Lineage ????

[taiji fajin]

Lineage is nice, I enjoy knowing where my style came from. That being said, you don't have to have it, and it can be faked. I know there are people who trained under my taiji grandfather for a day or two. And by "trained," I mean they were in the back of the group probably more closely watching the people in front of them than the grandmaster. Yet they put on their lineage that they trained under him.

[Mr. Mike]

lineage is ineteresting, but only as a sidenote for me. I'm into the art for my own defensive capabilities.

[David]

Fisherman, I may be being a little less-than-fair to franchising; it comes from despising folks who would label me a consumer.

 

The style I train has a feeling of real brotherhood (and including the odd female...) and I was thinking of similar when considering lineage-style qualities, with franchising being the neon-sgned opposite.

 

In the end, a franchise or the like would have to be pretty incredible to make me prefer it. Just a personal bias.

 

Rgds,

 

David

[ovine king]

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.

[Scand]

To be honest, I'm not in the know of our lineage. I'm merely concerned in what I see. I should obviously sometimes know why I see what I see, but right now I'm still trying to perform a kick without losing my balance.

[Skeptic 2004]

This is not in particularly a criticism but just something that I find very interesting. This question has been posed in the Karate section, and several people (myself included) proudly rattled off their lineages. Yet, no one in here has done so. Do you not know them?

 

Personally, I think it's something one should always investigate so you can determine whether or not what you're learning has stood the test of time or is just something somebody made up recently....or to determine if who you're learning from is genuine or is full of crap (this is easy if you're familiar enough with a certain style and its history...newbies on the other hand are easily suckered).

[David]

I know mine but it wouldn't interest, or convey much, to anyone here.

 

Nor am I generally interested in anyone else's save that a pertinent point arises from it.

 

Kung fu is just too big to keep tabs on.

 

Rgds,

 

David

 

PS Never seen the apostrophe in Hawaii before: is that the official spelling?

[Nick_UKWC]

If I have a great teacher a great lineage is a bonus.

 

If I have a bad teacher a great lineage doesn't help me.

[Skeptic 2004]

While I acknowledge it's not THAT important (Nick_UKWC's point is valid), I'm surprised at how it's easily dismissed in here. In my opinion and experience, while lineage isn't something that's absolutely vital, it's not something you just wave off either.

 

David - the spelling I use of Hawai'i I think is the official spelling. The apostrophe separating "Hawai" and "i" emphasizes the "ee" sound in the final syllable. As a side note, in Hawai'ian, when "w" is preceded by a vowel, it's pronounced "v"...so you actually say "Havai'i" instead of just "Hawaii." It's a pretty interesting language, actually: I think one of the more fun things I've tried to say is the state fish - humuhumunukunukuapua'a

[daedelus4]

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?