daedelus4

Lueng ting most hardcore of all WC instructors? Hardly. Check out emin Boztep, Randy Williams or William Chueng and there training methods. I am familiar with Lueng ting's style but would hardly consider him to be the proponent of the most hardcore version of WC. "Yet as hardcore as it is it contains no blocking and no backing up, the theory being if you have to back up you might as well turn and run away. Ok, sounds good... show me that in the streets. The system limits itself to forward and side to side angles of attack but no backing up? What happens if the guy bullsrushes you, or you trip over something and fall on your *? " On the contrary, WC has many blocks and although the backstepping is limited, a real fight does not always require you to back up. Particularly when you require little room to generate the full power of your technique. Perhaps, your WC instructor did not teach many real life, full speed chi sao or trapping but every school I have had opportunity to visit sparred often at real life speed, in fact trapping is much easier at real life speeds rather than in slow training because it becomes more of a jolt to your opponent when he realizes his technique has been stopped only after he has been hit 3 or 4 times, and the reason trapping is done as opposed to locking is because WC is not a grappling art. For that you want jujitsu or some other useful grappling technique--which by the way I reccomend to all WC practitioners, including my own students. What happens if the guy bullsrushes you, or you trip over something and fall on your *? " Simple--move, if you can, it is the tao of common sense! whether that be in a side step or at an angle, I am sure you can see that either would be better than backing up as the guy rushing you will thank you for giving him more room to pummel you with. Wc weakness is the nonexistence of grappling techniques but heres a hypoothetical question, if a person rushes another person and the rushee we will call him side steps after the rush-er has grabbed him, who will land on top more times than not? this is just a hypo to be pondered w/o the use of knowledge any martial art, simply gravity, centrifugal force, and possibly inertia. And that was my 2cents.

Unfortunately, some people here have not seen wing chun used effectively. I have. In fact, I have had occaision to use it. I think that if you saw it used ineffectively it is not because the style is inferior--oh, and btw, MT is an excellent art, I do not wish to take anything away from it but, best stiking? hardly. At any rate, back to my original post, I think the major difference in my experience with wing chun and others experience may be in the lack of training. WC is a deceptively easy style to gain knowledge in. I say deceptively so because there are quite a few principles that cannot be seperated from the actual techniques. Add this to a serious lack of training (i.e, dail, not weekly or multi-weekly) and any style will be incomplete even if all of the techniques are known. The difference between styles I have found, and this is merely my personal opinion, is the training. Simply put, in order to be effective in any art--you MUST practice as if your life depends on it even if you only use your art in a streetfight once in your lifetime, you MUST spar--preferably with enough protection so that you can go all out and refine your technique, and you MUST be physically fit.

Then perhaps I wasn't using the proper word. I'm not talking about punching into a bag. I'm talking about when you "walk into" the opponent and takes his place while punching him in the upper body. That's how the WC punch is powerful right? Because if you do not punch through by walking into the opponent, but hit from the same distance as boxing without moving into the opponent, then the WC punch is fairly weak compared to boxing. And another thing. All fistfighting styles are Boxing if I'm not mistaking. Like Chinese Boxing(Kung Fu) and Western or European Boxing. Kungfuluvuu, all fistfighting styles are most certainly not boxing. To give an example of western boxing and a wing chun (WC) punch specifically, boxing uses the straight jab to basically set an opponent up for a more powerful strike, usually a hook or uppercut although thats not to say that the jab isnt used otherwise however, in WC we train to use what appears to be a jab in a much different fashion. It is a penetrating strike with the power of a hook or uppercut and is generated in a much smaller amount of space. No need to wind the punch up. Both types of punches are very powerful but personally, I think the WC is more effective simply because there is no wasted movement in the physics of the punch and no power lost as a result

I have trained under an instructor with a full class for over ten years but have since then been training myself. And the reason I am making this post is because I thinkyou can most certainly not only maintain a high level of proficiency in training but even improve. Occaisionally I get to return to my kwoon and work out with my old sifu and see new faces of the school but what I have consistently noticed is that when I trian regular, I improve. Likewise, I think this is the goal of all martial arts anyway. Wouldn't it be a terrible thing to thinkl that even after lets say 50 years of training you never got tot he level of proficiency where you never required an instructor? Instead, I think the goal of martial arts training is to prepare you for your own training. Martial arts should not be merely a means to an end, or merely a way to defend yourself but a lifestyle of discipline and respect and constantself- improvment

Not to belabor the point but I trained at a quote "Samurai-training" school which taught budoshin jujitsu, and ofcourse iaido but interestingly enough also taught wing chun and escrime

Unfortunately, this statement is more true than not. Greetings all. Usually I am a voyeur of sorts to this sute but felt compelled to add my 2cents. Contrary to the popular myth(s), wing chun's true origin dates back a mere 200 years (atleast the styles from northern china) and was created however in the shaolin temple. The name however was not derived from some supposed teaching to a woman who wanted to suppress marriage offers but to the specific training hall inside the temple itself which, loosely translated, meant beautiful springtime or something of the like. There is still a lot of doubt/myths about whether or not the nun ng mui existed or not butwhat is known is that it was the temple in the south, not the north, that was destroyed by fire during the ming dynasty so it is unlikely that the supposed 5 elders of the temple created the art right before it was destroyed. However, having typed all of that, there were monk sympathizers in the war effort which resulted in secret societes such as were covered by the red boat opera troupes who secretly practiced and taught wing chun and, perhaps becuase of the required secrecy of the time, fashioned stories about the art's origin as a wartime strategy to continue its covert activites which are still in circulation today. However, I myself have studied wingchun under william chueng for about 12 -121/2 years and can personallya ttest that it is a valid fighting skill and is quite effective in real life scenarios. It is true that it lacks ground fighting techniques but unlike tournaments such as UFC or the like most fights, at least in my humble experience, do not end up on the ground. In fact I have only had one such fight and it ended on the ground because I threw the guy to the ground to help a friend fight off another guy (WC is most useful and is very complimentary to combining with Jujitsu, judo or some other grappling art) but, in comparison to generic karate (generic because no specific style is mentioned) I have to say that WC wins hands down absent an extraordinary karatedo. Not only in real life situations but also in point tournaments after a little tweaking but, probaly the truest statement spoken on the subject is that it more than not depends on the training not necessarily the art.

Stonecrusher69: First, thank you for your response--it was well received, Secondly, I agree with your comment that at its barest element all martial arts were made up by someone--that is part of the reason why I enjoy Wing Chun so much becuase it was intentionally created to be used & used successfully in a time period when your knowledge of a fighting art was put to the test regularly. Just for the sake of the general conversation however, I have to agree with the general sentiment that while lineage can be important what should matter most is what you are taking from your instruction-regardless of lineage. Ed Parker was very successful in his version of Kenpo and while it might give one bragging rights to say they learned from him specifically, it should not be a detraction from the art itself to have learned it from another instructor.

Greetings all, this is my first post in this forum so please forgive me if I don't exactly comply with the traditional way posts are done. The reason I chose to reply to this post specifically is because I have been traing in wing chun (or ving tsun if you prefer) for about 12 years now and I have noticed some subtle differences in the way both the forms and training of WC are practiced depending on lineage. For example, Sil lum tao (siu num dao) is usually the same across the board but the chum kiu form, and particularly biu jee and pole forms, are often times strikingly different both in technique and philosophy and even though the instructors claim to have learned the style from the late yip man, there are sometimes crucial differences. I have noticed differences in not only the way the forms are performed but even in the basic stances, the distribution of weight over the feet in stances, the way the entrance techniques for attacking an opponent are performed and even the way the greetings are performed (in my school we greet with the left hand closed into a fist being covered by the right). I guess my point is that particular interest should be paid to whatever lineage of wing chun that an instructor is claiming and most importantly, do your homework! If you take the study of martial arts as seriously as I do, and intend after you have learned sufficiently, to teach it and make a commitment to passing on the legacy of your art-- then it is crucial to know whether or not you are getting the right materials. As a teacher this responsibility should be paramount as you do not want to pass on a fake art. Most wing chun sifu's are proud of their lineage and the details you get in class pertaining to this can easily be traced. I have contacted via e-mail and even phone calls several people who can truly attest (via first hand knowledge not hearsay) of my sifu's veracity for honesty and knowledge of the art because I took the time to check. Just a piece of advice that I hope will be appreciated by someone. Oh, and BTW, what is the deal with the so-called fall from grace of William Chueng? My particular lineage of wing chun was taught to me by a former student of his--(and ofcourse he traces his lineage to yip man as he was a student alongside the late great bruce lee) but it seems that every where that I have looked that people of rank want to trash talk him? has anyone else encountered this? or can help shed some light on the subject for me?