The Wing Chun Misconception.

This is a new forum for all those who wish to discuss the very blatant misconception that wing chun is an inferior martial science.

Yup, I'd like to discuss it. That'd be fun.


-John

It's not an inferior martial art. If anyone says it is then go fight Leun Ting, even though he's Wing Tsun, i don't think there's a huge difference.

If you wanna see trapping watch GRECO!
Really, you have no idea what you have done by awakening the wrath of the Kogas.

I am "trying" to be more open minded in my views here and approach things from ALL angles.


That said, I've practiced wing chun for a few years with my JKD training. I practiced the trapping, the chi sao, etc., etc. The problem was, when we actually fought, very little if any of the wing chun method actually transfered over into the fights we would have. This led me, as it did Bruce, to eventually drop most of the WC training that we were doing.

This isn't to say that all wing chun is useless or that it all doesn't work. EVERY technique can work given it's own "time". My main beef was the for the most part, wing chun is not trained alive (exception being a limited amount of sparring that they do).

Cheers!


-John

leung ting, all i gotta say.

I have heard some JKD people refer to "pummeling" as being more realistic or high percentage than chi sao.

Having recently had some training in pummeling, it seems to me that they are for different ranges.

I will grant you that the chi sao range does not occur in a real fight for more than a second or two, but the pummeling range would seem to exist for about as long until you are straight up clinched with the opponent.

I am not quite prepared to throw out my years of chi sao just yet.

I Look at the other stuff I took and I think wing chun makes the most sense, I think its the best thing you can have for a foundation to build of off, and the fact that the system doesnt throw 50 thousand Katas at you makes it seem a little more realistic to actually master, why would i wanna learn 50 blocks to the head when i can consentrate on mastering 2 or 3, that way i have less to think about and i can concentrate on reacting, lag time, timing and reading motion.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Wing Chun Kuen:
This is a new forum for all those who wish to discuss the very blatant misconception that wing chun is an inferior martial science.[/QUOTE]

Wing Chun has often been compared to old British bare-knuckle pugilism.

Both have a similar en guarde stance.

Both make use of punches with the vertical fist.

But, pugilism at least made provision for defending against takedowns and throws, since they were a part of London Prize Ring rules.

Wing Chun does not have this provision.

So, you're left with a close-range striking method that has no grappling backup.




[This message has been edited by Armed_Man_Piker (edited 01-07-2005).]

This led me, as it did Bruce, to eventually drop most of the WC training that we were doing.

This is very true. It is refreshing to see people that know the truth.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MattJ:
I have heard some JKD people refer to "pummeling" as being more realistic or high percentage than chi sao.

Having recently had some training in pummeling, it seems to me that they are for different ranges. [/QUOTE]

True!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MattJ:

I will grant you that the chi sao range does not occur in a real fight for more than a second or two, but the pummeling range would seem to exist for about as long until you are straight up clinched with the opponent.

I am not quite prepared to throw out my years of chi sao just yet.[/QUOTE]

EXACTLY!

The chi sao range does not exist. Well it does technically, but no one really spends any time there if they’re reasonably intelligent. But that’s just because it’s no mans land. All the punches, knees, short range kicks, etc are exchanged by both fighters in that distance and honestly, trying to trap a limb from that range ain’t happening – especially against anyone good. For that reason alone, we dropped it. You’ll just get KTFO’d.

i don't know about that maybee in the street trapping might not work, i have not used it yet. at the moment i'm studying trapping and the few moves i've learned it worked in my sparring. you can't use it all the time (unless the other bloke is stupid) just now and again i used it to set up a take down..............

I'm not saying that trapping can "never" work, only that most of the classical trapping that I was taught is extremely low percentage against "skilled" strikers (boxers) and grapplers. Trying classical trapping techniques against a good Greco Roman wrestler WILL get you thrown on your head.

For that reason I use the more high percentage methods OF Greco as opposed to the more classic compound methods of wing chun.

Thanks

-John

Bruce Lee turned more to boxing and eventually created a sort of early days kickboxing along with Joe Lewis. The trapping of wing chun is only useful for a second. but against modern day fighters who do Mixed martial arts it is about as useful as Aikido

[QUOTE]I practiced the trapping, the chi sao, etc., etc. The problem was, when we actually fought, very little if any of the wing chun method actually transfered over into the fights we would have. [/QUOTE]

ive heard a few say this but for me practicing muay thai aswell i can see the two styles being very effective in combat.

Wouldn't all the JKD people consider Wing Chun a good martial art. i mean that is one of the biggest styles represented in JKD.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by somedude:
Wouldn't all the JKD people consider Wing Chun a good martial art. i mean that is one of the biggest styles represented in JKD.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it less of a proponent of the current curriculum than one mitght think. I still use much of the original curriculum. Thats where me and John differ. But I still dont use all of it and I use much of the modern concepts as well.

Yes, i suppose that was a bit of a genaralization. but would you say that WC is a fundamental part of JKD? it seems to me that it is but i personally have never taken JKD. bad instruction where i live.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by somedude:
Yes, i suppose that was a bit of a genaralization. but would you say that WC is a fundamental part of JKD? it seems to me that it is but i personally have never taken JKD. bad instruction where i live.[/QUOTE]

Dont get me wrong, Wing Chun can be highly effective. I just didnt want smeone to get the impression that JKD is purely Wing Chun. Its not. Wing Chun plays a large role in JKD, but it isnt the complete system of Wing Chun and there are other arts that are focused on as well such as boxing, Escrima, Muay Thai and others even still. JKD is the Big Brother to Wing Chun in a sense that its everything Wing Chun wants to be but is to rigid to become.

i agree. so i guess what i am saying is that it would be silly for someone that practices JKD to consider Wing Chun ineffective.

Exactly. And the same is true if the Wing Chun man was to look further into JKD.

very true.

I agree that not much of the chi sau is used when you fight someone but that doesen't mean that it is bad. Chi sau is a backup plan. Plan A: Chain punches knees elbows kicks. Plan B: Something gets in the way use chi sau to get around it and go back to plan A. Every sunday I sparr with some ju jutsu guys in the club where I trained when I was little and I do just fine both standing and on the ground.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Seraphim:
I agree that not much of the chi sau is used when you fight someone but that doesen't mean that it is bad. Chi sau is a backup plan. Plan A: Chain punches knees elbows kicks. Plan B: Something gets in the way use chi sau to get around it and go back to plan A. Every sunday I sparr with some ju jutsu guys in the club where I trained when I was little and I do just fine both standing and on the ground. [/QUOTE]


Its not to say WC is bad or wont work. However, it does need work. The stance needs modified to accomodate good footwork. Also the philosophy of never moving back needs to be dropped. You gotta be flexible to move in any direction. Those are really my biggest two beefs with WC, not so much the techniques.

Hi. I teach Wing Chun. Chi Sao is a tool to help your sensitivity to the opponents movements and intentions. It is used as a guide to where the opponent will supply the next target. By touching a wing chun exponent you give energy, this energy must have direction. If you give forward energy, i feel that intention and do something about it. The nature of learning chi sao enables the exponent to deal with any change of intention or technique and reply with a technique to the opponents exposed area of attack. Wing chun exponents are taught to use every part of their body to attack with, so they have to train this sensitivity completely. Therefore going to the ground(which is common place at my school)is no worry to us. We spar full contact, all the time. I myself am a former British Eurpean and World championship medallist in full contact kung fu, and ive trained the current British and International champion as well. We train for high kickers, because they exist. We train for wrestlers because they exist. We even train for people who have no control! Why? Because i am a security consultant and my job is to stop any kind of trouble from coming into the clubs i protect. I dont care what you do, i wont be worrying. Even if youre a ninth degree ninja! Wing Chun has the answers to all the questions, this is why after training in 5 other arts(To instructor level)i chose wing chun to teach and use to protect myself and live my life by. On JKD, Bruce Lee is my idol, but he never completely learned the whole wing chun system so he developed things, for himself, with his friends. His philosophy for doing so was from wing chuns own philosophy of doing whatever it takes to win. Including training to fight whatever is out there. If you studied from nothing to deal with whatever was out there, you to would end up like Bruce Lee(Not dead! Highly trained in a lot of martial arts)Hope this clarifies the discussion. Good Health and Prosperity.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chen Zen:

Its not to say WC is bad or wont work. However, it does need work. The stance needs modified to accomodate good footwork. Also the philosophy of never moving back needs to be dropped. You gotta be flexible to move in any direction. Those are really my biggest two beefs with WC, not so much the techniques.[/QUOTE]

Wing chun doesnt tell you not to move back, it states that you shouldnt actively move back on your own accord. you can move back if the person who is punching is moving in aswell, but dont move back because he may be feining. plus, i agree in the idea that chi soa is not very got in real combat. because it is only good for people who throw straight punches. if they do throw straight punches, the guys gona get his but kicked with chi soa, tan soa, lap soa and all the other soa's.

Chi sau only good for straight punches?. If the dude comes in with straight punches you chain punch back cutting off the angles of his punches. And doing a lap sau on like a boxer jab is not easy the best thing is to chain punch your way in and if you get stuck on the way chi sau your way out of it. Chi sau is not something you wanna do, you want to punch your opponent in the face. A Bong sau, tan sau, ljum sau or whatever sau are nothing but punches that failed to reach their target. In the Ving Tchun system I train we don't do for example a bong sau actively like a block we do it only passively when we are forced into it

Seraphim/dynamic ving tchun

[This message has been edited by Seraphim (edited 02-08-2005).]

I've found chi sao to be very useful against jujutsu practitioners, but only when you attain an extremely high level of skill/sensitivity. Also useful for boxers (in my experience) becuse they pull their punches back to guard position once blocked, which can be felt and taken advantage of. Oh btw, i've also lost many times to people from all kinds of styles so please don't get the impression that i'm saying wing chun is better than either.

Here's where I stand in the whole controversy regarding the trad school of jkd trapping vs. the Matt Thornton argument of 'no trapping at all, trapping is obsolete': Basically, i'm between the two. Curriculums like inosanto's feature extensive trapping drills like 'wedging' and such, and though it looks very cool, i don't do it because the cooperative nature of the drills and complicated mechanics make it very difficult to make it work. However, what I will do is slam on someone's forearm just below the elbow to press their whole arm against their body. Even better is to direct the force along the line of the upper arm which actually destabilizes their whole stance. Don';t make it complicated, just slap the guy's close arm out of the way. that's all it is. THe technique has been exhausted in the theoretical studying of it, ie, near hand traps, rear hand presses on trapped hand while near hand punches then returns to trapped arm while rear hand punches, etc. But as for studying how to trap a trapper, forget it. It gets much too convoluted in a real sparring situation, and is much more likely to degrade into a mix of wrestling and boxing.

I have two replies first one is everyone keeps saying dont do chi sao in the street or in a real fight chi sao is a sensitivity exercise not a fighting technique that would be like using the drills on a speed bag for a streetfight, its meant to develop sensitivity, the same thing with trapping the compound trapping drills are excercises they are meant to give you options in a fight and to develop sensitivity , not to literally go out there and do 4 or 5 traps. The same way you practice combos on a heavy bag you are not going to go out there and execute a full 6 or 7 punch combo but at least you have the option of diff punch combinations in a fight therefore increasing your chances.I dont think its is a very fair or educated thing to say something is useless and just give up on it thats not what the martial arts are about its about refining and workin at it if it does not work the first time, make it work for you dont just disgard it.

BLAPPS makes excellent points

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JKogas:
I've practiced wing chun for a few years with my JKD training....The problem was, when we actually fought, very little if any of the wing chun method actually transfered over into the fights we would have. This led me, as it did Bruce, to eventually drop most of the WC training that we were doing.[/QUOTE]

Bruce Lee did anything but drop his Wing Chun training (which he failed to complete and hence didn't appreciate all the concepts). What he called JKD is Wing Chun - "The way of the intercepting fist" is fundamentally grounded in the concepts of Wing Chun that Wong Shun Leung (and anyone worth their salt) advocated. Economy of motion, non-telegraphic attacks, "fixed" elbow position, using attack as defense...it's all there. If you watch videos of Bruce Lee fighting (not moving fighting) then he is expressing Wing Chun concepts.

It is often misunderstood, perhaps from poor teaching, that Wing Chun is a close-quarter martial art or lacks grapples and kicks, in fact it is a complete "system". If you could not transfer the Wing Chun concepts into fighting then I would have to politely suggest that you were not taught very well, and so you were probably correct to discard what you felt was not useful to developing your fighting...but then I would say that you were not taught "Wing Chun", but a style. Wing Chun is not about techniques, it is about concepts and conditioning and it can take many years to condition your body to react automatically. Also Chi Sao should be the "alive" training where you basically play the game and only make sure you aren't delivering hits at full strength! You never look for bong sao, pac sao etc...you should automatically perform them if you find yourself in that position following attacks that did not reach the target. Developing automatic sensitivity. All these things are to give you options in a fight, you cannot tell how a fight will be, you can only prepare for possibilities that you should automatically react to. You do not go in looking for traps, locks, throws etc

Wing Chun should not be rigid when fully understood, nor does it contain a set list of "techniques". It is often taught alongside Kali as the two share a lot in common. Wing Chun does not pretend to have all the answers contained within the system, only to provide you with the tools to correctly condition the body and become aware of your weaknesses. It is then up to the individual to put these concepts into practice and to advance by taking what is useful to them from others and discarding what is not.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Armed_Man_Piker:
But, pugilism at least made provision for defending against takedowns and throws, since they were a part of London Prize Ring rules.

Wing Chun does not have this provision.

So, you're left with a close-range striking method that has no grappling backup.
[/QUOTE]

This is completely incorrect, I'm not sure what you think Wing Chun is...but what you call Wing Chun is not Wing Chun

Having read some of the criticisms of Chi Sao, it would seem that what people are being taught or experiencing is very different to what I have come to understand...and the concepts have been missed. You think if someone throws a punch or kick at you, at any range other than 50cm away, and Wing Chun is useless? I am really curious to see what you guys were being taught under the banner of "Wing Chun".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chen Zen:

The stance needs modified to accomodate good footwork. Also the philosophy of never moving back needs to be dropped.[/QUOTE]

Never moving back? Who teaches this? Not moving back has never been something I have come across in my Wing Chun training, the whole point is that you dynamically react to the sensation of force. The Wing Chun structural concept is not about being rigid, fixed, and preventing anything from moving you backwards.

One other thing, trapping hands should be called trapping elbows [IMG]http://www.fightingarts.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif[/IMG]. The motions are small and deflective to cover attack from either hand...it should not be premeditated

[This message has been edited by someotherguy (edited 04-21-2005).]

[This message has been edited by someotherguy (edited 04-21-2005).]

Never moving backwards. William Cheung teaches that. Supposedly one of the better teachers and practitioners of Wing Chun.

maybe you couldnt make wing chun work, and its obvious why, trapping and chi sau are a very little part of wing chun, the forms are most important, and most jkd guy neglect the forms.
wc is not about trapping or chi sau, its abouyt taking the line away and hitting, chi sau and lop sau will not help you fight, they are attribute drills, bruce lee studied wc for a short time, and was no where near completing the system, he had no choice but to look elsewhere, wc is not end all, its just as good as jkd, and anything else.
jkd is way off path, most bruces original students have said bruce would hate what has happened to jkd. bruce originally said only a few will be certified, and keep the quality high, now its a money making machine, incorporating tons of different arts, etc.
IT is a great art, i studied it, but i feel when you look back at what bruce wanted it to be, its way off. bruce did not like kali, silat, etc.
all arts are great, its up to you to make them work, touch hands with gary lam, kenny cheung, auguatine fong, boztepe, and see how good wing chun is.

where is the new forum mentioned in the first post?

what bruce lee did with jkd is fix all of wing chun's mistakes. but it is in no way wing chun just because it uses some of it's technique. jkd is to break free from traditional methods that do not work. it's many things. in one word i would explain jkd as adaptive. yes it's foundation is the basics of first form wing chun but it's created to be free, adaptive, not confined by rules or tradition or set ways to move. to understand jkd is to understand what most martial artist are looking for but never find. complete instinctive and adaptive applications to be formless in fighting should be the goal of any martial artist.
"it hit's all by it's self" which is to say that no thought was taken being instinctive. to learn a set way to deal with all problems is to limit your mind from instinctive and adaptive expression if you limit your mind by set movements or rules then you become a robot and only consider instructions preprogramed by your teacher. real life is ever motion, always changing always natural. if you set limitations for your self. if you have a preprogramed box of intructions in your mind then you natural ability to react will become preaction and prereaction if you fight this way then your action and reaction time will be greatly slowed down because it's simply unnatural.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by etaks86:
what bruce lee did with jkd is fix all of wing chun's mistakes.[/QUOTE]

Bruce Lee didn't even finish learning Wing Chun so how exactly was he meant to understand all the concepts which you claim he corrected? He didn't, he found his own way from the partial understanding of Wing Chun that he possessed. Wing Chun is an organic system, a concept and not a style, something that is ever changing because it teaches you, the individual, how to use the entire body in a free way. The JKD concepts are Wing Chun in origin, Bruce Lee only kept things if they fit into the pre-existing Wing Chun framework that he was experienced with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by etaks86:
jkd is to break free from traditional methods that do not work...

in one word i would explain jkd as adaptive

...complete instinctive and adaptive applications to be formless in fighting should be the goal of any martial artist[/QUOTE]

And if you do not describe Wing Chun the same way then you do not understand what Wing Chun is...obviously "styles" of fighting are being taught as "Wing Chun" in many places...just like JKD is being taught as a style too. That doesn't mean JKD is a style, and it also doesn't mean that Wing Chun is a style

Bruce Lee was a good fighter and an intelligent person, but Wong Shun Leung was doing things like incorporating anything he found useful from other fighting approaches well before Lee ever did, and was a better fighter than Lee. Bruce Lee never finished learning Wing Chun from Wong (who was an incredible street fighter) and as a consequence he never understood all the Wing Chun concepts...eventually coming up with similar conclusions himself. Don't get me wrong, Bruce Lee was a very talented person and introduced people to these concepts, he came to similar independent conclusions himself (an admirable accomplishment) but to herald him as the founder of some revolutionary approach to fighting would be wrong in my opinion

well, thank you for reading my post. i can see that maybe your a wing chun student or teacher so maybe you got offended by what i said but still i believe what i said and i never said that there was not other people and still other people being innovative in martial arts but i believe that bruce understood fighting better then alot of martial artist and yes he did not finish the whole system but i believe that the first form is the most important and chi sao is important also and he had his own kind of chi sao but anyway to me i don't really see the other two hand forms important in fighting. The only moves that work alot of the time in real fighting are the simple ones. i believe that jkd is one of the best guides for fighting because it has very little set moves and it allows you to move how ever you need to. it lets you be adaptive and natural which is a must in real fighting. but no matter what i say, i'm sure people will disagree and that is fine, this is my opinions but still this is what i believe nonetheless. at least for now this is what i believe. life changes. people change. their thoughts and opinions sometimes change sometimes do not. either way it's just my thoughts on the subject. there is no need to feel offended. people are not the same regardless of who's right or wrong. sometimes nither person is right or wrong. so it does not matter. it's just my thought's and i hope i did not offend you in anyway but it's just what i believe. your free to believe what you want. and by all means do so, this is what this forum is here for, is for people to share their opinions and things of that nature. so it's cool. i didn't type anything to say anyone is wrong but everyone has their own opinions. so thank you for your thoughts and peace be with you.

Don't worry, I definitely wasn't offended at all! I was just trying to point out to you that the concepts and principles that are contained within JKD are also all in Wing Chun. You must have negative experiences with Wing Chun, and so your descriptions of Wing Chun must be accurate based on what you have experienced...but not what I have. You might be interested to see some of the websites of other Wong Shun Leung descended students to see how they describe Wing Chun (probably much clearer than I am making myself).

www.ninobernardo.com
www.taokwoon.com
www.teamwingchun.co.uk
http://users.softpress.com/oxfordwingchun/

Let me know what you think, I would be interested as to your interpretation of these approaches.

[This message has been edited by someotherguy (edited 04-24-2005).]