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

[Flying Crane]

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.

Yes and this is why I always say that nothing taught today is exactly as it was in the past. Simply teaching from one generation to the next causes things to change, because no student is exactly like his teacher, nobody understands it exactly like someone else. So even tho the intention might be to keep it the same, it will change. But that does not need to mean it degrades.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

How would ancient WC people deal with "foot sweep" and "double legs"? When a WC guy stands in a narrow inward horse stance, his heel is exposed to his opponent. His opponent doesn't need to re-position the back foot position, he can sweep the WC guy's ankle with 1 move (sweep) instead of 2 moves (re-position back foot, sweep). Also since the narrow stance, it gives your opponent a great chance for "double legs".

From the way that WC inward narrow horse stance was designed, the WC founder didn't not consider the weakness of that stance in enough detail. This weakness might not be a problem in the southern part of China (not many people used foot sweep and double legs in Canton, China). It's a problem in the 21th century today.

 

[obi_juan_salami]

How would ancient WC people deal with "foot sweep" and "double legs"? When a WC guy stands in a narrow inward horse stance, his heel is exposed to his opponent. His opponent doesn't need to re-position the back foot position, he can sweep the WC guy's ankle with 1 move (sweep) instead of 2 moves (re-position back foot, sweep). Also since the narrow stance, it gives your opponent a great chance for "double legs".

From the way that WC inward narrow horse stance was designed, the WC founder didn't not consider the weakness of that stance in enough detail. This weakness might not be a problem in the southern part of China (not many people used foot sweep and double legs in Canton, China). It's a problem in the 21th century today.

The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.

 

[obi_juan_salami]

@obi_juan_salami you might want to contact Sergio Iadarola. I think he did alot of research regarding the roots of Wing Chun and have a great understanding of the several lineages and systems of Wing Chun

Thanks for that. I am familiar with sergios work. His approach to both wing chun itself and the history of it is different and i dont really agree with either. But each to their own i guess. Seems to work for him and has made him a success.

 

[obi_juan_salami]

Well you are always able to not agree with him, but fact remain that he sat down and trained with masters of the art in the place of birth of these styles, so the guy did his research and collected plenty of facts.

Thats his experience and im not saying his wrong. I just dont agree in the origins he believes to have pieced together. I dont know the people he spoke to or trained with on a personal level.

Id much rather base my belief on the history passed to me by my teachers, one of which was a student of sum nung, and my own research.

 

[Headhunter]

The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.

You think no other fighter who gets taken down in either wrestling or fighting doesn't have the same idea to move?

 

[wckf92]

The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.

Yup.

...and there is this really cool concept called striking.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.

I'm not talking about footwork. I'm talking about stance. Any stance that your opponent can get both of your legs at the same time is too risky. This was not a concern in the ancient China (wrestling was not involved). It's a valid concern today (wrestling, Judo, MMA are involved).

Old saying said, "Get both legs if you can (double legs). Otherwise get one leg (single leg) first and get the other leg (inner hook) afterward." The wider that your stance is, the lower that your hands can protect your legs.

 

[DanT]

I don't care if it comes from mars, if it works, it works. People don't fight the same today the way they did 200 years ago. My Wing Chun is evolved. Some people want to stick to using Paleolithic Wing Chun, then that's fine for them, not for me.

 

[drop bear]

I mean like if you master Wing Chun and then decide to master Taekwondo then feel free to combine it but if your gunna teach Wing Chun then by all means teach Wing Chun as the combination wouldn't suit everyone and if someone wants to learn wing chun then that's all they wanna learn.

Sent from my DLI-L22 using Tapatalk

You do sort of have a duty to teach a system that works though.

I mean if someone was just cleaning house martial arts wise and then not teaching what got them to to be able to do that. I would be pretty upset.

And so if they are doing some modified chun that works. But teaching the in modified version. That isn't cool.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You do sort of have a duty to teach a system that works though.

I mean if someone was just cleaning house martial arts wise and then not teaching what got them to to be able to do that. I would be pretty upset.

Why? I could be an amazing martial artist but never teach a day in my life. I'd agree that if I'm teaching, I should teach what works, not what doesn't, but I would never have a general duty to teach no matter how good I become.

 

[drop bear]

Why? I could be an amazing martial artist but never teach a day in my life. I'd agree that if I'm teaching, I should teach what works, not what doesn't, but I would never have a general duty to teach no matter how good I become.

If you teach.

 

[drop bear]

The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.

If you are integrating a new method in to your system.

It has to have accountability.

So if I did go to China and became fascinated with Wushu. I would still have to take it back home and laboratory test it to decide if it word and is appropriate.

So if for example you think mobile footwork defeats takedowns. You have to defeat takedowns with it. Don't get caught up with the mouthboxing.

Because that is where changing techniques becomes the issue you think it is.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

The WC guy moves? His not stuck in the ground. The stance and footwork are highly versitile and mobile.

The footwork is a 2 edges sword. When you apply "forward pressure", you move into your opponent. Your forward movement can be a bonus for your opponent because he doesn't have to move forward too much. Your close the distance will become his close the distance. The issue is whether your hands can protect your legs in your high and narrow WC stance.

Example can be seen at 0.32 of this clip. You want your opponent's head. Your opponent wants your legs.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If you teach.

Ok. So don't teach bad stuff if you know better stuff?

 

[wckf92]

The issue is whether your hands can protect your legs in your high and narrow WC stance.]

Just FYI, WC has more stances than just this "high and narrow stance"...
Stability THEN mobility. Transitioning as one needs them.

 

[obi_juan_salami]

Just FYI, WC has more stances than just this "high and narrow stance"...
Stability THEN mobility. Transitioning as one needs them.

Im glad someone gets it.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Just FYI, WC has more stances than just this "high and narrow stance"...

What stances?

1. horse stance?
2. 3-7 stance?
3. 4-6 stance?
4. bow arrow stance?
5. empty stance?
6. twisting stance?
7. golden rooster stance?
8. striking tiger stance?
9. monkey stance?
10. 7 stars stance?
11. ...

Can you put up a clip to show it?

 

[drop bear]

Ok. So don't teach bad stuff if you know better stuff?

Yep.

 

[wckf92]

What stances?

1. horse stance?
2. 3-7 stance?
3. 4-6 stance?
4. bow arrow stance?
5. empty stance?
6. twisting stance?
7. golden rooster stance?
8. striking tiger stance?
9. monkey stance?
10. 7 stars stance?
11. ...

Can you put up a clip to show it?

I'm not familiar with most of the names you posted...but if you post pics of them I could comment better... thx.