Is there an objective way to determine quality of wing chun or My wc is better than yours because I say so!

[hunschuld]

Reading another thread got me to wonder. Is there an objective way to determine WC quality? WC is full of mine/ours is better more original. It can be different Yip man students or other WC styles saying theirs is better than YM.

So many things are claimed but then you here other things that refute the claims. For example we hear that Sum Nung WC is better than YM because YKS actually taught YM too but not all the secret stuff he taught Sum Nung. Then the other students of YKS say that what ever SN did was not at all what YKS taught and they don't know where SN got his WC. Every claim seems to have an opposite claim.

So the questionable mine is better than yours goes on everywhere. Is there an objective way to determine the truth?

 

[MetalBoar]

Reading another thread got me to wonder. Is there an objective way to determine WC quality? WC is full of mine/ours is better more original. It can be different Yip man students or other WC styles saying theirs is better than YM.

So many things are claimed but then you here other things that refute the claims. For example we hear that Sum Nung WC is better than YM because YKS actually taught YM too but not all the secret stuff he taught Sum Nung. Then the other students of YKS say that what ever SN did was not at all what YKS taught and they don't know where SN got his WC. Every claim seems to have an opposite claim.

So the questionable mine is better than yours goes on everywhere. Is there an objective way to determine the truth?

My exposure to WC is not extensive, I've had kind of seminar level training and I've watched a few classes at a handful of schools so I'm no expert but I'd think we'd have to define "better" for what and "better" for who at least before we could start to come up with a way to measure the quality. Off the top of my head things I can think of a lot of different ways to be "better" that might all require different metrics.

If someone wants to be competitive in MMA (or some other format, such as Sanda) then competing in MMA or whatever is one measurement. If one lineage is more successful than others and assuming there are enough others to make a reasonable comparison, then it's "better". It might also tell you quite a bit about it's value in self defense but maybe not as much as some of the MMA enthusiasts might claim, depending on how you define self defense. If you care about efficacy against other lineages of WC then you could create a tournament system that's limited to WC and try to get enough participation to be meaningful, which again might tell you something about self defense applications but probably less than competing in MMA and again depending on how you define self defense. Directly and objectively measuring it's value for self defense (unless you accept MMA performance as a direct measure) is a lot harder and may not be possible to do safely or legally and that's true of most all MA.

If you care about authenticity then you have to define that and it's probably going to be fairly subjective. It might be easier to talk about how "complete" a particular lineage is, if you believe that more forms or more drills or whatever is "better" but again whether more is "better" is fairly subjective.

On the individual level, if you're kind of inflexible it might be "better" than TKD with all it's high kicks. If you've got long limbs and really like to fight from the outside it might be both objectively and subjectively worse for you than some other arts. If there are similar variations between different lineages then there might be objective measurements on the individual level there too.

Speaking for myself I'm not sure how much it matters. I've been interested in trying WC for years and it's just never worked out. Now that I'm in a new city and looking for a new school I'm limited to what lineages are taught here and the instructors representing them. Phoenix is something of a WC hotbed and off the top of my head I know that there are schools that trace back to Leung Ting, Augustine Fong, Chung Kwok Chow, Garrett Gee, and Samuel Kwok and there are probably others in the area too. That's great, but I'm not training with Ting, or Fong (unless I want to go all the way to Tucson) or whoever, I'm training with someone who trained with them or who is more removed still. My experience tells me that if WC is like other martial arts then the individual instructor is going to make a lot bigger difference than the lineage. So, even if the Hung Fa Yi lineage were actually "better" (setting aside the debates about the truth of it's origins) than Ip Man WC in some absolute sense, it doesn't matter if the local HFY school isn't as good as the local Ip Man school and no matter how good the Pan Nam branch of WC might be it's totally irrelevant to me because there isn't anyone teaching that here (as far as I know).

 

[Poppity]

"What is the Dharma-Body of the Buddha?"

"The hedge at the bottom of the garden." "And the man who realizes this truth,"

 

[geezer]

Reading another thread got me to wonder. Is there an objective way to determine WC quality? WC is full of mine/ours is better more original. It can be different Yip man students or other WC styles saying theirs is better than YM.

Metal Boar pretty much nailed it. First thing you have to do is define your terms. What the heck do you mean by better?

1. If by better you mean "more authentic" ...as in the oldest, least altered or most original form I don't think a meaningful answer is possible. Every lineage and branch emerged from an earlier version going back centuries to those ancestral styles that gradually gave rise to what we call Wing Chun (Ving Tsun Wing Tsun, etc.) today.

On one hand, as you point out, there is no agreement between lineages regarding purity or antiquity, and there is insufficient historical information to provide a definitive answer.

Interestingly, if you think that "older is better" consider that most lineages preach that the art of WC is superior to the arts it was derived from. Whether true or not, that pretty much discounts the "older is better" argument ...otherwise we would all abandon what we do in favor of whatever we believed was the most ancient form. Maybe some version of Bak Hok, or Southern Shaolin, or something far more ancient ...like Denisovan mud wrestling?

2. If by better you mean most effective in combat, you need to further define what kind of combat, come up with an appropriate rule set and conduct competition between involving all lineages and branches. If enough people participate, over time the results would speak for themselves as to whose system is best. But this is hypothetical because first, it will never happen, and second I'm certain that over time, the winners would not represent any one system, lineage or branch but would be practicing an evolved composite of the most practical stuff from all branches and a lot of stuff that's not Wing Chun i.e. a WC version of MMA.

3. If by better you mean better for the individual refer back to Metal Boar's comments. Each individual has different abilities, needs and motivations. What is better for the student will vary depending on the student. Each lineage, branch and school have something different to offer. While it is possible to spot outright frauds and cheats, beyond that it's really a subjective decision.

 

[ShortBridge]

I think it's an error in logic to assume that "better" is the same as "more original".

I also think that the concept of "original" is flawed and perhaps western. CMAs have forms and sometimes other things that distinguish them from other CMAs, but I don't think that whenever these systems were at their best they considered that "original". They were training and I believe that they were training for their environment and risks. I doubt that effective "self defense" in 1960 Hong Kong has much much in common with effective "self defense" is 1700s Foshan. But, a good system enables you to train within it in a way that is applicable to your life.

I don't think that we're supposed to time-capsule this stuff.

I also don't think that you can "combine the best techniques" of multiple systems that you probably never really learned and relate it back in any way to Wing Chun or any other base system.

The truth for me is somewhere in the middle. The rub is that I think that IS the actual tradition, not the secret scroll version we (usually westerners) want to it be.

Is mine better than yours? That's kind of a different riddle, but I don't start out assuming that I know enough about what anyone else does to judge.

 

[geezer]

....I don't start out assuming that I know enough about what anyone else does to judge.

That ^^^^ is an excellent attitude!

 

[obi_juan_salami]

i don't know that there is any sure-fire way to determine quality overall as all the various lineages are far removed from the 'source'. Some so different they may as well be different styles of kung fu. What you need is a constant that we all share that we can be measured against. One thing that seems to be fairly universal among wing chun practitioners are the principles. The differences in how each lineage interprets them can be problematic but to what degree a style adheres to the more basic of them could possibly give us some measure of quality.

for example; do they use force against force? do they over commit? do they telegraph their movements? are they relaxed? are the movements simple and direct? do the arms move simultaneously and work together? are they coordinated?

could also include attributes that all quality martial arts should share; speed, power, footwork etc.

That's as close as we could get off the top of my head if we are talking cross-lineage. Within lineages they would obviously have their own individual criteria.

in terms of the last question about 'the truth' id say what i wrote above is again still the closest you will get. Reading into politics gets you no where and 'proof is in the pudding' as one of my seniors likes to say. skilful adherence to the principles and obviously competence.

Side note of my political two cents: Sum Nung was the only disciple of Yuen Kay San. For those that know what that relationship means it can offer some clarity as to who got what from Yuen Kay San.

 

[wckf92]

This thread reminds of another thread here once that discussed the older/more complex Tang Yik pole form. Is it "better" because it's older and/or more complex than the (apparently) shorter Yip Man version? Same thing goes for the knife form(s)...and wooden dummy forms etc.

I suppose it will be a discussion amongst WC practitioners for many years after we are all gone. haha

 

[geezer]

...I suppose it will be a discussion amongst WC practitioners for many years after we are all gone. haha

Assuming Wing Chun continues to be practiced "for many years after we are gone".

WC has always been a bit obscure, having a brief moment of popularity from the mid 70s through the 80s during and after the Bruce Lee/Kung Fu craze. Other fads like ninjutsu replaced WC and got more public attention for a while. Then, BJJ and MMA made all those exotic "fad" arts seem irrelevant and childish.

With the release of the first Ip Man movie in 2008, there was a resurgence of interest for a while. But the Ip Man movie franchise has run it's course, and WC is pretty much the whipping boy of Youtube, being symbolic of all that is perceived to be wrong with traditional martial arts.

Admittedly, over the years, a few decent MMA fighters have integrated WC training and moves into their repertoire, but it often has the feel of novelty ...like an attention grabbing gimmick used by otherwise pretty normally trained MMA fighters.

Unless things change ....a lot. Maybe more fighters using WC in MMA or some kind of eye-catching competitions ...like if chi-sau on tables makes it big, I have doubts about the long term future of WC.

As for myself ...my own relationship with WC is uncertain. I still love a good session of that old chess game, Chi-Sau, but I'm mature enough and have seen enough not to be taken in by the shiny illusions and almost magical promises of WC and similar arts. I'm reminded of one of Willy Yeat's poems written late in his life, The Circus Animals' Desertion.

Perhaps WC and the traditional martial arts in general have been my circus animals.

 

[hunschuld]

Lot's of great thoughtful answers to a question that may have no answer.

 

[ShortBridge]

This thread reminds of another thread here once that discussed the older/more complex Tang Yik pole form. Is it "better" because it's older and/or more complex than the (apparently) shorter Yip Man version? Same thing goes for the knife form(s)...and wooden dummy forms etc.

I suppose it will be a discussion amongst WC practitioners for many years after we are all gone. haha

I think that it's all training. When I used to look at some more, say esoteric kung fu systems' forms, I would think "that would never work in a fight!" Sometimes now I think "they did the flip (or whatever) and then landed in their stance, because they're training themselves to find that ground on their terms...interesting"

Of course I could be wrong. I took some interest in the Tank Yik staff for a bit and if I could do 2 man training with someone on it, I certainly would, but learning forms is pointless unless you understand what you are training while doing them. The staff form I have is plenty for me.

 

[Callen]

Assuming Wing Chun continues to be practiced "for many years after we are gone".

Like most traditional Chinese gong fu, Wing Chun will most likely continue by way of selection. It has quietly been spreading throughout southern China in its native language for generations, reminding us that its cultural reach is far greater than the familiar lens with which Westerners are used to looking through.

WC has always been a bit obscure, having a brief moment of popularity from the mid 70s through the 80s during and after the Bruce Lee/Kung Fu craze. Other fads like ninjutsu replaced WC and got more public attention for a while. Then, BJJ and MMA made all those exotic "fad" arts seem irrelevant and childish.

With the release of the first Ip Man movie in 2008, there was a resurgence of interest for a while. But the Ip Man movie franchise has run it's course, and WC is pretty much the whipping boy of Youtube, being symbolic of all that is perceived to be wrong with traditional martial arts.

Admittedly, over the years, a few decent MMA fighters have integrated WC training and moves into their repertoire, but it often has the feel of novelty ...like an attention grabbing gimmick used by otherwise pretty normally trained MMA fighters.

Unless things change ....a lot. Maybe more fighters using WC in MMA or some kind of eye-catching competitions ...like if chi-sau on tables makes it big, I have doubts about the long term future of WC.

As for myself ...my own relationship with WC is uncertain. I still love a good session of that old chess game, Chi-Sau, but I'm mature enough and have seen enough not to be taken in by the shiny illusions and almost magical promises of WC and similar arts. I'm reminded of one of Willy Yeat's poems written late in his life, The Circus Animals' Desertion.

Perhaps WC and the traditional martial arts in general have been my circus animals.

In my opinion, some of the temporary and trendy “popularity” you are referring to could quite possibly be part of the problem.

 

[Blindside]

Reading another thread got me to wonder. Is there an objective way to determine WC quality? WC is full of mine/ours is better more original. It can be different Yip man students or other WC styles saying theirs is better than YM.

So many things are claimed but then you here other things that refute the claims. For example we hear that Sum Nung WC is better than YM because YKS actually taught YM too but not all the secret stuff he taught Sum Nung. Then the other students of YKS say that what ever SN did was not at all what YKS taught and they don't know where SN got his WC. Every claim seems to have an opposite claim.

So the questionable mine is better than yours goes on everywhere. Is there an objective way to determine the truth?

Not a WCer here in any way. Isn't the fundamental purpose of martial art to be able to produce people who can fight? (I am going to ignore intentionally non-combative martial arts like kyudo for the purposes of this statement.) Shouldn't the only question be who (which school/lineage/whatever) is producing students who can fight? It is weird to me that this is even a question.

 

[Flying Crane]

Assuming Wing Chun continues to be practiced "for many years after we are gone".

WC has always been a bit obscure, having a brief moment of popularity from the mid 70s through the 80s during and after the Bruce Lee/Kung Fu craze. Other fads like ninjutsu replaced WC and got more public attention for a while. Then, BJJ and MMA made all those exotic "fad" arts seem irrelevant and childish.

With the release of the first Ip Man movie in 2008, there was a resurgence of interest for a while. But the Ip Man movie franchise has run it's course, and WC is pretty much the whipping boy of Youtube, being symbolic of all that is perceived to be wrong with traditional martial arts.

Admittedly, over the years, a few decent MMA fighters have integrated WC training and moves into their repertoire, but it often has the feel of novelty ...like an attention grabbing gimmick used by otherwise pretty normally trained MMA fighters.

Unless things change ....a lot. Maybe more fighters using WC in MMA or some kind of eye-catching competitions ...like if chi-sau on tables makes it big, I have doubts about the long term future of WC.

As for myself ...my own relationship with WC is uncertain. I still love a good session of that old chess game, Chi-Sau, but I'm mature enough and have seen enough not to be taken in by the shiny illusions and almost magical promises of WC and similar arts. I'm reminded of one of Willy Yeat's poems written late in his life, The Circus Animals' Desertion.

Perhaps WC and the traditional martial arts in general have been my circus animals.

Honestly, I am sorry you feel this way. I certainly do not.

I think the biggest disservice that TMA folks did themselves was to buy into the notion that MMA is the yardstick against which all things martial must be measured. It isn’t.

MMA is one path in martial arts. For those who are interested in it, it’s great. For those who are not interested in it, it is most definitely NOT great. Personally, I find it utterly uninteresting and irrelevant. But that’s just me. Ones mileage may vary.

I think you need to have love for what you are doing. If you do, then what other folks may think about it is irrelevant. I personally find all kinds of value and relevance in my training. If you don’t find that in what you are doing, then perhaps you should do something else. But make your own choice about that. Don’t decide you need to do something else, that what you have been doing has no relevance, simply because you feel like there is some collective pressure to conform to the MMA path. F**k ‘em.

 

[obi_juan_salami]

Not a WCer here in any way. Isn't the fundamental purpose of martial art to be able to produce people who can fight? (I am going to ignore intentionally non-combative martial arts like kyudo for the purposes of this statement.) Shouldn't the only question be who (which school/lineage/whatever) is producing students who can fight? It is weird to me that this is even a question.

That would be another way to determine quality. But maybe only part of the picture. you can certainly be a good fighter and not know any martial arts at all or know martial arts and be a bad fighter. this paradigm makes a simple question more complicated.

what defines a good fighter?
who are they fighting?

wushu practitioners have agility, strength, precision but i don't think many or the performing ones would make good fighters. does this make wushu bad? what about the wushu practitioners that compete in sanda? same style, different purposes depending on what the 'wielder' is training for.

In wing chun (and any martial art) you can be a very successful fighter with speed, power and aggression alone. But compare them to someone who has those attributes PLUS foundation work and embodiment of the principles, all of a sudden the good fighter is a bad fighter?

i guess what i mean to say is that its a tricky one. what you are suggesting would mean we judge an art purely based on its practitioners. Practitioners should be a living embodiment of the style but when they fail in combat is that a result of the style being no good? or more a reflection of the individuals short comings? or reasons for practice?

good point and i agree to an extent. Fighting is after all the original purpose and any wing chun practitioner that is teaching (and worth their salt) should be able to handle themselves. But i don't think it is the overarching or only factor in determining the quality of an art itself.

 

[obi_juan_salami]

on the subject of producing fighters, living in the world we live in currently doesn't help. Since, by law, we cant go around fighting and 'kobra kai-ing' potentially fraudulent schools, and wing chuns apparently lucrative name (despite its bad reputation) it has left us with a very big mess to say the least. on top of that going off of where i learned it, Wing Chun is also not very easy to learn or understand and takes many years to refine and get good at. With daily training upward of 2-3 hours or more especially in the beginning stages. Perhaps there is no incentive for people to do this amount of hard work? particularly when most people work full-time, come to it through a public school, with a hobby in mind. Many of us in the west also, thankfully, live lives that don't involve fighting for survival each day. One thing that is certainly missing when compared to our ancestors is opportunity for practical experience.


if its producing fighters to compete for sport then that is something completely different. not cause we are too deadly or whatever but any fighter wanting to compete in a sporting environment has to train to that environment. you can't be a 2 times a week wing chun man and expect to defeat an athlete, in a game they have trained for and you haven't. So to modify your training enough to have it work in, lets say the all too popular MMA ring, you may need a 'ground game', you need a different kind of fitness, a different kind of strength, different strategies. Then is it a true expression of wing chun and its quality? again id say its more a reflection of the fighter and the quality of their preparation to compete.

 

[Blindside]

That would be another way to determine quality. But maybe only part of the picture. you can certainly be a good fighter and not know any martial arts at all or know martial arts and be a bad fighter. this paradigm makes a simple question more complicated.

what defines a good fighter?
who are they fighting?

A good fighter wins more fights than they lose. And this should be in comparison to other trained fighters, your peer group.

wushu practitioners have agility, strength, precision but i don't think many or the performing ones would make good fighters. does this make wushu bad? what about the wushu practitioners that compete in sanda? same style, different purposes depending on what the 'wielder' is training for.

I don't think the performance wushu has a goal of producing fighters, it is quite clearly about visual performance. That there is a distinct split between in training methodologies between talou and sanda makes the difference apparent. At this point the training method is the style regardless of name.

In wing chun (and any martial art) you can be a very successful fighter with speed, power and aggression alone. But compare them to someone who has those attributes PLUS foundation work and embodiment of the principles, all of a sudden the good fighter is a bad fighter?

When attributes are equal skill matters, when skill is equal attributes matter. Good fighters have both because they are compared against good fighters. No high level fighter is just one or the other.

i guess what i mean to say is that its a tricky one. what you are suggesting would mean we judge an art purely based on its practitioners. Practitioners should be a living embodiment of the style but when they fail in combat is that a result of the style being no good? or more a reflection of the individuals short comings? or reasons for practice?

What else is there to base it on? In science you test your theories and publish your results. Fights against other skilled fighters is the process of peer review.

 

[Blindside]

Wing Chun is also not very easy to learn or understand and takes many years to refine and get good at. With daily training upward of 2-3 hours or more especially in the beginning stages. Perhaps there is no incentive for people to do this amount of hard work? particularly when most people work full-time, come to it through a public school, with a hobby in mind. Many of us in the west also, thankfully, live lives that don't involve fighting for survival each day. One thing that is certainly missing when compared to our ancestors is opportunity for practical experience.\

Do you think people in other arts aren't putting in the same amount of hard work? Why can you find in every BJJ gym a couple of mat rats that are there for every session? Every high school wrestler works harder and longer for their workouts than I do. The kids at the boxing gym are there for hours every day after school. Is there something about WC practice that isn't attracting those people? And I would argue that there is far more opportunity in the modern sporting scene to get practical experience than our ancestors had, you can find a mma or kickboxing smoker (amateur fights) at least monthly in a big city.

if its producing fighters to compete for sport then that is something completely different. not cause we are too deadly or whatever but any fighter wanting to compete in a sporting environment has to train to that environment. you can't be a 2 times a week wing chun man and expect to defeat an athlete, in a game they have trained for and you haven't. So to modify your training enough to have it work in, lets say the all too popular MMA ring, you may need a 'ground game', you need a different kind of fitness, a different kind of strength, different strategies. Then is it a true expression of wing chun and its quality? again id say its more a reflection of the fighter and the quality of their preparation to compete.

Didn't Wing Chun make part of its reputation in "rooftop fights" in Hong Kong? Why could they compete against other skilled fighters then and not now? If your WC is for self-defense and has adapted for the times doesn't it need to address the issue that the most popular combative sporting events are MMA? And that as a results attackers might have trained or at least have exposure to a ground game? That isn't altering WC for sport, that is training students against self-defense threats.

 

[Flying Crane]

Personally, I don’t find it difficult to recognize value when I see it, without the need for someone to “prove” it with a competition win/loss record. I can look at the methods, understand the logic behind the methods, look at the training intensity, and see where the skill is built. I can then decide if the training approach is a good match for me and decide if I am interested in pursuing that training. None of this hinges upon seeing a competition record.

Whether or not someone competes is a personal choice. The instructor and the students in a school may simply have zero interest in it. They may be at an age where competition no longer makes sense. None of that matters to me because I don’t need to see competition, in order to recognize value.

That’s just me. One’s mileage may vary.

 

[obi_juan_salami]

ter all the original purp

west also, thankfully, live lives that don't involve fighting for survival each day. One thing that is certainly missing when compared to

A good fighter wins more fights than they lose. And this should be in comparison to other trained fighters, your peer group.


I don't think the performance wushu has a goal of producing fighters, it is quite clearly about visual performance. That there is a distinct split between in training methodologies between talou and sanda makes the difference apparent. At this point the training method is the style regardless of name.



When attributes are equal skill matters, when skill is equal attributes matter. Good fighters have both because they are compared against good fighters. No high level fighter is just one or the other.


What else is there to base it on? In science you test your theories and publish your results. Fights against other skilled fighters is the process of peer review.

Do you think people in other arts aren't putting in the same amount of hard work? Why can you find in every BJJ gym a couple of mat rats that are there for every session? Every high school wrestler works harder and longer for their workouts than I do. The kids at the boxing gym are there for hours every day after school. Is there something about WC practice that isn't attracting those people? And I would argue that there is far more opportunity in the modern sporting scene to get practical experience than our ancestors had, you can find a mma or kickboxing smoker (amateur fights) at least monthly in a big city.


Didn't Wing Chun make part of its reputation in "rooftop fights" in Hong Kong? Why could they compete against other skilled fighters then and not now? If your WC is for self-defense and has adapted for the times doesn't it need to address the issue that the most popular combative sporting events are MMA? And that as a results attackers might have trained or at least have exposure to a ground game? That isn't altering WC for sport, that is training students against self-defense threats.

i don't doubt practitioners of other arts work hard at all. And there are certainly reasons why wing chun doesnt attract these hard working people. one of these might be that you can be competent in these other arts a lot quicker than in wing chun it seems. it is far from obvious in the foundational stages in wc how it can help you in self defence or how you can move naturally in the akward positions and it takea time to build a solid foundation before you can apply in its entirety what you have learned. so unfortunately it does require some faith in the teacher to guide you the right way. i think many chinese martial arts are structured like this, slow uptake with a later pay off. 'why wait when i can get usable skills now' i guess might be the attitude.

the difference is in sports no one is trying to murder you. your life isnt at stake and I would argue that situations like that occured more in history with or without weaponry. And are undoubtedly different. infact even without the intent to kill self defense is different to sport.

the roof top fights as far as i understand happened between teenagers from yip mans school and other kung fu schools students. Wing chuns world fame came from bruce lee and his teacher yip man and so hong kong style is the most commonly found. There is more than one family of wing chun unrelates to yip man like guangzhou style, fatsan style, gulo style etc.