Forget the History, Forget the Politics

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
101

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;898269]“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:[/QUOTE]

I would think the dragon pole would be more long range, right? I’ve never even held one, so I wouldn’t really know its applications though.

102

[QUOTE=AdrianUK;898118] 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 ? .[/QUOTE]

the reality is (and I am not saying this is good or bad, it just is) that many teachers are only looking to pass on their art to a small number of people. If they teach a hundred and only a few get it, they are satisfied.
The problem is, there are many teachers who for reasons unknown, do not pass on their hand. If each family of Wing Chun, or for that matter, each family of each style of TCMA, produced one Alan Orr, it would be good numbers.

So, history and politics aside, why do you think so many teachers do not pass on their hand at all?
-besides the ones who don’t have it to begin with? So let’s dispense with that, and also dispense with the coaches versus fighters argument-it’s been covered.

103

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;898269]“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:[/QUOTE]

Then again, some people’s boxing is pretty much short range as well. Some people like long slapping jabs, and long hooks, and long, overreaching straights. Some people prefer close-in “dirty boxing” or peekaboo styles. Couldn’t some people’s wing chun also be more extended than others?

At the same time though…I’d agree fully that wing chun as I know it is moreso a close combat system, and one that best used at it’s most effective range. Classifying wing chun as a “long range” art is (no pun intended) reaching a bit.

104

[QUOTE=golgo;898272]I would think the dragon pole would be more long range, right? I’ve never even held one, so I wouldn’t really know its applications though.[/QUOTE]

In a weapons context, yes the pole has a longer physical range. The movements to achieve that power however are short. You won’t see wing chun guys flinging the pole all over their bodies in elongated movements like you would in wushu.

But I think what the subject is about here is moreso hand-to-hand.

105

[QUOTE=TenTigers;898277]the reality is (and I am not saying this is good or bad, it just is) that many teachers are only looking to pass on their art to a small number of people. If they teach a hundred and only a few get it, they are satisfied.
The problem is, there are many teachers who for reasons unknown, do not pass on their hand. If each family of Wing Chun, or for that matter, each family of each style of TCMA, produced one Alan Orr, it would be good numbers.

So, history and politics aside, why do you think so many teachers do not pass on their hand at all?
-besides the ones who don’t have it to begin with? So let’s dispense with that, and also dispense with the coaches versus fighters argument-it’s been covered.[/QUOTE]

Before you hold Alan Orr up as an example I would take a good look at his fight footage and see how much recognisable wing chun is in there. And don’t start saying its all in the principles, to claim wing chun use it has to have recognisable moves from wing chun

106

alright. I was simply pulling a name out that people would recognize. I don’t want to get sidetracked into a debate on whether or not Alan is fighting with WC concepts or whatever.
I could’ve said Wong Shun Leung, as that was the first name that came to mind. The problem is, I really don’t know all the men who fought and represented WC back then. If I say one, then someone from another lineage says,“What about so and so?” and then we get right back into the politics.
So, for the sake of discussion, I chose one name. One person from OUR generation, that is out there fighting and trying to achieve this.

107

IMO only those that don’t understand Wing Chun try to limit it in some way to short range what ever that is. In simple terms you are either in contact range ie. you can strike me I can strike you or you are not.

Humans are uncomfortable when close to another. When someone gets to close we try to move away to maintain our space. WC tends to start it’s training at this range because it is the least comfortable place and thus a human needs to spend more time here to get comfortable with it.

In general WC starts close and moves out to non contact range. Boxing tends to start on the outside and move in. As was pointed out many boxers get just as close as any wing chun person . Wing chun has at least as many methods for working on the outside as working on the inside. It is unfortunate that most don’t get to this point or have teachers that never really learned or understood the outside.

My knife form contains 12 sections each having a forward moving and backward moving component each are to be learned as both moving fore and aft providing 24 different concepts for closing from non contact to contact or for moving from close contact to distance.

The pole form provides six ways to use the jab to close or to create distance. It teaches changing angle while at long contact distance. Height changing low to high to mid etc and short shuffle step footwork for and aft and side to side are also part of the form. I do not know what others forms contain so only refer to forms I have been taught.

All forms can be weapon forms and all forms can be empty hand forms.

108

WC is short-Medium range due to the limitations of body rotation and degree of leaning before WC principles are violated. Hence the categorisation is based on reach rather than the different standing distances from our opponents. We can still hit the other guy with short range tools even if we are further away if we are quick enough on our feet !

We can add the Southern Long Fist but then we would need to rotate the body 90degrees to achieve this or we could add the side and roundhouse kicks to increase reach but same again we would require shifting our centre line focus momentarily off our opponent.

We could also lean over to increase our striking reach but this again would violate WC body structures.

An example of this short range configuration is seen in WC chain punching which is best done when both elbows are tucked in and facing down with both shoulders facing centre, any attempt to alter this configuration to try to increase individual arm reach would alter the efficient mechanics.

For these reasons I see no problem in referring to WC as Short-Medium range fighting system.

109

Range and WC

WC is short-Medium range due to the limitations of body rotation and degree of leaning before WC principles are violated.

For these reasons I see no problem in referring to WC as Short-Medium range fighting system.
(Iron Man)

Several commentators withe the exception of Victor are not sufficiently wing chun folks.
!. Wing chun is not robotic. Wing chun has a program for development. When you have the proper structure you can adapt to situations, including abstracted “theoretical”" ranges".
Good wing chun practice delights in contact- even the second form is labelled as searching for the bridge.

2.Some including Victor are incorporating elements of boxing and wrestling. I respect their views
for their own development.But their comments dont cover all forms of wing chun. I dont do TWC, nor WT- just a good version of WC/VT and have not
felt the need for jabbing (yhough I have adecnt jab)

or catch wrestling. Some do JJ-I respect their choice, but by choice I havent gone that way.

  1. Hunt 1-Hunter’s post was spot on.

  2. Some folks establish their expectations through their own inductions from U Tube and
    TV and cage productions.
    There are pictures here and there of effective wc uses against other styles. One of Ho Kam Ming’s Macao students hada web page which had pics from his fight against a Muay Thai guy. There are people who have used wing chun effectively against non wc folks but dont feela need to be on utube etc.

5 Your own experience is a key. If you dont have confidence in what you do-it wont work.
But it is short sighted to assume that there arent wing chun folks who for their own development have not used their skills aginst actual “resisting opponents”.

6 I am not debating- lots of forum folks have already made commitments to mixing different arts.
I have no problem with that and pointless to argue. I enjoy finding out about other arts but I work on both stability and mobility.

  1. In a real situations a wing chun person should adjust to whatever is there. Wing chun is a very good art but it doesn’t do your fighting for you. You have to take care of yourself and do what you gotta do..

  2. One should move from range to range fluidly.

Off the soap box.Excuse primitive keyboarding.

joy chaudhuri

110

I whole heartedly agree Joy and i liked Hunt1’s post to.

There many examples one could address…

VT kicks can be used at several different ranges and if you think about the contact points being the base of the foot, they are actually longer than my Kickboxing buddies kicks…why ?

Because we use the base of the foot and not the shin. so when kicking (for opponents of similar proportions) VT kicks can be utilised at longer distances. Some kicks obviously not but you get the drift.

In the scheme of things this is irrelevant becuse its up to the individuals ability to work to and at the right range, but is a good discussion point for those that pigeon hole thier VT into one range of effectivness.

I think body movement is another, people often dont bend much or rotate at the waist nor do they have much movement with the shoulders with chain punching.

I see this as concentrating on the forms rather than actual application…

You dont want to ramain at longer ranges but VT certainly has the tools to survive there long enough for the opportunity to arise (or be created) to bridge to the most effective range and out again if need be.

Glad im not alone in this view, that would be a little concerning :stuck_out_tongue:

DREW

111

[QUOTE=AdrianUK;898299]Before you hold Alan Orr up as an example I would take a good look at his fight footage and see how much recognisable wing chun is in there. And don’t start saying its all in the principles, to claim wing chun use it has to have recognisable moves from wing chun[/QUOTE]

According to whom? Is there some grand council that is the final arbitrator of what is or isn’t wing chun? I have seen his clips and his people fight close in and hit their opponents. Looks like good Wing chun to me.

As for my take on the people competing/using their art. Some schools, somewhere may be testing there art, and some schools are doing it publicly. That’s cool but how good is the average user at the average school at using his skills under pressure. To me that is the real test of the relevance of your training.

I still train some Wing Chun on my own as my striking art and do the 1st 3rd of SLT as a relaxation and breathing exercise but I am primarily training BJJ/Submission Grappling. That is more a personal preference as I enjoy grappling more than striking.

But at my BJJ school we have people who compete in BJJ and submission grappling tournaments on a regular basis. So even though I don’t compete, at least not yet, I get the benefit of their experiences and train as if I could compete if I wanted to.
Oh yeah, you train this way from the beginning, its not something you have to work up to. If you gas out or feel your pushing too hard its ok to take a break but the goal is to work your level up to the rest of the class.

This type of training brings a certain mental toughness that I didn’t see in my wing chun schools.

Just my 2 cents.

112

[QUOTE=m1k3;898508]According to whom? Is there some grand council that is the final arbitrator of what is or isn’t wing chun? I have seen his clips and his people fight close in and hit their opponents. Looks like good Wing chun to me.
[/QUOTE]

Good point, was does constitute Wing Chun, if you can’t recognise the fighting from the forms how do you define it as wing chun ? I guess I was doing a bad style of wing chun because I certainly never learned to fight with anything that looked remotely like the forms or footwork and that was a big part of me giving up on wing chun.

So is there an agreed definition of wing chun including moves or is it all concepts ?

113

Iron man I think I understand your points however I must disagree.

As for body rotation Bil Jee has both 180 degree and 90 degree body rotation sections. The degree of body rotation used in a fight depends upon what is needed be it none 1 degree or 180 etc. The pole punches also are done with 180 degree rotation. As for the jab lean, moving weight to the front foot is done in both the pole and knives of some wing chun families including some Yip Man students. Again the action is taught with weight moving to the front leg and the front knee sinking the front knee doesn’t go past the toes. these elements together provide the lean I think you are talking about.

Wing Chun forms teach concepts it is up to the individual to put the concepts together. Hopefully a teacher is there to guide and provide idea’s but in the end it is the individuals task to put things together and seek out answers if the ones his teacher provides are not sufficient

114

Joy and Liddel, thanks. It appears I can make a good post if I limit myself to no more than 1 post a month after that I believe anything I say is suspect.

Joy sometime this coming year I am going to take a ride with Phil to visit your way hope i get a chance to meet you.

115

Hunt1

Joy sometime this coming year I am going to take a ride with Phil to visit your way hope i get a chance to meet you.[/QUOTE]

That will be great!!
Joy
Chaudhuri

116

[QUOTE=hunt1;898312]IMO only those that don’t understand Wing Chun try to limit it in some way to short range what ever that is. In simple terms you are either in contact range ie. you can strike me I can strike you or you are not.
[/QUOTE]

What does it mean to “understand wing chun”? To me, this sort of phrase is meaningless (and presumptuous). You can either successfully use your WCK (movement) in fighting or you can’t. “Understanding” is an intellectual process; performance isn’t based on “understanding” (as in “I understand basketball”).

WCK movement, the movement in the forms, the drills, and the dummy, “works” in contact, when attached to an opponent. It doesn’t “work” – at least not reliably and consistently – when not in attached fighting. This is easy enough to see if you watch WCK practioners spar: when they are not attached, they can use little of WCK movement (typically just throw punches and an occassional pak sao or shift to kickboxing). The WCK drills are attached drills. The dummy (the WCK “heavy bag”) is practicing attached movement.

How a person moves effectively (uses his body effectively, the mechanics, etc.) when attached to an opponent is very different than how a person moves effectively when not in contact (in free movement, on the outside).

Humans are uncomfortable when close to another. When someone gets to close we try to move away to maintain our space. WC tends to start it’s training at this range because it is the least comfortable place and thus a human needs to spend more time here to get comfortable with it.

Not everyone is uncomfortable with being close.

To be attached to an opponent requires closeness. If you are smaller, weaker (remember the Ng Mui-Yim WingChun allegory?), you are at a significant disadvantage on the outside (where your opponent will have a reach and power advantage); we want to take away their advantages. That is done by getting inside their reach and power, by closing them down, by breaking their structure. etc. That’s the WCK faat (dap, jeet, chum, biu, chi).

In general WC starts close and moves out to non contact range. Boxing tends to start on the outside and move in. As was pointed out many boxers get just as close as any wing chun person . Wing chun has at least as many methods for working on the outside as working on the inside. It is unfortunate that most don’t get to this point or have teachers that never really learned or understood the outside.

WCK doesn’t “start close and move out” – WCK doesn’t “do” anything.

Again it’s not a matter of “understanding” (the outside): it’s a matter of being able to use your WCK movement. The sort of movement that works well on the outside is boxing/kickboxing movement (just look at the evidence). Just like the sort of movement that works well on the ground is BJJ/wrestling movement (and not WCK movement). What sort of movement works well when attached and striking is WCK movement. And that explains why the WCK drills are attached and striking drills – you are practicing the movement you will use, in the context (being attached) you will use it.

My knife form contains 12 sections each having a forward moving and backward moving component each are to be learned as both moving fore and aft providing 24 different concepts for closing from non contact to contact or for moving from close contact to distance.

The pole form provides six ways to use the jab to close or to create distance. It teaches changing angle while at long contact distance. Height changing low to high to mid etc and short shuffle step footwork for and aft and side to side are also part of the form. I do not know what others forms contain so only refer to forms I have been taught.

All forms can be weapon forms and all forms can be empty hand forms.

One problem (of many) with “concepts” is that people can dream up all kinds of “ideas” (what a concept is). And the forms are like inkblots, where people see their preconceptions (what concepts essentially are). What you don’t see are people consistently and reliably using the movement/mechanics of WCK on the outside, in free movement, when sparring/fighting with decently skilled fighters. What you see when WCK people fight on the outside is all their WCK movement (except for a few things) go out the window.

117

[QUOTE=hunt1;898608] Wing Chun forms teach concepts it is up to the individual to put the concepts together.
[/QUOTE]

Concepts are ideas, mental representations of reality. In my view, the WCK forms don’t teach us “concepts” – they teach us the movement/mechanics of WCK’s approach to fighting.

Create your own basketball forms or boxing forms. What are you putting in those forms but the movements, the techniques, the mechanics of those activities? We don’t learn physical activities from concepts, we learn physical activities by doing them (movement).

Hopefully a teacher is there to guide and provide idea’s but in the end it is the individuals task to put things together and seek out answers if the ones his teacher provides are not sufficient

Good instructors don’t “provide ideas” but teach fundamental skills. Who would go to a golf pro or tennis pro for “ideas”?

118

Wing Chun is clearly a close quarter striking art…

precisely because the punching/striking structure requires one’s centerline to basically face the opponent’s center-of-mass DIRECTLY…

so the shoulder torque is minimal as compared to say a boxer’s lead, cross, hook, uppercut, etc…

since wing chun prefers to have both arms in play at all times for both offense and defense, ie.- simultaneous (or near simultaneous) blocking and striking, parrying, deflecting, and of course to stick to the opponent so as to apply constant pressure in order to take his space away.

THIS IS ALL DONE SHORT RANGE…

with chi sao as the main drill at the closest of striking ranges, kiu sao and other drills at a longer extension, and some non contact starting point drills and applications come into play as well, ie.- several footwork patterns, possibly the TWC entry technique, etc.

All of which can work fine at a range wherein within one short half step or so you can now strike, stick, knee, elbow, sweep, possibly standing armlock, etc…

and of course, at slightly longer ranges wing chun makes use of some low to mid level kicking…

but outside of these ranges, and when up against a skilled fighter with longer arms, indeed there can be trouble getting to range and/or in dealing with arching (ie.- round, hooking) strikes and kicks…

and trouble at the other end of the spectrum with the striker who suddenly becomes a grappler and seeks to grab your arms, body, leg, etc. for a tie-up to lock, or a take down/throw or a leg shoot.

No need to constantly debate these things…

actually working against people skilled in other arts will take the wing chun world a lot further than the debates…

which requires less attention being paid to the politics and history of wing chun and more time spent in engaging a worthy opponent or training partner.

Now as regards Alan Orr as an example of the bigger issue of what is and what is not wing chun…remember, wing chun is primarily about HITTING THE GUY…and not about how often you do lop, or pak, or bong, or tan, etc…

as long as he’s getting hit a lot more than you are. :cool:

119

TN and Victor posts

The posts repeat their oft repeated POVs. Thanks.
See no point in so called debating-no judges here
just a chit chat list.

joy chaudhuri

120

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;898739]wing chun is primarily about HITTING THE GUY…and not about how often you do lop, or pak, or bong, or tan, etc…

as long as he’s getting hit a lot more than you are. :cool:[/QUOTE]

I disagree. In fact, I think the focus on purely striking takes you away from WCK (and moves you toward boxing).

WCK’s approach is to control the opponent while hitting him. The bong, tan, lop, etc. are all means or paths to control, not to just hitting (which is why what we do is different in kind from boxing - where physically controlling an opponent is not a part of their method). The control aspect is the very essence of WCK. Without that control if you get close to an opponent (on the inside), he’ll quickly move to control you (if he’s any good). The way to preempt (jeet) this is by controlling him first. By controlling him, he then needs to deal with two things, trying to break free of your control and dealing with your strikes (at the same time). Also, the strking sets up the controlling and the controlling sets up the striking.

If you just want to be able to hit effectively on the inside without controlling an opponent, you don’t need WCK – you just need boxing.