Talk:Wing Chun/Archive 1

message: No.
Wing Tsun may be considered a form of wing chun, but the terms are certainly not interchangeable. Wing Tsun is a copyrighted, individual line of wing chun owned by Prof. Leung Ting.
An 'alternate romanization' is a different rendering of the same thing. They are not the same thing. Wing Tsun is not wing chun. They are different animals.
Please stop calling a specific line an alternate romanization.
Graphik 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction - the transliteration (romanization) of the Chinese characters for Wing chun can be Wing tsun, ving tsun, ving chun, and many others. WingTsun™ is different from Wing tsun the tm explains the trademark. Just because something is trademarked does not justify claiming it is not a transliteration, as anything can be trademarked or copyrighted. WingTsun™ specifically refers to the linage owned by Prof. Leung Ting. The term Wing tsun does not specifically refers to WingTsun™ except as a slang term. photodude 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a court case your logic might hold up. In common usage, no. Ask anyone what Wing Tsun is, and they'll tell you it's Leung Ting's line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.116.23.242 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wing Tsun as an Alternate Romanization 

message: * Strongly Oppose WingTsun is a trademarked name that refers specifically to the Leung Ting lineage and only the Leung Ting lineage. "WingTsun" is not interchangeable with "Wing Chun".JFD 03:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually it is a line *and* a romanization.  Leung Ting took this romanization and copyrighted/trademarked it for his own purposes (i.e. to designate his line).  Wing Chun, Wing Tsun, and Ving Tsun (which is the romanization for the Toishanese pronunciation - a sub-dialect of Cantonese) are all just romanizations for the same characters.--Marty Goldberg 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[WingTsun]] 

message: I made some minor modifications to the personalities section, removing some potentially inflammatory remarks about a couple of the personalities.  I'd like to help keep the wikipedia entry free of the politics that have plagued wing chun for so long.  I think it would be appreciated if others would help do the same.  Thanks! :) --alex 03:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't make "minor modifications," my friend, you reverted vandalism! Well done! I will place this page on my watchlist to revert any future vandalism, anyone else who is interested should do the same. Fire Star 03:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personalities section (refactored) 

message: It should be noted here that in his younger years Wong wah-bo was a practitioner of the Sil-Lum Hung Gar style having learned the Long pole tecniques from no other than the legendary Shaolin master Jee Shim himself.
What's the source of this story?
According to the Yip Man oral history, Leung Yee-Tai who was the pole master and taught its use to Wong Wah-Bo.
Yik Kam (??, yi4 jin1 in pinyin, whose name means literally mean "changing gold") is one such peers of his masters. Better known as Cheng-Tan Kam ( ???, zheng4 dan4 jin1) due to his sublimal portrayal of female lead characters in the opera, Yik Kam retired and settled in Panyu province where he was challenged by a young Cho Dak Shing who was beaten soundly. Eventaully learning at Yik Kam's feet, Cho Dak Shing went on to establish the legacy of Cho Ga Wing Chun (????, Cho's Family Wing Chun).
Also heard (via article by Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie & Hendrik Santo) that the "Yik" in "Yik Kam" means "wings" rather than "change." Same article mentions Cho Shun, an intermediate generation between Yik Kam and Cho Dak-Sing.
JFD 10:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineage 

message: Here, one should distinguish between interpretation and origin. Wing Chun is able to be interpreted scientifically and logically because its principles are coherent with laws of physics (straight line theory, angles, etc.). This doesn't mean, however, that it was created from scientific principles. It's obvious from the history that Wing Chun was created by synthesising Shaolin styles, not designed from the ground up to be scientifically compatible. It may appear scientific in hindsight but one cannot call it a 'scientific and logical' martial art because this implies causality. -Unsigned comment by 210.50.16.120
:Very true, the scientific method can describe things (stars, planets, cultures, animals, plants, etc.), and scientists may design technology based on those findings. But originally, it is for observing and describing natural processes. We recently had a discussion at the acupuncture article along these lines. Regarding another martial art, Wu Chien-ch'uan wrote: "Scientific principles could apply to every aspect of T'ai Chi Ch'uan skills. That being said, the ways that empty and full transform are truly unfathomable." Fire Star 14:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific and logical? 

message: 1. The author mentions that Wing Chun competitions are rare because it has 'retained its focus as a practical fighting art'. This is a value judgement, although a more subtle one. The author is implying here that Wing Chun schools that do enter competitions are not being faithful to its focus as a 'practical fighting art'. 
We cannot truly know why certain Wing Chun schools avoid competitions; they do so for their own, internal reasons. This is a contentious issue best suited to specialist martial arts sites. Thus, I propose we delete this statement and move on.
2. The author mentions that 'Bruce Lee managed to develop Jeet Kune Do from Wing Chun because Wing Chun trained him to think about fighting in a scientific way'...this needs a reference, otherwise the quote appears tenuous, too much like a rumour and should be deleted.
3. 'There are no...techniques that mimic animal movements' Yet in the Oral Histories section, the author mentions that Wing Chun was created by observing and mimicking the movements of a crane trapping a snake. This should be resolved or deleted.
4. On the vertical punch: 'The vertical punch was kept unchanged in Jeet Kune Do by Bruce Lee'. False. Lee modified the punch to rise from the hip upwards because he believed the human eye was less sensitive to moving targets below the eyeline. Furthermore, Jeet Kune Do utilises a 45-degree cat stance which negates fundamental centreline principles governing the Wing Chun punch
5. On students being taught 'the reasoning behind each technique' and sifus being 'friendly and open'...it seems the author has confused his/her personal Wing Chun experience with the general Wing Chun community. I will delete this immediately, as with other such subjective statements since there should be no question of their inappropriateness.
6. On the 'External or Internal?' section. This entire section deserves deletion since its discussion of body structure, sensitivity and relaxation overlaps with the following sections. 
Furthermore, the 'external vs internal' debate is of questionable merit. Most martial artists reject the distinction, recognising that internal and external power are complementary (rather than conflicting) elements to Wing Chun, if not all Chinese martial arts.
Tarkovsky
1) Where are the internal body mechanics in wing chun?  Taiji, xingyi, &c, all use hip rotation and pushing up from the floor - this is the internal element (when taken to a sensitive enough degree) as the movement can be extremely small and still powerful.  If the body mechanics could be elaborated on, that would be great (I'm a Chinese wrestler, and I'd like to know about power generation in wing chun, and this article was somewhat lacking.)
2) Bruce Lee took more from boxing in his straight punch than wing chun.  Read Teri Tom's book, The Straight Lead; Tom discusses Bruce's influence, primarily being boxers like Jack Dempsey (famous for his powerful jab) and Jim Driscoll, and goes into great detail about the correct form for the punch.  Pushing up from the floor (in fact, practically jumping towards the opponent), powerful hip rotation with a whip into the shoulder, from a boxing hand position and close to a boxing stance, with the rear heel raised (&c) - none of which is recognisable from wing chun at all.  Only the vertical fist is still in use from wing chun, and that instead came from the concept of a perfect three-knuckle landing without gloves (also in bareknuckle boxing).  Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characteristics and principles (in general) 

message: Some proposed changes, please give feedback:
1. 'Because the fist is not loaded by first pulling the elbow behind the body, the vertical punch is faster than a conventional roundhouse punch'
A conventional roundhouse punch (I'm assuming you mean a boxing one) begins loaded within the stance. Pulling the elbow back for delivery is not needed, unless one is throwing multiple punches in which case the speed penalty is absorbed by the wholistic fighting movement of the entire body/opposing hand anyway.
Speed, furthermore, is a function of the practitioner's expertise not the Wing Chun principles. Perhaps this should be changed to "distance" instead.
2. 'Keeping the elbow low and forward protects the front midsection of the body whereas pulling the elbow back would expose it.'
Tarkovsky
1. "distance" is definitely more appropriate, although the shorter distance often translates into a faster, weaker punch if identical subjects are doing both a a) wing chun vertical punch and a b) regular punch. What about qualifying the statement instead? Something like "faster but weaker" given other variables held constant.
2. While it does imply that, such is the nature of martial arts. Different arts focus on different skill sets. Wing Chun practitioners may like to guard their centerline more than others, but this comes at the expense of a smaller variety of possible movements. Also, other styles that guard their centerline may do so using their forearms, or turning their body in a sideways position instead of their elbows, or attempting to keep the opponent out of close striking range and in the kicking range instead.
How about "the elbow... reduces the need for other methods/techniques/positions of guarding the centerline?" or "elbow... is Wing Chun's preferred method of guarding the centerline?"
Frogular 00:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wing Chun Punch 

message: I have edited many martial arts articles and the Wing Chun one is notable for its bias and continual use of weasel words. Updates typically include comments like: 
"Some Wing Chun practitioners believe that such trade-offs are not advantageous to the overall combat situation"
"Some Sifu's discourage the use of Feints and Fakes as these are seen as opening up your body to attack..."
These statements do not* use a neutral point of view. Nor are they fact. The attempt to qualify statements with prefixes like "Some Wing Chun practitioners..." doesn't render the statement anything more than opinion, it merely disguises it through weasel words. It may be *true* that some Wing Chun practitioners believe this but this doesn't necessarily mean it is fact. It may be true that some Wing Chun practitioners believe the art originated in the 19th century, it doesn't make it fact. This is the ad populum fallacy, another constant feature on this article.
Some examples of correct, neutral statements:
"Forms are a meditative, solitary exercise which develop self-awareness, balance and sensitivity. Forms also train the practitioner in the fundamental movements of Wing Chun. It is from the forms that all Wing Chun techniques are derived."
"Wing Chun believes that small movements, properly timed and correctly positioned, can and should be used to defeat large movements"
"A correct Wing Chun stance is like a piece of bamboo, firm but flexible, rooted but yielding."
Finally, please stop writing comments about what your school thinks, about what your Sifu says or your own personal experiences or opinions about the art. They do not correctly support a position and have no place in a neutral encyclopedia. These are best suited to specialist martial arts sites, fora or personal blogs.
Tarkovsky
I fail to see how your own statements are not themeselves a far more extreme example of ad populum fallacy. "Correct Wing Chun" can be discussed, but not individual viewpoints? What defines "correct Wing Chun"? Popular acceptance?
Additionally, Wing Chun is not martial mathematics, it is martial art, and is nothing but a personal interperetation. Saying that only fact can be discussed in a Wing Chun article therefore leaves us with a blank page.
Graphik 00:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A terse statement on neutrality and fact 

message: There are currently 17 links with the article. I have just removed 2 that were inappropriate and one that was dead. Seventeen links is probably too many, don't you think?  Perhaps we should remove some of the links to individual schools. WT guy 22:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Links to individual schools should be avoided unless they also contain a large amount of general Wing Chun information. Frogular 23:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I add a link to video clips that I like. Maybe, start a new article: "Wing Chun websites"? 212.118.59.11 22:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: It doesn't make sense to randomly name schools in this section considering the large number of first generation students of Yip Man (see http://www.cebridge.com.au/Ipman/ or similar). Looks more like random advertising to me. I'm ditching it. Rpf 01:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history 

message: Can we please get an audio file of a native Cantonese speaker saying 咏春?
— Gulliver ✉ 07:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Chi Na is also from Shaolin and was incorporated into Wing Chun as well as other arts.
There is an excellent article in the Sept. issue of Kung Fu magazine showcasing my sifu.
Very informative and info should be added here.
Not all Wing Chun schools use it so I would hesitate in covering such divergences in the article. I would stick to the common, canonical features common across most schools. What does everyone else think? 203.10.77.190 05:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chi Na omitted too 

message: Can we propose to delete the second paragraph in the 'close range' section, it is pure fan bullshit. Cheers. 203.10.77.190 06:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Close range 

message: As a speaker of the Chinese language, I would argue Wing Chun means 'eternal springtime' and not 'spring chant'. 203.10.77.190 06:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you always provide root literal translations for etymology purposes in an encyclopedia.  --Marty Goldberg 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Spring chant'? 

message: In the section regarding forms there are several analogies comparing the Wing Chun forms to car components like the chassis, engine and turbocharger.
These analogies are perhaps useful when teaching the art and explaining the relevant body mechanics; but perhaps not so appropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. I propose to delete them. 203.10.77.190 07:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your position on "crudeness", "respect", "elegance" and "cultural aspects" interesting and might be able to take it more seiously if you hadn't previously demonstrated it with phrases like "pure fan bullshit", "fan shit", and condescending statements such as "i'm getting tired of these so-called....", sighs like in the other section, etc.  The issue of "ancient" I won't even get in to.  The issue here though is this *is* Wikipedia - an encyclopedia, on the internet, read in the 21st century, for people living now.  Taking cultural and more traditional terms (which are included) and included modern explinations for the *current* reader alongside is certainly acceptible and is anything but dissrespectful or crude.  Hawkins Cheung, a well known and respected Yip Man student, for example wrote a series of articles published in Inside Kung Fu in the 90's that used the car analogy.  A person comes away with a better layman's understanding of what's being said through an analogy, not that the art is "like a car".  That's just a plain irresponsible assumption.  Likewise, what constitutes "traditional and cultural apects" has changed with every generation - or do you still learning using Foshan era Yip Man terms like baat gwa lung na there at your school in Canberra? Chances are you're using more "modern" terms introduced during the 50's through early 70's "Hong Kong" era.  --Marty Goldberg 00:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Car' analogies 

message: Wugungfu, this concerns the Wing Chun kung fu article. I posted my proposed changes in the discussion section for one weeek and you did not respond and simply reverted my edits after I made them yesterday. You offered no explanation and simply changed them however you wished. This is edit warring which is discouraged.
Could you please state your reasons for reverting the above changes?
Tarkovsky 22:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claimed Edit War

message: A category for those who practice Wing chun
To add yourself to this category, add the following to your user page:
 
The part after the "|" puts your page into its proper place in the alphabet, ignoring the "User:" prefix; otherwise, you end up under "U." photodude 17:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Wikipedian Wing Chun

message: This is hidious, there is no profile page and the pics are full of pixcilated images. Look at the taekwondo pages, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekwondo. Looks professional, has a profile, and nice layout.
If no one disagrees I will start touching up the Chinese martial arts section. (Seong0980 10:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think as long as you run by everyone here what you specifically intend to change to "clean up", and it follows the guidelines laid out by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts, I don't think anyone should have a problem. Although I'm not sure what you mean by "profile".  There is no section on the Taekwondo page listed as "Profile".  If you mean the infobox with the Korean flag in it and picture of two Taekwondo guys, I could see maybe adding something like the text portion of that here (but I don't see that much that's applicable here).  Likewise, I don't see an "pixelated" pictures.  Unless you're refering to the snapshot from the Yip Man video on YouTube, whose video is pixelated to begin with.  --Marty Goldberg 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets improve the page layout

message: hello i added some info about the dymmy.I saw it got reverted. Can someone please tell my why ? I added it again ,i won't add it again if you think it is for some reason innapropriate !Also i tried adding an external link with a lot of information.Tomorrow I will add a few morre things to the article :)Mariachi50 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was it didn't fit in with Wikipedia standards and was written from a point of "original research".  The information you presented was of personal opinion and not standard across the board: The height and measurements of the mook jong are not standard, and size of the dummy vs. the opponent is not a tenet mentioned anywhere in the art - it's amatter of personal opinion.  Also, while teak is the most common wood (which could be mentioned), there once again is no tenet in the art stating what the dummy is to be made of.  --Marty Goldberg 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: edit

message: well here are some additions I would like to make to the article:
for Weapons - Long Pole
The "Six and a half long Pole" form learns to the practitioners how to apply energy and strengthen the arms, the legs, the back, the wrists and much more the punches because of its weight. The practitioners in Wing Chun system of Kung Fu, use this weapon in order to fight from distance with their opponents. At this form (Six and a half long Pole), there are three basic stances in which the practitioner learns how to stand, how to defense and attack. The first stance's name is the "Pole Stance" or "Kwun Ma" and is the basic stance. The practitioners use this stance in order to learn how to attack and defense their opponents. The second is the "Quadralateral stance" or "Say Ping Ma" and the third stance is the well-known "T stance" or "Ding Jee Ma".
for Chi Gerk
Furthermore, at this form (Sticky legs) the practitioners learn how to manage low kicks and how to block with their legs the opponent's legs. Also, the practitioners learn how to break the equilibrium of the opponent and then it is easy to beat him. As at Chi Sao, also at the Chi Gerk form the leg has three parts as the forearm has and these are the ankle, the knee and the hip and respectively the wrist, the elbow and the shoulder. On a close range combat this technique is very effective.
are they appropriate ?Mariachi50 09:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: edit2

message: The article has "China" written as its origin, which would be fine, were it not for the fact that there is an ROC flag and not a PRC one in the box.  I live in Taiwan, but the land where Wing Chun was created is now de facto in the People's Republic whether claimed by the ROC or not, and this is not a political article.  I propose putting a PRC flag instead of an ROC one. Yalishanda 15:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of China, eh?