Forget the History, Forget the Politics

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
81

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;897672]Good point. Funny you use the words ‘genuine’ or ‘true’. How do you plan to discern what is or isn’t? Or even suggest one do that? please continue..
[/QUOTE]

It’s not “funny” (I suppose you mean in the “odd” sense) that I use such words – how can something be called history that didn’t genuinely happen or isn’t true? My point is that calling something “history” doesn’t make it so, and that it is all too common in WCK to call legends, stories, myths, etc. “history”. The Ng Miu-Yim Wing Chun legend, for example, isn’t history although it is often labelled as such. (Though as allegory it is useful IMO).

As I said, it takes education, critical thinking skills, etc. to discern what is historically true (factual). Before we call something history we should have compelling factual, independently verified, evidence that it is true. Lacking that, how can we say something is true?

You’re mixing several seperate things together and treating them as one. History is just that - history. Then you talk about validating theories. But then finish talking about fighting or training methods and results. Are you trying to say that the only way to validate history is through physical results? Historical topics (fact or otherwise) don’t really have anything to do with results from training. Kinda sill if you ask me.

You’re missing my point: that history should be put in its proper place. Very often people in WCK try to use “history” (whether true or not) as a way to validate the effectiveness of their theories/teachings (especially for marketing purposes). And, I’m saying history can’t do that; only results can validate the usefulness of training/fighting methods. For example, if someone says a certain practice/theory/etc. is good because it comes from Shaolin – they are attempting to use “history” to validate some practice. My point is that whether true or not (whether it really comes from Shaolin or is just a story or legend), only results will validate the effectiveness of the practice.

You are quite right that results don’t validate the history (whether it really came from Shaolin or not), and I never suggested so. To show the history of some particular practice/theory goes back to needing compelling factual, independently verified, evidence of what really occurred.

82

When I say 1 of the time Im talking about the total picture, ie.- when I try to calculate how much time Ive spent at William Cheungs seminars, lessons, etcyeah, it couldnt possibly be more than maybe 1 or 2% of the time that Ive actually heard him talking history and oftentimes it was in response to someones questions to him about history, and not because he brought the subject up.

So you can’t judge the 1-2% by one eight minute clip. And furthermore, sometimes his seminars would extend over a two day period (or perhaps even a week).

And like Joy, I also find myself in basic agreement with Terences post as it was stated. So lets take a look at that:

In my view, WCK history is not really a problem. The problem is that what is typically presented as history – legends, stories, myths, marketing, etc. – is not genuine history. So I think the answer should not be to forget WCK history, but rather to concern ourselves with developing the discernment to separate true history from the rest. However, to do that requires education, critical thinking skills, etc.

But I do agree with Victor insofar as we need to keep history in its place. 'History – whether genuine or not – does not provide validation for one’s theories (which is for the most part how WCK history is misused). The only validation for a fighting or training method is results. (T)

***FIRST of all, the problem is that we dont know whats genuine and whats not, because there are so many conflicting stories and accounts so I cant fault Terence for starting out by saying that the legends and stories are not genuine. Maybe they are, and maybe theyre not.

And when he goes on to say that critical thinking skills are required I would argue that the best way to use that critical thinking is to gauge any validity (historical or otherwise) by seeing WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T.

Now you might say that this is not actually a study of history per se but rather a different issue, ie.- a study of wing chun fight efficiency

BUT HERES THE PROBLEM: VARIOUS WING CHUN CLANS TRY TO CLAIM SOME SORT OF SUPERIORITY EITHER AS A FIGHTING METHOD AND/OR SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY RESULTING IN SUPERIORITY (and hence the politics)…

AND NOBODY CAN PROVE ANYTHING (concerning history).

So why continue with all the politics and history lessons? Where is all of this getting the wing chun world? Nowhere.

Let me put it another way: in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make exactly where and when various wing chun came from? Supposing it turns out the “oldest” and “most direct” and “most historically legitimate” line of wing chun is inferior to some other version of wing chun that’s more modern?

So what difference would it make to constantly examine the “historical” roots of said alleged “more legitimate and authentic” wing chun system???

So again, returning to the theme of the thread: It’s not about the roots - it’s about the efficiency of the system(s)…and this can only be determined by constant pressure testing against (and in comparison to) the other top martial arts of the day.

Otherwise, wing chun will indeed become an “HISTORICAL” footnote.

83

Vic, the 1 thing was more of a joke. You brought it up, but the clip showed otherwise, no big deal..

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;897685]
BUT HERES THE PROBLEM: VARIOUS WING CHUN CLANS TRY TO CLAIM SOME SORT OF SUPERIORITY EITHER AS A FIGHTING METHOD AND/OR SOME SORT OF HISTORICAL AUTHENTICITY RESULTING IN SUPERIORITY (and hence the politics)…

AND NOBODY CAN PROVE ANYTHING (concerning history). [/QUOTE]

So, this thread is about politics..

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;897685]So why continue with all the politics and history lessons? Where is all of this getting the wing chun world? Nowhere.[/QUOTE]

Exactly, yet here we are on yet another thread talking politics…

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;897685]Let me put it another way: in the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make exactly where and when various wing chun came from? Supposing it turns out the “oldest” and “most direct” and “most historically legitimate” line of wing chun is inferior to some other version of wing chun that’s more modern?

So what difference would it make to constantly examine the “historical” roots of said alleged “more legitimate and authentic” wing chun system???

So again, returning to the theme of the thread: It’s not about the roots - it’s about the efficiency of the system(s)…and this can only be determined by constant pressure testing against (and in comparison to) the other top martial arts of the day.

Otherwise, wing chun will indeed become an “HISTORICAL” footnote.[/QUOTE]

I thought the original purpose of the thread was to say forget the history/politics and just train? I still say history and politics aren’t the same thing (but one can decide to mix them together if they take the history personally, guess that’s on them). Training methods and results are yet another subject unrelated to the first 2.
I still don’t see any problem with digging into history and sharing findings, regardless who does it.. Just like I don’t see any problem with not wanting too.

Now I agree with you - what difference does it make? none. History is just that - history. Results of what’s most or more effective/efficient as a training method is something else. No argument there. It seems thought that the 2 seperate things are being mixed here. And I still say, if someone wants to study, research, talk, share what they find regarding history, and even come up to thier own conclusions - who cares? Obviously you do.
The world is not going to end, and WC isn’t going to disappear into thin air because some people chose to do more than just train. I think you’re taking this too seriously (and personally for that matter).

84

i think the only time history is good is when we can learn from it. Like, in the early days vt kept there hands lower due to kicks, wsl got smacked in the nuts in a fight went to yip man and yip said you should have done garn sao, wsl said you didnt show me that so he replied he learnt it off chan wah shun but leung bik thought the jum sao better as you could attack easier. So wsl and everyone the learnt after him learnt both. This teaches us stuff. History is not, there are two people made themself grand master then would not back it up. Thats just idiots looking like idiots.

85

Those that do not learn from History are bound to repeat it.

86

when were these “histories” actually created?
When did they start calling it Wing Chun, Hung-Ga, Choy Li Fut?
Certainly not when they were rebelling against the Ching.
During those times, nobody bothered to give their system a name. Many were simply called Siu-Lum, Fut-Ga, Lo Hon Kuen, etc or combinations of the same.
When is there a need to give something a name?
When you are marketing your product. It separates you from the other guys.
When is it neccesary to have a wonderful story?
When you are marketing your product. It lends credibility.
Westerners say, “New and Improved!”
Chinese say"From an ancient traditional formula"
Who would study from a guy who says,“I’m a nobody and just made this up!”
Rather than,“I am somebody because I come from a long line of MASTERS”

Sure, we can follow our lineages back a few generations. Wong Wah Bo, Luk Ah-Choy, Chan Heung, Wong Yun-Lum, etc. But after that,there are no records, and then of course, all the wondrous stories begin.
A Siu-Lum Nun witnessed a fight between a snake and a crane.
A Tibetan Monk witnessed a fight between a White Crane and a White Ape
A Taoist Priest witnessed a fight between a Snake and a Sparrowhawk
A Jewsih Rabbi witnessed an argument between a yenta and a kosher butcher…

when are people going to simply agree that most, if not all the stories are dubious, all the systems are good, they all work, and they all pretty much share common origins. Different styles were created by different fighters’ personal preferences, based on their successes, or body type, or coordination, speed, or whatever.

My guess? Probably never. As long as we have schools, teach to the public, do demonstrations,promote our styles, there will be marketing.
The only ones that do not do this are whenthere is a small group of Martial Artists, sharing and training together on their own, with no agenda other than training and mutual improvement.
These guys have already reached these conclusions, and don’t really care.

That being said, I have to work on my new brochure…
Kosher Kung-Fu!
Founded in the Shalom Temple Beth-Isreal

87

History is like my Johnson, it gets more impressive and important with age.
:smiley:

88

i thought you meant that the stories are exaggerated and over hyped. :stuck_out_tongue:

89

[QUOTE=bennyvt;897886]i thought you meant that the stories are exaggerated and over hyped. :p[/QUOTE]

Someone has mastered the ancient art of “reading between the lines”.

90

UltimateWingChun

Excellent thread, if there was a club with your attitude near me I would still be in Wing Chun, all the clubs near me are the same, forms, no real sparring, delusional about there ability. I left the WT club I was with because

No sparring
No cardio
Forms over and over again
unrealistic drills

Wing Chun does need to step up to survive, if it can, it will be a shame if it fails

Final note
Bullshido

If you have gone there and got a rough ride for being Wing Chun, its easy to reverse that

post good sparring clips
hang in the CMA forums NOT YMAS !!
talk sense, if you admit you do Wing Chun because you like it and admit it has no ground game etc you will get treated like anyone else
READ THE STICKIES ! ignore them at your peril

Best regards to those able to train with quality

91

Adrian UK sez

Wing Chun does need to step up to survive, if it can, it will be a shame if it fails

Wing chun wasa relatively small but effective style- 50 years ago. People saw just enough about it’s effectiveness to dabble in it and create wing chun chain stores and clubs.

Good wing chun will always be there if good teachers and good students remain without worrying about the net and utube..

IMO- not someone else’s- most self described wing chunners that I see are not doing good wing chun…neither fish nor fowl. Many folks should be doing something else and many are-… no problem as I see it.

joy chaudhuri

92

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;898097]
Wing chun wasa relatively small but effective style- 50 years ago. People saw just enough about it’s effectiveness to dabble in it and create wing chun chain stores and clubs.

Good wing chun will always be there if good teachers and good students remain without worrying about the net and utube..

IMO- not someone else’s- most self described wing chunners that I see are not doing good wing chun…neither fish nor fowl. Many folks should be doing something else and many are-… no problem as I see it.

joy chaudhuri[/QUOTE]

Problem I see with this is the measure is out there in public now in the form of limited rules competitions, not the “it was effective 50 years ago because I was told it was”. The sad lack of visible, identifiable wing chun working in the modern environment is damaging its reputation and I think that needs to be addressed before it gets sold as martial art when theres no proven fighting ability there

93

[QUOTE=AdrianUK;898100]Problem I see with this is the measure is out there in public now in the form of limited rules competitions, not the “it was effective 50 years ago because I was told it was”. The sad lack of visible, identifiable wing chun working in the modern environment is damaging its reputation and I think that needs to be addressed before it gets sold as martial art when theres no proven fighting ability there[/QUOTE]

For some people, the effectiveness of WC in modern sport fighting is irrelevant.
For some people, if its good enough for them in their limited scope of application, that is good enough.
To some people, no rules competition is not the yardstick to which MA are to be judged.
Though to be honest, none of these people have made it clear what is a good judge of WC’s effectiveness.

94

Adrian K

Frankly, I do not understand. There are enough people who learn and use one self defense system or the other who find what they do to be very effective for their self defense and dealing with dangerous situations- aside from considerations of health, knowledge and self devlopment.. Why do they need to use current media outlets for a viewing audience?

Does a top notch sniper test his skills with a general viewing audience.?
Did the original thuggees need to do their strangling for spectators?

For folks needing a win loss record or badges or awards or recognition- media events are understandable. Others do what they gotta do.If they are honest they will honeand adjust their training to keep it useful.

A good segment of spectators in televised boxing and other activities are just that- spectators
with limited knowledge of the details of the skills involved.

joy chaudhuri

PS I feel sorry for the turkeys today- lots of sacrifice of mass produced tasteless meat.

95

How do we measure performance except through actual performance?

WCK is a fighting method. Your performance with a fighting method can only be determined from fighting (and not from nonfighting).

What determines your level of performance is the quality of opponent (how good of fighter they are) you can deal with.

Fighting in the street is performance. But what is the quality of opponent? Fighting in a ring or gym we can have a good idea of the quality of opponent, and so our performance level. Same with boxing. I may out-box some guy in the street but what does that say about my boxing skill? Just that I was better than him. But if I can consistently hold my own against Golden Glove boxers, that tells me something about my level of performance, abouthow good my boxing is.

96

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;898109]How do we measure performance except through actual performance?

WCK is a fighting method. Your performance with a fighting method can only be determined from fighting (and not from nonfighting).

What determines your level of performance is the quality of opponent (how good of fighter they are) you can deal with.

Fighting in the street is performance. But what is the quality of opponent? Fighting in a ring or gym we can have a good idea of the quality of opponent, and so our performance level. Same with boxing. I may out-box some guy in the street but what does that say about my boxing skill? Just that I was better than him. But if I can consistently hold my own against Golden Glove boxers, that tells me something about my level of performance, abouthow good my boxing is.[/QUOTE]

This is the very outlook that drove so many old time MA to test their skills and develop new systems, so one must ask, " when did this become a “bad” thing" ??

97

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;898103]Frankly, I do not understand. There are enough people who learn and use one self defense system or the other who find what they do to be very effective for their self defense and dealing with dangerous situations- aside from considerations of health, knowledge and self devlopment.. Why do they need to use current media outlets for a viewing audience?

Does a top notch sniper test his skills with a general viewing audience.?
Did the original thuggees need to do their strangling for spectators?

For folks needing a win loss record or badges or awards or recognition- media events are understandable. Others do what they gotta do.If they are honest they will honeand adjust their training to keep it useful.

A good segment of spectators in televised boxing and other activities are just that- spectators
with limited knowledge of the details of the skills involved.

joy chaudhuri

PS I feel sorry for the turkeys today- lots of sacrifice of mass produced tasteless meat.[/QUOTE]

Ok what I mean is, and has been said on here, Wing chun is a fighting art that fails to fight in most cases. What is going to happen to an art that attracts and relies on to propagate practioners that can’t and or don’t fight with it ? Defending in a SD situation is one thing but its a very limited situation for testing against. Sport fighting gives the opportunity to apply against skill and that is the only way I can see to improve or even maintain a fighting quality to the art.

98

Wing Chun is a close quarter striking system, and I think wing chun can (and has been) street effective due to the close quarter standup nature of how most fights begin: your opponent is right in your face and talking 5hit. :rolleyes:

So it shouldn’t be surprising that many people have testified to it’s usefulness and street-effectiveness when trained realistically, ie.- frequent sparring.

But Terence puts his finger on a good point: just how skilled is that guy in the street you may have fought?

Wing Chun needs to be pressure tested consistently against people who have been trained well in other arts - and there is precious little of this kind of thing going on, it seems to me.

And then when you throw in all the wing chun “politics” and the wing chun “history” that is always connected seemingly by definition to the politics…

you have a system that now exists on the fringe of the martial arts world, imo. And this is a shame, because the art has a lot to offer.

99

On testing

“Wing Chun needs to be pressure tested consistently against peole who have been trained well in other arts - and there is precious little of this kind of thing going on, it seems to me.”

Agreed that one needs to test what they have against competent people and not just from the same style.How do you know that this doesnt happen for some serious people? The vista that one views is not necessarily the universe is it? I dont presume to know what is happening
in every kwoon, street corner or alley. And does one need to know from the approval of net list readers what works and what doesn’t?

joy chaudhuri

PS_Wing chun is not justa close quarters system. It helps the user to defend himself/herself…
period.

100

“PS_Wing chun is not just a close quarters system.” (Joy)

***I really have to smile every time I read or hear this. The following is how this very website FORUMS define it:

WING CHUN
The world’s most popular form of Southern Kung Fu, Wing Chun is characterized by short range power, center-line strategy and sticking and deflecting techniques.

***Huum…short range power?! So one is not at short range when applying short range power? Not at short range when sticking or deflecting? :cool: