Differences in Theory

[DubChenBadanger]

I have noticed a few differences in theory that I would like to discuss.
I think a comparison of lineage technique will help us understand other points of view and historical adjustments that have been made throughout the evolution of our art.
WT uses a rear leg weight with no more than a tennis ball width between the knees. I have seen several other stances that are much wider and more of a 60 / 40 weight distribution. Our knees are closer to guard the groin. The reason we weight the rear leg is because it allows less chance of a successful sweep. Can anyone clarify why their lineage stance is different?
Thank you.

White Lotus

[sihing]

Originally posted by DubChenBadanger
I have noticed a few differences in theory that I would like to discuss.
I think a comparison of lineage technique will help us understand other points of view and historical adjustments that have been made throughout the evolution of our art.
WT uses a rear leg weight with no more than a tennis ball width between the knees. I have seen several other stances that are much wider and more of a 60 / 40 weight distribution. Our knees are closer to guard the groin. The reason we weight the rear leg is because it allows less chance of a successful sweep. Can anyone clarify why their lineage stance is different?
Thank you.

White Lotus

Hi White Lotus,

I'm familiar with your stance, although I've never personally trained in the WT systems, I've investigated lots of it for curiosity reasons.

In my lineage we use a 50/50 weighted balance and the feet are approximently a little wider than shoulder width apart, so therefore the knees will be much wider than yours are in your stance. We too also are concerned with protection of the groin, and when in X-Arm stances(my lead right foot, opponents the same) with the opponent the lead foot is always on the inside of the opponents foot, and very close to it, having my lead knee covering his lead leg/foot cutting off the chance of a groin kick landing, and thereby trapping his footwork at the sametime. For the parallel stances (my left lead vs opponents right lead), my lead foot is always on the outside of his lead foot, trapping the foot and knee like above.

As for sweeping of the legs, with the configuration of the stance structure it gives us a very rooted leg to deal with and hard to sweep once in the contact/exchange stage of combat. Also, with the strategy above, once the opponents foot/leg leaves the ground you will be aware of it and can attack that weakness. My biggest problem with the 0/100 weight stances and from what I have seen of the WT line is the mobility is dramatically decreased and the lateral movement is gone, at least IMO. It like your on a axis and turning/twisting to the left of right depending on the actions of your opponent. In the non-contact stage, at least in the lineage I belong to, we use allot of mobility and do not stay in the same spot in space. If our opponent moves to his left, we draw a straight line and move to our right to cover that line staying on the straight line, never allowing a flank (similar to way a basketball player defends his zone), while at the same time keeping his lead foot/knee directly down the center of our stance. Not to say that the 0/100 weighted method does not work, as lots of WT fighters are good fighters, I just disagree with the methodology. It would be nice one day to meet someone from that linage and discuss/compare there ways and mine. I'm always open to dialoge and Wing Chun learning. But I have to see HFY first, before anything else, lol.

Check out this site, http://www.codetrap.net/wingchun/ , to see some footage of myself and fellow students from my school. (I'm the tall one/gold sash/brown hair)

James

[Armin]

Hi White Lotus,

as someone who's been practicing WT for years, I think I can give you a detailed answer.

1st: even in the Leung Ting-system there are several occasions, where you distribute your weight evenly, e. g. the third section of chi sao, when you do that 'turning-and-kao-so-thing-against-that-fak-into-your-armpit'. Or so I was tought by my sifu and GM Kernspecht.

2nd: one of the attributes you train in the Siu Nim Tao is being balanced, another one is stability. You can be balanced when standing on one leg, but you can't have stability.

3rd: remember, that these stances are only for training-purpose. You won't be fighting in Kim Yeung Ma, would you?

4th: why don't you take a 'more realistic' look at it (sorry, no offense meant!)? In a fight, there will be much movement, a lot of footwork and a lot of working with the body. If you want to kick - there's your distribution of 0:100. If you pull him down or throw him, there's the 50:50 or even 100:0.

For me, it's quite simple. Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma, Houi Ma and all the others show you a different way of building a structure for working with the most possible energy. On the other hand, you want to be very flexible with your hands - why don't be flexible with the footwork, too? There are thousands of possible hand-movements and only one way of standing and walking??? I don't think so.


Greetings,

Armin.

[DubChenBadanger]

Thank you for your replies.
Armin you would think by the way you write we were from different lineages. I learned 3rd session Chi-sau from Grandmaster Leung Ting back in 1985. Things must have changed since then. Maybe my Sifu doesn't like me. As far as training methodology goes you have been taught differently in that respect also. I know of footwork theory changes in long pole but in combat situations it would be rare to use those. Maybe you can enlighten me here nephew. Why would I be taught to train the traditional way and go out in the street and fight using a totally different method? Are you saying there is a flaw in traditional WT training? Again maybe I am being taught differently because I lack humility or respect.
Please don't get me wrong, I hoped to learn more about other theories which is why I started this thread.
White Lotus

[Armin]

Hi White Lotus,

please remember - I'm german, this is not my native language we are 'talking' in.

Once again, I do mean no offence!

I learned the third session (that's the way you call that?) around 1996 and I was definitely taught to keep the weight evenly on both legs when turning. That's all.

Maybe my Sifu doesn't like me.
Oh, come on. We don't need to talk that way with each oterh, right?

As far as training methodology goes you have been taught differently in that respect also.
That's surly true.

Well, I'm sorry, I am busy at the moment. So I will stop for the moment and talk to you in about 8 hours (when I got up). I will give you more details than, if you like.


Best wishes,

Armin.

[DubChenBadanger]

Please do continue.
Sorry if I am coming off as a smug American bastard.
I mean no disrespect to you.
I understand the limitations of the English language.
Please enrich the list with your knowledge.
There is quite a difference in what you know and what I have been taught.

White Lotus

[Armin]

Good morning,

ok, going (a little) deeper into detail.

As far as training methodology goes you have been taught differently in that respect also.
My 'daily' teachers were Klaus Dingeldein and Siegfried Altmayer, I met my Sifu Keith Kernspecht only once per month/every second month on a seminar.

As far as I know, and you already mentioned that, Mr. Kernspecht acted like a 'filter' by changing or inserting new/different exercises like that Pak Sao-Punch, Anti-Grappling, Blitz-Defence and something like Tae Bo.

There may be some good reasons for him to do that, but let's don't discuss that. Somehow, I feel bored about that.

Why would I be taught to train the traditional way and go out in the street and fight using a totally different method?
Because training and real-life are always different? ;) No, seriously, I think you misunderstood, what I wrote. Let me put it into other words. You don't train technique, you train principles and concepts. The forms teach you several different applications for principles and concepts, but, as you surely know, there are thousands of variations. Further training, e. g. Chi Sao, gives you the ability to use that variations. That keeps your 'techniques' flexible.

Ok, sounds strange, let's make an example. Take the Bong Sao. In the Siu Nim Tao you train the Bong Sao like 'ellbow in front of the shoulder, wrist on the center-line in front of the breast'. In Chi Sao you learn to adjust the Bong Sao to the hight of your partner and you undderstand, that Bong Sao is not a position, but a movement.

Further training, like sparring, gives you an idea of how the Bong Sao may work in a real-life situation.

Are you saying there is a flaw in traditional WT training?
What is 'traditional WT-training'? WT is from Leung Ting and, to be honest, has nothing to do with Ip Man Ving Tsun. Hm, sorry, that sound's bad, let me put that in other words. Leung Ting never was a student of Ip Man, meaning he never trained Chi Sao with Ip Man. The only thing they did, was talking and (maybe) Ip man showed him how to perform the forms. The rest is made up by Leung Ting.

But once again, I ask you, not to follow this topic - too much bad blood. If you like, we can go on per PM or E-mail. Ok?

For the public: I've been into Leung Ting WT for more than 10 years. I had some very good teachers, maybe some of the best in Germany and Europe. It took only several minutes for Sifu Meng, to convince me of the Ip Man system he's teaching. The reasons could be, because his Gung Fu was better, but also because of personal reasons. Please understand that I don't want to talk about that. Sifu Meng, his team and I know, why I learn from him, that's enough.

And one more thing: I mean no disrespect to others. There are several reasons for that. Everyone is doing hard work with their Ving Tsun/Wing T(s/j)un/Wing Chun/whatever and they do a great job in bringing Ving Tsun into the future - they have my deepest respect.

On the other hand I have to admitt, that I'm concentrating on 'my way' and form my side, there's not enough interest there, to do any 'flame-wars'. That means, that I will be answering questions (after all we have to communicate with each other), but I won't be trying to convince anybody of my point of view.

One more time @ White Lotus
I understand the limitations of the English language.
It's not the limitations of the English language - it's the limitations of me using the the english language. ;)

Please don't get me wrong, I hoped to learn more about other theories which is why I started this thread.
I'm fine with that, that's why I answered.


Best wishes,

Armin.


PS: You've been training WT since 1985? Wow, what's your rank - 'Man of arrival'???

[DubChenBadanger]

Thank you so much for that delightful explanation Armin.
I can tell you are not of my lineage (WT).
You dance around issues like a fakir on hot coals, but you are always entertaining reading.

How about turn stance?
We turn one leg / foot at a time. I noticed several other lineages spin on both feet.
One reason we spin one leg is WT prefers to retain a root.

[Armin]

Hi,

what are you doing up so late?

Thank you so much for that delightful explanation Armin.
You are welcome.

I can tell you are not of my lineage (WT).
That's true since Decembre 2004.

You dance around issues like a fakir on hot coals, but you are always entertaining reading.
How to say an opinion without insulting someone?

How about turn stance?
We turn one leg / foot at a time. I noticed several other lineages spin on both feet.
One reason we spin one leg is WT prefers to retain a root.
Ok, 'length-check'. Turning with both feet spinning is much more rooted than putting the weight on one leg and spin one foot. And you are always balanced - that's something you are not, when standing on one leg.

Further questions?


Armin.

[DubChenBadanger]

Yeah I'm still up Armin.
I noticed that you claim to be from Heidleberg. Are you just vacationing in Amsterdam? That is where your IP is coming in from. Your slip is showing. You are just trying to stir things up aren't you? That's cool. I think I'll keep you around for someone to pick on.
Your explanation of turnstance is interesting even though you make a feeble attempt once again to insult my lineage. Our balance is augmented by abduction remember? Something your WT Sifu should have taught you the first day of class.
I figured other lineages used it for dissipation and redirection because I have felt it used that way when I have done chi-sau at some other schools.
White Lotus

[Armin]

Hi!

I noticed that you claim to be from Heidleberg. Are you just vacationing in Amsterdam? That is where your IP is coming in from.
Really? I have no idea of such things. As far as I'm concerned, my IP could be from Northpole. Actually I'm using a wireless Lan. But as I said, I have no idea. :confused:

Just believe me, I am from and still are in Heidelberg, Germany.

Your slip is showing. You are just trying to stir things up aren't you?
If that is, what you think.

I think I'll keep you around for someone to pick on.
If you like to. I can give you my 'real-life adress', if there's someone pick me up and to carry me somewhere - where will we be going? I have to ask my wife (she's first) and my boss (he's second) to give me leave, but I will gladly come.

Your explanation of turnstance is interesting even though you make a feeble attempt once again to insult my lineage.
Where? You don't mean ... Turning with both feet spinning is much more rooted than putting the weight on one leg and spin one foot. And you are always balanced - that's something you are not, when standing on one leg.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Our balance is augmented by abduction remember? Something your WT Sifu should have taught you the first day of class.
Oh, really?! And what's the point of it?

I figured other lineages used it for dissipation and redirection because I have felt it used that way when I have done chi-sau at some other schools.
And what are the reasons for that? And what does it mean to you? Weren't you able to do the same with your stance?

Well, White Lotus, as I tried to say: discussion on certain matters are fruitless, as long as both 'parties' try to convince each other without listening and thinking about what the other one tries to say. Even if we use the same language, for us, there's no basement of understanding each other. You could be talking to a wall instead.

I surely tried to get a conversation going on, but all I got where accusations, senseless puns and even distortion of words. Come on, is that all you can show? :(


Armin.

[Armin]

Hi again,

talking of rooting - try this link and watch video no. 7 ...

click me! (http://www.wingtsunwelt.com/english/videos/video_lt.html)

(Hope it works)

... than tell me something about rooting in Leung Ting WT, please.


Armin.

[sihing]

Not trying to pass judgement on the WT system's effectiveness, but in most of those videos GM Ting looks more like off balanced than rooted. I downloaded three videos from a WT event in London back in 1999, and I got more faith in the effectiveness of WT from the students demonstrating and explaining things than I did from GM Ting's demos and explainations, so as a person not affiliated with them in anyway, it seems like Kernspect has done things allot different from Ting, and actually improved the effectiveness of the overall all. Just some observations.....

James

[DubChenBadanger]

Thank you for your posts.
As I'm sure everyone knows demonstrating a crippling kick or a movement that could kill someone is hard to pull off convincingly without hurting your partner. I look at Armins' demo clip and that is exactly what I see.
I had a stylist from another system bring his ego into my gym a few weeks back and I did the same movement on him that GGM Leung Ting did in this demo clip. His head hit the floor so hard I thought I had killed him or injured him severely. He didn't get up for about 5 minutes.
I didn't hold back much but I was in a potential combat situation so I let him have it. He asked for it and he got it! He has a whole new respect for WT now. I too have seen other stylists form and demos and laughed to myself but have never been disrespectful enough to throw it up in their face. I figure I'll wait until one is stupid enough to walk into my gym and question my or my systems' capability. That is the way things were done in Hong Kong in the old days and that is the way I have always run my gym.
To round off this discussion if Keith Kernspect thought his technique was superior to that of GGM Leung Ting he surely would have taken his flock of thousands of students elsewhere by now or started his own spelling of what he was fortunate enough to be taught by Professor Ting and created his own style like so many others have done because they could not buy their way through the system like several others allow.
White Lotus

[Armin]

Hi White Lotus,

you may be right (actually, your answer makes sense!), but please tell me, where are the concepts of Ving Tsun? There's no following the centerline, no being balanced, no face-shadow. All I see is Leung Ting doing some sort of Gung Fu-movement.

To round off this discussion if Keith Kernspect thought his technique was superior to that of GGM Leung Ting he surely would have taken his flock of thousands of students elsewhere by now or started his own spelling of what he was fortunate enough to be taught by Professor Ting and created his own style like so many others have done because they could not buy their way through the system like several others allow.
You don't even see it, right? What is the big difference between Keth Kernspecht, Sergio Iadarola and all the other WT-branches, that split from the ETWO or the IWTMAA?

Keith Kernspecht has 'the original Leung Ting' - the others don't. It's well known over here, that he thought at least two times about leaving Leung Ting, but he didn't - because the connection to Leung Ting gives him a huge marketing-advantage. What do you think would happen, if he lost that connection? How many students would remain with Leung Ting, how many instructors would stay with Leung Ting - especially because they have a chance to get more territories?

And finally: Keith Kernspecht needs Leung Ting to make a big deal of money. Of course he shares that money with Leung Ting and Leung Ting takes it gladly. That's all what it is about in the EWTO and in the IWTMAA as well.


@ Sihing

it seems like Kernspect has done things allot different from Ting, and actually improved the effectiveness of the overall all
Don't forget, that Keith Kernspecht has a big martial arts background. He started with wrestling and boxing, Karate and Judo and he has e very deep knowledge about several Gung Fu-systems. Two years before his training under Leung Ting, he started training somne traditional Wing Chun in London (can't remember the name of his Sifu back then, sorry) and during his WT-carreer he trained with Jesse Glover.

Mr. Kernspecht is very good at combining his WT with stuff from other systems. E. g. the Pak Sao/Punch-drill comes directly from the Jeet Kune Do- and Escrima-experiences he made. (For explanation: the PSP-drill is something a beginner learns for nearly two years, before he even starts with chi sao, and is needed for every student-rank).


Armin.

[DubChenBadanger]

Here is another difference of theory. WT calls the centerline an imaginary line that extends out of the center of the chest on a Z axis. Most other lineages call the centerline what we refer to as the vertical mid line. Two totally different concepts and battling strategies with similar labels. The centerline in WT is defended at all costs because the fighter who controls the centerline controls the fight. There are two centerlines according to Wing Tsun theory.
There has been a lot of speculation about our theory, technique, and political practices. You are all entitled to your opinions and as the moderator of this group I welcome them. I won't ban you no matter how foolish you are.
You are all welcome to come to the World Chi-Sau Tournaments held in Hong Kong each year. The best way to test your techinque and your teachers' technique is to see how it holds up to ours.
White Lotus

[Armin]

Hi White Lotus,

WT calls the centerline an imaginary line that extends out of the center of the chest on a Z axis.
Why did your Sifu change that?

The centerline in WT is defended at all costs because the fighter who controls the centerline controls the fight.
Why just control a line in front of you, if you could control the whole space right in front of you?

Imagine, that the 'traditional' centerline in combination with the centerline of 'the attacker' builds a plane in front of you - there's not one line, there are infinite lines. Lines of attack and defense.

In WT, why do you need a 6-gate-theory, if you only need to control one line?


Armin.

PS: Sorry, I really don't mean to irritate you - these where questions I asked my Sifu and his answers weren't satisfieng at all.

[DubChenBadanger]

Armin:

You must have had a real idiot for a WT teacher because the centerline theory is one of the most mind-blowing concepts I have ever heard or read about in martial arts.
I'm taking a Dubchen Badanger appreciation day today so I will cover this in the near future because it is like Wing Tsun, simplistic but incredibally profound.
Thank you for putting up with a cranky old man.

White Lotus

[DubChenBadanger]

One good appreciation day deserves another.
I'll have more WT secrets to reveal in tomorrows post including the centerline theory...

[Cang Long]

Hello DubChenBadanger,
Hope you enjoyed a pleasant birthday.

[Cang Long]

DubChenBadanger,
yes curious when you will continue with your interpretation of Centerline theory, as for the leg stance theory we are taught legs are a least shoulder width apart and with a 50/50 weight distribution for reasons of combining mobility and stability. The mobility of the stance itself in part inables a practioner to shift or switch front leg to back or side to side allows for protection from sweeps as well as protecting the lower gates.

[DubChenBadanger]

The dynamic of the WT advancing and pursing steps provide our practioners with the ability to penetrate an attack and stick to it.
No weight on our lead leg gives it the ability to borrow force from a sweep, stick, and or counterattack (faster and more practically than any leg techniques I have ever seen). A weighted rear leg gives us more reach (fist to face) also, which could bring us back to centerline theory...

DubChen Badanger

[sihing]

Originally posted by Cang Long
DubChenBadanger,
yes curious when you will continue with your interpretation of Centerline theory, as for the leg stance theory we are taught legs are a least shoulder width apart and with a 50/50 weight distribution for reasons of combining mobility and stability. The mobility of the stance itself in part inables a practioner to shift or switch front leg to back or side to side allows for protection from sweeps as well as protecting the lower gates.

I believe the same as well, 50/50 for a heathly combination of mobility and stability. I still find it funny sometimes how the HFY lineage and mine use the exact same terminology on occasions such as this, as opposed to other lines where I never hear the same words repeated in the same manner. Maybe my Sifu and yours have met in past lives or something, lol?

James