Is TWC the best?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

Is TWC the best in theory or in practice? Why can’t such a topic be discussed without getting all defensive?

Let’s see how logical and unemotional we can be. TWC has a theory, which differs from the non-TWC theory. What are the key differences and can one argue one is superior to the other?

Terence might argue that we cannot tell from theory and must look to real fighting experience. So is there real fighting experience that supports that TWC is better than non-TWC? Can real fighting experience distinguish between the two theories or only between the talents of two individuals? How can we test the theories? Perhaps some would argue that it’s already been done in the past?

Two real fighters from the old days that most people are aware of were Wong Shun Leung and William Cheung. Both tested their theories in actual combat. Both have modern students who have tested their theories in actual combat. Both were aware of each other’s art but both kept to their own arts. So what can we conclude from this? Can we conclude more from the results of these people or from the pencil and paper theories that are used to market each approach?

Is there a difference mainly in the non contact to contact stage or is there also a significant difference in contact stage? Where does the largest difference lie?

If both the 50/50 and 100/0 model people claim that they are mobile and successful in real fights then how can this be? Where does the truth lie? Why can’t we throw out one of these models?

Is going to the outside the best strategy or is going up the center or does it depend? Can the two approaches be distinguished essentially from this key idea? Is the center approach better for a larger person or for a smaller person or for anyone?

Or is a comparison really impossible because fighting is a multidimensional activity wherein some factors that are better in one theory can be balanced by other factors that are better in the other theory. Or does one theory have a monopoly on all the good factors?

How many competing theories are there actually? What is the simplest way to distinguish between these theories? If theory A doesn’t have a good fighter then it may support that theory B is better. But in fact theory A might be better. So can combat results mislead?

2

If I was Victor,I would certainly respond in an affirmative manner!..;):smiley:

3

To borrow a well known analogy—

Practice without theory is blind- theory without practice is an empty scheme!!

4

I think Victor has in the past on this forum, and it was a very detailed thread from what I understand.

Being a former member of the TWC camp and meeting the Man in charge himself, GM Cheung, and since day one of my WC experience I’ve tried to expose myself to as much WC as possible, I do believe that there is a big difference between the TWC camp and the other camps of WC out there that stem from Yip Man, you can see it just by visual cues alone, never mind a internal analysis of both arts. But this is also true of allot of the other WC clans from Yip Man excluding TWC, the Wang Kui version is different from the Wong Shun Leung version which is different from the Leung Sheung version. Out of all of these though I still see and understand a big difference between them and TWC.

Another thing is since the public disclosure of the TWC system by GM Cheung back in the 70’s and internationally in the 80’s through books and video’s/seminars, who knows who has picked up on his concepts and principals since then and added them into the WC they were using. This question of is TWC the best should have been asked way back in the early 70’s and that way we would know if anyone else had access to the same or similar knowledge that GM Cheung claims is his.

My Sifu has a unique position, but not solely I must add, to have been trained in both the Wong Shun Leung Version first and then after the William Cheung version of Wing Chun, Victor Parlati is in similar situation too, learning from the Moy Yat line first. And from what I understand of the Wing Chun that I teach today, most of it derives from the TWC system, although we do not adhere,perform and/or understand all the movements/concepts/principals the same as the TWC people. Sifu believes as I do that the Wing Chun that we teach is the most complete, and that the movements from both versions of Wing Chun can be utilized effectively in all sorts of situations.

Personally if I had to choose between just one system over the other I would choose the TWC system as IMO it is more complete and allows better protection for the practitioners that practice it. It adheres to a more scientific nature and doesn’t rely as much on the individuals speed or strength attributes. For example TWC advocates more active footwork and better positioning with the opponent (Blindside theory), whereas most of the other WC that I see (but there are exceptions of course) do not adhere to this strategy. Recently I rewatched the VTAA conference tapes from 1999, and with all the masters present from the Yip Man line, you could easily see the difference between what GM Cheung performed and what the other GM’s demonstrated. In each of the two combat applications that GM Cheung demonstrated against he used active footwork to put himself in a safer position than what I personally saw the other masters put themselves in. Of course this is just a personal opinion, and it also doesn’t mean that any other WC besides the TWC is not effective.

To explain every difference would be a large task, that’s why I like to post video’s because this way people get a better understanding of what I may be talking about when I get specific about techniques and concepts since they have seen some of what I practice and teach. I’ve viewed lots of good video’s from other Yip Man WC lineages, and I’ve seen allot of terrible one’s too, just because some are better than other’s at displaying the concepts of their particular system of WC.

James

5

Originally posted by old jong
If I was Victor,I would certainly respond in an affirmative manner!..;):smiley:

I am not looking for yes or no but for an intelligent discussion of why that is so either using logic, experience or proof from well defined real matches (which in turn need to be analyzed to see which factors were responsible for the win). Perhaps each method is better against certain types of opponents or perhaps one method is best against all opponents?

Everyone thinks their method is best and none of us have a problem with that.

Which method is best is not really a concern for me. I would like to see the logic on paper and then the proof from reality.

In the Tan sau argument (elevated vs flat) both sides have good points but both keep to their methods. You would think one side could adopt the other’s method and gain something. Then again all parts of a system relate so you can not always just take a couple of good features from one system , add it to another to improve on that system.

Maybe a partial argument is, it’s always better to go to the outside because it’s safer and prevents the opponent from using all of his weapons. The other side might argue that it’s not always possible to get to the outside or that the center approach is the way to get to the outside.

Ray

6

Funny there is no best , and to argue about such things proves how little you[general you not individual] know , to argue about hand shapes and techniques proves only a limited view
To fight about which way you foot points and how much weight is on your big toe is the arm chair technicians playground , no serious person would even entertain such nonsense
There is only what is best for you
Your body and mental make up
To be ruled by any one way is like a grown man still holding his security blanket and to scared to accept responsibility for there own actions

Problem #1 trying to crystallize a moment in time and then build your argument off this frozen moment this takes you into the endless abyss of wasted words and disaster , as soon as you say your hand has to be here and your foot has to be there , you have just stopped relating to your opponent and become a slave . no you are dead as an individual and are forced to try and prove a theory

Backwards engineering

But the theory , non fighting , technician , marketing , arm chair guys love this non realistic stuff

People are funny

If any one ever tries to tell you they have the best way ---- scratch a lie and find a thief
:cool:

7

James sez:
Another thing is since the public disclosure of the TWC system by GM Cheung back in the 70’s and internationally in the 80’s through books and video’s/seminars, who knows who has picked up on his concepts and principals since then and added them into the WC they were using.

Adding/using? Not me. For honest discussion sake—(not put downs)

  1. I do not use the center/central jargon
  2. Do not have my toes out in ygkym
  3. do not primarily “watch” elbows and knees
    3, Not obsessed with the blind side
  4. do not use the T step
    5, do not dip my shoulder on one side
  5. do not lift a leg as an entry technique

But for those who do it that way and it helps them…I have no problem.

The TWC folks can make their things work for them- I see theoretical and practical problems with the above,

As far as I can tell— some including sihing and his people have borrowed from TWC.
William Cheung is to be commended for working out his own approach.

8

Talking about the outside approach:

On one tape William Cheung when dealing with a hook punch, touches the punch on the inside maybe with Bill sau or Kwun sau and then switches to the outside position. What’s faster: to do this maneuvering to get to the outside or the guys second punch?

Talking about watching elbows and knees: This sounds good on paper and William Cheung’s people do it but do Thai boxers and boxers do it? I haven’t heard that stated. If not why not? If so then maybe everyone should? Can it help to prevent getting hit from a good boxer?

Ray

9

joy says

“Practice without theory is blind- theory without practice is an empty scheme!!”

hanko doebrinher says:

10

Like deja vu all over again!

11

I am not looking for yes or no but for an intelligent discussion of why…
!!!..Whoa! I can get grumpy as well myself when I apply myself to it!..:wink: :smiley:

But if you ask for a serious answer: I don’t know much about TWC other than the usual “Footwork” thing ,the “entry technique” and some differencies in basic things such as the tan sau going up.

IMO,if they make these things work;it is O.K. for them. Kind of like different boxing styles will work as it depends a lot on the individual boxer’s skill.

12

Originally posted by Ernie
[B]Funny there is no best , and to argue about such things proves how little you[general you not individual] know ,

If any one ever tries to tell you they have the best way ---- scratch a lie and find a thief
:cool: [/B]

So that means William Cheung knows very little and that he is a liar and a thief because he marketed his system as being superior. I think he can believe honestly that his system is the best based on paper logic and then from his own experiences. Perhaps only comparisons with good fighters from other arts can we determine which method is better.

In Olympic sports there are clearly better methods. The better methods produce better results. The Gracie’s feel their methods are better and for awhile proved to themselves that this was the case.

So is TWC better (since by Ernie’s logic we can’t use the word best)? Perhaps William CHeung said better and not best and hence this thread should talk about better and not best.

Ray

13

Originally posted by Ernie
[B]Funny there is no best , and to argue about such things proves how little you[general you not individual] know , to argue about hand shapes and techniques proves only a limited view
To fight about which way you foot points and how much weight is on your big toe is the arm chair technicians playground , no serious person would even entertain such nonsense
There is only what is best for you
Your body and mental make up
To be ruled by any one way is like a grown man still holding his security blanket and to scared to accept responsibility for there own actions

Problem #1 trying to crystallize a moment in time and then build your argument off this frozen moment this takes you into the endless abyss of wasted words and disaster , as soon as you say your hand has to be here and your foot has to be there , you have just stopped relating to your opponent and become a slave . no you are dead as an individual and are forced to try and prove a theory

Backwards engineering

But the theory , non fighting , technician , marketing , arm chair guys love this non realistic stuff

People are funny

If any one ever tries to tell you they have the best way ---- scratch a lie and find a thief
:cool: [/B]

I can agree with this but a starting point or foundation has to exist before one can liberate themselves and become free. Just because my Sifu teaches me something and I teach it also doesn’t mean I can’t use whatever method in a real confrontation. There are many Martial Artists that I have witness mostly on video that I like and would personally use what they preach on a personal level, but I have a good foundation in the WC I practice which has been developed over many many years.

As a new comer you cannot just tell them to hold their hands anywhere and have your balance in any given way. Its like the basic ingredients of a recipe and then after you cook it that way for a few meal you can add whatever spices or add-ons you want to make it taste the way you want it to taste.

TWC IMO forms a better base. The example I used, the Blindside Theory, I don’t have to use this method if an opening exists right down the middle. TWC entry tech is something I choose to use, but if I want to use a Progressive Indirect Attack (PIA) from JKD I can use that too, it does at times depend on the circumstances, but the base system has to be taught first. Even Bruce Lee believed in that, which is why Dan Inosanto teaches Jun Fan first and then lets the students decide what they want to do after that.

James

14

Originally posted by old jong
[B]!!!..Whoa! I can get grumpy as well myself when I apply myself to it!..:wink: :smiley:

But if you ask for a serious answer: I don’t know much about TWC other than the usual “Footwork” thing ,the “entry technique” and some differencies in basic things such as the tan sau going up.

IMO,if they make these things work;it is O.K. for them. Kind of like different boxing styles will work as it depends a lot on the individual boxer’s skill. [/B]

Actually there is no grumpiness it’s just maybe trying to get a discussion on maybe even one aspect where each side has a theory that is opposite from that of the other and seeing if by logic or by practical results we can conclude anything. I don’t know that much either except superficial knowledge and what I saw on various tapes which were analyzed in a biased no understanding way. However I have heard stories of good success by both the Traditional and non traditional people. Perhaps they both won by reasons not related to the differences in theory but by attributes and hard work.

So if I watched a fight between a Thai boxer and a TWC person could I conclude that the TWC is winning because of their theories e.g. watching the elbow and knees, always going to the outside, using the special entry method etc. Likewise if I watched a non-TWC fight a Thai boxer could I conclude that his centerline approach really worked or his 100/0 weighting or his 50/50 weighting helped a lot?

When hits come in very fast from all angles with hand or foot, then can you get to the outside? I agree the outside is good if you can get there.

15

The thing I like about the WC system that I practice is that the techniques work on their own right. The art of Wing Chun works because the mechanics behind it are based on sound concepts and principals. Lets take this Blindside Theory thing, if someone is standing square in front of you with both arms fully extended in front of them and you do the same, stand in front of the extended arms and extend your own arms to meet his, fists to fists. Now in this visual example, it is two arms vs. two arms, if you take your right foot and move it on a 45deg angle to the right (and adjust the left foot to come up to form a good forward stance) and now take you too extended arms and open the hands to form a triangle and point it toward the center of your partners body, you will have a positional advantage, your two arms vs. his one. Now this will only last for a half second, but you as a WC practitioner can throw 6 punches per second, so 3 punches may be able to be landed from this position, and with the trapping hands it is even more effective. Now can we always get to the outside of the opponents hands? No, not always but another advantage the WC gives us is the ability to move and punch simultaneously, so even though I may be on the inside of someone’s guard I can still move to the outside of their foot(in a parallel/open relationship) and attack simultaneously, trying to get away from the other side and that fist/foot. To me this is a sound strategy, but I am not obsessed with its completion or application, because at this stage of my development it is just second nature and I do it naturally, if and when it is needed. I can always revert back to the very direct approach and go straight in down the centerline like most WC practitioners do no problem. The question is can most WC practitioners utilize the Blindside concept if they haven’t practiced it or even been exposed to it? Allot of what I hear is, “Well if it works for them then that’s fine, but it doesn’t for me” stuff. Well like Bruce said we are all alike, two arms and two legs(most of us anyways) and I think statements like that are ways of saying, I’m not going to use that stuff because I’m loyal to what I’m learning and won’t try something different. IMO, the concept described above will work for everyone, I’ve taught it to all types of people, large and small, strong and weak, and it works if they understand the concept behind it. Yes its not the only thing one can do, agreed, but it is one of the smartest things to do IMO.

James

16

Originally posted by YongChun
[B]So that means William Cheung knows very little and that he is a liar and a thief because he marketed his system as being superior. I think he can believe honestly that his system is the best based on paper logic and then from his own experiences. Perhaps only comparisons with good fighters from other arts can we determine which method is better.

In Olympic sports there are clearly better methods. The better methods produce better results. The Gracie’s feel their methods are better and for awhile proved to themselves that this was the case.

So is TWC better (since by Ernie’s logic we can’t use the word best)? Perhaps William CHeung said better and not best and hence this thread should talk about better and not best.

Ray [/B]

Anyone including my teacher and so on that tries to tell me they have all the answers and the best
anything

is full of it in my book

anyone that seeks outside of themselves is for the best
is a fool in my book

but this is my book and only i have to read it

there are alot of sheep ray
and people like to have someone else make them feel all special

Really Ray best or better in respect to what ?

as soon as some tells me they have a preference , i know they have a weakness

as soon as i see arguments ver the angle of a tan etc … i know they have never really been in a fight

when you have a goal more important skills come to play and the development of those skills for you the individual are paramount

what training methods you seek and investigate are up to you
and how much your willing to put in
if you just spend your life in the bubble of one system or approach then your view is very limited

if you are vested and now have to prove that one way then you are trapped and limited

the system becomes more important then the individual
and the growing process takes a back seat to the robot process , cookie cutter method

question everything , test everything
beleive nothing until it has a proven track record with your persoanl experience not what sifu says

only then will it be yours and will your words carry wieght

wing chun is such a personal training system , people have to feel it
yet they get so caught up on the outside the bone or visual frozen picture

how do you draw a feeling ?

17

Hey you sound like Bruce Lee Ernie.

I think there are still things that can be discussed on this topic though. One guy I know is heavily into Ba Gua. His theory is get to the outside. He is an athletic type with lots of fighting background but so far he can’t get to the outside of anyone exept the beginners who leave their punch hanging around too long.

Another guy I know always tested everything. He was very comfortable with the stop kick. He said from his experience it worked for him. I told him it wasn’t always a good technique. He didn’t test it against the right kind of guys. When he did it against Emin’s kick he got sent flying backwards about six feet. He was told from a theory point of view that his stop kick isn’t going to work against someone good. He found that out later himself maybe the same way as some Hong Kong student who got his arm broken by blocking a roundhouse kick with a Gan sau. Not all knowledge needs to come from hard lessons. One hard lesson can end you martial arts career.

Some things work until the intensity is beyond a certain level. Unless stuff is tested against the professionals, you can’t tell if it is really good or not. Even then, it depends against who.

Ray

18

Originally posted by YongChun
[B]Hey you sound like Bruce Lee Ernie.

Ray [/B]

why thank you:D

Ray people get lost on the shape of the skeleton [ position of the bone in respect to an imaginary opponent ]

and they lose sight of the flesh [ the feeling that guides you and helps you relate to the living opponent , the eyes that see and feel the hand , foot, body that read pressure and are organic , ]

the minds that will make a mistake and try to freeze frame a moment that never will exist in a live situation . or stall from fear and miss the timing , or stumble and studder and get shocked from pain

these things are far more important when relating to a person
instead of building a robot

talk to me about awareness and distance and timing

not how you step or were your hand is

those are empty things

there are fighters and there are teachers but the worst of all are the technicians , they can’t fight and can only parrot that has been told to them .

19

Originally posted by Ernie
[B]

  1. Really Ray best or better in respect to what ?

  2. as soon as i see arguments ver the angle of a tan etc … i know they have never really been in a fight

  3. how do you draw a feeling ? [/B]

  4. As in better fighting strategy, training method, conditioning method, footwork for delivery system, better combos, better diet, etc. E.g. people say the Thai training method is better than the classical Wing Chun training method for winning ring fights.

  5. I always use the level Tan sau when I am getting punched in the head. I find it is the best for that. The elevated one tends to get in the way of some of the punches.

  6. With a pencil. If someone is cold you draw them shivering.

Ray

20

why thank you :smiley:

Just on the side : If, somebody was telling me that I sound like Bruce Lee;I would not be very pleased!..:eek:
But please continue!..:smiley: