original wing chun
Posted by: donchisau
original wing chun - 01/06/09 05:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cl0D1zzlF I hope I linked this correctly. here is an incredible clip of an original version of wing chun first form SLT.This form hasn't changed much if any from the time wing chun left the red boats.
You will see the internal side of wing chun and both crane and snake ging and the punches at the end are very important. Showing the start of bringing the slow body training up to real usage.
This is close to my wing chun. Hard to believe this has been put up.
Enjoy!
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 01/07/09 09:06 AM
the video was all slow movement. it might just be me, but i can distinguish power generation methods (jing) when its all slow. just my ignorant karate mind i guess, lol.
Posted by: Ames
Re: original wing chun - 01/07/09 02:11 PM
Interesting clip, but what makes you say that this is the original style of wing chun? Not that I know a heck of a lot about this topic, my understanding was that this is a pretty debated issue in the wing chun community?
I like his movement in the clip though.
--Chris
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 01/07/09 06:06 PM
Interesting, Don. Do the CK and BT forms look similar in this style? It's cool to me because the hand forms and movements have much more flow in contrast to Ip family's more step-by-step structuring of the form. It seems logical to me, because the WC hand forms are never meant to be static. For example, a bong/lop/fak sao should be one movement instead of the 1-2-3 jerky stuff you see in poor, over rehearsed chi sao.
So why don't modern schools practice this way? Are the forms ever sped up from this tai chi speed? Is the end result (chi sao, applications, combat) more or less the same, and if so is one way really better than the other?
Man, thanks for getting me thinking! It's been hard since I've been away from Chicago and the school.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 01/08/09 05:47 PM
Going to give the abridged answer. there are several styles of wing chun that had no contact with others after from after the red boat era. Cho family has a line seperate from all others yet you would see the similarities with the vid. The video is pao fa lien a rare style not know to have shared with any others yet the elements are clear. it also shres eleemnts with viet wing chun which started in vietnam in the late 1890s to early 1900s and it also shares eleemts with early leung Jan students Lo Kwais wing chun as well as late leung Jan kulo wing chun. Yet none of these families have any ties with any other family . The only thing thy have in common is their founders ties to different Red Boat wing chun players.
Hence the only way they could have so many things in common is if they all had the same source and the source of all wing chun is the red boats. Also the styles have much less in common with the more moderen versions of wing chun both Fatshan and HK versions which have a great deal in common.
There is much more but I hate typing.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 01/08/09 06:23 PM
Shikata,
Sorry you had to leave Matt. Good questions. This style does not of The BJ form by name. There is a second part of the the first form that's not shown then they have Tut sao form then chum kui then juk sau form. What you know as BJ is in the other forms.
Originally there was only 1 form Wong Wah Bo the senior wing chun man in the Opera started to split the form into sections for teaching purposes . The 3 forms you know are from the collaboration of WWB and Leung Jan.
This style and the older styles in general spend far more time training the lower body than you are used to. They do chum kui, chi sau and the dummy in the low horse stance for example.
The other forms are not slow at all.
As for the end result. That is a hard question. One reason this type of training changed is that people didn't learn proper elbow position and usage. You can get very loosy goosy with all the circles if you don't learn structure and many didn't. Hence bad fighting results.
However if you learn the proper body structure and body usage then there is no comparison. This style of wing chun can be so different than what you have learned and the result so dramatically different in sparring and fighting that its like grade school math vs getting a ph.d in math.
It's all math but that's where it ends.
For example at Phil's at the time there was a group of about 12 Matt, me, Dave, Brian, Donny, Bijion and a few others all about the same general skill and knowledge level. There was another group of 8 or so just behind us that included Matt's friend Chris and Kent. Literally after about a week of starting to learn the Kwai family style I could cut through everyone like they weren't even there and without even trying to.A week before we were all in the same general area. Not bragging just trying to point out how profound the differences are if you understand how to use them and this was after just a week of learning you can imagine what things were like after a few months.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 01/08/09 11:37 PM
I know what you mean - what matt teaches now is light years away from where he started as far as effectiveness and I found that out by rolling with other lineages and sparring with other styles. I'm still his student, just in a sattelite kind of way - so the only way I can keep what I learned from him sharp is to continue testing. Chris and Anthony are the only other two that can fight like that. It's really cool. Kent kind of developed his own thing too, incorporating a lot of tai chi training from what i understand - but anyway...
So is this the style you practice? Where on earth did you find such a thing? What is the training like?
I ask purely out of interest in WC in general - a while ago I tried out a non-Ip style and really didn't like it. The conditioning was great, although archaic, but the technical learning lacked realism. I've been toying with the ever-aggravating problem lately of how to develop hard contact, effective WC sparring without it turning into yet another variant of garbage backyard-brawling. I'm sure you know what I mean
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 01/09/09 09:35 AM
My style is Leung Jan to Lo Kwai Yip style is Leung Jan to Chan Wah Sun. Chan Wah focused on the triangle Kwai is a combination of circle and triangle.How I learned is a long story. Short version is after I was certified by YIp Ching and Tsui Tsin Tin I thought I was good. I learned I wasn't the hard way.
You are in a great position to learn wing chun now. Do what I did. Find MMA types boxers etc who will spar with you in a friendly way. Stick to your wing chun. When you get hit,thrown or taken down stop ask them to show you what they did to you then look into your wing chun for an answer to what happend.
If you do this you will develope wing chun that works and looks like wing chun not backyard brawling. It hurts to learn this way but I guarantee you will find all the answers inside wing chun although not always done in the manner things were taught to you.. The key is getting up and asking that boxer to throw that same nasty hooking uppercut at you from the clinch time after time until you figure out what to do. I hope you are smarter than I am. Some things took me awhile and some broken bones to figure out.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: original wing chun - 01/09/09 12:37 PM
After looking at your Small idea form what I see is Tachi like flowing moves wrapped in the WC moves different from the method I've been taught. I wish I could see it at regular speed, it is not short and jerky like the Tsin chun and Yipman Wing Chun that I'm use to seeing.
But I really think you are asking alot from any classical system to compare it to MMA which is a meger of principles. Now to boxing in a clinch I see no problem there and sure there will be a lot to learn for both of you. One of the unique things about good WC is the in the clinch low kicks or sticky leg stuff can still be applied.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 01/09/09 03:47 PM
You're totally right. We had a saying in an FMA class I used to attend - FMA is MMA. And it was true - no principle from any style was taboo, so long as it worked with the core skills.
I think this is the next logical step for CMA's as well. Sort of a consolidation. A big step toward that IMO is for wing chun people to start learning from each other instead of walking around thinnking their lineage is THE lineage. I wish I had more access to more styles, because I love CMA in general and I think there is a lot of effectiveness and good training there. It wouldn't be hard for a WC guy to learn some SPM, CLF, Hung Gar and certain Tai Chi styles. Throw in some San Da style grappling and you've got something. Unfortunately, the master-student old world egotism is still very prevalent and the CMA community is generally unwilling to share and accept cross training.
It's the same old story that JKD pepl will go on and on about - it's just that no one wants to do anything about it because it's too easy to go along with a borderline dogmatic belief in the specific style one studies.
CMA can absolutely be cultivated as MMA. There is a huge diversity of technique and skill there - more than anyone could master in a lifetime. Don't discount that.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: original wing chun - 01/09/09 04:46 PM
Really I agree with you but classical WC will have to take a more open approach to things. As you say forget that its thought of as Fighting Gung-fu and just fight.
I agree Mastering a system will let you apply it better but I also think it can trap you into a way. As I train with this WC Sifu I hear this all the time that elbow locked in the center line is paramount and a weakness if you are fighting seriously. Being versed at fighting I don't see this as fact, protecting the center line is but staying on the center line is not that important I'd rather be off shoulder or behind him, thats a premimum to me. So I see the strength in what he is saying if you are fighting in a certain method, but if you are just fighting where anything goes we differ. Personally I like the Tachi and Pakua method of getting behind and wild crazy throws rather then taking in the strict just do this method of WC. I do like WCs simplicity and flow and as we know the other two are far from simple to train. Pros and Con like anything else.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 01/09/09 06:09 PM
Yes Neko I suppose it is tai chi like in some ways. WC was considered an internal style in China. Internal being focus is on using the skeleton and tendons as primary source of power.
VS MMA the real issue is that most WC has lost the original intent. We are all human with same limitations so all arts should have ways to deal with the same things. A boxer or MT person can not do anything a WC or street fighter etc can not do.
For example in most WC you see today the fighters use a very upright stance this leads to easy take downs and throws etc yet in my wing chun and other older versions a great deal of training is done using a low stance much like a wrestler. The knife form for example is done in a low horse yet you muct also be very mobile to fight with weapons. This type of training and the principils behind it have been lost.
The key to fighting is control of your center of gravity and gaining control of the other persons cog. A throw or a take down is a good example of complete control of the cog.
In wrestling there are 3 layers of defense head then arms and last the sprawl. WC being a striking art you dont want to use the head as the first layer of defense however your posture and position should make your hands the first layer. So your fighting position in WC should enable you to like a wrestler protect against a take down with your arms and provide a low COG making it harder to throw you while making it easier to throw the opponent.
When WC and all CMA's were first conceived throws sweeps joint locks etc were common and therefore being able to defend against them as well as perform them while striking was part of the basic training.
So from my pov I am not asking much at all to compare my WC to MMA stand up skills ( ground fighting is another story and WC people should learn BBJ or catch wrestling for this). The problem is so much has been lost in the basic WC training and usage that WC people have been forced to go outside WC to fill in those area's. The problem is as soon as you mix boxing with wing chun you lose the wing chun mechanics. If thats what someone is going to do they are far better off spending their time training boxing or MT or MMA stand up than spliting time between WC and boxing unless they have a great deal of time to train.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 01/10/09 08:45 PM
I think it comes down to interest too. Whereas a lot of people train to become the best at what they do, either in their own eyes or to others, I feel like when I've made a few breakthroughs it's fair to cross train a little more. I train in boxing to learn how boxers work. I make a point to work on my dummy form equally throughout the week for every hour I spend at the gym boxing. It also makes training with other WC people better because when we pracitce defending against a 'boxer's punch', I can deliver one realistically. That's another problem there - too much training on how to deal with this guy or that guy, without that guy being there.
This is all familiar territory that's been discussed here many times.
But I'm really focused on the fture - I think WC teachers should implement basic boxing and wrestling classes without turning the WC curriculum into a 'JKD' thing. I totally agree with what Don said - the answers to most situations are in the system somewhere - but they need outside influence to be tested and proven these days, without comprimising the training or fixing what really isn't broke.
Posted by: m9k
Re: original wing chun *DELETED* - 01/30/09 12:53 PM
Post deleted by Gavin
Posted by: Ames
attn mod: advertising - 02/02/09 01:07 PM
^
This is a very good post.I I think WC and any Kung Fu style needs at a certain point in their training needs to test or cross train with other people to see how good they really are and to get experience which is the most important point. With experience comes confidence.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: original wing chun - 02/09/09 12:50 PM
Did Yip man change the system to make it easier to learn or did he change it to make it more compact to teach. But we can't blame it on Yip man because most Wing Chun/Tsun/Tsung seems to have the short jerky flow using more snap power then the smoother flow of your WC.
I've never seen low stances in WC except in some of there weapon forms or sticky leg drills. It makes you wonder what Wing Chun really looks like before the change.
Who were some of Yip man's Sifu students that were his equalled or was his senior in class? As with most system I sure there are several branches or you wouldn't look so different.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 02/09/09 02:15 PM
Depends on who you ask - and if you really want to. This question tends to lead to the lineage BS that doesn't matter.
I think though, that most WC people will unanimously cite Wong Shun Leung as the greatest fighter of Ip Man's teachings. He was senior student for a long time, till Sijo Ip passed away, then he opened his school.
The 'jerkiness' you're talking about is really just the result of keeping one's energy controlled in short bursts coupled with the linear nature of WC technique. A lot of schools get too caught up in the aesthetic of it, and make it ineffective in their approach.
Quote:
Did Yip man change the system to make it easier to learn or did he change it to make it more compact to teach. But we can't blame it on Yip man because most Wing Chun/Tsun/Tsung seems to have the short jerky flow using more snap power then the smoother flow of your WC.
I've never seen low stances in WC except in some of there weapon forms or sticky leg drills. It makes you wonder what Wing Chun really looks like before the change.
Who were some of Yip man's Sifu students that were his equalled or was his senior in class? As with most system I sure there are several branches or you wouldn't look so different.
Neko456 some Wing Chun lineages us the low horse. In the Fut Sao wing chun the low horse is introduced in Chum Kil form and the Bil Gee is almost low horse.I agree though you need the low horse to lower your center of COG to pervent take downs.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: original wing chun - 02/10/09 11:18 AM
Who are Chan Wan Shan, Leung Bik, Cho Chong man, Cho on, Yuan ng San all seem to be senior or equal to Ip man in training some were his teacher as In CW Shan. Of CWShan's last 16-18 students who are they? It seems that Wing Chin was a dying art until people found out it was Bruce Lee's root system.
Who other then 80 year old Shan was teaching WC gung-fu? Did the other 16 students have students or was it only Ip man teaching WC? Fat Sao, is he equal or senior to CW Shan or Ip man?
Posted by: Olderman
Re: original wing chun - 02/10/09 06:57 PM
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cl0D1zzlFA
Think I got it this time.
Hi.
Ok, I see a form.
Apart from it being a form what can a person do with it?
Would this carry on to two man drills?
If so what kind of drills and how?
I hope I don't come over as being negative. I am just curious.
I think I can see
Cross hands which might relate to a parry/ redirect.
Upper cuts, straight punches, parries catch grab etc plus there will be other things I suppose if I studied the form in greater detail I could probably work out.
So what would happen?
Some forms of in-close fighting drills?
You mentioned about trying the skills out on a boxer or
someone doing a take down?
I dont think it is that easy to catch/ redirect good fast punches or work out counters to good takedowns with out extensive and long term sparring.
So how would original WC have been trained?
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 02/10/09 07:59 PM
Neko - sorry, thought you were talking about Ip man's students... most of his contemporaries have schools that are still intact today - they just don't train outside of china or even in hong kong as much. Yes, we can blame it on bruce lee
Olderman - do you train WC? Your questions have been asked and answered on this and a million other forums before. Search around and you'll get as many answers. However, I think you answered your own question "I dont think it is that easy to catch/ redirect good fast punches or work out counters to good takedowns with out extensive and long term sparring."
That's pretty much all it comes down to - how hard are you willing to work at it? If the answer is 'not much', any MA will be useless.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/10/09 11:21 PM
Neko will try to answer. You have confused several generations.
Chan Wah and Leung Bik learned from Leung Jan who learned from Red Boat Wong Wah bo.
Cho on or Cho family comes from Red Boat Yik Kam. Wong Wah bo junior according to some. Cho Family from different village and had nothing to do with version passed from Leung Jan until they met up with Yip Man students in 60s-70s. It's a seperate line and preserves the older 1 form with 4 sections as opposed to the 3 forms that came about when Leung Jan and Wong Wah Bo broke the 1 long form down.
Chu Chong Man is Weng Chun passed on from Fung Sui Ching who learned from Sum Kam from red boats. While related its not the same as Wing Chun. There is debate on this.
Yuen Kai Shan teachers vary by story version. Was a friend of Yip Man and trained at Ng Chung So's school with Yip Man and many others. This school was the wing chun get together place of its day in Fatshan. Lots of cross pollination.
Yip Man was first to teach large public classes. Leung Jan had many students. My wing chun comes from his student Chan Kwai via his nephew. Most kept their wing chun to themselves or only taught family. It was a rich mans art hence not widely spread. This is why its hard to find other versions from Chan Wah too.
For example around 1918 Pao fa Lein charged $2000 U.S. silver dollars just to become a student plus regular fees after that. That would be maybe $100,000. today or more just to be allowed to take lessons.
Even those close to Yip Man paid huge sums to learn the good stuff. Ho kam Ming gave Yip the money his parents had given him to start a business to learn. I think the amount I heard was $30,000. U.S.
You can see why folks kept what they learned secret. Most paid a great deal for the information.
Quote:
Who are Chan Wan Shan, Leung Bik, Cho Chong man, Cho on, Yuan ng San all seem to be senior or equal to Ip man in training some were his teacher as In CW Shan. Of CWShan's last 16-18 students who are they? It seems that Wing Chin was a dying art until people found out it was Bruce Lee's root system.
Who other then 80 year old Shan was teaching WC gung-fu? Did the other 16 students have students or was it only Ip man teaching WC? Fat Sao, is he equal or senior to CW Shan or Ip man?
Fut Sao is not in the same lineage as CW Shan or the others. It has a compltly different history.
Posted by: Olderman
Re: original wing chun - 02/11/09 05:36 PM
Quote:
Olderman - do you train WC?
No I don't train WC. Well not yet anyway. Before I did I would have to see if I think it will be worth the effort for me.
In other words would it suite me?
That I don't know yet.
Quote:
Search around and you'll get as many answers.
I did a bit of sniffing about. It looks quite impressive.
Very short term minor conclusion.
I suppose any W/C man could correct me on this.
Be great if they could.
One of the( I should imagine many) objects of the forms and indeed the hand drills is to get control /domination of a limb.
Grab said limb and hurl opponent past the person who has control in to a wall of some description.
Intensive weight shifting and stance work required for that specific move.
Intensive training in sensitivity drills?
Or no wall available grab the limb in such a way that on hurling said limb will break. Or after beggining to hurl use the legs to enable a trip.
Alternative
Tie up opponents upper limbs and then use the legs to attack
the opponents legs in a different manner of ways.
But its back to the catching a fast jab routine.
I suppose using the elbows as hand demolishing might be one way.
Any comments from any WC men?
Interesting.
Quote:
However, I think you answered your own question "I dont think it is that easy to catch/ redirect good fast punches or work out counters to good takedowns with out extensive and long term sparring."
That's pretty much all it comes down to - how hard are you willing to work at it? If the answer is 'not much', any MA will be useless.
Normal counters to jabs,
The usual boxing counters and slipping.
Counters to takedowns.
The usual sprawl and avoidance.
Sort of karate with fist skills taken from boxing mixed with MMA.
I dont think all the wing chun instructors use that sort of thing I desribed although I might be wrong.
I dont use the things in WC I have described but they seem
to be decent techniques that could be used.
Be nice if a WC instructor could reply.
I am just sniffing about at the moment.
Posted by: Olderman
Re: original wing chun - 02/11/09 05:43 PM
Hi. While I can see the lineage being important to some people. From my point of view I think the thing would have to work. For it to work (again from my point of view considering the amount of time I would be spending training it) then the decent applications would have to be shown.
Sounds drastic I suppose but at my time of life I really think I need to see proof of the thing working under pressure.
Hope I don't come over as being blunt but time isn't exactly on my side.
Three years training is a long time. The wrong way.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: original wing chun - 02/12/09 09:12 AM
To Donchisau thanks for the update it brings alot of things to light and connects the lineage to where we are now. It also maybe shows why you do things differently and seems to flow more. I notice you guys do another form Siu Bat Gwe along with the other 3 forms its an Octogon invisible techniques pattern I guess that suggest a walking kata unlike Silum Tao. Thats is factor $ can hurt popularity.
To Fut Sau it does look like after researching your system Yong Chun kuen that things are done a little different as in the Silum Tao you drop the return crane hand and bong sau is done close hand. It seems less jerky and flows better though Lineage seem much smaller then Yip man's. I also notice extend knuckle or phoinex eye punching in Fut Sau's version.
To Olderman - Wing Chun is popular because it is effective and easier to learn then most Gung-fu system. The lineage quetsion only answers to me why it wasn't more popular during a certain period then it was. Training in either lineage woulodn't be a waste of time but just like any fighting art it won't cover all ranges completely IMO.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/12/09 02:04 PM
Thanks Neko but I don't want there to be confusion. You are confusing the wing chun from Leung Jan circa 1850 to 1875 to the fut sau version taught be henry Leung in new York around 1970 . No relation between the two. Different versions. We have a forth form but it is not the sui bot gwa you refer to.
Ours is based on the 4th section of the original wing chun form. With SLT,CK and BJ being the forms based on the first 3 sections.
It does get confusing.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/12/09 02:21 PM
Olderman its hard to answer everything.
Wing Chun is an internal system meaning the focus is on using the bones and tendons. External methods focus on the muscles as prime. Sounds like semantics I know and yes everyone uses all 3 in some degree or other but there is a huge difference.
The first form is meant to train the proper body structure to use the internal side. Watch the body of the performer of the form . You can see him rise and fall ,contract and expand. float,spit, sink swallow etc. Now watch a reguler Yip Man SLT. there are hundreds on you tube. You will see the difference right away.
There are many combat applications in the form but those are secondary at this level of training.
Wing chun fighting depends on the proper use of the body and body structure. Its basis is no two bodies and occupy the same space at the same time. If a person is falling backwards they cannot punch forward with any power as a rule.
If you fight you get hit. the goal is not to block everything(you can't) the goal is not get hit with full power while hitting with full power yourself. If I cover and crash into you and my body structure is good you will be displaced and move back I will hve sound rooting and be able to hit with full power.
Another example and test. You stand still I get a large MT kicking Pad and hold it across my chest. I run at you. Your goal is to remain in your stance and punch me when in range. I should go backwards. You will find however most punchers get run over due to lack of real body structure and understanding how to use the body.
This is just some examples of what you are trying to train in the first form.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 02/12/09 07:51 PM
Don -
Back on the video, correct me if I'm wrong but the man doing the form sort of reverses the 'spin' on his lop sao's that follow the huen sao's, yeah? When he lops it looks a lot more like he's grabbing an actual arm...
Posted by: Olderman
Re: original wing chun - 02/13/09 05:48 AM
Quote:
Watch the body of the performer of the form . You can see him rise and fall ,contract and expand. float,spit, sink swallow .
It would seem I am looking at everything from an external point of view although I have never understood or experienced internal?
Would you agree that quite a few so called internal based arts practitioners can rely a lot on external?
I think this is where it gets confusing.
I have had some one attempt to demonstrate what they claimed was internal to me but I was very much a none believer in what was been attempted at the time.
It would be nice if the above was explained in detail.
Or is this has already been done could you direct me to the link.
Perhaps we could start with
Contract and expand?
If you have time that is?
Posted by: Neko456
Re: original wing chun - 02/13/09 05:09 PM
Which system seems closer to Orginal Wing Chun Ip Man's or H. Leung's WC version of YongChun gung fu?
It seems the most popular system though maybe easier to learn is not the intended way or am I missing something or starting something?
Like most I'm most familar with Ip Man's and JKD's way because of the popularity of Sifu Lee and his students, students, students.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/14/09 12:12 AM
Shikata you are right. There used to be far more emphasis on kum na and throwing. Also muscle grabbing used to be highly trained. Funny thing is Yip was known for his very strong fingers and grip according to his early students in Fatshan.
In HK he stopped teaching it. One reason was that most of his students were young punks that were more interested in punching the hell out of folks.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/14/09 12:19 AM
Neko no way to say which method is closer to original. Yip Mans version has many different versions.
Yip system is easier to learn than some others but it was designed that way and I think it works well. Yip taught fighting skills first then taught the harder to learn aspects after that. Harder to learn skills = take longer to master and make functional. He made his money because his students usually beat the hell out of the other styles in the 50s in HK. He needed the money to support his second wife and children so giving students what they wanted was primary.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/14/09 12:28 AM
Older I will try to find some stuff to better explain.
By internal I do not mean using chi etc. Internal= use of bones and tendons as primary source of power and strength.
AN example. Stand normally have a friend ,wife etc put their hand hand flat on your chest and the push you. Most people when pushed fall back, wobble have to adjust their feet etc depending on the push. however if you have your skeleton aligned right you will just stand there and the person will feel they are pushing on a wall. You won't move at all. This is an example of internal and is essential for wing chun.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 02/14/09 02:31 AM
It's funny - I've crossed trained alot of FMA, a little Chow Gar and some judo/bjj/mma type skills into my WC and I do some of those things reflexively in training and sparring. I try to work muscle-grip, twisting, locks and limb destructions (implied of course) into chi sao when I can.
The crappy thing is if I hypothetically teach 'wing chun' to someone else, with the additions of the other skills I've learned integrated into it (because everything I use becomes wing chun in theory) that makes my curriculum somehow unauthentic or wrong according to most practitioners.
It brings me back to a pivotal question about wing chun - is it actually even a 'style', or is it as general a term as say 'wrestling'? More a fundamental?
Posted by: Olderman
Re: original wing chun - 02/16/09 12:38 AM
Quote:
Older I will try to find some stuff to better explain.
By internal I do not mean using chi etc. Internal= use of bones and tendons as primary source of power and strength.
AN example. Stand normally have a friend ,wife etc put their hand hand flat on your chest and the push you. Most people when pushed fall back, wobble have to adjust their feet etc depending on the push. however if you have your skeleton aligned right you will just stand there and the person will feel they are pushing on a wall. You won't move at all. This is an example of internal and is essential for wing chun.
How?
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/16/09 09:21 AM
Shikata you make a very good point. I think it is best not to listen to what those that follow party dogma say.
All arts at one time contained all forms of combat. Just because Yip Man taught or didn't teach something doesn't mean it's not there. For example. There are sweeps taught in the dummy so it makes sense that if you can get swept there would be methods to deal with a sweep or to get off the ground if put there. Everyone agrees on the chum kui arm break. it maks sense that if there is a clear arm break there should also be wrist and shoulder breaks/locks too.
From my point of view just because some small minds take the position that"Yip Man didn't teach is so its not wing chun" does not mean we have to follow and give up our own thoughts and observations. Besides nobody knows what Yip Man taught. His fatshan students have different things than his HK students and look at the differences between HK students. Yip Ching different than Yip Chun both different than Moy Yot who is different than Leung Ting who is different than Leung Shun who is different that Tsui shun Tin etc etc.
Perhaps when you are adding things from other arts you are adding back in what was there in the first place.
Yip Man always said he taught concepts not rules. Looked at this way there are many possibilities.
What makes wing chun different from other arts is not the hand shapes or kicks its the internal structure and power generation methods. Look at Hung Gar Iron wire set or SPM use of rib power and compare to wing chun. That is where the difference comes in. Not the hands sweeps joint locks etc.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/16/09 09:24 AM
Older are you asking how do you take a person pushing you and not move or how will i find things to help explain what I am saying?
If talking about the structure test it is proper body use and alignment. However that is something bast taught in person because unless I see you I can't tell what your body is doing and how to correct it.
Posted by: Olderman
Re: original wing chun - 02/16/09 04:04 PM
Quote:
Older are you asking how do you take a person pushing you and not move or how will i find things to help explain what I am saying?
If talking about the structure test it is proper body use and alignment. However that is something bast taught in person because unless I see you I can't tell what your body is doing and how to correct it.
How does a person get the skeleton alignment?
A brief description would be nice??
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 02/17/09 02:14 AM
"For example. There are sweeps taught in the dummy so it makes sense that if you can get swept there would be methods to deal with a sweep or to get off the ground if put there."
How different is your school's dummy form from Ip Ching's?
What counts as 'sweeps', the sections where you lap sao/kick?
Isn't the only response to being thrown to the floor shown in the end of the 3rd form, or did I miss something?
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/18/09 04:32 PM
Shikata there are two more sweeps in the Yip form or at least there were at one time. The form yip ching does now has some changes from the one I learned and yip man also changed a few things from his early days.
In the section with the double chain kick. Instead of 2 there were 3. The section startd with a low drag ankle kick then the front kick with tan sau then the knees snapping kick with bong then you gum then when you step in with the pak and low spade hand to the dummy trunk instead of stepping in to the trunk it was taught as a circle step to the back of the dummy leg with the foot raised on it toe. You step down with the heel in the back of the leg at the same instant as you change the gum to the low spade hand the pak is a lap.
Our form is similar to the Yip Form but with sections the yip form lacks. 3 elbow sections ,attacking kwan sau sections, triangle step sections, attacking bong sections, active bui sections, using bui to move outside and inside,more kicking and leg work sections.
Yip taught his early students the kneeling horse and its uses. Other wing chun styles have the kneeling horse as well. It is in our 3rd form and also there are kneeling san sik as well this is in addition to the last move of bui jee which is really more for showing a version of the bob and weave than for getting up from the ground. Yip Man never really gave anyone a good explanation of that last move. The getting up from the ground was WSL idea about its use.
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/18/09 04:37 PM
Older I am not really technical enough to tell you how typing other than the normal hips forward head hanging from a string stuff.A chiropractor would be your best bet. You need to be moved around a push there a tilt here to get you into proper alignment. Some things really need to be taught hands on.
Quote:
Shikata you make a very good point. I think it is best not to listen to what those that follow party dogma say.
All arts at one time contained all forms of combat. Just because Yip Man taught or didn't teach something doesn't mean it's not there. For example. There are sweeps taught in the dummy so it makes sense that if you can get swept there would be methods to deal with a sweep or to get off the ground if put there. Everyone agrees on the chum kui arm break. it maks sense that if there is a clear arm break there should also be wrist and shoulder breaks/locks too.
From my point of view just because some small minds take the position that"Yip Man didn't teach is so its not wing chun" does not mean we have to follow and give up our own thoughts and observations. Besides nobody knows what Yip Man taught. His fatshan students have different things than his HK students and look at the differences between HK students. Yip Ching different than Yip Chun both different than Moy Yot who is different than Leung Ting who is different than Leung Shun who is different that Tsui shun Tin etc etc.
Perhaps when you are adding things from other arts you are adding back in what was there in the first place.
Yip Man always said he taught concepts not rules. Looked at this way there are many possibilities.
What makes wing chun different from other arts is not the hand shapes or kicks its the internal structure and power generation methods. Look at Hung Gar Iron wire set or SPM use of rib power and compare to wing chun. That is where the difference comes in. Not the hands sweeps joint locks etc.
Good post...I agree.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 02/18/09 10:30 PM
I'm sorry, my Chinese sucks - what does san sik mean?
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/19/09 09:26 AM
San sik are seperate techniques. Really little mini forms. Yip Man taught 18 to his early students then stopped teaching them. Something like a kwan sau follow by a po pie would be an example of one. Most wing chun families have forms plus san sik. Some like Kulo only have san sik that they connected into a form.
When I taught security contractors for Iraq I just taught san sik. quick fast fighting actions. No in depth forms or details.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 02/19/09 01:29 PM
Ok - that's exactly what I've seen done in seminars and more short-term self defense courses.
In fact, I just saw a newer episode of Fight Quest where Jimmy and Doug go to HK to train in WC. The mainly learn chain punching (because Leung Ting is involved), but do san sik and some really lousy chi sao as well. Check it out on youtube, if you get the chance!
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/20/09 03:46 PM
Wow! How horrible was that? If this is what passes for wing chun then its no wonder people doubt wing chun as an effective fighting art.
I always thought Leung Tings wing chun was weak now I have no doubt.
Posted by: Neko456
Re: original wing chun - 02/20/09 05:20 PM
Largest of the Large Wing Chun groups weak? Isn't that Bozepth roots?
Love it when families quarrel,the truth sneaks out.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 02/21/09 02:02 AM
No, seriously Neko - the proof is in the pudding. I'm not going to say that LT's style is completely ineffective, but they do dwell heavily on narrowing 'real' fighting skills down to chain punching and charging the center line.
My GF watched the show with me because she likes fight quest and said 'wow, your school spars WAY better than them'. And truth be told she thinks all martial arts are kind of lame.
Families nothing. I've fought WT guys. They're very intimidating, but if your bridge seeking skills and footwork are sound you can turn the fight back on them easily. At least the beginners and intermediates anyway, which is who I could only assume Doug and Jimmy were fighting.
Wonder what would have happened if they knocked on Edmund Fong's door?
If anyone's interested, I'm gonna start a Fight Quest wing chun thread. Everyone weigh in!
Posted by: donchisau
Re: original wing chun - 02/21/09 01:26 PM
Largest of the Large Wing Chun groups weak?
So? Madoff was one of the largest hedge funds doesn't mean he was anything more than a con man does it. Being large speaks to marketing skills not Wing Chun knowledge or skill.
Isn't that Bozepth roots?
Yup so what?
Love it when families quarrel
Not a quarrel at all speaking truth as I see it from my pov. Others will see things from their pov and might disagree. I suspect the only disagreement would cme from Leung Ting wingchunners. However no doubt others would be far more diplomatic than I am.
Posted by: SifuHax
Re: original wing chun - 03/13/09 12:49 PM
Don Chi Sau, you seem like a really cool person. I wish I could chi sao with you. I wish I had friends that did wing chun so I had someone to chi sao with and not have a monthly fee.
Posted by: ShikataGaNai
Re: original wing chun - 03/13/09 08:05 PM
Hi SifuHax,
Why not train some people you know? Within a few months, you can have some people at your chi sao level, then you can take it from there as a group
Posted by: SifuHax
Re: original wing chun - 03/14/09 09:32 PM
lol, you're a badass. great idea.
...Now to find someone I know
Posted by: SifuHax
Re: original wing chun - 03/14/09 09:44 PM
I actually just need to experience the martial arts society more intuitively. I'm pretty much new to the whole thing. I started about 8 months ago learning from a friend who was learning. I'm more into the music realm of art but have always loved the martial arts. I moved away from my good friend and have only been able to take two lessons which were four months ago. There's a Fut Sao seminar on April 4th in PA. I'm hoping to hit that up.