A thought on _ing _un, and why it sucks (maybe more of a historical question?)

[DAYoung]

nice one DAYoung, you have yet to let me down.

"Damnit Steve, you are not a Pirate!!!!!!.....stop trying to touch me with your sticky hands"

Heh. Ta.

From A Brief History of Wing Chung, by Steven Eagling:

"It was in the Spring of 2006 that several Wing Chun practitioners discovered a new bil gee, or 'death touch'. Practicing their 'sticky hands' on their fishing trawler as their forefathers and foremothers had done for centuries, one of the fishermen used his fishing hook to attack his opponent. The results were devastating - the hook penetrated the man's soft bicep, taking with it most of the major nerves of the middle and upper arm. It was decided that having hooks permanently attached to the hand would make for better 'Iron Palm', and better bil gee. This proposal was adopted by Wing Chun adepts the world over, with many re-entering the noble fishing profession. The 'Pirate Style' had truly come full circle." (p.237)

[Firebrand]

I ain't punchy stated.

If we compare the Yip Man style of WC against other styles from Guong Zhou and Foshan provinces theres some pretty major differences.

What are the differences between Yip Man style, Guangzhou style, and Foshan style Wing Chun? And how effective is their standup grappling in your experience?

It is an interesting theory. From the little I know about WC, it was originally intended to be a simplified fighting art that one was supposed to be able to gain proficiency with in a short amount of time. How it went from that to an art that one must spend years on to master is an interesting development in itself.

Personally, I think that one of the problems with some CMAs and perhaps TMAs is too many suspicious sifus/senseis who insist on teaching shitty interpretations to most of their students as though the techniques were some state secret. Shitty interpretation is then piled on top of shitty interpretation. Over decades, even the originally good versions become shitty.

The one day, a more atheltic student of one of the shitty versions cleans house on the ones who learned the good version. Rinse and repeat.

[WingChun Lawyer]

Well I like your tangent and it does have some applicability. If I remember correctly the Chinese around the 14th C had far superior ship building technology and sailed around India and up into Africa and to the bottom of Europe. With this technology they could have settled the world, like the Europeans did later. However, as soon as the fleet went home the new Emperor had the fleet and all their records burnt... and made it against the law for Chinese to travel outside China... thats just one case of what you're talking about.

And you may be right about WC -- you're definitely right about how CMAs are nowadays, with more emphasis on who taught you and not a fighter's personal experience in fighting.

Back to the topic at hand:

If we compare the Yip Man style of WC against other styles from Guong Zhou and Foshan provinces theres some pretty major differences. So lets not take Yip Man as the ultimate authority on WC -- in my opinion he has done a lot more harm than good... his students have tried to push their own brand of WC and have tried to use their lineage claims to authenticate their own unfight tested nonsense.

Every style of MA has a 'style of fighting'. This is the central tactic that is used. BJJ the idea is to take someone to the ground and fight them there. Judo is to throw someone hard and if they are still with it then perhaps ground fight. MT its to stand at a range and throw bombs and evade.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say what I think the 'style of fighting' of WC is:

WC is focused on bridging the gap on strikers. It has no real prescribed long range footwork. Hands can be kept up or to the sides, and may be on the centreline or not (based on more than just YM WC styles). The idea is to get control of an arm with a block, move into the side of the opponent and deliver a sweep or a throw. A lot of work is done on the balance, and the aim is not to go down as well, but to attack the prone opponent. Hence the peculiar footwork of WC. Punching and kicking are of a similar focus, with the aim being to break the balance of the opponent so that they can't throw a counter punch or kick, or to cover the WCer so that they can close and throw/sweep.

Groundwork would be great in the mix here... but as far as I can tell its not there. I imagine that this was due to cultural reasons...

Yeah, I also read about that chinese navy. This sort of mentality explains a lot about classical chinese thought, and this may also (seriously) give us some clues related to the shittiness of many CMA, Wing Chun included.

And I suppose your theory makes sense, yes. WC´s base is not agile enough for effective striking, and its strikes are not powerful enough for that either - but, I suppose chain punches, straight line punches and low kicks could be used effectively to defend the fighter against a striker long enough to set up a throw. And a solid base would help you keep off the ground yourself.

And to be fair, I did learn some throws in my time studying Lee Shing Lineage Wing Chun. They looked a lot like koshi guruma and other judo throws.

As for your reference to Yip Man and other Wing Chun lineages, I did hear some Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun guys stating that the Yip Man style was indeed shitty, and the real deal mostly stayed in the mainlaind - BUT, they claim THEIR Wing Chun (which is supposed to be the real deal, of course) is actually more of a kickboxing style of fighting, with hooks, jabs and crosses.

But that is a can of worms I do not feel inclined to open myself, mainly because I don´t have the data to argue about it.

[I aint punchy!?]

I ain't punchy stated.


What are the differences between Yip Man style, Guangzhou style, and Foshan style Wing Chun? And how effective is their standup grappling in your experience?

It is an interesting theory. From the little I know about WC, it was originally intended to be a simplified fighting art that one was supposed to be able to gain proficiency with in a short amount of time. How it went from that to an art that one must spend years on to master is an interesting development in itself.

Personally, I think that one of the problems with some CMAs and perhaps TMAs is too many suspicious sifus/senseis who insist on teaching shitty interpretations to most of their students as though the techniques were some state secret. Shitty interpretation is then piled on top of shitty interpretation. Over decades, even the originally good versions become shitty.

The one day, a more atheltic student of one of the shitty versions cleans house on the ones who learned the good version. Rinse and repeat.

The Foshan district is the area where WC probably originated from. There is an emphasis on grabbing from all hand position, elbow locks and breaks, sweeping, using the hip and shoulder to knock people off balance, and controlling the arm so that one side can be locked up (with a hook-like foot and pushing the arm in with the arm or shoulder). The standard WC forms look quite different. Isometric hand strength is emphasized, as well as a very low stance designed for isometric strength. Hands are not held on the centreline necessarily. Pivoting is promoted (and there are drills for this kind of thing). There are a number of throws that are of course no gi, and look osoto gari like (except the emphasis is on a push), ouchi gari like (except this is done more as a sweeping motion to someones long stance), hiza gurama-like (except done using the arms as a holding point and hooking the foot), and more. An example of how th style might differ in a fighting way could be something like this: Pivoting and arm control is used to apply elbow breaks across the chest (I can't remember the judo analog of this), and if that fails, since the arm is still held, the foot is attacked and the person is swept, or the back of the knee is stepped on to bring the person to a kneeling position.

Ghoung Zhou style WC is noted for the fact that practitioners often have a very stooped stance. I'm not an expert on their reasons for doing this, but it may be a form of greater protection for the throat, neck and head. Perhaps its from some association with a mantis style. I'm not sure. Otherwise it seems to have more in common as a rule with Foshan province WC.

Yip Man WC is quite different all together with almost no focus on stand-up grappling, grabbing... perhaps some sweeps but not many... with the primary focus on a close-range striking style. I believe this came from Yip Man's own interests when he learnt Foshan style WC, and it was what he was comfortable teaching etc. This now has become the standard, and may well have eaten up Foshan/Guong Zhou styles in those provinces.

As for HFY WC... this looks like Yip Man style WC through and through based on their goat riding stance and block-hit mentality. It looks like garden variety WC with bonus myth.

[Astrosmurf]

One thing I suspect when it comes to _ing _un sucking in real fighting is this:

(I have no real sources or evidence its just a hunch)

Somewhere along the line focus was shifted from the swords to unarmed fighting. Chi-sao soon became a dominating training method. As the need for actual fighting decreased chi-sao became the actual target activity and most things became optimized for working in chi-sao and not in actual fighting.

[meng_mao]

Somewhere along the line focus was shifted from the swords to unarmed fighting.

are you talking about weapons in general or specifically about butterfly knives?

[Doctor X]

I will be honest, I find these "was designed for canoes!" a bit of post hoc apologetics--I think I will develop a close-sitting-style that was "designed for being attacked in the outhouse!"

--J.D.

[BoardHitBack]

But...but..the Red Junk Opera Troop...what about the poles used on barges and ... other stuff?

[Dr._Tzun_Tzu]

Um, the fishing boats often used in Southern China are just shaped logs or rafts that you stand on, with a basket tied to them. They used poles to move about, carrying 10 or more Comerants to do the fishing for them.

So, The "clamping" stance was very usefully to hold you onto the log. Pushing around with a pole, and steering via the torso and legs turning the log/raft, would be a fishermens strong muscle groups.

So, A smart fishermen would try to create a self defense that capitialized on these traits. I don't think it is so much that they needed to fight on the logs or boats, but more that the southern short styles where capitializing on the strengths they allready had.

[Doctor X]

Do not buy it.

"Then western boxing developed a bowlegged stance because most spent their time on horses. . . ."

Unless someone has a actual evidence of fighting in these situations that necessitated such, it reads like too much post hoc analysis to me.

--J.D.