing chun) and a kick that high, done in that position should only be done in a kung fu movie. In a real fight, she would be destroyed by her opponent. It is a very commercial poster. And yet I know that the die hard WT guys on here will insist that WT is authentic wing chun (which I'm not saying is or isn't)

csk: The 'truth' and what people beleive in are two seperate issues. If practitioners understands the core principles of wing chun, they would be able to discern what's authentic and what's chopsuey wing chun.

KG: Authenticity is a myth. I am sure Yip Man was accused by his peers of changing the style and involving new moves from when it was first created
I don't think he really cared...

csk: As I've stated before, we all express wing chun a little differently, and there's bound to be differences in our training methods. However, there's a world of difference between changing a method and adopting different training methods. In essence, Yip Man was a gungfu genius.....yet for all his brilliance, he streamlined the wing chun system rather than added to it. For example, he felt that the '5 elements' wing chun concepts were far too complicated for practitioners to comprehend, so he despensed with this way of teaching, prefering to adopt a more simplistic approach.

If one takes the time to learn about the principles of wing chun, one would easily discern between 'authentic' wing chun and chopsuey kuen. Just as if one understands the core principles of the English language, one would know that if a teacher taught their students 28 letters in the alphabet, than that teacher isn't teaching his students 'authentic' English.

 

[KamonGuy2]

Kamon Guy sez: Sorry to revert back to my evil goblin self, but NONSENSE!

csk: In life, there's seldom absolutes. It all comes down to your depth of knowledge and experience..

There are absolutes. Nothing is impossible, but things can be certain

KG: We are not talking about wing chun that involves a spinning back fist or roundhouse kick. We are talking about involving moves that are wing chun in theory. Or refusing to train bull ***** moves that don't work

csk: All techniques work. The question is, against whom, and what capacity of the practitioner..

No they don't. That is like saying I can fly. But only a foot off the ground and only for a couple of microseconds... (ie a jump)
There are certainly limits of techniques. I will never be as good as Chuck Liddell at cage fighting, but I know that my techniques work under pressure. They may not work if other factors are involved (more people attack me or if I am fighting in a river etc). But I am talking about techniques that only work if their opponent is compliant and reacts in a set, pre determined way

KG: Not naming federations but I have seen moves done for the sake of tradition. Students truly believe that they will work in a fight. And that saddens me

csk: Again, it depends on one's comprehension of the system. It's not so much the adherence to 'tradtion', rather the practitioner's understanding of the method and his skill level..

No not at all. I am talking about tradition for traditions sake - involving moves that don't work, just because your master does them

KG: I went to a seminar last year hosted by two of Ip Chun's top students (35 years training each)
They mentioned the movement from the second part of the first form which is a double gum sao from behind. They showed what the move was intended for and then demonstrated how it didn't work, or would only work on very rare occasions. Half the crowd watching let out a groan of disappointment and one person admitted to me afterwards that he had trained that move for years believibng it to work. I grabbed him and asked him to perform it. He couldn't. That is just one example of many, why 'authentic' is nonsense

csk: What makes you think they were practising 'authentic' wing chun? Maybe it was the individual's limitations..

Are you joking? These are two of Ip Chun's top students, representing Ip Chun and teaching his style of wing chun!!! If anyone knows anything about authentic chun it's them!!!
Or are you now saying that Ip Chun doesn't teach authentic wing chun?

KG: Authenticity is a myth. I am sure Yip Man was accused by his peers of changing the style and involving new moves from when it was first created
I don't think he really cared...

csk: As I've stated before, we all express wing chun a little differently, and there's bound to be differences in our training methods. However, there's a world of difference between changing a method and adopting different training methods. In essence, Yip Man was a gungfu genius.....yet for all his brilliance, he streamlined the wing chun system rather than added to it. For example, he felt that the '5 elements' wing chun concepts were far too complicated for practitioners to comprehend, so he despensed with this way of teaching, prefering to adopt a more simplistic approach..

So Yip Man didn't teach authentic wing chun? <Groan>
And I think you will find that he added quite a few things to the wing chun system

If one takes the time to learn about the principles of wing chun, one would easily discern between 'authentic' wing chun and chopsuey kuen. Just as if one understands the core principles of the English language, one would know that if a teacher taught their students 28 letters in the alphabet, than that teacher isn't teaching his students 'authentic' English.

And what if your teacher is teaching you the wrong principles of wing chun? (As many do)
A rear naked choked could be considered as fitting into the principles of wing chun and yet it is not taught by a majority of kung fu federations

 

[chisauking]

Kamon guy sez: There are absolutes. Nothing is impossible, but things can be certain

csk: How we perceive things, concepts, etc., is down to our comprehension and experiences. As we get older, we tend to get wiser, and our views change due to our accumulated learnings. I don't know about other people, but my own concept\veiw of wing chun has certainly changed since starting wing chun and now. Only a 'stone' or someone who thinks they already know everything would see things as absolutes.


KG: No they don't. That is like saying I can fly. But only a foot off the ground and only for a couple of microseconds... (ie a jump)
There are certainly limits of techniques. I will never be as good as Chuck Liddell at cage fighting, but I know that my techniques work under pressure. They may not work if other factors are involved (more people attack me or if I am fighting in a river etc). But I am talking about techniques that only work if their opponent is compliant and reacts in a set, pre determined way

csk: I really don't know what you are trying to convey here. One, you say your techniques work, and then you say you will never be as good as Chuck Liddell. If you say your techniques work, why wouldn't it work against Chuck? I thought you said things were absolutes?


KG: Not naming federations but I have seen moves done for the sake of tradition. Students truly believe that they will work in a fight. And that saddens me


KG: No not at all. I am talking about tradition for traditions sake - involving moves that don't work, just because your master does them

csk: Just because some techniques don't work for you, doesn't mean it won't work for another. If a concept complies to wing chun principles, then it shouldn't be discarded from the student. Most English people know only approx. 10% of the vocabulary, doesn't that mean we should discard the other 90% in our teachings?



KG: Are you joking? These are two of Ip Chun's top students, representing Ip Chun and teaching his style of wing chun!!! If anyone knows anything about authentic chun it's them!!!
Or are you now saying that Ip Chun doesn't teach authentic wing chun?

csk: There are so many variables that unless I have direct experience with those people it wouldn't be fair for me to make up some fabricated opinion. Suffice to say, talent may not be passed down from 1 generation to the next. If you have been around long enough and done your research, you know the level of sifu Yip Chun's keun faat skills.


KG: So Yip Man didn't teach authentic wing chun? <Groan>
And I think you will find that he added quite a few things to the wing chun system

csk: I never said such thing, and you know it. So please stop trying to distort what I'd stated. In regards to sifu Yip Man adding 'quite a few things' into the wing chun method, could you please state some examples?



KG: And what if your teacher is teaching you the wrong principles of wing chun? (As many do)
A rear naked choked could be considered as fitting into the principles of wing chun and yet it is not taught by a majority of kung fu federations

csk: If you start with a weak 'foundation' then your level and development process will always be flawed. If you don't know the alphabet very well, and your spelling, construction of sentences\grammer, etc. is poor, then your reading\writing ability would be very weak. And the errors would manifest itself the more you use it to communicate. Another good analogy is in navigation. If you are off course by 3 degress at the starting point, after 60NM you are 3NMs off course. The further you are into the journey, the further you are off course. This is why after 20-years' in wing chun some people are further away from wing chun than when they first began.

Again, if one is not interested in learning 'authentic' wing chun, what does it matter? The local 'chopsuey' club is only down the road, and it's just as effective as wing chun, easier to learn and a lot cheaper.

 

[geezer]

csk: If you start with a weak 'foundation' then your level and development process will always be flawed. If you don't know the alphabet very well, and your spelling, construction of sentences\grammer, etc. is poor, then your reading\writing ability would be very weak. And the errors would manifest itself the more you use it to communicate. Another good analogy is in navigation. If you are off course by 3 degress at the starting point, after 60NM you are 3NMs off course. The further you are into the journey, the further you are off course. This is why after 20-years' in wing chun some people are further away from wing chun than when they first began.

CSK -- Did you type in this whole dialogue manually instead of using multiple quotes? If so, that means I'm not the only one who doesn't know how to do that multiple quotation thing! Help, anyone?

Oh, and back to the topic. Have you noticed how much variation there is in the basic "alphabet" and "grammar" of WC/WT even among bona fide Yip Man students. They vary considerably on such basics as stance, posture and steps, as well as all the stuff that is built on this foundation. And yet, they practice and teach the "authentic" art and are often respected for their technique. When I switched sifus in 1980, I had to spend many hours of hard work to retrain my stance to my new sifu's exacting standards before he would teach me anything else. Another chunner I've met on this forum switched in the other direction and had to go through the same ordeal to learn the very stance work I had to unlearn. Yet we are both satisfied with our results. Any thoughts?

 

[profesormental]

Greetings.

This is actually a very interesting question and an interesting discussion.

The first problem is defining "authentic".

The second thing is to determine if authenticity is important.

My position, as has been in many of my posts, is that at the end, what is important is the individual instructor's skill at Quan Fa and skill at teaching and training.

As for the authenticity issue, even the VTAA in Hong Kong has loose curriculum guidelines to awarding certificates, since most Si Fu teach very differently, even students of the same Si Fu.

So, to me, you train Wing Chun if you use as training methods and tools Sil Lum Tao, Chum Kiu, Bil Jee, Mook Jong, Chi Sao and do San Da and drills using these tools as teaching basis.

The forms, if trained correctly, instill a certain structure and body mechanics that is quite strong and formidable.

Since Wing Chun is very much based on Taoist principles of thought and action, the training seeks simplicity (although very sophisticated at times), and in many Si Fu's minds, better Wing Chun is the one that does more with less.

So while I agree that if you say you teach Wing Chun and the forms are Pinans and containg 720 degree spinning heel hook kicks, then that should not be called Wing Chun...

I know of people that have made their own explorations of Wing Chun, look like Wing Chun with a twist and flavor that makes it their own and it works... even though they've been disfranchised by their "lineage".

I've seen other things that I will not mention... yet after exploration and experience, you know what is Wing Chun and what it is not. and you can decide to seek it or not.

Hope that helps.

Juan M. Mercado

 

[BFL]

By definition:


au·then·tic (ô-th

n

t

k)
adj. 1. Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief: an authentic account by an eyewitness.
2. Having a claimed and verifiable origin or authorship; not counterfeit or copied: an authentic medieval sword.
3. Law Executed with due process: an authentic deed.
4. Music a. Of, relating to, or being a medieval mode having a range from its final tone to the octave above it.
b. Of, relating to, or being a cadence with the dominant chord immediately preceding the tonic chord.

5. Obsolete Authoritative.

[Middle English autentik, from Old French autentique, from Late Latin authenticus, from Greek authentikos, from authent

s, author.]
au·then

ti·cal·ly adv.
Synonyms: authentic, bona fide, genuine, real1, true, undoubted, unquestionable
These adjectives mean not counterfeit or copied: an authentic painting by Corot; a bona fide transfer of property; genuine crabmeat; a real diamond; true courage; undoubted evidence; an unquestionable antique. Antonym: counterfeit


The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
authentic
Adjective
1. of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine
2. reliable or accurate
3. Music using period instruments, scores, and playing techniques [Greek authentikos]
authentically adv
authenticity n

 

[dungeonworks]

My Kung Fu is better than everyone elses!!!