When is wing chun not wing chun ?

[freefighter2010]

When people talk about modern wing chun ? or street fighting wing chun . Surely this is not wing chun anymore ? as it no longer using the traditional moves.

Your thoughts pelase ?

[cam]

If you are using wing chun concepts, then you are using wing chun.
If you are adhering to tradition, then you are no longer fighting effectively and are no longer using proper wing chun. IMHO.

[Red Rum]

Interesting topic.

I have seen 'wing chun' schools use jumping kicks and rear naked chokes

In Kamon, Master Chan uses moves from BJJ and boxing but these are taught as seperate items (as opposed to claiming that they are wing chun moves)

I have always said that any move that fits into the main principles of wing chun is technically wing chun.

Did Yip Man teach 'traditional wing chun?' How would we know unless we somehow managed to see Ng Mui in training?

[cam]

I'm quite sure that Yip Man had changed some things. And, I'm sure everyone who passed wing chun on before Yip Man had added, taken out, or modified some things. It's human nature. Wing chun is always evolving.

[SmallThought]

efficiency & effect...

Wing Chun, according to oral tradition, was developed by the Grand Masters of the Shil Lim to be efficient and effective (only later were the basic principles further developed and applied by Ng Mui, using mainly Snake and Crane techniques, of which she was Grand Master, with a smattering of tiger, mantis and other systems; of which much may or may not have been added by subsequent Grand Masters of the system.). To achieve this, they cast aside the the traditions of their individual systems in order to ascertain the most efficient, effective principles and techniques contained with in and common to each system. As such, Wing Chun has always been concerned with the "concept v's tradition debate". It may even be argued that it is the influence of Wing Chun on modern martial arts that has instilled this now common philosophy.

In fact, according to the school i trained at, to be graded to master in Wing Chun, it was necessary to remove something from the system and add something else to make it more efficient as well as to personalise it for the individual master. This is in accordance to the philosophy of stripping away what is superfluous and embracing what is truely effective and efficient. In fact, one of my Sihings (a police officer) used to joke that when he graded for Master, he was going to remove the Dragon Pole form, as no-one fights with long pole spears/pikes, etc. any more, and replace it with the Quick Draw Glock Urban Combat Form!!!

I was taught that the principles of the system and not the techniques were it's heart and soul. The techniques, or movements, are simply vehicles for the principles to operate and to be learned. That being said, centuries of practice have formalised certain movements to correspond to certain principles... i always saw certain Wing Chun techniques to be a form of basic bio-mechanics and considered Wing Chun to be the "Human System" developed from the "Animal Systems". But enough of my personal hypothesese and back to the thread topic. Bare with me, my point will soon be clear.

On this basis of efficiency and effectiveness, Wing Chun has only three empty hand forms (as we all know). The final of these, the Thrusting Fingers (however you want to pronounce or spell it in it chinese form) is the emergency tool kit for when it all goes wrong. Now, i may get into trouble for saying this, but i was taught that the purpose of the Bil Jee was to "take you out of the system in order to re-enter it", that is, break the Wing Chun "rules", or principles in order to regroup and re-apply them. It is the form that allows for the inadequacies or falabilities inherrent in any formalised system.

By this, any technique may be employed by a Wing Chun practitioner, as long as it is adherrant to the principles of the system, or enabling the practitioner to retreat effectively in order to regroup and re-enter. Again, the technique is simply the vehicle for the principle.

So, to give my short answer after prattling on about the rules and flexibility inherent to Wing Chun, it IS NOT Wing Chun if:
1/ You are fighting force with force (and this encompasses a whole set of sub clauses to which i will not elaborate)
2/ You are not employing forward force to exert pressure on the opponent, &/or
3/You are not protecting and controlling the center line.

In my opinion, as i was taught, these are the fundumentals that must dictate any combat encounter for a Wing Chun practioner. Anytime these (and the other basic principles) are compromised, the Wing Chun practioner may retreat in order to re-establish control of the encounter.

If you are not applying these principles and consider yourself intermediate-advanced in the system, you may as well go practice something else; because anytime a combat encounter occurs, you are not practicing Wing Chun and will eventually become one of those annoying grumplers running around saying, "Wing Chun is crap because it let me down in a fight".

In fact, if you are adhering to the first principle of "Avoid fighting force with force" you will very rarely ever have the cause to "test" your Wing Chun in a fight..... but that's just my philosophical take on it.

Have fun.

[Gurokevin]

I think that when you steer away from the WC concepts, then it is no longer Wing Chun. As for the fact of people changing things from the time of Ng Mui, I say that was a good chance. Wing Chun as evolved just like everything else. We would be stupid to think that someone just said "Hey, I have a great idea for a martial art" and WHAM, Wing Chun as we know it today.

[Gurokevin]

Now, if you're saying that something can evolve beyond the founder's intent or even knowledge, you have an interesting idea and I'd like to hear more of what you think on the subject.

Yes, that is along the lines of what I was saying. I was not saying that Ng Mui was not the creator of Wing Chun. What I was trying to say is that the Wing Chun that was created back then is most likely not the same Wing Chun that we know of today. It may have been completely different in terms of technique and concepts. We will never know. WC Probably started out as a side facing, longer range style. And through others that took stuff out and added stuff from their personal experiences created more of what we know today as WC. Every type of martial art (and everything in general for that matter) has evolved. If you look at Wong Shun Leung's WC, it is different than that of Yip Man. Its different than Leung Ting's, William Cheung's, Bruce Lee's ect. I was just saying that it is different now than 200+ years ago.

As for the concepts, the idea of Wing Chun (being a combat art that is for realistic self-defense / fighting and Simple, Direct, and Efficient), is what I believe we should stick to. Not necessarily the actual fighting concepts or techniques. I believe that in Ng Mui's life the concepts and theories that she and maybe others came up with may have been very very different than what we are taught today. Maybe not everything, but at least some of them. The concepts back then would have been set to deal with how people fight then, not now. And through time, the concepts (just like the techniques) have probably changed as needed. As of right now, the concepts that we are taught work in todays world. So we should stick to them. But if there is a different way of fighting 100 years from now, and the concepts no longer hold water, then we should get rid of them and search for new ones. But at the same time keep the original idea of WC and any other concepts that still work.

I think that makes sense, it does for me. If it is not clear, I will try and explain further.

[g-bells]

When it's .......... Judo!


ikid, only kid

[Liberty]

When it's William "Cheung," tee, hee...

[Paco]

Wing Chun has become the butt of many jokes nowadays but it seems as if those people who knock it have never crossed hands with a skilled practitioner...
True, while the UFC and MMA arenas have become proving grounds for what is supposedly "effective" in a "real" fight AND then you see people diss wing chun and karate because stylists from those arts got KTFO in it, that doesn't mean those arts (just to cite two examples) have nothing to offer. I don't think people who despise WC might be so vocal about it if they had been exposed to a kyokushinkai full-contact champion or the likes of Wong Sheun Leung (did I get his name right?) (the latter who was Yip Man's "fighter" and prime ass-kicker).
Wing Chun has many solid principles and there are many things in it I just would not use in fight ( i don't like the stance). But here are some solid concepts and while other arts might have them (1) i don't know which and
(2) I only heard about them from WC people:

1- The centerline, all the "quick-kill" targets in our body are there. Eyes, nose, chin, throat, sternum, lower abdomen and groin. There is something to be said about protecting it.

2- Forward pressure: some self-defense folks out there take this concept and call it the "spear" or "bridge". I know many competent defensive tactics instructors who take this principle and make it their own. Just "spear" exerting forward pressure with adequate coverage and you close in on the guy.

3- Don't chase the hand. Arts like FMA (thru baiting/enganyo) and boxing (combos) thrive on opponents who chase the hand. My compadre, who is a WC stylist, taught me this principle, and it has helped me inmensely.

Jus' my two cents, and BTW I am not a WC practitioner!

[bodhisattva]

[QUOTE=Paco;290715]Wing Chun has become the butt of many jokes nowadays but it seems as if those people who knock it have never crossed hands with a skilled practitioner...
QUOTE]

Yeah. Wing Chun is such a great martial art that you have to search high and low to find some rare, secret teacher who can actually pull it off..

Whereas you can go to just about any boxing gym and find loads of practitioners who can totally pull it off...


I just don't understand martial arts that claim you have to study for 10 years before you can be the one guy who can actually pull it off..

It's like turning down lessons in Chemistry so that you can practice Alchemy..

[Paco]

Mike:

[quote]
How can anyone say "this is Wing Chun and that is not Wing Chun" if no one can even manage to clearly identify what Wing Chun is? So far, literally every identifying trait listed is ubiquitously shared among tons of other arts. Hardly distinguishing
[end quote]
I don't claim to represent wing chun's take on the debate b/c i'm not a wing chun stylist. My point is that the concepts I mentioned I learned from people who practice wing chun, nothing else. I know other gung fu practitioners ( wushu, Shaolin northern fist, Choy Lay fut) and they didn't point to these concepts. If their art has it, they did not tell me and i haven't seen it.
But we can play this ad infinitum, for example: If it's true that WC came from the snake and crane styles of kung fu, how come we don't see those styles assuming the same stance, number and type of forms, same strikes, same concepts, etc.? I dunno the answer, but I think somebody who does practice wing chun exclusively or primarily can answer the question much better (or somebody from these "tons of other arts" that you mentioned).
But Mike, from what I read on this Forum I understand you are a JKD man so sooner or later we'll get to that middle ground that Bruce Lee spoke about: human beings have only two legs two arms and one head... Fighting styles cannot be THAT different! Absorb what is useful and add what is specifically your own. If you KTFO of somebody with a straight blast who cares as long as it works!

[Tom Yum]

When is wingchun not wingchun???

When its called WING CHAIN SAW!!!

http://pictures.deadlycomputer.com/d/9956-3/250px-Bruce_Campbell_Army_of_Darkness.jpg

[Liberty]

[QUOTE=Paco;290924]Mike:

How can anyone say "this is Wing Chun and that is not Wing Chun" if no one can even manage to clearly identify what Wing Chun is? So far, literally every identifying trait listed is ubiquitously shared among tons of other arts. Hardly distinguishing
[end quote]
I don't claim to represent wing chun's take on the debate b/c i'm not a wing chun stylist. My point is that the concepts I mentioned I learned from people who practice wing chun, nothing else. I know other gung fu practitioners ( wushu, Shaolin northern fist, Choy Lay fut) and they didn't point to these concepts. If their art has it, they did not tell me and i haven't seen it.
But we can play this ad infinitum, for example: If it's true that WC came from the snake and crane styles of kung fu, how come we don't see those styles assuming the same stance, number and type of forms, same strikes, same concepts, etc.? I dunno the answer, but I think somebody who does practice wing chun exclusively or primarily can answer the question much better (or somebody from these "tons of other arts" that you mentioned).
But Mike, from what I read on this Forum I understand you are a JKD man so sooner or later we'll get to that middle ground that Bruce Lee spoke about: human beings have only two legs two arms and one head... Fighting styles cannot be THAT different! Absorb what is useful and add what is specifically your own. If you KTFO of somebody with a straight blast who cares as long as it works!

I've had a fascination with this art for some time. As an observer, ohe one thing I've noticed is that the art was originally a true fighting art. As a result, it was constantly tested in actual battles against other Chinese arts (mostly) by it's earlier generation practitioners. As a result of that, the art was every so often further modified/refined; butterfly swords added, the long pole; it's means of training undergoing refinements. It's last known great refiner being the late Bruce Lee and that, based not only on his street battles but later, on his encounters in North America. It seems the only individual from his Wing Chun clan, who approved of Lee's incesscent research, other than his classmate, Hawkins Cheung, was the last great Wing Chun master to date, the late Yip Man. Who had himself modified the art as a result of his own real life skirmishes.

Here, I am referring to individuals who's refinements were afterwards proven in battle, contact sparring , and not to individuals caliming some secret modification (or not) only they were supposedly privy to.

Makes sense Yip Man approved of Lee's further refinemments. Obviously Chang is attempting the same refinement - based on what - his own real life encounters. Perhaps that intimidates those who hide behind it's traditions - one reason Lee simply broke off and labeled his progress something else. Wing Chun had mostly become another political mess with "too many would be chiefs, not enough Indians."

Again, kudos to Kamon Wing Chun for it's attempts to enter the modern era of fighting.

Should it succeed, I suspect that like it's little brother, (who "grew taller") Concept JKD, it too will begin to look, less and less over the years, like the art once practiced by Yip Man and his predecessors. And like it's little brother, it will have it's critics, inspite of it's new effectivness.

[Red Rum]

[QUOTE=Liberty;291907]

Mike:

I've had a fascination with this art for some time. As an observer, ohe one thing I've noticed is that the art was originally a true fighting art. As a result, it was constantly tested in actual battles against other Chinese arts (mostly) by it's earlier generation practitioners. As a result of that, the art was every so often further modified/refined; butterfly swords added, the long pole; it's means of training undergoing refinements. It's last known great refiner being the late Bruce Lee and that, based not only on his street battles but later, on his encounters in North America. It seems the only individual from his Wing Chun clan, who approved of Lee's incesscent research, other than his classmate, Hawkins Cheung, was the last great Wing Chun master to date, the late Yip Man. Who had himself modified the art as a result of his own real life skirmishes.

Here, I am referring to individuals who's refinements were afterwards proven in battle, contact sparring , and not to individuals caliming some secret modification (or not) only they were supposedly privy to.

Makes sense Yip Man approved of Lee's further refinemments. Obviously Chang is attempting the same refinement - based on what - his own real life encounters. Perhaps that intimidates those who hide behind it's traditions - one reason Lee simply broke off and labeled his progress something else. Wing Chun had mostly become another political mess with "too many would be chiefs, not enough Indians."

Again, kudos to Kamon Wing Chun for it's attempts to enter the modern era of fighting.

Should it succeed, I suspect that like it's little brother, (who "grew taller") Concept JKD, it too will begin to look, less and less over the years, like the art once practiced by Yip Man and his predecessors. And like it's little brother, it will have it's critics, inspite of it's new effectivness.

Nicely put. It is always nice to have traditional non-combative styles and techniques
When you watch the Shaolin monks do you sit there and think - 'that wouldn't work in the street?' or do you sit there and think 'that is pretty amazing (wish I could do that)'

Similarly in wing chun, it is nice to see amazing practitioners of the traditional style such as Ip Chun who can still throw people around in his 80's

Yet an art that relies solely on traditional movements will die out quickly

Gone are the days when people had patience to stand in stances for hours on end. Especially with many lazy westerners (admittedly like myself), we are looking to do an art that works efficiently without having to spend years trying to get a kick higher than your head

In wing chun it is important to retain many of the traditional aspects and theories, including forms, chi sao and stancework, but to realise that they are just training techniques.

I love chi sao as a drill as it teaches you to stick and feel for opponents movements, but it is unrealistic to use chi sao structures in a fight
Someone showed me a clip of a guy chi sao-ing another person to the floor and pinning him using it. It was total nonsense and very 'compliant'.

I went to a seminar in the UK under two of Ip Chun's top guys and they were great fun. They had been doing WC for around 30 years and were amazing in their chi sao

They mentioned that a lot of drills in sil nim tao were unrealistic and only meant as extensions to structures or to exercise muscle groups

It was refreshing to hear even the traditionalists state that some moves in wing chun just won't cut it