"Old School" WC and "New School" WC...

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

This is really an attempt to look at the rancorous debates on another thread from a more neutral perspective. Basically, I’m seeing what I call “Old School” and “New School” arguing right past each other. In fact, comparing old school WC to new school is to compare apples and oranges.

Let me begin by explaining my terms. I’m using the phrase “old school” regardless of lineage to refer to folks that like WC that looks and feels old-style, like what they presume was practiced and even used in fights back in the fifties and before. “Old schoolers” tend to train with self defense in mind and may or may not choose to spar and “pressure-test” their art against other kinds of fighters. “New School” would be a way to describe those who are unconcerned with the outward “look” of their WC and put primary emphasis on it’s functionality as proven in the modern competitive arena.

Since several authorities on this forum have described WC as “Chinese Boxing”, perhaps an analogy to Western Boxing could be useful. I believe I can approach this best visually:

“Old School” Western Boxing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/John_L._Sullivan_1898.jpg

Contemporary Western Boxing

http://blog.vtheaterboxoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/a_wmanny_1116.jpg

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/files/2011/02/evander-holyfield-.jpg

“Old School WC”

http://www.wingchun.si/images/thumbs/yipman10.jpg

“New School” WC

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PCR8wo0AfvI/TPQJ8jCR9OI/AAAAAAAABMY/KP6v4tJNoUI/s1600/10th%2BLegion%2BVI%2B%252857%2Bof%2B146%2529.jpg

http://www.alanorr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AlanOrr.jpg

OK, now assuming the links I posted work, everyone will get a pretty clear picture of what I mean by “old” and “new”. My real point is that late 19th Century Western boxing and Chinese boxing obviously had a lot in common. Western boxing has changed over more than a century. It shouldn’t surprise anybody that Chinese boxing would similarly evolve. Especially in a competitive sporting environment where it is subject to a rule set not unlike what Western boxing came to use.

There are some today who still claim that “Old School Western boxing” was very effective in a bare knuckle environment and the rule set of the times. Actually I hear there are people who still train that way. Perhaps “Old School and New School” WC each have their place too. Maybe, if we can view all WC as one extended family, we can learn something from each other? I’ve primarily trained the “Old School” WC, and I’m too old now to ever want to go whole hog against some of these new guys. But I am certainly interested in what they can do! If I can learn from the “New” approach, I’m willing. On the other hand, I’d sure like to see a fighter emerge who could win using a bit more of the old style in his mix. Or maybe that’s not practical. Maybe I should be satisfied that they are still using a lot of the same concepts, and just accept that it doesn’t matter how it looks when used under pressure. Opinions?

2

[QUOTE=Grumblegeezer;1266425]This is really an attempt to look at the rancorous debates on another thread from a more neutral perspective. Basically, I’m seeing what I call “Old School” and “New School” arguing right past each other. In fact, comparing old school WC to new school is to compare apples and oranges.

Let me begin by explaining my terms. I’m using the phrase “old school” regardless of lineage to refer to folks that like WC that looks and feels old-style, like what they presume was practiced and even used in fights back in the fifties and before. “Old schoolers” tend to train with self defense in mind and may or may not choose to spar and “pressure-test” their art against other kinds of fighters. “New School” would be a way to describe those who are unconcerned with the outward “look” of their WC and put primary emphasis on it’s functionality as proven in the modern competitive arena.

Since several authorities on this forum have described WC as “Chinese Boxing”, perhaps an analogy to Western Boxing could be useful. I believe I can approach this best visually:

“Old School” Western Boxing

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/John_L._Sullivan_1898.jpg

Contemporary Western Boxing

http://blog.vtheaterboxoffice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/a_wmanny_1116.jpg

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/files/2011/02/evander-holyfield-.jpg

“Old School WC”

http://www.wingchun.si/images/thumbs/yipman10.jpg

“New School” WC

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PCR8wo0AfvI/TPQJ8jCR9OI/AAAAAAAABMY/KP6v4tJNoUI/s1600/10th%2BLegion%2BVI%2B%252857%2Bof%2B146%2529.jpg

http://www.alanorr.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AlanOrr.jpg

OK, now assuming the links I posted work, everyone will get a pretty clear picture of what I mean by “old” and “new”. My real point is that late 19th Century Western boxing and Chinese boxing obviously had a lot in common. Western boxing has changed over more than a century. It shouldn’t surprise anybody that Chinese boxing would similarly evolve. Especially in a competitive sporting environment where it is subject to a rule set not unlike what Western boxing came to use.

There are some today who still claim that “Old School Western boxing” was very effective in a bare knuckle environment and the rule set of the times. Actually I hear there are people who still train that way. Perhaps “Old School and New School” WC each have their place too. Maybe, if we can view all WC as one extended family, we can learn something from each other? I’ve primarily trained the “Old School” WC, and I’m too old now to ever want to go whole hog against some of these new guys. But I am certainly interested in what they can do! If I can learn from the “New” approach, I’m willing. On the other hand, I’d sure like to see a fighter emerge who could win using a bit more of the old style in his mix. Or maybe that’s not practical. Maybe I should be satisfied that they are still using a lot of the same concepts, and just accept that it doesn’t matter how it looks when used under pressure. Opinions?[/QUOTE]

i think it’s great they are using wing chun in a mma setting. it can only improve. everything evolves. look at cars; they go 100k before they need a tune up now. we shouldn’t forget where we came from but, i’d rather look at a model t in a museum then drive one down the highway.

3

Maybe, in some ways, the Old School was kinda New School at the same time. Maybe it was all just “school.” :slight_smile:

Here’s a post I found from this forum years back. From a poster called Liddel (who it seems was based in NZ), so maybe even he still trains and perhaps Alan might even know him. The topic of YM and sparring came up, it seems. Liddel wrote:

[B]"My Teacher was the assistant to Lok Yiu for many years and got lots of one on one training with Ip. He’s recalled many occasions exchanging punches with ‘the old man’… no head shots but all out sparring similar to that of karate kumate. Not bad for a 60(ish) year old. Most couldnt touch him and if you did it was while you were getting your leg stomped or a heavier action as your glanced him lol. Most of the time you were trying hard and he was slapping your chest, good control huh.

Fairly common between teacher and students in anything.

Back in those days Gor Sau was controlled full contact sparring albeit with no head shots and believe it or not you had to have three fights under your belt to move on at levels of the system, oh how the standards have changed

People love stories, but most dont know someone who has first hand experience cause they are not around. There are stories from witnesses about Ip kicking a guy at a football match for standing on his clothes and starting S h i t, another where a thief tried to steal a pen… my teacher was present for an altercation between a taxi driver and Ip.

The guy was not a god, but he wasnt a nambie pambie expert in chi sau slap hands either, he was a Wu shu man whos probably rolling in his grave at the state of Guilo VT today. According to my teacher who knew him he was upset at loosing control of his school even when he was alive, quite sad really."[/B]

I wonder who is alive today who might remember Yip Man training in such ways. It would be interesting to know what it was like to watch it. Did what he did look like Wing Chun - could you see the system and its concepts and methods in his application? I wonder…

4

Good topic and good questions Steve!

Let me point out one interesting thing. On a recent thread where we were talking about the different Chi Sao platforms, Hendrik referred to the circling “Huen Sao” platform used by Pin Sun, Yik Kam and other southern CMAs as “ancient” and the Yip Man Bong/Tan/Fook" Chi Sao as “modern.” One of the distinctions he made was that “modern” throws up the forearms as a barrier and more less remains at that distance. So Hendrik sees “modern” as Wing Chun that is done at roughly arm’s length. In contrast “ancient” worked into closer range and used body contact much more. He sees the “ancient” or “old school” Wing Chun as operating more in a elbow strike range (at which you can still punch) and “modern” as operating more in an extended punch range like western boxing. Now, the ironic thing here is that he showed a clip of Alan Orr doing Chi Sao as an example of “ancient” because Alan was talking about closing in past the punch and controlling the opponent’s center and breaking his structure. Interesting, yes? :slight_smile:

So maybe we need an “ancient”, “old school”, and “modern” designation! :wink:

Anyway…from an historical standpoint, boxing changed from “old school” to “modern” due to changes in the rules. The Marquis of Queensbury rules did not allow grappling and began to require the use of gloves. It started out as the rules for amateur competitions, while professional competitions still used the old rules. “Old school” boxing included limited grappling. A round ended only when one man hit the ground, whether by being knocked down or thrown down. If you got too close to your opponent you could get thrown down and lose the round. Hence the upright stance and extended centerline guard to keep the other man away. They kept a longer distance and did more lunging punches much like fencing. No gloves or very light gloves were worn. Parries with the forearms were used as much as covers because of the distance the fight was done at. With the MoQ rules no grappling was allowed and rounds were timed. So fighters could close in without worrying about getting thrown. If you are getting closer, then the punches can get shorter and look much less like a fencing lunge. The rules required the use of gloves that got larger and larger. At such a close distance punches would come in too fast to try and parry each one, so covering and hiding behind the gloves became more prominent. So if you are getting closer and not worrying about being grappled and you are wearing gloves that makes covers much more efficient, then your stance is just going to naturally go to the modern boxing stance leaning forward with the gloves up in front of your face.

Are we seeing a similar kind of evolution in Wing Chun? Is taking Wing Chun into the competition arena forcing a change? Maybe. I certainly think that putting on big fluffy boxing gloves in training makes a difference. Big gloves make a lot of Wing Chun hand techniques harder to do and covering with the gloves much easier to do. So if someone is spending a lot of their sparring time in big gloves, its going to have an impact…figuratively speaking! :wink:

Personally, I don’t think of Wing Chun as “Chinese boxing.” At least not if this is supposed to mean standing at arm’s length and exchanging punches, which is what most people think of when they say “boxing.” Maybe its because I practice one of the “ancient” or “old school” methods, but I like Hendrik’s distinction of classifying it by distance. I agree with him that the “older” versions of Wing Chun seem to have been meant for use at very close range, and not at “boxing range.” I don’t thing they were meant for standing in front of someone and exchanging blows. I think they were meant for getting past the opponent’s punch into “elbow and short punch” range so that you can control the opponent and break his structure. I like Glenn’s description of Wing Chun as an “ambush” style.

So…is turning “modern” Wing Chun into a “Chinese boxing” style an evolution? Is it a good thing? If you want to win competitions it is! Like you Steve, I think there is room for both “old school” and “modern” ,and I think some people like Alan Orr and his guys are able to do both quite well and quite effectively. But Alan may very well disagree with us and say that they are not two versions of Wing Chun, but rather the same thing.

Alan took exception to my suggestion that what we were seeing in those clips was Wing Chun “adapted” for MMA. I meant no disrespect then and I mean no disrespect now. When I say “adapted”, I am saying that “old school” Wing Chun has been converted to “modern” Wing Chun to use the terminology of this thread. “Adapted”, “evolved”, “modified”…however you want to describe it. Isn’t that what you are saying Steve?

As far as whether “old school” can win competitions. I think it can! Those two recent sparring clips from Sean and from Wing Chun Blast showed some good sparring that still looked rather “old school.” But then I got in trouble last time for talking about what things “looked like”, so I better shut up now!!! :eek:

5

It is only natural that things evolve over time , or maybe change would be a better word . I would not define any wing chun approach as new or old , because old wing chun was new once . Accumulation of the knowledge and experience over time ( or the lack of it) will cause changes in the approach of training , way of applying techniques , resolution for certain fighting situation and problems , ect . My view of things is , you have to learn “old way” first ,which would be basic foundation of the style ( structure , how to generate force, basic principles and tactics , footwork …) and than build upon that according your experience . Each generation’s experience will change the foundation a bit and that is how old becomes new .

6

treatis

[QUOTE=KPM;1266439]Good topic and good questions Steve!

Let me point out one interesting thing. On a recent thread where we were talking about the different Chi Sao platforms, Hendrik referred to the circling “Huen Sao” platform used by Pin Sun, Yik Kam and other southern CMAs as “ancient” and the Yip Man Bong/Tan/Fook" Chi Sao as “modern.” One of the distinctions he made was that “modern” throws up the forearms as a barrier and more less remains at that distance. So Hendrik sees “modern” as Wing Chun that is done at roughly arm’s length. In contrast “ancient” worked into closer range and used body contact much more. He sees the “ancient” or “old school” Wing Chun as operating more in a elbow strike range (at which you can still punch) and “modern” as operating more in an extended punch range like western boxing. Now, the ironic thing here is that he showed a clip of Alan Orr doing Chi Sao as an example of “ancient” because Alan was talking about closing in past the punch and controlling the opponent’s center and breaking his structure. Interesting, yes? :slight_smile:

So maybe we need an “ancient”, “old school”, and “modern” designation! :wink:

Anyway…from an historical standpoint, boxing changed from “old school” to “modern” due to changes in the rules. The Marquis of Queensbury rules did not allow grappling and began to require the use of gloves. It started out as the rules for amateur competitions, while professional competitions still used the old rules. “Old school” boxing included limited grappling. A round ended only when one man hit the ground, whether by being knocked down or thrown down. If you got too close to your opponent you could get thrown down and lose the round. Hence the upright stance and extended centerline guard to keep the other man away. They kept a longer distance and did more lunging punches much like fencing. No gloves or very light gloves were worn. Parries with the forearms were used as much as covers because of the distance the fight was done at. With the MoQ rules no grappling was allowed and rounds were timed. So fighters could close in without worrying about getting thrown. If you are getting closer, then the punches can get shorter and look much less like a fencing lunge. The rules required the use of gloves that got larger and larger. At such a close distance punches would come in too fast to try and parry each one, so covering and hiding behind the gloves became more prominent. So if you are getting closer and not worrying about being grappled and you are wearing gloves that makes covers much more efficient, then your stance is just going to naturally go to the modern boxing stance leaning forward with the gloves up in front of your face.

Are we seeing a similar kind of evolution in Wing Chun? Is taking Wing Chun into the competition arena forcing a change? Maybe. I certainly think that putting on big fluffy boxing gloves in training makes a difference. Big gloves make a lot of Wing Chun hand techniques harder to do and covering with the gloves much easier to do. So if someone is spending a lot of their sparring time in big gloves, its going to have an impact…figuratively speaking! :wink:

Personally, I don’t think of Wing Chun as “Chinese boxing.” At least not if this is supposed to mean standing at arm’s length and exchanging punches, which is what most people think of when they say “boxing.” Maybe its because I practice one of the “ancient” or “old school” methods, but I like Hendrik’s distinction of classifying it by distance. I agree with him that the “older” versions of Wing Chun seem to have been meant for use at very close range, and not at “boxing range.” I don’t thing they were meant for standing in front of someone and exchanging blows. I think they were meant for getting past the opponent’s punch into “elbow and short punch” range so that you can control the opponent and break his structure. I like Glenn’s description of Wing Chun as an “ambush” style.

So…is turning “modern” Wing Chun into a “Chinese boxing” style an evolution? Is it a good thing? If you want to win competitions it is! Like you Steve, I think there is room for both “old school” and “modern” ,and I think some people like Alan Orr and his guys are able to do both quite well and quite effectively. But Alan may very well disagree with us and say that they are not two versions of Wing Chun, but rather the same thing.

Alan took exception to my suggestion that what we were seeing in those clips was Wing Chun “adapted” for MMA. I meant no disrespect then and I mean no disrespect now. When I say “adapted”, I am saying that “old school” Wing Chun has been converted to “modern” Wing Chun to use the terminology of this thread. “Adapted”, “evolved”, “modified”…however you want to describe it. Isn’t that what you are saying Steve?

As far as whether “old school” can win competitions. I think it can! Those two recent sparring clips from Sean and from Wing Chun Blast showed some good sparring that still looked rather “old school.” But then I got in trouble last time for talking about what things “looked like”, so I better shut up now!!! :eek:[/QUOTE]

keith i love your treatis on the evolution of the boxing stance and tactics. i enjoy studying the old school boxing matches on youtube. i dont want to hijack the tread, but there is one good old school, new school boxing comparsion vidoe i like. if anyone is intereseted i can post the link

7

[QUOTE=deejaye72;1266430]everything evolves. look at cars; they go 100k before they need a tune up now. we shouldn’t forget where we came from but, i’d rather look at a model t in a museum then drive one down the highway.[/QUOTE]

It’s not as simple as that, I think in WCK we need to get a better picture of how the origional system was designed to function with all it’s components in tact, before trying to modify, improve or evolve anything. For argument sake let’s imagine you’ve never seen a car before in operation or have a very limited understanding of how it supposed to operate. Now you try to improve upon the design of the car with that very limited knowledge and all you had to work with was the other shell without the engine or operating manual.

Rather than choosing to follow either the “old school” or “new school” approach. I think a better approach would be if wing chun people first do the research to understand how the system was designed to work with all the components in tact by cross referencing various wing chun linages, and once they had a good understanding of how wing chun was designed to work by the anscestors, then they may choose to cross train, spar and “pressure-test” their art against other kinds of fighters in order to refine the art further in the modern competitive arena like MMA.

Just my opinion!

8

modern

[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1266444]It’s not as simple as that, I think in WCK we need to get a better picture of how the origional system was designed to function with all it’s components in tact, before trying to modify, improve or evolve anything. For argument sake let’s imagine you’ve never seen a car before in operation or have a very limited understanding of how it supposed to operate. Now you try to improve upon the design of the car with that very limited knowledge and all you had to work with was the other shell without the engine or operating manual.

Rather than choosing to follow either the “old school” or “new school” approach. I think a better approach would be if wing chun people first do the research to understand how the system was designed to work with all the components in tact by cross referencing various wing chun linages, and once they had a good understanding of how wing chun was designed to work by the anscestors, then they may choose to cross train, spar and “pressure-test” their art against other kinds of fighters in order to refine the art further in the modern competitive arena like MMA.

Just my opinion![/QUOTE]

i see your point of view. what would you consider “modern” hong kong wing chun, or mma cross training? i’m just trying to understand where your coming from.

9

Old School TCMA= Up until the Last Days of the Qing Dynasty. New School CMA= from that date until present. Transition period of 25 years. :slight_smile: I’m sure all this orthodox WingChun training isn’t just to overthrow all the Chinese take-out restaurants in your area? https://www.google.com/search?q=chinese+food&client=firefox-a&hs=kMJ&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=D8xdU5jAGcnj2wWhhoHwBQ&ved=0CN0BELAE&biw=1440&bih=807

10

[QUOTE=deejaye72;1266445]i see your point of view. what would you consider “modern” hong kong wing chun, or mma cross training? i’m just trying to understand where your coming from.[/QUOTE]

I consider “modern” hong kong wing chun to be an evolution of the origional WCK system, even though there are still traces of the origional wck system, many things have been evolved out such as many of the the origional snake and crane signatures, as well as short power generation, certain footwork knowledge, and chin-na.

I think mma cross training is great to improve your skills, however if you lack the knowledge of the origional wck system to draw upon or revert back to, if faced with adversity, you won’t be able to find the answers within your WCK system. you’ll be forced to look outside the WCK system and end up doing MMA with wing chun elements as with Alan Orr’s fighters. I like this quote, “MMA is the ultimate martial art, wing chun is it’s counter” I think if a wing chun guy can handle an MMA fighter, he won’t be easily suprised by any other fighter.

11

Wing Chun is a principle based art. These principles don’t change, just like laws of physics don’t change.
So IMO, there is no ‘old school’ or ‘new school’, just varying degrees of understanding or misunderstanding of Wing Chun concept/principle - which can be easily seen in the vast amount of differences we have today in application.

12

[QUOTE=KPM;1266439]Hendrik sees “modern” as Wing Chun that is done at roughly arm’s length. In contrast “ancient” worked into closer range and used body contact much more. He sees the “ancient” or “old school” Wing Chun as operating more in a elbow strike range [/QUOTE]

What’s the link to where Hendrik said this?

13

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1266451]Wing Chun is a principle based art. These principles don’t change, just like laws of physics don’t change.
So IMO, there is no ‘old school’ or ‘new school’, just varying degrees of understanding or misunderstanding of Wing Chun concept/principle - which can be easily seen in the vast amount of differences we have today in application.[/QUOTE]

I would agree. Old school / new school - you only have good wing chun and bad wing chun.

Wing Chun is based on principles and they are always the same. The conceptual part of wing chun is the forever changing part - dealing with the problem of the dart or at the time.

Mma really opens up the problem within some wing chun styles of not training - with enough pressure, understanding of structure, understanding of applying the skills with a tough opponent, dealing with takedowns, not being conditioned, using applications that have only been demo tested etc etc

In CSL Wing Chun we have a very traditional system - forms, Qi going, chi sao, dummy, footwork, drills - beginners to advance, then also sparring and pressure testing

14

[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1266449]I consider “modern” hong kong wing chun to be an evolution of the origional WCK system, even though there are still traces of the origional wck system, many things have been evolved out such as many of the the origional snake and crane signatures, as well as short power generation, certain footwork knowledge, and chin-na.

I think mma cross training is great to improve your skills, however if you lack the knowledge of the origional wck system to draw upon or revert back to, if faced with adversity, you won’t be able to find the answers within your WCK system. you’ll be forced to look outside the WCK system and end up doing MMA with wing chun elements as with Alan Orr’s fighters. I like this quote, “MMA is the ultimate martial art, wing chun is it’s counter” I think if a wing chun guy can handle an MMA fighter, he won’t be easily suprised by any other fighter.[/QUOTE]

We have a complete wing Chun system. We are not forced to look outside our wing chun. We have a system strong enough to with within mma.

Show you clips of your wing chun working in mma so we can see a style of original wc in action

15

[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1266452]What’s the link to where Hendrik said this?[/QUOTE]

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67520-Is-the-modern-Wck-structure-and-chi-sau-a-problem-in-reality

16

[QUOTE=deejaye72;1266442]keith i love your treatis on the evolution of the boxing stance and tactics. i enjoy studying the old school boxing matches on youtube. i dont want to hijack the tread, but there is one good old school, new school boxing comparsion vidoe i like. if anyone is intereseted i can post the link[/QUOTE]

Yes yes it is always lol funny to hear guys who don’t box and have never trained as a boxer tell us about boxing.

17

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1266451]Wing Chun is a principle based art. These principles don’t change, just like laws of physics don’t change.
So IMO, there is no ‘old school’ or ‘new school’, just varying degrees of understanding or misunderstanding of Wing Chun concept/principle - which can be easily seen in the vast amount of differences we have today in application.[/QUOTE]

Principles are not like the laws of physics. Wing chun is a skill just like boxing or bjj or mt or most fighting arts and the principles are there to help you develop that skill not rules or laws that must be obeyed.

Skill does not depend on knowledge or understanding but performance. I think that real knowledge and understanding only comes after skill. What most people mean by knowledge and understanding is their knowledge and understanding of the model. My ability to land solid shots with my body behind them isn’t something you get through knowledge or understanding but comes from PRACTICE. You could say wing chun is a practice based art. You get better through practice.

The simplest way to see this is you get the so called master of knowledge and understanding who can talk at length about the model and put them in the ring and see how they can’t make anything work.

18

???

[QUOTE=tc101;1266469]Yes yes it is always lol funny to hear guys who don’t box and have never trained as a boxer tell us about boxing.[/QUOTE]

i dont know if he boxed, i have. i had to, my modern wing chun is missing elements. i lost the instructions so, i had to learn from real people. what he said was still real interesting.

19

[QUOTE=deejaye72;1266472]i dont know if he boxed, i have. i had to, my modern wing chun is missing elements. i lost the instructions so, i had to learn from real people. what he said was still real interesting.[/QUOTE]

I hear I have boxed from many people. What does that mean? Did you train with a fight trainer? Box in golden gloves? Or do a little boxing at done school where no one really trained or fought? Because what I mean by boxed is trained as a fighter at a boxing gym.

20

yip man taught it

[QUOTE=kung fu fighter;1266449]

I consider “modern” hong kong wing chun to be an evolution of the origional WCK system, even though there are still traces of the origional wck system, many things have been evolved out such as many of the the origional snake and crane signatures, as well as short power generation, certain footwork knowledge, and chin-na.

i went to a seminar twenty years ago and witnessed a hong kong wing chun trained individual, throwing people around like ragdolls. big guys, little guys it didnt matter. when he took a break. i went over to him and asked him to show me. he threw me around the room like a ragdoll. his arms were soft, no strength. i was either on my heels or my toes. he was bridging and uprooting people. he looked liked he was doing internal martial arts, like bagua zhang or something…with all the uprooting. i asked him when the seminar was over where it came from, he said " it came from yip man. yip man taught it. modern wing wing chun has the structure, the internal and everything else.
i dont know where this “my style is older so it has everything in it and your info is lost” came from.

i can tell you the sifu’s name and who he learned from but, i dont want to be accused from the resident soup nazi of name dropping.