wing chun

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Peter Klein]

hi
i want to start wing chun soon as an addition to aikido. good idea right? cause both emphasize in evasing.

[shihonage]

The common advice given to such question is that you should reach black belt level in one art before taking on another art which is radically different.

And Wing Chun IS different.

If you start dabbling in two dissimilar arts from the start, you will only confuse yourself.

[Peter Klein]

my dojo instructor said win chung was quite similar and would be a good addition too aikido.

[Kevin Wilbanks]

From what I've seen, Wing Chun is pretty radically different. I don't see a lot of evading in it, as in moving and turning the whole body like Aikido. They seem to plant themselves and/or advance straight forward and try to jam a barrage of attacks straight down the middle. The deflections and parries seemed much smaller and stiffer than those of Aikido.

Some of the 'sticky hands' arm stuff might be compatible with Aikido, but I think the problem would be that while your mind is caught up in managing the arm tangle, it's not where you want it for Aikido, which is taking in the whole picture of whose weight is where and where you want to move your entire body.

In my brief dabbling with the sticky-hands drills, I found the way one was supposed to alternate between relaxation and striking tension very foreign and frustrating.

Whether to do more than one martial art at a time is a tricky thing to decide. In addition to the problem of confusion, you are making a choice about depth vs. breadth. It depends upon your aims. Every time I went off to explore something else I ended up concluding that I would rather take that energy/time/recovery capacity and use it for more Aikido or fitness/conditioning activities.

[Kensai]

Wing Chun is nothing like Aikido, in that the key emphasis on tactics, physical movement and mentallity are very different.

Although, I disagree that you need to be a BB in one art before starting another. I started Judo about 7 months after starting Aikido and I have yet found no problems. In fact, if you do intend to cross train, you dont want to get in to one arts mind set. Ie, Aikido Ukemi in Judo, or Judo Breakfalls in Aikido, or Karate tsuki in Aikido... etc.

Just aslong as you can sperate them when you training and you should have no problems.

[shihonage]

Judo has far more similarities to Aikido than does Wing Chun.

Like Kevin mentions above, stuff like Wing Chun is stiffer and relies on a different kind of footwork, posture and mindset.

[aikidoc]

The only thing that might be similar to aikido with respect to wing chun is if they practice chin na (the mother of all locking and pinning arts).

I was trying to do three arts at once: aikido, tai chi and kali. It got confusing since I was not black belt level in any of them.

[Dave Miller]

I started Judo about 7 months after starting Aikido and I have yet found no problems.Judo has far more similarities to Aikido than does Wing Chun.I agree completely. The fact that Aikido has been called "Judo at a distance" says a lot. Let's not forget that many great Aikidoka have also been outstanding Judo players.

[asiawide]

One of my aikido teachers used to teach

some basic movements of wing chun. I

learned how to block fast and strong

shomen or yokomen uchi using wing chun

handworks. And wingchun handworks

can seamlessly combined to aikido

techniques. So I like it. :)

Jaemin

[Peter Klein]

hmm my teacher said that an aikidoka has clear disadvantages against other martial arts because they dont attack and he said mixing a striking art would be good.

[Alec Corper]

Peter,

It sounds to me that your instructor has problems with teaching Aikido as Aikido,IMHO.Cross traing in other MA is good if you have some understanding of principles and the natural synthesis of energy flows. BUT combining a linear attck with circular evasion can be very difficult. Even more difficult is the nature of intent in percussive arts which is fundamentally different than controlling an opponent. The striking art within Aikido is atemi, extensively discussed in other threads, which utilises tai sabaki and extension of a hand or elbow or shoulder or even the back, as demonstrated by Shioda Sensei. Furthermore meeting the ground with your chin is more powerful than most punches, and iriminage into a wall is devastating, if that is what you are seeking. Aikido, skillfully used allows you to take advantage of your environment and make other things (or people) your partner.

One last thing, Chen style Tai Chi, taught by an instructor with a background in combat Wu Shu, fits far more naturally to the energy flow of Aikido than Wing Chun although both are superb arts.

Dont change your art, change yourself.

regards, Alec

[Kevin Wilbanks]

hmm my teacher said that an aikidoka has clear disadvantages against other martial arts because they dont attack and he said mixing a striking art would be good.
In addition to using the dynamics to whack people into objects, it seems to me that if you are successful enough at positioning yourself advantageously with your initial Aikido responses, you don't need a whole striking art to add striking, you just need to be able to strike. Go through any of the wrist-torquing or ikkyo series techniques and look at all the places where your situational advantage gives you free reign to pause and pummel.

A whole different strategy and set of formalities isn't necessary. What you could use, though, is some basic instruction in how to put weight/body torque into a punch - bascially how to punch really hard, and some conditioning to cultivate the capability. Regularly spending some time with a lightish heavy bag, using the bag's reaction as feedback isn't a bad idea. I found those thin little multi-colored Bruce Lee paperbacks pretty useful for DIY experimentation.

On the other hand, the way you've phrased that makes it sound like you're thinking of getting into showdowns with various types of trained martial artists. If so, you'd better cross-train. In fact, I'd probably drop Aikido for the time being and take some crash courses in full-contact kickboxing and grappling.

[Peter Klein]

hmm irimi nage? i mean our irimi nage is that you go behind your uke and use his attack to throw him on the floor is that a natural irimi nage?

[Dave Miller]

hmm irimi nage? i mean our irimi nage is that you go behind your uke and use his attack to throw him on the floor is that a natural irimi nage? (emphasis added)I think that you answered your own question. The thing that sets Aikido apart from most other arts is that the Aikidoka adds very little energy to the system. Rather, he/she uses the attacker's energy against them. This is primarily due to Ueshibo's philosophy of pacifism.

There are other arts that blend balance-breaking with percussive techniques (I like that term), such as Hopkido. Reading some of your posts, I suspect that something like that may be a more natural fit for you than traditional Aikido.

[ian]

Wing Chun is similar in some principles - efficiency and blending. There are also some useful training practices in wing chun. For some reason they also seem to attract similar people (those who aren't impatient to learn and are often looking for something more sophisticated).

However, I found Wing Chun slightly frustrating since they don't focus on body movement as much and this focus on attacking the centre line tends to suggest that people can't attack you with a round-house. However I am more of a fan of chinese derived martial arts than Japanese ones (I think they preserve more of the original martial art)*

Like every training - understand the assumptions behind the training methadology and you'll get something real out of it.

Ian

*obviously aikido excluded!

[ian]

P.S. I agree that training in a striking/attacking art is useful. However much of the striking techniques can be reinforced outside the dojo. In addition, all too often striking is taught between too stationary opponents - this can actually reduce your ability to move. Gozo shioda believes that the striking training as uke within aikido is all you need. Striking can seem superficially more powerful, but in self-defence situations you rarely just want to stand opposite each other and pound each other. In many cases escape and evasion is much better, or even non aggressive/damaging responses.

My advice - focus on one martial art or another until you understand what is being simulated. Do some striking practise if necessary. Also, don't believe everything a sensei says! - I think your own martial art is a path you ultimately walk alone. Work at your martial art and when YOU feel you need to improve different aspects of it, work on it. Always question yourself.

Ian

[Peter Klein]

o.k thank you Ian

[Dave Miller]

Unless its a hockey fight....
Isn't "hockey fight" a bit redundant?

:D

[Kevin Wilbanks]

However I am more of a fan of chinese derived martial arts than Japanese ones (I think they preserve more of the original martial art)*

*obviously aikido excluded!
I would like to know what you are basing this assessment upon, as everything I have ever read suggests the exact opposite.

The history of Chinese martial arts is riddled with tales of teachers who withheld the most important teachings from senior students, fearing coups. There are endless accounts of teachers deliberately misleading/misteaching whole groups of students they thought less worthy. Non-chinese have almost always fit into this category, and most of what passes for gung fu available in the west is of highly suspect authenticity... teachers making high-sounding claims or the presence of lots of fancy traditional-looking chinese stuff in their dojo notwithstanding.

Japanese arts, on the other hand, are typically passed down conservatively, whole and unchanged from teacher to successor - particularly the traditional bujutsu. Their cultural tendencies toward strictness, order, loyalty, etc... enable traditions to be carried on fully intact. One of the oldest extant martial arts in the world is Japanese: Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu, which is still practiced almost precisely as it was almost 500 years ago. Jodo is nearly as old.

One can see evidence of this cultural tendency in many of the Japanese arts. Architecturally, for instance, there are Shinto temple buildings which have not just been preserved, but periodically a precise replacement is built right beside it and the old one raised - all the behaviors and traditions of the monks are so well preserved that they can continue to build them exactly the same in perpetuity.

There are some Japanese arts of questionable lineage, like Ninjutsu, but most arts where hakama are worn have extensive records proving a succession of masters dedicated to the selfless preservation of the art. Aikido is not one of these. The lineage to one's sensei may be verifiable, but this doesn't mean what you are learning is just like what O'Sensei taught at any given time. It's a young art, and even in its short existence it seems that few of the shihan (at least the ones we encounter in the west) are content to merely continue doing what they were taught by wrote. Most let the art evolve and adapt to fit their philosophies and experience.

[Jeff R.]

Peter,

One last thing, Chen style Tai Chi, taught by an instructor with a background in combat Wu Shu, fits far more naturally to the energy flow of Aikido than Wing Chun although both are superb arts.

regards, Alec
Be careful here. The breathing methods used in Chinese Martial Arts can be very different from those in Japanese Martial Arts. The Chinese concept of Ki (Chi) is that it moves on a revolving basis across the universe in a very finite way; being with us in one state, then "not in our favor" in another. The Japanese concept of Ki is that it is in an infinite "form," into which we can tap and draw endless amounts depending upon how much we give away--the more you give, the more you receive. Plus, we are channels for Ki, and it should always be moving through us. To try and hold it in can be devastating. It's like love, the more you give, the more you get. You can give it, you can receive it, but you can't contain it and use it selfishly.

Anyway, since the principles and methodology are different, I have found--after twenty years of hard, soft, Chinese (including Chin Na), Japanese, etc.--that the most solid center (which depends upon breathing and channeling Ki) I've ever had comes from Aikido training. I can lift a three hundred pound uke with little effort, and am at two feet so far with Hand of a Thousand Bells.

The point is, if you're going to mix and match, have a center first. The techniques from any style can be adapted to be useful if you have a center. And if your philosophy is sound, then you will end up where you should be when it's time.

[SeiserL]

Having cross trained in WC/JKD/FMA, I like it. IMHO, I think it complements Aikido well because it is similiar and dissimiliar. If you already have a strong base in Aikido and feel inclined to check WC out, have at it.

[DGLinden]

Peter,

Train in as many arts as you can. You will discover that there is no such thing as technique , form, or theory. Those things are for beginning and intermediate students who have no grasp of martial principles. It might take 30 years, but your training in Wing Chun will blend seemlessly with your aikido.

[Johnny Chiutten]

Peter,

Train in as many arts as you can. You will discover that there is no such thing as technique , form, or theory. Those things are for beginning and intermediate students who have no grasp of martial principles. It might take 30 years, but your training in Wing Chun will blend seemlessly with your aikido.
Thats the most logical and intelligent comment on this whole subject. I totally agree with you that the martial principle is one and universal. I hope more people will understand this and not argue about uselesss forms and techniques.

[Kevin Wilbanks]

Thats the most logical and intelligent comment on this whole subject. I totally agree with you that the martial principle is one and universal. I hope more people will understand this and not argue about uselesss forms and techniques.
It may be logical and intelligent, but it is virtually irrelevant to the initial querist's concern. He wanted some ideas on whether cross-training now would be a good idea, not 30 years from now. Is this supposedly wise position that one will grasp the martial principles in time no matter how one trains?

[Jeff R.]

The point is, if you're going to mix and match, have a center first. The techniques from any style can be adapted to be useful if you have a center. And if your philosophy is sound, then you will end up where you should be when it's time.
Oh, this guy makes an interesting point.

[mle]

Anyway, since the principles and methodology are different, I have found--after twenty years of hard, soft, Chinese (including Chin Na), Japanese, etc.--that the most solid center (which depends upon breathing and channeling Ki) I've ever had comes from Aikido training. I can lift a three hundred pound uke with little effort, and am at two feet so far with Hand of a Thousand Bells.
I was a student of Aikido from 1989 to 2001, (shodan in Seidokan with some but not nearly enough Nishio flavored cross training) got my first level in Wing Tsun under a direct student of Leung Ting (and Keith Kernspecht) and got to have lots of fun with a wonderful Taiwanese gentleman who taught kung fu and tai chi (went to massage school with him, always wandered over and grabbed him during breaks). I study jujutsu now, but still savor cross-training, especially with good aikidoka.

I was always an inveterate cross-trainer. Even when folks said "it will pollute your aikido" which of course is nonsense.

The budo were originally composites of weapons, striking, throwing. Certainly the Chinese roots are similar. I do enjoy Chinese MA very much, I find they have a "broader" more ornate flavor.

See www.koryu.com for more info.
The point is, if you're going to mix and match, have a center first. The techniques from any style can be adapted to be useful if you have a center. And if your philosophy is sound, then you will end up where you should be when it's time.
Well, here's the thing.

I think a proper budo should contain striking, weapons, and throwing and not leave anything out. For years I sought that for myself, cross-training. I ended up with an interesting patchwork. My favorite "aikido" technique starts with WT, and finishes with a combination iriminage/osotogare.

It all adds up to aikido for me.

I trained in judo for a couple of years under the marvelous Zdenek Matl, former Olympic judo coach and my aikido teacher's judo teacher. Yeah, it's aikido; MUCH closer.

I just think it's sad that the budo have fragmented so. One art just does throwing, another just weapons, and another just striking and kicking.

Then we have to cobble something together which may or may not fit.

I only know one legitimate aikido system which teaches striking, weapons, and aikido throwing with all this in mind, and that's Nishio's aikido: http://www.nerdz.net/aikido/nishio.html

Otherwise you will have to seek out a budo system, maybe a sogo budo like what I found, which covers all the bases.

That tends to be a more cohesive and coherent experience.

In my hopefully humble opinion.

Peter, kommen Sie bitte nach Bayern, wann haben Sie Zeit. Wir haben eine warmes Wilkommen, aber schlectes Deutsche, fuhr den Budo Besucher.

Sie sollen auch Andy Wilby im Freiburg besuchen!

MLE

[Jeff R.]

I agree. I like having the foundation of Hard martial arts; if not for giving Nage a solid attack, then for a frame of reference to compare and contrast the softer styles. And it's awesome, because the softer I get, the more powerful the techniques become.

Anyway, it has been said that the more ecclectic the warrior's training is, then the more freedom he obtains for not having to worry about one way of doing things (training in only weapons or throws or kicks . . .), for one style of attack, or worrying about only a few techniques that may or may not be effective in a variety of situations. The more training in various styles and disciplines, the more one could find that common thread that binds them all, and then the spirit is released from the burden of too little knowledge and inability to blend into any situation.

As long as we keep open to the fact that there are several Ways, and that they all have the potential to mesh, then we can escape the egocentric notion of, "only one Way, and it's MY way!" Then maybe we can leave behind the whole, "What if you are up against a . . . (Boxer, Muay Thai fighter, BJJ, etc.) . . . guy?"

[markrasmus]

Peter,

Train in as many arts as you can. You will discover that there is no such thing as technique , form, or theory. Those things are for beginning and intermediate students who have no grasp of martial principles. It might take 30 years, but your training in Wing Chun will blend seemlessly with your aikido.

Hi Peter,
:) When you said there is no such thing as technique, form and theory, what did you mean?
Regards
Mark

[xuzen]

Peter,

You will discover that there is no such thing as technique , form, or theory. Those things are for beginning and intermediate students who have no grasp of martial principles. It might take 30 years, but your training in Wing Chun will blend seemlessly with your aikido.

Daniel, you are right. I am slowly begining to feel this way too, yet I have no full comfirmation. I am begining to feel that my aikido is not aikido yet it still aikido. I dunno, I think I am babbling, eh, where's my coffee? :freaky: :confused: :eek:

Boon

[thomas_dixon]

I believe similar to bruce lee's thoery that no martial art has all the answers, as they are meant to guide you so you can find the answer yourself. Therefore you should take what works for you, and build upon it. If you like wing chun, then go for it. Wing Chun relies heavily on locks and traps which is it's "evasion", it's also a close quarters combat system, so mose kicks are below the waist, and punches are meant to be devistatingly powerful form a short distance. So if you feel like getting into Wing Chun, like I said earlier, I think you should go for it.

Of course Judo is similar to Aikido because both are based on japanese Jujutsu, which is the hand to hand combat art taught to samurai as part of budo. Judo, however is more of a sport, lacking the spiritualistic ideals of Aikido.

[Dissipate]

Peter: I think you would be better off training in Hapkido. Hapkido has elements of Aikido, but it also has strikes and other elements.

[disabledaccount]

I can lift a three hundred pound uke with little effort, and am at two feet so far with Hand of a Thousand Bells..

What the heck is this? :confused:

[thomas_dixon]

1000 pound dumbell?

[Lyle Laizure]

hmm my teacher said that an aikidoka has clear disadvantages against other martial arts because they dont attack and he said mixing a striking art would be good.
I came from a precusive art into aikido and had a distinct advantage when push came to shove because knowing how to strike intently benefits all of your aikido techniques.

This however isn't a popular believe, but it is mine.

I have a friend that studys wing chun along with another art (not aikido) but what he shares with myself and other compliments aikido very well. I do not doubt however that there are a lot of differences regarding these two styles but there are a lot of similarities. I would agree that before you embark on training in a second style you should have a solid foundation in the basics of your first art. I'm not saying though that you need to be a black belt in order to start another art. If you are comfortable with it and your sensei is ok with it (sounds like he is) then do it.