What if Wing Chun remained a concept...

[Juany118]

Oh sure, 12 pages later and after we get fussed at by one of the mods and now you think of it.

Well it took those pages of debate to make the point I guess lol

 

[Nobody Important]

Something just dawned on me regarding the OP. When did Wing Chun stop being a "conceptual art"? Does not the very fact that we are discussing the different methods of various Wing Chun styles, all of which (if I am not mistaken) lay claim to the Yip Man Lineage, indicate that WC is still a conceptual MA?

Unfortunately most of the discussion has been centered around a singular and narrow minded approach to the use of bong sau. Discussion on "proper" use of one technique does not a concept make. Bong is a "broken wing" technique, it is the use of forearm/elbow. Position , height, angle, gate, force used etc. is not as important as the concept of what is "bong" IMO. I see bong in barring, hacking, standing, covering, pressing etc. Some will disagree & say that isn't bong it's Lan, Gai, Jan etc., that's fine. But a concept is not bound by rigid parameters limited to a specifically named technique it is defined by the outcome of the action performed. WC has too much vernacular to define slightly different movements of similarly formed shapes. This gives the impression of different "technique" and as a result the perception of specific use, when in reality an elbow is an elbow. Different angles of the elbow work better against different incoming movements, but in it's simplest form, it is still just an elbow. You can dress it up and define it with whatever energy, theory etc. you want, but it does not change the fact that you are using the elbow to strike, block, clear etc. There are 3 families of movements. These are Tan, Bong & Fook. Nearly all other positions have their root in one of these "bridging" concepts. Why would a variation of the physical position take on a new conceptual meaning? Wouldn't it make more sense that the concept be the same and it's application be different. After all the concept of a punch doesn't become something else like a grab simply because the angle was changed, it's still a punch. It can only morph into something else when the intention is changed, when that happens it is no longer the same concept but a new one, like grab. Blunt impact and seizing are not the same concept. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Juany118]

Unfortunately most of the discussion has been centered around a singular and narrow minded approach to the use of bong sau. Discussion on "proper" use of one technique does not a concept make. Bong is a "broken wing" technique, it is the use of forearm/elbow. Position , height, angle, gate, force used etc. is not as important as the concept of what is "bong" IMO. I see bong in barring, hacking, standing, covering, pressing etc. Some will disagree & say that isn't bong it's Lan, Gai, Jan etc., that's fine. But a concept is not bound by rigid parameters limited to a specifically named technique it is defined by the outcome of the action performed. WC has too much vernacular to define slightly different movements of similarly formed shapes. This gives the impression of different "technique" and as a result the perception of specific use, when in reality an elbow is an elbow. Different angles of the elbow work better against different incoming movements, but in it's simplest form, it is still just an elbow. You can dress it up and define it with whatever energy, theory etc. you want, but it does not change the fact that you are using the elbow to strike, block, clear etc. There are 3 families of movements. These are Tan, Bong & Fook. Nearly all other positions have their root in one of these "bridging" concepts. Why would a variation of the physical position take on a new conceptual meaning? Wouldn't it make more sense that the concept be the same and it's application be different. After all the concept of a punch doesn't become something else like a grab simply because the angle was changed, it's still a punch. It can only morph into something else when the intention is changed, when that happens it is no longer the same concept but a new one, like grab. Blunt impact and seizing are not the same concept. Just my 2 cents.

Well as far as the angle only of a Tan or a Bong, different angles will almost universally be better or worse. It is simply geometry. What makes them powerful is the angle. Too obtuse and you are moved, to acute and it will move. However I do agree with you in general that there are many ways to use them. That said changing their use still qualifies as a concept. The Bong argument is actually what woke me up to this. The fact people were digging their heals in on what was and what was not a "correct" Bong, shows that their are different concepts. You attitude is simply one concept of many because remember ultimately a concept is an abstract idea that is then taken to a new place, or remains static.

 

[yak sao]

ultimately a concept is an abstract idea that is then taken to a new place, or remains static.

The forms were purposely designed as abstract. What I derive from training the SNT today is different than what I derived from it 20 years ago.
If we lock ourselves into thinking that "this move is for this" and "that move is for that" then we will never get it.
The forms, and ultimately, WC, is there not to teach us what moves to do, but to teach us how to move.

 

[Juany118]

The forms were purposely designed as abstract. What I derive from training the SNT today is different than what I derived from it 20 years ago.
If we lock ourselves into thinking that "this move is for this" and "that move is for that" then we will never get it.
The forms, and ultimately, WC, is there not to teach us what moves to do, but to teach us how to move.

Indeed and that is my point regarding WC being a concept. I think the problem is this, people on both extremes of this debate sometimes find themselves in an age old trap. Once you see "your" way as the "right" way, and "their" way as the "wrong" way, the idea of conceptualization longer exists because, at least imo, both represent a Dogma of sorts.

 

[Callen]

The forms were purposely designed as abstract.

This is an interesting thought. Were the forms really "purposely" designed as abstract, or have they become that way over years of interpretation?

 

[geezer]

This is an interesting thought. Were the forms really "purposely" designed as abstract, or have they become that way over years of interpretation?

Chicken or the egg. Either way, you guys are right. The forms are best understood as abstract.

 

[KPM]

This is an interesting thought. Were the forms really "purposely" designed as abstract, or have they become that way over years of interpretation?

Many southern fists styles have forms that are essentially a choreographed "shadow boxing" routine....done as if you are fighting an imaginary opponent. But Wing Chun's forms have always been more like "textbooks"....done as a catalogue of techniques and concepts. So I would say that the Wing Chun forms were "purposely" designed to be conceptual or "abstract" from the beginning.

 

[Nobody Important]

Well as far as the angle only of a Tan or a Bong, different angles will almost universally be better or worse. It is simply geometry. What makes them powerful is the angle. Too obtuse and you are moved, to acute and it will move. However I do agree with you in general that there are many ways to use them. That said changing their use still qualifies as a concept. The Bong argument is actually what woke me up to this. The fact people were digging their heals in on what was and what was not a "correct" Bong, shows that their are different concepts. You attitude is simply one concept of many because remember ultimately a concept is an abstract idea that is then taken to a new place, or remains static.

I'm not outright disagreeing with what you have to say but for one thing. You said changing the use still qualifies as a concept. I disagree, that is interpretation. The concept of bong doesn't change simply because of how one applies or interprets it's use, in the end it is still bong. The concept of bong did not change, your interpretation of its use changed. This does not make bong different, as it was abstract to begin with.

 

[Nobody Important]

Many southern fists styles have forms that are essentially a choreographed "shadow boxing" routine....done as if you are fighting an imaginary opponent. But Wing Chun's forms have always been more like "textbooks"....done as a catalogue of techniques and concepts. So I would say that the Wing Chun forms were "purposely" designed to be conceptual or "abstract" from the beginning.

It's interesting that many systems both north and south have forms like this (abstract like WC) as beginner sets. Let's take time to think about that for a moment.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

This is an interesting thought. Were the forms really "purposely" designed as abstract, or have they become that way over years of interpretation?

To a beginner, a concrete form is much more valuable than an abstract form.

A

- hook punch followed by a back fist (punching combo),
- roundhouse kick followed by a side kick (kicking combo),
- groin kick followed by a face punch (kicking, punching combo),
- shoulder lock followed by an elbow lock (joint locking combo),
- hip throw followed by an inner hook throw (throwing combo),
- side mount followed by a full mount (ground skill combo),
- ...

can teach a beginner much more than just to stand there and move your arm without moving your body. Through the combo sequence training, a beginner can learn "how to use the 1st move to set up the 2nd move". Any abstract form can't teach you that.

Also the "power generation" issue should be addressed during day 1.

 

[geezer]

To a beginner, a concrete form is much more valuable than an abstract form.

A

- hook punch followed by a back fist (punching combo),
- roundhouse kick followed by a side kick (kicking combo),
- groin kick followed by a face punch (kicking, punching combo),
- shoulder lock followed by an elbow lock (joint locking combo),
- hip throw followed by an inner hook throw (throwing combo),
- side mount followed by a full mount (ground skill combo),
- ...

can teach a beginner much more than just to stand there and move your arm without moving your body. Through the combo sequence training, a beginner can learn "how to use the 1st move to set up the 2nd move". Any abstract form can't teach you that.

Also the "power generation" issue should be addressed during day 1.

You have a good point which is why most lineages have other kinds of training to address these needs. For example, in the system I train there are sets of two man drilling sequences called "lat sau" that train in a much more literal way (using attacks and defenses) than the forms.

 

[LFJ]

An observation about the "jolting" bong in WSL-VT as described by LFJ is that it is directed at the incoming punch, not forward at the opponent and then rolled into a deflecting bong when contacting an incoming punch as in the WT/Ebmas version.

Not true at all.

I repeatedly told Phobius it's not a primary action applied against a punch, and that it is indeed a forward action. It's the rotation of the elbow that laterally displaces the obstruction, not a sideways attack at an arm.

So when you visually perceive that "the way" is or will be blocked by an incoming punch, you throw a jolting bong at his punching arm to free the way and compromise his structure. ....A corrective action that attacks his arm on the basis of it appearing to be in your way.

As Guy said, you guys do seem obsessed with throwing a bong at a punch, like you can't let go of the idea.

I think because your heads are so filled with application ideas. You need it to be this against that to make sense of it.

Why the obsession with throwing a bong at a punch?

Why indeed? Not something we normally do in our VT. Just something LFJ was rather keen on judging from his posts.

Judging from what posts?!

The multiple posts I had to make telling Phobius that bong-sau is not a primary action thrown at an incoming punch?? And you and he still don't get it...

If there's an incoming punch, my response should generally be to counter punch. Never bong-sau! If at range and in position to use my arms without raising my elbow, I would not bong. Bong-sau is only remedial, so it's not used very often in fighting. There is absolutely no necessity to use bong-sau in the scenario discussed and demoed by Emin and I would not.

My bong-sau is a remedial action to retake space. Everything is about taking space and attacking forward. I don't care what an opponent's arm is doing. The arm is not a target. Bong is just opening space for the punch it is coupled with. Two arms work as a unit. Both are directed forward and both help capture an attack line while hitting. That's it.

Look, this probably doesn't make sense to you, but everything is about controlling my own position and structures in a fight.

I'm not concerned with blocking, feeling, and controlling arms, or applying this move vs that move. My only concern is capturing space and attacking. It's a behavior reflex. The stimulus is my own bodily and spatial awareness. I'm not throwing a reactive bong-sau at a punch I see.

If you must think in terms of 1:1 application ideas, you won't understand it. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[LFJ]

Through the combo sequence training, a beginner can learn "how to use the 1st move to set up the 2nd move". Any abstract form can't teach you that.

An abstract form teaches principles of movement and attack, not 1-2 combos. VT is not and doesn't want to be 1-2 stop, 1-2-3 stop.

Dealing with set combos is detrimental to learning how to instinctually sustain attack against an opponent free to react in many ways and interrupt you and counter.

Sustained attack against a moving opponent cannot happen with set combos.

 

[Callen]

Not true at all.

I repeatedly told Phobius it's not a primary action applied against a punch, and that it is indeed a forward action. It's the rotation of the elbow that laterally displaces the obstruction, not a sideways attack at an arm.



As Guy said, you guys do seem obsessed with throwing a bong at a punch, like you can't let go of the idea.

I think because your heads are so filled with application ideas. You need it to be this against that to make sense of it.



Judging from what posts?!

The multiple posts I had to make telling Phobius that bong-sau is not a primary action thrown at an incoming punch?? And you and he still don't get it...

If there's an incoming punch, my response should generally be to counter punch. Never bong-sau! If at range and in position to use my arms without raising my elbow, I would not bong. Bong-sau is only remedial, so it's not used very often in fighting. There is absolutely no necessity to use bong-sau in the scenario discussed and demoed by Emin and I would not.

My bong-sau is a remedial action to retake space. Everything is about taking space and attacking forward. I don't care what an opponent's arm is doing. The arm is not a target. Bong is just opening space for the punch it is coupled with. Two arms work as a unit. Both are directed forward and both help capture an attack line while hitting. That's it.

Look, this probably doesn't make sense to you, but everything is about controlling my own position and structures in a fight.

I'm not concerned with blocking, feeling, and controlling arms, or applying this move vs that move. My only concern is capturing space and attacking. It's a behavior reflex. The stimulus is my own bodily and spatial awareness. I'm not throwing a reactive bong-sau at a punch I see.

If you must think in terms of 1:1 application ideas, you won't understand it. I don't know what else to tell you.

I feel certain that what LFJ is attempting to describe using words, would make much more sense to most in an actual real life example.

We often get into trouble when discussing theory and application because there's so many ways our words can be interpreted (and quite honestly confusing at times). Being shown a theory or application can change the way we look at everything because most of the time, it either works for us or it doesn't. Since that's not happening here, a little more patience is required to understand the perspectives that are being thrown around.

LFJ is illustrating the principals of directness and forward pressure (also forward intent) that are commonly found in WSLVT. For those that are utilizing a different style (or lineage) of Wing Chun that doesn't share these principals, they may not seem natural. But that's ok... it's just another way of looking at the same ideas. In fact, all the doors eventually lead to the same place.

The Bong can be very illusive at times, even after years training. Many practitioners use it differently, and that's ok too. It's simply a tool that should be used as part of the whole. The way you implement and understand your Wing Chun in general will dictate how you employ all the tools, regardless if it's the Bong, or Pak, Tan, Lan etc that you're dissecting.

It's perfectly possible and acceptable to utilize your Wing Chun correctly based on different principals and theory than someone else. It's absolutely the nature of Wing Chun. After all, most of you just agreed that it was abstract in thought.

 

[guy b.]

Unfortunately most of the discussion has been centered around a singular and narrow minded approach to the use of bong sau. Discussion on "proper" use of one technique does not a concept make. Bong is a "broken wing" technique, it is the use of forearm/elbow. Position , height, angle, gate, force used etc. is not as important as the concept of what is "bong" IMO. I see bong in barring, hacking, standing, covering, pressing etc. Some will disagree & say that isn't bong it's Lan, Gai, Jan etc., that's fine.

This is not how conceptual base is covered in VT. Concept of bong, concept of tan and so on is useless without the strategic conceptual framework of VT. Some of these shapes (and more) are found in other Chinese MA, but it is not the VT way to approach them in isolation like this. Approaching it this way is very much what is seen in some other Southern Chinese MA, but in VT it is the overarching approach to the fight that is the important bit and what makes it VT

Why would a variation of the physical position take on a new conceptual meaning? Wouldn't it make more sense that the concept be the same and it's application be different. After all the concept of a punch doesn't become something else like a grab simply because the angle was changed, it's still a punch. It can only morph into something else when the intention is changed, when that happens it is no longer the same concept but a new one, like grab. Blunt impact and seizing are not the same concept

VT isn't an application based approach to fighting, but neither is it based on extremely open concepts like "grab", "punch", "sink", "rise" or whatever. The VT conceptual base is strategy focused and is not very open to individual interpretation.

 

[LFJ]

...in VT it is the overarching approach to the fight that is the important bit and what makes it VT.

This is the point I was trying to make in my last post to geezer.

But discussing it with people who keep looking for 1:1 applications seems kind of impossible.

Can't see the forest for the trees. If you don't understanding strategy, you're left thinking in terms of this vs that.

Many Wing Chun lineages seem to have all the "hands" and possible application ideas for them, but lack any sort of overall fighting strategy. That's probably the largest flaw when it comes down to it.

 

[Callen]

Many Wing Chun lineages seem to have all the "hands" and possible application ideas for them, but lack any sort of overall fighting strategy. That's probably the largest flaw when it comes down to it.

Nah, it doesn't have to be viewed as a flaw. Different lineages have different ways of looking at the system. It's just a fact.

 

[Juany118]

I'm not outright disagreeing with what you have to say but for one thing. You said changing the use still qualifies as a concept. I disagree, that is interpretation. The concept of bong doesn't change simply because of how one applies or interprets it's use, in the end it is still bong. The concept of bong did not change, your interpretation of its use changed. This does not make bong different, as it was abstract to begin with.

I think we are trying to say the same thing then just is different ways. You are trying to say, if I understand rightly, that the argument over the Bong shouldn't exist because beyond some very basic principles a Bong has very little in the way of rules, is abstract, Ergo it is a concept.

I am focusing on the argument itself, rather than the Bong, to say the same thing.

 

[Nobody Important]

This is not how conceptual base is covered in VT. Concept of bong, concept of tan and so on is useless without the strategic conceptual framework of VT. Some of these shapes (and more) are found in other Chinese MA, but it is not the VT way to approach them in isolation like this. Approaching it this way is very much what is seen in some other Southern Chinese MA, but in VT it is the overarching approach to the fight that is the important bit and what makes it VT



VT isn't an application based approach to fighting, but neither is it based on extremely open concepts like "grab", "punch", "sink", "rise" or whatever. The VT conceptual base is strategy focused and is not very open to individual interpretation.

My bad I forgot VT is conceptually unique, was created in a vacuum and theoretically different from all other martial arts. Not to mention so abstract and ambigious that it cannot be discussed in words, understood with action or correct if not compliant with the closed minded dogma you spew. I'll try harder next time great master. Thank you for showing me the error of my ways. *bows deeply*