Another good article from Paul Rackemann!
What Wing Chun is and what it is NOT - Rackemann Wing Chun
What Wing Chun is and what it is NOT - Rackemann Wing Chun
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
Style variation
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What Wing Chun is....and is not!
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
Seriously?! I found this article to be filled with opinion and fallacy, very little of what he wrote could be substantiated by any fact. His prognosis and lack of understanding in Wing Chun history causes him to directly contradict himself. Yet another biased article written from a "Yip Man Wing Chun is the only Wing Chun" perspective, IMO.Another good article from Paul Rackemann!
What Wing Chun is and what it is NOT - Rackemann Wing Chun
I think his main points.....the Ng Mui/Yim Wing Chun story is a myth.... Wing Chun was never this "cultured Confucian scholarly" martial art, but rather the martial art of an everyday fighter....you don't have to be culturally Chinese to understand and use it....Wing Chun was not designed as an "internal martial art".....Wing Chun was developed to be an efficient way to produce fighters in a relatively short period of time.....these were all pretty "spot on", from what I have seen. Where did you take issue with him?
Seriously?! I found this article to be filled with opinion and fallacy, very little of what he wrote could be substantiated by any fact. His prognosis and lack of understanding in Wing Chun history causes him to directly contradict himself. Yet another biased article written from a "Yip Man Wing Chun is the only Wing Chun" perspective, IMO.
"This article sucks" is not a rebuttal.
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
To point out a few things.I think his main points.....the Ng Mui/Yim Wing Chun story is a myth.... Wing Chun was never this "cultured Confucian scholarly" martial art, but rather the martial art of an everyday fighter....you don't have to be culturally Chinese to understand and use it....Wing Chun was not designed as an "internal martial art".....Wing Chun was developed to be an efficient way to produce fighters in a relatively short period of time.....these were all pretty "spot on", from what I have seen. Where did you take issue with him?
All the legends surrounding Wing Chun & White Crane being developed by a woman predate the Republican era. While the stories about Ng Mui & Yim Wing Chun may have been embellished by the likes of Yip Man & several novelists of that time to suit a purpose of changing societal views, the truth is there were several women who studied martial arts throughout Chinese history. We may not know definitively who developed Wing Chun, but, there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to support a narrative that the art that would become Wing Chun was indeed derived from a foundation laid out by a woman. IMO, it's nothing more than gender insecurity that adamantly outright refuses to look at those legends as containing a grain of truth.
Branches other than Yip Man's Wing Chun still use archaic terms like "White Crane Testing the Waters", "8 Diagram Dragon Palms", "3 Prayers to Buddha", "Devil King Waves a Fan" etc, etc. It is often forgot that Yip Man (not unlike what Funakoski did with Karate) changed a lot of the terminology to what he felt better fit with the changing times.
Wing Chun is rife with references to Buddhism, perhaps not Yip Man Wing Chun, but then again his branch is not representative of all that is Wing Chun. And that article was clearly written from the perspective of Yip Man Wing Chun being the standard by which all branches should be held.
The article is largely uninformed and highly opinionated IMO. Feel free to believe otherwise, but you in the past have argued for some of the points I just laid out.
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
It's propaganda and opinion."This article sucks" is not a rebuttal.
Thanks for sharing KPM.
While I will always appreciate contributions to the community, quality research, and reading articles that are Wing Chun centric, Rackemann has an obvious narrative of self-promotion in his works. His writing formula tends to circle back-around to a strong opinion based focus in support of adding Western Boxing into the mix, which ultimately results in an illustration of how his "effective self-defense system" is the solution.
IMO the reason this article (blog post) is published on his website as opposed to a journal or informative research outlet is because he wrote it for a specific agenda, promoting his blend of Wing Chun Boxing.
While I will always appreciate contributions to the community, quality research, and reading articles that are Wing Chun centric, Rackemann has an obvious narrative of self-promotion in his works. His writing formula tends to circle back-around to a strong opinion based focus in support of adding Western Boxing into the mix, which ultimately results in an illustration of how his "effective self-defense system" is the solution.
IMO the reason this article (blog post) is published on his website as opposed to a journal or informative research outlet is because he wrote it for a specific agenda, promoting his blend of Wing Chun Boxing.
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
I agree, and honestly don't see anything wrong with that, by all means people should promote THEIR method, but not by degrading other methods or branches they have no experience in. I disagree with the general blanket statements and misleading title that makes the assumption that all traditional Wing Chun systems should be held to an opinion of a low standard so that a "New & Improved" method can be propped up. One person's personal observations and experience in an art does not apply to all branches equally. Every method has flaws, some more than others.Thanks for sharing KPM.
While I will always appreciate contributions to the community, quality research, and reading articles that are Wing Chun centric, Rackemann has an obvious narrative of self-promotion in his works. His writing formula tends to circle back-around to a strong opinion based focus in support of adding Western Boxing into the mix, which ultimately results in an illustration of how his "effective self-defense system" is the solution.
IMO the reason this article (blog post) is published on his website as opposed to a journal or informative research outlet is because he wrote it for a specific agenda, promoting his blend of Wing Chun Boxing.
IMO, it's nothing more than gender insecurity that adamantly outright refuses to look at those legends as containing a grain of truth.
---I believe Judson discounted the whole Ng Mui/Yim Wing Chun myth as well on his own website. Rackemann is likely just using Judson's research, though he gives no references in his blog post.......Found them....see articles posted below!
Branches other than Yip Man's Wing Chun still use archaic terms like "White Crane Testing the Waters", "8 Diagram Dragon Palms", "3 Prayers to Buddha", "Devil King Waves a Fan" etc, etc. It is often forgot that Yip Man (not unlike what Funakoski did with Karate) changed a lot of the terminology to what he felt better fit with the changing times.
---Yes. I agree. That is a good point that he over-looked in his article.
Wing Chun is rife with references to Buddhism, perhaps not Yip Man Wing Chun, but then again his branch is not representative of all that is Wing Chun.
---But it is hard to know whether current references to Buddhism were original, or added by current generations. Ip Chun certainly added a lot of Confucian philosophy to his Wing Chun. I find it implausible that a martial art originally designed and developed by revolutionaries to be learned in a fraction of the time of the typical martial art had any great foundation in religion or chinese medicine.
And that article was clearly written from the perspective of Yip Man Wing Chun being the standard by which all branches should be held.
---Yeah, he did come across a little strong in that regard. I think he was just taking Ip Man Wing Chun as his standard because he acknowledges that 90% of westerners studying Wing Chun are doing the Ip Man version. He certainly could have taken a little broader view. But I still don't think that negates the majority of the points he made. His main points still stand, regardless of which version of Wing Chun you look at: ... Wing Chun was never this "cultured Confucian scholarly" martial art, but rather the martial art of an everyday fighter....you don't have to be culturally Chinese to understand and use it....Wing Chun was not designed as an "internal martial art".....Wing Chun was developed to be an efficient way to produce fighters in a relatively short period of time....
The article is largely uninformed and highly opinionated IMO.
----No more so than the lineage myths and legends that get passed down each generation as "fact" and "history" without being questioned.
---I believe Judson discounted the whole Ng Mui/Yim Wing Chun myth as well on his own website. Rackemann is likely just using Judson's research, though he gives no references in his blog post.......Found them....see articles posted below!
Branches other than Yip Man's Wing Chun still use archaic terms like "White Crane Testing the Waters", "8 Diagram Dragon Palms", "3 Prayers to Buddha", "Devil King Waves a Fan" etc, etc. It is often forgot that Yip Man (not unlike what Funakoski did with Karate) changed a lot of the terminology to what he felt better fit with the changing times.
---Yes. I agree. That is a good point that he over-looked in his article.
Wing Chun is rife with references to Buddhism, perhaps not Yip Man Wing Chun, but then again his branch is not representative of all that is Wing Chun.
---But it is hard to know whether current references to Buddhism were original, or added by current generations. Ip Chun certainly added a lot of Confucian philosophy to his Wing Chun. I find it implausible that a martial art originally designed and developed by revolutionaries to be learned in a fraction of the time of the typical martial art had any great foundation in religion or chinese medicine.
And that article was clearly written from the perspective of Yip Man Wing Chun being the standard by which all branches should be held.
---Yeah, he did come across a little strong in that regard. I think he was just taking Ip Man Wing Chun as his standard because he acknowledges that 90% of westerners studying Wing Chun are doing the Ip Man version. He certainly could have taken a little broader view. But I still don't think that negates the majority of the points he made. His main points still stand, regardless of which version of Wing Chun you look at: ... Wing Chun was never this "cultured Confucian scholarly" martial art, but rather the martial art of an everyday fighter....you don't have to be culturally Chinese to understand and use it....Wing Chun was not designed as an "internal martial art".....Wing Chun was developed to be an efficient way to produce fighters in a relatively short period of time....
The article is largely uninformed and highly opinionated IMO.
----No more so than the lineage myths and legends that get passed down each generation as "fact" and "history" without being questioned.
Last edited:
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
The Ng Mui/Yim Wing Chun story is most certainly highly contestable. It is highly embellished and romanticized but also drawn from real individuals, those being Empress Wu and Fang Qiniang. The White Crane story is found in multiple crane related arts and has a traceable history, it was even passed on by some opera members, most notably Li Wen Mao, the verifiable rebel and leader of the Red Turban Uprising. White Crane and Wing Chun origin stories are nearly identical with some different characters. This is often dismissed because many don't believe in a relationship between the two arts, opting for a belief that Wing Chun is unique and developed independent of a base art.IMO, it's nothing more than gender insecurity that adamantly outright refuses to look at those legends as containing a grain of truth.
---I believe Judson discounted the whole Ng Mui/Yim Wing Chun myth as well on his own website. Rackemann is likely just using Judson's research, though he gives no references in his blog post.......Found them....see articles posted below!
Branches other than Yip Man's Wing Chun still use archaic terms like "White Crane Testing the Waters", "8 Diagram Dragon Palms", "3 Prayers to Buddha", "Devil King Waves a Fan" etc, etc. It is often forgot that Yip Man (not unlike what Funakoski did with Karate) changed a lot of the terminology to what he felt better fit with the changing times.
---Yes. I agree. That is a good point that he over-looked in his article.
Wing Chun is rife with references to Buddhism, perhaps not Yip Man Wing Chun, but then again his branch is not representative of all that is Wing Chun.
---But it is hard to know whether current references to Buddhism were original, or added by current generations. Ip Chun certainly added a lot of Confucian philosophy to his Wing Chun. I find it implausible that a martial art originally designed and developed by revolutionaries to be learned in a fraction of the time of the typical martial art had any great foundation in religion or chinese medicine.
And that article was clearly written from the perspective of Yip Man Wing Chun being the standard by which all branches should be held.
---Yeah, he did come across a little strong in that regard. I think he was just taking Ip Man Wing Chun as his standard because he acknowledges that 90% of westerners studying Wing Chun are doing the Ip Man version. He certainly could have taken a little broader view. But I still don't think that negates the majority of the points he made. His main points still stand, regardless of which version of Wing Chun you look at: ... Wing Chun was never this "cultured Confucian scholarly" martial art, but rather the martial art of an everyday fighter....you don't have to be culturally Chinese to understand and use it....Wing Chun was not designed as an "internal martial art".....Wing Chun was developed to be an efficient way to produce fighters in a relatively short period of time....
The article is largely uninformed and highly opinionated IMO.
----No more so than the lineage myths and legends that get passed down each generation as "fact" and "history" without being questioned.
Many secret societies had deep religious roots. White Lotus, Green Flag, Small Knife etc. The Hung Mun societies, both benevolent & criminal, were steeped in mysticism & religious ritual, this is fact. Arts like Wing Chun, Choy Lay Fut, Hop Gar, Hung Gar etc. were no different in this aspect. Some branches of these arts have moved on from these practices since the Cultural Revolution, some have not. Buddhism and Confucianism were deeply embedded within Chinese society at that time. To think that Wing Chun was the lone martial art that forwent societal conventions, customs and developed independently without being drawn from the foundation of another method or two is not probable. Judkins does well with the economic conditions that led to the development of Wing Chun, but ultimately his research still draws a lot of conclusions based on bias towards Yip Man Wing Chun.
While I'll agree Rackmann brought up some valid points, the article was rife with an agenda. I've no issue with his practice, just him promoting his "belief" as truth as if it applied to Wing Chun in general. All he has to do is start off with "In my opinion...".
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
His personal agenda. He's promoting his method by tearing others down. Same as others before him. The failures he sees in the art are his own, not of the art itself. I've no problem with him addressing issues he finds, just the blanket statements he uses to justify them. To each their own, at the end of the day his opinions are just that and not fact....Agenda? Do you think Rackemann is trying to run for president or something?
His personal agenda. He's promoting his method by tearing others down. Same as others before him. The failures he sees in the art are his own, not of the art itself. I've no problem with him addressing issues he finds, just the blanket statements he uses to justify them. To each their own, at the end of the day his opinions are just that and not fact.
Who is he tearing down and where?
Nobody Important
2nd Black Belt
Perhaps tearing down is a poor choice of words on my part. It's more like reinforcing generalized statements about the art of Wing Chun that have no basis in fact as if they were indeed fact. He does this to justify his altering of the method to make it work for him. Again, I have no issues with him altering the method to suit his purposes only the generalizations he makes about the art as if they pertain to all branches of Wing Chun. His opinion is based on HIS experience in Yip Man Wing Chun only, yet he speaks as if his understanding applies to all branches of Wing Chun. It does not. I've already pointed out some of the fallacies in his writing. This doesn't mean that I wholeheartedly disagree with his premise, simply that his findings used to justify his comments aren't factual.Who is he tearing down and where?
My own view on Ip Man Wing Chun is that it appears to me to be a skeleton with all the connective tissue missing. It feels, and I may be wrong, that Ip Man's greatest legacy was repackaging Wing Chun into a commercialised system, by adopting separate technique drills making it quick to learn and apply but less effective against a skilled opponent.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 203
- Views
- 26K
- Replies
- 181
- Views
- 19K
