How do you get to the final wing chun product?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

On Victor’s post

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;946633]Not surprised by this post. …
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)…

I am NOT surprised by Victor’s rejoinder and wish him well. “quite a few people in the wing chun world…”"-perhaps but not all. It is not a matter of dogma…if one experiments with a subject- you
can find out things that works when properly done and figure out why something doesn’t… problem in the model? Problem in operational understanding? In wrong implication or inference?
Insufficient practice?Wrong practice? Error in transmission or understanding?This is still at least in label a wing chun chat list
not a mma list— nothing wrong with mma or other martial sports, I enjoy them too!!

Good wing chun can keep evolving and it has and hopefully will continue.Doing wing chun is not necessarily about popularity or what will sell.

Individuation in an art will and should take place… but replacing a paradigm takes some genius-
they are not easy to come by-- though meanings of words like genius are often easily corrupted. Ip Man was indeed IMO a martial arts genius . Unfortunately he was not always generous with what he knew.

Since apparently some folks are interested in rewriting, I thought I would put my two cents in. I for one keep discovering things in wing chun as a style all the time at least often enough to hold on humbly to admiration for those greats who developed the art including Ip man.

joy chaudhuri

22

Constantly discovering things within wing chun, and engaging in one’s own individuation - whether you are some sort of genius or not - does not mean that you can’t remain the admirer of those who formulated the system in the first place. Or those who taught you the system.

Speaking from my own perspective, the fact that I find myself “rewriting” parts of the wing chun book often - doesn’t mean that I’ve simply thrown the “old” book away. The forms, the basic wing chun concepts and principles, the chi sao, the footwork, drills, kicking patterns, punching patterns, wooden dummy, dragon pole and butterfly swords I’ve learned from my two instructors haven’t simply been discarded. I always keep the “original versions”, if you will, as reference material.

And constantly refer back to them.

…

But I also find it necessary to experiment with what’s in those “old books” - even if it means occasionally going against various sentences, paragraphs, or perhaps even a whole chapter. And even if it means occasionally attempting to write a new chapter or two myself. And then test them out - and if I find them lacking, I might throw them out as well. Or attempt another rewrite.

Or just go look at the reference book again for something I may have missed.

But mostly it’s subtraction by addition: by adding certain elements from other fighting systems, I’m eliminating certain ideas, or concepts, or strategies, or techniques that don’t make much sense when up against some other systems - as those systems (or hybrids) are being used today.

And today is the key word…

until tomorrow.

23

Victor

Good luck with your “re-write”- no sarcasm intended.
I just responded with one perspective on the question posed at the beginning of the thread.
If I thought that there was a better path I would follow it. Other’s experiences can vary.

joy chaudhuri

24

Wing Chun Kung Fu will be lost…

imo, if we don’t collectively “rewrite” the way we go about passing the art on. For example, Yip Man was notoriously famous for showing only this much to A, that much to B, a smattering here to C, very little to D, perhaps quite a bit to E, basically nothing to F…and even misleading some people about the efficacy and efficiency of what they “thought” they were doing and learning.

For example, here’s another story (or stories) I heard several times from Moy Yat about Yip Man. The jist of it is that when students who Yip Man didn’t particularly like (and/or who he had very little patience for, for whatever reason)…asked Yip man about a certain technique or whatever…

and even if they were clearly doing it wrong, according to Moy Yat, Yip Man would nonetheless simply respond, “Yes, that’s it” - and then walk away. Or he wouldn’t answer at all. And sometimes even then go and joke about that person with some of his other students.

And the secrecy in general surrounding not only Yip Mans’ but other lineages of wing chun is also well known. And I experienced this first hand with Moy Yat over an 8 year period, because sometimes learning from Moy Yat was like pulling teeth at the dentist - meaning that quite often he just didn’t want to - and wouldn’t - do it. You had to be close to him to learn more than just the bare essentials directly from him. Maybe.

And he always prided himself on running his kwoons the way Yip Man ran his, although I am told that he lightened up a bit in this regard as the years went on (after I left to study with William Cheung).

I’m not revealing these things because I’m trying to single out certain people for negative scrutiny. Not at all. Because the truth is, this has been the case for many wing chun people throughout various lineages, some of whom still engage in this kind of secrecy and favoritism to this day.

BUT THERE’S A BIG PROBLEM WITH THIS WHOLE APPROACH TO WING CHUN KUNG FU.

And a problem made all the more difficult because the system is so concept based; and therefore, not only is there the problem of things getting lost, but many people - in relation to the total number of people having actually studied the art - can wind up having very little idea about how to use the art in actual combat.

The present generation(s) need to do something about this, individually and collectively, imo. Perhaps this is even one of the essential meanings and purposes of having forums like this.

Thoughts?

25

Victor said:

" Wing Chun Kung Fu will be lost…
imo, if we don’t collectively “rewrite” the way we go about passing the art on. For example, Yip Man was notoriously famous for showing only this much to A, that much to B, a smattering here to C, very little to D, perhaps quite a bit to E, basically nothing to F…and even misleading some people about the efficacy and efficiency of what they “thought” they were doing and learning."

Yes and no.

A partial response: I don’t think that wing chun will be lost- despite the prevalence of junk food-
decent food is still available though people have to hunt for it and make changes in their habits.

Kung fu in China grew up in China in a different environment and in a different teaching environment. It takes some wisdom to transplant what is good about the art in an even more
money oriented and mass production culture. But it is possible and is happening here and there.

Ip man needed to survive economically after getting out of the PRC. True- he was selective about what he taught and to whom he taught the art. And the bad xeroxing made worse copies
in their transmissions.

But the creation of organizations with a large list of schools IMO contributed to the fast food syndrome and the watering down of the art. And. the sarcasm and ego driven comments, snide anonymous remarks, trolling that is heightened by net discussions furthers the dilution of the art.

Light a candle rather than curse the darkness and have some reasonable discussions among folks from different versions of Ip Man wing chun…as a start. A collective rewrite rightaway is not really possible -because claims to the contrary we are not a community-most threads are testaments to that.

joy chaudhuri

26

"…the creation of organizations with a large list of schools IMO contributed to the fast food syndrome and the watering down of the art. And the sarcasm and ego driven comments, snide anonymous remarks, trolling that is heightened by net discussions furthers the dilution of the art.

Light a candle rather than curse the darkness and have some reasonable discussions among folks from different versions of Ip Man wing chun…as a start. A collective rewrite rightaway is not really possible -because claims to the contrary we are not a community-most threads are testaments to that." (joy chaudhuri)

…

***THIS is a good post, as it hits some problems and some possible solutions squarely. I agree that large organizations often produce less-than-stellar instructors and students, and the art can easily get watered down in the process. The upside is, however, that there have been a certain percentage of people within these organizations (however small) who seem to have learned the system they were taught thoroughly, and have been passing it on within schools of their own.

As to “rewrites”, well individuals doing this is a given - for there are those engaging in the process. Collectively is a much harder process because egos invariably get in the way, and is a big reason why I, for one, have advocated occasional wing chun sparring tournaments. It all comes out in the wash: if you can spar with it and do well, you’re probably doing something right. If you can’t, then there’s probably something very wrong (or missing) in your curriculum and training methods.

27

Joy is right. Large organizations, with the mantra “More is better”, is the reason why WC as a whole as been lacking in allot of areas. Money is the motivating factor in larger organizations, and the need of the people to be a part of something larger than themselves (a false need). I feel into this trap a couple of times in my Martial Arts life, and hopefully have learned the lesson.

Grass roots, small groups is the way to go. That is why I like the people that I am associated with now, memebership is not just given but is priveledged to those that are accepted, but it is a free association and none of us are bound by any rules or regulations, bowing down rituals to some phony leader or group or anything like that. Just true training, learning, research and sharing, which is the way it should be IMO.

James

28

Both paths have their problems. The problems with large organizations have been noted; but here’s the problem with small grass roots groups: they’re too underground - as things stand now - and the teachings they impart can easily get lost as time goes on because there are very few people involved.

Don’t believe that? Take a look at JKD. Very few people were really trained in it originally, and it’s a “style” (even though Bruce Lee would have hated the word) that’s now struggling to carry on.

The bigger question is not, imo, to small group?..or to big group? - it’s whether or not to compete in the “open market” - like what Alan Orr is doing with his group. Technically, you could say that he’s from a small grass roots group (stemming from Robert Chu)…but other larger organizations could do the same thing - if they wanted to.

Bad for business ($) if they don’t do well in competition? Well yeah, perhaps, but the real issue is the venue itself. Lots of larger groups have done well entering some of their guys in small, lots-of-rules-and-regs competitions (very small and very local)…which is fine, as far as it goes. Good experience in limited venues can be a stepping stone to larger and more style inclusive venues with less-and-less rules, regs, protective gear, etc.

“Rewriting” the book, imo, therefore will also require competition against people from other arts in a serious venue, for then what works in the existing book and what doesn’t work gets clearer.

To repeat some things said much earlier:

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.

For 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.

29

I’ve been following this and I think Yip Man taught a certain way because he probably did not care for some students, and if they actually worked their WCK, they would find out the answers for themselves.

In beginning phases, one learns and depends on one’s sifu for guidance. But as one grows, one becomes aware of their needs and has a spark of wisdom to know what they need. Teaching vary from teacher to teacher, not all can learn from a teaching when it is first presented. People learn with various modalities of hearing, feeling, seeing, etc. Not everyone is tuned in the same way.

In many, the base textbook is incorrect, you have to look up different sources. For example, the Japanese history books say the Japanese were pulled into Manchuria and China during the Sino-Japanese War; they needed to bring in their war machine to bring peace to China. When we cross reference with others’ history, we can see that the Japanese were truly the aggressors. This is simply scholarship.

A good friend of mine Bai Si’d to Yip Man, but Yip didn’t like him, so he got his information from Lok Yiu instead. Bruce got more from WSL and William Cheung than Yip Man. Hawkins got a lot from Ho Kam Ming and WSL, but also had his time with Yip Man. Each person had to learn and relearn information.

30

Very true.