A thread for the more liberal wing chunners

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

I know you’re all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations…but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting…is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don’t mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?

2

It won’t be MMA unless you (the school) are competing. MMA is a set of rules, not a style.

As for the rest, I believe you can mix and match as suits your needs. Who cares what you call it. Maybe Jeet Kune Do? That has a nice ring. :smiley:

3

If one only looks for techniques in our forms, then your gonna end up with a very narrow understanding and miss out on some VERY important WC knowledge.

If however, one just takes a look at logic flow of the body mechanics in our forms… and understands of how they relate to leverage and dealing with oncoming energy at the various ranges of combat…

Then, you have an open door and can use whatever tools you like to fish.

It’s all there imo.

4

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1010095]I know you’re all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations…but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting…is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don’t mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?[/QUOTE]

***CONGRATULATIONS, SavvySavage…

You’ve picked up on something I’ve thought about a bunch of times, and you came up with an excellent thread title to express it!

You’re exactly right when you say that there’s no point in practicing all the wing chun hand motions if we’re not going to use them - because “wing chun is about principles, not about techniques” (as the argument usually goes).

It’s a “concept-based” art, so if I see a guillotine in some bil jee, hell, it’s a guillotine - because the “concept” of the motion is in the form.

So does that mean wing chun can become whatever we want it to be? Yes, Savvy - that’s a real good question.

AND A GREAT MARKETING STRATEGY FOR SOME PEOPLE WHO MIGHT ANSWER: “YES”.

Nothing sells better than a new name (and package) for an old product or a new product under an old name.

And quite often the “new” product is really an amalgam of an already-existing (completely different) product with some of the old (ie.- wing chun) - but without crediting (naming) the foreign substance that’s been added to the old product.

And then some people might tell you that you really can’t fight while using pak, lop, bong, garn, tan, bil, jut, etc.

Some others (like myself) will tell you that you can use such moves (dare I say “techniques”)…but in a new way because they’re attached to a new delivery system (ie.- some boxing). But I’m calling it what it is: boxing & wing chun - working together.

Is wing chun losing its identity, you ask? Good question.

And here’s another one: For how long can a martial art remain exactly as it was before it becomes irrelevant - since the rest of the world has caught up to it and perhaps even surpassed much of it?

5

Victor, good post.

6

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1010095]I know you’re all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations…but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting…is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don’t mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?[/QUOTE]

Here’s a more important question to be asking yourself: Why do you have such a need to have an identity with WC?

7

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1010095]I know you’re all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations…but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting…is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don’t mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?[/QUOTE]

It’s not so much that it can be “anything”; it’s that your wck shouldn’t be bounded by dogma. Remember the old “master the system don’t let it master you” adage?

The idea that the system is principle based can also be descibed as simply learning to deal with energy and motion. That’s all there really is in a fight. The shapes of the movements aren’t new or exclusive by any means–just more identified and focused on by wing chun folks. A huen sao to tan sao can just as easily be threading for an underhook. A low lan sao is no different than an MMA fighter blocking knees with his forearm (instinctively). A seung kiu sao motion is almost reflexive in nature when someone is startled…the same could be said for wu / bong. It’s just energy and motion. Hand shapes are one element, but what’s more important is the energy contained within them. Is there structural support? Is there skill in the movement or wasted effort? Is it consistently reliable? Etc.

The saam bai fut movement at the end of biu gee is energy and motion. While I personally wouldn’t take from it a guillotine, the movement itself (much like the huen / tan being likened to threading for an underhook) is still just E & M. So the fact that someone can extrapolate that sort of movement from wing chun just shows a different level of innovation for an art that will soon become extinct if it doesn’t evolve with time.

In the business world there’s a saying “If you’re not moving forward–your moving backward”. There is no “present” where you can just stagnate or rest on your laurels. The same goes for martial arts. If you’re so satisfied with your system that you think it needs no further development, then you’ve condemned it and yourself to falling behind those that are looking to evolve. The same can be said about the skills within the system itself–however we’re talking more broadly here.

WCK will always have it’s tan sao, bong sao, fook sao–but those shouldn’t be treated as endings but moreso transitions of movement while dealing with energy.

Anyway that’s my take on it. Peace out yo!

8

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1010159]Here’s a more important question to be asking yourself: Why do you have such a need to have an identity with WC?[/QUOTE]

Now’s that a great question…

9

[QUOTE=Knifefighter;1010159]Here’s a more important question to be asking yourself: Why do you have such a need to have an identity with WC?[/QUOTE]

A even BETTER question would be “Why do you feel such a need to hang out on a wing chun forum and berate the others when you don’t have an affinity for the system or respect for its practicioners?” :wink:

See: Compensatory Narcissistic Personality Disorder

10

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1010155]***CONGRATULATIONS, SavvySavage…

You’ve picked up on something I’ve thought about a bunch of times, and you came up with an excellent thread title to express it!

You’re exactly right when you say that there’s no point in practicing all the wing chun hand motions if we’re not going to use them - because “wing chun is about principles, not about techniques” (as the argument usually goes).

It’s a “concept-based” art, so if I see a guillotine in some bil jee, hell, it’s a guillotine - because the “concept” of the motion is in the form.

So does that mean wing chun can become whatever we want it to be? Yes, Savvy - that’s a real good question.

And then some people might tell you that you really can’t fight while using pak, lop, bong, garn, tan, bil, jut, etc.

Some others (like myself) will tell you that you can use such moves (dare I say “techniques”)…but in a new way because they’re attached to a new delivery system (ie.- some boxing). But I’m calling it what it is: boxing & wing chun - working together.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I’m gonna throw this out there. Wing Chun does not need to modify itself for these types of ranges. The very same hands mentioned can be used in a variety of ways outside the short bridge. It is up to the practitioner to learn the long bridge applications for these very same hands. Problem is - everyone knows the short bridge and think that it fits every fighting situation. What people fail to aknowledge is - you gotta get there first. It doesn’t make sense to incorporate boxing into Wing Chun when we clearly have the tools and applications for the job. The applications exist and they are beyond any guesswork.

11

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1010095]I know you’re all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations…but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting…is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don’t mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?[/QUOTE]

what do you mean by stylized hand motions? you mean bong sau, tan sau etc?

why do you not use them?

12

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1010095]If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting…is it still wck?[/QUOTE]

IMO Yes, it is still Wing Chun. Maybe just a glimpse in the flash of an eye, but it’s there. Not only in MMA either, it’s everywhere.

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1010095]Or is it mma? I don’t mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?[/QUOTE]

This helps explain the first answer :wink:

Expressing a glimpse of a stylized art (like Wing Chun) within your own personal character of movement whilst fighting proves that your WC training is in you. But what if you don’t know you’re doing it? Compare that with someone who consciously puts it in there and uses it. And if you stick to our basic principles too, and project our forms into combat expect what you see in a MMA ring change! For the better or worse? Now, that’s a question.

As for this guillotine and saam bai fut in ‘Biu Jee’ goes, I couldn’t even comment! :confused:

13

I like Vankuen’s response, it’s a good way to view or approach most of the movements in the forms.
Styles are not really fighting methods.. they are training methods. How you fight is dependant more on who your opponent is, what he’s doing and what the environment is. Fighting methods come down more to strategy and tactics, that is why 2 people trained in the same style can fight so differently.
As for Wing Chun’s training methods.. obviously I like them, but there is definately lots of room for improvement, innovation and outright theft of other methods.

14

[QUOTE=mun hung;1010198]Okay, I’m gonna throw this out there. Wing Chun does not need to modify itself for these types of ranges. The very same hands mentioned can be used in a variety of ways outside the short bridge. It is up to the practitioner to learn the long bridge applications for these very same hands. Problem is - everyone knows the short bridge and think that it fits every fighting situation. What people fail to aknowledge is - you gotta get there first. It doesn’t make sense to incorporate boxing into Wing Chun when we clearly have the tools and applications for the job. The applications exist and they are beyond any guesswork.[/QUOTE]

***NOTsaying that you can’t use some of the moves I mentioned from long range.

I am saying that boxing attacks from longer ranges can get you to short range with a lot more ease than relying solely on wing chun - and it is at the shorter ranges where most of the moves I mentioned work at their best. Am also saying that boxing (and kickboxing) footwork, kicks, and especially boxing defenses can enhance the wing chun defensive game…

as in slips, ducks, bobbs and weaves, etc. Most wing chun defense is based on a bridge in order to parry, cut punch, deflect, and redirect - and not that much is based on pure avoidance. Boxing defenses on the other hand rely primarily upon avoidance - and this additional addition (no pun intended) to the wing chun small-amounts-of-avoidance-and-large-amount-of-bridging…defenses…would give the wing chun fighter more time to spend on offense.

From various ranges. And the best defense is always offense.

15

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1010248]***NOTsaying that you can’t use some of the moves I mentioned from long range.

I am saying that boxing attacks from longer ranges can get you to short range with a lot more easy than relying solely on wing chun - and it is at the shorter ranges where most of the moves I mentioned work at their best. Am also saying that boxing (and kickboxing) footwork, kicks, and especially boxing defenses can enhance the wing chun defensive game…

as in slips, ducks, bobbs and weaves, etc. Most wing chun defense is based on a bridge in order to parry, cut punch, deflect, and redirect - and not that much is based on pure avoidance. Boxing defenses on the other hand rely primarily upon avoidance - and this additional addition (no pun intended) to the wing chun small-amounts-of-avoidance-and-large-amount-of-bridging…defenses…would give the wing chun fighter more time to spend on offense.

From various ranges. And the best defense is always offense.[/QUOTE]

the problem with purely bobbing and weaving is that it is pure defense. there is no offense. as a result, that is a wasted move/opportunity. WC seeks to always always attack and defend simultaneously.

however, if your WC has no way to move your body and only relies on the arms to deflect attacks, i can see why learning to bob and weave is necessary

16

When I started grappling I used to look for applications of WC moves in the technique. For example, I personally think the gum/garn section in TWC SLT is more easily modified to be a guillotine than any part of bil jee.

However, practicing WC forms will never make you a better grappler.

I also feel I progressed more rapidly as a grappler when I stopped trying to see everything through WC-coloured glasses and just followed my grappling instructors’ directions. I needed to empty my cup.

Opinions vary, but that’s my take on it.

Wing Chun is something I do. I feel it is important to be able to make fine distinctions between it and different arts rather than just having them all mix into some beige goo. I wouldn’t say it’s part of my IDENTITY, though, that makes no sense to me.

17

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1010248]***NOTsaying that you can’t use some of the moves I mentioned from long range.

I am saying that boxing attacks from longer ranges can get you to short range with a lot more easy than relying solely on wing chun - and it is at the shorter ranges where most of the moves I mentioned work at their best. Am also saying that boxing (and kickboxing) footwork, kicks, and especially boxing defenses can enhance the wing chun defensive game…

as in slips, ducks, bobbs and weaves, etc. Most wing chun defense is based on a bridge in order to parry, cut punch, deflect, and redirect - and not that much is based on pure avoidance. Boxing defenses on the other hand rely primarily upon avoidance - and this additional addition (no pun intended) to the wing chun small-amounts-of-avoidance-and-large-amount-of-bridging…defenses…would give the wing chun fighter more time to spend on offense.

From various ranges. And the best defense is always offense.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the best defense is not always offense. One should never attack a defended fortification unless he has some sort of advantage. I have to wonder, if Boxing and wrestling has all you really need, why would you want to play around with Wing Chun? Obviously, it would degrade your kick boxing and make it less effective. Look at it realistically. Wing Chun practiced by it’s principal concepts would not be the same if you did it like you was kick boxing. Or I would not really think it would be. It would only drag you down if you tried to keep it true to concept. It simply does not make sense to me that you would actually try to marry the two. You could switch between systems, but I seriously doubt mixing them would help you much.

18

[QUOTE=Lee Chiang Po;1010278]Actually, the best defense is not always offense. One should never attack a defended fortification unless he has some sort of advantage. I have to wonder, if Boxing and wrestling has all you really need, why would you want to play around with Wing Chun? Obviously, it would degrade your kick boxing and make it less effective. Look at it realistically. Wing Chun practiced by it’s principal concepts would not be the same if you did it like you was kick boxing. Or I would not really think it would be. It would only drag you down if you tried to keep it true to concept. It simply does not make sense to me that you would actually try to marry the two. You could switch between systems, but I seriously doubt mixing them would help you much.[/QUOTE]

***YOU attack a fortified location (ie.- a fighter with a good defensive posture) carefully - but you attack. You don’t wait to play a counter-attack game…unless of course the lack of attacking weapons makes you wary?!

Never said that boxing and wrestling has “all I need” - although someone proficient in boxing and (submission) wrestling is indeed formidable.

And no, wing chun wouldn’t degrade kickboxing because you use whatever weapon is appropriate to the time and place (range).

And TWC central line concepts can easily be applied and adapted to fit into a kickboxing (or a boxing) framework.

And the closer you get - then the emphasis on working the main centerline kicks in.

19

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;1010315]***YOU attack a fortified location (ie.- a fighter with a good defensive posture) carefully - but you attack.
[/QUOTE]

If I’m not mistaken.. No fortification has ever worked…long term.. Because fortifications are inherently limited and fixed.. It’s just a matter of time before the pounding takes it’s toll..

VT has already lost its identity and I cite this forum as proof..

Once again the old man would be laughing his azz off..

20

[QUOTE=SavvySavage;1010095]I know you’re all going to read this thread but this is for the people that believe wing chun can be anything. I read a comment in another thread where someone said a move in bui jee is an incidental gillutine. Many believe that wck is principal based and made to mold over many different situations…but then practice the same basic static drills as every other wck school. If wck is so liberal and can be mma or street fighting…is it still wck?

Or is it mma? I don’t mean the sport. Why practice all the stylyzed hand motions in the first place if it is supposed to be principle based? Why call it wck at all? Might as well call it kick-a$$. Will this new liberal way of thinking of wck cause us to lose our identity?[/QUOTE]

Static drills??? Not while i was training at GM Cheungs academy.

WC is not liberal. Its just so… basic and simple, people feel the urge to add clay to the statue. It is just too… simplistic for some people.

Who wants simplicity when there is much more appealing techniques from other MA’s.

Even to this day, instead of learning a finger jab to the eye, people want to know the death touch, the secret of the one inch punch, etc, etc.

It is JKD. Why continue calling it, WC? Because WC is the foundation and its marketable.