How do you get to the final wing chun product?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

Not that there is ever really a “final” product, because you always have to keep learning new things and refining what you do, imo; but by final product I mean how do you get to the point where you now believe that your wing chun is truly functional? That it’s now in a place that has quite a few answers to fighting, including having lots of answers in terms of dealing with other skilled fighters and styles of fighting.

Now of course working against people skilled in other arts must be a big part of this, so that’s a given. And frequently. But what else is involved here? That’s where this thread is intended to go.

The following is a post I made on another thread, and I want to use it as a jumping off point that you guys might want to consider.

…

There are applications for lop, pak, bil, tan, bong, garn, jut, etc. that can work.

But without constant sparring using serious contact, ie.- full, (or very close to full) power headshots, body punches, kicks, knees, and elbows being thrown with the same intensity (and I believe that using thin gloves but lots of protective gear is the way to go - with all due respect to the Dog Brothers and mma fighters)…

without these things - wing chun people will never find out what the applications for these moves (and the concepts and principles behind the moves) really are.

And what doesn’t work at all.

After a full contact sparring session recently with myself and two other students who are way ahead of him - as well as being bigger than him by 5-6 inches, one of my students turned to me and said that when you spar - “you have to do a whole other version of wing chun”.

He went on to say that the way he had to use pak, and lop, bong, bil, etc.. was different than what’s done in the forms, drills, chi sao, etc.

And I was very happy that he said all this - because it shows me he’s really starting to understand what it’s all about. The very same thing I’ve been discovering for many years now for myself - this was starting to click for him too. The forms, drills, chi sao, wooden dummy, etc. all serve a purpose - by providing the letters that make up the alphabet, some phrases, some sentences, even a short paragraph or two here-and-there.

But all of this means nothing if you don’t go and make your own paragraghs for yourself. More than paragraghs. YOU have to go REWRITE THE BOOK - and the book may constantly change with each new set of circumstances, with each new sparring partner, perhaps even with each new tool that an old sparring partner might bring to the table the next time.

It’s important to learn the forms, drills, chi sao, etc. - and it’s important to get grounded in certain applications of what’s in the forms, drills, chi sao, wooden dummy, etc…and to periodically return to these things - but it all comes out in the sparring.

In the end, it’s the sparring/fighting that determines how the techniques will come out, which techniques, and when. What strategies, and when. Which concepts/principles to use most, and when. And the final product may seriously surprise you.

2

Victor,

Every generation has to make the art alive for themselves. The old generation can only pass on what they’ve gleaned from it. We have the skeleton, but we have to change it with each generation. We cannot say “Teach WCK traditionally” in a robotic sense, we have to say, “Teach WCK in the sense of the founder - make it actually work and be practical”. It can be a fine line for many.

I really like what you say about “rewriting the book”. Yip Man did not grow up with Muay Thai, boxing, BJJ, MMA…we descendants have to.

The Japanese speak of Shu Ha Ri - learning as they were taught, developing, then finally transcending - actually that is traditional.

When I studied Xing Yi and Ba Gua they spoke of stages - Fixed stage, Alive stage, then finally changing/dissolving/permutation stage.

I think a lot of the conversations here revolve upon the “Fixed Stage”.

BTW, I have no corroboration with BM on anything. I really found that amusing!

Best regards,

3

“I really like what you say about ‘rewriting the book’. Yip Man did not grow up with Muay Thai, boxing, BJJ, MMA…we descendants have to.” (Robert Chu)

…

***I’LL TELL YOU an interesting Moy Yat/Yip Man story in this regard, Robert. According to Moy Yat, who claimed that he was there on this particular day and witnessed this himself, someone once showed Yip Man a photo (or a series of photos) of a Muay Thai match wherein a roundhouse is being thrown by one fighter with his right leg, and the defender is blocking the kick with a downward spike with his left elbow - while immediately (almost simultaneously) returning a kick of his own on the other side with his right leg.

And Yip Man said, “this is a good move”.

And there was also another Moy Yat/Yip Man story wherein a judo fighter once challenged Yip Man - and Yip Man punched him out when the judo guy tried to clinch.

THAT SAID, your idea is correct, imo. Even during Yip Man’s day, and certainly in wing chun generations before him, there is very little evidence that the art was exposed to any serious and highly skilled opponents trained in western boxing, Muay Thai, wrestling, jiu jitsu, sambo, and of course, the mma of today. Hardly anything to speak of, anyway.

It IS up to us to rewrite the book.

So how about it, wing chun forum? How do you go about rewriting the book?

4

Nice stories. I always felt Moy Yat’s recording of Yip Man anecdotes and teaching style were good.

Rather than rewriting, how about just adding flesh and skin to the skeleton we’re given? But maybe just semantics.

WCK starts from analyzing the structure and making use of that first, then using each tool powered by that. Add in more fighting and training in special circumstances and then we’re onto something.

Personally, IMO, all this face to face fighting is incorrect. In WCK, we should be beating someone up from behind. But that’s my opinion.

5

I agree with you 100%, Victor.

You rewrite the book like any combative athlete does.

6

Robert,

Ha! Ambush from behind is the way to go, huh?! :slight_smile: And yes, any “rewrite” (or whatever we choose to call it) should start with a strong, balanced, body alignment and structure; and if I’m not mistaken, all three forms begin with this in mind - now don’t they?! :smiley: And then each tool needs to be powered by the solid structure. Right!

…

Terence,

Glad we agree on one thing. And there’s actually more than one, for I endorse your often-expressed idea about something else, ie.- any “rewrite” has to include constant doses of work against people skilled in other arts. This is clearly true.

7

[QUOTE=chusauli;946142]
Personally, IMO, all this face to face fighting is incorrect. In WCK, we should be beating someone up from behind. But that’s my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Too bad we talk face to face. Gotta find someone who will talk behind his own back. Hmm…

8

You rewrite the book like everyone else does, you pressure test, in a controlled environment to start and then in an uncontrolled ( or at least limited controlled) one.
If it require that you modify, you modify, if it requires that you drop something, you drop it.

9

The end , as it was explained to me recently , is to simply have the capability to use a method that allows a non thinking attack to be delivered as a defensive response to being attacked. the drills enable us to have a natural unthinking fighters ability to adopt and work the concepts and techniques that are designed for its delivery.
The intersection of our arms along our centerline creates an impenetrable rotation line of force unseen, that simply , rebuilds itself automatically if anything tries to stop it …It works too if you adopt a man sao - vu sao approach, rather than a 2 arms extended doing sticky hands idea :o

Vusao is king ~! :smiley:

10

Hawkins told me that if he were to come to the USA and help Bruce teach in the '70’s, the first thing is to throw away Chi Sao…but the problem was, there was no stepping stone for WCK people to jump from knowing nothing to fighting…

22 years ago, for a short while, I threw out Luk Sao from the curriculum and just trained Chi Sao from Bai Jong. Then Hawaii’s Robert Young/Yeung Biu had dinner with me and said that its an information gathering training, keep it in the curriculum.

I also wanted to throw out the stupid shifting from Chum Kiu, as I found that useless, until “Three Kings of Chum Kiu” (Ho Kam Ming, Victor Kan, and Hawkins Cheung) showed me how important it was. Hawkins’ and Ho Kam Ming’s take was to shift the opponent to an unfavorable position like cogs on a gear. It also depended more on screwing into the ground, rather than on top of it.

I also wanted to throw away the forms. For example, the BJD set - I believed it was useless, and that my 4 methods of Dang, Chit, Saat, Sou were better and one could immediately make up their own set from that. Then my students whom I taught the knives to couldn’t get the training…

The Jong also made me sick - so fixed and long and rigid - why not just do the darn thing freestyle? But then I found that soon no one could understand anything about training on the Jong…

The pole also had my contempt, until I realized how good it was for me when I grabbed someone and threw them down…

Fighting face to face isn’t as good as beating the crap out of someone from behind. What I mean is to start fighting someone face to face, then shift them and pound the crap out of them, and keep yourself there through superior mobility…but then, that wasn’t “sporting”…of course, a person has to know how to deal with two hands in front of them first…

Punching and kicking in the air isn’t as good as striking a focus mitt, Thai bags or airshields… and holding them is good training for structure and focus. But for really honing and strengthening the body, striking a wallbag is incredibly simple, yet bodybuilding and aerobic, too…

…and so on…

…as I learned and grew, I realized I didn’t need a lot of the things, but students needed it and the curriculum to help them. Its all just stepping stones for them to get and feel comfortable. As I grew, I also realized I could draw from the classical source and take what was useful - and it all was useful in one way or another.

People write based on their feeling and experience, but often it may not pertain to others…also people are learning at different rates and levels.

Just my $0.02.

11

There is a line of thought out there that I picked up by chance…it clarified a lot of the
form questions drills became a clear DRILL and not a ‘move’ …A lot of things become redundant to actual VT fighting…

dan chi after a student learns the level treats it as redundant..there is no 1-2 in simple punch.
chisao becomes redundant , in that we dont fight with 2 arms extended in a stance …

The most important things to remember arent IN the forms but the spoken word, the ideas blended together as consistent idea from start to end…

The dummy serves to simply re-enforce elbows and alignment, facing , shifting at angles.parallel to a moving fight , turning and facing seamlessly a fighter who is simply moving randomly before us …

Bil gee is for recovering attacking limbs that are grabbed, lifted , also other stepping ideas for facing a line with knives.

the poles shock force to remove objects from , but stay on the line itself…carries over to pak etc… pak comes to the line but does not x it .

bong x es laterally before us , not up and down blocking…

the knives teach a flanking idea to survive by facing 50 % of an equally armed person…survive, using increased distances of fighting so we attack the arms first…

the percentage rule of attacking for 9 out of 10 seconds…can you deliver a sustained unstoppable attack for 5 seconds never mind 10 :smiley: without over reaching , losing balance, punching to close, to far, over turning your elbows, opening up your elbows.
etc… not easy

so we break it down, it is in the break down we can lose sight of a flowing attacking system and make it stagnant forms of pure speculation …

12

[QUOTE=chusauli;946228]Hawkins told me that if he were to come to the USA and help Bruce teach in the '70’s, the first thing is to throw away Chi Sao…but the problem was, there was no stepping stone for WCK people to jump from knowing nothing to fighting…

22 years ago, for a short while, I threw out Luk Sao from the curriculum and just trained Chi Sao from Bai Jong. Then Hawaii’s Robert Young/Yeung Biu had dinner with me and said that its an information gathering training, keep it in the curriculum.

I also wanted to throw out the stupid shifting from Chum Kiu, as I found that useless, until “Three Kings of Chum Kiu” (Ho Kam Ming, Victor Kan, and Hawkins Cheung) showed me how important it was. Hawkins’ and Ho Kam Ming’s take was to shift the opponent to an unfavorable position like cogs on a gear. It also depended more on screwing into the ground, rather than on top of it.

I also wanted to throw away the forms. For example, the BJD set - I believed it was useless, and that my 4 methods of Dang, Chit, Saat, Sou were better and one could immediately make up their own set from that. Then my students whom I taught the knives to couldn’t get the training…

The Jong also made me sick - so fixed and long and rigid - why not just do the darn thing freestyle? But then I found that soon no one could understand anything about training on the Jong…

The pole also had my contempt, until I realized how good it was for me when I grabbed someone and threw them down…

Fighting face to face isn’t as good as beating the crap out of someone from behind. What I mean is to start fighting someone face to face, then shift them and pound the crap out of them, and keep yourself there through superior mobility…but then, that wasn’t “sporting”…of course, a person has to know how to deal with two hands in front of them first…

Punching and kicking in the air isn’t as good as striking a focus mitt, Thai bags or airshields… and holding them is good training for structure and focus. But for really honing and strengthening the body, striking a wallbag is incredibly simple, yet bodybuilding and aerobic, too…

…and so on…

…as I learned and grew, I realized I didn’t need a lot of the things, but students needed it and the curriculum to help them. Its all just stepping stones for them to get and feel comfortable. As I grew, I also realized I could draw from the classical source and take what was useful - and it all was useful in one way or another.

People write based on their feeling and experience, but often it may not pertain to others…also people are learning at different rates and levels.

Just my $0.02.[/QUOTE]

All very valid points Robert, I may not agree on all of them, but still valid.

13

Remember to rewrite the book without losing the essence…

14

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;946307]All very valid points Robert, I may not agree on all of them, but still valid.[/QUOTE]

Well, these are things I grappled with over the years, valid or not, these were problems I had and they were real to me.

These days, I only have the system for my students. For me, I train various aspects to keep sharp today and have daily practice to maintain my energy/health/skills.

In retrospect, I couldn’t understand WCK the way it was first taught to me, so I had to relearn it and get different lessons from seniors. This was like the medieval system of apprentice becoming a journeyman, and finally a craftsmaster.

The teachings and the needs of students showed me why there were aspects to the system that needed to be taught, despite the fact if I liked it or not. In this way, I was able to gleen knowledge and rewrite my own textbook for me.

We all start with some sort of system - this is “traditional” base. We are still “in the system”.

Then we make our mistakes and question, even question what we were taught…and try to learn more. My anecdotes from 20 plus years ago reflected that. We emerge “out of the system” here.

Finally, we make the knowledge our own and transcend system and teachings. We pass on our teachings and it becomes “traditional” for the next generation. The students eventually begin their own apprenticeship, journeyman route and become their own craftsmaster.

This is natural and evolution for the martial arts process.

15

I see a parallel with what Robert has been saying and the paths I’ve taken in my own wing chun journey, although particulars will vary from those that Robert reported. I’ll start with this quote from Robert, because it rang a bell for me.

“In retrospect, I couldn’t understand WCK the way it was first taught to me, so I had to relearn it and get different lessons from seniors. This was like the medieval system of apprentice becoming a journeyman,…”

…

***I had a similar experience training for 8 years under Moy Yat, and in my 5th year I began experimenting with Bruce Lee’s JKD with one of my sihings privately - at which point I began to understand more about how to implement Moy Yat’s VT beyond the basic angle-slightly-but-mainly-go-straight ahead strategy, constantly try to attack and pressure his center, and throw lots of punches while looking for opportunites to use things like pak da, lop da, a low heel kick here-and-there, etc.

Interesting, and could (and did) work against some people - but far from where I wanted to go, because the limitations became more and more apparent as time went on. Especially the footwork limitations, I was very contemptuous of that. And Bruce Lee’s broken rhythm, and in general, his more free-flowing boxing type footwork helped in this regard, along with his use of longer range sidekicks, roundhouse kicks, etc…and his use of longer range boxing type leads, his willingness to go outside the box, ie.- round punches, etc…these things started to give me a clearer idea about how to make the VT more functional - if in a sense, “rewritten.”

I was trying to use Bruce Lee’s ideas while attempting to adapt VT to the longer range, ie.- rewritting the VT)…and then tried to play the VT game more directly and conventionally once I got to close range.

But when William Cheung went public here in the U.S. with TWC, and I saw his footwork and his applications, blindside strategies, entry, and his version of the forms, chi sao, drills, wooden dummy, etc…in much greater detail than what can be gleaned from attending a seminar-or-two, ie.- I’ve spent many years training under William…with this, I began to see much more about how to use wing chun in general…and then, as time went on, how to integrate the VT and the TWC…

and now I believe I’m seeing even more about how to use both wing chun systems after I’ve gotten into crosstraining with catch wrestling for clinch and ground (with a dose of Muay Thai clinch work using knees and elbows)…and boxing hands and long range kicking for outside the typical wing chun range. (Although to some extent longer range kicks have always been a part of TWC).

I’m seeing more about how to use wing chun - including seeing the need to go beyond it. Rewritting the book for me now means combining the “book” with other books (ie.- other arts).

16

[QUOTE=chusauli;946340]Well, these are things I grappled with over the years, valid or not, these were problems I had and they were real to me.

These days, I only have the system for my students. For me, I train various aspects to keep sharp today and have daily practice to maintain my energy/health/skills.

In retrospect, I couldn’t understand WCK the way it was first taught to me, so I had to relearn it and get different lessons from seniors. This was like the medieval system of apprentice becoming a journeyman, and finally a craftsmaster.

The teachings and the needs of students showed me why there were aspects to the system that needed to be taught, despite the fact if I liked it or not. In this way, I was able to gleen knowledge and rewrite my own textbook for me.

We all start with some sort of system - this is “traditional” base. We are still “in the system”.

Then we make our mistakes and question, even question what we were taught…and try to learn more. My anecdotes from 20 plus years ago reflected that. We emerge “out of the system” here.

Finally, we make the knowledge our own and transcend system and teachings. We pass on our teachings and it becomes “traditional” for the next generation. The students eventually begin their own apprenticeship, journeyman route and become their own craftsmaster.

This is natural and evolution for the martial arts process.[/QUOTE]

Very well said, I know that for my part, I would never train any student in what I do and how I do it, it would be a typical “textbook” training, though with far less “fluff”.

17

I agree. This post from Robert really hits the nail on the head.

18

“Hawkins told me that if he were to come to the USA and help Bruce teach in the '70’s, the first thing is to throw away Chi Sao…but the problem was, there was no stepping stone for WCK people to jump from knowing nothing to fighting…” (Robert Chu)

…

***CHI SAO training can (and has) been a dilemma for wing chun people for some time now, imo, whether it’s recognized as such or not. And the biggest reason why I did the chi sao vid series
1-13 on youtube is that I want some of my students who can’t get to class much anymore (do to geography or what have you)…to have a clear and sequential reference point with chi sao training that they can refer back to as needed.

And what I find myself doing now when these guys do occasionally get to class is to spend some time doing just one or two segments covered on the vids and then get into some all out sparring - perhaps even to return to some chi sao for a few minutes later on in the class if something came up in the sparring that could have come out better if a certain basic mistake wasn’t made (or something omitted)…a mistake that could have been avoided or an omission that could have been a difference maker…related to some concept or technique that’s learned in chi sao.

I view this as part of “rewriting” the book about how to teach chi sao, and how to use what’s covered in chi sao in actual fighting/sparring - in effect translating the drill/training method known as chi sao into real life application.

19

Ip man wing chun forver!

I might fail the art but it hasn’t failed me yet.

joy chaudhuri

20

Not surprised by this post. The underlyiing assumption being that if you’re rewriting the book in some way or another you clearly failed to grasp Yip Man’s (or fill in the blank with some other name from wing chun)…teachings.

He (they) didn’t “fail” you - you failed to see (or learn) what’s there in the first place.

And the assumption is so broad and so sweeping that it can’t be taken seriously, because by now there are quite a few people in the wing chun world who have spent many years with this (and who did learn quite a bit in the first place)…

who are coming to the same conclusions: You have to rewrite the wing chun book to some extent or another in order to be viable within today’s martial/fighting arts world.