We need a kick in the pants!!!

[Punchy]

Of course it's not Wing Chun anymore! And all the more so if you aren't paying your association dues!!!

I would say we could just change the spelling but I think all the options have been used up.

 

[Tony Dismukes]

I would say we could just change the spelling but I think all the options have been used up.

Is anyone using “Ving Chun”? I haven’t seen that variation yet.

 

[Cephalopod]

Both I guess. I started training in WC in 1995 or 94, and I've never really stopped. I have come to believe that there is more bathwater than baby, mostly due to pressure testing.

I have since completely thrown out or altered beyond recognition the overt elements(the stance, footwork, power delivery method, hand positions, etc) but still find some of the principles(trapping, entry strategy, gate theory, sticky hands) useful in practice.

The thing is when you change how you train, especially if you add a lot of sparring or other heavy pressure testing, the end result will be shaped by that, rather than a rigid curriculum or syllabus.

Thanks for that M-D.
Now that the bath is empty, would you say that WC nevertheless left you with an edge that you wouldn't have had you gone straight into MMA training?

It could be that we all have a journey we must take (wow...that sounds super David Carradine) to transcend the rote and literal exercises of wing chun training and learn how to apply it's basic principles to a much greater range of movements and intensities. Training in MMA circles is obviously a great vehicle for that...I wish I had the resources (and the youth) to do a bit more of that myself.

I am however wary of those who have not invested the same time that you have, using sparring and pressure testing to shape the way that they train and evaluate the principles of WC. It takes many years to determine what is baby and what is bathwater.

 

[Cephalopod]

Personally, I haven't had as much to contribute lately either. I don't know what it is, but it's like I've been losing the faith. That long slow process of disenchantment.

Et tu, Geezer?

Care to elaborate on the source of your disenchantment? Is it in fact an Organization Associative Revulsion Disorder as yak speculated or something closer to D's experience?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

if you add a lot of sparring ...

The more that I spar, the more that I don't want to be punched on the head. The WC centerline principle can help me to solve that problem.

 

[Martial D]

My question on this is probably semantics. Does that change make it no longer WC? By my definition, it doesn't.

That depends who you ask. I would say no, and yes, depending on the moment you are describing.

If I throw a Thai kick, that's not Wing Chun in that moment. If the moment described finds me pressing down your guard as I punch though the opening, then yes, it is.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That depends who you ask. I would say no, and yes, depending on the moment you are describing.

If I throw a Thai kick, that's not Wing Chun in that moment. If the moment described finds me pressing down your guard as I punch though the opening, then yes, it is.

That's probably how I'd see it, too - the MT kick (as I understand it) doesn't seem to fit with the WC principles (as I understand them), so isn't really part of WC. To me, a MT kick could be added to WC training, but it would remain a MT kick. My front kick could be worked into the WC framework and become part of someone's WC. My round kick might even be able to be fit into that framework (my understanding of WC is too thin for me to figure that one out), too.

I think it's reasonable that some changes don't fit the way folks would define a given art, and so would be add-ons to the training, rather than new parts of the art.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

My front kick could be worked into the WC framework and become part of someone's WC.

My double arms raising could be worked into the WC framework and become part of someone's WC too. I can use double Tan Shou (Chinese zombie arms) to wrap around my opponent's arms to establish a clinch.

 

[ShortBridge]

Of course it's not Wing Chun anymore! And all the more so if you aren't paying your association dues!!!

That sounds like a lineage thing. I've never been asked to pay association dues. Once you have "kung fu" worth sharing and I strongly suspect that you do, Geezer, you can do what you like with it. We're not indentured servants. You can't can't market it under an association banner unless you play by their rules. Disenchanted with the association or the system?

That's probably how I'd see it, too - the MT kick (as I understand it) doesn't seem to fit with the WC principles (as I understand them), so isn't really part of WC. To me, a MT kick could be added to WC training, but it would remain a MT kick. My front kick could be worked into the WC framework and become part of someone's WC. My round kick might even be able to be fit into that framework (my understanding of WC is too thin for me to figure that one out), too.

I think it's reasonable that some changes don't fit the way folks would define a given art, and so would be add-ons to the training, rather than new parts of the art.

I'm not sure which MT kick you mean, but I assume the low, round one to the legs. I studied/practiced Muay Thai for about 6 years before making my way to Wing Chun (with JuJitsu in between). I don't have a deep knowledge of it, but I have a bit of experience.

That low round kick is (sort of) in our Wing Chun and it is Wing Chun, not an added Muay Thai kick. It's not tightly held in the core principals (which is a very important part of learning Wing Chun to us), but it is an open expression of a couple of of things that are introduced formally in the system in ways that appear more Wing Chun-like.

I also don't know which front kick you are talking about (I have most of the people who join Wing Chun conversations to advocate for everyone doing MMA instead on my ignore list, so sometimes I'm only getting pieces of the conversation), but our standard Wing Chun front kick is very similar to the front kick/push kick that I learned in Muay Thai. It's expressed differently, taught differently, and mostly used differently, but mechanically its really not that different. I actually teach it and have my students practice it a lot of different ways, including occasionally the way I learned it in Muay Thai, because I want it to be a versatile kick. I tell them where that way of doing the kick came from and contrast the difference and usually say "it's not NOT Wing Chun" to do it that way. When I have them do something in a way that is influenced by something else I picked up along the way, there is always a reason, in this case, they weren't chambering that kick the way that they should in Wing Chun and I want them to, so I made them lift their knee to their elbow the way I learned in Muay Thai for 1/2 an hour and then went back to original programming.

It's just training. We don't have to talk about it like we've invented a different art. I don't think that Chinese sifus were this uptight about things like this, at least not the ones I've had some exposure to who have stayed non-commercial and tied to somewhere in Asia. When I ask them about how they were taught, they never list the curricula and tests that went with each "level". That is a commercial, western construct, even when it comes from a Chinese source. They're packaging it in a way that we want to consume it. I don't think it's traditional or what defines purity of system.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[wckf92]

My double arms raising could be worked into the WC framework and become part of someone's WC too. I can use double Tan Shou (Chinese zombie arms) to wrap around my opponent's arms to establish a clinch.

I think you watch too much Walking Dead

 

[Anarax]

Nobody's posting. Is it because we've said all there is to say about our art?
Or are we tired of going over the same things again and again?

I can only speak for my own reasons on why I go awhile without posting.

1. Questions are too narrow or about a topic I'm unfamiliar with.
There's been more than a few posts about very narrow/specific topics that only someone studying that art might know. Some examples include questions about certain forms unique to certain lineages, masters of certain lineages, etc. Examples of unfamiliar topics are kids, running a school, etc. I usually defer these to someone more knowledgeable than myself in that area to answer it.

2. My would be answer/contribution was already posted by someone else.
There's no purpose in re-posting the same answer someone else already gave, especially when the original poster is receptive to the answer.

3. Trolling
Some posts are created for the sole purpose of provoking, thus they're a complete waste of time.

Maybe not so new to many of us, but I think we need to engage the new guys and share some insights.

When the topics become less engaging I tend to check the website less, thus I think some of the new guys questions are usually answered and buried under newer posts.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I'm not sure which MT kick you mean, but I assume the low, round one to the legs. I studied/practiced Muay Thai for about 6 years before making my way to Wing Chun (with JuJitsu in between). I don't have a deep knowledge of it, but I have a bit of experience.

That low round kick is (sort of) in our Wing Chun and it is Wing Chun, not an added Muay Thai kick. It's not tightly held in the core principals (which is a very important part of learning Wing Chun to us), but it is an open expression of a couple of of things that are introduced formally in the system in ways that appear more Wing Chun-like.

I was thinking more of how it turns over as it rises, so take it to the ribs or head, with the lean it induces and the offset from the lead arm. That seems - to my quite WC-uneducated eye - to not fit the principles of WC. Of course, that might just be me not knowing WC.

I also don't know which front kick you are talking about (I have most of the people who join Wing Chun conversations to advocate for everyone doing MMA instead on my ignore list, so sometimes I'm only getting pieces of the conversation), but our standard Wing Chun front kick is very similar to the front kick/push kick that I learned in Muay Thai. It's expressed differently, taught differently, and mostly used differently, but mechanically its really not that different. I actually teach it and have my students practice it a lot of different ways, including occasionally the way I learned it in Muay Thai, because I want it to be a versatile kick. I tell them where that way of doing the kick came from and contrast the difference and usually say "it's not NOT Wing Chun" to do it that way. When I have them do something in a way that is influenced by something else I picked up along the way, there is always a reason, in this case, they weren't chambering that kick the way that they should in Wing Chun and I want them to, so I made them lift their knee to their elbow the way I learned in Muay Thai for 1/2 an hour and then went back to original programming.

I should have been clearer - I wasn't suggesting the kicks aren't in WC, rather that IF they weren't, which ones looked like they fit the overall principles and which ones didn't.

It's just training. We don't have to talk about it like we've invented a different art. I don't think that Chinese sifus were this uptight about things like this, at least not the ones I've had some exposure to who have stayed non-commercial and tied to somewhere in Asia. When I ask them about how they were taught, they never list the curricula and tests that went with each "level". That is a commercial, western construct, even when it comes from a Chinese source. They're packaging it in a way that we want to consume it. I don't think it's traditional or what defines purity of system.

Just my opinion, of course.

I have two ways I think of this. And I tend to do them in rapid succession to each other. When I add something new to what I learned from my instructors in NGA, I have to decide whether - in my mind - it's part of NGA, or something that's just part of my curriculum. My "style defined" view says that if it doesn't fit the original principles, it's not part of NGA, unless I alter some principles to make it fit. So, my tight clinch work wouldn't be part of NGA at my instructor's school (it sometimes violates the framework of principles as he teaches them). I've adjusted principles to bring it into the fold. If I don't want to adjust those principles, then it would just be part of my curriculum, not part of the art...and that's how I present it if it comes up at his school. By this view, NGA is the core of my curriculum, but not everything I teach.

My other approach is the "I teach NGA" approach. By this view, since I teach NGA, whatever I teach must be NGA. It's a sloppier view, IMO, because the style name should give some indication of what is being taught.

The of course, whatever I teach - no matter which view I use to explain it - will be thought of by my students as being NGA, so these views are just tools in my head for approaching the curriculum. The distinctions don't really matter in the long run.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I can only speak for my own reasons on why I go awhile without posting.

1. Questions are too narrow or about a topic I'm unfamiliar with.
There's been more than a few posts about very narrow/specific topics that only someone studying that art might know. Some examples include questions about certain forms unique to certain lineages, masters of certain lineages, etc. Examples of unfamiliar topics are kids, running a school, etc. I usually defer these to someone more knowledgeable than myself in that area to answer it.

2. My would be answer/contribution was already posted by someone else.
There's no purpose in re-posting the same answer someone else already gave, especially when the original poster is receptive to the answer.

3. Trolling
Some posts are created for the sole purpose of provoking, thus they're a complete waste of time.



When the topics become less engaging I tend to check the website less, thus I think some of the new guys questions are usually answered and buried under newer posts.

None of those things has ever stopped me from charging in like a bull in a china shop.

 

[Danny T]

Kicks? You know its really funny. I was with Ajarn Chai Sirisute this past weekend. During a conversation during an evening meal someone made a remark about the 'Thai Kick'. Ajarn Chai said (I paraphrase) "You know in Thailand we have many kicks. I never heard of the Thai Kick until many years after I left Thailand. I used to teach many kicks, we have the regular kick, front kicks, sidekicks, spinning kicks, angle kicking up and kicking down, stepping kicks, hopping kicks, knee kicks, low kicks, high kicks all are different but the same. So when someone would say Thai Kick I am confused. Today people only want to learn the regular kick and the teep. I don't know why! We have many kicks and they are all muay thai kicks."

 

[Anarax]

None of those things has ever stopped me from charging in like a bull in a china shop.

We can't all be as outgoing and sociable as you

 

[Martial D]

That's probably how I'd see it, too - the MT kick (as I understand it) doesn't seem to fit with the WC principles (as I understand them), so isn't really part of WC. To me, a MT kick could be added to WC training, but it would remain a MT kick. My front kick could be worked into the WC framework and become part of someone's WC. My round kick might even be able to be fit into that framework (my understanding of WC is too thin for me to figure that one out), too.

I think it's reasonable that some changes don't fit the way folks would define a given art, and so would be add-ons to the training, rather than new parts of the art.

After some years of thought it has become clear to me that there are basically two types of martial artists.

Type one trains to exault their style. They endeavor to become as close to the perfect version of what the style prescribes.

Type two uses styles to exault themselves. They will generally not stick to one style, or if they do they will see it as a road to buffing their own atributes in a more general sense.

Between these types of course exists a spectrum, but I feel most sit somewhere near either end of it.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

After some years of thought it has become clear to me that there are basically two types of martial artists.

Type one trains to exault their style. They endeavor to become as close to the perfect version of what the style prescribes.

Type two uses styles to exault themselves. They will generally not stick to one style, or if they do they will see it as a road to buffing their own atributes in a more general sense.

Between these types of course exists a spectrum, but I feel most sit somewhere near either end of it.

I'm curious on your take when someone uses other arts to "improve" (in their own view) their primary art - or at least to improve how they use and teach it. Where do you place that on the continuum? Or is it just a semantic difference from your second classification?

 

[Martial D]

I'm curious on your take when someone uses other arts to "improve" (in their own view) their primary art - or at least to improve how they use and teach it. Where do you place that on the continuum? Or is it just a semantic difference from your second classification?

In this question you have just switched the focus from learning to teaching, so the answer would depend on whether you are training people to be effective by any and all means, or training them to be really good at NGA. What's your focus?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In this question you have just switched the focus from learning to teaching, so the answer would depend on whether you are training people to be effective by any and all means, or training them to be really good at NGA. What's your focus?

Yeah, that change from learning to teaching was my point in the question - sorry if that wasn't clear. It's a bit of both, actually. I use NGA as a vehicle for the former. Once they have some basic competency, focus splits. Some exercises are about overall effectiveness. Some are specifically designed to get better at the principles of NGA, since that's the primary vehicle I'm using.

I think my learning was a bit this way, too. I just usually had the dual focus I now teach to my students (actually, it went back and forth, oscillating between the two).

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Type one trains to exault their style.

One of my long fist senior brothers believed that some wrestling skill are hidden in the long fist system. He took those hidden wrestling skill out and taught to his students. One year he brought 15 of his students to compete in a Chinese wrestling tournament. They all lost.

- Boxing has the best punching skill.
- MT and TKD have the best kicking skill.
- Eagle claw and hapkido have the best locking skill.
- Chinese wrestling, western wrestling, Judo has the best throwing skill.
- BJJ has the best ground skill.
- WC has the best centerline principle.
- Praying mantis has the best speed training.
- Baji, XYLH, Chan Taiji have the best power generation training.
- ...

If we don't keep our eyes open, we may lose a lot of valuable information.