the thing which needs to change is that people should find a master who teaches the art as it should be taught. if they do, all the necessary tools for “groundfighting” or “grappling” defence would be there to learn.
what you do when you are standing can be applied equally effectively from the ground. if you had a decent teacher you would know that.
I believe the real advances of the latter quarter of the 20th, and now the beginning of the 21st century will not be in WCK itself, but rather in our understanding of it as follows:
Mechanically: As we come to greater understandings of the human animal and how it works, we’ll be able to tighten the ranges of possibility within WCK measures to better approach optimal paths. And beyond WCK, hopefully this understanding will allow us all to live healthier, train more, recover faster, etc.
Combatively: As more ethical cultural MA join the world stage, and as MMA and other similar “modern” approach propagate, the bar will again be raised and it will allow WCK practitioners to delve deeper into their art for answers to the new variations of the same old questions. A century ago, we mostly had to worry only about other Southern fists, so some movements and strategies were emphasized over others. Then we met Karate, Boxing, Wrestling, etc. and the emphasis had to be adjusted. While this doesn’t change the art itself, it continues our understanding and implementation of it.
Instructively: Teaching is a discipline all unto itself. Most people, including most teachers, can’t teach. A good teacher can give you in 1 hr. what a bad one can’t in 1 month. A good teacher can take an average, ungifted student and coach them into great achievements, while a bad one can only stay out of the way of the most naturally talented and let them achieve what they would on their own anyway. As the discipline of teaching grows, and more and more WCK teachers actually learn how to teach and actively work on nurturing their abilities to do so, it will benefit the next generation, and the art.
Evolutionarily: Minor things will continue to mutate. One lineage will have a lower Tan Sao, another a straight Bong Sao, another a non-retracting Wu Sao, another a wider Kim Yeung Ma, another a long pole form, another more examples in the Dummy, etc. etc. Since humans aren’t perfect replicators, and each has different needs and idiosyncracies, these mutations will grow, the beneficial ones lasting the test of time, the negative ones disappearing or spinning off into quirky other arts all their own. The core will likely remain the same, as we can see by looking at Yip Man, Sum Nung, Koo Lo, Cho, etc. that it has over the last 150 or so years (300+ according to legend 
Weaponry!
IMHO, I think the weaponry trained in WCK needs to be updated for modern applications. I’m not saying to throw out the butterfly knives and pole, but rather to apply the principles from them to other weapons. For example, the easiest and most obvious step is to train pole technique with a shorter weapon…something on the order of 5 or 6 feet long. This is the length that you are likely to have at hand outdoors should you ever need a weapon to fight with. Sure, lots of people say that the training with the pole applies to all “pole-like” weapons, but how many actually TRAIN with the shorter length weapons? How about even shorter? Lets say about 4 ft in length…a walking stick. Pole technique still works, but by shortening the distance between the hands you can wield the shorter stick like it was a bokken or longsword and have a “two-sided” weapon. Now not only does pole technique still apply, but you can begin to bring in much of the footwork from the knives because you can now switch the weapon from side to side. Total different look from the pole, but still entirely using WCK principles. How about the most practical and useful weapons training for our modern times…the tactical knife? Holding a folder or other tactical knife in a reverse grip works great with WCK technique. Tan Saus and Bong Saus become slashes, hammerfists become stabs, and the Pak Da drill takes on a whole new level of seriousness when a knife is involved. Look at Leung Ting’s organization. They have incorporated Escrima weapons training right alongside their WCK. IMHO this is not necessary. A perfectly valid and effective stick-fighting method can and should be derived from WCK concepts and techniques. I believe some of the TWC people have worked on this as well. I don’t really see all this as a “change” in WCK, but rather a new application of WCK. Hand to hand fighting hasn’t changed much through the centuries, but weapons fighting certainly has! There is a much different array of weapons available to us compared to when WCK was developed. I have been working on all of the aspects I have mentioned, and find that the WCK principles and methods apply just fine to different weapons. And its fun training! 
Keith
Hi KPM,
I am with you. However I am not sure your on the correct path. If we are going to change it for modern life, why not add handguns to replace the dao and shotguns for the gwun? Perhaps we can add brass knucles, as they really are an extention of the hands.
But seriously, I hope people don’t look at the weapons as real weapons. I am not sure if people really ever carried butterfly knives in the late 1800’s, nor am I sure any one walked around with a 9 foot stick. Yes I could see a place for them, but I don’t think they were real realistic weapons even back then. But they were part of a tradition and were around. I don’t think the Chings really allowed the normal population to walk around with large knives.
I think one of the many uses for them are to build the practioner. The pole’s main benefit is developing Jing from my understanding. The knives also do this.
Tom
without outstanding wing chunners to point out the faulty money-grabbing sifus that will doubtly be there
Is there any evidence that self serving or incompetent Sifus were not as relatively prevalent in older times as they allegedly (has anyone done a survey?) are now?
wing chun will probably go the way of TKD (no offense to tae kwon do people).
Ha! That was diplomatic!
I absolutely DETESTED Titanic. I loved the Abyss, Aliens, and Terminator, but I doubt I’ll ever watch another James ******* film after watching that schmaltz-drenched, nauseating testament to self-indulgence. Celine Dion’s involvement was the final nail in the coffin. I HATE that song.
Personally I think WC needs to lose its outdated religious, TCM and cultural associations, and stop pretending it is a system of health cultivation, a spiritual practice, or the answer to every problem. “Get real”, in other words.
Huh?
Why was “C a m e r o n” bleeped?
pehaps one of us could get a grappler to come onto this
board at some point in the near future to answer questions.?
Merry Prankster is all over this board, so are others. Mostly his advice is ignored and answered with “proper wing chun doesnt have to worry about the ground because of X” X usually being stance stance stance stance.
Start a thread, MP is very kind.
:eek:
Later one of my brother pointed out how WC training today seem to be so devoid of any practical or realistic fighting experience and suggested an alternative way to improve their fighting skills. The response from the forum was an embarassing silence. Perhaps all is just as well. People do what suit them best.
Excellent post PaulH!!!
And kudos to your training partners. I too almost competed at the Pan Ams, but I hadn’t been training ahrd enough for it so I skipped it, but I will be at the next BJJ tournament wherever that may be. I took second at the Copa so I hear ya.
As for WCK changes needed. Simple.
“Fight” training. that’s all. I am actually wrking VERY hard on this right now as a personal project of mine. COnverting the ‘deadness’ of WC training into live training/fighting drills. Break the cycle of theory - if this, then that. Uh uh. It’s going to be you will really try to hit me, and I will really try to use WC to defend myself. It will be infused with all WC techs that are out there, but the TRAINING METHOD will be the key adaptive factor. I’ve shown Andrew a little bit of what I’m talking about, and am in the process of documenting it so I can film it. I actaully already started. The challenge is staying true to Wing Chun, but this is very possible
Originally posted by tparkerkfo
If we are going to change it for modern life, why not add handguns to replace the dao and shotguns for the gwun? Perhaps we can add brass knucles, as they really are an extention of the hands.
Oh the agony; where will it end? :rolleyes: 
[B]
But seriously, I hope people don’t look at the weapons as real weapons. I am not sure if people really ever carried butterfly knives in the late 1800’s, nor am I sure any one walked around with a 9 foot stick. Yes I could see a place for them, but I don’t think they were real realistic weapons even back then. But they were part of a tradition and were around. I don’t think the Chings really allowed the normal population to walk around with large knives.
I think one of the many uses for them are to build the practioner. The pole’s main benefit is developing Jing from my understanding. The knives also do this.
Tom [/B]
Good points, Tom. The “weapons” of Wing Chun, while still “weapons,” develop the hands. Wing Chun is an empty hand art. Add a bunch of extras and we’ll lose it. Then, given today’s lack of necessity of knowing martial arts in the public’s perception, it’ll all be gone except in memory, along with the other “dead” arts and languages.
Originally posted by KenWingJitsu
As for WCK changes needed. Simple.
“Fight” training. that’s all. I am actually wrking VERY hard on this right now as a personal project of mine. COnverting the ‘deadness’ of WC training into live training/fighting drills. Break the cycle of theory - if this, then that. Uh uh.
Hi KenWingJitsu,
Sounds like your Wing Chun and mine are very different. But, I like the overriding idea of fight training while preserving and honing what works in the art.
[B]
It’s going to be you will really try to hit me, and I will really try to use WC to defend myself.
[/B]
Some of us do this now, but I guess you’re meaning something more. I’d like to hear how you’d incorporate your training differences into Wing Chun. Would you do away with Chi Sao and the sets in favor of arranged fighting?
[B]
It will be infused with all WC techs that are out there, but the TRAINING METHOD will be the key adaptive factor.
[/B]
Sounds interesting. I agree we as a Wing Chun community have a problem in how and what needs to be taught and the bringing students along to each stage of training.
[B]
I’ve shown Andrew a little bit of what I’m talking about, and am in the process of documenting it so I can film it. I actaully already started. The challenge is staying true to Wing Chun, but this is very possible [/B]
The best of luck to you. Please let us know how it goes. Will you be sharing your ideas with the rest of us?
Regards,
Originally posted by anerlich
Personally I think WC needs to lose its outdated religious, TCM and cultural associations, and stop pretending it is a system of health cultivation, a spiritual practice, or the answer to every problem. “Get real”, in other words.
Surely, you jest! Did you not hear that “Human kind cannot bear very much reality”? - T.S. Eliot “Murder in the Cathedral”
Regards,
Terrence wrote> .We must recognize that belief in a “superior system” is misguided and distracting. We must appreciate that our teacher or system won’t fight for us, and that it all boils down to what we personally can do (and there is only one way to tell). We need to set aside deference to “sifus” and “grandmasters” and “certifications” and lineages and instead be concerned with actual, proven performance (can folks teaching really do what they claim to teach ).
Synonyms: honor, homage, reverence, veneration, deference
These nouns denote admiration, respect, or esteem accorded to another as a right or as due.
When you say We need to set aside deference to “sifus” and “grandmasters” and “certifications” do you really mean that? We don’t have to pay respect to sifu’s or even grandmasters? Is that what your wing chun teaches you?
Just curious…
William E.
Terence wrote:
We need to set aside deference to “sifus” and “grandmasters” and “certifications” and lineages and instead be concerned with actual, proven performance (can folks teaching really do what they claim to teach.
Holy Cow!! Do you know what you are saying ?? Who is your Sifu?? I want to email this to him…
Thumbs up to Terence
There is way too much heroworship in WC/WT. Way too much talk of superiority of system. Way too much talk of ‘pure’ lineage, ‘closest’ to Yip Man, etc etc.
I have tremendous respect for my Sifu and his fighting ability, and value greatly his ability to transfer knowledge to students… but I’m sure he’s the first person to admit he’s just a man, and can be beaten in combat… just like the rest of us.
Serious, hard training is the only answer, and even then it’s no guarantee.
But hey, I’m feeling all gung ho having been given five stitches after I walked straight into my partners punch during Gor Sau Chi Sau last night.
Tom wrote:
I am with you. However I am not sure your on the correct path. If we are going to change it for modern life, why not add handguns to replace the dao and shotguns for the gwun? Perhaps we can add brass knucles, as they really are an extention of the hands.
—Note I didn’t say we were “replacing” anything, just extending the application of WCK concepts. I have known people that used their WCK stance and structure when shooting in handgun competitions. But the rest of the applicaton of WCK to ballistic weapons would be somewhat limited. How do you Tan Sau with a 9mm or a rifle?
But seriously, I hope people don’t look at the weapons as real weapons. I am not sure if people really ever carried butterfly knives in the late 1800’s,
—One of the theories for why WCK went with the butterfly knives as a primary weapon is that they were easier for revolutionaries to carry concealed. Makes some sense to me. I have an article by Bill Bagwell showing how to carry a 14 inch Bowie knife concealed at the waist.
nor am I sure any one walked around with a 9 foot stick.
—If you lived and worked on “Junks”, then lots of 9 foot sticks would be around and available.
Yes I could see a place for them, but I don’t think they were real realistic weapons even back then.
—Why not? WCK was and is a “fighting art”. Why wouldn’t the same thing apply to the weapons?
But they were part of a tradition and were around. I don’t think the Chings really allowed the normal population to walk around with large knives.
—In comparison to other popular martial art weapons, the butterfly knives are small…and much easier to conceal.
I think one of the many uses for them are to build the practioner. The pole’s main benefit is developing Jing from my understanding. The knives also do this.
----Which is exactly my point…most WCK people today do not see the WCK weapons are “real” or “practical” weapons at all. They are a training device, like lifting weights. I ask again…WCK is considered a “fighting” art. Why does this not apply to weapons as well?
Keith
John wrote:
Good points, Tom. The “weapons” of Wing Chun, while still “weapons,” develop the hands.
—Why should the WCK weapons not be considered “real” weapons? Why should they only be looked upon as training implements to develop the hands? WCK is a fighting art. Why should that descriptor not also be applied to weapons?
Wing Chun is an empty hand art. Add a bunch of extras and we’ll lose it. Then, given today’s lack of necessity of knowing martial arts in the public’s perception, it’ll all be gone except in memory, along with the other “dead” arts and languages.
—This certainly didn’t happen when the knives and the pole were added to the system originally. Why would applying techniques with a 4 foot stick do so now? Why wouldn’t learning to use a 4 foot stick or a tactical folder with WCK concepts and techniques give you new insight into and appreciation of the hand techniques? Do you think Wong Wah Bo or Leung Jan considered WCK to be strictly an “empty hand” art?
Keith
I wrote:
We need to set aside deference to “sifus” and “grandmasters” and “certifications” and lineages and instead be concerned with actual, proven performance (can folks teaching really do what they claim to teach. TN
Train wrote:
Holy Cow!! Do you know what you are saying ?? Who is your Sifu?? I want to email this to him…
My sifu is Robert Chu – feel free to email him. Titles (which are mostly self-appointed), certificates, and lineage are all for the most part BS. Skill is what I respect.
WilliamE wrote:
Synonyms: honor, homage, reverence, veneration, deference
These nouns denote admiration, respect, or esteem accorded to another as a right or as due. WE
I respect skill earned by hard work over time (gung fu). But real proven skill is very much a rarety in WCK. If someone has true fighting skills developed from WCK training, they should be able to demonstrate those – and not with cooperative stuntmen but against real resistance offered by noncooperative, trained fighters. If someone calls themselves “sifu” or “grandmaster” but can’t make it work against skilled resisting opponents, they are a joke IMO. TN
When you say We need to set aside deference to “sifus” and “grandmasters” and “certifications” do you really mean that? We don’t have to pay respect to sifu’s or even grandmasters? Is that what your wing chun teaches you? WE
We should respect all human beings but not put persons with self-appointed titles or certificates on a pedestal. Anyone can call themselves sifu or grandmaster – that doesn’t mean they have any genuine skills. In fact, I’ve actually found an inverse relationship between someone’s skill and their need to titles or certificates – as this “need” only demonstrates that their motivation is approval of others and not the acquiring of skill. TN
Terence
Hi Kieth,
OK Lets look at the weapons. The pole was not invented for the red boats. It goes way back to it’s shaolin roots apparently. The 5th brother removed his spear tip when he sought refuge in the temple. The pole comes from Gee Shim and is very common in southern arts and is nothing special to the red boats. Were there long poles on the junks? I don’t know, but I do know they are not in Venice. LOL. The boats were rather large and the river is very deep. I am not sure how valuable a long pole would be, or if it would actually be the same as a wing chun pole. Also, Wing Chun spent little time on the boats. Leung Jan wouldn’t have carried a long pole around, nor would Chan Wah Shun.
The knives. They are not that easily concealed. They are not that small. I admit I do not know the Qing rules for carrying weapons in the mid 1800’s, but many areas seemed to ban martial arts and even the opera in fear of various rebellions. I can not see that the Qing would allow the knives to be carried.
Yes they can be concealed though as you pointed out. I saw a kid on Good Morning America (Morning news show in the US) where they profiled a Kid who was working with Law enforcment agencies to show how easily kids can conceal guns. THis kid had over a dozen guns on his body and no one knew it. One was even a short barrel shot gun! However, most people are not able to do this and it wouldn’t be common.
The rebels were not stalking around like ninjas killing qing officials. They organized various activities against the government. I doubt they would have been armed much of the time. If some one accedently saw the weapon concealed, then they could report them and run the risk of getting in trouble. There were huge rebellions where the weapons were not concealed, but displayed.
I just don’t buy that wing chun people carried Long Poles and Butterfly knives. I think they were common weapons that they DID have and they knew how to use. And the knives could be concealed. But not as an every day weapon, but perhaps on its way to a rebellion or perhaps stashed away on the junks. I wish there was more history on this.
Tom
Tom wrote:
OK Lets look at the weapons. The pole was not invented for the red boats. It goes way back to it’s shaolin roots apparently.
–Sure, according to the legends. But one common legend was that Gee Shim taught the pole to Leung Yee Tai…who was the actual “poler” on one of the Junks. Gee Shim taught him how to use an everyday tool as a weapon.
The pole comes from Gee Shim and is very common in southern arts and is nothing special to the red boats.
—Never claimed any “special” status. Only that there may have been a good logical reason why the pole was one of only two weapons incorporated into WCK.
Were there long poles on the junks? I don’t know, but I do know they are not in Venice. LOL. The boats were rather large and the river is very deep. I am not sure how valuable a long pole would be, or if it would actually be the same as a wing chun pole.
—I don’t know either. Again, I’m going by the idea that Leung Yee Tai was said to be a “poler.” Even if only a legend, these stories often had some basis in fact. If the legend states he was a “poler”, it leads me to think that there were such people on the Junks. Even if the Junks were big, they must have had smaller boats to take people in to shore. It would be nice to know more about the history of the Red Boats in this regard.
Also, Wing Chun spent little time on the boats. Leung Jan wouldn’t have carried a long pole around, nor would Chan Wah Shun.
—Little time on the boats? Based on what? WCK may have left the Red Boats after the Wong Wah Bo / Dai Fa Min Kam generation, but who do we know how long it was there prior to them? If Cheung Ng was a real person and was a WCK teacher, it has been pointed out already that there had to be several generations of practitioners between him and Wong Wah Bo’s generation. Wasn’t Chan Yiu Min known as the “king of the long pole”? It must have been used as an effective weapon above and beyond just a conditioning tool if he gained such a reputation.
The knives. They are not that easily concealed. They are not that small.
—Again, the point I was trying to make before is that this is a relative consideration. Compared to the other typical weapons of the day, they WERE small and they WERE more easily concealed.
I admit I do not know the Qing rules for carrying weapons in the mid 1800’s, but many areas seemed to ban martial arts and even the opera in fear of various rebellions. I can not see that the Qing would allow the knives to be carried.
—Hence the need for a smaller weapon that can be carried concealed. Long flowing robes were common. One knife could easily be strapped to each lower leg and hidden beneath a robe.
The rebels were not stalking around like ninjas killing qing officials. They organized various activities against the government. I doubt they would have been armed much of the time. If some one accedently saw the weapon concealed, then they could report them and run the risk of getting in trouble. There were huge rebellions where the weapons were not concealed, but displayed.
—I never said they were swaggering around town like gunfighters. In the event that they needed to go out armed effectively, without people knowing they were armed, the butterfly knives would make a good carry weapon.
I just don’t buy that wing chun people carried Long Poles and Butterfly knives. I think they were common weapons that they DID have and they knew how to use. And the knives could be concealed. But not as an every day weapon, but perhaps on its way to a rebellion or perhaps stashed away on the junks. I wish there was more history on this.
----We do know that of all the weapons available in the world of CMAs, WCK selected only the butterfly knives and the long pole for incorporation into the method. There had to be a good reason. And IMHO, it was more than the fact that they made good supplemental training devices for developing the hands. I think at one point in WCK history they were actually considered REAL and SERIOUS weapons. But we have gotten a bit side-tracked from the topic of this thread. I still believe that one possible way to “improve” WCK is to develop a practice of weaponry that is more appropriate for our modern times.
Keith
What needs to change in Wing Chun to address modern needs?
Sometimes modern needs and man’s endless quest to try to perfect everything he sees ruins the natural progression of things.
As far as Wing Chun having holes in the system - no art is perfect or unbeatable, but has it’s advantages and disadvantages. It’s up to the skill of the individual to make use of it.
I think the big problem is (I’m gonna say it) - poor quality Wing Chun instruction. There are an unbelievable amount of instructors who don’t have a good understanding of the art and/or a realistic approach in training/teaching and it reflects on their students. I blame this on all of the people out there who need/want money who have no business teaching an art they don’t understand who create these holes and doubts in the minds of it’s students.
I know these are bold statements - but this is my honest opinion.
Getting back to basics would be a good start.