ovine king

the only people that i know of who train/perform in the traditional chinese outfit are wushu guys. all other places i've been to suggest (not insist on) the normal black kung fu trousers (with the extra panel/patch between the legs for 'room to move) but anything that we feel comfortable moving in would be fine.

but isn't his one slightly different? y'know, his was specifically called "fok gar mi zong kuen".

i don't think the amount of time it takes to get to 'instructor' level has anything to do whether or not the style is complete/good/what-ever. where i was taught, getting to instructor level was never an issue (we did not have any grade structure) and everyone learnt and trained with everyone else. there weren't different levels of instructors within the class nor was there any real distinction between who was better or who was worse. in that place, how long you took to get to a stage when you coild take the responsiblity of taking on a student of your own depends on how hard you work. how long that takes i have no idea but during the time that i was there, no one ever left to go start their own class. one thing i'm not too keen on is your insistance that the moves/techniques that are in your forms but not in yip man forms must've been taken out of the yip man form. yip chun famously went to compare wing chun with yip man's first students in futshan and the only differences they found was in the words used. in other words, the actual things taught were exactly the same. i.e nothing was taken out. the thing is, yuen kay shan wing chun IS NOT THE SAME as yip man's wing chun (yip man's wing chun really should be called leung jan wing chun...). ther have quite a different lineage and actually branch off very early on in wing chun history (1st gen after cheung ng if i recall correctly i.e differen branch at the red junk stage) there are movements/techniques in pan nam's wing chun that i know are not in both yip man's or yuen kay shan's teaching so does that mean that yuen kay shan's wing chun is modified/modernised from pan nam? pan nam's wing chun also features a lot more classical chin-na instead of the implied versionsin both yip man and yuen kay shan's wing chun so does that make pan nam's more traditional? answer to both is a simple no; because they are simply different. BUT once again, i know exactly what you mean about the apparently typical 3-5 years to get to 'instructor level' (incidentally, leung ting's group take s a hell of a long time to get anywhere near an instructor grade which is also why they are viewed as money grabbers....). from what i've seen, a lot of places have a very fixed/rigid system where you have minimum requirements in terms of time before you are considered instructor, not to mention the obligatory grade test. i've always viewed these time limts as a bit well, questionable. i was told that wing chun is in the hands (and you'll hear me repest this a lot) and how good you are doesn't depend on any one thing so the amount of years you train doesn't really mean a thing. you can show someone one thing once and five minutes later they are using it perfectly or you can show someone something five times a day, five days a week and a few months later they get the hang of it. that's why i don't see a difference between 3 years, five years of eight years. that year limit is an arbitory amount of time that the guy running the class decides on. if i say it takes 10 years to be an instructor in MY school, does that make my school better or more traditional? simplifying might not automatically make a system better but then again, does keeping everything that was in it from day one make it better? there is such a thing as refining which is what yip man and yuen kay shan as well as a few others of that time period did when they trained together. this is why the first form is almost always the same no matter what school you go to. now i'm not saying that your school has kept a lot of the old and useless things that were mainly to do with ceremony BUT the point is, a lot of the movements in some older/traditional styles' forms are purely for ceremony and don't actually serve a purpose. hence refining, can serve a purpose.

that's kinda it, he teaches grappling with wing chun as a guide. the only things from wing chun forms that are recognisable are the three main blocks which are used, sometimes with the baton (knife style), to intercept/receive attacks. he doesn't teach the forms, he doesn't teach strikes but at the same time, the possiblity to strike is always there. it IS grappling from wing chun, but he doesn't teach it in the context of wing chun so it isn't really wing chun, if that makes any sense at all. this is how grappling was taught to me but the other way around. i was shown the forms and then loose techniques as an example of how to disect the forms. then at each stage, i was shown what can also be done, be it a throw, a push, a joint lock or take down. the same is true when i did my stint in choy li fut. after doing a few basics and learning a few flow drills, i was asked if i knew any chin-na from anywhere and if i did, i could use them where i saw fit. the thing is, chin-na/grappling was/is always kinda of a sub-system that features in all styles and it is one of them things that you are expected to learn to accompany the main style. (in the case of wing chun, it isn't really integrated into the forms unlike in some other styles that actually have chin-na movements in forms) that is why i say it's not strictly true to say that the chin-na/grappling is PART of wing chun. there's also the fact that chin-na is considered a seperate art in traditional chinese martial arts views. there are instances where you would seek out a specialist chin-na player to learn from (as sevenstar keeps mentioning, cross-training was very common in the 'good old days') other things that i practiced, not of wing chun, included more classical weapons (before i picked up a 9foot pole, i worked on the normal length/diameter staff), classical stance training (moving/flowing from stance to stance). anyway, skipping over the semantics of it all, you are right. not many modern schools (modern school, not modern style) teach the chin-na. the two other wing chun places i trained with didn't have it, instead supplementing with other systems that the sifu also held grade in (one didn't have grappling at all but taught basic locks that occur from trapping). honestly i can only guess at the reasons why. you say it is because of simplifying or standardising. while i ca agree with it being the result of standardisation, i'm not entirely in agrement with it being because of simplification. asi said, yip man taught people how to use wing chun according to them personally. as such, most students learnt a different version anyway, except the core principles are stil the same. if the principles haven't changed then how has it been modified? edit. as for leung ting. part of the general dislike for him is because it is debateable whether or not he can actually be considered a yip man student. he began his training under leung sheung and was 'introduced' to yip man later. he then took 'private lessons' from yip man, which not many people can confirm... in anycase, the private lessons were known to be yip man's main cash income and not many who took thses were serious students.... not to mention that it is well known that the best students learnt/trained in the famous after school class.

you won't find many white chinese uniforms because white is the colour for funerals.

as to whether or not grappling is in wing chun is questionable. the thing is, the 'grappling', by ways of chin-na hands and some other swith/slow tehniques from them, was always taught as almost a sidething; as in 'if you find yourself like this, you can do this...'. the motions are not exactly in the forms, with the exception of locks that flow from hand motions which invariably lead to a take down of some sort as it flows. best example is what i know as 'small circle hands' which can be done if your wing arm is grabbed (you cover his grabbing hand and circle to lock the wrist to take down). the actual lock and take down isn't in the forms but it is still taught as a technique. at least that was how i was taught. from what i gather, the actual forms in yip man wing chun, yuen kay shan wing chun and pan nam wing chun, as well as many others, are actually very similar and the only differences are the terminology used to express principles,cheung bo's form and the sun hei gung yuen aside. don't forget that yuen kay shan and yip man were known to train together and if i recall correctly, it was this training that lead to them devising/refining the poon sau exercise/drills. the problem i see isn't that people are teaching simplified or standardised wing chun. the way i see it, people are teaching what they were taught and not seeing what was behind the things they learnt. let's look at yip man's teaching. he was known to have taught every student according to their own personal differences. this meant that he taught people how to apply the wing chun principles according to them. what this also means is that in most instances, he ended up teaching people how to do, instead of why they do. it isn't a question of modern or traditional or even about the style. it's about who teaches and how they teach and what they are teaching for. you say your style has grappling not found in many yip man wing chun schools but then again, one of yip mans' nephew's teachings wing chun as a 'grappling' art to a police school.

a warrior is simply one who fights. i really don't like the use of the word of warrior here as it is used emotively and as such injects a personal response as opposed to an objective response. in that case, i'm not sure if it is even the right word to use as the good attributes you are applying to it aren't directly affiliated with it. wouldn't hero be a better word to use as one end of the spectrum? in any case, you said it yourself: "if we could make a difference" that depends purely on the individual and that is why i think hero is a better thing to think in terms of (as it is ,in a way, less cluttered with romantic martial arts associations). a hero, i would say, is someone who goes beyond the call of duty. if you know you are capable of resolving a situation with your skills and you walk away then you are doing wrong as a decent human being. if you intervene and prevail then you have done yourself proud (but you haven't gone beyond your ability). if you are not sure if you can do it and still march on in, then what you are is up for discussion.....

somewhere on that site it tells people to tell everyone about the site, which is what he is doing. don't know about you guys but the fact that he is actually doing it means that i now know not to take what he posts seriously.

what i see here is the same old mistake of seeing the grade/belt as the thing you are gaining instead of the knowledge and experience that it represents as the thing you are gaining. you can gain belts/grades without gaining knowledge and experience. you can gain knowledge and experience without gaining a grade/belt. belts and the like are a means to aid organised teaching within a mass system (like schools). it doesn't and shouldn't mean a thing (unless you're a twelve year old kid who still can't see past the pretty colours)

would it be rude to ask where you train? i've not come across many non yip man wing chun in london.

y'know, for a 13 year old you have surprising good grasp of spelling and grammar.....

i really wish people would stop using "kung fu" as if it the term means any one specific style. also, there is a flaw in that suggestion. the problem with just picking moves from other styles to fill in gaps is that you don't really know if it will fit in with how your base style works. a thai knee is used within a very specific framework and the way thai boxers play with balance and weight isn't the same as a wing chun guy for example. that is one of the strengths of modern cross-training, they train 'loose' techniques into a usuable whole, as opposed to a bunch of moves that might not work with each other. i'd say, if you are going to leanr from another style then you should go into that style and train from fresh as you did with your original art. that is the only way i can see you appreciating it for what it is, instead of always seeing it from the persepctive of your base style.

when playing tag?

if you don't learn and practice proper form then you really might as well go and play tag.

i think the ones who are part of a school that still have reliable and meaningful lineage are going to see the benefits and significance of it and those that do not, will not.

so what line of wing chun are you training in?

...or UK meet, whichever you prefer. i'm london based and with the easter hols looming it might be prudent to begin gathering serious interest in maybe a little get-together. of course i understand how those of you studying are going to be pressed for time but even if it's a nono at easter, your exams should all finish before the end of june, right? basically, i'm all for london as i can make it there in an hours notice, whatever the venue. if it's going to be somewhere else, then we should try to decide where it'll be and also what kinda things is going to be going on. fight night or just friendly chat? if it was to be london, then i would say we could just probably hang out in Green Park messing around, doing a few drills, share a few things and then when we get tired of that, we could cool down with the short walk down to the china town area for cheap food and then see about finding a nice quiet bar (or just a cheap and cheerful weatherspoons....)

it's the eyes isn't it? it has the same look bruce lee does after he does the jumping on the chest thing. then there's that beard of his..... coolest monkey in the world. definitely.

it isn't hostility, it is just me being blunt.

so you didn't bother to find leung ting's own site and read from there? do you usually stop after finding one website? http://www.leungting.com/eng/index.htm http://www.ewtodanmark.dk/ there's two sites that should be a good start for you to read and get an idea of how things work in wing tsun. go look for sites on wing chun (and other spellings) and see what you can find. then maybe you'll have better questions instead of 'what are the differences' which is more or less asking us to do the work for you.

hmm, maybe i shouldn't ask then....

so what did google throw up for you? i mean, didn't you find anything?

now you understand why i say that if there was fight between an average capoeria guy and an average karate/kung fu guy i'd put my money on the capoerai guy....

weight and size matters a lot. the last thing you want is a 20kg 3 foot bag cos that is next to useless. i'd say anything less than 40kgs shouldn't be considered. argos isn't the biggest store in the uk.... especially if you're talking about boxing supplies. here's a thought, go to a martial arts/boxing shop and ask in there. most of them places are run by people who would know a hell of a lot more and can recommend something that would suit your needs.

first question is what part of the uk are you in?