I mean "hard" as in physically difficult training (lots of conditioning exercises, prolonged holding of stances, rounds on the bag, cardio training, contact sparring... along with form training).

Right, there are famous fighters from all the IMA.

When I studied Xingyi, I was impressed by their willingness to do contact sparring. But, I was most impressed by their "very strong" base when we did "Push Hands" combined with "pummeling".

Would you say the training is similar to that of wing chun? or not?

I've never studied Wing Chun, so I can't answer the question. I'd imagine there is more standing wrestling and clinch fighting in the Xingyi sparring than in most Wing Chun training, and we practiced alot of takedowns.

Tim, "sticking hands" is (supposed to be) almost exclusively clinch fighting and standing grapples that start as drills and gradually escalates into free-fighting. I have seen a pre-occupation with sweeps and leg-attacks in the less common schools of WC, also. Out of curiosity, I know that Xing-Yi has a type of Push-Hands, isn't it a precursor to free-fighting?

Kenneth,
Interesting, the WC sticking hands I've seen always seems to be at trapping range with striking as opposed to grappling, I've never seen them clinch. Is there any film on the net of WC clinch fighting and standing wrestling? I'd like to see how the WC fighters do it.

Xingyi has a few "push hands" methods that are designed to teach the skills of "transformation," yielding to force as you simultaneously attack. The drills are not necessarily a precursor to free-fighting, most schools will have you sparring and free-fighting first, and the push hands drills are taught later to bring the "sensitivity" level of fighting skills up to higher levels. The theory is it is a waste of time to learn to neutralize incoming force, get an angle on an opponent and unbalance or "uproot" him if you have no power or technique to close the deal with after.

Perhaps I shouldn't come off like a WC expert, but most of what you see is Yip Man Wing Chun. Yip Man was known to have simplified the sticking hands to the way his schools teach it now, the theory being, I suppose, that the exchange is over too fast (through striking) for any grappling to occur, though this is a generalization, as I have seen Yip Man practitioners occassionally grapple at the free-fighting stage. I was fortunate to have met a sifu (through my sifu) of an older (non-Yip Man) style of WC many years ago. His sticking hands was much more like our mantis sticking hands, with a strong element of push hands mixed in and various elbow-locks (the palm-up Tan Sao is most often used as one such), though without the footwork like we have. There is an excellent book called "The Complete Wing Chun" which gives an overview of various WC systems. From it, I get the impression that most WC styles are actually like the older one I mention above. But Yip Man's style is by far the most commercialized and wide-spread.

I've studied both arts. In WC, you basically trap to hit and hit to trap. The "sticky hands" practice that I did and saw, incorporated hits within the trapping, not locking.

The Xingyi classes I attended did include push hands, but no sparring...except for me. The first day I attended, the instructor "asked me" if I wanted to spar after the other students left. We then would spar everyday after the others left. He also only did "push hands" to standing locks only with me, although he did not know much at all about grappling.
He believed in striking over grappling.
I've told stories about my experience before and the sparring and how "his" Xingyi did against my crosstraining style.

He was pleasant to work with. He was very openminded, even though he had no idea that there were so many other ways and more efficient ways to use certain concepts.

The first WC school was VERY traditional, but nice. I wouldn't of dared mention another style or way of doing things. Number 1...I wanted to sharpen my Wing Chun for my JKD. I was there to get info not give and Number 2...I was positive my info wasn't welcome!

Yet, I worked with a guy from Germany who trained with Emin Boztepe in Wing Tsun. That was an entirely different game. Boztepe includes real grappling in his form and seems to be more modern and adaptable than traditional WC.

It's all good!

As a matter of facts, there's not such a thing as the Yip Man's style of Wing Chun and so on. But let's go back one sec.

Wing Chun was secretevely possessed by the same clan for centuries, different W.C. styles were offputs of this clan, but never from people who had the complete system. Untill Yip Man (the head of the clan) went to HKong, W.C. was almost unknown. He proved it to be effective and W.C. became very popular. But Yip Man never meant to teach m.arts professionaly before communism kicked him out of his country, leaving him poor and embittered.

Yip Man clearly invented a commercial way of teaching W.C. (for the time) but we shouldn't forget his original chinese background: never to let his art to the 'gross populace'. He was an aristocrat and a scholar and he gave lessons only 'cause he had to. This is the reason why there are Y.M's students who understood so little.
From my 12 yrs. in Wing Chun in 3 continents now I dare to say that Y.M legacy went to only one student, who was different from the blue collars Y.M. normally trained (had money and traditional formal chinese education).

Wing Chun is a fairly SIMPLE system, but by no means EASY. And it should be not confused with other styles. Infact is a completely different system, it was conceived to destroy other m.arts. It was not built empirically like other styles, adding experience day by day. It was built by taoist sages -probably- to have any possible advantage vs. other fighters, who at that time were mainly pratictioners of buddhist hard styles.
It's a science, not a style, and it can be explained sitting at the table.

Excellent, I'm sitting at a table as I write this, and if you're at a table too I'll happily hear your explanation.

That was a great post! Yes, WC is very simple in concept, but not simple in practice.

W.C. is simple. It consists of only THREE techniques: 1 step, 1 turn, 1 punch. All of these 3 derivate from a profound knowledge of the human body and its interaction with gravity. But still only 3 they are. They can be shown in 15 min., all you have to do is refine them in the next years. There are no other techniques (n: to be understood rationally) in the system.

Simple concepts are taught: hit with the whole bodyweight, cover the central line, attack the enemy's vertical line etc.

W.C. knows that an unchambered attack is impossible to be 'blocked' when within the punching range (eye is slower than the hand) and devotes its tactics to only one principle: attack the attacker. Simple.

W.C. knows that the enemy will not stand still reciving the counter-attack and will react, then our limbers will encounter the enemy's, thus superior tactile sensitivity (chisao)is to be developed. Simple.

W.C. knows that two is better than one, that's why every defense is an offense, meaning to hit with one limber while others protect. Simple.

The so-called W.C. techniques like tansao, paksao etc. are natural reflexes of our body that appropriate training awakens, still they derivate by the very first thing you learn: the straight punch. Encountering the enemy's limber, the hitting arm will deflect the encoming force in the direction 'choosen' by the enemy, not by us (that's also why they are not techniques themselves, being totally passive).

More and more could be said but one thing is interesting: in real W.C. every lesson is etherodox, meaning that it's not learnt to dully fight another W.C. pratictioner but spend more time figuring out the most common situations easily found on the street: a large right swing, a straight jab, a double leg takedown etc. Always answering with the same concepts, always with the same 3 tech. but always differentlly (many variations of the same few parts).

More:

W.C has only 3 forms. 99,9% of the students never endure untill learning the third one.

SiuNimTao creates the basics, how to relax, strenghten the tendons and develop the internal energy. The real performing of SNT takes more than one hour!
In ChumKiu its learnt how to apply the energy and the 'techniques' while moving (stepping). Different applications, same principles.
BiuTzee is a superior form, applied usefully only when a system of changing the mind state has been mastered.Infact it is a form entirely based on dimmak.

The woodden dummy form applies the same principles on a very special object, teaching mostly how to develop a 'strange' kind of percussive energy (so-called 'one inch punch' force).

Same for the two armed forms: they sharpen something that is already there. The butterfly knives are especially utilized to enhance the 'one inch' thing. Tactile sensitivity is also sharpened flowing through the weapons.

W.C. is a taoist internal art, where the concept of internal energy is of superior importance. Its most practiced exercise is called CHIsao (the real version of chisao basic, poon&woon, is to be practiced EXTREMELY slowly, melting into the partner's hands at first, into his whole body after). But being W.C a street art-very pragmatic- its teachers never enfatized this aspect, because a man is always a man.

european:

Out of curiosity, who was the gentleman that you allude to as having been the only one to receive Yip Man's full teaching? Wang Kiu?

Aside from that minor and unprovable quibble, I thought your overview of WC was very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to post.

wujidude,

the only one student of Yip Man who had the money, the formal education and -last but not least- the DESIRE to understand the teaching was Dr.Leung Ting. He was also very GREEDY, but isn't greed one of the most powerful human sources? (n:I saw once Wang Kiu at a W.C press conference while explaining what other students had to learn from the nearby sitting Leung Ting..)

Of course this is a minor and unprovable quibble.

You are very welcome.

interesting wing Chun info. I could learn the whole thing in 15 minutes?! Would you demonstrate this claim in a hands up fight?

Meynard,

I apologize if I was not clear when I stated that there are only 3 techniques in W.C, and they can be displayed to us in few minutes.

It's like saying that only seven notes exist in music; it does not mean that we will master every possible combination of these notes after they have been shown to us. Or saying that after we know every letter of the alphabet of a foreign language (easily seen in few min.) we can master that language.

Meynard,

my read on '15 minutes' is that in WT and certain other Wing Chun lines, all motion and strategy can be derived from the stance and straight punch.

When do you guys have an open mat going? One of my partners and I ran down a few months back, but y'all were off at some tournament. I'd love to catch up with you and work some. Drop me an e-mail, if you're interested.

Tim,

I don't think there's anything from our line up on the web, and the apps that are out there look much muddier in real-time than in demo land (as always seems to be the case). Clinch work focuses mainly on striking, and drops the other person through strike-based knockdowns, rather than doing so many throwing apps. We work a lot trying disrupt the other person's game (i.e. stop the bodylock, shoot, hip-throw) and go back into our game, rather than doing too much grappling, if that makes any sense. Some of what goes on bears a good resemblance to a thai clinch, fwiw.

I'm no great exponent of the art, and there's a lot of clinch stuff I'm still totally figuring out, but I'd love to come down your way some time.

Later,

Andrew

thanks European for the run through of WC. I asked, I received and I appreciate.

What of Yip Chun, would Yip Man have really taught his son?

Great Post, European! Yes, Tan Sao is a soft movement, so it really doesn't have a "beginning" or "end", therefore, is not a separate "technique" per say. To try and make it so would result in a rigid lifeless posture with no application. Cudos for having the balls to mention who the true inheritor of WC is (like you say, despite his overcommercialization, he isn't the only one, you could almost say he followed Yip Man's example). Your thought process is the kind of stuff that leads to arts like Yiquan, however, such is not possible without a beginner's thorough practice of all the "techniques". I have to admit, after reading your other posts, I thought you might have been a bit of a wag, but (at least from my experience), you really seem to know what you are talking about. Keep up the good work!