Is the Tao of Wing Chun Do style what represents Bruce Lee s Jun Fan Wing Chun Gung Fu or what is in the book by James Yimm Lee s book on Wing Chun is there a difference in these two styles from Bruce Lee ?
Wing Chun Do refers to the style taught by Jim DeMile.
Wing Chun Way is Wing Chun Way.
FWIW Tao IS Do!! Just a term that translates as ‘way’ or ‘path’ I wouldn’t say that Jim Demile is the only person doing this either, as we all are imo especially if we have a ‘way’ to our teaching that is unique or individual.
Once again, “Wing Chun Do” refers to Jim DeMiles style. He is the creator of the system based on, inter alia, time spent with Bruce Lee.
Bruce Lee created labels for his arts including Jun Fan and Jeet Kune Do. In a similar fashion, Wing Chun Do is a label to describe what DeMile teaches.
LoneTiger,
I think the question asked was specific enough not to require pseudo-philosophical rambling such as “we all are imo especially if we have a ‘way’ to our teaching that is unique or individual”.
Suki
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;885503]I think the question asked was specific enough not to require pseudo-philosophical rambling…[/QUOTE]
Point taken Suki.
It is strange how some view my comments, as I was simply having a bit of fun with the language. That’s all, no disrepsect intended here.
FWIW Jun Fan was part of Bruces birth name and Jeet Kune (jit Kuen) is a Wing Chun principle. I have also heard from certain sources that Bruces earlier students, like James, only ever learnt Wing Chun as that was how Bruce referred to everything back then.
It was a modified form of Wing Chun, which Taky Kimura, and Jesse Glover still teach.
Neither Kimura nor Glover teach ‘Wing Chun Do’.
[QUOTE=Wu Wei Wu;885868]Neither Kimura nor Glover teach ‘Wing Chun Do’.[/QUOTE]
Sorry I was actually referring to what Bruce taught them back in the good old days, not Wing Chun Do
I will edit my other post.
You can see how much of a departure that Bruce Lee, and in particular his student Jesse Glover, made from the precepts of Wing Chun:
FWIW Tao IS Do!! [/quote]
Isn’t “Do” a Japanese word?
[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;885463]
FWIW Tao IS Do!! [/quote]
Hello Spencer,
Isn’t “Do” a Japanese word? As in Karate-Do?
And is it true that Bruce Lee used it as a promotion device for his Jeet Kune Do?
At least that is what has been said by some people.
[QUOTE=HardWork8;889250]Hello Spencer,
Isn’t “Do” a Japanese word? As in Karate-Do?
And is it true that Bruce Lee used it as a promotion device for his Jeet Kune Do?
At least that is what has been said by some people.[/QUOTE]
“Do” is Cantonese for the Mandarin “Tao”. It just so happens that Do is the same in Japanese. Jeet Kuen Do is Chinese as is Wing Chun Do. (Do can also mean knife in Cantonese 
).
“do” is the Japanese word for the the Mandarin word “tao”; however, in Cantonese, it’s pronounced “douh”, which is very similar sounding to how it is said in Japanese;
“jeet kune do” is a Cantonese term, but it is transliterated without regard to the standardized system of doing so (Yale) - if it had been done so “correctly”, it would have been spelt “jiht kyuhn douh”; I don’t know why this was the case - perhaps Lee was not familiar with the Yale system (even to date it is not that widely known, at least not nearly as much as Pinyin is for Mandarin); I would guess that Lee used “do” because that’s how the term was spelt when used with other more well-known arts (karate-do, ju-do, taekwon-do) and he knew that it was the same Chinese character, and since the pronunciations were very similar, he just went with that spelling (certainly the recognition factor would have been to his advantage as well)
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;889253]“Do” is Cantonese for the Mandarin “Tao”. [/quote]
Thanks for clearing that one up. The question had been lingering in my mind for a while.
I hope that wasn’t a threat!:eek:
[QUOTE=HardWork8;889264]Thanks for clearing that one up. The question had been lingering in my mind for a while.
I hope that wasn’t a threat!:eek::)[/QUOTE]
The Yale University Romanization for the Cantonese dialect teaches that there are 7 tones. Meaning that one word can have seven different meanings depending on the tone/musical note used. I was simply pointing that fact out. I have no clue as to why you’d think my clarifying the word “Do” was threatening.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;889275]
The Yale University Romanization for the Cantonese dialect teaches that there are 7 tones. Meaning that one word can have seven different meanings depending on the tone/musical note used. I was simply pointing that fact out. I have no clue as to why you’d think my clarifying the word “Do” was threatening.[/QUOTE]
It was a joke Phil!
A play on words, hence the funny faces/smiles…see, :eek:
Take care.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;889275]
The Yale University Romanization for the Cantonese dialect teaches that there are 7 tones. Meaning that one word can have seven different meanings depending on the tone/musical note used. [/QUOTE]
which is why if everyone used it, no one would mistake “douh” (way) for “dou” (knife); doh! (Homer)
[QUOTE=cjurakpt;889292]which is why if everyone used it, no one would mistake “douh” (way) for “dou” (knife); doh! (Homer)[/QUOTE]
I like to write it as it sounds. Even the Cantonese dictionaries I have are from the Hong Kong University Press and they actually write ‘Do/Tao’ as ‘To’ (with an arrow above the o) Another formal system which was first published in 1914.
‘To’ is also used for knife (with no markings) FWIW the markings relate to the tones Phil mentioned earlier. Doesn’t the Yale version use a numbering system instead?
FYI this old ‘missionary’ dictionary is the only one where I’ve seen ‘Wing Chun’ written exactly like that (well Chun is Ch’un). Do others, including the Yale, write Wing as Ving? Chun as Tsun?
[QUOTE=cjurakpt;889292]which is why if everyone used it, no one would mistake “douh” (way) for “dou” (knife); doh! (Homer)[/QUOTE]
I have to say that’s a good one. Thanks for pointing out that the different tones have different spellings like the ‘h’ in douh makes it a low tone. Without that there would be lots of confusion.
[QUOTE=Phil Redmond;889333]I have to say that’s a good one. Thanks for pointing out that the different tones have different spellings like the ‘h’ in douh makes it a low tone. Without that there would be lots of confusion.[/QUOTE]
I think that the Yale system is awesome - it’s totally phonetic and easy to use (like the “h” making the low tone); pinyin OTOH is a NIGHTMARE! after becoming functionally proficient w/Cantonese without ever having taken any formal classes (well, maybe one or two at a local community center, but that was w/5 year-olds, LOL), I tried taking Mandarin at China House in NYC and just never got out of the starting gate - totally flumuxed! FE, the teacher’s name was Young Ho (I know…::p), but it was pronounced something like like “yung her”; I mean, WTF?!?
unfortunately, my Cantonese has deteriorated significantly over the years, not having much chance to use it; probably the last nail in the coffin was some years ago when my current sifu, who is Cantonese but is trained at Princeton in classical Chinese literature, heard me say something and was like, “why do you speak like an illiterate peasant?”; ouch…