Wing Tsun, Wing Chun, Ving Tsun the same?

[Muanh]

Hi everybody

 

I keep on reading that the only diference between Wing Tsun, Wing Chun, Ving Tsun etc. is the spelling. Well this is wrong there are some serious diferences.

 

1. The only one legaly protected name is Leung Ting Wing Tsun Kung Fu, nobody can call himself a wing tsun teacher without aproval. On the other case everybody can call himself a wing chun, ving tsun or whatever teacher.

 

This is also why the quality can be very diferend from every Wing Chun etc. school.

 

2. The forms aren't the same there sometimes are little and sometimes are big differences. I even have even seen forms that get the whole essence out of them.

 

3. I have read about Wing Chun school who put there body weight 60% on rear leg and 40% on the front leg. Wing Tsun has all the weight on the rear leg.

 

4. The order of the forms are differend of course this is differend for every wing chun etc. school. Wing Tsun has the training all worked out and what you learn in England you will also learn in Germany. Off course not completly the same but it all has the same standart.

 

Because of the diferend order some Wing Chun schools learn the wooden dummy form very early in there training, and this brings the greatest fundamental diference. Wing Tsun, Wing Chun, Ving Tsun etc is suposed to be a soft system based on impulses you react on and feeling what the other guy is doing (this is why you can fight blind). You need to be abble to feel a impuls in order to bend your attack and be like water. If you learn the wooden dummy form first your style hardens (wooden dummy's don't give impulses dont give resistance), you primarily trust on the techniek and not your feeling. In Wing Tsun you learn this form last to perfect your techniek and angle (ones you have learned to follow impulses).

 

Again I don't say every Wing Chun etc. does it this way but you don't have the insurance that the teacher is qualified and follows the best way to Wing Tsun to be a soft system and remain a soft system.

 

Hope everybody had something about my post and please feel free to respond on anything you disagree on.

[Shane]

I've never trained these styles, but I have viewed some very intense Wing Tsun videos on the internet, from demos to full out sparring. I was very impressed with Wing Tsun, atleast what I saw of it.

 

Thanks for your info

[Drunken Monkey]

.....i have some issues with leung ting/kieth kernspecht's organisation (not the style/methods...) and i'm not the only one.

 

emin boztepe left because of issues he had with them.

 

when he left, he also took with him, quite a few highly ranked people.

 

i mean, wing chun as a family of styles has within it lots of political issues, especially with yip man's first gen (well, a couple of them...) family/generation of students.

 

leung ting's system has it's own host of problems.

 

in a way, the way he's seperated himself from 'mainstream' wing chun schools is good because his internal political issues don't affect the family of styles as a whole.

 

in direct response to your post.

 

1) trademarking a name means nothing.

 

does it prove you are a legit instructor?

 

of that particular group of schools that own the name, yes but what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

 

i.e

 

is nino bernanda really gonna care if he;s not a certified ewto instructor?

 

does joseph lee care that he's not a wing tzun instructor?

 

2) the forms taught by yip man have always been varied among his students. the students at his school were taught with reference to their personal nature and mostly by other students in a workshop environment.

 

in that way, most students of that generation developed their own 'style' of applying wing chun

 

(note i didn't say their own style of wing chun, merely style of applying...)

 

3) like the forms, the stance and how you moved depended on how you were.

 

if a guy moves better with 50/50 weight and still maintains good structure, are you really going to force him to shift it all to the rear leg even if it means compromising his structure?

 

as a result, some people stepped, some people slid, some people hopped.....

 

4) the only difference i have noticed is regarding when the dummy is introduced as a training tool.

 

the first place i trained at, the dummy was introduced once we were beginning to move properly

 

i.e step, shift, pivot etc etc.

 

the dummy is just a training tool.

 

it's purpose is to

 

i) help you correct technique/flow/unit body movement against an unyielding partner.

 

ii) get you used to atual range without a 'messy' partner

 

ii) allow you to hit something hard with fear of hurting someone

 

i.e who else is going to let you strike/elbow to the head/eye region, stamp on their knee, jerk elbow joints etc etc.

 

it is used as an accompaniment to chi sau

 

and like otehr aspects of wing chn training, it isn't by any means a stand alone training method.

 

dummy feeds chi sau.

 

chi sau feeds dummy.

 

both feed sparring.

[Muanh]

.....i have some issues with leung ting/kieth kernspecht's organisation (not the style/methods...) and i'm not the only one.

 

emin boztepe left because of issues he had with them.

 

when he left, he also took with him, quite a few highly ranked people.

 

i mean, wing chun as a family of styles has within it lots of political issues, especially with yip man's first gen (well, a couple of them...) family/generation of students.

 

leung ting's system has it's own host of problems.

 

in a way, the way he's seperated himself from 'mainstream' wing chun schools is good because his internal political issues don't affect the family of styles as a whole.

 

in direct response to your post.

 

1) trademarking a name means nothing.

 

does it prove you are a legit instructor?

 

of that particular group of schools that own the name, yes but what does that mean in the grand scheme of things?

 

i.e

 

is nino bernanda really gonna care if he;s not a certified ewto instructor?

 

does joseph lee care that he's not a wing tzun instructor?

 

2) the forms taught by yip man have always been varied among his students. the students at his school were taught with reference to their personal nature and mostly by other students in a workshop environment.

 

in that way, most students of that generation developed their own 'style' of applying wing chun

 

(note i didn't say their own style of wing chun, merely style of applying...)

 

3) like the forms, the stance and how you moved depended on how you were.

 

if a guy moves better with 50/50 weight and still maintains good structure, are you really going to force him to shift it all to the rear leg even if it means compromising his structure?

 

as a result, some people stepped, some people slid, some people hopped.....

 

4) the only difference i have noticed is regarding when the dummy is introduced as a training tool.

 

the first place i trained at, the dummy was introduced once we were beginning to move properly

 

i.e step, shift, pivot etc etc.

 

the dummy is just a training tool.

 

it's purpose is to

 

i) help you correct technique/flow/unit body movement against an unyielding partner.

 

ii) get you used to atual range without a 'messy' partner

 

ii) allow you to hit something hard with fear of hurting someone

 

i.e who else is going to let you strike/elbow to the head/eye region, stamp on their knee, jerk elbow joints etc etc.

 

it is used as an accompaniment to chi sau

 

and like otehr aspects of wing chn training, it isn't by any means a stand alone training method.

 

dummy feeds chi sau.

 

chi sau feeds dummy.

 

both feed sparring.

 

You must understand most of the things I say like forms and stance being differend I'm not saying we do it better I'm saying they are differend. And for the wooden dummy I still think it isn't a good thing to start out with it.

 

But that's just my opinion you can have another, they are just some things we both think are better. About the organisation it does maintain a standart, research on wing tsun goes on but individual schools don't mess up the system. And not anyone can call himself a Leung Ting Wing Tsun Kung Fu teacher he will have a lawsuit. Leung ting gives teacher seminars and so corrects any errors anyone may have. And for some people I know they train the forms a litle differend because of there size they have to make strikes a litle higher or lower but the essence remains.

 

About Emin Boztepe, I don't know for sure what the actual reason is of his split with the ewto, he says he is attacked and humiliated by the ewto and iwta. I regard him as a specialist and great martial artist but I think he left because of the money. I think he was tired of the fact that he had to give so much of the money he earned to the iwta, now he is geting it all.

 

We are both students of Wing Tsun our styles are sister/brother styles just like me and my brother they are differend I'm not saying I'm better then my brother I'm just saying we are differend.

[Drunken Monkey]

"And not anyone can call himself a Leung Ting Wing Tsun Kung Fu teacher he will have a lawsuit"

 

and once again, so what?

 

believe it or not, not many people who teach wing chun want much to do with them.

 

for a start, not all wing chun is yip man wing chun.

 

ignoring all of the bickering he has had with other yip man students;

 

i have to say i'm not a big fan of his teaching methods.

 

wing chun is supposed to be an instinctive, personal and quick system to learn.

 

historically, it has been said that five years is all it takes to get proficient.

 

in leung ting's organisation, it takes you 20+years to get anywhere near 'instructor' level.

 

it's like the whole system is designed to keep you there as long as possible to suck money out of you.

 

there was a period a few years back when they were adding 'levels' to their grading system on regular basic, which resulted in a lot of people requiring a few more years before getting their leung ting wing chun instructor title.

 

is this a good thing?

 

about the forms.

 

it's not about size.

 

it's not about striking higher or lower.

 

it doesn't matter how big/small you are, your form will be the same; you pak sau to the same level, you fook sau at the same level, you punch at the same level, all in relation to yourself.

 

what is different is in the details of how you do something, not where you aim for.

 

famously, wong shun leung and tsui sheung tin did tan sau differently in their sil lim tao.

 

the point was, that according to how each person uses it, and the situation in which it is used, the tan sau is different.

 

both sifus had learnt to do it their own way.

 

the only difference was that one start palm down, one started palm up.

 

i'm pretty sure i do it differently to both of these guys, whose students probably do it differently to them as well.....

 

wing chun was never ment to be a uniform style.

 

it has been said that in leung ting's organisation, there is none of this personal growth.

 

you are taught to move and fight like leung ting.

 

is this a good thing?

[Muanh]

Drunken monkey do you only read the stuff you can comment on. As I clearly said I don't say any of the 2 stiles are better'I'm saying they are different *sigh and to see from your comments they clearly are.