How do you know that you wing chun is the real deal?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
41

How do you know that you wing chun is the real deal?

The Proof of the Pudding Is in the Eating.
(The only way to judge something is to try it.)

IMO, this is the one way to know if your wing chun is the real deal. If it is effective then it must be. In some martial arts, the authenticity of the style is judged by the forms (kata). In wing chun, you cannot judge if it is the real deal by just looking at the forms. You have to test it either in chi sao or sparring. There is a saying in wing chun, “The moment of contact is the moment of truth”.

42

Re: Systems and learning…

Originally posted by ijedi
just as someone may not become a very competent jazz musician in 2 years does not preclude them from understanding what jazz is (in theory).
Do you think he would understand jazz (in theory) as much as someone who has studied it for 10 years?

You would have people believe that all arts have the same ends and teach the same things. This just is not true.
Are you certain that it is not true? You should rethink that.

The disintegration of Wing Chun is not due to the teaching of Chi Sau or any other aspect of the art.
Indeed it is. One of the many reasons for the disintegration is because of the the wrong people(and many of them) teaching chi sau, a very important aspect of training in Wing Chun, and one of the most misunderstood.

I merely submit that many individuals are too guarded with the knowledge that they have gained.

Can you blame them? With the state of the martials arts in this world now? However, I have found that those who are insecure about their knowledge are more guarded with the information. And those that really know, seem guarded, but are actually quite open, when you ask the right questions. Always willing to share with the right person.

The impetus for learning must take place from a teacher who has a mastery of the art in question.
How would you know if he has mastered the art?

One needs to address the goals, reason, research and methods of study. Then and only then can you begin to understand a system.
One needs to understand the goal of the system, and then determine in how much he would like to partake.

Please don’t use a JKD mentality when talking about Wing Chun…

43

judgments…

>Do you think [someone who studied for 2 years] would understand jazz (in theory) as much as someone who has studied it for 10 years?

Years of study do not necessarily equate understanding. I know of individuals who have played music only three years that played better and understood as much as those I knew that played for twenty! Aesthetic perception is in the sense of the perceiver.

True, there are deeper levels to any art, however the basic tenants of a system are quite apparent if you know what you are looking for.

I posted: You would have people believe that all arts have the same ends and teach the same things. This just is not true.

>Are you certain that it is not true? You should rethink that.

Why, because I don’t agree with you? All arts are the same in as much as they are martial. Just as ALL music does not achieve the same ends or have the same goals, but all are music. Or would you have me rethink that jazz and classical music are the same forms or music? They are the same in as much as they are both musical systems and styles. But the respective goals of the forms are quite different I can assure you. Let’s not get ourselves into gross generalizations by saying all martial arts are the same.

There are some martial systems that are more for sport and some that are definitely not sport. Some martial systems are more interested in energy development and some more interested in muscular strength. The anthropology of martial arts is endless if we want to get into a comparative analysis.
The context and function of a particular art determines much of what end it seeks in its training.

Why don’t you rethink your statement and be consistent. Just as all people studying a subject [i.e., economics] are not on the same path; not all paths (or systems) take you to the same place.

>One of the many reasons for the disintegration is because of the wrong people (and many of them) teaching chi sau, a very important aspect of training in Wing Chun, and one of the most misunderstood.

While this is true, it is not the ONLY reason. If someone taught all aspects of Wing Chun except for chi sau, I would argue that they weren’t teaching Wing Chun at all. Perhaps I am in a minority here. What does the forum think about this?

>Can you blame them? With the state of the martial arts in this world now? However, I have found that those who are insecure about their knowledge are more guarded with the information. And those that really know, seem guarded, but are actually quite open, when you ask the right questions. Always willing to share with the right person.

The state of martial arts is much more open than it ever has been. Yes, this has lead to commercialization but I am no elitist who believes there should only be a few individuals trusted with some sacred knowledge. Who is to say that if only five people in the world knew of Wing Chun it would be any “purer.” Those five have just as much an ability to corrupt and misunderstand the system as you or I.

If it wasn’t for the spreading of the martial arts you probably wouldn’t know a thing about it. I don’t know about you but I consider myself very fortunate to have been exposed to such a wondrous and beautiful art.

Just as you have J.S. Bach and John Coltrane, you inevitably have your ‘N Sync and Destiny’s Child. Do not forsake art because there is art that does not live up to your aesthetic judgment.

>How would you know if he has mastered the art?

One definition of a master says that a master has no vague notions. If you ask him a question regarding the art and does not have an answer or is not willing to explore the answer then I would argue that the individual in question is not a master. However, do not mistake this for an instructor that feels you are not ready for the answer. Many times I have asked questions when it could be said that my eyes were bigger than my stomach. Yet, in these instances my instructors were wise enough to tell me I was not ready. Not lie to me and ignore me.

>One needs to understand the goal of the system, and then determine in how much he would like to partake. Please don’t use a JKD mentality when talking about Wing Chun…

Where do you think the “JKD mentality” came from? Much of what Bruce wrote in principle may be applied to the learning of Wing Chun. The problem with JKD arises because of their inconsistency and contradictions. [i.e., be formless and shapeless…but utilize the small phasic bent-knee stance].

Who are you to say what mentality has be taken when talking about Wing Chun?

You, Whippinghand, do not hold a monopoly on how Wing Chun is to be discussed.

44

I personally feel that it is true that Wing Chun is “disintegrating” due to the immense and unchecked growth that the art has experienced over the past years. Although my view may be skewed because I live in a huge metropolis (NYC), but it seems that everyone and anyone that has experience in WT/WC, regardless of being qualified or not, is opening up a school or renting a dance studio to teach.

This was also the case with karate and TKD back in the chop-socky 70’s and 80’s, where kung fu schools were a little more elusive and therefore most Americans learned Japanese and/or Korean arts. Black belts from many of those schools were worthless and still are today. Now with the more mainstream interest in Kung fu, Chinese culture, etc., there is much greater demand to learn than there are truly qualified and experienced teachers.

And it’s the quality of the students that matters, too. A lot of people at least in my area (Harlem), just want to learn to kick @ss and chew bubblegum. They want to learn how to fight like in CTHD or like Jet Li. They are not “quality students” that want to invest the time to learn the proper ways to do things and learn to the fullest extent of their ability. They are the kinds that want to learn the lowest common denominator on how to fight and then leave when things get tough or abstract (ala Chi sau or what not).

45

shop around

Check out other schools, find out what’s out there, test the hands of others, and compare and make that judgement call for yourself.

Find the one person that can explain, demonstrate, and apply everything to you…and then follow him.

46

Re: Re: Systems and learning…

[QUOTE]Originally posted by whippinghand
Are you certain that it is not true? You should rethink that.

Of course they are not the same. They are different from many different perspectives. Some MA’s are sport oriented, and other others are geared to self-defence. Some focus on weapons while others are empty-hand arts. Then internal vs. external and so on.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by whippinghand
One needs to understand the goal of the system, and then determine in how much he would like to partake.

Didn’t you just infer the goal of all martial arts is the same? Make up your mind. :wink:

Matrix

47

matrix

Originally posted by Matrix
Some MA’s are sport oriented, and other others are geared to self-defence…

I’m talking about traditional martial arts, not sports, or self-defense arts - MARTIAL arts. In terms of internal vs. external, the goal is the same, it’s just a different method of getting there, as with other martial arts.

Didn’t you just infer the goal of all martial arts is the same?

You’re right, and I am aware of it. I was writing in terms of ijedi’s perspective, not my own, without expounding by getting into too much detail. I commend you.

48

Originally posted by fmann
I personally feel that it is true that Wing Chun is “disintegrating” due to the immense and unchecked growth that the art has experienced over the past years.

ABSOLUTELY.

They are not “quality students” that want to invest the time to learn the proper ways to do things and learn to the fullest extent of their ability.

It is the duty of the sifu to change that mentality, and if he cannot change it, he should not entertain that mentality by continuing to teach the student. Unfortunately, commercialism does not support this, so sifu’s will continue to teach based on what the student wants, instead of the integrity of the art, for the sake of making money.

49

ijedi

You make some good points this time. Except for the Bruce Lee one, but I don’t feel like getting into it.

50

Originally posted by whippinghand

It is the duty of the sifu to change that mentality, and if he cannot change it, he should not entertain that mentality by continuing to teach the student. Unfortunately, commercialism does not support this, so sifu’s will continue to teach based on what the student wants, instead of the integrity of the art, for the sake of making money.

I agree with this statement 100%.
If the student is not willing to put in the time and the effort to reach their maximum potential, then they are simply wasting the Sifu’s time and taking away from that which can be done with the serious student. This is just one of the things that separates a true Martial arts school from a belt factory.

Matrix

51

I agree with this statement 100%.
If the student is not willing to put in the time and the effort to reach their maximum potential, then they are simply wasting the Sifu’s time and taking away from that which can be done with the serious student. This is just one of the things that separates a true Martial arts school from a belt factory.

Matrix

That is why I didn’t open a ma factory. Martial arts are not the primary source of income for me. my sifu or sigung. Even Yip Man
was a reluctant teacher until the flight from the PRC left him little choice. An indifferent student wastes his/her own time and the teachers and the other studebt’s time too.

52

Originally posted by yuanfen
That is why I didn’t open a ma factory. Martial arts are not the primary source of income for me. my sifu or sigung. Even Yip Man
was a reluctant teacher until the flight from the PRC left him little choice. An indifferent student wastes his/her own time and the teachers and the other studebt’s time too.

Well, I would say that your self, your sifu and sigung are to congratulated. In this time of a McDojo on every corner - or so it seems - it is good to hear that some schools take the higher ground.

There is definitely nothing wrong with making money as a teacher, but it should not be the primary goal.

Kindest Regards,
Matrix

53

well, let me just say if you don’t mind.
when i first started wing chun( and i don’t know if this is hard core or not- so whippy you can be my judge, as you are my man) my first three months was spent doing nothing but the first part(the slow section)of the form, plus a few drills for tan & fook sau.
i have trained with people who have learnt near on the whole system & can’t even deal with me(having only learnt the first 2 forms & a few sections of the dummy)
there is no substitute for a firm foundation & my teacher does not comprimise this even though it is his only form of income.
i know of atleast a couple of students who were told by wong to see barry for further improvement upon returning to australia but never returned after even a few times because of the shear importance placed on the basics.
ego is a terrible thing & unfortunately this, i think, is one of the main reasons for the decline of wing chun around the world.
vts

54

Originally posted by vingtsunstudent
well, let me just say if you don’t mind.
when i first started wing chun( and i don’t know if this is hard core or not- so whippy you can be my judge, as you are my man) my first three months was spent doing nothing but the first part(the slow section)of the form, plus a few drills for tan & fook sau.

This sounds correct to me.

there is no substitute for a firm foundation & my teacher does not comprimise this even though it is his only form of income.
i know of atleast a couple of students who were told by wong to see barry for further improvement upon returning to australia but never returned after even a few times because of the shear importance placed on the basics.

It is very difficult, and for some impossible, to go back to basic concepts once they feel they have “advanced” to another level. The problem is that if the foundation is weak, everything built upon it inherits that weakness. In todays world of instant messaging and microwave ovens, we expect instant results and instant gratification. People need to have something new put in front of them all the time to maintain their interest. Unfortunately, for some, the regiment required to refine the basics gives way to the desire to keep enrollment up.

Matrix

55

vts

If that ain’t hardcore, I don’t know what is.

56

Instant gratification is not necessarily bad. My attitude is that every class should impart something usable in the realm of self defense, even the first class. If a person learns forms and slow drills all day for the first 3 months, then is that person prepared for any real encounters?

However, if in every class, something applicable to the real world is imparted, not only does the student feel good and more confident, but also the teacher can feel good, too, in that his/her students won’t get the crap kicked out of them on the street and then come back whining how the stuff they learned is complete and utter crap. And this will travel around and garner the school more students, financial success, etc..

Note that I’m not saying commercialize and b@stardize the art, but modern times = modern teaching methods. Beginners should build foundation, but should be allowed through simple applications to see the bigger picture and why building the basics is just as important in defending oneself as all the fancy shmancy stuff.

Again, I live in a highly urban environment where possibility of encounter is greater than say in the suburbs, so my views are skewed by it.

57

as I stated in a prior post…

Sacrificing the integrity of the art for the sake of the student.

58

Originally posted by fmann
Instant gratification is not necessarily bad. My attitude is that every class should impart something usable in the realm of self defense, even the first class. If a person learns forms and slow drills all day for the first 3 months, then is that person prepared for any real encounters?
I agree that something usable should be imparted every class. The problem is that sometimes the progress is too subtle to the casual observer. And I don’t think that drilling for 3 months will make the prepared for a real encounter…in the short term. It’s short term pain for long term gain. You cannot train someone to be a great fighter in 3 months either. The basics must be well understood before you can build up to the more complex concepts. I think it’s somewhat of a tortise and hare scenario, where the hare appears to be ahead in the beginning, but long term slow and steady wins. I don’t think learning Sil Lum Tao in a week is going to help anyone either.
However, if in every class, something applicable to the real world is imparted, …
If the fundamentals are glossed over, they will come back to haunt the teacher and the student later on. Weak horse and poor structure are not the foundation of long term success. If bad habits are ingrained at the beginning, they can be difficult to impossible to repair later on. Just because it doesn’t appear to directly applicable to the “real world”, does not make it so. Amazingly enough it is often sometime after the lesson has been taught that the “real world” lesson is learned. Once again, you need to learn to walk before you can run.
… not only does the student feel good and more confident, but also the teacher can feel good, too, in that his/her students won’t get the crap kicked out of them on the street and then come back whining how the stuff they learned is complete and utter crap. And this will travel around and garner the school more students, financial success, etc..?
I see that as a form of instant gratification. It’s not about “feeling good” or more students or financial success. The teacher will KNOW that the system will work if the student follows the path, and the student must have confidence in his/her sifu, or else why are they there? Financial success is not a bad thing in and of itself, but it seems that most of the financially successful schools pander to the " become a Black Belt in 2 years" crowd, where the majority of consumers want to be. If you are offering a quality art and training, the word will get out, and it will attract the type of student that is dedicated to long-term training, not just driving through the McDojo.
Note that I’m not saying commercialize and b@stardize the art, but modern times = modern teaching methods. Beginners should build foundation, but should be allowed through simple applications to see the bigger picture and why building the basics is just as important in defending oneself as all the fancy shmancy stuff.
I definitely understand that you are not advocating a McDojo type situation. Certainly some efficient self-defence techniques can be taught in short order, but there may be long term consequences to that approach. The principle of cause and effect remains true.

The world was dangerous place long before the advent of the modern city. That’s why many martial arts were developed in the first place. :slight_smile:

Matrix

59

I agree with you Matrix, but what I meant is that if you stress good fundamentals along with providing simple applications and buildling fighting/encounter skills, your students will become better fighters in shorter time. I’m not saying they will be the best martial artists technically, but they will be able to defend themselves sooner and have more experience as time goes on.

And besides, what’s better motivation to get better? Someone telling you something has to get better or be corrected? Or you knowing that something doesn’t work and therefore should be corrected else you get your @ss handed to you?

Effective self-defense is also not necessarily the same as martial art.

60

Re: as I stated in a prior post…

Originally posted by whippinghand
… Sacrificing the integrity of the art for the sake of the student.

I’m not talking about the art, I’m talking about self-defense this time. As I said in my previous posts, I’m all for cultivating the martial art and not b@stardizing it.

Like you’ve said in past threads (and I agree) : Self-defense/fighting and martial art are not necessarily the same things. In this case, I’m talking about the former and not the latter – what one would have to do in order to teach effective and quick self-defense while balancing the progression of the student in the art.