"It is arguably more scientific and requires a level of precision higher than some other arts". Again I disagree. Tai Chi is very profound, as is Ba Gua, Hsing Yi, Long Fist, Southern Mantis, Northern Mantis etc. WC is not unique in strategy, theory or technique but in approach. An approach that we have seen all to often fail under pressure. The question is why?
----Who says those arts don't fail under pressure? Wasn't there a pretty damning statement earlier in this thread about ALL TCMAs? I've dabbled a small amount in Southern Mantis. While the initial form contains footwork, it certainly isn't considered an advanced form. Southern Mantis' approach to training doesn't seem any different than Wing Chun's.
Again, cherry picking and taking out of context. If you would have read my posts you would have seen, that I stated that when these arts are put to the test (with the exception of Tai Chi) they do not degrade to the extent that WC does. Their gross motor core is mostly intact, even under failure. Can WC claim the same?
As far as other arts are concerned, SPM, Hung Gar, TWC etc. Traditionally their first form is the foundation set (much like SNT) however, they contain large movements, later refined and use movement.
Two things not found in SNT. What they have in common is that they always come back to the foundation set. The two things (large movements and moving) are not introduced until later in WC through the forms. You do not learn to refine by going from small (polished) to big (sloppy).
---And you may be right! But I certainly don't think reversing the order in which the forms are taught is the answer! I have asked this....if people have found they need to change their Wing Chun in a sparring situation, then why have they not taken those changes back to their basic Wing Chun training and changed that as well? Again...fight the way you train and train the way you fight. This may mean doing the SNT form with more of a boxing structure rather than a YGKYM. This may mean putting some basic body movement or footwork into SNT. This may been getting rid of Chum Kiu completely and replacing it with something that teaches the footwork that is being used in sparring, etc. This is how things evolve. Inside, some people train classic Wing Chun and talk about structure and dynamics and then actually do something very different when they try to spar with Wing Chun.
Hasn't that been what I've been saying. Here we agree to an extent, my argument all along has been. If Biu Jee contains movements such as bobbing, weaving, moving etc. (like boxing) why wouldn't we implement these methods first? Why don't we start with larger movement and chip away to small? Gross motor skill to fine motor skill within the context of WC. You say that its to set the foundation within WC structure. I have stated several times, that a punch taught from a fighting stance while moving is refined as easily as one taught from a goat stance. Core mechanics are not changed. Unless you believe that as you advance in WC forms that they do. If not, what is the harm in teaching in this manner first. Do you believe that Biu Jee violates WC structure? If you do why keep it. I don't believe that it does, and have argued that. You don't put stuff in your system that violates and contradicts your core structure. I believe Biu Jee contains movements that we are more naturally inclined to perform than what is in SNT. Lets look at Siu Lam for reference, they start with Long Fist routines and end with Soft Boxing routines. Hard, Big movement to Small, Soft movement. The core is never violated it is refined and evolved. If we are to put WC into this same formula it would be BJ - CK - SNT.
Well, if you are talking about me.....I agreed with your assessment but thought your whole idea of reversing the order of the forms was a bit off, and then you seemed to suggest that reversing the forms was the way it was intended to be taught and that is just way out in left field with nothing to support it.
I've presented why I feel that it is a viable approach. You've agreed to some of my assessments (I wouldn't expect you to agree to all). Our disagreement, has nothing to do with the order of the forms, but what we believe about Biu Jee. You think it violates WC structure, I do not.
I never said it was superior. But how is it any different to the way other CMAs are taught? Do other CMAs start with their more advanced form first? Don't all systems start by teaching the basics? SNT is a BASIC form. As you progress through the system you go back and refine those basics in SNT more and more. But it still remains the basic foundational form.
To answer your question, yes & no. Gung Ji Fuk Fu Kuen, Sam Chien etc. are beginning & advanced. As the art progresses methodology and technique are added to them. It is the same with SNT, in this respect. I am not arguing that. Training is circular, everything comes back to basics. Here is my argument again. With these other arts the beginning forms are big movement, stepping, basic theory etc. as they progress through the system the techniques become more refined, movement becomes smaller & more efficient, focus becomes more internal. Wing Chun methodology is exactly the opposite.
I have simply pointed out that WC's approach to systematic training is flawed. You've agreed that, if it is why don't people change it from the beginning. This is exactly what I have suggested. The difference is you're looking to boxing or something else. I'm suggesting that the answer is already there within the system, in Biu Jee. No need to change core mechanics. But this can only work if you believe that Biu Jee doesn't violate WC core structure.
----You may be right. But again, you are proposing a change in the way Wing Chun is trained. I have no problem with saying it should be trained more like a boxing method. That would be very close to JKD! But saying you would teach someone Biu Gee first and SNT last is not a "modern update" in training. Its just backwards, that's all!
How is it? I'm not saying eliminate SNT. I'm not saying don't teach it first. I'm saying that training is circular. No need to hyper focus on SNT. The core mechanics of the art do not need changed. Biu Jee is the key that unlocks WC. In my branch we have numerous exercises like Waist Bending, Crane Wings, Stepping, Covering, 8 San Sik etc. That are taught before SNT is even sarted, all of these exercises are based upon the movements as performed in Biu Jee. They are found as refined movements in SNT. But if they were taught as they appear in SNT, they wouldn't be practical for use. Students would become confused as to why we apply in one manner and practice in another.
---Inosanto's Panantukan starts with a western boxing base and then adds the FMA limb destructions, joint locks, etc. to that base. Maybe Wing Chun should be trained similarly. Start with a western boxing base and then add Wing Chun prinicples and techniques to that base. And again, this would be something very close to JKD and no longer classical Wing Chun. But then if someone does this, they should be truthful about what they are doing and not try to say they train "classical" Wing Chun and then do something else when they spar.
And doesn't this suggest to you (if you believe that WC is complete) that there is a fundamental breakdown in how WC is taught. The whole premise of my argument has been that I believe WC to be an advanced art not for beginners to learn but for accomplished artists to learn as a way of refining their skill. If a beginner is to learn WC, then yes the training methodology is flawed and needs re-evaluated. All of my arguments have been in support of this premise. I have stated my position clearly, but responses have been largely based upon biases to my answers without context to my original premise, that WC is not for beginners & is an art of refinement. I truly, believe that the training methodology has been altered long ago, by those that learned WC without a background in other arts. When we look at Mai Gei Wong, Yuen Chai Wan, Cho Family, Pao Fa Lien & Pan Nam their approach and structure to WC is very different than most, because WC wasn't their first art. The only exception to this (to an extent) is Leung Shun, but many would argue that the methodology is quite different.