Wing Tsun: ego
Wing Chun in general: a common respect among GM Yip Man’s FAMILY of senior students, if only for GM Yip’s sake. is GM Yip somewhere in the afterlife asking, “good god, what the f*ck happened?”
Bean ‘C’,
You have a point. Nevertheless, I was always taught to attempt to break down a structure as I was being taught it - not to confirm that it was good - but in a more multifactorial way - to test my ability to think, to compute and to reflect. Few ‘structures’ survive determined contact with an opponent, so, the ability to switch and change efficiently is needed.
The ‘breaking down’ can therefore be constructive as well as reductive.
This approach is high on input demands for the teacher, so it can’t be taught in a large class environment. It does suit small dedicated groups, and this is a feature of Hakka arts - it certainly is in Lee-Yin-Sing’s Mantis.
Without wishing to start an argument with Wing-Chun people SOME from that art are very sensitive about breaking down their own structures - as that implies that they are not perfect - and that does not ‘compute’ if the teaching is dogma driven. Of course this is true for a lot of arts - I mention WC because I have studied it under a number of different Si-Fu and used it in police work under real life pressure.
It’s a sensitive issue for any style to address - it takes some courage and not a little reflection.
Cheers,
Steve.
Steven T. Richards
I do that all the time…the breaking down and looking for faults. It can be really depressing when you’ve just done six months of a style and the little voice in the back of your head says “Hey, you known this s**t isn’t going to work for real”. And yes, I do believe that after six months in a style you should have some idea of whether it’ll work or not. Especially if like me you have trained for almost all your life.
It is both a blessing and a curse.
Blessing: Suddenly you are able to give people in your style a few nice little surprises that they hadn’t thought of and therefore hadn’t prepared for.
Curse: When sparring you are painfully aware of the weaknesses of your style, and are so busy trying to overcompensate for a weakness that likely as not he isn’t even aware of that you tend to get trashed. Plus you lose faith in a lot of styles very quickly…though that’s not always a bad thing…
But as for the weaknesses of my Style:
Muay Thai: No groundfighting, damaging to the body, relies on brute strength, and 9 times out of 10 the smaller lighter opponent gets thrashed.
Wing Chun: No groundfighting, many bad schools of.
That’s about it
Steve Richards sez:
Without wishing to start an argument with Wing-Chun people SOME from that art are very sensitive about breaking down their own structures - as that implies that they are not perfect - and that does not ‘compute’ if the teaching is dogma driven. Of course this is true for a lot of arts - I mention WC because I have studied it under a number of different Si-Fu and used it in police work under real life pressure
Steve: I have no idea about how much SPM you really know.That is neither a negative or positive remark. But that is not my point. The answers to the questions on this thread depends on how much a person knows of a system. Regarding wing chun I can say that your comment on wing chun above is quite misleading and inadequate. Of course you can always find people in an art who have their individual limits. In the culture of good wing chun the notion of “there is no unstoppable move is very much there” and a good sifu has and teaches humility about the limits of actions. In the same context of an exchange even when a good person makes an effective move in good teaching all are shown and taught to experiment with what the possible counters can be.
Both openness and development are treasured values. Also good wing chun teachers go over and again with the issues of whether the context made/makes a difference.
On internet lists discussions are not always sufficiently sustained
and one can give and absorb inadequate understanding of an art.
In many arts including wing chun and taiji there are lots of folks who do not know what they are doing. The considerable commercialization of much of kung fu has resulted in many inadequacies in understanding an art. And internet debates often mask more than what they uncover… often because top flight people don’t always engage in debates in addition to the limitations of the medium.. Again, in US SPM’s Mark sifu is unlikely to spout off on the net and debate. In Chen taiji, Chen Xiao Wang is unlikely to beat his breasts about his status as the family standard bearer.
Also, on the net folks can mention bouncers in bars and police work etc. In the US and very likely in the UK and Australia, the legal and ethical environment puts great limits
on the use of real kung fu. And in kung fu and karate tournaments also the rules and the legal implications give very limited ideas of what some arts are really about.
The major weakness I see in my system is not in the system itself, but in the teaching/training of it.
Too much emphasis is placed on the forms, with not nearly enough emphasis on practicing the application of these against live, resisting opponents.
While I “know” the application of moves from the form, without training to use them, I doubt my abilities to do so in an actual armed encounter. It would be, for example, like a boxer learning all types of jabs and punches and practicing against a heavy bag, but never actually boxing an opponent. (I believe this is a problem with much kung fu these days, and is at the heart of why kung fu fairs so poorly in UFC-type bouts.)
I have heard it said that “once you truly learn and internallize the form, the function will come automatically.” BS That’s like saying you’ll become a great soccer player if you run around, alone, on a field and pretend to kick a ball.
Yuan ‘P’
You miss my point completely. Try reading it as subjective experience of SOME people in that system.
You seem to be far to sensitive and that has allowed you to project whatever it is that you seem to dislike about me personally into my comments about Wing-Chun. Whether you like it or not, I have studied that style - as you should know from other posts between us, and also whether you like it or otherwise, I have used it for real - and I have commented very positively on it, as in how it saved my life. So, I don’t need a wilful mistinterpretation - consciously or otherwise.
As for top people in SPM, well my Si-Fu current Grandmaster Lee-Lien doesn’t use the net either, he asked me to on his behalf with the authority to speak for him and his blood family. If you don’t like that then hard cack.
If you want to know about me or my Pai ask some of Mark Foon’s people who have posted here such as Richard Hodson or Scott Eng (GM Marks’s son-in-law). You could do similar things with some of GM Yee’'s people too: Bruce Campbell and Khanh Li.
You could even ask Roger Hagood - he knows enough about my background. Outside of jook-Lum there are plenty in Chow-Gar, Iron Ox etc who know me well.
Yuan ‘P’
As a PS you should have taken my last paragraph (In the post that you refer to) as a starting point - shame…
Steve Richards sez:As a PS you should have taken my last paragraph (In the post that you refer to) as a starting point - shame…
The last para is where you refer to wing chun. My reply bears primarily on that. I have a friend or two with SPM background-
one is very very good as a martial artist- he doesnt discuss SPM on the net. I would not and have not commented on any substantial content of SPM. It takes a long time to get an inside view of a good style and it is usually preposterous to talk deeply
or knowledgeably about more than one. The time to get by with Draeger and Smith’s Cook’s tour has passed -at least for me.
I dont know you and comment on things as posted. I do not dislike you or like you- dont know enough to do either.
Water Dragon–this seemed to me to be the problem as I was watching an Aikido class. It seemed to be awfully dependent on the other person overcomitting. What if they don’t, ya know?
Well, it’s not to that extreme.
Examples: Against boxers, I’m pretty good with avoiding rights and hooks. Jabs tear me up to hell and back as there is no real commitment, just enough to bloody your nose after a while.
Uppercuts are better for me, but still tough. I think it’s the difference between the uppercuts more vertical energy vs. the horizontal energy I’m more used to.
Wrestling. I’m good against single legs, doubles, ankle picks, actually most take downs. Front head locks, over and under hooks tear me up. Once you sink that, there’s no energy exchange and I’m screwed. I’ve been taken out of my element.
Yuan ‘F’,
The reason why many seniors in any Pai do not post is because of trolls and flammers, and other more subtle attackers who may hide behind a facde of respectablility - usually an annonymous one.
In my view more seniors should post and enter into discussion - openly and freely. Notwithstanding the above, why not?
I speak openly and if that is not to your liking, then I’m afraid that you will just have to get used to it.
Reading your posts overall, very little of what you say is constructive and there is usually a poorly disguised attempt at attacking someones character. That said, I would defend your right to express your views as this is a debating forum.
I value any informed and reflective opinion or indeed criticism. If you are not capable of any of that, then maybe you could invite someone onto the forum who is.
Yuan Fen has been pretty cordial to me, generally speaking, especially considering the attitude I threw his and whipping boy’s way on the Wing Chun forum. Just wanted to speak to that.
That said, I think I understand Steve’s point, and I believe it’s much larger than Wing Chun.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe what you are saying is that arts frequently fall into the “Sifu says so,” trap.
Do this.
Why?
Because Sifu says so.
Student dutifully performs.
Dogma sucks, and Steve, I think was just using his personal experiences in studying WC to demonstrate that. I don’t believe any particular barb at WC was meant. I think he was just saying that that particular way of teaching is bad regardless of style practiced.
Yuan ‘F’,
The last paragraph in that post does not refer to Wing-Chun.
For some reason your emotions are getting in the way of your ability to reason - or perhaps you just like being deliberately obtuse?
Hi Merry ‘P’,
Yes that was my point exactly. Lessons based on subjective empiricism are the best learned.
I said nothing about ALL Wing-Chun, or about Yuan Fen or his lineage or his Si-Fu(s), only about SOME peole from that broader art within my own experience.
Yuan does not seem to like the fact that I am open and post freely and answer questions as I do - despite in his eyes ‘claiming’ something about status. He seems to think that I shouldn’t do that.
Anyone can check my background out - its transparent - unlike some.
He also seems to think it impossible to get a deep insight into more than one art. Some people believe that, and no doubt that belief will produce its own anticipated outcomes.
Yuan doesn’t seem to like my mentioning real experience in relevant contexts. Why not? Are not martial arts supposed to be real?
My experience is as valid, relatively speaking, as the the next persons and it is on that basis that I mention it.
Cheers Friend,
Steve.
I have to say that I am perpetually entertained by the “closed,” idea that seems to be present in many CMA; as though knowledge were a mystical thing to be taught in secret to a select few. I simply don’t understand it and any discussion that focuses on it in any way leaves me scratching my head… I mean I KNOW it on a purely intellectual level, but it just leaves me baffled.
The Japanese were far less secretive IMO
Hello Merry ‘P’,
Very good point, and a nice prompt for a serious debate about the issues of closedness and open debate - as in a forum.
People who do not want to talk with others will find themselves confused if they enter a debating forum - same for people who may dislike other people being open.
How, I wonder, can we all share knowledge and information without openness?
A closed single style forum would eventually run out of things to say as the limit point for reflection and self-reflexive critique would be met with very quickly - unless of course - as happens - having no ‘outside enemy’ - the debate reduces to internicine insults with different branches of a given art turning against one another.
Thankfully, there does seem to be a large number of open people posting on this forum and it is a great pleasure to have the oportunity to learn from them.
Cheers Friend,
Steve.
My weakness
Although this seems to have turned into a Wing Chun thread I’ll give what I think are my weaknesses.
I practice Wushu and I think a weakness of the style can be an overemphasis on the sport competitions.
My personal weakness is in actual fighting. We do not spar much, I think my teacher is worried about people hurting eachother, and I was never a very good fighter before.
So I am going to try and work in more fight conditioning and put together a sparring group outside of class. I just haven’t told my wife this, she frowns on sparring.
merryprankster: my intent is to be cordial. thanks for your comments.
steve: I reproduce the ending of your relevant post:
<<<<Without wishing to start an argument with Wing-Chun people SOME from that art are very sensitive about breaking down their own structures - as that implies that they are not perfect - and that does not ‘compute’ if the teaching is dogma driven. Of course this is true for a lot of arts - I mention WC because I have studied it under a number of different Si-Fu and used it in police work under real life pressure.
It’s a sensitive issue for any style to address - it takes some courage and not a little reflection.
Cheers,
Steve.>>>>
I am assuming that a para is more than a sentence. But one
should be able to see what i am responding to in what is reproduced above whatever the nomenclature- paragraph-sentence etc one uses. Of course “sifu sez” by itself is hardly a sufficient source of authority in a martial art. But listening to, understanding and practising and trying out what a very accomplished teacher in any art is pointing out is not a trivial matter either..
Getting really first class instruction in TCMA-s including wing chun
is not an easy matter. And–one can develop straw man arguments by use of the term “some” in discussing an art and it’s practitioners. To remove the discussion from WC or SPM of
course it would be correct to say that “some” or even “many”
taichi folks dont know how to use their art- that is neither here or there in understanding taichi/ taiji as a martial art.
Yes- experiences count- for personal development and in my case too. But in communications specially in truncated one s on the net we are at best dealing with recollections of our experience-
a very subjective matter.
nothing wrong with talking about wing chun. a lot of us study it in one flavor or another, and if enough people who do study it find faults, then, by gosh, we need to talk about it. that’s what this thread is for.
now, we all know what technical weaknesses WC is known for (groundfighting, for example). what about SPM and stuff like that? i know little about mantis from either end of china, so fess up, all you SPM folkses.
Hello ‘Rub…’
Honest and informative reply… thank you.
I can only speak for my understanding of my branch of Mantis.
It’s weakness is the shadow of its strengths - it focusses very, very well on doing certain things with great skill - but the downside of that is that its technical base is limited. It is a complete but closed system - in the sense that I’ve posted elsewhere. There are no strongly developed high kicking skills or ground grappling (curiously there is a lot of antigrapling) there is a full range of stand-up cum-na skills.
In our branch of Jook-Lum, a choice has been (broadly) made between strong bridge development and ‘leaking hand skill’. We ‘prefer’ leaking, and SOME other systems of SPM 'prefer the opposite - strong, hard, heavy bridge. Preferences aside, there are times when a heavy bridge is perhaps the more applicable.
Broadly, I’d say that weakness is anything taht a system doesn’t have that can be empirically demonstrated as practical and street useful. That means that my style has many weaknesses - as indeed will many others too.
This brings me to considering developing the initial prompt question of weakness in ‘style’ to asking ‘How is this compensated for?’
Cheers,
Steve.
I compensate for it by crosstraining as needed. 
And by challenging myself to get off my butt and work with guys outside my normal realm of experience.