Do you ever feel as if the Wing Chun we Learn today isn't original?

[Cephalopod]

Everybody know that when you use your hand to attack your opponent's groin, you opponent will punch your head.

C'mon, thats a bit of a general statement, no?

I think many will agree that, unappealing as it sounds, grabbing a fistful of nards with a yank and a twist will put a speedy end to many an altercation. But being able to do so depends entirely on where you are with respect to your assailant, what his arms are doing, what your other arm is doing, how tall he is compared to you etc etc etc

 

[KPM]

i got in my "way back" machine and went back in time. i talked to this Ng Mui, she said your all nuts.

this is my first visit into this area of MT,,,,,after reading a page of this thread i am so glad i didnt learn this style.

Then you haven't around much my friend! You'll find the same kinds of silly discussions in TKD forums, Karate forums, etc. Wing Chun does have its far share of crazy, but likely no more than other traditional styles!

 

[hoshin1600]

Then you haven't around much my friend! You'll find the same kinds of silly discussions in TKD forums, Karate forums, etc. Wing Chun does have its far share of crazy, but likely no more than other traditional styles!

actually i have. i used to frequent a karate forum for the style i do.....long story short, no one goes there anymore and i mean NO ONE, its a ghost town

 

[Cephalopod]

i got in my "way back" machine and went back in time. i talked to this Ng Mui, she said your all nuts.

I happen to agree with this most of all, but what the hay, I'll contribute my priceless opinion anyway...

...wing chun is complete in this way. There are few techniques but when strung together form unlimited combinations and coverage across all situations.

We may just have to agree to disagree.

All right then, I agreeably disagree. Much as I love WC.
For example, if a good wrestler gets his arms wrapped around me, my wing chun training will be complete

-ly ineffective as my face gets mashed into the turf.

Problem is, learning a wrestling technique or two won't help me. I would need to dedicate a great deal of time pressure testing my wrestling repertoire to hope that any of it will work under the duress of self-defense. If I didn't have a day job, i might just do that, but many of us live with the limitations of time and age (training all out in some disciplines can get harder on your body and well being as you head into your 50s).
Since I love the practice of wing chun, I'd rather work out how to make it very hard for the hypothetical wrestler to get his arms around be in the first place.

But I don't kid myself into believing that my wing chun is 'complete' in all situations. I'll just try my best to avoid the situations where it is not going to be optimal.

 

[Headhunter]

C'mon, thats a bit of a general statement, no?

I think many will agree that, unappealing as it sounds, grabbing a fistful of nards with a yank and a twist will put a speedy end to many an altercation. But being able to do so depends entirely on where you are with respect to your assailant, what his arms are doing, what your other arm is doing, how tall he is compared to you etc etc etc

There's also the fact that they could simply miss or the attacker could see it coming

 

[Flying Crane]

Then you have to add the issue of incomplete transmission. No instructor will ever transmit absolutely 100% of his knowledge about WC (or any art). It's simply impossible with human communication. That means there's a built-in degradation at each generation. If those generations do not add any improvements to what they learned, they are transmitting less than their instructor did. If they make improvements, they may transmit as much as their instructor (or even more, if the improvements are especially good).

i dont agree with this. You are assuming that a person needs to be taught everything, that all knowledge and skill must come directly from the sifu.

One thing my sifu has said is that he cannot teach us everything. For some things he can only get us close, and it is up to us to make the final leap and grasp the understanding. Some things just cannot be described and explained perfectly.

A sifu can teach the complete curriculum (however that may be defined). But while he can also teach nuances from his personal insights and experiences, he cannot transmit the sum total of those insights and experiences to the student.

None of this stuff is perfectly transmittable, and the success or failure ultimately rests on the insights and experiences of the student, coupled with their knowledge and skill with the material. This includes the possibility to go far beyond the sifu. There is not an automatic degradation from one generation to the next, even though it is guaranteed that the sifu will not and cannot teach everything that he knows.

In some cases, where a curriculum is very large and arguably contains a lot of redundancy, failing to teach some portion of the curriculum may have no detriment at all. Choy Lay Fut is a good example. The system as a whole contains a huge number of forms, dozens and dozens. But there is a lineage that has only kept a very limited number of those forms, and it does just fine. I would argue that the original curriculum could be downright cumbersome, and that more is not always better. The second lineage could be much more useful, and useable was a streamlined method.

 

[Cephalopod]

You are not throwing away anything when your WC also contain hook, uppercut, side kick, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount, ...

WC + hook, uppercut, roundhouse kick, flying knee, hip throw, single leg, double legs, arm bar, side mount > WC

Having come from a background of other martial arts, I've learned all sorts of cool techniques. People I train with from other arts enjoy teaching me more.
But the fact remains, my wing chun usually (see above) affords simpler ways of dealing with situations, so all these techniques aren't so interesting to me.

Since I started WC I have come to appreciate the aspect of using fewer and fewer responses to deal with more and more situations. I believe it makes it easier for me to be clear-headed and empty minded under duress.

And by the way...for me in any case
WC + flying knee < WC
I'm much safer with my feet happily on terra firma.

 

[Cephalopod]

i dont agree with this. You are assuming that a person needs to be taught everything, that all knowledge and skill must come directly from the sifu.

One thing my sifu has said is that he cannot teach us everything. For some things he can only get us close, and it is up to us to make the final leap and grasp the understanding. Some things just cannot be described and explained perfectly.

A sifu can teach the complete curriculum (however that may be defined). But while he can also teach nuances from his personal insights and experiences, he cannot transmit the sum total of those insights and experiences to the student.

None of this stuff is perfectly transmittable, and the success or failure ultimately rests on the insights and experiences of the student, coupled with their knowledge and skill with the material. This includes the possibility to go far beyond the sifu. There is not an automatic degradation from one generation to the next, even though it is guaranteed that the sifu will not and cannot teach everything that he knows.

In some cases, where a curriculum is very large and arguably contains a lot of redundancy, failing to teach some portion of the curriculum may have no detriment at all. Choy Lay Fut is a good example. The system as a whole contains a huge number of forms, dozens and dozens. But there is a lineage that has only kept a very limited number of those forms, and it does just fine. I would argue that the original curriculum could be downright cumbersome, and that more is not always better. The second lineage could be much more useful, and useable was a streamlined method.

The way I read it, you actually agree with gpseymour more than disagree.
As transmission from a sifu is incomplete (for whatever reason) in is up to the practitioner to enrich his understanding and abilities (by whatever means) for the art to remain viable.

By and large, I agree with both of you. But...

The slippery-slope concern to this, that many in the past have voiced, is that if you don't absorb as much as you can from your sifu you might be tempted to look at holes in the effectiveness of your system (per your experience), and fill them with other stuff.

Some principles in WC (and other styles) take a lot of time and effort to be able to use effectively under duress. If you have not invested that time and effort and simply state that the principle is invalid and replace it with something that seems easier, then the style has lost something going forward. Is that loss/change a good thing?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I personally would rather be master of a few effective techniques than mediocre are 1000 others.

The reason that I come up that "tool list" is to indicate that even if you may not use those tools, you can't prevent your opponent from using those tools on you. You don't need to know how to use it, but you do need to know how to counter it.

For example, how to counter

- under hook,
- over hook,
- single leg,
- double legs,
- hit throw,
- foot sweep,
- ...

Do those counters exist in the WC system?

 

[Flying Crane]

The reason that I come up that "tool list" is to indicate that even if you may not use those tools, you can't prevent your opponent from using those tools on you. You don't need to know how to use it, but you do need to know how to counter it.

For example, how to counter

- under hook,
- over hook,
- single leg,
- double legs,
- hit throw,
- foot sweep,
- ...

Do those counters exist in the WC system?

Yes they do, for someone who understands the method. Any good system ought to have viable solutions for what might come at you.

 

[Flying Crane]

The way I read it, you actually agree with gpseymour more than disagree.
As transmission from a sifu is incomplete (for whatever reason) in is up to the practitioner to enrich his understanding and abilities (by whatever means) for the art to remain viable.

By and large, I agree with both of you. But...

The slippery-slope concern to this, that many in the past have voiced, is that if you don't absorb as much as you can from your sifu you might be tempted to look at holes in the effectiveness of your system (per your experience), and fill them with other stuff.

Some principles in WC (and other styles) take a lot of time and effort to be able to use effectively under duress. If you have not invested that time and effort and simply state that the principle is invalid and replace it with something that seems easier, then the style has lost something going forward. Is that loss/change a good thing?

Sure, I read you.

I guess my point is more in line with the idea

The way I read it, you actually agree with gpseymour more than disagree.
As transmission from a sifu is incomplete (for whatever reason) in is up to the practitioner to enrich his understanding and abilities (by whatever means) for the art to remain viable.

By and large, I agree with both of you. But...

The slippery-slope concern to this, that many in the past have voiced, is that if you don't absorb as much as you can from your sifu you might be tempted to look at holes in the effectiveness of your system (per your experience), and fill them with other stuff.

Some principles in WC (and other styles) take a lot of time and effort to be able to use effectively under duress. If you have not invested that time and effort and simply state that the principle is invalid and replace it with something that seems easier, then the style has lost something going forward. Is that loss/change a good thing?

sure, I get where you are coming from.

I guess my point is that more importance needs to be placed on the student gaining experience and insight to understand what is possible, vs. expecting the sifu to spoon-feed all the answers. It takes work and thought.

Then, even with an abridged curriculum, great things are possible.

 

[Cephalopod]

The reason that I come up that "tool list" is to indicate that even if you may not use those tools, you can't prevent your opponent from using those tools on you. You don't need to know how to use it, but you do need to know how to counter it.

For example, how to counter

- under hook,
- over hook,
- single leg,
- double legs,
- hit throw,
- foot sweep,
- ...

Do those counters exist in the WC system?

That's a whole other argument!

Training with people who will use these techniques against me will help me make my wing chun better. No doubt!

Incorporating these techniques into my wing chun? The jury is out.

 

[Cephalopod]

Sure, I read you.

I guess my point is more in line with the idea

sure, I get where you are coming from.

I guess my point is that more importance needs to be placed on the student gaining experience and insight to understand what is possible, vs. expecting the sifu to spoon-feed all the answers. It takes work and thought.

Then, even with an abridged curriculum, great things are possible.

Ha, I slapped you with a 'Like' just to prevent you from editing your doubled quote!
Just kidding!

What you touched on about people expecting to be spoon-fed all the answers is super important. I wish more students of the martial arts would remember that.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

i dont agree with this. You are assuming that a person needs to be taught everything, that all knowledge and skill must come directly from the sifu.

One thing my sifu has said is that he cannot teach us everything. For some things he can only get us close, and it is up to us to make the final leap and grasp the understanding. Some things just cannot be described and explained perfectly.

A sifu can teach the complete curriculum (however that may be defined). But while he can also teach nuances from his personal insights and experiences, he cannot transmit the sum total of those insights and experiences to the student.

None of this stuff is perfectly transmittable, and the success or failure ultimately rests on the insights and experiences of the student, coupled with their knowledge and skill with the material. This includes the possibility to go far beyond the sifu. There is not an automatic degradation from one generation to the next, even though it is guaranteed that the sifu will not and cannot teach everything that he knows.

In some cases, where a curriculum is very large and arguably contains a lot of redundancy, failing to teach some portion of the curriculum may have no detriment at all. Choy Lay Fut is a good example. The system as a whole contains a huge number of forms, dozens and dozens. But there is a lineage that has only kept a very limited number of those forms, and it does just fine. I would argue that the original curriculum could be downright cumbersome, and that more is not always better. The second lineage could be much more useful, and useable was a streamlined method.

I don't think we actually disagree on this. The physical curriculum is not the entirety of the art. And even that part can't be transmitted error-free. So, let's say you manage to replicate your instructor's forms and physical techniques 95%. If you try to teach exactly what he taught, there will be a 5% degradation. On top of that, there's the transmission of ideas and understanding, which will be less complete/exact than the physical techniques. If you only transmit exactly the information and understanding you got from him, there would be further degradation.

Of course, you wouldn't do that. You'd teach the physical curriculum as best you could, including where you've found ways that worked better for you than your sifu taught (which, in some cases, will be things you just didn't get from him, though he did them, too). You'd also pass along the best understanding you could, rather than just the bits you got directly from your instructor. That "best you can" is what prevents the degradation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The way I read it, you actually agree with gpseymour more than disagree.
As transmission from a sifu is incomplete (for whatever reason) in is up to the practitioner to enrich his understanding and abilities (by whatever means) for the art to remain viable.

By and large, I agree with both of you. But...

The slippery-slope concern to this, that many in the past have voiced, is that if you don't absorb as much as you can from your sifu you might be tempted to look at holes in the effectiveness of your system (per your experience), and fill them with other stuff.

Some principles in WC (and other styles) take a lot of time and effort to be able to use effectively under duress. If you have not invested that time and effort and simply state that the principle is invalid and replace it with something that seems easier, then the style has lost something going forward. Is that loss/change a good thing?

Agreed. There is the danger (especially given the Dunning-Kruger effect) that we will charge in to change things with too little understanding. Then, adding our (mis)understanding to what we were taught, we could actively degrade an art in a generation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's a whole other argument!

Training with people who will use these techniques against me will help me make my wing chun better. No doubt!

Incorporating these techniques into my wing chun? The jury is out.

This is something I've worked with, and I've found that the best way to deal with them is to teach a simple form of them. So, now my students learn strikes I didn't teach in the past, as well as some grappling approaches I used to hold for advanced training. Now I teach this stuff much earlier, so they can practice against it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

That's a whole other argument!

Training with people who will use these techniques against me will help me make my wing chun better. No doubt!

Incorporating these techniques into my wing chun? The jury is out.

If you

- hold your arm straight up, nobody can apply "under hook" on you.
- rotate your arm the same direction as your opponent's arm is rotating, nobody can apply "over hook" on you.
- ...

What's wrong to add both training into your WC system?

 

[Cephalopod]

If you

- hold your arm straight up, nobody can apply "under hook" on you.
- rotate your arm the same direction as your opponent's arm is rotating, nobody can apply "over hook" on you.
- ...

What's wrong to add both training into your WC system?

I don't believe I need to "hold my arm straight up" to avoid underhooks. My application of textbook WC principles (eg staying relaxed to slip the grip, maintaining forward intent to control the distance) has worked pretty well so far.

B'sides, someone might tickle my armpit.

 

[Cephalopod]

This is something I've worked with, and I've found that the best way to deal with them is to teach a simple form of them. So, now my students learn strikes I didn't teach in the past, as well as some grappling approaches I used to hold for advanced training. Now I teach this stuff much earlier, so they can practice against it.

This is fine (not to mention fun) as long as your students realize that dealing with, for example, a Choi Lay Fut circular strike from each other will not be the same as dealing with one from a dedicated CLF practitioner. That's not a slight on your teaching ability, just an acknowledgement of where time is invested.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This is fine (not to mention fun) as long as your students realize that dealing with, for example, a Choi Lay Fut circular strike from each other will not be the same as dealing with one from a dedicated CLF practitioner. That's not a slight on your teaching ability, just an acknowledgement of where time is invested.

Agreed. The point is to get them something better than what they were doing. We didn't used to teach round punches (hooks/haymakers/etc.) as part of our curriculum. Yet we need to train against that. I actually like using them at times, and if they learn to use them, they give much better attacks. If I want them to experience working against a hook from a moderately trained boxer, I need a moderately trained boxer for that.