lob
07-04-2005, 01:17 PM
Dear GM Hoffmann,
I'm an italian Win Chun practiser of Leung Ting lineage.
I've red on the italian forum about the report of the Rome camp.
Something which has been written sounds quite unusual to me, especially if Weng Chun should to be considered like the probable ancestor of the modern Wing Chun.
I will not turn my attention to lineages and historical facts, as they cannot be checked in no way and are therefore not feasible to be held as plausible proofs.
The doubtful points are of a different kind, in my opinion.
I'm going to tell just a couple among the many I've got.
First of all, If Weng Chun is to be considered an "internal" martial art (as you actually say), it should follow the well known principle according to which the fighting skill is as much high as less external movement is involved in it.
Regarding to this topic, it seems from the reading of the camp report that Weng Chun is instead based on a much higher amount of movement and external amplitude of moving forces, something very like the fluff fake type of modern new-age and healthful Tai Ji Quan.
In spite of it, this fact is exploited to show Weng Chun as an evolution of the art (or better, to show Wing Chun as an involution of it),which is a clear inconsistency IMHO.
Another doubtful point regards the approach to the fight, which in IMA is strictly linked to another well known principle which states:" The last to act overcomes the others"
From the report, actually, it sounds like the Weng's approach to the fight is the common one to many others MA, where
people adopt the sparring way of doing
like advancing, retreating, dodging, making fakes, etc., whereas the above written principle suggests in few words that the internal fighter's action should be totally created by and dependent from the action of the opponent, which is in fact what is done in Wing Chun.
Therefore, another contradiction IMHO.
Now, last but not least, let's talk about something which actually let me very very disappointed on reading.
It seems that making KiuSao with a student, you made repeatedly as if to butt him. The student was amazed of it and took it as something very good.
But I'm not of his same opinion.
How do you actually explain the use of the head in a clever and superior martial art, since hitting with a part of the body which is in the same time a possible noble target for the same targeted part of the opponent, is not what one can actually call a smart idea?
Even because, if it's true that in a martial art every kind of strike and principle has its own method of training made of forms, wooden dummy, kiusau, etc, it would be interesting to know if you train butts following one of the above said method.
I put the same questions on the italian forum but I got no answer.
Since this is probably due to the lack of experience of the italian Weng practisers, I would like to receive a kind reply from you.
I thank you in advance
Respectfully lob
I'm an italian Win Chun practiser of Leung Ting lineage.
I've red on the italian forum about the report of the Rome camp.
Something which has been written sounds quite unusual to me, especially if Weng Chun should to be considered like the probable ancestor of the modern Wing Chun.
I will not turn my attention to lineages and historical facts, as they cannot be checked in no way and are therefore not feasible to be held as plausible proofs.
The doubtful points are of a different kind, in my opinion.
I'm going to tell just a couple among the many I've got.
First of all, If Weng Chun is to be considered an "internal" martial art (as you actually say), it should follow the well known principle according to which the fighting skill is as much high as less external movement is involved in it.
Regarding to this topic, it seems from the reading of the camp report that Weng Chun is instead based on a much higher amount of movement and external amplitude of moving forces, something very like the fluff fake type of modern new-age and healthful Tai Ji Quan.
In spite of it, this fact is exploited to show Weng Chun as an evolution of the art (or better, to show Wing Chun as an involution of it),which is a clear inconsistency IMHO.
Another doubtful point regards the approach to the fight, which in IMA is strictly linked to another well known principle which states:" The last to act overcomes the others"
From the report, actually, it sounds like the Weng's approach to the fight is the common one to many others MA, where
people adopt the sparring way of doing
like advancing, retreating, dodging, making fakes, etc., whereas the above written principle suggests in few words that the internal fighter's action should be totally created by and dependent from the action of the opponent, which is in fact what is done in Wing Chun.
Therefore, another contradiction IMHO.
Now, last but not least, let's talk about something which actually let me very very disappointed on reading.
It seems that making KiuSao with a student, you made repeatedly as if to butt him. The student was amazed of it and took it as something very good.
But I'm not of his same opinion.
How do you actually explain the use of the head in a clever and superior martial art, since hitting with a part of the body which is in the same time a possible noble target for the same targeted part of the opponent, is not what one can actually call a smart idea?
Even because, if it's true that in a martial art every kind of strike and principle has its own method of training made of forms, wooden dummy, kiusau, etc, it would be interesting to know if you train butts following one of the above said method.
I put the same questions on the italian forum but I got no answer.
Since this is probably due to the lack of experience of the italian Weng practisers, I would like to receive a kind reply from you.
I thank you in advance
Respectfully lob