In our Wing Chun practice we often hear or read about the effectivness of our system, its directness in dealing with an opponents attack and its inherent efficiency in the process of doing so....but have you ever considered and analysed the methods YOU actually use or have been taught to use in your own practice and actively tried to understand how and why they work (hopefully!) and perhaps if they could be more streamlined and direct???
The reason I ask is because I have - due to my own personal research, both into alternative Wing Chun methods and lineages and also into my own understanding and abilities as a practitioner and teacher of Wing Chun Kung Fu - a choice which has both shocked me and enlightened me and certainly has enriched my understanding of this facinating close quarter fighting system.
Firstly, I must say this article is NOT a political onslaught towards certain lineages or methods employed nor a promotion of any others, im simply documenting my own thoughts and personal findings and your own opinions and/or experiences may differ greatly.
After over 12 years of study and practice into Wing Chun, predominantly with the Ip Chun system, I completed my Baat Jaam Dao (eight cutting knives) form and application training and felt elated that I had reached the end of my formal training into the system.
Daily I practiced my new found knife skills until my shoulders burned and my wrists and forearms could take no more!! I had reached the peak, the end - the two years of Wing Chun Long Pole training (Luk Dim Boon Gwun) preceding this was undoubtably the toughest training I had endured since starting and id come through to finish with the knives....BUT......
I still had more questions...ALOT more questions!!! - some things simply didnt add up or correlate with what id read in Wing Chun publications and articles....the Wing Chun system advocates simple, direct actions to deal with an attack...agreed??
Though I was teaching and being taught aspects such as countering a single straight punch or grab with, say, a Bong Sau bridging technique deflection, with a turn or side-step then a Laap Sau to pull the attcker forward then a Fak Sau, chopping action with the elbow high above their shoulder level to attack the throat...with a whole host of potential follow up techniques
So...including footwork/stance changes my attacker does 1 action - I reply initially with 4 actions before I even follow my counter up!! Hmmmm???...not very direct is it?
Firstly I research the written Wing Chun sayings, concepts and theories (Kuen Kuit - Wing Chun was said to passed on orally in its early development) which are the backbone of genuine Wing Chun...I find;
1/ Bong Sau should only occur when there is a force sufficient to create its need - as ive used it as my first bridging technique im not following this one :-/
2/ Face the Opponents Centreline with your Own - Chiu Ying (Facing) a basic Siu Nim Tau concept - though as I turn and drop the weight onto my rear anchor leg or side-step offline my 'facing' is temporarily lost to deflect the attack
3/ Laap Sau - Cantonese for Deflecting or Warding off hands - im not warding him off, im pulling him onto me!
4/ Mai Jaang - sink elbow structures where possible to maintain triangulation and connection with the hip and stance, conversely with the ground 'rooting' - a core concept in all Chinese Kung Fu - nope! - my elbow is up at ear level and I feel vunerable even though im attacking, but not always aware due to the compliancy of my partner who lets me hit him
5/ ''Strike your opponents strike - kick your opponents kick'' - or Attack the Attack a concept known in a broader form as 'Lien Siu Dai Da' linking defence to bring in offence - it also states; often poorly translated as simultaneous defend and attack...ie; Taan Sau and Punch - or 2 actions to deal with 1 action - good...but not as direct as it could be.
Further into the system we also find concepts relating to directness in the weapons practice: ''Gwun Mo Leung Heung'' the pole does not make two sounds - meaning the attack and defence is 1 action, not stopping the pole (or other weapon) then attacking the person wielding it, not stopping the pole then sliding down to attack the hands - but attack and defend in one motion
Also ''Dao Mo Seung Faat'' - the moves/methods of the knives are not repeated - a reminder again to economize our actions by attacking and defending in one move wherever possible.
Secondly I began my own practical research into the Wong Shun Leung methods of Wing Chun which are highly regarded amongst many followers of Wing Chun around the world...I still am just as open minded to all approaches to teaching Wing Chun but needless to say in the 18 months ive been putting these methods into practice lightbulbs have gone off almost daily!!... and the methods have shown me a way to 'streamline' my Wing Chun making it simpler, more direct and more efficient in all areas.
In the Wong Shun Leung Ving Tsun system this direct approach to combat is drilled in from Day 1 in the form of the 'Siu Nim Tau' concepts of the Fook Sau and Taan Sau concept punches - here with 1 basic action, in many cases a punch, employs Chiu Ying facing, triangulation of the bridge and structures, simplicity and directness by either 'subduing' (fook) the attacking bridge from an outside gate position or 'dispersing' (taan) from an inside gate position to attack the centre of mass of the attacker - actions or tools such as Taan, Paak, Jut, Jum, Bong etc...are only needed if the attacking line gets blocked and become secondary to the more basic punch, facing and stance - thus dealing with an attack in the most simple direct and efficient way possible killing TWO birds (the attack and attacker) with ONE stone (our attack which is also a defensive action)
What we do know is there is are over 20 distinct and different systems/lineages of Wing Chun all of which teach varied methods, footwork and interpret the core concepts in their own way. It is not about what is right or wrong, direct or indirect, simply I feel we should to some degree research the system we practice and perhaps other ways to better absorb the diversity and potential found within our art for the benefit of our students, peers and future generations.
ReplyDeleteMy personal belief is that the methods we employ and develop are strongly linked in with our build and character - maybe the more feisty and brash characters would relate better to a very direct, no nonsense method and the more studious, quiet and calm characters would bloom with an esoteric approach to their practice - but how will you ever know unless you step out of the familiar training bubble you may/ be in and experience other ways....