WC teachers would have nothing to teach if...

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
61

[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1015774]Lol. I guess since my opinins do not fit your wc world view my sifu was not skillful and neither am I.[/QUOTE]

Your opinions are perfectly acceptable, I just thought that if you compare all drills you have practised to be suitable for toddlers then you may have missed the point of drilling.

[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1015774]Have you touched hands with a skillful wc sifu? Are you skillful.
*
*
*
Then put up a video of yourself sparring with wc. All such arguments fall apart when the video challenge is thrown.[/QUOTE]

I believe I am skillful in Wing Chun, and my Sifu is too. I honestly meant no disrespect here.

I find it strange to read of WCK students who are not confident with their art and use other methods to fill in the gaps they experience in their training. Don’t get me wrong here either, as I too remember my days of self doubt. This has smoothed out over the years as I have never stopped learning and the training did take some time to settle into my little frame!

As for the sparring clips, I’ve said before that sparring needs a partner and these days I train alone for the most part due to my work and family committments.

FWIW My Sifu learnt from Lee Shing for approx 25 years and is considered one of his eldest descendants in the World today. His skill surpasses any Wing Chun Sifu or student I have ever met or seen online but I don’t feel I need to promote this as he speaks for himself. He was a bit of a street kid too, growing up in Londons Chinatown, and had his fair share of scraps (or playfights as he calls them!)

He still teaches and he does have plenty to offer his students. I don’t think he would even entertain coaching a competitive fighter though as it just doesn’t interest him. If all you wanted to do was learn how to fight for competition, he would have sent you away to a boxing gym or simply pass you to an elder who had the same interest.

62

[QUOTE=chusauli;1016019]Paul,

Good question - it has everything to do with feeling the power and root and being connected. It is a neglected aspect of training that must be drilled, because that is WCK, for me.

Without it, WCK is nothing less than poor kickboxing, short hand Karate, or economical movement Kenpo.

WCK is not patty cake, and Chi Sao is not slap fighting. WCK without structure (alignment, body mechanics, etc.) is empty and not worth practicing. It would be like doing lousy Fujian boxing - a semblence of the same moves, but without the core root that makes it go. The body is so big in comparison to the arms. WHy not tap that power?

If I had to change a flat, I would rather use my whole body, than just my arms alone. Much of my early training only involved the arms, or what I could muster, but without the potential of the body, it was a shell.

It would be like having the Batmobile - but a movie version that needs to be pulled, and only gadgets that look good onscreen.

It’d be like having a woman, but without the sex. :eek:

Hope I made this clear.[/QUOTE]

Very clear.
But, other systems HAVE structure, but they don’t “teach” it per say.
Boxing has it, MT, BJJ, Wrestling, etc.

63

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1016021]Very clear.
But, other systems HAVE structure, but they don’t “teach” it per say.
Boxing has it, MT, BJJ, Wrestling, etc.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I find it quite interesting that in WC, it ‘needs’ to be taught. In boxing, per se, it isn’t taught but is just an inherent part of the striking and movement.

I think that because it needs to be taught in the WC, WC might be taught incorrectly - broken into too many bits and pieces.

Just my thoughts…

64

[QUOTE=couch;1016022]Exactly. I find it quite interesting that in WC, it ‘needs’ to be taught. In boxing, per se, it isn’t taught but is just an inherent part of the striking and movement.

I think that because it needs to be taught in the WC, WC might be taught incorrectly - broken into too many bits and pieces.

Just my thoughts…[/QUOTE]

That is my thinking too, that is why I asked Robert.
I never once saw a horse stance or stance training or 'rooting" or structure talk/test in Boxing or MT and they do just “fine” ( fine being an under statement).
Of course I was exposed to this in my TJMA and TCMA.
One thing though, a few years ago when I “restarted” Hung Kuen I wasn’t exposed to it, not as much as when I first learned it and when I was exposed to SPM to blend with my HK, it wasn’t really brought up much either.
Oh there was always the talk and demo of “force issuing”, but it was hands on and very dynamic, I don’t recall my “stance being tested” once, know what I mean?

65

[QUOTE=couch;1016022]I think that because it needs to be taught in the WC, WC might be taught incorrectly - broken into too many bits and pieces.

Just my thoughts…[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t say body structure needs to be taught to everybody as some sport coaches draw it out from you naturally and you don’t even realize that you have it already. Until you see a complete newbie that obviously has no structure to start with. :o

Other drills however may have specific purpose that benefit a Wing Chun practitioner, they weren’t designed for the beginner at all. :wink:

66

Well here’s a few more thoughts…

I’m doing it 35 years now, and I find that a lot of what Robert is saying is valid. I did karate for a very brief stint before wing chun, and I’ve always followed boxing and wrestling - so I was used to seeing a good, solid, strong base to work from - as all good karate, wrestling and most boxing will teach…

And right from day one I’ve been amazed at the lack of what I’ll call proper stance work/body alignment and structure within soooo much wing chun. And of course if you’re not in a bent-kneed and properly balanced position as you move around, throw punches, kicks, blocks, parries, etc…then as Robert says, you not utilizing your whole body for power generation - you’re mostly just utilizing your arms when you punch, block, etc..

Time and time again I’ve seen this within the wing chun world.

People stand too high, they neglect stretching and strengthening their legs, they neglect the development of good kicking skills, and they concentrate too much on multiple punches as fast as they can without any real power generation behind them through the use of the hips and body torque. And they lack a strong sense of balance as they may be moved around, pushed, pulled, etc. And quite often I’ve found that wing chun people don’t have enough width when in their front stance - and the too-narrow structure can easily be become unbalanced.

You see it in the forms, in chi sao, in work on the wooden dummy, in drills, in sparring, etc.

It is a sore spot for many people, and is something I emphasize from day one when people join my class. And it can be particularly difficult, I’ve noticed, when someone with previous wing chun training has joined my school - the proverbial “hard to teach an old dog new tricks” kind of thing.

But it has to be done.

67

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1016020]

I find it strange to read of WCK students who are not confident with their art and use other methods to fill in the gaps they experience in their training. Don’t get me wrong here either, as I too remember my days of self doubt. This has smoothed out over the years as I have never stopped learning and the training did take some time to settle into my little frame!

[/QUOTE]

I find this very interesting. I don’t expect any art to be ‘complete’. I don’t expect my BJJ training to be complete. It has a specific focus. Is it worthy for self defense as is, as far as I can tell yes. I have seen enough of the Gracie challenge matches and the early days of UFC to see that it can work very well by itself. But by no means do I consider it complete. This is why I still work my WC drills, even if only by myself. It fills in some holes in the BJJ game. If I was serious about competing I would be taking MT or boxing. I wouldn’t be taking WC as I’m not sure there are that many WC schools that are training MMA fighters to compete.

68

[QUOTE=m1k3;1016034]I find this very interesting. I don’t expect any art to be ‘complete’. I don’t expect my BJJ training to be complete. It has a specific focus. Is it worthy for self defense as is, as far as I can tell yes. I have seen enough of the Gracie challenge matches and the early days of UFC to see that it can work very well by itself. But by no means do I consider it complete. This is why I still work my WC drills, even if only by myself. It fills in some holes in the BJJ game. If I was serious about competing I would be taking MT or boxing. I wouldn’t be taking WC as I’m not sure there are that many WC schools that are training MMA fighters to compete.[/QUOTE]

And to add, BJJ was NOT complete and they knew it and fix that by adding MT and wrestling.
NO system is complete, NOT ONE and the highly specialized ones like WC even less.

69

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1016025]…
Oh there was always the talk and demo of “force issuing”, but it was hands on and very dynamic, I don’t recall my “stance being tested” once, know what I mean?[/QUOTE]

IMO, it doesn’t need to ‘be tested’ because it’s being tested all the time.

If my knees aren’t bent, or my hips behind my strikes - I’ll have an immediate indicator from hitting the heavy bag. If I take that ‘information’ and put it to work against a moving target - all is taught in the moment. Rinse and repeat the moment and I now have been taught how my ‘stance’ should be held.

I know watcha mean.

70

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1016025]That is my thinking too, that is why I asked Robert.
I never once saw a horse stance or stance training or 'rooting" or structure talk/test in Boxing or MT and they do just “fine” ( fine being an under statement).
Of course I was exposed to this in my TJMA and TCMA.
One thing though, a few years ago when I “restarted” Hung Kuen I wasn’t exposed to it, not as much as when I first learned it and when I was exposed to SPM to blend with my HK, it wasn’t really brought up much either.
Oh there was always the talk and demo of “force issuing”, but it was hands on and very dynamic, I don’t recall my “stance being tested” once, know what I mean?[/QUOTE]

Paul,

To side track a bit, Hung Gar is all about stance testing. And SPM certainly develops your structure in a Mantis way. Tales of NY’s Lam Sang, last GM of Jook Lum, belie his small size.

In Hung Gar, you do the “Toi Ma” exercise, which you use Sae Ping, Ji Ng, Diu Ma, Kay Lun Ma to match against your partner. This is seen in many old '70’s Shaw Bros movies, where they press against your knees.

The Hung forms all require you have this power from your root.

71

[QUOTE=chusauli;1016056]Paul,

To side track a bit, Hung Gar is all about stance testing. And SPM certainly develops your structure in a Mantis way. Tales of NY’s Lam Sang, last GM of Jook Lum, belie his small size.

In Hung Gar, you do the “Toi Ma” exercise, which you use Sae Ping, Ji Ng, Diu Ma, Kay Lun Ma to match against your partner. This is seen in many old '70’s Shaw Bros movies, where they press against your knees.

The Hung forms all require you have this power from your root.[/QUOTE]

I have seen clips from your student’s DVD(Alan Or). Forgive me for this oversimplification but all that looks like is chi sao with pushing and pulling similar to tai chi push hands. Alan looks like a big guy. I doubt that little old Yip Man was doing that to bigger stronger opponents.

72

[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1016065]I have seen clips from your student’s DVD(Alan Or). Forgive me for this oversimplification but all that looks like is chi sao with pushing and pulling similar to tai chi push hands. Alan looks like a big guy. I doubt that little old Yip Man was doing that to bigger stronger opponents.[/QUOTE]

Yip Man wasn’t always so little or frail as you see him in his last days. He was healthy and quite strong for his size. From stories I have heard, he always had people on their heels or on the balls of their feet, and always guided them into objects or into other classmates. He was able to do this with his manipulation of body power (structure, mechanics, alignment) through his bridges. Again, as I said, simply by doing the Cern Fuk and Cern Tok of the Jong, you can develop the 6 powers, but it must be done with the body.

The late Wong Shun Leung and I did Chi Sao back in 1987 in HK and later again in the early 1990’s in SF. He pushed and pulled me about like I was nothing. Considering the size difference, I was very impressed. Ho Kam Ming also did the same to me when he visited Hawkins in 1988 in Los Angeles. These were two of Yip Man’s students who have no Tai Ji training (which I assume you are referring to Hawkins), and practice and only taught WCK. If not for their body power, how could they move a big guy like me? Tsui Sheung Tien, whom I met in 1987 in Cheung Sha Wan area in Kowloon, also has this ability and very sticky, but he also learned Tai Ji Quan.

Others in WCK under Yip Man tell us that Yip Man hardly did Chi Sao with them. If this is so, how could they teach you this method? Hawkins Cheung is tiny - about 5’ 4", 108 lbs. He has often controlled me and thrown me about when I did not understand his method. One Yip Man student I met had no such ability with his body and lacked a rooted stance, was of big size and strong arms, but totally lacking in this ability with his body. So it is not across the board.

Even others can tell you they will hit you during Chi Sao and there is nothing you can do about it and they do not use hand speed, but body control.

Alan Orr is not a big guy, he’s big for his size, but he is a physically fit guy. In pictures on his website, you can see the difference in size between us.

I am sorry if you did not learn WCK like this, but it is a facet of Yip Man’s art.

73

Wing Chun 101-stance training.

[QUOTE=couch;1016022]Exactly. I find it quite interesting that in WC, it ‘needs’ to be taught. In boxing, per se, it isn’t taught but is just an inherent part of the striking and movement.

I think that because it needs to be taught in the WC, WC might be taught incorrectly - broken into too many bits and pieces.

Just my thoughts…[/QUOTE]

I don’t like to make too many generalizes comments about others who I have not seen do… but good structural and stance training? I was introduced to it in 1976 and I was checked regularly and I check my regular student’s structure regularly not only in slt but in all dynamic moving footwork training.

joy chaudhuri

74

[QUOTE=MysteriousPower;1016006]Wkmark and m113,
those were excellent posts.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your comments. Just trying to add some constructive comments here and there.

75

I find it strange to read of WCK students who are not confident with their art and use other methods to fill in the gaps they experience in their training. Don’t get me wrong here either, as I too remember my days of self doubt. This has smoothed out over the years as I have never stopped learning and the training did take some time to settle into my little frame!

WC is not a religion. It is a tool.

I find it strange that people adopt a fighting method as if it were a hammer and everything else in the world looks like a nail, and that of there are screws to be screwed and screwdrivers lying around that they persist with that hammer.

76

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1016021]Very clear.
But, other systems HAVE structure, but they don’t “teach” it per say.
Boxing has it, MT, BJJ, Wrestling, etc.[/QUOTE]Do you feel that specifically incorporating structure into the cirriculum is a disadvantage? If so, why?
Just curious. Thanks

77

[QUOTE=chusauli;1016019]Good question - it has everything to do with feeling the power and root and being connected. It is a neglected aspect of training that must be drilled, because that is WCK, for me.

Without it, WCK is nothing less than poor kickboxing, short hand Karate, or economical movement Kenpo.

WCK is not patty cake, and Chi Sao is not slap fighting. WCK without structure (alignment, body mechanics, etc.) is empty and not worth practicing. It would be like doing lousy Fujian boxing - a semblence of the same moves, but without the core root that makes it go. The body is so big in comparison to the arms. WHy not tap that power?[/QUOTE] IMO, this is spot on. Well said Robert. :cool:

78

[QUOTE=Matrix;1016080]Do you feel that specifically incorporating structure into the cirriculum is a disadvantage? If so, why?
Just curious. Thanks[/QUOTE]

Every system incorporates structure, I think that Roberts’ tends to focus on it more in the beginning so that that “delivery platform” for their techniques is well developed.
Is that advantageous compared to system that don’t?
To be honest, I don’t know.
I can tell you this though, from experience I have learned that certain systems need to be trained a certain way to get the right development.

79

[QUOTE=chusauli;1016019]Paul,

Good question - it has everything to do with feeling the power and root and being connected. It is a neglected aspect of training that must be drilled, because that is WCK, for me.

Without it, WCK is nothing less than poor kickboxing, short hand Karate, or economical movement Kenpo.

WCK is not patty cake, and Chi Sao is not slap fighting. WCK without structure (alignment, body mechanics, etc.) is empty and not worth practicing. It would be like doing lousy Fujian boxing - a semblence of the same moves, but without the core root that makes it go. The body is so big in comparison to the arms. WHy not tap that power?

If I had to change a flat, I would rather use my whole body, than just my arms alone. Much of my early training only involved the arms, or what I could muster, but without the potential of the body, it was a shell.

It would be like having the Batmobile - but a movie version that needs to be pulled, and only gadgets that look good onscreen.

It’d be like having a woman, but without the sex. :eek:

Hope I made this clear.[/QUOTE]

Robert, Paul sort of touched on this but I’m curious about the drills. In particular static vs mobile drills.

What I can best relate it to is my days of playing football. I played both offensive and defensive line. We did a lot of what you would probably call structure work. There was some static drills, mostly showing you how to set your base and set up your initial pre-contact structure, and then lots of drills working your in contact skills, keeping your balance, unbalancing the opposing lineman and of course foot work.

Would it be a fair assumption that you are doing similar things in your class based on a WC structure and the type of contact expected under those conditions?

80

[QUOTE=m1k3;1016034]I find this very interesting. I don’t expect any art to be ‘complete’. I don’t expect my BJJ training to be complete. It has a specific focus. Is it worthy for self defense as is, as far as I can tell yes. I have seen enough of the Gracie challenge matches and the early days of UFC to see that it can work very well by itself. But by no means do I consider it complete. This is why I still work my WC drills, even if only by myself. It fills in some holes in the BJJ game. If I was serious about competing I would be taking MT or boxing. I wouldn’t be taking WC as I’m not sure there are that many WC schools that are training MMA fighters to compete.[/QUOTE]

It may all depend on what you believe to be a ‘complete’ martial art. Basically, imho, any empty hand martial art is not complete. In fact, it is questionable if it martial at all (although it may definitely have a martial origin) I would also go as far to say that competitive fighting isn’t martial, it’s sport.

For me, a complete martial art is one that offers solo and group practice with and without weaponry. Now if you only want to learn a competitive combat sport, don’t practise Wing Chun, unless you can find a club that trains for that purpose. Alan Orrs approach here in the UK is good example.

[QUOTE=anerlich;1016034]WC is not a religion. It is a tool.

I find it strange that people adopt a fighting method as if it were a hammer and everything else in the world looks like a nail, and that of there are screws to be screwed and screwdrivers lying around that they persist with that hammer.[/QUOTE]

I agree, it’s not a religion. But I disagree, as I don’t for one second think that it is only a ‘tool’ as you describe it. To attempt to fit Wing Chun neatly into a box/catergory is just unwise imo. Yes, Wing Chun has specifics that only Wing Chun people train, but that shouldn’t mean that that’s all we are known for.

For example, I trained with some students from other schools and found that their weaponry knowledge was zero. They had trained for over 5 years. This is a problem imo. They could also tell that I knew ‘something’ the moment they touched hands as it must’ve just felt completely different to anything they had felt before. The reason was I was a Weaponry Sifu.