Wing Chun vs MMA

[guy b.]

Maybe so. But you yourself have admitted that Wing Chun may have evolved from one of the southern village arts. Ben Judkins seems to suggest the same thing in his blog. These southern systems all have similarities. Like I've pointed out, we have about 150 years of divergent development to explain differences.

Why would you assume the same Southern village art as a starting point for all? Why assume crossover between Hakka and non-Hakka?

As you know my theory is that wing chun is based on pole, while others are not. I have reasons for saying this.

Who knows what that original southern village art was? An older form of White Crane? An older form of Hakka art? All speculation at this point. But given convergent legends and historical hints, an older version of White Crane would seem to be as likely a candidate as anything.

White Crane is a sanchin system. This means that it works in a completely different way to the way that wing chun works. No reason to insert it into wing chun history.

 

[DaveB]

White Crane is a sanchin system. This means that it works in a completely different way to the way that wing chun works. No reason to insert it into wing chun history.

Can you expand on this please? I have some training in white crane and was only told of the similarities to wing chun.

 

[KPM]

As you know my theory is that wing chun is based on pole, while others are not. I have reasons for saying this.

---True. But I (and others I think) believe there is more reason to theorize a White Crane origin than a Luk Dim Boon Kwun origin. But its all just conjecture. One has to look at the available resources and come up with a "best guess."



White Crane is a sanchin system. This means that it works in a completely different way to the way that wing chun works. No reason to insert it into wing chun history.

---And I have pointed out, several times now, that we have at least 150 years of divergent evolution and development. Which is plenty of time for Wing Chun to vary significantly from a "proto-White Crane" base and come up with its own power generation methods.

 

[KPM]

I never said that. WSL never made that claim, and none of his students do.

----Then you need to clarify that point! Because exchanges like this:

I said:
Good point! One could look at the Tan Sau in WSLVT compared to the Tan Sau in Ip Ching or Ip Chun Wing Chun and conclude, even though they are visually similar, since they have a totally different interpretations the systems could not possibly have come from the same teacher! ;-)

You replied:
And that would be correct in the most likely of all likelihoods!

And you later asked:
So you think Yip Man taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?

All of that and other things you have said certainly seem to imply that WSL was the only one that was taught the "real" interpretation of Wing Chun! But maybe I have misunderstood. So can you clarify what you actually believe?



Show me someone who has trained 20+ years in WSLVT then completely renounced it in favor of LTWT, TWC, or another YM lineage. There are none. But I can show you literally hundreds from each lineage going in the reverse.

---That implies to me that Wong Shun Leung develop his own really good interpretation of Wing Chun! Not necessarily that he was the only one favored enough or smart enough to "get" the real thing from Ip Man!



You once pulled out Occam's Razor here. Why not take it to this question of how there are so many conflicting versions of what YM taught?

---And why don't you apply Occam's Razor and common sense in the case of WSLVT? If WSLVT has a unique interpretation of Wing Chun that varies from everyone else that learned from Ip Man, the common sense conclusion is that this is likely an interpretation that originated with Wong Shun Leung himself.

1. Leung Ting and Ip Ching trained directly with Ip Man. Leung Ting has photos of Ip Man teaching him the wooden dummy with Ip Ching standing in the background. There are photos of Ip Man going through the forms with Ip Ching watching. You don't think that at some point Ip Man would have said...."Hold on Ah Ting! Hold on Ah Ching! Why are using the Tan Sau that way? Remember, Tan Sau is only for training the elbow. Don't try and use it as a parry like that!"???? To believe that he would just ignore such a fundamental thing in people training directly with him in private lessons...one being his own son!.....just goes against common sense.

2. To suggest that Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about any of his students (including his own sons) that spent many many years with him enough to teach them a "correct" interpretation of Tan Sau......to correct their error in something so fundamental......just goes against common sense.

3. To suggest that people we know to be sharp guys....like Ho Kam Ming and Tsui Tsun Ting just were not smart enough to understand the concept of Tan Sau like Wong Shun Leung was.... that just goes against common sense.

4. To assume that Ip Man would favor one person out all the many loyal students that spent many years with him and only teach one person the "real thing" implies that Ip Man was both a horrible person and a horrible teacher. That goes against common sense.

So when I apply common sense to this situation, my conclusion is that Wong Shun Leung himself had his own understanding and interpretation of the Wing Chun he learned from Ip Man and had "upgraded" his system to suit himself based upon his own fighting experience. After all, he called it "Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun" to differentiate it from everyone else's Wing Chun, didn't he? Nothing wrong with that! What IS wrong is to disparage everyone else's version of Wing Chun as being somehow substandard because they must have "missed" these teachings that WSL includes. Now, maybe these things are great improvements! Nothing wrong with that either! But what IS wrong is the suggestion that Ip Man played favorites for only one person and was somehow such a horrible teacher as I pointed out above.

So LFJ, maybe I have misunderstood what you have been trying to say throughout multiple threads. So I welcome any clarifications.

How do you explain the fact that WSLVT has major differences from every other branch of Ip Man's Wing Chun, without saying that WSL likely made these changes himself?

 

[LFJ]

---And why don't you apply Occam's Razor and common sense in the case of WSLVT? If WSLVT has a unique interpretation of Wing Chun that varies from everyone else that learned from Ip Man, the common sense conclusion is that this is likely an interpretation that originated with Wong Shun Leung himself.

The problem still remains that the others differ among themselves too, drastically in many cases, yet they all claim to be teaching what YM taught them.

If you believe that, then you believe the asinine theory that YM taught contradictory versions of the same system to all these different people.

Do you realize you make assumptions about how YM would or would not have likely treated his students as if you knew him? And then you call your assumptions "common sense". Interesting....

Earlier I posted text from an interview with WSL where he explained YM's temperament and teaching style. He said YM wasn't careful to make sure information was evenly distributed and he didn't waste time on students he thought not worth it. He said YM was the type of guy who'd rather teach one good student than 10 lousy ones.

Now, if that makes you think YM was a "horrible" person and teacher, that's your opinion. It doesn't mean it's "common sense" that YM wasn't like that because it doesn't sit well with you. Other students of his have said similar things regarding his teaching style. Like it or not, it is what it is.

It is clear that due to this uneven distribution of information and lack of attention, many classmates resorted to visual learning, copying each other and filling in gaps themselves.

Hearing the name "sticky hands" and watching the exercise, most laymen's assumption would be that the point is to stick to your opponent's arms to control them in a fight.

Having seen the shape and heard the name "spreading hand", most laymen's assumption would be that it's used to parry an incoming punch.

It's no wonder some guys teach exactly what the first visual assumption would be! The answer is they just went through the motions in training without receiving much information on what they were doing.

After all, he called it "Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun" to differentiate it from everyone else's Wing Chun, didn't he?

Not to my knowledge. I know he kept the Ving Tsun spelling favored by YM. He later started using the term Ving Tsun Kuen Hok or "Combat Science" to show that Ving Tsun is not an art but a skill. It's not open to "interpretation". It's either correct or incorrect. But he was still talking about YM's Ving Tsun. He said he never changed a thing as there was no need. Why are others different? He said you'll have to ask them...

 

[KPM]

The problem still remains that the others differ among themselves too, drastically in many cases, yet they all claim to be teaching what YM taught them.

---I'm not saying that people didn't get some things and miss others. I'm not saying that some people didn't learn a particular thing correctly or completely. I'm not saying that others didn't ALSO change a few things to suit themselves! What I AM saying is that if you take one fundamental thing....the interpretation of Tan Sau.....in which WSLVT differs from every other branch of Ip Man Wing Chun....then the common sense conclusion using Occam's Razor is that this particular interpretation of Tan Sau originated with WSL himself, given that all the other branches of Ip Man Wing Chun agree on their fundamental interpretation of Tan Sau. Again, just common sense. Either Ip Man purposefully withheld this interpretation of Tan Sau from everyone other than Wong Shun Leung, or Wong Shun Leung came up with it himself. Which is it in your belief system?


Do you realize you make assumptions about how YM would or would not have likely treated his students as if you knew him? And then you call your assumptions "common sense". Interesting....

---You didn't know him either! You are making the same assumptions in the opposite direction! Go back and reread my prior post. It just seems unbelievable to me that people that were close to Ip Man and spent years with him as his primary students would be treated that way. That isn't the description of a reluctant or bad teacher. That is the description of someone with some sort of personality disorder!!!!



It is clear that due to this uneven distribution of information and lack of attention, many classmates resorted to visual learning, copying each other and filling in gaps themselves.

---That may be true of his "public students" in a group class. But I just don't believe that he would treat his closest and primary students that way. The students that trained privately with him and that he knew would go on to represent him and Wing Chun by having schools of their own. That just defies common sense. You really don't think he would NOT have corrected Ho Kam Ming's interpretation of Tan Sau if he saw it was wrong? Or Tsui Tsun Ting's? Or Wang Kiu's Or Leung Sheung's? Or Ip Ching's? Or Ip Chun's? Or Chow Tze Chuen's? Or Duncan Leung's?


---You still have not really answered my questions or clarified your position. Did Ip Man teach WSL and ONLY WSL the "real" version of Wing Chun or not?

 

[LFJ]

What I AM saying is that if you take one fundamental thing....the interpretation of Tan Sau.....in which WSLVT differs from every other branch of Ip Man Wing Chun....then the common sense conclusion using Occam's Razor is that this particular interpretation of Tan Sau originated with WSL himself, given that all the other branches of Ip Man Wing Chun agree on their fundamental interpretation of Tan Sau. Again, just common sense.

Their interpretation of taan-sau (like chi-sau) is the same any layman would make just seeing the shape and hearing the name. I find that curious...

A lot more visual learning and sharing / copying of each other among classmates went on at that time than did YM spending the time and effort to develop a deeper idea in each one of them.

It's natural for people to always think in terms of applications, and taan-sau as a block is a simple idea to be tossed around and it satisfies quickly.

It would be more suspect if all those guys had a more abstract interpretation of taan-sau as a developmental tool and only WSL didn't share that understanding but taught it as any layman would assume it to be, a "spreading" block.

But that's not the case.

---You didn't know him either! You are making the same assumptions in the opposite direction!

I didn't know YM, but I've only quoted what students of his have said regarding his temperament and teaching style. I haven't commented on how it makes me feel or let my feeling affect what I believe.

It just seems unbelievable to me that people that were close to Ip Man and spent years with him as his primary students would be treated that way. That isn't the description of a reluctant or bad teacher. That is the description of someone with some sort of personality disorder!!!!

Your disbelief, disgust, or insults don't change the way he taught according to his students to a way you'd like better.

---You still have not really answered my questions or clarified your position. Did Ip Man teach WSL and ONLY WSL the "real" version of Wing Chun or not?

How would I know? I was not there. There were many students who didn't go on to become mainstream Sifus known to the world today. All I can do is examine the facts and the systems of those popular guys, and sorry to report, in my opinion none of them compare. Doesn't mean there were no others.

If hypothetically WSL was in fact the only one to properly learn the complete system, there'd still be no way to convince you and you'd still call me a "true believer" even with truth actually being on my side. So, I think it is a pointless question since it can't be proven. You are just trying to paint me into a corner.

Just take each individual and examine what they teach; their level of coherency and degree to which they are functional. No need to make claims about the "real" version... or "final" version, or "traditional" version...

 

[KPM]

If hypothetically WSL was in fact the only one to properly learn the complete system, there'd still be no way to convince you and you'd still call me a "true believer" even with truth actually being on my side. So, I think it is a pointless question since it can't be proven. You are just trying to paint me into a corner.

---I am only using "Occam's Razor" and "Common sense" as you suggested. What I have said is a logical conclusion. What you have said is based upon a "sifu sez" mentality. Its hard to argue rationally with someone who isn't using rational methods to arrive at their conclusions. So I guess that's the end of this particular conversation!

 

[LFJ]

---I am only using "Occam's Razor" and "Common sense" as you suggested. What I have said is a logical conclusion.

You're doing it wrong. Your conclusion is asinine, but you're sticking to it because it doesn't feel nice to you to believe otherwise.

What you have said is based upon a "sifu sez" mentality.

Which sifu? Sez what?

 

[guy b.]

But that's exactly what Beetlejuice did on the other forum, while tampering with terminology and applications to fit their theory. If you have 0 clue as to who taught what to whom, when and where, you've really got nothing, but especially if the similarities are only visual!

There's another forum?

 

[guy b.]

If hypothetically WSL was in fact the only one to properly learn the complete system, there'd still be no way to convince you and you'd still call me a "true believer" even with truth actually being on my side. So, I think it is a pointless question since it can't be proven. You are just trying to paint me into a corner.

---I am only using "Occam's Razor" and "Common sense" as you suggested. What I have said is a logical conclusion. What you have said is based upon a "sifu sez" mentality. Its hard to argue rationally with someone who isn't using rational methods to arrive at their conclusions. So I guess that's the end of this particular conversation!

Lol, actually the opposite is the case You are not a good logical arguer and you get emotional easily.

 

[guy b.]

The problem still remains that the others differ among themselves too, drastically in many cases, yet they all claim to be teaching what YM taught them.

If you believe that, then you believe the asinine theory that YM taught contradictory versions of the same system to all these different people.

Do you realize you make assumptions about how YM would or would not have likely treated his students as if you knew him? And then you call your assumptions "common sense". Interesting....

Earlier I posted text from an interview with WSL where he explained YM's temperament and teaching style. He said YM wasn't careful to make sure information was evenly distributed and he didn't waste time on students he thought not worth it. He said YM was the type of guy who'd rather teach one good student than 10 lousy ones.

Now, if that makes you think YM was a "horrible" person and teacher, that's your opinion. It doesn't mean it's "common sense" that YM wasn't like that because it doesn't sit well with you. Other students of his have said similar things regarding his teaching style. Like it or not, it is what it is.

It is clear that due to this uneven distribution of information and lack of attention, many classmates resorted to visual learning, copying each other and filling in gaps themselves.

Hearing the name "sticky hands" and watching the exercise, most laymen's assumption would be that the point is to stick to your opponent's arms to control them in a fight.

Having seen the shape and heard the name "spreading hand", most laymen's assumption would be that it's used to parry an incoming punch.

It's no wonder some guys teach exactly what the first visual assumption would be! The answer is they just went through the motions in training without receiving much information on what they were doing.



Not to my knowledge. I know he kept the Ving Tsun spelling favored by YM. He later started using the term Ving Tsun Kuen Hok or "Combat Science" to show that Ving Tsun is not an art but a skill. It's not open to "interpretation". It's either correct or incorrect. But he was still talking about YM's Ving Tsun. He said he never changed a thing as there was no need. Why are others different? He said you'll have to ask them...

Good post

 

[guy b.]

As you know my theory is that wing chun is based on pole, while others are not. I have reasons for saying this.

---True. But I (and others I think) believe there is more reason to theorize a White Crane origin than a Luk Dim Boon Kwun origin. But its all just conjecture. One has to look at the available resources and come up with a "best guess."

You haven't given any reason to theorize a white crane origin other than the fact that Yong Chun sounds a bit like Wing Chun, and that both white crane and wing chun come from China and feature kicking and punching.

In fact White Crane is one of the least likely origins for wing chun due to the very different (completely different!) body mechanics involved. Sanchin mechanics are simply not compatible with wing chun. Karate is a well known white crane derivative. Would you say that it is in any way close to being wing chun, apart from being an Asian fighting system?

White Crane is a sanchin system. This means that it works in a completely different way to the way that wing chun works. No reason to insert it into wing chun history.

---And I have pointed out, several times now, that we have at least 150 years of divergent evolution and development. Which is plenty of time for Wing Chun to vary significantly from a "proto-White Crane" base and come up with its own power generation methods.

What would it matter if wing chun had derived from a proto-white crane 150 years ago if in the process it had its mechanics, concepts and principles completely eviscerated and replaced with different ones. This would tell us absolutely nothing about wing chun and would be fairly irrelevant. What would be more interesting would be to discuss where the new mechanics and new conceptual base came from.

 

[guy b.]

If hypothetically WSL was in fact the only one to properly learn the complete system, there'd still be no way to convince you and you'd still call me a "true believer" even with truth actually being on my side. So, I think it is a pointless question since it can't be proven. You are just trying to paint me into a corner.

What are you talking about? If WSL was the only one to properly learn the system then you would be wrong and LFJ would be correct

---I am only using "Occam's Razor" and "Common sense" as you suggested. What I have said is a logical conclusion. What you have said is based upon a "sifu sez" mentality. Its hard to argue rationally with someone who isn't using rational methods to arrive at their conclusions. So I guess that's the end of this particular conversation!

This is a common tactic for you. LFJ's conclusion is in fact simpler than yours as he has demonstrated. You are doing the opposite of what you think you are doing.

 

[KPM]

You're doing it wrong. Your conclusion is asinine, but you're sticking to it because it doesn't feel nice to you to believe otherwise.
?

What is asinine about my conclusion? Where is my logic wrong? And how about you answer this one simple question that I have now asked more than once?

You really don't think he would NOT have corrected Ho Kam Ming's interpretation of Tan Sau if he saw it was wrong? Or Tsui Tsun Ting's? Or Wang Kiu's Or Leung Sheung's? Or Ip Ching's? Or Ip Chun's? Or Chow Tze Chuen's? Or Duncan Leung's?

 

[KPM]

Lol, actually the opposite is the case You are not a good logical arguer and you get emotional easily.

Again, as with LFJ, I invite you to describe where my logic is wrong and answer the question above.

 

[KPM]

You haven't given any reason to theorize a white crane origin other than the fact that Yong Chun sounds a bit like Wing Chun, and that both white crane and wing chun come from China and feature kicking and punching.

.

You obviously haven't been paying attention!

 

[KPM]

What are you talking about? If WSL was the only one to properly learn the system then you would be wrong and LFJ would be correct
.

Once again....you are proving that you seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem. I didn't say that! LFJ did!

 

[guy b.]

Once again....you are proving that you seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem. I didn't say that! LFJ did!

When you don't use quotations to differentiate between what you and others have said sometimes it is difficult to see where one ends and the next begins. Your reply however is just as deficient with or without the first part. It is interesting that you didn't reply to the part which responded to what you wrote.

 

[guy b.]

You obviously haven't been paying attention!

Point me to the post where you expand on your idea about white crane being the origin of wing chun. I don't see anything beyond the fact that you think they look the same. I know they don't function the same. Will you respond?