Well, I just noticed that 1000 posts has quietly snuck up on me. Well, and seeing it is 1000, I thought I’d post something that's been on my mind. To be honast I hadnt planned a 1000th post (I nearly did'nt even notice it), mainly because I did'nt want to follow everyone else. But it seems the length of this post has made it something anyway. Wing Chun; Specifically the Ip Man lineage. Firstly, I would just like to mention that the Ving Tsun I have experienced firsthand was of the Wong Shun Leung Lineage, under Bill Dowding. (www.vingtsun.com.au –incomplete). So that’s where my personal views have ‘grown’ from. I’m also going to mention that I have only ~4 weeks practical experience from earlier in the year. Since arriving back from the UK, time and money has been a ******. So hopefully you’ll be able to clarify some of these issues with me. Also, some of the things I have said here are my own opinion. If you think I’m wrong, TELL ME. That’s the purpose. AND PLEASE DO NOT ASSOTIATE MY VIEWS HERE WITH THE BARRY LEE ACADEMY, OR THE VING TSUN CENTRE I’m somewhat jumping into the fire here. I know there are a lot of different lineages under Ip. Some have even adopted the ‘Wing Tsun’ name (e.g. Leung Ting’s for one) - making the already Wing Chun / Ving Tsun name even more confusing to new comers to the art. This hybrid naming is one of the more noticeable changes different lines have made. Personally, there are things I have noticed which I consider to be major changes within the style due, to the different lineages (which I’m sure you more experienced WC practitioners have seen more of). The two most prominent are the footwork (namely stance), and Chi Sau. The other day it was mentioned in another thread of a Wing Chun Fighting Stance. This took me by surprise. I had never heard of a Wing Chun fighting stance. Up until that point the only stance I had known was the stance in the sil lim tao form. And it’s left/right variations. I have been told and taught that Wing Chun is a here and now, ready Art. As in, no preparation is needed at all when confronted with a possible / in a fighting situation. From the hands by the side, to the fist in the face. From standing on normal feet. From the get-go. That is what the form is for. Training the hands to go where they need to go without consideration. Training the feet to go where they need to go, without consideration. One second you’re holding a beer and tapping your feet to the surrounding music. The next second your fist is passing the other for the second strike, and your feet are where they need to be. Bam. It’s over. Take a sip and bring your feet back to the beat. What’s all this about fighting stance? I don’t understand it. Does your art (WC) train with such a stance? Where does your art come from? Are there any advantages in have such a stance? I personally don’t see it working, but I am ‘young’. Chi Sau; This one I noticed quite a while ago. Ok, I see Chi Sau to be a basic exercise. Basic, but important. Without Chi Sau I don’t think there would be a Wing Chun. If there was, it would be pretty sparse. I’ve seen so many videos which show Chi Sau as aggressive, strong, hard and fast. If I see such a video from a specific school, I discard that school. That’s just how I am. That is completely not what I see Chi Sau to be. It is almost full sparring. Sparring with Chi Sau defeats the purpose of Chi Sau. I know the exercise to be soft, light, and paced. It’s almost a game. Relaxed and flowing. BOTH people trying to get through. In some of these videos the two persons involved look like they take it in turns on each each other. One guy would go and try get through, then maybe after about 3-5 turns the other guy would have a go. Simultaneous attack and defend? I don’t think so. I’ve also seen them do this ‘I do you then You do me’ in a sparring fashion. And they still call it Chi Sau. Do I have the right impression of it? Or am I wrong? How does your art train with Chi Sau? Is it like sparring? Or a simple exercise? These are the two most distinctive differences I’ve seen between Wing Chun lineages. I’m sure there are more I have noticed, but failing to recall them at this point. What I would like to know is, how do you train with these two issues I’ve mentioned? Do you train with a fighting stance? Is your Chi Sau like sparring? Do I have the wrong Idea of both? How do you believe your Wing Chun has changed from the original Ip Man lineage? What Differences have You Noticed?
Even though I'm also new to Wing Chun (6 weeks of tuition or so - check my journal), I've noticed some differences thanks to reference books between my (well my schools) variation of Siu Lim Tao and that of Leung Ting's (of Wing Tsun). He starts with (after setting the stance) Crossed Tan Sau -> Crossed Gaun Sau -> Crossed Tan Sau. At my school we go Gaun Sau -> Tan Sau. Other than that so far the form is identical. Do you train with a fighting stance? We have a stance which is practised in drills and combined with a system of stepping - arrow steps (which I have practiced - and found to be well guarded and you keep most of the weight on your back leg) and circling steps (which I have seen but not practiced - which I gather are used for disrupting your opponents footwork). We don't train (or at least I haven't yet trained) with an adopt a stance mind set. Although the video that promted the "fighting stance question" was a familiar "position" to me. We are taught to keep the rear foot stuck to the ground while the front foot advances, then to drag the rear foot forwards. It might be this way because I am new, I don't know. But to date those are my experiances. We are also taught to punch while making these steps, or kick while performing them as part of the kick. How to define the stance at my School -> Arms Left in a Man Sau, Right in a Wu Sau, Left leg forward, Right Leg back, most if not all weight on Right leg. If you have access to the book Wing Tsun Kuen by Leung Ting it's described as the typical pre-fighting posture. I've also been told that Wing Chun is an art that can be used to defend/attack from any situation. The only time we use the stance seen on the video is while drilling. I have made a point of trying to move into Bong Sau and other fighting positions from normal walking/standing/sitting positions. However I've also been told of the importance of Man Sau (Inquisitive Arm) and Wu Sau (Protective Arm). So I believe there is a stance that can be used, but I also believe that maintaining this stance is much less important than maintaining the center line. Finally in a Q&A with Ip Chun (From the book Wing Chun Martial Arts by Ip Chun and Danny Connor), Ip Chun says that a rigid stance is not good enough, that the stance can be changed (as Bruce Lee famously did) without losing the center line which is more important. But he also notes that when punching or blocking a good stance is important. I'd reprint the passage here but don't want the mods/forum/me to get into trouble with copyright laws etc. He (Ip Chun) also equates the stance question to Chung Yung theory, you can't do everything strictly to the rules, you must maintain a degree of flexibility. Is your Chi Sau like sparring? Chi Sau, I've only had limited experiance of this, and what I know isn't as flexible as "proper" chi sau, more set routines and patterns, with attacking variations that are countered with set routines and patterns. Again as I said I am new to the style. However I liken my experiance to a game of chess, I'm not trying to hurt my partner, or even to hit him, I want to trick him. Do I have the wrong Idea of both? I'm not sure what the right idea is, like yourself I'm fairly new. How do you believe your Wing Chun has changed from the original Ip Man lineage? I'm not sure, the problem with that is I'm sure I've read in various books that Ip Man himself altered Wing Chun while he was teaching it. Also (from what I have read) he tailored the way he taught towards the abilities (intellectual and physical) of his students. It is possible that he might of tailored the forms he taught a student to help with a difficulty they might of had, but this is all hearsay because I have never met, studied with, nor talked at length about this with anyone who was taught by Ip Man. Edit -> After typing all that I forgot to say Congrats on 1000 posts.
Woah, many questions! Well, I've got 3 and a half years experience under my belt (sash). I practice what is considered to be a very traditional style of WC - totally relaxed, but defined and precise. Energy is only applied at the final moment before striking. My Sifu trained under the WC Association. He eventually left as he felt it was being altered adversely (this is a matter of personal opinion) - by over use of energy and a sway towards physical force instead of anatomical structure. Combat stance = same as basic / SLT stance except you point your feet forwards. The reason for this being that you need to be able to turn quickly in either direction. Chi Sau. I avoid any forced movements or competitiveness. It's more of an opportunity to harness sensitivity to movement, speed of reaction, positioning and eventually, to train your use of Chi. These are just my opinions. WC is a thinking man's martial art -read as much as you can find and decide for yourself.
Damn... a bit long Hey nice thread Ving Tsun and congrats on the 1000 post mark In terms of the different names you mentioned at the start of your post I think a pretty simplified but generally accurate guide to Wing Chun names is this: Ving Tsun- I believe its a more accurate translation and it kinda reflects the attitude of the clubs who use it i.e. the traditional way is best, so lots of forms and lots of chi sao. Wing Tsun- More often than not this will refer to a club of Leung Tings Association because he specifically altered the name of his association to differientate it from other schools of Wing Chun. Wing Chun- The most common name and so hard to generalise; you get ultra modern, ultra traditional clubs and ones in between and millions of prefixes such as authentic, traditional, modern, realistic etc. Now the questions... In regards to stances, the style I train in call the side stance where you weight is resting majoritively on your back leg a fighting stance and I think the reasons for this are pretty obvious. I think this is basically what all schools of Wing Chun tend to regard as 'the' ideal stance for fighting... they may not call it a fighting stance it might be called side riding stance, or side stance or whatever but its the same thing. Basically its any stance which isnt neutral (the basic Siu Nim Tao stance)... try to fight someone standing in neutral and you'll see quite quickly why that isnt the best stance for fighting. A side stance gives you mobility and gives you a front leg to guard with it also makes you a smaller target and gives more protection to those essentials between your legs. I hear what your saying about Wing Chun being a here and now art but if you have your feet on the ground it only takes about 1 second to go into a side stance, so it doesnt really slow anything down- you would just adopt it without thinking! (ideally) As for Chi Sau I think theres 2 different ways to practice and both have advantages and disadvantages... originally Chi Sau was intended to be a kind of testing ground for Wing Chun techniques. Thus its not sparring its just Wing Chun technique vs. Wing Chun technique, thus there are no hooks or roundhouses or whatever involved in it... and I think then the emphasise should be on techniques (and possibly speed). This way of doing Chi Sau nice and soft... and occasionaly quite slow, increases your sensitivity, improves your techniques and gets you more relaxed and that sort of stuff. However there is then the second method, which is to practice with often a lot more force and a lot more closer to realistic speed, now although this method may not seem as pure or original as the previous one it definitely has advantages, to my mind anyway. It makes you a lot less sloppy, quickly improves your close range fighting and tends to increase your speed and strength when applying techniques. It also has the benefit of reducing the flinch factor that definitely comes into play in real situations; that is the jittery reaction you get when something happens that you didnt quite expect, such as when someone lands a punch on your nose. Anyway I think both methods have advantages and disadvantages and in the end a mix of the two is probably the best option. Phew anyway I didnt mean to type so much apologies for the large post. But thats roughly my opinion on those two issues anyway
Good points Ckava. I'd have to beg to differ on the side-on combat stance. We stand square on for initial confrontation - how can you utilise centerline theory if you are not lined up with your opponent? I know Derek Jones developed a method with a lead leg, as did Bruce Lee. I think both ways have their merits, maybe it's just a case of personal preference. We train in freeflow - aggressive non-WC random attacks, in conjunction with Chi Sau. But we never really mix them.
Thats pretty intersting jt I haven't actually seen many clubs that don't adopt a side on stance when fighting, what lineage is your style from? The club I practice at is from the Tsui Sheung Ting branch. And as for utilising the centerline, just because your legs are angled off doesnt mean anything from your hips up needs to be- we do stay square on with our opponent with the whole upper part of our body even including the hips! We just lead with a front leg so that we can kick quickly without shifting our weight and raise a knee quickly to deal with low kick type things. You also said you stand "square on for the initial confrontation" does that mean you adopt a different stance after the encounter has started? Oh and we do generally start off in neutral too when were practicing anything we just then quickly step into a side on stance asap. I think what you said is pretty much spot on though its a personal prefence/what your taught thing, I mean some clubs use 50/50 weight distribution some use 75/25 and so on... which ones the right one? Who cares, if it works it works
CKava. "square on for the initial confrontation" : until I know what's being thrown at me. Ideally I'd want to move to the outside gate of any attack. I think were singing from the same hymn sheet My Sifu is on a lineage from Ip Man - pretty traditional stuff, however I am intruiged by any variations.
we use a 40/60-30/70 weight distribution, which seems the most practical to me, because it gets difficult to arrow walk backwards in an unexpected situation. When all or nearly all your weight is put on the back leg then it is diffcult to react and lift it than it is when there is less weight on it and more on the front leg to support the body as a whole when moving back. We also have an exercise where 2 people pair up and both on a side stance (or whatever its called) with arms in contact take turn in leading the other person. This is mainly to help us develop our footwork and to also be able to read an opponents movements. We dont just arrow walk up or down however, as we also use circle steps backward and forwards as well as changing guards ( basically changing the side the body faces). The only time I ever id it was to prepare for my grading in which I had to do this. As for chi sau we just tend to do it relaxed and flowing. Beginners just take turns to get used to it but eventually it becomes free flowing and as we become more experienced we learn different techniques to apply in chi sau as well as making our movements faster. Well anyways I'm not sure what lineage my school is but it is a part of Kamon wing chun association and the master is Kevin Chan. www.kamonwingchun.com
hi , 60/40, 70/30, 100/0 weight distribution is going to get you handed your **** in a fight. for one thing, one of the most important things in wing chun is maintaining your center of gravity/mother line. when leaning back in a 60/40 weight ratio stance, your already off balance, a heavy moving forward force is going to knock you on your backside (if you dont believe me, try it). i used to train in this manner and always quietly doubted it, also, in terms of punching power, when you strike using the turning punch you are leaning your power AWAY from your oponent. again, try this out by getting a partner to hold focus pads in front of you and hit them using the turning punch in your regular 60/40 stance THEN try the same thing using 50/50 weight distribution, i guarantee you will be hitting harder. as regards a "fighting stance" there is only one stance in wing chun yee jee kim yeung mah, everything else is mah boh - moving horse. an old instructor of mine once said that it doesnt matter how you stand or where your hands are as long as you are following wing chuns principles. btw my lineage favours 50/50 weight distribution, in case you hadnt already noticed. shaolintiger
I dont quite agree with this, I actually find when being hit by a heavy moving forward force while in my stance it doesnt necessarily make me fall over on to my backside, it actually tends to push me back further into my stance. I think this functions similarily to the idea of sinking in Tai Chi: if a force is coming towards you it is usually possible to uproot it by sinking. Ive also found that having a lead leg to defend myself with is a great advantage when fighting (assuming off course the other person kicks). I do recognise the need to not have a static and restrictive stance, however I believe the old faithful Wing Chun back leg stance can indeed provide this. I base this not only on my own experience but from seeing certain people much better than myself who are completely free and mobile in it. As for 50/50 Wing Chun stances I have only seen a handful of clubs that practice it so I have to admit Im not really in a position to comment. One thing I did notice however was that their stances tended to be a lot wider than usual, this tended to make them very flexible and quite fast movers but it seemed to me to offer less protection. What about your style shoalintiger is it a wider stance or just the same but with different weight distribution? Couldn't agree more
First, my lineage: El Tejon taught by Chad Williams who was taught by Siu Luk Men who was taught by Ip Man. Right idea? No idea, but you certainly are asking intelligent questions. fighting stance? Depends on how one is engaged, but yes we do have a "fighting stance"--little more than shoulder-wide with most weight on back leg. Chi Sau? We have different "degrees" of chi sau, from poon sau (rolling hands) to gor sau (full-contact while wearing protective gear). As I was taught chi sau is a training drill to develop sensitivity to find the open gate when things are up close and personal, not sparring per se. In mantis, we teach chi sau as sparring, legs, throws, qin na, etc. Black and blue is often the colour of the day. Change from Ip Man? Many lines of Wing Chun Kuen. Through circumstances Ip Man became the better known line. I have only studied his line and do not know enough about others or their history to understand any "change." However, as my line of W.C. looks identical to Ip Chun, Ip Man's son, and the tradition of family teaching of Chinese boxing, I believe my line to be very, very similar, if not identical to Ip Man. However, I am no expert, merely a student (and a poor one at that!).
This is an awesome post!! Everyone has been marking their little differences in their styles - but if everyone notices the core of what is being written is literally the same. This for me is excellent, and makes me upset/angry at why there is so much politics in our art when we all have near enough the same ideas. Money and fame methinks, as a wise man once told me... Anyway, congratulations to Ving Tsun for the 1000th post. And to answer a few points in my own humble opinion... Stances I was taught 70/30 60/40 weight distribution as a beginner. I think I was taught this because too many people rely on using their front leg for balance which for a (Skillful) wing chun man means easy meat lap sau every time. So emphasising sitting on the back leg means when a transition to 50-50 happens (which it inevitably will) then its easier to maintain. However there are times when a front leg emphasis is needed, (Prime example being Enter the Dragon, bruce Lee doing Pak Sao on scarface guy, look at the feet!, he's in a cat stance, (from what I've been told!) ) In general, 50-50 is wanted since if transitions to a rear or front weight distribution need to happen, then the 50-50 is the best way to go. And fights move forward and back so both are needed, imho. Chi Sao Like anything in Wing Chun, Chi Sao is about skill development, and not fighting, although I think it can come close at times. Obviously, Im assuming that everyone starts with Poon Sao, (Rolling hands) to understand the basic ideas of forward energy, and relaxing. However, Chi Sao can be basic shape drills, speed improvement skill, reaction skills, realism training, gap finding, turning skills, timing, neutralising skills, and a multitude of combinations of those, thats why its so FUN!!! I think training too soft all of the time does not give you a sense of 'realism.' And training too hard makes you into a boxer because you break too much, and you forget the basic skills of chi sao. We will at times spar, but as a Wing Chun man I wish to close the gap to use my chi sao skills not chi sao per se. Thats the test of when Wing Chun can work for you. Remember, Wing Chun is about whats direct AND works... Noob - your basics sound extraordinarily familiar, where do you train? Mr CKava - when are we going to meet and train!!! Im itching to touch hands with students from other places to find out the real differences.... Train hard everyone...
Excellent post wcrevdonner! And as for touching hands I think I need to shift my ass into gear again I've been nursing a food poisoned girlfriend all week but I have to admit Ive been lazy in the Wing Chun department lately so lets sort something out asap... text message on its way!
Further to what I wrote earlier, I have now been told by my Sifu that the stance I use is for begginers to the system, when advanced a fall face on stance, similair to that used in the first and other forms is used. When we start doing basic drills or Bong Lap Chi Sao this is the stance we utilise, well while drilling we modify it to suit the attack and defense accordingly, shifting to avoid the blow in defense. Anyway to get to the real reason of why I'm replying, I train in Palmers Green under Sifu Ian Morris, in a school affiliated with "The Wing Chun School" group in London. Other schools are in Clapton Common (Sifu Garry McKenzie and Sifu Lillo Trupia), Leyton (Sifu David McKenzie), Shephards Bush (Sifu B Flanders) and Norway (Sifu Frode Strøm). Apologies if this seems like I'm advertising my club, but we might be a school removed (or even same school). If you want more information regarding my Lineage send a PM.
Firstly, my experience with wing chun is about a year and a half now. ANd I study under the lineage of Yip Man. Ie, Yip Man -> William Cheung-> Dana Wong->Philip Walker (Sifu). congrtz on the 1000 post Btw, what do u mean by the Yip Man Lineage anyway? Because he learn both traditional and Modified wing chun. Modified wing chun is the one with the handicapped footwork. Stances: Well, In traditional Wing Chun, there are 3 main stances you have to adopt, first is neutral stance, the one which u do in Siu Lim Tao, feet aparting pointing infront, knees bent, and but tucked in with Wu Sao. Thats basically the only stance, there are variations like side neutral, and front stance (basic fighting stance) which you adopt. Stances, I think they are important, think about a soccer goalkeeper, before a penatly shootout, what do u see him doing? he has his legs bent, assuming a stance, reading to jump out and stop the ball, its the same with martial arts. And stances also minimize your chances for footwork error, they also help u stay on ur feet, and balance. The Wing chun side stance also enables you to create a quick front kick, which works really well. Chi Sao I think taking in turns is a good way to learn chi sao, especially if your a noob, one person produces a force slightly out of line, and the other has to pick it up, and redirect it, good method of training. The place I train, I usually seethem do it fairly slow and accurate and usually blind folded. Chi Sao is a method of training your contact reflexes, being able to react quickly in any situation. But I have also heard of Chi Sao competitions, competeting for the person who has the best chi sao skills, perhaps that was a vid that u saw? I dunno
I meant any lineage. But I was more aiming towards the traditional Yip Man Wing Chun Lineage - the one without William's modified handicapped footwork. Although I was also hoping for some little input specifically from William's lineage. Welcome to MAP.
ummm... william cheung uses traditional, not modified footwork. though some sifu's might modify it and be recognized under him, it is traditional. www.wingchunkwoon.com has good videos of cheung's lineage in action from yip man. the side stance in wing chun is like jeet kune do. i'm thinking that if you combined the method of quick entry/retreating you could enhance your wing chun experience with more speed. some people critizize the neatural stance because it seems stiff... it is very defensive, and it could be stiff if you stop and stand in the stance. begginers can find it very effective with little training, but to face tougher opponents may want to learn the steps/other stances to their advantage. anyways, all sifu's modify things in some ways or take out things they deem not important... or modify them to their body... but most if william cheungs stuff is traditional excepicially stance and footwork. back to jkd and wc... using the side stance in wc like jkd, you could do tsteps-or like this... from the stance (feet shoulder with apart , with one forward in front... and other in back... like side stance but not side neatural stance)... you can advance by either t-stepping, or doing a jkd style wc step... take your front forward, step up 1/2 step. then take your back foot and meet up with your front foot. now take a huge step to make you shoulder width apart again back into your good stance. now doing this you can cover huge amounts of area, and be in a stance that to me is more fast then the straight on neatural stance (you should be practicing both of these stances like 3 weeks into training). i think this stance is somewhat more effective of a neatural stance because it makes you a smaller target and faster footwork. i wonder though, if it makes dodging harder. if practiced using t-steps you can dodge kicks/punches by rotating to a side. in this case, you might have to retreat, or move around attacks instead of stepping and rotating to one side like a door. hmm just some ideas.
i do not know enough yet about traditional wc footwork because i only am good at the first form, and have not advanced beyond that level. but by studying wc/jkd i have been seeing lots of similarities in footwork, but some interesting aspects that jkd to wc footwork to make it more liquid. i am thinking of a hybrid... fast entry/retreat... but once you attack or counterattack you can sit into a netural stance and do your chain punches/blocks.
