I completely agree. But it is true that WC has fewer forms than most other Chinese arts, and it seems to be generally accepted that WC techniques are simpler and more efficient to learn. Given that, doesn’t it make sense that on average, one could master WC faster than most other Chinese arts? So how long would it take on average vs. another Chinese art (granted that this can be way longer than 6-9 months)?
i think mastery is the wrong word to use.
if you lived with a master, and trained WC to the exclusion of all else except eating and sleeping, and were an intelligent student - you could become PROFICIENT in wing chun in 6-9 months.
another kung fu style would no doubt take longer, with there being so many forms and such.
mastery of anything will ALWAYS take much longer than 6-9 months, probably take a least over a decade depending on the time and effort put in.
wing chun was not made to be mastered in 6-9 months, but made that one could become proficient in it very quickly. mastery is much much more difficult and requires much time.
if that sifu you had talked to had said “wing chun was designed to get you proficient in 6 months, but i still havent mastered it in 20 years.” he would have been making a more correct statement IMHO - and you would not have all this confusion. 
Context is everything. My sifu practiced wing chun ALL the time
in his initial learning days… same for his sifu. Ip Man in his youth had a different kind of time on his hands than contemporary commuters, students and workers.
When I began , I made time for wc—often two classes,a day- practice in the evenings and again early in the morning-no TV, golf, vacations-wc wc wc interspersed with reading, thinking and speaking and writing.
Translating old fashioned training time with time in contemporary clubs
and schools and lessons- different time equivalencies are involved… quantitatively and qualitatively.
Old time training regimens and contemporary ones - not easy to compare. Apples and oranges in counting learning time.
It’s not entirely unlike building software.
When designing software, you get to pick and choose your inputs. You set the scope of the project.
In martial arts, you say: “…but you attacked me wrong!” 
My own teacher has said that in an “ideal” world, a committed and diligent student would practice only SNT for 3 years (to give oneself time to properly build and optimize their foundation for the art). The rest builds on that.
I think your foundation model is a little inaccurate. The truth and power of WC is in tensegrity!
Originally posted by [Censored]
[B]It’s not entirely unlike building software.
When designing software, you get to pick and choose your inputs. You set the scope of the project.
In martial arts, you say: “…but you attacked me wrong!”
[/B]
LOL. Yes, on both accounts. Still, the analogy doesn’t entirely fall apart. Some software projects are also broader and more complex than others. And we haven’t even considered iterative or evolutionary development yet.
Even martial arts fails to deal with every kind of input (e.g., biological hazards, bullets, earthquakes, meteors, the heartbreak of psoriasis, a lover’s scorn, etc.), not to mention debates on things like MTF of those it does deal with.
Both software and martial arts, in theory at least, deal with a limited, albeit different ranges of things. But I digress too far, LOL.
[B]My own teacher has said that in an “ideal” world, a committed and diligent student would practice only SNT for 3 years (to give oneself time to properly build and optimize their foundation for the art). The rest builds on that.
I think your foundation model is a little inaccurate. The truth and power of WC is in tensegrity! [/B]
While not ready to entirely abandon my model on the basis of its limited usefulness, I very much agree with the utility of your proposed tensegrity model. While not pursuant to my particular argument, LOL, it was still a good call. Despite my propensity toward the conservative, I’m even more predisposed toward models that deal with influence and “balance.” Tensegrity is a good one, not to mention apt in context. I admit I’m still pondering the truth and power part though, LOL.
“All models are wrong. Some models are useful” - George Box
I find that quote so edifying. It doesn’t pay to hold onto our models too tightly, LOL.
Regards,
- Kathy Jo
Originally posted by kj
Learning something useful in relatively short order is entirely feasible with decent instruction and sufficient effort on the part of the student. This may hold in degrees, regardless of near sightedness or far sightedness. Still, false confidence or an unwarranted sense of “mastery” can be very dangerous, and to encourage such a perspective ethically questionable, IMHO.
Hi KJ,
Absolutely.
I’m still learning Tan Sao, Bong Sao, and Fook Sao. The more I practice, the more I realize that mastery is always somewhere over the horizen—somewhere beyond me. For the poor souls who do not appreciate this, they will never know the effortless state of pure Wing Chun.
Will this make me a better person? That’s not something I worry about. 
We all make up our own minds on that score. 
Regards,
It is possible to become proficient in Wing Chun for combat purposes in a short time. There are those that believe it takes years to apply, but they are wrong.
Wing Chun is only as complicated as you make it. Our fighting forces and police departments learn unarmed combat quickly, in short no no-nonsense classes. They don’t spend endless hours debating weight distribution or the angle of their blocking arm.
If it works use it, if not don’t. Wing Chun is simple , effective and direct, to make it anything else is a perversion of its original purpose.
We train fighter pilots faster than some people learn S.L.T.
Originally posted by Ng Mui
It is possible to become proficient in Wing Chun for combat purposes in a short time. There are those that believe it takes years to apply, but they are wrong.
You’re right. That attitude is wrong. It doesn’t take long to apply it, but it takes years to be good at it. However, your post has a lot of inbred assumptions that I shall address.
[B]
Wing Chun is only as complicated as you make it.
[/B]
Hmmm, complification is contrary to Wing Chun principles. No need for it. Wing Chun is as you say, simple, effective, and direct.
[B]
Our fighting forces and police departments learn unarmed combat quickly, in short no no-nonsense classes.
[/B]
And they would be unable to apply what they’ve learned in unarmed combat against someone who has put in the time to learn it well.
[B]
They don’t spend endless hours debating weight distribution or the angle of their blocking arm.
[/B]
That’s too bad. One shouldn’t be complacent about such things. One needs to think it through repeatedly.
[B]
If it works use it, if not don’t.
[/B]
What works for one at a given time may not work another time against another opponent. What one is unable to make work, one may learn to master eventually.
[B]
Wing Chun is simple , effective and direct, to make it anything else is a perversion of its original purpose.
We train fighter pilots faster than some people learn S.L.T. [/B]
I train with several police officers, and woe to the law-breaker who tries to take them on. What do they focus on in class—Improving their Wing Chun.
For some of us, Wing Chun study is about constant improvement, and we are not satisfied with merely being able to fight with it at some beginner’s level.
Regards,
ng mui sez:
We train fighter pilots faster than some people learn S.L.T.
Who am I to argue with Ng Mui----but-----
I have taught on Air Force bases— Offutt, Holloman, Altus,
Davis Monthan–in graduate programs designed for pilots—
most had good degrees- often engineering- before their pilot training… plus think of the years it took for designing the structure and dynamics of the things they fly!!