What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[Nobody Important]

There is a rare art called Fung Gar, descended from the Fung family of White Crane fame. It is considered a specialty method used to elevate one's current art. It is not a stand alone method. It consists of loose techniques that are bound with philosophical ideals of righteousness. It is a method of employing short bridges and is most likely the original method of White Crane developed by Fung Chat Leung and the parent of Wing Chun. It is a secretive method often linked with Hung Gar.
What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques, like Ku Lao without the trappings. If the forms were never developed would there exist all the infighting and bickering over who has the true art? Especially since these concepts are merely a key that unlocks the latent potential hidden inside the frame of classical southern Siu Lam arts.

 

[wckf92]

Interesting! Thanks.

 

[guy b.]

What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques, like Ku Lao without the trappings. If the forms were never developed would there exist all the infighting and bickering over who has the true art? Especially since these concepts are merely a key that unlocks the latent potential hidden inside the frame of classical southern Siu Lam arts.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a concept of loose techniques". Can you elaborate please?

 

[KPM]

What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques, like Ku Lao without the trappings. If the forms were never developed would there exist all the infighting and bickering over who has the true art? Especially since these concepts are merely a key that unlocks the latent potential hidden inside the frame of classical southern Siu Lam arts.

Yes, I think there would still be bickering, maybe even more so! Because you are talking about something that would even less defined than what we have now. How can you not have bickering over who is doing it "right" in that situation? If you want to use Ku Lo as an example...there has definitely been uncertainty over who had the "real thing" and who didn't. Those guys were famous for teaching both a "public" art and a "family" art shown only to a few. So now, its hard to know what is what and so there is still infighting and bickering.

 

[Nobody Important]

I'm not sure what you mean by "a concept of loose techniques". Can you elaborate please?

If the forms were never created the structure of Wing Chun as we know it wouldn't exist. Concepts can and will be interpreted differently as the individual understands them. Concept is not truly movement or technique, but idea. Perhaps me saying a concept of loose techniques was a poor choice, ideas is more fitting, but for context, techniques will suffice. Without forms or linked San Sik, strict adherence to structure is open to interpretation and will be influenced by previous understanding of how application is applied. So if a new concept is brought into a system, that system will mold the concept to align with their movement. For example, the concept of centerline. It is found in Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Wing Chun, SPM, Kali etc. Each approach and execute differently, yet the end result, as far as the concept is concerned, is the same. One can argue semantics (efficiency, structure, power) but cannot deny that centerline wasn't used. If the forms of Wing Chun were never created there wouldn't be a reference for the structure and movement of the art, because concept is impressionable, it is molded by the shape it is placed into. Hence, no shape, no litmus, no argument. Simply different interpretations of concept. Over the years the framework of the forms has solidified what we interpret Wing Chun to be, instead of what it could be, unlike Fung Gar which can be added to any southern Siu Lam art as a compliment and refinement method.

 

[Nobody Important]

Yes, I think there would still be bickering, maybe even more so! Because you are talking about something that would even less defined than what we have now. How can you not have bickering over who is doing it "right" in that situation? If you want to use Ku Lo as an example...there has definitely been uncertainty over who had the "real thing" and who didn't. Those guys were famous for teaching both a "public" art and a "family" art shown only to a few. So now, its hard to know what is what and so there is still infighting and bickering.

If there was never a model, never a standard (in this case the forms) as to how one approached or utilized a concept what would there be to argue about? As long as the concept is understood why would it matter? There is never only one way to approach or solve a problem. To ignore that is to retard understanding and stunt growth. In short, constraints such as structure, movement, range etc. Cannot be placed on a concept. The argument comes from practicality and effectiveness of the methods used to empty the concept, but as with all things each way will have it's shortcomings and flaws. But if the forms never existed, originality couldn't be claimed and arguing would only be over practicality and effectiveness.

 

[yak sao]

But would WC even be around today if the forms had not been there to transmit the concepts and principles forward to us?
You use Fung Gar as an example. Not that I'm any form of expert by any means but I've been around CMA for 3 1/2 decades and I've never heard of it.... So as good as it might be, if it's so rare that nobody is able to get a hold of it, is it doing anyone any good?
I'm just saying with all its faults with all its bickering with all of the misunderstanding, I think the people who handed WC down to us did a pretty decent job of doing it.... form being part of that success.

 

[KPM]

If there was never a model, never a standard (in this case the forms) as to how one approached or utilized a concept what would there be to argue about? As long as the concept is understood why would it matter? There is never only one way to approach or solve a problem. To ignore that is to retard understanding and stunt growth. In short, constraints such as structure, movement, range etc. Cannot be placed on a concept. The argument comes from practicality and effectiveness of the methods used to empty the concept, but as with all things each way will have it's shortcomings and flaws. But if the forms never existed, originality couldn't be claimed and arguing would only be over practicality and effectiveness.

True. But people are people. They will always find something to argue about. A wise man once said to me (in regards to forum interactions)..."you get a group of martial artists together and a fight breaks out. Go figure!"

 

[guy b.]

Concepts can and will be interpreted differently as the individual understands them. Concept is not truly movement or technique, but idea.

For a concept and principle based MA to function, the ideas base needs to be clearly understood. Forms and drills serve the purpose of expressing in limited physical terms and physically entraining those ideas. But even this is not usually enough, as the recent history of YM's system shows.

There is no system if all that exists is a few vaguely defined concepts that the individual is left free to express however they wish (including differently from the way they were originally designed to be understood). There is no generational development and perfection as was achieved in VT following such an approach. Everyone is starting from scratch with a few written words. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I think that what you are trying to describe is something like the relationship between Hsing Yi (a system full of old forms and drills and based on old, possibly outdated and certainly misunderstood ideas of fighting) vs Yiquan- a modern reformulation intended at getting to the point much faster and incorporating a modern physical form (basically western boxing) to embody the original ideas.

The difference with such a comparison is that Yiquan still teaches the central ideas in a particular order using particular drills and other methods. It just drops a lot of what its founder considered superfluous. Your idea for VT sounds like it just drops everything, including everything of value.

 

[JowGaWolf]

There is a rare art called Fung Gar, descended from the Fung family of White Crane fame. It is considered a specialty method used to elevate one's current art. It is not a stand alone method. It consists of loose techniques that are bound with philosophical ideals of righteousness. It is a method of employing short bridges and is most likely the original method of White Crane developed by Fung Chat Leung and the parent of Wing Chun. It is a secretive method often linked with Hung Gar.
What if Wing Chun had remained a concept of loose techniques, like Ku Lao without the trappings. If the forms were never developed would there exist all the infighting and bickering over who has the true art? Especially since these concepts are merely a key that unlocks the latent potential hidden inside the frame of classical southern Siu Lam arts.

After seeing all of the Wing Chun disputes in MT and then watching IP 3. I would have to say that the forms aren't the issue; it's the people who practices the forms. You know the infighting is wide spread when someone makes a movie about the infighting about what is "true Wing Chun." This type of infighting that you see in Wing Chun doesn't exist in other fighting systems and if it does exist then it's not to the extent that some Wing Chun practitioners take it.

Maybe Wing Chun became too popular too fast and as a result had teachers declaring that they teach "true Wing Chun" as a marketing pitch and from there it just spiraled out of control. Maybe it's the Ego of practitioners that causes the infighting by saying that there is only one way to do a particular technique, or that techniques can't be expanded beyond the basic understanding and application of that technique. Who knows. The only thing I do now is that the internal Wing Chun disputes are a hot mess.

As a Jow Ga practitioner, I ask about other martial arts in order to understand my system better, which in terms will help me be able to fight against other fighting systems better.
With a Wing Chun practitioner the view that I see is that Wing Chun rather fight Wing Chun for purity. Instead trying to understand other fighting systems in an effort to better understand their own. The fight is always about what is pure, what technique is the real technique, what technique has the "true application" and "true meaning."

I'm not saying all Wing Chun practitioners are like this, but there's enough that fit this characteristic to highlight this internal dispute in a movie.

 

[JowGaWolf]

True. But people are people. They will always find something to argue about. A wise man once said to me (in regards to forum interactions)..."you get a group of martial artists together and a fight breaks out. Go figure!"

yeah but usually those fights break out in the form of System #1 vs System #2 and not System #1 vs System #1

 

[LFJ]

yeah but usually those fights break out in the form of System #1 vs System #2 and not System #1 vs System #1

Different lineages of Wing Chun might as well be different systems. In many ways they are. Especially the fact that they often end up creating vastly different types of fighters.

 

[JPinAZ]

yeah but usually those fights break out in the form of System #1 vs System #2 and not System #1 vs System #1

Haha, funny, but not sure I agree. There is plenty of in-fighting and arguing within the 'Ip Man lineage', and that could be viewed as only "one system"

 

[JowGaWolf]

Different lineages of Wing Chun might as well be different systems. In many ways they are. Especially the fact that they often end up creating vastly different types of fighters.

As an outsider, the core of WC looks the same but the application of the WC techniques and the theories of fighting is what seems to be what is mainly different. To me this isn't enough to be a different system since these things can vary from student to student as the developer their fighting preferences within the system.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just sharing an outsider perspective.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Haha, funny, but not sure I agree. There is plenty of in-fighting and arguing within the 'Ip Man lineage', and that could be viewed as only "one system"

That's what I was referring to. Wing Chun Vs Wing Chun instead of Wing Chun Vs Hung Ga.

 

[Phobius]

After seeing all of the Wing Chun disputes in MT and then watching IP 3. I would have to say that the forms aren't the issue; it's the people who practices the forms. You know the infighting is wide spread when someone makes a movie about the infighting about what is "true Wing Chun." This type of infighting that you see in Wing Chun doesn't exist in other fighting systems and if it does exist then it's not to the extent that some Wing Chun practitioners take it.

Maybe Wing Chun became too popular too fast and as a result had teachers declaring that they teach "true Wing Chun" as a marketing pitch and from there it just spiraled out of control. Maybe it's the Ego of practitioners that causes the infighting by saying that there is only one way to do a particular technique, or that techniques can't be expanded beyond the basic understanding and application of that technique. Who knows. The only thing I do now is that the internal Wing Chun disputes are a hot mess.

As a Jow Ga practitioner, I ask about other martial arts in order to understand my system better, which in terms will help me be able to fight against other fighting systems better.
With a Wing Chun practitioner the view that I see is that Wing Chun rather fight Wing Chun for purity. Instead trying to understand other fighting systems in an effort to better understand their own. The fight is always about what is pure, what technique is the real technique, what technique has the "true application" and "true meaning."

I'm not saying all Wing Chun practitioners are like this, but there's enough that fit this characteristic to highlight this internal dispute in a movie.

Not sure I agree. Most lineage fights are because people want to stop the few proclaiming they have true WC because of bad memories in the past. There was once a large dispute about what was the only true and supreme Wing Chun. On forums now it is mostly fights now because people want to stop that from occurring yet again.

All systems have this more or less.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Not sure I agree. Most lineage fights are because people want to stop the few proclaiming they have true WC because of bad memories in the past. There was once a large dispute about what was the only true and supreme Wing Chun. On forums now it is mostly fights now because people want to stop that from occurring yet again.

All systems have this more or less.

I'm happy to say that as far as my system goes, the only dispute that I know of is related to who brought Jow Ga to the U.S. There's no "what is pure Jow Ga" debates and many times you can recognize which lineage someone comes from by the way that they perform Jow Ga which is cool since it's like validity test within itself. If someone claims a certain lineage you can tell if they are lying or not by how they perform their kung fu. For other martial artist that I've talked to both online and in person. It seems that the disputes are more about correct technique and function of technique and not about the system. For example, I can be from one karate school that performs a technique one way and someone from another karate school can tell me that I'm doing it wrong. The dispute isn't about if I train "true karate" it's about the technique.

When I see Wing Chun disputes much of it spins away from the dispute of technique and changes into a dispute about who is doing "True Wing Chun."

If I do Jow Ga poorly then, I still acknowledge as doing Jow Ga and I'm acknowledge as doing it poorly.

If you google Pure Wing Chun then you'll find tons of articles and discussions related to Pure Wing Chun. If you look up Pure Karate, or Pure TKD or any other system then you'll won't get similar results with discussions that talk about Pure TKD or Pure Karate.

 

[guy b.]

As an outsider, the core of WC looks the same but the application of the WC techniques and the theories of fighting is what seems to be what is mainly different

I think you are wrong. It is the core understanding that differs or is lacking.

 

[Nobody Important]

But would WC even be around today if the forms had not been there to transmit the concepts and principles forward to us?
You use Fung Gar as an example. Not that I'm any form of expert by any means but I've been around CMA for 3 1/2 decades and I've never heard of it.... So as good as it might be, if it's so rare that nobody is able to get a hold of it, is it doing anyone any good?
I'm just saying with all its faults with all its bickering with all of the misunderstanding, I think the people who handed WC down to us did a pretty decent job of doing it.... form being part of that success.

That is why I left the question open, for everyone to fill in the blanks with their thoughts and opinions. Yes Fung Gar is rare, because how and whom it was passed onto for safekeeping. It doesn't mean that it is superior, simply that it is treated as a treasure. It's true worth is said to be in its message not its methods. When something is taught quickly to the masses, dilution becomes a problem.

 

[Nobody Important]

For a concept and principle based MA to function, the ideas base needs to be clearly understood. Forms and drills serve the purpose of expressing in limited physical terms and physically entraining those ideas. But even this is not usually enough, as the recent history of YM's system shows.

There is no system if all that exists is a few vaguely defined concepts that the individual is left free to express however they wish (including differently from the way they were originally designed to be understood). There is no generational development and perfection as was achieved in VT following such an approach. Everyone is starting from scratch with a few written words. It sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I think that what you are trying to describe is something like the relationship between Hsing Yi (a system full of old forms and drills and based on old, possibly outdated and certainly misunderstood ideas of fighting) vs Yiquan- a modern reformulation intended at getting to the point much faster and incorporating a modern physical form (basically western boxing) to embody the original ideas.

The difference with such a comparison is that Yiquan still teaches the central ideas in a particular order using particular drills and other methods. It just drops a lot of what its founder considered superfluous. Your idea for VT sounds like it just drops everything, including everything of value.

I agree with most of what your saying, but I think you may be placing too much stock on the concepts. As I mentioned earlier, the concepts are meant to elevate something that one already possess. They are not meant to be a pool of knowledge from which a stand alone method is developed, not that this couldn't be, IMO it just wasn't the intention. Using Fung Gar as an example, it is not a stand alone system. It is a system of concepts and philosophy, that once learned, is used to elevated one's understanding of their current art, such as Hung Gar. If Fung Gar was to be used and taught in the same manner as Wing Chun, it would fall down the rabbit hole too, because it was designed as a refining tool not a general purpose tool.