Wing Chun Origin Stories

**Bil Gee** · Posted On: 8/31/2005 7:27am

Originally Posted by pox

wasn't this about origin stories at one point?
I'm not sure where the arguments about how lineage affects sparring fit in with the topic.

You're right it does seem to have gone off track. The question was about what the different styles had in common, to basically get to the main tenets of Wing Chun, perhaps giving an indication of why it may have developed as a distinct MA.

**Ronin** · Posted On: 8/31/2005 8:00am

We all know that WC was given to a chosen few by highly advanced aliens from another plant.

**TacoFu** · Posted On: 8/31/2005 3:34pm

Originally Posted by BatRonin

We all know that WC was given to a chosen few by highly advanced aliens from another plant.

That all beamed down to rooftops in Hong Kong to spar....
One of the aliens used to let out a small high-pitched sound while sparring.
Some of the bystanders observing asked, "Why do you yip, man?"

Thus the legend of Bruce Lee's teacher was born.

**dramaboy** · Posted On: 8/31/2005 3:43pm

Originally Posted by TacoFu

That all beamed down to rooftops in Hong Kong to spar....
One of the aliens used to let out a small high-pitched sound while sparring.
Some of the bystanders observing asked, "Why do you yip, man?"

Thus the legend of Bruce Lee's teacher was born.

:icon_sunn

Tomas

**Dr._Tzun_Tzu** · Posted On: 8/31/2005 4:03pm

This is the history section, no trolling. :5bouncy:

It split into lineage because the different branchs have different legends for the origion. It split into sparring because some do and some don't. That may be part of the origin too. This lead to looking at sim and diff in the modern versions to compare, and then work our way backwards. What was Wing Chun when it started to begin with?

But we do get side tracked easy on here.... :eusa_snoo

:4robot:

**Bil Gee** · Posted On: 9/01/2005 5:42pm

Originally Posted by Dr._Tzun_Tzu

This is the history section, no trolling. :5bouncy:

It split into lineage because the different branchs have different legends for the origion. It split into sparring because some do and some don't. That may be part of the origin too. This lead to looking at sim and diff in the modern versions to compare, and then work our way backwards. What was Wing Chun when it started to begin with?

But we do get side tracked easy on here.... :eusa_snoo

:4robot:

From the accounts so far I'm struggling to work out what the significant differences are between the different lineages.

**Bil Gee** · Posted On: 9/01/2005 5:44pm

Originally Posted by TacoFu

That all beamed down to rooftops in Hong Kong to spar....
One of the aliens used to let out a small high-pitched sound while sparring.
Some of the bystanders observing asked, "Why do you yip, man?"

Thus the legend of Bruce Lee's teacher was born.

If you're going to troll at least try to come up with something funny.

**Dr._Tzun_Tzu** · Posted On: 9/01/2005 5:54pm

Originally Posted by Bil Gee

From the accounts so far I'm struggling to work out what the significant differences are between the different lineages.

Good Luck! :new_Eyecr

It is very hard to tell what comes from who, when, and if they made it up or if they learned it from their Si-fu (who may have made it up). THis is why Lineages don't prove much in the positive. They can be used to prove thing in the negative, i.e. your Sifu was a fraud.

But even a fraud may have good techniques he devised. So as everyone on here proclaims, only a throwdown proves anything, and that only that the fighter has learned or not learned, or that what they learned doesn't work.....

I can help explain some of the basic differences, but It will have to wait, i am at work.

A few pointers.

Front stance or back stance.

Kicks for beginners or not

inner rotation in the first segment of Siu Nim Tau or not (Siu Lim Tao, whatever)

Footwork using Pigon toe stance (IRAS) or stance used in forms but not in sparring work

Di Mak or no Di Mak (this is a real important one)

there are many more subtle differences as well. I will try to outline this in the Article I am writting. We can go point by point or you can figure it out, Bil Gee, you in UK doing ip Brothers brand WC correct? I can give some diff with WT and other if you like.

**I aint punchy!?** · Posted On: 9/01/2005 7:43pm

Originally Posted by Bil Gee

From the accounts so far I'm struggling to work out what the significant differences are between the different lineages.

First of all you have to define what is meant by lineage.

Generally speaking this often refers to lineages that started over 50 years ago: e.g. Yip Man, Pan Nam, Sum Nung, and many others.

There are very large differences between these based on stance, fighting style, and techniques. Non-Yip Man lineages tend to have a few more forms, use the pigeon toed stance for training only (where it is a form of isometric stance building exercise where the knees are together), and have different interpretations of the significance of the forms. They have more emphasis on stand-up grappling (chin na).

If we focus on lineages (or sub-lineages) that descended from Yip Man's lineage its hard to say too much. They all tend to have 6 forms (3 unarmed, 1 wooden dummy, 1 butterfly knife, 1 pole).

**broken fingers** · Posted On: 9/01/2005 11:44pm

get back on track b4 i put some internet hurt on you guys!

**pox** · Posted On: 9/02/2005 3:22am

Again, none of this seems in any way relevant.

**Bil Gee** · Posted On: 9/03/2005 7:23am

Originally Posted by pox

Again, none of this seems in any way relevant.

You supported the argument for a DNA-type analysis of the style as the best indicator of why and how it evolved. Why do you now feel that an attempt to identify the common features in the various lineages, in an attempt to identify the core techniques and principles, as now being irrelevant?

**I aint punchy!?** · Posted On: 9/04/2005 5:54pm

The interaction between lineage and 'perceived history': probably not much. Different lineages probably emphasise different components. Lineage specific history (e.g. how Yip Man immigrated from Foshan to Hong Kong and his various feats) is probably distinct between lineages.

The important factor concerning history and lineage is more relevant in a modern setting. Some components of the probably fictional history are deliberately pushed as true by some WC organisations as it is a very good marketing ploy. E.g. the idea that a MA was invented by a woman/girl is used to push the idea that WC doesnot require strength, and is designed for weaker people to defeat bigger opponents. The logic doesn't immediately follow. For instance, Judo is said to have been invented with the same aim (to enable someone to take on bigger opponents) but no one would suggest that their aren't significant advantages to being heavier. Other components of the history are swept under the rug for the same marketing reasons -- e.g. the fact that WC is a close relative to White Crane.

**pox** · Posted On: 9/05/2005 4:13am

Originally Posted by Bil Gee

You supported the argument for a DNA-type analysis of the style as the best indicator of why and how it evolved. Why do you now feel that an attempt to identify the common features in the various lineages, in an attempt to identify the core techniques and principles, as now being irrelevant?

I'm calling this irrelevant because I'm not seeing any analysis.

Is there that much difference between the lineages? So much so as to make different origin stories more likely?

**Lefty** · Posted On: 9/05/2005 7:38am

Originally Posted by pox

Is there that much difference between the lineages? So much so as to make different origin stories more likely?

If you mean are different lineages so different as to give evidence for different origin stories. For example, the myth of Yim Wing Chun for one lineage and Red Junk Opera for another, the short answer is no.