# Chi-Sau from lineage to lineage....



## PiedmontChun (May 5, 2016)

Geezer's recent posts on another thread regarding WT (and the EWTO)'s method of teaching organized chi-sau "sections" got me thinking. My nominal WC experience is limited to practicing WT that is downstream of Kerspecht and the EWTO, and its all I really know.

I am curious what other lineages do to bridge that gap that exists between learning the forms, and being able to flow and work with another person in unscripted chi-sau / lat sau? At what stage do you have students learn to just double arm roll or poon sau? Do students move on straight to gor sau once they can roll / stick? Do you have specific drills you work off of to introduce the various ways to attack and dissolve? What helps students learn to chain together movements and "flow"?

I see and think of the WT chi-sau sections as sort of a two-man form. Just like you practice the forms solo to train critical limb positioning, etc then likewise, the WT chi-sau sections let you train movements in response to another's force, and correct / train responses in an organized way. For me, even though I'm not super analytical, it seems to help me break down and understand the mechanics. Also, this kind of repetition of attacking and dissolving attacks in a very relaxed way translated better into dynamic chi-sau / gor sau than had I just jumped straight into it, I think.

I'm curious as to other's experience.


----------



## Phobius (May 5, 2016)

I think one thing is worth adding on chi-sau. Don't do it so soon that you forget your legs should move as well. It might otherwise become a bad habit that only makes you more stale.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 5, 2016)

PiedmontChun said:


> Geezer's recent posts on another thread regarding WT ...


Can someone please tell me (thanks in advance) what are the difference between:

- WC,
- VT,
- WT,
- WCK,
- ...

I learned 詠春 (Wing Chun) from Ip Man's student Jimmy Kao back in 1973. I also worked out with Ip Man's student Jeffery Law and Albert Law. Is that WC, VT, WT, WCK. or ...?


----------



## PiedmontChun (May 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can someone please tell me (thanks in advance) what are the difference between:
> 
> - WC,
> - VT,
> ...



Gross generalization but....... WC just means Wing Chun and encompasses all Ip Man lineages, except those who are insistent on distinguishing themselves. Leung Ting labeled his method Wing Tsun and thus the WT label. Wong Shun Leung referred to his as Ving Tsun, hence the VT. The WCK is an actual organization in the UK and maybe someone else can chime in on which of Ip Man's students they derive from. As my sifu says "its still the same Chinese characters!".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 5, 2016)

PiedmontChun said:


> Gross generalization but....... WC just means Wing Chun and encompasses all Ip Man lineages, except those who are insistent on distinguishing themselves. Leung Ting labeled his method Wing Tsun and thus the WT label. Wong Shun Leung referred to his as Ving Tsun, hence the VT. The WCK is an actual organization in the UK and maybe someone else can chime in on which of Ip Man's students they derive from. As my sifu says "its still the same Chinese characters!".


Thanks for your information.

When someone said I don't know VT. I told him that I know WC, but I don't know VT. According to your information, he was right and I was right too.


----------



## Marnetmar (May 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Can someone please tell me (thanks in advance) what are the difference between:
> 
> - WC,
> - VT,
> ...



I view all the different spellings as a way for each Chun family to make themselves look like special snowflakes. It's one of the reasons WC gets such a bad name and IMO it's a bunch of nonsense that needs to stop.

I suppose VT is an exception because of the whole water closet story but come on, we live in different times now.


----------



## yak sao (May 5, 2016)

VT, from what I understand was actually the spelling that Yip Man preferred.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 5, 2016)

For Mandarin Chinese, Youg Chun (YC) should be the correct name.

I think one should use the following order.

1. stationary single sticky hand.
2. moving step single sticky hand.
3. stationary double sticky hands.
4. moving step double sticky hands.

The

- stationary training can train no matter how powerful the attack may be, you will never move back (train courage).
- moving step training can train move like a butterfly, hit and run (train smartness). Try to maintain bridge can be an issue here.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 5, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> I view all the different spellings as a way for each Chun family to make themselves look like special snowflakes. It's one of the reasons WC gets such a bad name and IMO it's a bunch of nonsense that needs to stop.


Agree with you 100% there.

VT guy: You don't know VT.
WC guy: You don't know WC.
WT guy: Both of you don't know WT.
WCK guy: All 3 of you don't know WCK.
Mandarin YC guy: I only know YC. What are your guys talking about?

This just make no sense.


----------



## LFJ (May 5, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> When someone said I don't know VT. I told him that I know WC, but I don't know VT. According to your information, he was right and I was right too.



He was referring to what Yip Man taught, and doesn't believe Yip Man taught dozens of different versions of the same system. It's one system. You either know it or you don't. Yip Man used the Ving Tsun spelling.


----------



## geezer (May 5, 2016)

LFJ said:


> He was referring to what Yip Man taught, and doesn't believe Yip Man taught dozens of different versions of the same system. It's one system. You either know it or you don't. Yip Man used the Ving Tsun spelling.



Whatever Ip Man may have taught in the course of his lifetime, his students brought forth many interpretations. A number of groups use the "VT" spelling to honor Grandmaster Ip.

Although much of my foundation was with LT's "WT" the association I belong to now uses the "VT" spelling. I just call it Ip Man Ving Tsun. It may not be the same as what you do, but it comes from the same root.

The problem with varying names and translations is hardly unique to WT/VT or even to _Chinese_ Martial arts. I also practice Filipino _Escrima_. Others use the terms _Arnis_, _Kali,_ and so forth. In Tagalog the correct spelling is _Eskrima _with a "k"_._ The old Spanish term was _Esgrima _with a "g" meaning "fencing". We use the old regional spelling _Escrima_ to honor my Instructor and his instructors who spelled it that way. But the same term can be used to describe many different arts. And different terms are often used by various clubs practicing pretty much the same art. That's just the way it is.


----------



## LFJ (May 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> Whatever Ip Man may have taught in the course of his lifetime, his students brought forth many interpretations.



If the forms are an alphabet or single words in a language, people can use these to eventually say all sorts of things. But if the alphabet is changed, we're no longer speaking the same language.

I think YM taught only one language. Many have changed the alphabet and created different languages, for whatever reason. Often they are mutually unintelligible, and sometimes even internally incomprehensible.

As to the _chi-sau_ topic, adding footwork and other things to DCS is trying to have a conversation with single letters or making nonsense words by putting letters together that don't spell anything.


----------



## Phobius (May 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> If the forms are an alphabet or single words in a language, people can use these to eventually say all sorts of things. But if the alphabet is changed, we're no longer speaking the same language.
> 
> I think YM taught only one language. Many have changed the alphabet and created different languages, for whatever reason. Often they are mutually unintelligible, and sometimes even internally incomprehensible.



I have a different opinion. In my view it is very clear and higher likelihood that YM changed the alphabet with time. So it was ever changing. The reason being that it is the concept we learn and teach. But we will never see eye to eye there I think. 



LFJ said:


> As to the _chi-sau_ topic, adding footwork and other things to DCS is trying to have a conversation with single letters or making nonsense words by putting letters together that don't spell anything.



Can you quote where this is stated. Not sure who said anything about footwork in DCS. Sadly I personally don't even remember when we (me) did DCS, terrible memory it seems.


----------



## LFJ (May 6, 2016)

Phobius said:


> In my view it is very clear and higher likelihood that YM changed the alphabet with time. So it was ever changing. The reason being that it is the concept we learn and teach.



Can't change the alphabet without the language (concept) changing too. Do you think he drastically changed the concept of VT all the time? If not, and the concept remained the same, why change the alphabet?



> Can you quote where this is stated. Not sure who said anything about footwork in DCS. Sadly I personally don't even remember when we (me) did DCS, terrible memory it seems.



Post #8.


----------



## guy b. (May 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> He was referring to what Yip Man taught, and doesn't believe Yip Man taught dozens of different versions of the same system. It's one system. You either know it or you don't. Yip Man used the Ving Tsun spelling.



Very well stated summary of my position.

It is ok to train other "wing chun", whether it derived from YM and was changed for whatever reason, or whether it came from somewhere else, for example recreation from scratch via old texts and imagination. But there is only one VT system that YM taught and that works in the way it was designed to work. Saying that all of the different approaches are equally valid interpretations of the same system is not true. Changing the system changes the system. The result is no longer the system, but something else. If you prefer that other thing then it is no problem to me.


----------



## guy b. (May 6, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Thanks for your information.
> 
> When someone said I don't know VT. I told him that I know WC, but I don't know VT. According to your information, he was right and I was right too.



Please see the reply from LFJ. It seems you know a different system.


----------



## guy b. (May 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> As to the _chi-sau_ topic, adding footwork and other things to DCS is trying to have a conversation with single letters or making nonsense words by putting letters together that don't spell anything.



Exactly, it is a classic misunderstanding or intentional change in the VT system of training. As such it doesn't produce VT, but something else.


----------



## Phobius (May 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Very well stated summary of my position.
> 
> It is ok to train other "wing chun", whether it derived from YM and was changed for whatever reason, or whether it came from somewhere else, for example recreation from scratch via old texts and imagination. But there is only one VT system that YM taught and that works in the way it was designed to work. Saying that all of the different approaches are equally valid interpretations of the same system is not true. Changing the system changes the system. The result is no longer the system, but something else. If you prefer that other thing then it is no problem to me.



So you are saying YM does not teach VT or WC since he does not teach what he was taught. He changed the system so either there was no WC or VT before him or you are doing lineage bashing now.

Oh and one more crucial thing. By your statement VT is doomed because no one teaches what they were taught. Not even your sifu. He picks up on some stuff and puts less value on others that don't work for him.


----------



## guy b. (May 6, 2016)

Phobius said:


> So you are saying YM does not teach VT or WC since he does not teach what he was taught. He changed the system so either there was no WC or VT before him or you are doing lineage bashing now.
> 
> Oh and one more crucial thing. By your statement VT is doomed because no one teaches what they were taught. Not even your sifu. He picks up on some stuff and puts less value on others that don't work for him.



VT is the system taught by YM. There are other systems calling themselves similar names which may or may not be more or less related. 

You are incorrect about the teaching of the system. It is taught as it was passed down. This is because it is a set of concepts encapsulated in a particular training method with a particular order of teaching using particular forms and drills introduced at particular stages of development, not a catalogue of applications or techniques. The important bit is the method and the reasons for doing things the way they are done, and this is what is passed carefully between teacher and student. Individual physical or stylistic differences do not change this core of what VT is.


----------



## KPM (May 6, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I have a different opinion. In my view it is very clear and higher likelihood that YM changed the alphabet with time. So it was ever changing. The reason being that it is the concept we learn and teach. But we will never see eye to eye there I think.
> 
> .



I agree.  It seems pretty clear to me that what Ip Man taught in Foshan prior to going to Hong Kong is different from what he taught not long after he arrived, which is again different from what he was teaching near the end of his life.  Anyone that thinks Ip Man taught the EXACT same thing through-out his career is not looking very closely, or is just seeing what they want to see.


----------



## KPM (May 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Very well stated summary of my position.
> 
> It is ok to train other "wing chun", whether it derived from YM and was changed for whatever reason, or whether it came from somewhere else, for example recreation from scratch via old texts and imagination. But there is only one VT system that YM taught and that works in the way it was designed to work. Saying that all of the different approaches are equally valid interpretations of the same system is not true. Changing the system changes the system. The result is no longer the system, but something else. If you prefer that other thing then it is no problem to me.



Spoken like a true "VT snob."


----------



## Marnetmar (May 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Very well stated summary of my position.
> 
> It is ok to train other "wing chun", whether it derived from YM and was changed for whatever reason, or whether it came from somewhere else, for example recreation from scratch via old texts and imagination. But there is only one VT system that YM taught and that works in the way it was designed to work. Saying that all of the different approaches are equally valid interpretations of the same system is not true. Changing the system changes the system. The result is no longer the system, but something else. If you prefer that other thing then it is no problem to me.



Kwok Fu, Lun Kai, Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu would like to have a word with you about whether or not Yip Man changed his teachings as time went on.


----------



## LFJ (May 6, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Kwok Fu, Lun Kai, Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu would like to have a word with you about whether or not Yip Man changed his teachings as time went on.



They should first discuss what changes they made themselves before determining what Yip Man's teaching career looked like.


----------



## Phobius (May 6, 2016)

LFJ said:


> They should first discuss what changes they made themselves before determining what Yip Man's teaching career looked like.



I take it you were a personal student of YM.


----------



## PiedmontChun (May 6, 2016)

It didn't take very long to veer from the original question.


----------



## Phobius (May 6, 2016)

As soon as people start saying "it is not true WC/VT/WT" threads become dead.


----------



## guy b. (May 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Spoken like a true "VT snob."



On the contrary, the real conceit is to believe that people do not have responsibility for and ownership of the changes they make. 

Pretending that everything calling itself something like wing chun is equal (and equally valuable) is the MA equivalent of the racism of lowered expectations. It is simple denial of reality because reality offends.


----------



## KPM (May 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> On the contrary, the real conceit is to believe that people do not have responsibility for and ownership of the changes they make.
> 
> Pretending that everything calling itself something like wing chun is equal (and equally valuable) is the MA equivalent of the racism of lowered expectations. It is simple denial of reality because reality offends.



Believing that Ip Man never updated or changed what he taught over the years is delusional.  Believing that you are currently doing exactly what Ip Man himself taught is a stretch.  Believing that any deviation from what you think Ip Man actually taught automatically means something is no longer valuable is the height of snobbery.   You are not one to talk about reality.


----------



## geezer (May 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Believing that Ip Man never updated or changed what he taught over the years is delusional.  Believing that you are currently doing exactly what Ip Man himself taught is a stretch.  Believing that any deviation from what you think Ip Man actually taught automatically means something is no longer valuable is the height of snobbery.   You are not one to talk about reality.



Yeah! _What_ _KPM said._ Rah Rah.  And now for a really shocking assertion:

I train Dan Chi Sau with _steps_. Yeah, that's right, advancing and retreating steps with varied pressure. _And I like it!!! _

Yep. It's very useful for linking our bong and tan to turning. When one party steps in with a more forceful palm or punch, the other party responds by borrowing the force and turning, and so dissolving the incoming energy without crashing force.

Linking "springy hands" to stance and steps is _basic_ to my branch of VT. And I believe this comes from Yip Man. If anyone doesn't agree, fine by me.


----------



## guy b. (May 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Believing that any deviation from what you think Ip Man actually taught automatically means something is no longer valuable is the height of snobbery.   You are not one to talk about reality.



Deviations from what YM taught have no value in terms of the VT system, because changes break the system. This is obvious if one considers what a coherent and non-contradictory system VT is.

If you wish to train something other than VT then it is a free world with many different choices and that is your decision. Own it and take pride in it. Do not expect me to validate your decision in order to make you feel good about yourself. Do not expect me to pretend that things are different to the way they really are.

Different systems may have value to you. That is your choice. Personally I am interested in VT.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 6, 2016)

KPM said:


> Anyone that thinks Ip Man taught the EXACT same thing through-out his career is not looking very closely, or is just seeing what they want to see.


Agree!

If you teach your MA system exactly the same way when you are 60 as when you were 40, you have not improved anything in the past 20 years. This is why many people may start to write their book but never finish it. If you publish your book today, 5 yeas later if you get any new or better idea, you won't be able to change your book.

For example, in the past 20 years I have found something new that I did not understand before. That is if I can "bend my opponent's spine side way", I can take away most (if not all) of his defense and counters. With this simple goal, my strategy can be simple and straight forward. IMO, knowledge and experience are accumulated through years of training and testing.

To assume that YM did not come up new and better idea when he got older is just not realistic.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> I train Dan Chi Sau with _steps_.


The moving step training is the key to bridge your basic training into fighting. 

fixing step skill training -> moving step skill training -> fighting


----------



## geezer (May 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> _*Deviations from what YM taught*_ have no value in terms of the VT system...



You were responding to KPM's post, and I believe you misquoted him in the bolded text above. He said "...deviations in what _you think_ YM taught..." It is what _you think_ because you never actually knew GM Yip. Those who _did_ know him well have different opinions from yours.


----------



## wckf92 (May 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> I train Dan Chi Sau with _steps_. Yeah, that's right, advancing and retreating steps with varied pressure.



I also train chi sau with and without steps. Each level has both static and dynamic footwork corresponding to WC's footwork patterns. This seems to be a no-brainer. And like Geezer said...its basic stuff. 
Obviously, one must master their own horse prior to moving it. (stabilize before you mobilize) 
But when the time is right...footwork is taught and integrated. After all, DCS and chi sau and "rolling" etc are just drills.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 6, 2016)

Have you ever trained your Dan Chi Shou like this with right arm against right arm?


----------



## guy b. (May 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> You were responding to KPM's post, and I believe you misquoted him in the bolded text above. He said "...deviations in what _you think_ YM taught..." It is what _you think_ because you never actually knew GM Yip. Those who _did_ know him well have different opinions from yours.



It is not what I think. It is what YM taught to WSL, and which he passed down to others. I can evaluate different ideas of what YM taught by looking at their coherence and degree of non-contradiction. Some have lots, other have little, others none.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 6, 2016)

CSL chi sao is more about controlling/disrupting the other persons balance.


----------



## Marnetmar (May 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It is not what I think. It is what YM taught to WSL, and which he passed down to others. I can evaluate different ideas of what YM taught by looking at their coherence and degree of non-contradiction. Some have lots, other have little, others none.



What constitutes as a "contradiction" though? How do you know that there's not a misunderstanding at play on your part of what other people are doing instead of on the part of others for their own system? (Not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just addressing what I see as a bit of a leap of logic)

I can use myself as an example here, in another thread I brought WSL's heel-pivoting mechanic into question, and from the discussion that resulted it turned out that, as an outsider, I was simply looking at it the wrong way. Who's to say that a VT guy can't make the same kind of error?

Plus, let's say that WSL's system is the most coherent and non-contradictory one out there out of all Yip Man systems. What's wrong with crediting WSL's own genius and talent for it? After all, he's one of Yip Man's students that actually went out and fought with Wing Chun. That sounds like a good way to find out what works and what doesn't and adjust your system accordingly.

A good example of this is the Tan Sau-Gan Sau-Tan Sau in section 6 of the form where it used to be Tan Sau-Jum Sau-Tan Sau. It's well known that WSL is the guy that pioneered that change not just in his own WC but in Yip Man WC as a whole after he brought the subject up with Yip Man. Why not say WSL was a smart guy and credit him for it?

Another way of looking at it: If we assume that WSL's system is the best, I think using that as evidence that it's the closest to what Yip Man taught is shakier ground than it is to say that Yip Man's teachings changed over time. You could look at Yip Man's Foshan students and speculate that perhaps taught the same things then as he did when he died and then his students added mainland WC into it later on. The problem with that is that we see a visible pattern in Yip Man's students from the Foshan, early HK and later HK days. Lineages from his Foshan days show a style very similar to other mainland styles, lineages from Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu show forms that are different but still similar mechanics to the mainland styles, with this same idea applying to Chu Sheung Tin, but to a less significant degree. Coincidentally, he started learning after LS and LY did. From WSL onward -- with the exception of Leung Ting who many aren't sure actually learned from YM in the first place -- we see systems that are basically the same as each other in terms of mechanics -- a good amount of them just have crappier instructors as a norm, based on what Sifu Youtube (I stole that from Geezer btw) has been able to tell me, compared to the WSL lineage 

I take that as *very* credible evidence that Yip Man re-evaluated his teachings over time. It might not be full-on concrete proof, but IMO it stands up to scrutiny better than saying "WSL has the best system, therefore it's the closest to what Yip Man taught".


----------



## wckf92 (May 6, 2016)

guy b. said:


> It is what YM taught to WSL, and which he passed down to others.



Guy, I think the concern of sum here, with statements like the one you made (above)...is this: were you there when YM taught WSL? Were you there when WSL taught XYZ? etc? Maybe you were(?)... But if you were not...then...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 6, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> were you there when YM taught WSL?..


This is the main point.

Have any of you ever learned WC directly from YM? I have never met YM in person myself. So if you have never learned WC directly from YM, your opinion will have the same value as my opinion.

YM -> A -> X
YM -> B -> Y

For X and Y to argue about who is right and who is wrong just make no sense IMO.

The dragon has 9 sons. They all look different.


----------



## KPM (May 6, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Good stuff.........Another way of looking at it: If we assume that WSL's system is the best, I think using that as evidence that it's the closest to what Yip Man taught is shakier ground than it is to say that Yip Man's teachings changed over time......more good stuff. ".



I agree with your post completely.  Recall that I have made the exact same points and arguments in the past.  But it made no difference.  You have used logic, reason, and evidence....but this makes no difference to a "true believer."  A "true believer" can take the same evidence that we see and interpret it in a different way, and deny that their way of interpretation is not as reasonable as ours.  And its all based on one simple thing...."Sifu sez....."   ie.....Wong Shun Leung said that he taught only what Ip Man taught him.   As far as the "true believers" are concerned, that's the end of the discussion!


----------



## LFJ (May 6, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Plus, let's say that WSL's system is the most coherent and non-contradictory one out there out of all Yip Man systems. What's wrong with crediting WSL's own genius and talent for it?



That's something a "true believer" or hero-worshipper might do.

But if it's not true, and there's no evidence to suggest it is, and much to the contrary, not crediting the VT system to WSL is just the honest position to take.



> After all, he's one of Yip Man's students that actually went out and fought with Wing Chun. That sounds like a good way to find out what works and what doesn't and adjust your system accordingly.



That's not how the system works, and WSL knew better, as we discussed in this thread.

The point of testing one's skill in fighting is to find errors and allow the system to correct them. This way we are continually improving our fighting skill, not adjusting the system to fill gaps.



> A good example of this is the Tan Sau-Gan Sau-Tan Sau in section 6 of the form where it used to be Tan Sau-Jum Sau-Tan Sau. It's well known that WSL is the guy that pioneered that change not just in his own WC but in Yip Man WC as a whole after he brought the subject up with Yip Man. Why not say WSL was a smart guy and credit him for it?



Obviously because he didn't create the _gaang-sau_...

He encountered a situation in fighting where _jam-sau_ failed for him, and YM told him to use _gaang-sau_. Problem was he hadn't learned it yet because he hadn't gotten to the part of the system where it is first taught.

So together, it was decided that _gaang-sau_ should be taught earlier and so it was brought into the SNT set.

Importantly though, _gaang-sau_ did not replace _jam-sau_. Others replaced the "old technique" and as a result their systems ceased to function properly, as now _jat-sau_ had to be used in DCS and students didn't learn about the double-edged sword that is _taan_ and _jam_, an important pair throughout the entire system.


----------



## LFJ (May 6, 2016)

geezer said:


> I train Dan Chi Sau with _steps_. Yeah, that's right, advancing and retreating steps with varied pressure. _And I like it!!! _
> 
> Yep. It's very useful for linking our bong and tan to turning. When one party steps in with a more forceful palm or punch, the other party responds by borrowing the force and turning, and so dissolving the incoming energy without crashing force.



_Bong_ opens the line of attack and _taan_ attacks. They shouldn't be linked to turning anything but the opponent. Turn yourself and the opponent will thank you.

A few lineages like this don't seem concerned with over-turning and even seek to turn themselves while receiving force. There's a reason _seung-ma_ / _teui-ma _stepping drills are trained from _pun-sau_ with both arms in contact.

Teach stepping and turning with one hand in DCS to a beginner who hasn't learned _pun-sau _yet and there is bound to be all sorts of problems. Errors in distance, facing, angles, and footwork that will be difficult to correct.

Stepping in DCS is a system defect. This is putting the cart before the horse.


----------



## Phobius (May 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> The point of testing one's skill in fighting is to find errors and allow the system to correct them. This way we are continually improving our fighting skill, not adjusting the system to fill gaps.



This is done by most by sparring. Of course given that the student has knowledge of why he is sparring. 




LFJ said:


> Obviously because he didn't create the _gaang-sau_...
> 
> He encountered a situation in fighting where _jam-sau_ failed for him, and YM told him to use _gaang-sau_. Problem was he hadn't learned it yet because he hadn't gotten to the part of the system where it is first taught.
> 
> ...



This means WSL did not teach VT. The forms were not what he was taught himself, any change to a form is a different system altogether. 

Say what you want but you have stated this a million times over. You can't change the forms or other parts of the system and call it VT. Instead those errors they saw during fighting should have been corrected from looking at the forms and drills.


----------



## Phobius (May 7, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Teach stepping and turning with one hand in DCS to a beginner who hasn't learned _pun-sau _yet and there is bound to be all sorts of problems. Errors in distance, facing, angles, and footwork that will be difficult to correct.
> 
> Stepping in DCS is a system defect. This is putting the cart before the horse.



You are gonna see errors of same kind if doing stationary DCS between a tall and a short guy/girl. The person without doing stepping will be forced to handle incoming "attack" with weird angles just to do the drill. 

Stepping can teach you bad habits, but that is why you have your sifu because he teaches you how to do it and why you do it. Not rocket science, easily spotted. Besides you do know people are not limited to a single drill in order to learn.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> CSL chi sao is more about controlling/disrupting the other persons balance.



Well then it is a system not closely related to VT. No problem.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> What constitutes as a "contradiction" though?



Things that work in opposition to each other and/or to the conceptual base of VT. For example in relation to stepping with DCS as summarised by LFJ above. It is fine to place value in these other ideas, but it isn't VT. 



> How do you know that there's not a misunderstanding at play on your part of what other people are doing instead of on the part of others for their own system?



A good way of finding out whether this is the case is to exchange ideas, for example on this forum. The usual result is anger, general defensiveness, and unwillingness to engage in further discussion once contradictions are pointed out. 



> in another thread I brought WSL's heel-pivoting mechanic into question, and from the discussion that resulted it turned out that, as an outsider, I was simply looking at it the wrong way.



This is a good example of discussion clarifying understanding.



> Who's to say that a VT guy can't make the same kind of error?



Because when discussions are started answers are not provided and contradictions are discovered. I would be happy to discover contradiction in VT and I always look to test it in this way. So far I have failed. 



> Plus, let's say that WSL's system is the most coherent and non-contradictory one out there out of all Yip Man systems. What's wrong with crediting WSL's own genius and talent for it?



Because then you would be crediting WSL with the invention of the whole of the fully functioning and non-contradictory VT system, from a starting point in a broken and average kung fu passed from YM. Which is extremely unlikely. More likely WSL was just one of the few who got it. 



> If we assume that WSL's system is the best, I think using that as evidence that it's the closest to what Yip Man taught is shakier ground than it is to say that Yip Man's teachings changed over time.



This is because (I assume) you are looking at the problem from the standpoint of a non functional system. When you see how it works, and how everything fits perfectly together in a coherent way, then the improbability of YM simply tacking bits on and removing other bits over the years becomes obvious. More likely that YM simply didn't teach many people the system, for whatever reason. VT is a remarkable thing to be treasured and passed carefully on. It is ridiculous to compare it favourably with glaring misunderstanding or poor facsimile. 



> From WSL onward -- with the exception of Leung Ting who many aren't sure actually learned from YM in the first place -- we see systems that are basically the same as each other in terms of mechanics



You think?


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is the main point.
> 
> Have any of you ever learned WC directly from YM? I have never met YM in person myself. So if you have never learned WC directly from YM, your opinion will have the same value as my opinion.
> 
> ...



There are many ways to determine the likelihood of a particular story.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> The dragon has 9 sons. They all look different.



To extend your metaphor, when 8 of the 9 sons don't share any of the characteristics of a dragon, we can start to draw some conclusions about the father.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> I have made the exact same points and arguments in the past. But it made no difference. You have used logic, reason, and evidence....but this makes no difference to a "true believer."



Yes, you have always been incredibly balanced and honest in previous discussions, never becoming angry or defensive when contradictions are pointed out, and never being one to bear a grudge. Most importantly you never seek to make an argument a popularity contest and always just stick to well formulated points which you disregard in a non-emotional way when they are shown to be wrong. Congratulations.


----------



## Phobius (May 7, 2016)

guy b. said:


> To extend your metaphor, when 8 of the 9 sons don't share any of the characteristics of a dragon, we can start to draw some conclusions about the father.



Yes that 8 of 9 have the same father. Or you think YM shares no trait with anyone other than WSLVT?


----------



## LFJ (May 7, 2016)

Phobius said:


> This means WSL did not teach VT. The forms were not what he was taught himself, any change to a form is a different system altogether.
> 
> Say what you want but you have stated this a million times over. You can't change the forms or other parts of the system and call it VT. Instead those errors they saw during fighting should have been corrected from looking at the forms and drills.


Nice try, but no...

Putting _gaang-sau_ in SNT doesn't alter the concept of VT or the way it functions in any way. It's just introducing a "letter" sooner than it used to be.

WSL just hadn't learned the whole system at that time, or he'd have known the answer like YM did. The error was still corrected by something already part of the VT system. No fundamental change was made to VT.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Yes that 8 of 9 have the same father. Or you think YM shares no trait with anyone other than WSLVT?



Your further metaphor extension makes no sense in terms of the metaphorical situation with the Dragon's children, in terms of how it relates to the situation in VT, or in terms of basic biology. 

I have never said that WSL was the only person to learn YM's VT system, just that the number of people who got the system from YM was small.


----------



## Phobius (May 7, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Because then you would be crediting WSL with the invention of the whole of the fully functioning and non-contradictory VT system, from a starting point in a broken and average kung fu passed from YM. Which is extremely unlikely. More likely WSL was just one of the few who got it.



Or he was one of the few that had already a prior knowledge of fighting and was unable to grasp all and instead the system worked better for him with his prior knowledge by doing it another way.

Or he just interpreted it differently.

The possibilities are endless. You just refuse to see logic in world not being black and white.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Or he was one of the few that had already a prior knowledge of fighting and was unable to grasp all and instead the system worked better for him with his prior knowledge by doing it another way.



Very unlikely that the 95% of broken concepts and chi sau games that is modern wing chun is what WSL received, and that he then made the fully functional and conceptually perfect VT system out of that. It is easy to see the direction of travel from working system to broken system. Hard to see how a load of non-functional and contradictory ideas could all be miraculously fixed and, by sheer chance, make a coherent whole that appears as if it was designed to work together in a particular way from the start. It is about as likely as pile of bombed rubble in a war zone re-assembling itself into a working factory producing useful things. Much more likely that the process goes in the opposite direction.



> Or he just interpreted it differently.



It isn't a matter of equally valid alternative interpretations. This is easily revealed by looking at specifics and the contradictions inherent in some interpretations. This is probably why people are usually not keen to discuss specifics.



> The possibilities are endless. You just refuse to see logic in world not being black and white.



You have come up with 2 very unlikely interpretations of reality. This doesn't look like endless possibilities to me.


----------



## KPM (May 7, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Well then it is a system not closely related to VT. No problem.



The height of snobbery!


----------



## LFJ (May 7, 2016)

Phobius said:


> You are gonna see errors of same kind if doing stationary DCS between a tall and a short guy/girl. The person without doing stepping will be forced to handle incoming "attack" with weird angles just to do the drill.



Maybe you are focussing on the other person's arm when training with various people. Of course then you will be wrong.



> Stepping can teach you bad habits, but that is why you have your sifu because he teaches you how to do it and why you do it.



No, stepping in DCS is the problem. It defeats the purpose of the drill by using letters that don't fit together.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> The height of snobbery!



Why is is snobbery to acknowledge difference? Doesn't CSL wing chun trace itself back to mainland systems anyway? Why would anyone find it offensive to mention that it doesn't appear closely related to YM VT?


----------



## KPM (May 7, 2016)

But wait Guy.  It occurred to me.....are you being inconsistent with your terms again?  You once said that when you write "VT" you actually mean "WSLVT."  But then you turned around and started using "VT" generically for all Wing Chun shortly after that.   So which are you doing now?  I agree that CSLWCK is not WSLVT.  No one would it expect it to be!  But to say that CSLWCK is not "VT" in the generic sense is the height of snobbery and arrogance.  So are you just being vague and inconsistent, or are you being an a&&hole again?


----------



## KPM (May 7, 2016)

guy b. said:


> A good way of finding out whether this is the case is to exchange ideas, for example on this forum. The usual result is anger, general defensiveness, and unwillingness to engage in further discussion once contradictions are pointed out.



That only happens when one of the participants is a "true believer" that insists that their way is the only "true" or "right" way and that anyone that does anything differently from what they are doing....anyone doing something that contradicts what they have been taught or practice themselves....must be wrong!  That only happens when one of the participants comes across in a very arrogant and non-tactful manner that does not respect the people he is discussing with.   Ask yourself why the only discussions here that have ended up as "slugfests" have been the ones in which you and LFJ have been involved!


----------



## KPM (May 7, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Very unlikely that the 95% of broken concepts and chi sau games that is modern wing chun is what WSL received, and that he then made the fully functional and conceptually perfect VT system out of that. It is easy to see the direction of travel from working system to broken system. .



So you think every Wing Chun lineage other than WSLVT is 95% broken concepts and chi sau games?   And you wonder why you can't carry on a civil discussion with anyone else?


----------



## KPM (May 7, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Why is is snobbery to acknowledge difference? Doesn't CSL wing chun trace itself back to mainland systems anyway? Why would anyone find it offensive to mention that it doesn't appear closely related to YM VT?



The core of CSLWCK comes from Hawkins Cheung.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 7, 2016)

The discussion become whether:

- WC needs evolution vs. WC doesn't need evolution.
- You train WC for yourself vs. you train WC for your WC teacher.
- YM taught his class the same way through all his teaching life vs. YM taught his class differently at his different age.
- All YM's students were just "copy machine" vs. some of YM's students made contribution into the WC system.
- You can move from Chi Shou -> sparring vs. you will need Chi Shou -> ??? -> sparring.
- Chi Shou is only fix step vs. Chi Shou can be moving step.
- Chi Shou should continuously remain arm contact vs. Chi Shou should remain contact -> break contact -> obtain contact again.
- ...

If it's not in your Chi Shou training, where do you train your

- remain contact -> break contact,
- break contact -> obtain contact again?


----------



## Eric_H (May 7, 2016)

Well, though I am formerly of it, I won't speak for YM WC on this one, seems that horse is already dead on this thread.

For Hung Fa Yi, the training platforms are very different in focus and intent than what I did in YM WC. Our training progression is typically, Kiu Sao (single and double) -> Chi Kiu (single and Double) -> Reference Point Chi Sao (one handed) and Tahn Bong Fuk Chi Sao. 

These terms however, are large groupings, each layer has a number of modules under it (ie. Kiu Sao containing 5 elbow/4 corner training, Fau Kiu Kiu Sao, Deui Ying Kiu Sao, etc etc), and that one does not necessarily need to learn all the training modules under one before moving to a module in the next. 

One of the biggest differences is that our Chi Sao (general term including all platforms above) and free hand techniques are viewed as two halves of the same coin - you can't really have one without the other. Chi sao is viewed as analogous to a freeway, you can get off on exits to gate theory attack, free sparring, stay on the freeway cause it's not a good time to exit etc etc. Being able to flip between sparring and chi sao is the one of the desired outputs of the platform. 

As common sense teaches us, nobody is going to want to stick with you, it's up to you to be able to hold them hostage there.


----------



## Eric_H (May 7, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If it's not in your Chi Shou training, where do you train your
> 
> - remain contact -> break contact,
> - break contact -> obtain contact again?



For us that's part of Kiu Sao typically.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> You once said that when you write "VT" you actually mean "WSLVT."



There is only one VT. WSL VT is VT, not some particular subset of it which does things a bit differently.



> But then you turned around and started using "VT" generically for all Wing Chun shortly after that.



Please show me where I said this. 



> So which are you doing now?



I mean the VT system



> I agree that CSLWCK is not WSLVT.  No one would it expect it to be!  But to say that CSLWCK is not "VT" in the generic sense is the height of snobbery and arrogance.



I don't think there is a generic usage of the term VT. VT is the VT system. CSL on the other hand (if it is what HS is talking about on the other forum), appears to be a re-imagining of some extinct system using old texts and elements from a variety of currently existing systems. It is a modern synthesis of lots of different things- a new system. It is quite obviously not VT, just as the system(s) you practice are not VT. 



> So are you just being vague and inconsistent, or are you being an a&&hole again?



Neither of these things.


----------



## geezer (May 7, 2016)

_@Marnetmar:_ for all his personal failings, Leung Ting _did_ receive direct instruction from Yip Man. Whether or not he had a formal _to-dai to sifu_ relationship with GM Yip is another question entirely, since it is well known that his first actual sifu was Leung Sheung.

Unfortunately LT's personality, ambition, and a number of exaggerated claims resulted in a backlash campaign to discredit his actual connection with GM Yip. I know many of the facts involved, and they don't make any of the players in that old drama look good. Best to let it go and be forgotten. 

@_ Guy B:_ do you have basically stated in you previous posts on this thread that open discussion is productive, but only so long as it confirms your a-priori conviction that only PB WSL VT is correct. After all we've exchanged, you still see the world with the narrow blinders of a cult-fanatic. Your arrogant, trolling posts serve only one useful function that I can see and that's to elicit irritated, but occasionally worthwhile comments from others. Beyond that, your words have just become so much static to my ears.

Like Joy and a lot of other forum members, I don't expect to be answering many of your posts in the future. Perhaps KPM enjoys the aggravation, but I have other things to do.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> Ask yourself why the only discussions here that have ended up as "slugfests" have been the ones in which you and LFJ have been involved



Typically it seems to be that people dislike contradictions in their thinking being pointed out. I don't think anyone currently on the forum besides LFJ really does this, and that is probably why arguments break out when he is involved. 

You know, when someone pointed out the contradictions in the system I used to practice I investigated further, then changed direction and started training differently. It was a good decision. Holding on to wrong ideas only makes for frustration and anger.


----------



## Phobius (May 7, 2016)

Guy,  you are now just trolling.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

geezer said:


> you have basically stated in you previous posts on this thread that open discussion is productive, but only so long as it confirms your a-priori conviction that only PB WSL VT is correct.



I don't believe I have stated that. You seem to be reading extra things into what I wrote. 

All I have said is that not many people got the system from YM. WSL was one of those. I do not know if the particular system that anyone here practices is VT, apart from obviously different ones like KPM or the CSL group- but then they openly state their difference.



geezer said:


> After all we've exchanged, you still see the world with the narrow blinders of a cult-fanatic.



I am very open to discussion and to having my mind changed. Maybe you didn't have a convincing argument? Your arguments are always welcome and I will always consider them honestly. 



> Your arrogant, trolling posts serve only one useful function that I can see and that's to elicit irritated, but occasionally worthwhile comments from others. Beyond that, your words have just become so much static to my ears.
> 
> Like Joy and a lot of other forum members, I don't expect to be answering many of your posts in the future. Perhaps KPM enjoys the aggravation, but I have other things to do



This just seems needlessly offensive


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Guy,  you are now just trolling.



I'm really not


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 7, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> For us that's part of Kiu Sao typically.


I like those drills. IMO that will fit nicely between WC Chi Shou and free sparring.

Chi Shou -> Kiu Shou -> free sparring


----------



## Eric_H (May 7, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like those drills. IMO that will fit nicely between WC Chi Shou and free sparring.
> 
> Chi Shou -> Kiu Shou -> free sparring



I don't know what that drill is, but it doesn't look like Kiu Sao I've seen in HFY, Chi Sim or Hung Kuen


----------



## KPM (May 7, 2016)

_There is only one VT. WSL VT is VT, not some particular subset of it which does things a bit differently._

---Yep!  There it is!   The "true believer" dogma has even advanced over time.  You used to come across with the idea that WSLVT is the most accurate and best version of Ip Man Wing Chun.  Now you have progressed to saying that WSLVT is the ONLY version of Ip Man Wing Chun and everything else must not be Wing Chun at all! 



Please show me where I said this.

---I am not going to go hunt it down.  I can't help it if you can't keep up with your various assertions.  But you most certainly at one point were called on using the "VT" designation and then responded that when you do that you are talking about "WSLVT" because you can't speak to what other people do in their Wing Chun. 


_I don't think there is a generic usage of the term VT. VT is the VT system._

---There is Ip Man Wing Chun, Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, Sum Nung Wing Chun, etc.  So Wing Chun most certainly is a general term.  It doesn't matter whether you spell those words Wing Chun or Ving Tsun.  If Ip Man preferred that spelling, wouldn't he have spelled it that way if he was commenting on Sum Nung Ving Tsun?


_ CSL on the other hand (if it is what HS is talking about on the other forum), appears to be a re-imagining of some extinct system using old texts and elements from a variety of currently existing systems. It is a modern synthesis of lots of different things- a new system. It is quite obviously not VT, just as the system(s) you practice are not VT._

---You are thinking of Yik Kam Wing Chun.  Yik Kam Wing Chun and Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun are not the same thing.

_I am very open to discussion and to having my mind changed. Maybe you didn't have a convincing argument? Your arguments are always welcome and I will always consider them honestly._

---That's the biggest load of non-sense (which is putting it nicely) that I have read in a LONG time!    No argument is ever good enough for a "true believer."


----------



## Phobius (May 7, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I am very open to discussion and to having my mind changed. Maybe you didn't have a convincing argument? Your arguments are always welcome and I will always consider them honestly.



Cant have a discussion without discussing things. You are not discussing but asking to be convinced when your mind is already set.

Saying things like "my system is the only coherent system" is not an open discussion, it is a statement that you will not allow to be questioned. Quite frankly the reason is if you allow yourself to discuss such a statement openly the outcome would be that you had to admit training an inferior system.

Problem is that this is not how we others view the world, in our view if we discuss techniques or theories then we may use other people's views to gather another insight in how people think and react to force or situations.... how other people may fight. Since you are so caught up in what is the one true system you fail to see that it is never the system but the fighter it is about. Even in your system everyone will come out differently with a different set of skills. Some because it was not the right system for them, others because they did not dedicate enough time to it.

Problem is that even you or some other student of your sifu will pass on this system and when they do, some parts of training will have changed. The way the system is interpreted will be changed over time. Memories fade, ideas shift. Understanding differs. Body changes. Your limbs grow weaker or you become more stiff with time. Eventually your system is not what it was because what it was will no longer suite you.

So you see, your point of view is not the same as mine and many others. Because you want to be convinced something is better or not, you are already there missing the full picture. Truth is that nothing is better or worse, just different.

Nothing is true or false, just a mix of both. Nothing is the true WC/VT, just an evolution over time and people/sifus as well as generations.

(And yes there are systems that are pure fantasies, we all know at least some. But they are not part of discussion regarding WC lineages)


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

KPM said:


> Now you have progressed to saying that WSLVT is the ONLY version of Ip Man Wing Chun and everything else must not be Wing Chun at all!



I am not saying this. How can I help your interpretation of what I wrote?



KPM said:


> I am not going to go hunt it down. I can't help it if you can't keep up with your various assertions. But you most certainly at one point were called on using the "VT" designation and then responded that when you do that you are talking about "WSLVT" because you can't speak to what other people do in their Wing Chun



The question is where did I start "using VT generically for all wing chun"? This is what you were complaining about. You haven't answered.



KPM said:


> There is Ip Man Wing Chun, Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, Sum Nung Wing Chun, etc. So Wing Chun most certainly is a general term. It doesn't matter whether you spell those words Wing Chun or Ving Tsun.



These are different systems. VT is the system of YM. 



KPM said:


> You are thinking of Yik Kam Wing Chun. Yik Kam Wing Chun and Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun are not the same thing.



Ok



KPM said:


> No argument is ever good enough



I can't remember you making a good argument. I have read some good arguments from others here which have given me pause for thought. Maybe try to make better arguments?


----------



## KPM (May 7, 2016)

Give it up Guy.  I don't think anyone is listening to you anymore.


----------



## guy b. (May 7, 2016)

Phobius said:


> You are not discussing but asking to be convinced when your mind is already set.



But it isn't. My thinking about VT has been changed several times in my life due to discussion and training with different people. I would honestly be happy if someone could show me a better way. 

I was interested in finding out about the system that HS talks about on the other forum. I believed this to be CSL, but KPM has informed me that it is Yik Kam. Unfortunately I simply can't make sense of what HS is saying. I have tried.



Phobius said:


> Saying things like "my system is the only coherent system" is not an open discussion, it is a statement that you will not allow to be questioned. Quite frankly the reason is if you allow yourself to discuss such a statement openly the outcome would be that you had to admit training an inferior system.



I don't think I have said that VT is the only coherent system. I don't mind if someone points out a glaring problem with VT, I would just shift my training in another direction. This has happened to me more than once in my life training MA.



Phobius said:


> Since you are so caught up in what is the one true system you fail to see that it is never the system but the fighter it is about.



There are many "true systems" in martial arts. Examples include BJJ, SPM, Hsing Yi/Yiquan, Ving Tsun. I am not arguing about who is the best fighter; I am interested in the system of VT- how it works. 



Phobius said:


> you or some other student of your sifu will pass on this system and when they do, some parts of training will have changed. The way the system is interpreted will be changed over time. Memories fade, ideas shift. Understanding differs. Body changes. Your limbs grow weaker or you become more stiff with time. Eventually your system is not what it was because what it was will no longer suite you.



Systematisation prevents this from happening, and makes it identifiable when it does. It is quite possible to adapt to changing physical condition within a system. Again you seem to be focused on the personal, which might explain why you get offended sometimes. 



Phobius said:


> Truth is that nothing is better or worse, just different.



Some things are objectively better for the purpose to which they were designed than others. Not all MA systems are equivalent. I can't understand why discrimination in such things causes offence. 



Phobius said:


> Nothing is true or false, just a mix of both. Nothing is the true WC/VT, just an evolution over time and people/sifus as well as generations.
> 
> (And yes there are systems that are pure fantasies, we all know at least some. But they are not part of discussion regarding WC lineages)



You contradicted yourself.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 7, 2016)

Eric_H said:


> I don't know what that drill is, but it doesn't look like Kiu Sao I've seen in HFY, Chi Sim or Hung Kuen


I just Googled the term "Kiu Shou" and came up many clips. That one was one of those. Could you put up a clip that may look like "Kiu Shou" for you? I don't speak Cantonese Chinese so I don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## dudewingchun (May 8, 2016)

This will help understand the CSL idea of Chi sao better. Yes it is quite different from the WSLVT way. Im not entirely sure how much of Hendriks stuff is in CSL. Hawkins Cheung seems to be Robert Chu's main man though.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 8, 2016)

This is moving step Chi Shou.


----------



## LFJ (May 8, 2016)

geezer said:


> After all we've exchanged, you still see the world with the narrow blinders of a cult-fanatic.





Phobius said:


> Cant have a discussion without discussing things. You are not discussing but asking to be convinced when your mind is already set.
> 
> Saying things like "my system is the only coherent system" is not an open discussion, it is a statement that you will not allow to be questioned. Quite frankly the reason is if you allow yourself to discuss such a statement openly the outcome would be that you had to admit training an inferior system.



A cult-fanatic or someone not open to discussion or afraid to admit training an inferior system would not create a thread asking people to point out deficiencies in their system, as Guy did.

Phobius, if you think WSLVT is not coherent or is an inferior system, you can tell us why on that thread. I'm waiting to hear it too.



> Problem is that even you or some other student of your sifu will pass on this system and when they do, some parts of training will have changed. The way the system is interpreted will be changed over time. Memories fade, ideas shift. Understanding differs. Body changes. Your limbs grow weaker or you become more stiff with time. Eventually your system is not what it was because what it was will no longer suite you.



Ideas shift and understanding differs when concepts are vague and open to interpretation. 

You can find a bunch of PB students and even grandstudents on Youtube. Even with different strengths and weaknesses, it can clearly be seen that they're training the same system, with the same understanding, and are all quite good at it. When we look at old private footage of WSL, it's all the same stuff. So, I'm quite confident that it's true when WSL said YM taught him all the same stuff too.

And as Guy suggests, a good system allows for a variety of physical conditions and need not be changed for the practitioner to adapt within it. When PB was in a previous organization and lost his hand, he was basically told to give up... But then we know what he went on to accomplish under WSL.


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> This will help understand the CSL idea of Chi sao better. Yes it is quite different from the WSLVT way. Im not entirely sure how much of Hendriks stuff is in CSL. Hawkins Cheung seems to be Robert Chu's main man though.



Thanks for this, it is a useful insight into the CSL approach.

If this is representative of Hawkins Cheung's approach then I have learned something new. Is HS a practitioner of HC system as well, or something different?


----------



## Phobius (May 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Phobius, if you think WSLVT is not coherent or is an inferior system, you can tell us why on that thread. I'm waiting to hear it too.



Trolling again? If not the please quote where I said such a thing.



LFJ said:


> Ideas shift and understanding differs when concepts are vague and open to interpretation.
> 
> You can find a bunch of PB students and even grandstudents on Youtube. Even with different strengths and weaknesses, it can clearly be seen that they're training the same system, with the same understanding, and are all quite good at it. When we look at old private footage of WSL, it's all the same stuff. So, I'm quite confident that it's true when WSL said YM taught him all the same stuff too.



Why then does it differ between different students of WSL? Besides we do not know this since you already stated there are no videos whatever of you fighting and your teachings are only behind closed doors to not upset others.

On seminars you teach false stuff to not upset after all.



LFJ said:


> And as Guy suggests, a good system allows for a variety of physical conditions and need not be changed for the practitioner to adapt within it. When PB was in a previous organization and lost his hand, he was basically told to give up... But then we know what he went on to accomplish under WSL.



Yes, WSL was a good teacher adapting VT to work for PB. But how can you expect PB to understand hand movement. It is like learning VT from a book.


----------



## KPM (May 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Thanks for this, it is a useful insight into the CSL approach.
> 
> If this is representative of Hawkins Cheung's approach then I have learned something new. Is HS a practitioner of HC system as well, or something different?



Guy, you really don't pay attention, do you?!!    And you are the one not long ago that claimed to have visited a CSL group and were speaking as if you knew what Alan Orr was all about!


----------



## LFJ (May 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Trolling again? If not the please quote where I said such a thing.



It was the quote I just responded to!

You said Guy wouldn't openly discuss the statement that WSLVT is the only coherent system (which is not a statement he made) because the result would be admitting training an inferior system.

That means you think WSLVT would be shown inferior if we opened up that discussion. Well, the discussion has been opened and you're welcome to comment on that thread.



> Why then does it differ between different students of WSL?



Some have openly made changes to the system for whatever reasons (e.g. GL, WKL). In some cases it's simply do to lack of training time and seriousness. But there are a number of students who learned directly from WSL over time and share the same understanding of the system.



> Yes, WSL was a good teacher adapting VT to work for PB. But how can you expect PB to understand hand movement. It is like learning VT from a book.



Hand movement?

VT is the way of the elbow. PB's condition doesn't require changing the system and he understands it just fine. You know he still has another hand, right? 

The previous organization he was in didn't understand VT and so didn't know how to help him.


----------



## Phobius (May 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> It was the quote I just responded to!
> 
> You said Guy wouldn't openly discuss the statement that WSLVT is the only coherent system (which is not a statement he made) because the result would be admitting training an inferior system.
> 
> That means you think WSLVT would be shown inferior if we opened up that discussion. Well, the discussion has been opened and you're welcome to comment on that thread.



I did not say such a thing in that quote, I said that claiming WSLVT is the only coherent VT system is not open discussion, it is making a statement. A statement that only has one possible outcome other than being accepted, and that is claiming it is wrong. Problem with your point of view here is that if it is not the only coherent system then other systems which are not identical to WSLVT may still be true VT as well. This means you might not be training the only true VT, which sounds in your view as blasphemy.






LFJ said:


> Some have openly made changes to the system for whatever reasons (e.g. GL, WKL). In some cases it's simply do to lack of training time and seriousness. But there are a number of students who learned directly from WSL over time and share the same understanding of the system.



Was not DP one of those close students that has been considered very talented in writing down and passing on WSL teachings without adding his own pieces to it. I know this is clearly not your opinion but still it is what I have heard from several places to be the case.





LFJ said:


> Hand movement?
> 
> VT is the way of the elbow. PB's condition doesn't require changing the system and he understands it just fine. You know he still has another hand, right?
> 
> The previous organization he was in didn't understand VT and so didn't know how to help him.



There is hand movement in VT as well, it does serve a point to utilize that hand and both of them in some cases. Saying VT is the way of the elbow is pointless because VT is the way of your feet, your body, your elbow, your joints, your structure. If you punch and dont care about your wrist or hands you will not be a good fighter no matter how well you align your elbows. 

PB has what I would call a good weapon because of his position and one I do not admire him. I do however admire what he has done with it.

But unless you are a close friend of PB and have the right to speak for him, lets leave him to comment himself on what he thinks, feels or does. But lacking a hand does make a huge difference, good or bad.


----------



## wckf92 (May 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Saying VT is the way of the elbow is pointless because VT is the way of your feet, your body, your elbow, your joints, your structure.



Well stated.


----------



## LFJ (May 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Problem with your point of view here is that if it is not the only coherent system then other systems which are not identical to WSLVT may still be true VT as well. This means you might not be training the only true VT, which sounds in your view as blasphemy.



Neither I nor Guy have claimed it is the only coherent system that exists. We are open to being shown another one. Until then, we're unable to examine any differences it might have with WSLVT.



> Was not DP one of those close students that has been considered very talented in writing down and passing on WSL teachings without adding his own pieces to it. I know this is clearly not your opinion but still it is what I have heard from several places to be the case.



The "WSL Blueprint" claim has done a lot, but it's just marketing.



> Saying VT is the way of the elbow is pointless because VT is the way of your feet, your body, your elbow, your joints, your structure.



Saying that is pointless. That's every martial art. 

The unique elbow concepts are the main thing that sets VT apart.



> But lacking a hand does make a huge difference, good or bad.



Sure, but it doesn't change the system at all, his ability to understand it or teach it to others. It's insulting for you to suggest that.


----------



## Phobius (May 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Neither I nor Guy have claimed it is the only coherent system that exists. We are open to being shown another one. Until then, we're unable to examine any differences it might have with WSLVT.



This is not true, every comment made is met with "It is not what we do in WSLVT and as such it is not coherent with the system". You are not seeking knowledge, you are seeking confirmation.





LFJ said:


> The "WSL Blueprint" claim has done a lot, but it's just marketing.



Bold statement. You care to take that fight with DP instead. I might even think it is damn near offensive statement. Especially coming from a student that may never have met WSL.





LFJ said:


> Saying that is pointless. That's every martial art.
> 
> The unique elbow concepts are the main thing that sets VT apart.



Still it was you who said hand movement has no part in VT, you are now leaving the subject. If you think it has no meaning then you are the one saying there is nothing but elbow in VT.





LFJ said:


> Sure, but it doesn't change the system at all, his ability to understand it or teach it to others. It's insulting for you to suggest that.



I do not doubt his skills or his talents. Nor his ability as a teacher, but to say his view is not different is just being ignorant to the truth. A system being unchanged by the people teaching it is a romantic view and one I do not share. You can not teach without correcting students, and you can not correct students without basing it on your own experience. As such a system is changed pending on who teaches it.


----------



## LFJ (May 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> every comment made is met with "It is not what we do in WSLVT and as such it is not coherent with the system".



Not even once. I've never called something incoherent simply because it's different. I actually detail what makes it incoherent. Then people get upset and make straw man attacks against me like this.



> Bold statement. You care to take that fight with DP instead.



Fight? lol



> Still it was you who said hand movement has no part in VT, you are now leaving the subject. If you think it has no meaning then you are the one saying there is nothing but elbow in VT.



I never said that.



> You can not teach without correcting students, and you can not correct students without basing it on your own experience. As such a system is changed pending on who teaches it.



It is clear you have not studied a coherent system and seen it stay intact through generations. I've seen it happen through 5 generations. Of course if your ideas are vague and open to interpretation it can change dramatically in 1 generation.


----------



## Phobius (May 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Not even once. I've never called something incoherent simply because it's different. I actually detail what makes it incoherent. Then people get upset and make straw man attacks against me like this.



You state systems are incoherent based on how you read a sentence. That is to state a system is incoherent. And if you read your posts most just say,  "it is not coherent because we train true VT stated by WSL and we do not do like you". That is not a discussion nor is anything I am saying straw man attacks.




LFJ said:


> Fight? lol



Not physical but fight about you stating he is lying or got it all wrong.





LFJ said:


> It is clear you have not studied a coherent system and seen it stay intact through generations. I've seen it happen through 5 generations. Of course if your ideas are vague and open to interpretation it can change dramatically in 1 generation.



5 generations. Given that you lived to see and train with YM, WSL and PB you also have a sifu trained by PB which in turned trained another student which in turn trained a student that became a sifu in his own right.

If you are that old then that is great for you but how come you follow WSLVT and PB and not just state you train VT pure and simple? You should know more than them by now.


----------



## LFJ (May 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> And if you read your posts most just say,  "it is not coherent because we train true VT stated by WSL and we do not do like you". That is not a discussion nor is anything I am saying straw man attacks.



Quotes or it's a straw man.

In this thread I explained why stepping in DCS is a system defect, putting the cart before the horse. I didn't say it's wrong just because I don't do it.



> Not physical but fight about you stating he is lying or got it all wrong.



I don't think he is lying. It's just that he had occasional guidance, not year-round instruction. Others who were more close knit over time share the same understanding of the system and DP differs.



> 5 generations. Given that you lived to see and train with YM, WSL and PB you also have a sifu trained by PB which in turned trained another student which in turn trained a student that became a sifu in his own right.
> 
> If you are that old then that is great for you but how come you follow WSLVT and PB and not just state you train VT pure and simple? You should know more than them by now.



Five generations counting WSL. The other four are all still living and training and the VT concepts and principles have not changed, including laterally within each generation.

That makes it very hard to believe it didn't come from YM or that YM taught dozens of drastically different versions of the same system all with different concepts and principles, many of which are not functional. That's just the "interpretation" gimmick.

VT is _very abstract _and clearly not everyone understood it, due partly to lack of exposure to the teacher and practical experience, and partly to YM's well-documented temperament and teaching style. He was more interested in having one good student than ten lousy ones. Not that only one turned out good, but most did not.

Believe what you want though.


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

> I said that claiming WSLVT is the only coherent VT system is not open discussion, it is making a statement. A statement that only has one possible outcome other than being accepted, and that is claiming it is wrong.



Nobody claimed this. You seem to be getting angry over nothing.


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> if you read your posts most just say, "it is not coherent because we train true VT stated by WSL and we do not do like you". That is not a discussion nor is anything I am saying straw man attacks.



This itself is a straw man.


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> every comment made is met with "It is not what we do in WSLVT and as such it is not coherent with the system". You are not seeking knowledge, you are seeking confirmation.



Generally inconsistencies are pointed out specifically. The above is not anything like the way discussions tend to go.


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

Phobius, how about addressing my specifi replies to you in post 78?

Thanks


----------



## geezer (May 8, 2016)

LFJ said:


> ...When PB was in a previous organization and lost his hand, he was basically told to give up... But then we know what he went on to accomplish under WSL.



This is something I admire tremendously about Philip Bayer, and it discredits that other organization. 

I do_ not_ admire the way some PB followers (you, Guy, Kevin G., et al.) are convinced _beyond all reason_ that they have the _one and only true VT_. That you and Guy are unable to see this is why further discussion is moot.


----------



## Phobius (May 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Phobius, how about addressing my specifi replies to you in post 78?
> 
> Thanks



You mean below points?

guy b.: There are many "true systems" in martial arts. Examples include BJJ, SPM, Hsing Yi/Yiquan, Ving Tsun. I am not arguing about who is the best fighter; I am interested in the system of VT- how it works.

My answer: There are more than a single "lineage" of BJJ. Same goes for Ving Tsun. Hsing Yi/Yiquan I do not know much about in terms of lineages and history so will not express any knowledge there. So saying any of them is "true" means either you accept all parts and lineages of them to be true... or it is an incomplete sentence.

guy b.: Some things are objectively better for the purpose to which they were designed than others. Not all MA systems are equivalent. I can't understand why discrimination in such things causes offence.

My answer: It does not cause offence except when you say WSLVT is the perfect system in terms of fighting according to YM's concepts and any change would make it worse. This is identical to saying your system is the only true system.

And finally I think the important point, you stated: I don't think I have said that VT is the only coherent system. I don't mind if someone points out a glaring problem with VT, I would just shift my training in another direction. This has happened to me more than once in my life training MA.

My answer:



guy b. said:


> VT is an internally coherent and consistent fighting system. Changing parts of the system does not result in equally valid expressions of that system. It just results in breaks and disconnects.
> 
> VT is what was taught by YM. I don't have much interest in other mainland systems





guy b. said:


> A coherent error correcting system like VT shouldn't change because of individual stylistic differences. Changing it for this kind of reason is a misunderstanding of what it is for. Someone's own interpretation of concepts is a change to the system, not a stylistic difference.





LFJ said:


> With a more coherent system having answers that render these workarounds unnecessary, and that isn't in direct conflict with fundamental principles of the system, I can honestly say what I train stands up to questioning and testing. Others not so much, but I'm supposed to accept their ideas because there are more people who hold them? That's an Appeal to the Majority.





LFJ said:


> That's not a fair judgement. It's not just a claim of superiority coming from nothing more than a biased attitude. It's an observation made by literally thousands who have switched lineages and noticed the same thing. Each step and element of WSLVT simply fit together and function better as a coherent development system. That's objective fact in all fairness.
> 
> I don't think certain other WC are a product of overhauling WC, more a matter of never getting WC. The main marker of this fact in the present is that they are contradictory and they do not work as fighting systems.





guy b. said:


> Nobody is claiming that WSL VT is the only wing chun that works, but it is one. Personally I have not seen another, but one may exist





LFJ said:


> The entire system is centered upon unique punching methods. He would've had to rework the entire system from step-1 if it were not, but his system is too coherent, when compared to the disjointed collection of ideas of many others, for that to be the likely case. This is the first observation people make when they come to WSLVT from other lineages. Every piece fits together in logical progression further developing the same idea to a simple end-goal.





guy b. said:


> I will take the version that is coherent, non-contradictory, and that works. Popularity is irrelevant. Source is irrelevant. I have not encountered other methods beside WSL VT that do this. I do not rule out the possibility that they could exist or that you and others could have experienced them. I can only work on my own experience.





guy b. said:


> From my perspective some other interpretations of wing chun do or believe things that I do not agree with. I think this is normal in wing chun due to the diversity of opinion. I don't think that WSL VT is a different interpretation; I think it is more like a complete and coherent understanding of the system vs less complete or more incoherent understandings. If WSL did this himself then perhaps he went above and beyond what YM taught; who knows and is it really relevant? What WSL thinking does though is to make things work that do not otherwise work, im my experience. But then I have not experienced all wing chun and so cannot speak about the individual experience of others. I am sure that there is other workable wing chun in the world and it is quite possible that everyone here has a workable system that I have not experienced.





guy b. said:


> Taking WSL VT as an example, YM showed WSL a lot of different things, some of which were more coherent than others. WSL then made a knife form based on his own ideas and those of YM. The WSL form is more dynamic and more attacking than the YM form. Of course neither tested their ideas with the knives in real knife fights with death as a possibility. And this is one of the few people that YM showed the knives to in their entirety.



You want more quotes? I have not even made any quote from this thread or the DCS discussion or anything of that sort.... basically because you can already just look back at those.


----------



## geezer (May 8, 2016)

_@Phobius: _Dude, you just made my day. Thanks! ....Now I can sign off and go do something more worthwhile than bicker on this forum.


----------



## Eric_H (May 8, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I just Googled the term "Kiu Shou" and came up many clips. That one was one of those. Could you put up a clip that may look like "Kiu Shou" for you? I don't speak Cantonese Chinese so I don't know what you are talking about.



Sorry, I can't find any Wing Chun ones. AFAIK, we're the only line that does it (though I keep looking!) and we're not putting out any clips anytime soon. 

Found a few examples from other arts though.
CLF:




Chi Sim (Hoffman's version):




Hung Gar:


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 8, 2016)

Thanks for the clips and I do like this moving step clip. So you are talking about "捆手(Kun Shou)". That's a new term to me. IMO, it's like "grip fight" and "partner drills" if I can understand your point. We do something similar.

- One tries to develop skill A while another tries to develop the counter for skill A.
- Both try to develop skill A and it's counter.
- One tries to develop skill A while another tries to develop skill B.
- ...

It's a good training between Chi Shou and free sparring.


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

> I do_ not_ admire the way some PB followers (you, Guy, Kevin G., et al.) are convinced _beyond all reason_ that they have the _one and only true VT_.



This is your reading things into what I wrote that are not there. I have never denied that others beyond WSL received the system from YM.


----------



## wckf92 (May 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> This is your reading things into what I wrote that are not there. I have never denied that others beyond WSL received the system from YM.



Guy, whether or not you see it or believe it...you (and LFJ's) posts come across in a certain way...as in elitist, arrogant, baiting, and condescending to others. Yes, just like two other PBWSL dudes from that other forum. In fact, whether you realize it or not, you guys are sounding kind of like HS and his bubble-like "reality". Just saying dude.

It's great if you two think or know for certain that you guys have the one true glass of Kool-Aid. So do lots of people...it's just they probably don't come on to internet forums like the PB folks do...proclaiming their exalted righteousness to the rest of the WC/WT/VT community (directly like KG and GH did...or indirectly/implied like you and LFJ do).

Time to go refill my beer glass...


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

Phobius said:


> There are more than a single "lineage" of BJJ. Same goes for Ving Tsun. Hsing Yi/Yiquan I do not know much about in terms of lineages and history so will not express any knowledge there. So saying any of them is "true" means either you accept all parts and lineages of them to be true... or it is an incomplete sentence.



There is only one BJJ- concepts and principles do not differ between teachers. When they are changed then you have something else. This happens quite often, bjj remains intact. 

There is only one Yiquan. It is a reformulation of the drills and teaching sequence of hsing yi to make it more obvious. Concepts and principles are unchanged.



> It does not cause offence except when you say WSLVT is the perfect system in terms of fighting according to YM's concepts and any change would make it worse. This is identical to saying your system is the only true system.



Nobody is saying that VT is the perfect system of fighting. On the contrary other systems exist and are very useful. What I am interested in is discussion of the VT system, how it works, why it is a coherent system, why contradictions in the system cause problems, etc.



> And finally I think the important point, you stated: I don't think I have said that VT is the only coherent system. I don't mind if someone points out a glaring problem with VT, I would just shift my training in another direction. This has happened to me more than once in my life training MA.



None of those quotes you supplied contradicts what I said. Again you are reading too much into what I write based on what appears to be emotion


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> proclaiming their exalted righteousness to the rest of the WC/WT/VT community (directly like KG and GH did...or indirectly/implied like you and LFJ do).



The thing is though that I am not doing this. I do not deny that others may have received VT from YM, or that other wing chun systems function in a different coherent and non-contradictory way despite changes or non YM lineage. People seem to take the desire to look at system coherence as an attack on their particular system, or to see questioning as rude. Everything seems to be made personal when there is no intent for it to be this way.

Every time someone highlights a particular quote from me or LFJ that they have problems with, the problem is based upon reading things into the statement that are not there, or misunderstanding it. That is a fact. Nobody admits this when it is pointed out, they just get more angry. Strange.


----------



## guy b. (May 8, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> you (and LFJ's) posts come across in a certain way...as in elitist, arrogant, baiting, and condescending to others



I can recommend 3 bits of advice that might help:

1. Be more logical, less emotional. Address points not feelings.
2. Tone is subjective, ignore whatever your emotion is telling you about it.
3. Address each post as if history didn't exist


----------



## KPM (May 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> The thing is though that I am not doing this. I do not deny that others may have received VT from YM, or that other wing chun systems function in a different coherent and non-contradictory way despite changes or non YM lineage..



If you truly believe this is true, then you lack personal insight and you really should take a step back and examine how you post in this forum.


----------



## KPM (May 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I can recommend 3 bits of advice that might help:
> 
> 1. Be more logical, less emotional. Address points not feelings.
> 2. Tone is subjective, ignore whatever your emotion is telling you about it.
> 3. Address each post as if history didn't exist



I will recommend just one bit of advice for you.  Go back to my previous question and give it some serious consideration.  Why do you think that the only threads here that degenerate to a "slugfest" of some sort are the ones that you and LFJ participate in?  Given the number of members here, it suggests to me that it isn't because EVERYONE is simply misunderstanding you and misinterpreting you.  The logical conclusion is that you come across in a certain way.  You obviously lack personal insight into this.  You really should take a step back and seriously consider this question.


----------



## wckf92 (May 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I can recommend 3 bits of advice that might help:
> 
> 1. Be more logical, less emotional. Address points not feelings.
> 2. Tone is subjective, ignore whatever your emotion is telling you about it.
> 3. Address each post as if history didn't exist



Actually, it is simpler, easier, more direct, more efficient, and more coherent, and less abstract... to just do my best to take what you post with a very small grain of salt... 
To me, you and HS are lumped into the same category...too cool for school. 
Peace bro.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 8, 2016)

I'm on vacation right now, and pretty mellow from the sun and the SCUBA diving. But you guys are harshing my mellow.
Please. Put an end to the personal shots and insults. Now. Before the moderation team is forced to do it for you.
Yes, this is written fairly casual. Nonetheless, it is a warning that you really really want to take seriously.,


----------



## dudewingchun (May 8, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Thanks for this, it is a useful insight into the CSL approach.
> 
> If this is representative of Hawkins Cheung's approach then I have learned something new. Is HS a practitioner of HC system as well, or something different?



Im not too sure what % of material is Hawkins,Robert Chu , Hendrik and other lineages like Yuen Kay San in CSL. I just know its a system rather then a style and it works good for me in combat so I am happy.


----------



## LFJ (May 9, 2016)

Phobius said:


> And finally I think the important point, you stated: I don't think I have said that VT is the only coherent system. I don't mind if someone points out a glaring problem with VT, I would just shift my training in another direction. This has happened to me more than once in my life training MA.
> 
> My answer:



Not a single one of the posts you quoted were saying VT is the only coherent system. As Guy said, you are reading things into them that are not there.

What we have said is basically two points.

First, that WSLVT is a coherent system. We've explained in detail all over this forum exactly how and why. It has not been refuted, but you are welcome to give us your thoughts on the "Deficiencies in WSL teachings" thread.

Second, that most mainstream WC systems we've seen are riddled with problems. Again, we don't just make that claim because they differ from what we do. We've explained in detail all over this forum exactly how and why. In most cases, rather than logical refutations, we just get emotional responses.

I understand that emotions run high when discussing a system that you love. I've been put in the same position and my knee jerk reaction was to defend what I trained. But at a certain point, you have to really consider the problems that are raised and adjust your thinking if warranted.

Both Guy and I have done that before. Yet we are mocked as "true believers". Ironically we would never see any of you post a thread called "Deficiencies in [your lineage] teachings" because you just don't want to hear it...


----------



## LFJ (May 9, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> In fact, whether you realize it or not, you guys are sounding kind of like HS and his bubble-like "reality". Just saying dude.



Well, here's a huge difference for instance...

HS thinks no one else understands action and reaction forces, and when people say they know it and that it's basic day-one stuff, he says "_always the 'I have it too' line_". But he says this with no proof that others don't indeed have it too. That is arrogance and condescension.

I've said many don't understand the very abstract nature of the VT system. Some say they do understand it, yet they prove they don't in their following sentences.

For example, KPM will post this picture below of WSL and say it shows _taan-da_, a sort of forward-lateral deflection with simultaneous punch. That's literal, application thinking. If I ask the majority of mainstream WC people what they see, I will get the same response.

None of them see the abstract because they don't know what they're looking at. They imagine being stood between an opponent's arms and doing a shifting _taan-da_ drill or application, a block and punch, or maybe outside gate _taan-da_, but always a direct application idea against an opponent.

That is proof that they haven't learned the abstract and are dealing in literal application of shapes.


----------



## KPM (May 9, 2016)

_For example, KPM will post this picture below of WSL and say it shows taan-da, a sort of forward-lateral deflection with simultaneous punch. That's literal, application thinking. If I ask the majority of mainstream WC people what they see, I will get the same response._

----And yet....you have said in the past that Tan Da is not applied directly as in other lineages. If I remember correctly, I believe you stated that there is no Tan Da in WSLVT!   But I posted photos of both WSL and Barry Lee applying Tan Da....directly!   You and Guy have made many assertions that just don't hold up.   And then you turn around and claim to be using logic and making points that no one can refute.   But that is only because you choose to follow your own logic and not acknowledge anyone else's.   You say you have pointed out deficiencies in everyone else's Wing Chun that people want to ignore and instead give you emotional responses.  But most of the time this is because the people involved disagree with your belief that it is a "deficiency" simply because it doesn't match what you do.  Things get emotional when you start making assertions and completely ignore counterpoints and arguments that other people make.  I think that, like Guy, you lack personal insight to a significant degree.   You seem to want to blame the problems we've been having here on the idea that you and Guy are simply pointing out how terrible everyone else's Wing Chun is, and its not your fault if everyone gets offended over the fact.  But its not a  fact.  It is simply your opinion, and to assert it as fact and effectively ignore what anyone else has to say is offensive and incites people as we have seen over and over in these threads.   Unfortunately, it seems that the moderator is not paying attention to content.   He simply scans for keywords and doesn't say anything until someone posts a "bad word."  The content of the thread that actually incited the "bad word" seems to be irrelevant.   But it is what it is.


----------



## LFJ (May 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> ----And yet....you have said in the past that Tan Da is not applied directly as in other lineages. If I remember correctly, I believe you stated that there is no Tan Da in WSLVT!   But I posted photos of both WSL and Barry Lee applying Tan Da....directly!



Correct. What is in that picture is not a _taan-da_ application. 

And of the two other photos you posted of WSL, one was a magazine cover, not a tutorial, and the other was not _taan-sau_ at all.

I have no knowledge of what BL's VT is like, so can't say.



> You say you have pointed out deficiencies in everyone else's Wing Chun that people want to ignore and instead give you emotional responses.  But most of the time this is because the people involved disagree with your belief that it is a "deficiency" simply because it doesn't match what you do.



That has never been my argument. That's the out you guys give yourselves.

Any time I've called something a deficiency or similar noun, I've given detailed explanation of how and why. And it has not once been just because it doesn't match what I do, but because it contradicts established principles or is simply impractical.


----------



## wckf92 (May 9, 2016)

I also keep in mind that Guy and LFJ have apparently escaped from a previous version of WC/VT/WT to their current ___WSLVT...and are happy and content. That is a good thing.

I think there are four scenario's of chunners:
1) people who train in only one lineage, ever.
2) people who trained in one lineage and discovered a "better" interpretation.
3) people who train in a lineage, experienced a "better" one, but stayed in their current lineage.
4) people who wander the WC/VT/WT landscape, learning what they can, regardless of lineage loyalty or whatever.

I have only trained in one lineage, but have done my best over the years to seek out and experience how other lineages and schools train...and have yet to experience one that would "make me want to change".

I think a majority of the tension on forums like these always stems from semantics and definitions.

Wouldn't it be interesting if there was a private internet forum where ALL members must "converse" via video clips to enhance conversation and understanding. NO, not the HS 20min stuff...just quick <5min vids. Hmmmm......  (of course, then we'd run into the issue of 'my stuff is not for public consumption etc). Ya just can't win!


----------



## LFJ (May 9, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I think a majority of the tension on forums like these always stems from semantics and definitions.



Ha! Like "bridge" for example? 

People have defined "bridge" as both landing a punch and having a punch blocked!

Utter opposites!  How convenient...


----------



## wckf92 (May 9, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Ha! Like "bridge" for example?
> 
> People have defined "bridge" as both landing a punch and having a punch blocked!
> 
> Utter opposites!  How convenient...



Perhaps.
But, what if they meant it more "abstractly"...simply meaning "contact"?


----------



## LFJ (May 9, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Perhaps.
> But, what if they meant it more "abstractly"...simply meaning "contact"?



Then them getting punched by me is a bridge too, and they're asking for it by "seeking the bridge".


----------



## Phobius (May 9, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Then them getting punched by me is a bridge too, and they're asking for it by "seeking the bridge".



A fight does not end when being punched, and not all punches are damaging.

Besides, seeking the bridge does not mean you seek ANY bridge.

Oh btw it is the name of the second  form that does also teach what should be if getting punched.


----------



## geezer (May 9, 2016)

I don't really care too much about the _semantics_ involved. So if somebody else means something different by the term "bridge", hopefully they will explain their thinking so we can have a meaningful conversation. It really doesn't matter if I normally use the term differently in my lineage.

So to continue with the "bridge" example, we just use the term to describe when our arm(s) touch our opponent's arm(s) creating contact. The bridge may be open or closed. Since the general idea is to hit the other guy, being able to cross the bridge is obviously important. Having them cross it and hit us is important to avoid.

Anyway that's about it. Pretty basic and definitely not worth arguing about. If others have a different, deeper meaning, that's great. We are here to share, right?


----------



## Phobius (May 9, 2016)

geezer said:


> I don't really care too much about the _semantics_ involved. So if somebody else means something different by the term "bridge", hopefully they will explain their thinking so we can have a meaningful conversation. It really doesn't matter if I normally use the term differently in my lineage.
> 
> So to continue with the "bridge" example, we just use the term to describe when our arm(s) touch our opponent's arm(s) creating contact. The bridge may be open or closed. Since the general idea is to hit the other guy, being able to cross the bridge is obviously important. Having them cross it and hit us is important to avoid.
> 
> Anyway that's about it. Pretty basic and definitely not worth arguing about. If others have a different, deeper meaning, that's great. We are here to share, right?



Pretty much sums it up well how much I care about the definition of bridge. Which is why I am open to change my definition if I find something better... and if it will at some point matter.


----------



## guy b. (May 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> If you truly believe this is true, then you lack personal insight and you really should take a step back and examine how you post in this forum.



I think that basically I annoy people because I do not take a relativist aproach to conversation. I don't generally say things just to make people feel better, and I try not to hold conradictory beliefs for the sake of politeness. I don't think that truth is subjective and that "it's all good". I think that some people perceive the resulting lack of personal validation I tend to give as a direct attack on them and what they believe. It isn't.

I am agnostic about other people's VT. I don't assume it is funtional, but neither do I assume it is not. All I can do to find out about it is converse with them.


----------



## guy b. (May 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> Why do you think that the only threads here that degenerate to a "slugfest" of some sort are the ones that you and LFJ participate in?



I believe I understand why people hate detailed questioning without the safety net of friendship or mutual validation beforehand. They are worried that it is a personal attack and that the intention is to make them look stupid or otherwise hurt their reputation. The problem is that with the validation comes an avoidance of truth and a lack of willingness to press issues that are difficult. Since you all just words on a page to me I really don't care about this kind of thing. I have no real life here. But for some of you I understand that this is not the case. I do understand the problem, but I think the best solution is to convince you that there is no harm in anonymous talking about what you really believe, rather than compromising the quality of discussion and avoiding questions that might offend


----------



## Phobius (May 9, 2016)

We can not find out what works and what does not over a forum. Those of us who might think so need probably to fight more. And it is not intended to be offensive, just my side of the truth. Text has never taught anyone to fight.

Only thing the forum can give us is areas for which we can explore ourselves within our own terms.


----------



## KPM (May 9, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I believe I understand why people hate detailed questioning without the safety net of friendship or mutual validation beforehand. They are worried that it is a personal attack and that the intention is to make them look stupid or otherwise hurt their reputation. The problem is that with the validation comes an avoidance of truth and a lack of willingness to press issues that are difficult. Since you all just words on a page to me I really don't care about this kind of thing. I have no real life here. But for some of you I understand that this is not the case. I do understand the problem, but I think the best solution is to convince you that there is no harm in anonymous talking about what you really believe, rather than compromising the quality of discussion and avoiding questions that might offend



Utter and total BS!


----------



## guy b. (May 9, 2016)

Phobius said:


> We can not find out what works and what does not over a forum.



We can certainly test which ideas are consistent and non contradictory by talking about them. I am not trying to learn how to fight here.


----------



## guy b. (May 9, 2016)

KPM said:


> Utter and total BS!



Why would you say that?


----------



## LFJ (May 9, 2016)

geezer said:


> So if somebody else means something different by the term "bridge", hopefully they will explain their thinking so we can have a meaningful conversation.



Right, so, that was attempted in the past... When trying to get a clear explanation we kept chasing around a moving goal post. 

In the end the term referred to two utterly opposite things; landing a punch and having a punch blocked, both hit and miss, which reduces it to a meaningless WC buzz word.

It appears some people using it aren't even sure what it means. 

Like the statement below. Well, what does your system say? If it is clearly defined by your system and matches the fighting strategy, why would you change it? Unless you are unclear yourself...



Phobius said:


> I am open to change my definition if I find something better...


----------



## Phobius (May 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Like the statement below. Well, what does your system say? If it is clearly defined by your system and matches the fighting strategy, why would you change it? Unless you are unclear yourself...



You are talking nonsense now. I know what it means to me. But I have been taught it in mind and body. I feel the concepts and forms, expressing them in English I can leave to forum warriors and philosophers. 

Bridge is a name that can change definition in text without changing meaning. 

Now you may continue to freely think you can grasp how things work by reading a forum post and visualizing in your mind but personally I find that to be fooling oneself or similar to fairytale.


----------



## Phobius (May 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> We can certainly test which ideas are consistent and non contradictory by talking about them. I am not trying to learn how to fight here.



Actually you are. You want to grasp how well they would feel in a fight.

If you can't know that you don't even know if you are capable of understanding what was written. 

I should not have to have this conversation with you, you should know this by now.


----------



## Phobius (May 10, 2016)

Oh and if moderators are reading this. The thread is now so derailed it can't even possibly get back on track. 

Just so you know.


----------



## guy b. (May 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Actually you are. You want to grasp how well they would feel in a fight.
> 
> If you can't know that you don't even know if you are capable of understanding what was written.
> 
> I should not have to have this conversation with you, you should know this by now.



You have taken the wrong meaning from my post. I do not wish to understand how (for example) your idea of bridging would feel in a fight, whatever that means. I am interested in discussing the system of VT. Systems are by definition systematised approached to fighting, and can therefore be discussed in terms of coherence, contradiction, meaning, intention and other abstract ideas


----------



## Phobius (May 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You have taken the wrong meaning from my post. I do not wish to understand how (for example) your idea of bridging would feel in a fight, whatever that means. I am interested in discussing the system of VT. Systems are by definition systematised approached to fighting, and can therefore be discussed in terms of coherence, contradiction, meaning, intention and other abstract ideas



And you are missing my point. You want to discuss something in English which is trained and spoken about in native languages. 

Besides, the coherent system is not trained or learnt from a book. It is taught using words mixed with drills and feeling. You believe to judge a lineage based on how you do your WSLPBVT mixed with text you read on forum. No wonder fighting like that stops being coherent, anyone training a while would quickly realize what you do wrong there.


----------



## guy b. (May 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> And you are missing my point. You want to discuss something in English which is trained and spoken about in native languages



You didn't say anything about native languages in your last post so hard to see how I would have understood this point, if it was the one you intended to make. But anyway, if you find it hard to discuss your system in English then sure that is a problem which might hinder understanding.



> Besides, the coherent system is not trained or learnt from a book. It is taught using words mixed with drills and feeling. You believe to judge a lineage based on how you do your WSLPBVT mixed with text you read on forum. No wonder fighting like that stops being coherent, anyone training a while would quickly realize what you do wrong there.



I am not seeking to judge, merely to understand. It is quite possible to discuss many things about a coherent MA system without training together. Especially if all participants in the discussion train in similar systems. I am interested in ideas which can be communicated by words.


----------



## Phobius (May 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You didn't say anything about native languages in your last post so hard to see how I would have understood this point, if it was the one you intended to make. But anyway, if you find it hard to discuss your system in English then sure that is a problem which might hinder understanding.



I just said my definition is open to change, and I replied as an agreement to geezer. 

I do not have a hard time expressing myself in English. But I do have a philosophical mind which means that I can get almost any definition to work with or opposite to my belief. Got my philosophy teacher hating me and giving me highest grade in pure disbelief. 

So I put little effort in finding a good way to explain abstract terms. My sifu can but I do not wish to share his definition nor is it in English. 




guy b. said:


> I am not seeking to judge, merely to understand. It is quite possible to discuss many things about a coherent MA system without training together. Especially if all participants in the discussion train in similar systems. I am interested in ideas which can be communicated by words.



That is the problem, we can't know if we train in similar systems yet because none of us can communicate well enough.


----------



## LFJ (May 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> That is the problem, we can't know if we train in similar systems yet because none of us can communicate well enough.



Thing is they should be similar enough if they are what YM taught. They are supposed to be the same system.

I met with a Leung Sheung lineage guy today. That has got to be one of the least similar systems to what I train that I've ever seen. Very far removed in concept and application. Neat what they do when someone is cooperating... I would be shocked if YM was teaching that stuff though.


----------



## guy b. (May 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Thing is they should be similar enough if they are what YM taught. They are supposed to be the same system.
> 
> I met with a Leung Sheung lineage guy today. That has got to be one of the least similar systems to what I train that I've ever seen. Very far removed in concept and application. Neat what they do when someone is cooperating... I would be shocked if YM was teaching that stuff though.



I have never seen Leung Sheung system. What are the main differences?


----------



## guy b. (May 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I just said my definition is open to change, and I replied as an agreement to geezer.
> 
> I do not have a hard time expressing myself in English. But I do have a philosophical mind which means that I can get almost any definition to work with or opposite to my belief. Got my philosophy teacher hating me and giving me highest grade in pure disbelief.
> 
> So I put little effort in finding a good way to explain abstract terms. My sifu can but I do not wish to share his definition nor is it in English.



I don't really understand what you are talking about here, sorry.


----------



## LFJ (May 10, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I have never seen Leung Sheung system. What are the main differences?



Everything... is the main difference.

It's really bizarre. Very low sunk stance, sometimes 100/0 weight distribution, with every arm action done very low, even punches.

When explaining his DCS I was on top with _fuk-sau _and very slowly he left contact under my arm and was expecting me to do something, not sure what. I said I need do nothing and would just punch straight. Then he said he would allow that and receive the force with his _bong-sau_ that was too low and when raised led my fist straight to his mouth/nose. I said right into your face? and it didn't seem to bother him... Bizarre like I said. 

He then said if something goes too high for his _bong_ he would use his other hand to inside _paak_. I thought we were still doing DCS, but maybe he was talking about other situations.

Then switching sides, after I did the vertical palm he asked me to start doing _bong-sau_ for no apparent reason and I guess he was going to do something to it. I don't know. I couldn't really follow what he was trying to do.

It was all very slow motion, energy trick stuff he was trying to get me to play along with. But to do that I would be forced to keep my arm very low and chase his and _bong-sau_ nothing for no reason. That is tearing at my heart, you know, having been trained to punch the way I have.


----------



## wckf92 (May 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Everything... is the main difference.
> 
> It's really bizarre. Very low sunk stance, sometimes 100/0 weight distribution, with every arm action done very low, even punches.
> 
> ...



had similar experience with LS guys before. the entire time I was like 'wtf'? I can't imagine how they get functionality out of that. Oh well.


----------



## wckf92 (May 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> When explaining his DCS I was on top with _fuk-sau _and very slowly he *left contact* under my arm



I think Moy Yat's line does this also... very bizarre indeed!


----------



## LFJ (May 10, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I was like 'wtf'?



That was literally all that was going through my mind!



> I can't imagine how they get functionality out of that. Oh well.



Right, I couldn't gather much either. He said it was just a tool, but for what I'm not sure. I think it is just fun for them to play that stuff together.


----------



## wckf92 (May 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That was literally all that was going through my mind!
> 
> 
> 
> Right, I couldn't gather much either. He said it was just a tool, but for what I'm not sure. I think it is just fun for them to play that stuff together.



Were his knees REALLY close together as he "clamped a goat"?


----------



## LFJ (May 10, 2016)

Yup, one of the "five points".

He said when students asked YM about problems in fighting he would point at the five points written on the wall because the problem must be in one of them.


----------



## geezer (May 10, 2016)

Five points? Found this. Check the "Structural Guidelines" about half way down the page:

1st  Set – Siu Nim Tao


----------



## Marnetmar (May 10, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Everything... is the main difference.
> 
> It's really bizarre. *Very low sunk stance*, sometimes 100/0 weight distribution, *with every arm action done very low*, even punches.
> 
> ...



Super low stance...was it one of Kenneth Chung's people? From what I can tell he made some...err...changes since the 1970's. For a while I'd been wondering why the hell this set is so much different from ours.

I don't doubt Ken himself is still very good but after doing some digging I'm 99% sure he's not teaching the original system and I don't think his students even spar anymore.

I think it's fair to say that Ng Wah Sum's and Eddie Chong's early (hell, even present) stuff is more representative of what Leung Sheung _actually _taught than whatever Ken teaches now. Ng Wah Sum learned from LS and Eddie learned from Ken, and from what I can tell, Ng Wah Sum and Eddie are far more similar to each other than Eddie is (presumably) to Ken, and that's taking Eddie's blending of Pan Nam and Bak Mei into his LS stuff into account.



wckf92 said:


> Were his knees REALLY close together as he "clamped a goat"?



If it was one of Ken's people, most likely.


----------



## Phobius (May 10, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Super low stance...was it one of Kenneth Chung's people? From what I can tell he made some...err...changes since the 1970's. For a while I'd been wondering why the hell this set is so much different from ours.



Did you ever come up with any idea why it differs to such an extent? And it even sounds like it can be dangerous to your limbs in the long run.


----------



## Marnetmar (May 10, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Did you ever come up with any idea why it differs to such an extent? And it even sounds like it can be dangerous to your limbs in the long run.



No clue, really. My best guess is that it had something to do with when he went back to Leung Sheung in the mid-70's and during that time something happened that inspired Ken to take a softer, less combative route.

Early period:



> Ken was emphasizing more on the "take no hostage" type of Wing Chun. We had a very aggressive style with main focus on speed and power. Ken loved working with the big guys as he could shuffle them around like a bowling pin. As I recall, everyone in class always had cut lips because we seldom held back on punches. One question most often asked was "Ken, why don’t you open a real school to make Wing Chun famous?"



1980's:



> Ken left US in mid 1970’s and returned back to Hong Kong. He continued to study under Master Leung Sheung and did not start teaching in US again until 1982. I noticed a considerable difference in his style when I rejoined in 1983. Even though the forms were the same as before, Ken was a *lot* more *softer*. He emphasized more on intention and position, rather than speed and power. However, his power was a lot more subtle and deep. Instead of focusing on striking, our goal now is to control the opponent and listen to his energy. Only with this approach, one can truly find the right path to Wing Chun. Anybody can claim he/she knows Wing Chun by learning the forms or doing Chi-Sau. The true artist is one who can intercept the opponent energy and capitalize on it. I have returned to Hong Kong several times and worked out at a number of Wing Chun schools. To date, I have yet found anyone that could match Ken’s ability to absorb/divert the opponent energy.



Source

Since then he's had some contact with some of the Chen family, and while I don't think he ever learned Tai Chi, I think he borrowed some of their thinking for his WC.

As for the stance, I think LS _*was *_known for emphasizing Kim Sut but Ken's the only one who really passed it on. From what I know, I don't think it would damage your knees since it's more to do with your knees coming _forward _naturally with the direction of the toes rather than literally clamping, but don't quote me on that since it's not really something we do to that extent.

Now, doing it like THIS on the other hand will probably kill your knees:


----------



## dudewingchun (May 10, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> No clue, really. My best guess is that it had something to do with when he went back to Leung Sheung in the mid-70's and during that time something happened that inspired Ken to take a softer, less combative route.
> 
> Early period:
> 
> ...



A bit unrelated. Does anyone have any background knowledge of the 'Sifu" in that picture. Goes under the name Yun hoi or Zopa gyatso. Iv seen people say he is not a student of Sum Nung at all, but if you go check his page he very clearly promotes Sum Nung and Yuen kay san. It also has a very anti Ip man vibe to it.


----------



## wckf92 (May 10, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> A bit unrelated. Does anyone have any background knowledge of the 'Sifu" in that picture. Goes under the name Yun hoi or Zopa gyatso. Iv seen people say he is not a student of Sum Nung at all, but if you go check his page he very clearly promotes Sum Nung and Yuen kay san. It also has a very anti Ip man vibe to it.



Perhaps a topic for another thread(?)...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 10, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Now, doing it like THIS on the other hand will probably kill your knees:



If you use your right foot to step behind his right knee joint, that will really kill his knee.


----------



## geezer (May 10, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you use your right foot to step behind his right knee joint, that will really kill his knee.



...or you just hang back and encourage him so that he kills his own knees while you watch!


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 10, 2016)

If you stand like this, any wrestler with just 1 month of training will be able to take you down by "double legs". Your knees are just "too close to each other".


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 10, 2016)

geezer said:


> ...or you just hang back and encourage him so that he kills his own knees while you watch!


Agree! That picture violate a very basic CMA principle and that is "never move your knee to pass your toe".


----------



## Marnetmar (May 10, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> It also has a very anti Ip man vibe to it.



I'm going to start calling this "Wing Chun Hipsterism".



Kung Fu Wang said:


> Agree! That picture violate a very basic CMA principle and that is "never move your knee to pass your toe".



I've never heard of this but it makes sense, what's the origin? And does it entail having the knee passing over *on top of* the toe or just moving past the toe horizontally like the guy in the picture?


----------



## dudewingchun (May 10, 2016)

Having knees and hips locked is no good for real life fighting imo . We start in a neutral 50/50 stance but we also adjust it according to the pressure we are receiving during combat/training/ sparring or whatever. I see a lot of lineages focus on if its 50/50 20/80 0/100 etc as if that means you are always in that weight distribution no matter what is happening or changing during a fight


----------



## Marnetmar (May 10, 2016)

The idea of having to "lock" into a fixed position at all times is frankly ludicrous. Sure, there are some basic points of structure that need to be followed for WC's particular toolset to work in the first place, but an idea behind WC is that a tool can turn into another tool, and then another, and then another, on the spot. You can't do that if you've locked into a pre-determined position.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (May 10, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> I've never heard of this but it makes sense, what's the origin?


It's emphasized in CMA styles such as Taiji, long fist, Baji, praying mantis, ...

When your knee move outside of your "base", you will put extra pressure on your knee which is not good. If your knee move to the side of your foot, that can be even worse.


----------



## guy b. (May 11, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> If you use your right foot to step behind his right knee joint, that will really kill his knee.



It is generally a training stance in VT. It usually isn't the plan to stand like that when fighting.


----------



## LFJ (May 11, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> ...was it one of Kenneth Chung's people? From what I can tell he made some...err...changes since the 1970's.



Yes. I guess that is a bit of a relief, but I still have no idea what LS might have actually taught then.



> I think it's fair to say that Ng Wah Sum's and Eddie Chong's early (hell, even present) stuff is more representative of what Leung Sheung _actually _taught than whatever Ken teaches now.



Don't know anything about NWS, but is this the same EC in this video?

I saw that a few years ago and skipped through parts of it. Saw him explaining the double _faak-sau_ in SNT as finger strikes to the eyes of two guys coming up from your sides, and some other funny things. That's when I stopped watching.

I'm hoping that was just nonsense for the video? WSL did a tutorial video that has intentional errors and some stupid stuff put it in too, but nothing that obvious.


----------



## Marnetmar (May 11, 2016)

I'd assume so seeing as I was never taught something like that and he also leans back a bit, etc. in those videos.

The "strike the guy on the left, strike the guy on the right" thing in SLT makes it pretty obvious as well.


----------



## Juany118 (May 29, 2016)

Regardless of the specifics of Chi-Sau, I think it's success starts with the attitude of the Novice.  I see a lot of people new to Chi-Sau take what I think is the wrong attitude.  The guy across from them gives em a wack.  You can literally see the facial expression change, now it's about wacking back.  They do and it becomes a loop.  Now that is where you should be eventually but as a new person to the Chi-Sau imo your first thought shouldn't be "I need to wack em back", it can't be about ego, your first thought should be "hmmm what did I do wrong there?" If that means not taking an opening so you can more closely watch what you are doing wrong (in the event you repeat the mistake) it will help you in the long run.


----------



## Marnetmar (Jun 5, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Regardless of the specifics of Chi-Sau, I think it's success starts with the attitude of the Novice.  I see a lot of people new to Chi-Sau take what I think is the wrong attitude.  The guy across from them gives em a wack.  You can literally see the facial expression change, now it's about wacking back.  They do and it becomes a loop.  Now that is where you should be eventually but as a new person to the Chi-Sau imo your first thought shouldn't be "I need to wack em back", it can't be about ego, your first thought should be "hmmm what did I do wrong there?" If that means not taking an opening so you can more closely watch what you are doing wrong (in the event you repeat the mistake) it will help you in the long run.



To add to this, it's bad training for both partners.

99% of the time, if you're just trying to tag the other guy, you're not actually doing anything that could possibly hurt an attacker because the proper opportunity to land a blow hasn't actually arisen yet. And it just provides a bunch of unnecessary frustration for the other partner, especially if he's new and has no clue what's even going on.

At certain times it has its place to show somebody where their openings are, but if both partners are playing that same game then it stops being a learning experience and just becomes useless.


----------



## KPM (Jun 6, 2016)

^^^^^  Exactly!  I see Wing Chun as being about "controlling while hitting."  If you are playing Chi Sau and are hitting without having established a position of good control, then you are defeating the purpose of practicing Chi Sau.


----------

