Talk:Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Maintaining Neutral Point of View
It's important. Someone has modified this article lately and it's obvious that this person favours the 'Traditional' system since the article implies, in places, that the Traditional system is superior. I will rectify what I see fit and any objections may be posted. Tarkovsky
[edit] Yip Man's 'superiority'
The author implies that by learning the Traditional system, Yip Man was able to become superior to 'eleven seniors who had studied under Chan Wah Shun only'. This borders on supposition since we have no way of knowing the specific conditions of Yip Man's supposed superiority, (did he defeat the eleven seniors in combat?) or whether this was because of the Traditional system at all or other factors. This also lacks a proper reference, and is therefore of dubious credibility. I will delete this now. Tarkovsky
[edit] Traditional vs Modified
The opinions of Hawkins Cheung and Robert Chu are included in the final paragraph discussing the Traditional/Modified dichotomy because they are intended to balance the rest of the article which seems to slightly favours Traditional Wing Chun. It is not designed as a departure point for a debate on Traditional vs Modified. The following paragraph, recently added, is an edit war just waiting to happen:
"...many modified wing chun practitioners who have studied under William Cheung have found that the "Traditional Wing Chun" system is superior and more effective than the more widely known "modified" wing chun, some even dedicating their lives to teaching it. Some of the modified wing chun practitioners who currently teach Cheung's "Traditional Wing Chun" include Phillip Redmond, Brian Lewadny and Dana Wong."
All this says is that there are some people who like Traditional Wing Chun very much. It offers no significant input and its only purpose is to stack the deck in favour of the Traditional school by attaching famous names. I will delete this immediately to avoid future trouble. Tarkovsky
[edit] On hyperbolic claims about Grandmaster William Cheung
This article is a neutral encyclopaedic entry. It is not the place for syrupy hero worship and heaping undying praise onto Grandmaster William Cheung with hyperbolic claims of his skill.
Posts like this are biased and inappropriate:
"Master Phillip Redmond, a student of William Cheung for over 22 years studied Wing Chun from three other students of Yip Man who all say that William Cheung was the premier Wing Chun fighter in Hong Kong at the time. Bruce Lee who was introduced to Yip Man by William Cheung also said the same thing. On a ship from Hong Kong to Australia William Cheung sought a fight with 27 sailors, armed to the teeth with knives and poles, who had been hired to kill him by the Hong Kong triads. He fought them all successfully and hospitalised several, but was placed in protective custody by the ship's Captain for his own safety. The incident made the Hong Kong newspapers and is recounted here: http://members.tripod.com/~Wing_Chun/ Though the controversy exists William Cheung did live with Yip Man for over three years and no one can be sure what he was taught during that time period."
This represents, at best, an anecdotal account of Cheung's supposed martial prowess. The link to Traditional Wing Chun is...to put it charitably, "tenuous". Posts like these will be deleted without question.
[edit] No such thing as Traditional Wing Chun
Reading all this it is obvious that Mr. Cheung is just trying to make a name for himself. Anyone who likes to use the name traditional with a martial arts is showing how desperate they are for validation. The fact is that all martial arts, no matter the name, have been in a constanct state of change, and would not have survived if they did not. That fact is that from school to school in the Wing Chun system you will find radically different methods and no one, especially Mr. Cheung can lay a claim to the non-existant "Traditional" title.
So this whole article should be removed, it is blatant self promotion by Mr. Cheungs followers. Best Regards.--Bigzilla 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that TWC (the titled name Traditional Wing Chun as opposed to the descriptive lower case traditional Wing Chun) is the trademark name he's been using for his version for a good 25+ years (just as Wing Tsun is attributed to Leung Ting). Likewise, this controversial topic and branding has been a matter of public record for even longer. The article seeks to clarify his reasoning for people (such as your self) to read and make their own opinions (just as you did). As such, it includes relative counterpoint views to try and maintain an overall NPOV. Simply removing an entry meant to inform people so they can make their own informed opinions, just because you read same said entry and your opinion was of a negative view, presents a contradicting viewpoint. It would also not allow people to be well informed and make the same or opposite opinions, because you want to take the very same resource away. --Marty Goldberg 05:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point Marty. --Bigzilla 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
