Descendents of Shushiwa

[gmattson]

of "kata DNA", "who does things the way of the creator" and other such questions are about as interesting or useful as endeavoring to discover the history of your family.

I spend lots of time doing seminars on Uechi basics or "core" Uechi and how to use them in our study of Uechi-ryu. These are areas of our style that I believe are vitally important to anyone wanting to learn Uechi-ryu as an art that happens to use self defense movement.

What do I consider to be "core" material in our style? Things like the basic posture, stances, arm/leg movements as performed in sanchin. I've been to many really horrible Uechi dojo over the years, but they all practice the basics in Uechi. The problem they had was in converting this basic material into anything that had any relevancy in the way they fought.

Ironically, many of these dojo produced really tough fighters, who used none of their Uechi core material in their fighting.... well, maybe a little of those intangible components of Uechi-ryu that has more to do with "mindset" than physical movements.

The Uechi DNA was there, but the teachers hadn't a clue what to do with it.

So when Jim and others discuss "the correct" way or "DNA of forms" or "Kanbun's way", I feel the questions aren't the ones that either need be asked or possible to be answered.

Uechi DNA is in every Uechi dojo. Even the most brain-dead Uechi teacher possesses the ingredients of superb Uechi-ryu. Where they lack talent or ability is in the transmission of information relating to this DNA that is either meaningful or useful.

And Wing Chung, like Uechi-ryu, suffers from the same malady!

[Glenn]

So what's the record for thread length on this forum...9 pages has to be getting close.

[Rick Wilson]

Another great post George.

All Uechi schools do indeed have the Uechi DNA and there is great Uechi around, great discovery or rediscovery.

There are those who do not do Uechi who will never understand us or it and they don't seem to be able to accept that we have no desire to convert to their “God.”

[jorvik]

Quote
"I spend lots of time doing seminars on Uechi basics or "core" Uechi and how to use them in our study of Uechi-ryu. These are areas of our style that I believe are vitally important to anyone wanting to learn Uechi-ryu as an art that happens to use self defense movement ."

Well maybe that is the problem A lot of folks think that Uechi ryu is SELF DEFENCE, especially folks who have done other stuff. Maybe we are misguided. All the martial arts that I have done have been for the express purpose of self defence, and I have been disappointed. I don't want fancy katas, and I don't want to spend years trying to find stuff.....I mean look at other commodities ...........you would not buy a car that just happened to get you from A to B would you?...well!! I certainly would not. IT would be bought for that express purpose of getting me from A to B....................i would not buy a gun that just happened to fire occaisionally,
so I guess I really don't understand that comment

Quote
There are those who do not do Uechi who will never understand us or it and they don't seem to be able to accept that we have no desire to convert to their “God.”
Well I think that is quite correct I sure as hell don't understand that type of philosophy
But look at the posts we are seeing here. NOBODY knows WHAT Uechi is....it's a cloud, an enigma you've got folks doing half a$$ed Aikido passed as Uechi, you've got folks telling us that it is a "close Quater System" then I see a video of an expert sparring in long distance range ( in fact if you had told me it was shotokan I would have believed it )
then you have him breaking boards, again with long distance techniques, huge big wind up to it.and of course you cannot do that ..so you get deformed and spastic fingers, which will serve you well in old age .....I could slice through those boards with a well placed elbow strike , and a younger fitter than I, Thai boxer could cause mayhem.......so yeah I guess I agree with what has been said, totally

but then again there is other information surfacing which does intrigue me.
so we'll just have to see

[gmattson]

who will you believe, when they tell you something you want to hear?

Doesn't sound like you are going to hear it from anyone on these forums, since I don't think anyone will try to convince you that one version or another of Uechi is the "real thing" and guarenteed to make you the best warrior in the world.

That is why I study uechi as an "art" that happens to use self defense techniques, brought over from China by Kanbun Uechi and codified into a "system" by his son Kanei Uechi. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Its what most martial artist do with whatever they practice.

I'll leave the weighing of good and evil to those who have nothing better to do with their time than prospect for fools gold looking for the holy movements that will make them fly like Jet Lei, so they can hang out in a Biker's Bar, looking tough. Oh yea.... without working out or being able to run a mile or going three minutes in a ring or... well you get the point... Its all in finding the right, true and holy system!

Have fun in your search.
ps. Not addressing this to you Jorvik, but to the martial art community in general who spend more time looking for someone or something that will give them something that doesn't involve practice and hard work... just a secret formula. Is it any wonder that "no touch" knockouts are believed by so many?? You can be fat and half dead, but you have that magic touch! Biker bar, here I come!

[jorvik]

That's why I box
It is honest ,sincere, .and works .......some guys wants to test his sanchin.....hey I'm yor guy...won't get tired of hitten yah
that's great GEM.an honest reply
.and basically what I do.I have no GODS or styles, I just train for me, and the defence of mine
Quote

Have fun in your search.

and I know this was not addresed to me .however, I lift weights , I punch bags, do pushups and stuff.there is other stuff available ( I guess ).but this works fine for me..don't need no fancy GI or Gym membership...wish more folks had this information

[JimHawkins]

Might as well keep the damn thread going..

Any disses to anyone living or dead is unintentional...

I think Jim has a valid point that we pass on forms for a reason, and I don't think anyone here would disagree.

There ya go... That's the main point I was making.

Some seem to disagree but perhaps it's the context; After all I have not seen any "new" versions of the big three emerge.

But the essence of the forms can remain the same while the expression varies from person to person, instructor to instructor, generation to generation.

Well I have a "standard" that I was brought up with about this kind of thing. Expression is supposed to vary, I mentioned this earlier, just like no one speaks exactly the same, with the same voice or phrases, etc...

But the idea is that there is still correct English and that is what you teach when you teach the forms..

Some things are there for a reason and if you change certain things it would simply not be correct. This is especially true for people with only a couple of years of training who start doing major form changes.,, They are simply "finger painting".

And clearly Wing Chun has changed over the generations as well.

The changes that Ip made and that my Sifu made, were documented, so we were taught what and why or this information was made available as is a bunch of other stuff about the history of the system that I have never looked up..

The changes I know of, fist changes, Gong Sao added, etc, were carefully inserted here and there, often done in places so as not to interfere with what was already there and documented. Sifu could even tell you often about the day a change was made and why and who said what...

Jim, you're focused on Ip Man Wing Chun but the Ip Man style is just one of several Wing Chun styles,

Well we outnumber the other families by about 100-1 so we'd kick their butts even if their WCK is better..

But seriously, I am not focused on Ip's WCK it's simply the only one I know fairly well.. So, of course if I site WCK examples or whatever it HAS to be from what I know...

You know?

what changes did each style's founder, Ip Man included, make to create their style?

Much history of the system is documented, as mentioned above, including the incorporation of the weapons such as the long staff component from Wong Wah Bo around the time Uechi Kanbun was hanging in Fuzhou.. Also if I am not mistaken WCK and whatever CMAs Uechi came from both originated at the Fukien Temple.. Not surprising IMO--did you guys know that at several points in WCK forms you change and return to a double palm up Sanchin position--sans the stance of course..

Documenting who did what is just how this and some other CMA are passed, like a family with history...liniage.. It's common in WCK schools for example and perhaps other CMA, to hang the seal of each teacher in the lineage on a wall in chronological order. Indeed the system's history and it's evolution is at least partly preserved. On an aside, in the Ip Man lineage there is a caveat because Ip had two teachers and there is some question as to which version or versions he passed and to whom...

Yes Ip Man taught the same 3 forms he trained in, but can anyone truly say that Ip Man made no changes to anything he was taught?

No as I said he did make minor careful changes... And BTW there are a total of 6 forms, 3 stand alones, 1 dummy, and 2 weapons.. We are encouraged also to change/add form elements if we find a "problem" that needs fixing but this is something in general that one is supposed to do only after careful and complete study of all the material. Not something I am qualified to do nor have found cause to do.

On the other hand we are completely free to find better ways to teach the voluminous material that is already in the curriculum and make it easier to learn and more effective. So you find more variation in the drills among different Ip lines and/or how you teach chi sao etc, vs differences in the actual forms--they are pretty standard--except for Cheung....

[Glenn]

I get the feeling that the disagreement that has arisen on this thread regarding change has more to do with unclarity about what changes, and over what period of time, everyone is talking about. At some point in every style's history there was a period of standardization. Ip Man standardized his style, and Uechi Kanei standardized his style. These standards are then what have been passed down since, with minor variations and some freedom of expression in both cases. And as Jim has pointed out, a lot of freedom in teaching techniques.

One important difference between Chinese and Okinawan/Japanese styles is that the Chinese styles generally have a longer history of standardization. Most Okinawan styles have been standardized less than 80 years, and many only within the past 50 years. Meanwhile most of the Chinese styles have been standardized for well over a century, and in some cases this standardization extends beyond 2 centuries, Chen style Tai Chi comes to mind for example. While Ip Man Wing Chun can be considered a newer style, it is part of a family of Wing Chun styles that are very similar from what I have read and they jointly have aspects of standardization that extend back well over a century. Uechi Ryu really does not have that close similarity to other Okinawan styles nor that long of a history of standardization...only within the time-frame of George's martial-arts career really.

Meanwhile in both China and Okinawa you have small lineages passed along that are much more fluid, much less standardized, and not what we would even think of as styles by today's views, such as Simon seems to have experienced in China. This is likely where all the current "styles" were also at before their individual periods of standardization.

At any rate, the difference in when standardization occured for the popular styles gives the general impression that Chinese styles are more stable and less changing than Okinawan styles, but in truth merely reflects different time frames for stylistic development. I believe this difference has played a subtle role in prompting much of the disagreement on this thread, for example in my opinion the longer tradition of stylistic standardization promotes the hesitation for change that Jim expresses. It's difficult for many of us to feel the same degree of resistance to change when the period of stylistic standardization, with the developmental changes and disagreements that go with standardization, are within recent memory/history.

Any disses to anyone living or dead is unintentional...

and

they are pretty standard--except for Cheung........

Are you sure that diss was unintentional!

[jorvik]

Well there are a whole load of things that have happened historically which have affected martial arts In Japan you had the conversion from Jitsu to Do, and in China you had suppression of martial arts by the government.
I am critical of all martial arts, not just Uechi ............folks may have read my posts on Aikido and Tai-Chi, and there is a lot in both those arts that could parallel what has happened in Uechi
look at Tai-chi, how many folks know how to use it as a fighting art, very,very few and yet at one time it apparantly had an awesome reputation. the problem with Tai-chi is that folks learned it for health, because the chinese think of it as a health exercise as well as an ma, so some folks didn't bother to find out the applications of the postures, or pushing hands etc.....so they learned an incomplete art, and really were unqualified to teach it further because all the health benefits come from actually doing TC as a fighting art but they do teach it .however with TC there is a huge following, and still some folks around who do actually know it as an MA
With aikido, well it was jutsu to do that destroyed that art....don't get me wrong, it's a fun way to exercise, and some of the moves need very little modification to make them work in the way they were originally intended.

My perspective is somewhat different to most folks who do martial arts I used to get into lots of fights, and so I basically learned to fight before I ever did MA
when I did start ma's I was disappointed. there is still some good Schitt out there though. some silat is awesome as is some escrima. The Gracies are cool, and who knows there maybe some old Uechika out there who may be able to kick a$$ better than all of us
however, I think we all need to know what Uechi is, there are so many conflicting opinions as I have already pointed out.
I said about Master Gushi guarding his head ..and then we get clips of a young lad who doesn't, because he is so busy taking shots to his body yet his dad is a major Uechika.
Bill's "missing kata" Seizan says that Master Toyama thinks this is the old kata he saw years ago ( I may very well buy Bill's video after reading this....especially having read on the forums what Bill has said about it )
others doubt this ..what is the correct Uechi Sanchin? do you lean back or compress forward?.body conditioning is done in Chinese internal styles.but sooooo slowly and over many.many years. Master Toyama says that the severe body testing seen now used to be done as a demonstration
so until we have some pretty clear answers to these questions ( and a couple of others)...most of the none-Uechika will keep on asking

[MikeK]

Well there are a whole load of things that have happened historically which have affected martial arts Crying or Very sad In Japan you had the conversion from Jitsu to Do

What changed?

A small aside, I think it was the Okinawans on Okinawa that first changed the meaning of karate to mean empty hand and used both do and jutsu for the same arts.

[Bill Glasheen]

I am critical of all martial arts, not just Uechi ............folks may have read my posts on Aikido and Tai-Chi, and there is a lot in both those arts that could parallel what has happened in Uechi

Sorry to hear your Uechi *****, jorvik.

Boy, that was too easy.

Well I have a "standard" that I was brought up with about this kind of thing. Expression is supposed to vary, I mentioned this earlier, just like no one speaks exactly the same, with the same voice or phrases, etc...

But the idea is that there is still correct English

You're a man with great metaphors, Jim. Let me run with that one.

The English language - particularly the use in the United States - is now one of the largest and fastest-growing languages in the world (if not the largest). Unlike French where those who hail from Gaul are obsessed with its "purity", we just keep absorbing more words from other languages without batting an eye. There's coup de gras, zeitgeist, sayonara, siesta, etc., etc. We just make it work within our grammar and run with it. We even make up new words and phrases. "My bad" is less than a decade old, and is now accepted English (found in common dictionaries).

But it's still English. And it's all English. And because it's connecting with more and more cultures as well as being used in the largest economy of the world, it's beginning to become somewhat of a world standard.

And unlike in most countries, we don't really care if those people who don't speak English as a first language speak with an accent. Hell, I had one (1) faculty member in graduate engineering who had English as a first language, and yet they all taught me in English. The acccent meant nothing to me so long as they were effective in teaching me. My degree says it all.

It's a lot like Uechi, Jim.

- Bill

[Rick Wilson]

There seems to be a consistent theme that Wing Chun has no disputes within it and everyone agrees with how it is done and from what base etc.

Or at least if you are of a certain lineage…………..

The internet is a wonderful place and if you take the time to search you find discussion forums where very similar discussions as goes on here take place in WC and, despite any claims differently, the lineage dispute are very bitter.

Surf a little and you can find that Uechi is not alone in its disputes.

I will say now that if I conducted this search on ANY martial art I would find the same results.

So I do not accept the harmonious approach of all WC practitioners.

This is not to say WC is worse in these disputes just no better.

These are just a few links found in a couple of minutes:

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/s ... hp?t=19714

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/s ... hp?t=41185

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/s ... hp?t=41192

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/s ... hp?t=40782

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/s ... hp?t=40811

http://www.wingchun.com.au/forums/forum ... 68648&f=11

http://www.wingchunkungfu.cn/mb/index.p ... 38f22718d1

http://www.wcarchive.com/html/wing-chun-forums.htm

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/a ... 21901.html

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums ... eadid=5381

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/s ... hp?t=14760

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums ... adid=32154

http://www.themartialist.com/pecom/discovering.htm

http://www.buksing.com/history/lay_wing ... w_s_5.html

http://www.karateforums.com/archive/o_t/t_8958/start_0

[JimHawkins]

While Ip Man Wing Chun can be considered a newer style, it is part of a family of Wing Chun styles that are very similar from what I have read and they jointly have aspects of standardization that extend back well over a century.

True. Actually the style is said to have been created in the year 1776 if I remember right. Good year for a style that was hoped to lead a revolution..!

But there have been lots of additions and changes including the two weapon sets which were added later by disciples who had mastered those weapons and then integrated them into the system. In fact, more or less each teacher in the lineage is said to have made some kind of major contribution to the system like adding layers while strengthening the existing core. I see this as similar to how professors in universities are expected to "publish or perish" each inheritor, it seems, was expected to leave the art better than when he got it while keeping the core intact.

Ip's major contribution was modern Chi Sao as it is played today with the Luk Sao rolling base, which if I am not mistaken was created by both Ip and the Yuen Kay San Wing Chun Sifu while they lived very close to each other at some point before Ip moved to Hong Kong. But after Ip no inheritor was selected so you see a bit of chaos that sets in with the next generation. Ip took the art public and so IMO he chose no inheritor for the system. From what I get he never intended for the art to go public but when he finally made it to Hong Kong he had little money and had to teach to survive.

So, going public for him and IMO for many other systems and styles seems to have changed the proticols that would normally be in place. IMO it's about the money... Once that becomes the driving factor vs. something else, like family, the revolution, building an army, whatever you will see another change in what and how things are passed that takes away from the quality of the system. Ip never wanted nor would ever approve of teaching the gwai lo <white ghosts>--ever--so that should really tell part of the story right there.

Meanwhile in both China and Okinawa you have small lineages passed along that are much more fluid, much less standardized, and not what we would even think of as styles by today's views, such as Simon seems to have experienced in China. This is likely where all the current "styles" were also at before their individual periods of standardization.

I must say I am not familiar with this phenomena.. WCK was said to have been founded in 1776 but its roots came from other systems such as Siu Lum and others that had existed long before that.. Some of those like Five Animals and Long Fist have a really long history and some monks trace their lines back 33 or more generations to the temple.

Are you sure that diss was unintentional!

No diss intended to good old William.. In the old days I was pissed at him for coming out with such an outlandish story, and claiming that he alone was taught the true system. He used to steal students from my teacher and others and at that time I thought he was a jerk. In those days his whole story just seemed so ludicrous based on the surrounding facts.

But nowadays I just absorb what is useful and I have some of his videos and learn what I can from him.. In general I am not a big fan of his method because it tends IMO to use too many movements and has a few odd ball ideas thrown in which I am not too fond of.. Still he is part of the puzzle and `strangely enough his forms look a lot like Huen Fa Yi Wing Chun.. It's all good though..

[JimHawkins]

There seems to be a consistent theme that Wing Chun has no disputes within it and everyone agrees with how it is done and from what base etc.

Or at least if you are of a certain lineage…………..

The internet is a wonderful place and if you take the time to search you find discussion forums where very similar discussions as goes on here take place in WC and, despite any claims differently, the lineage dispute are very bitter.

Anytime you have tens of thousands of people involved in anything you will have different opinions. The point is that the core concepts which are documented and the forms are all pretty much the same across the board <see the Kuen Kuit> as far as the leaders of Ip families are concerned, again with the exception of Cheung who has the most variation, still, even Cheung's system is about 80-90 percent the same as the rest in terms of concepts and techniques..

What Joe Blow or whoever might think and argue about with John Smith has no bearing on the integrity of the system and/or how it was passed as a well documented and well preserved system as compared to many others. This can be seen clearly in how WCK folks fight.. Be them good or bad you can easily recognize it as WCK.. They are not struggling to find the "relevance in their training" they express it naturally as WCK and that's what it will look like not like Aikido, Jujitsu, boxing or what have you.

I will look over the threads more but I don't as of yet see the point you are trying to make.

[Rick Wilson]

The same one George was.