Q&A – Why Aren’t there Combinations in Wing Chun Sets?
Rene Ritchie, March 25th, 2008
Why isn’t Wing Chun like other Chinese martial arts. In other arts, the sets teach combinations of techniques–good forms are really chains of related techniques. It may be a chain of 2, 3,4 or more postures that are designed to deal with an opponent’s counterattack. Why isn’t Wing Chun like that?
Yes, Wing Chun forms don’t do combinations in the sense of earlier Chinese martial development. If we look at Changquan or even Hung Kuen as poetry, Wing Chun forms translate closer to an alphabet and grammar guide.
It’s basically a decomposition of core movements, tokenized, indexed, and presented in a bare-bones progressive training system.
This means you can’t rely on combination memory burned into you through simple set repetition, but gives the advantage that, since there will always be near-infinite combinations in application, it forces you to transcend pattern much earlier along the learning curve.
Harder to learn, but time-saving if you can learn it.
I’ve seen the WCK grammar analogy before but it is not a sound analogy. That’s not how things work; we don’t learn or develop fighting skills like that.
Perhaps look at WCK as a toolkit – you have hammers, saws, screwdrivers, wrenches, etc. and when you want to build something, you have to be proficient at each tool, and know when to combine them to make your project sound.
Of course, someone may try to make a birdhouse, but has little skill in doing such, they need plans, measurements, practice, etc. to complete a project. Then if a person is a housebuilder, he may use the same tools in a different way.
If a person is a mechanic, they may use the tools differently, too. It all depends.
If people want to program certain combinations in, they can learn the Jong, but that is still not skill. Skill is utilizing ability at a particular moment.
Terence said “That’s not how things work; we don’t learn or develop fighting skills like that.”
Are we not talking of fighting skills? Combinations and set moves? I think they add a great deal to a fighters repertoire, as long as they are developed beyond just simple interactions and drilled properly and tested.
I’ve always viewed the WC style as being a simplified version of all the older styles, which can be opened up to included set training and the developmet of forms as long as the foundation is strong.
Although something like SLT has its benefits being stationary, it has to move in certain ways to become practical and this would require each set to be broken down and practised with varying body alignment and stepping work prior to attempting to use anything in a competitive environment.
I like Chu Sifu’s remarks,…it is like having a tool box and knowing which tool and when to use those tools,….wing chun really comes down to body mechanics,…
IMO Wing Chun is training method, seperate from application totally. We learn specific things (facing, structure, elbow placement/usage, energetics, concept, prinicple, etc…). Once you learn the method it is up to the individual to use it or apply it when needed. This is why you never will see “tan, bong or fok techniques”, when one is fighting or defending themselves. Economy of motion to me is using the minimum of my ability to defend myself in any given situation, sometimes I may need more effort, more intent, more everything, sometimes less, it all depends on the situation. I think the key is to realize this seperation. For me, I love the training and enjoy the sharing and teaching of the method, it’s fun and it keeps me mentally aware and out of trouble:)
Cool Site Rene!
James R
One of the biggest problems with the TMA approach to learning and training is that it does, as James mentions, separate the training method from the activity itself (application or fighting). Even Robert’s analogy, the toolbox, draws on that distinction. This is a very poor way to learn and develop any open skill. And this explains why TMAists overall have such poor levels of skill (although, as with anything, there will always be remarkable individuals who develop despite the poor method).
Instead, we should look at integrating the training method with the activity. Like riding a bike or driving, you learn while doing. You don’t go off and practice steering skills or take steering out of your toolbox. Steering is an integral part of the activity itself, and is best learned and developed by riding the bike or driving the car. And this is how the functional martial arts learn and train.
How does one compare dealing (controlling) with another human being hell bent on laying a beating on you, with controlling an inanimate object (bike riding, race car driving, golf,etc..), or competing in an event where all you need to do is control your own motion/actions (tennis, bball, baseball)? There is no comparison as the pressure people feel in those sporting events is self imposed. Boxing,MMA and or street fighting requires one to deal with their own feelings/stress and the physical threat of another person laying a beating down on you.
In fighting the goal is to incapacitate your opponent without him doing the same to you. There are many ways to do this, by KO, submission, make the guy give up, etc.. To do this with effectiveness you need skills, more so than just guts and toughness (although these two things are important too). Specifically in WC we learn to protect centerline, and attack it, using elbow in positioning, facing concepts, the ability to sit and absorb/give force, develop awareness and attention to our bodily positions as compared to that of the opponent,forward pressure, and so forth, most all of these skills are totally unatural and need to be developed. These are specific skill sets, but one does not need these particular skills to fight at all as there are many effective fighters that have never practiced WC nor have ever heard of it, the point is this is the WC training method,and when one uses this method it gives them the ability to fight in close to their opponents, rather than further away or on the ground. In my experience this is a rather isolated way of doing things, but a practical one as well, as it allows one to really develop the skills physically as well as understand what one is learning. After this period of isolated “training”, one then has to put it to the test in a more natural sparring environment so the practitioner can use the tools gained from the training in a more natural fashion, this is the application stage where the point is to use what you have learned, rather than continuing to learn. Most all fighter do this, in their own ways of course. Boxers do pad work, bag work, isolated drills, and spar. MMA guys do pad work, bag work, isolated drils and spar. WC people do forms (reconditioning the body), chi sau (reinforce the reconditioning in a isolated specific way), pad work, bag work, isolated drills and spar. It all looks similar to me. For allot of people they get stuck in certain stages, or believe that WC is a “magic pill” of sorts that can make the fighting skills come about more easily, this is fantasy thinking. Any type of real skill takes time and plenty of practice to acquire.
James
Nicely put James! It’s been a while since I read something that projects what I understand to be Wing Chun. And it’s nice to have someone to debate their ideas with an oldskooler like Terence!
Different mindsets are a good thing, as long as a place exists for us all to talk about them…
Terence isn’t oldschool Spence, he’s one that has drifted to the dark side….
“If we look at Changquan or even Hung Kuen as poetry, Wing Chun forms translate closer to an alphabet and grammar guide.” said Rene
Strange really, as I’ve always viewed Wing Chun as poetry first, then the alphabet is nurtured through song as we do in primary school.
We’re all the same, just varied signatures put in place over time. Everything must be there for a reason, eh?
Sets within sets, forms within forms.
If you look for combinations just look to the dummy form. Again in Wing Chun all techniques are both offensive and defensive. There are string techniques that can overlap one another.