Wing Chun and Wing Tsun differences.

[ovine king]

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.

[Guitar_lover]

Well, again to me Wing Chun or Tsun, is like Karate but you got Shotokan and Goju-Ryu or whatever. Diffrent but the same. Anyway on to Grappling, my Sufu Sata Chand and Sufu Steve, from old essex(england).

 

Have taught grappling in thier classes, usely only in quitet late monday classes. I been taught the the 3 prinsables and sticking can work on the floor useing your legs and allways trying to fight from any position. I have had classes devoted to attemping moves in positions that you are uncomfortable in or not use to. Like sitting cross-leged, or on your back, on your side. Have people throw you, trip you, take you down. I find it very good that my Sufu's teach this. Becuase when i have been reading about Kung Fu (includeing wing chun) this was not allways noted.

 

Anyway, thought i have a chat about it.

[KungFuMan]

Ovine king,

 

The only reason I referred to Yip Man's cousin was because you mentioned him first, paralleling his grappling classes to what is taught by my sifu. From what you have said in your post what he teaches may or may not be different to what my sifu teaches.

 

All I can do is say that the grappling taught by me sifu is part of our Wing Chun syllabus and it is WC grappling using the WC principles. This is the way that my sifu learnt his Wing Chun. The grappling includes prolonged groundfighting including strikes (punching as well as leg techniques) and chin-na.

 

Going back to Yip Man, his Wing Chun does not have some of the leg and fist techniques that are existant in the lineage that I practise. From what I know, in general in Yip Man WC it does not take a minimum of 8 years to become a sifu. I am not putting down the Yip Man WC lineage and nor am I qualified to do so. I am merely stating a fact. I know that YMWC is a potent MA and that it is real kung fu and my respects to any SERIOUS practioners of this art.

 

However, when you have techniques taken out of an existing MA so much that you even reduce the time a practitioner needs to get to instructor level than you can see where I am coming from when I say that this is a simplification of an art. And it has happened post YipMan which is a real worry.

 

Also, I don't believe that simplifying a MA automatically equates to improving it, as I think another forum member implied. What I believe is that you learn the art fully the way it was meant to be learnt and when you yourself understand and master that art you can simplify it for YOUR own use. That is where traditional kung fu and karate schools will lead you.

 

Anyway, that is my view and opinion of the discussion. Aren't forums a wonderful thing...

 

KungFuMan

[ovine king]

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.

[KungFuMan]

Ovine King,

 

I don't really know what we are discussing anymore. I see what you are saying. You could have a WC system/lineage that lets say uses 3 hand and leg strikes and still be effective. And of course the time it takes to complete a system or at least get to instructor level is not necessarilly reflective of a style's superiority or inferiority.

 

What I am saying is that there are hand and leg techniques not to mention ground fighting and grappling in the lineage of Wing Chun that I practise that are not present in the Yip Man system. I forgot we also emphasis Chi Kung practise very heavily and I MEAN very heavily. All of the above reflect in the AVERAGE time it takes for one to become an instructor in this lineage and it has nothing to do with the instructor wanting my money.

 

I will also mention that Yuen Kay San is not the only- mainland - influence in my lineage.

 

I stress that most of the modernization that alarms me has happened post Yip Man - whom as I said before I respect and even admire. However, based on what I have heard from more than one source he did "change" and "cut out" certain techniques from Wing Chun. This is not necessarily a bad thing as you have implied or said, but then it is not automatically a good thing either and I suppose it all depends on ones point of view.

 

I DO believe that Yip Man WC is an effective system of kung fu and that is what matters in the end for most people at least.

 

KungFuMan

[ovine king]

well, then again, he also added moves to forms to make them generally more complete (in terms of range).

 

y'know, actually, i think yip man is probably the cause for the big split and variety of versions of wing chun. as i said, he was known to have taught every student differently. i recall something being said of him not being a good teacher in that if you didn't understand what he was showing you, even after he has done most of the work for you, he'd give up on you and just let the other students train you. this goes back to the best/top students having their very own 'after school class. perhaps if he had a more standardised and less specificall specialised way of teaching, there would be less 'problems' as it were.

[pvwingchun]

What I am saying is that there are hand and leg techniques not to mention ground fighting and grappling in the lineage of Wing Chun that I practise that are not present in the Yip Man system.

Please enlighten me on what you have that others don't.

I forgot we also emphasis Chi Kung practise very heavily and I MEAN very heavily.

So do many others this is not lineage specific but more instructor specific.

All of the above reflect in the AVERAGE time it takes for one to become an instructor in this lineage

It efffects the time in any lineage. More specific it is the instructor himself who dictates how long it takes to get students to instructor and the quality of those instructors shows.

 

Many instructors who run commercial schools believe to keep students happy they have to constantly be advancing in rank. I for one beleive they only need to be learning. I have students who have come to me and literally started over even though they have been practicing for two years. Why is this, because they are learning they aren't being advanced simply because of the time put in or the instructors need to keep them happy. Their level of understanding has climbed significantly in my eyes and they tell me themselves that the depth of their own comprehension and proficiency is much higher.

[KungFuMan]

pvwingchun,

 

Let me stress again that I did not make the posts on this thread to say that what I am doing is better than yours or I am better than you or anyone else for that matter, etc. I was merely stating a fact. If you do not believe what I say then that is fine too.

 

A few points.

 

Within OUR lineage chi kung practise is stressed immensely as the belief is, without good chi kung you won't have good kung fu. It is not up to the instructor. In the past where there have been interaction between my sifu and his students with other WC practitioners from other lineages one of the main differences seemed to be that the others were harder and stiffer in their techniques including Chi Sao.

 

I have been given a syllabus in by my sifu that I am not allowed to show to others. There are no "secret techniques" or anything like that but that is how it is, it is more a question of respect and integrity. This means that I cannot list you techniques. What I can say is that grappling is delved upon very seriously. You don't have to look or search for it because IT IS THERE AND IT IS BEING TAUGHT. And it is not a fusion with another grappling art such as bjj or wrestling. As you have correctly stated it is all done using WC principles and concepts.

 

The ground fighting here does not only involve grappling but also hand and leg strikes to vital organs, while both exponents are on the ground using of course the WC principles. No need to say Chin-na is omnipresent in all of this. Kum la (spelling?) chi sao is practised heavily.

 

Also the turning or the round house kick is part of the kicks taught in this lineage. This apparently does not exist in the Hong Kong lineages. If it does exist in some branches, then I am more the happier, so if you know anything let me know too.

 

There are also punching techniques that do not exist, at list in some of the Hong Kong lineages. These may be associated more with some of the major shaoling styles.

 

The weapons are of course the butterfly knives, the staff and the darts. The darts are the last weapon.

 

I am afraid that I can't say anymore.

 

If you search the net you will find variations on Wing Chun that may pleasantly surprise you.

 

Happy searching.

 

Kung Fu Man

[pvwingchun]

Whether one practices QiGung or not is up to the instructor. I for one was taught QiGung and a great importance was put on it but as time went on that importance faded because it bored students. I now teach Qigung as a very integral part of what I teach. It has nothing to do with lineage it has everything to do with the instructor understanding and teaching it.

 

If you cannot list techniques then you are keeping them secret I was simply asking what you have that I don't. Because I for one do not believe that you have things I or others don't. This comes from careful exploration of the system and learning to utilize it to its fullest.

 

My ground fighting is not a fusion of other arts although I believe others do that, I don't. It is based on priciple and yes I have everything on the ground I do on my feet such as strikes and blocks. We also look heavily at vital organ striking.

 

As for kicking I would venture to say that your roundhouse kick is not WC, just my opinion though, I know of several lineages that use a variety of kicks many of which I disagree with that I feel break principle. In order to maintain principle how can you throw a roundhouse kick. If I could see it then I may have a different opinion.

 

As for the punches, a punch is a punch, unless you have developed something no one has thought of. Any attack with the hand is WC as long as it follows principle no matter how the fist is used. I use mine in a variety of ways.

 

I am surprised at the mention of darts I have never heard that one before but I have heard stranger.

 

I am aware of literally dozens of lineages and variations of WC, and to date I am not surprised by some of the things I see. As I am always on the lookout for differences in how others do things. I am always surprised by those that claim to be WC when they aren't or those who claim to have techniques no one else has and then won't describe them or demonstrate because they can't.

 

I do however agree many WC practitioners do not fully understand the jewel they have before them and do not fully explore and utilize what they have and this is not limited to just the Ip Man lineage but seems to based on people who put to much faith in what their instructor teaches them and do not look beyond that. I for one at least try to understand and explore the art by constant practice and looking at things from outside the box......

[KungFuMan]

pvwingchun,

 

I explained as best as I could under the circumstances. I only say the round house or turning kick that is taught is not a "karate kick". The knee rises in the central line as it would if you were going to perform a front or side kick then you "turn" the knee and perform a round kick.

 

Whoops my time is running out on the computer will right in a minute....