# WSLVT



## KPM

This was the video that got me interested and involved in Wing Chun many many years ago.  I've always thought it was a great video.  And as I've learned more and more about Wing Chun through the years, this still looks to me like pretty standard Ip Man lineage Wing Chun.  By "standard" I mean not departing to any great measure from what other Ip Man people do.  But WSL himself looks better than average on this video!  

But some have said that WSL purposefully altered things in this video and it is not really representative of the "real" WSLVT.    So would someone from WSLVT lineage be willing to point out to the rest of us what is "wrong" in this video and what is different from what WSL "really" taught?

Thanks!


----------



## wingchun100

I don't understand why someone would put out a video to showcase their lineage, but then not teach what was in that video...so I am curious for an answer myself.


----------



## Juany118

wingchun100 said:


> I don't understand why someone would put out a video to showcase their lineage, but then not teach what was in that video...so I am curious for an answer myself.


Here is the thing.  There is a trend among some of the more traditional TCMA Masters to "edit" what they do in demonstrations.  Often it's omitting somethings, sometimes it's inserting an error.  So sometimes people might just reflexively fall back on this when they believe they were taught something different than the evidence seems to indicate.

The problem is that this excuse ignores Occam's Razor.  The problem with addressing the excuse though is that it creates an unassailable wall.  When one side doesn't need proof, only a fiat statement, all the evidence in the world won't sway them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Here is the thing.  There is a trend among some of the more traditional TCMA Masters to "edit" what they do in demonstrations.  Often it's omitting somethings, sometimes it's inserting an error.  So sometimes people might just reflexively fall back on this when they believe they were taught something different than the evidence seems to indicate.
> 
> The problem is that this excuse ignores Occam's Razor.  The problem with addressing the excuse though is that it creates an unassailable wall.  When one side doesn't need proof, only a fiat statement, all the evidence in the world won't sway them.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



Lol Occam's razor. 

This is easily countered simply by experiencing the system- it isn't a secret. WSL VT is not what is shown in that clip. Instead it is a fairly cheesy promotional video, designed not to offend anyone, and containing a low signal to noise ratio.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Lol Occam's razor.
> 
> This is easily countered simply by experiencing the system- it isn't a secret. WSL VT is not what is shown in that clip. Instead it is a fairly cheesy promotional video, designed not to offend anyone, and containing a low signal to noise ratio.



The problem is there is actually, in my experience, more than one WSLVT and the two camps I am familiar with argue all the time.  I have two friends from College who still study it.  One in Europe (started in Germany) and was a student of Sifu Phillip Bayer for a time, the other in Australia who studied under Sifu David Peterson.  They both will debate the finer points not just about "what is WC/VT/WT but "what is WSLVT."

If two WSLVT students can't agree I fall back to Occam's Razor and also the scientific method.  If I have verifiable evidence that says X and someone says "no it's Y" then I needverifiable evidence that the evidence stating Y is the truth.  Simply saying "no it's Y, that video(s) is intentionally flawed" without providing such evidence is a fiat statement.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> The problem is there is actually, in my experience, more than one WSLVT and the two camps I am familiar with argue all the time.  I have two friends from College who still study it.  One in Europe (started in Germany) and was a student of Sifu Phillip Bayer for a time, the other in Australia who studied under Sifu David Peterson.  They both will debate the finer points not just about "what is WC/VT/WT but "what is WSLVT."
> 
> If two WSLVT students can't agree I fall back to Occam's Razor and also the scientific method.  If I have verifiable evidence that says X and someone says "no it's Y" then I needverifiable evidence that the evidence stating Y is the truth.  Simply saying "no it's Y, that video(s) is intentionally flawed" without providing such evidence is a fiat statement.



David Peterson doesn't have a full understanding of the system (by far). The video is not the system. Please feel free to take it or leave it.

What does Occam's razor tell you here?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> David Peterson doesn't have a full understanding of the system (by far). The video is not the system. Please feel free to take it or leave it.
> 
> What does Occam's razor tell you here?


Well the thing is Occam's razor shows me that on the official list, sanctioned by WSL himself, I see David Peterson along side Phillip Bayer.  I then also see Peterson along side many a seminar and video with Peterson being WSL's voice/translator.  So Occam's razor tells me "what is the verifiable proof that Peterson lacks a complete understanding and that this is not simply a case of we all bring a part of ourselves into our Art(s)."

Barring such evidence there is no way, other than through faith (which requires no evidence), to say who has a full understanding of the art or whether we just have two students with their own opinion as to what WSL meant/taught.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> the official list, sanctioned by WSL himself,



The what now?



> Barring such evidence there is no way, other than through faith (which requires no evidence), to say who has a full understanding of the art or whether we just have two students with their own opinion as to what WSL meant/taught.



Go learn what they teach, then take a look at their history and time spent with WSL. Things will be very clear at that point.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> The what now?
> 
> 
> 
> Go learn what they teach, then take a look at their history and time spent with WSL. Things will be very clear at that point.



I did study WSLVT, I simply moved on.  I also know many WSLVT practitioners and depending on the WSL student who they "descend" from they debate almost as much as the different Yip Man Lineages. 

As for the first part; WSL and other more modern teachers actually started producing lists of people authorized to teach their system in an effort to prevent controversies such as what we saw with the passing of YM himself.  Among the places such a list can be found is http://www.wslstudents.org/? ,  Among others.

Anything about "who studied with whom longer" is looking at subjective data and that is all but impossible to verify and since  I make decisions based on verifiable objective data it means little.  If we didn't have a plethora of videos showing Peterson and Leung together, not only training but at seminars through out SE Asia and Oceania to also support things maybe I would go along with you.  However yet again you say "learn/study X" without producing any actual evidence, well when we have studied the art and the history and have a different conclusion, Occam's Razor applies, the simplest answer based on verifiable objective facts.

I am a data driven guy.  If you post something that contradicts my data I am open to changing my mind.  It's an occupational hazard that I follow the evidence vs simply what someone says.


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> Here is the thing.  There is a trend among some of the more traditional TCMA Masters to "edit" what they do in demonstrations.  Often it's omitting somethings, sometimes it's inserting an error.



Yes, my old sifu did this in his videos and books. He called it being "clever". You show enough to get people interested, but you never give away too much. _That_ would be what he called, "breaking your rice-bowl".

I understood the idea of not giving out certain information to people that weren't your students, by the idea of inserting deliberate errors into his videos and books seemed dishonest to me. But apparently it was a widely accepted practice among traditional Chinese sifus of the older generation.


----------



## geezer

Who are the better known students of WSL? I am aware of David Peterson, Philip Bayer and Gary Lam. I'm sure there are others....

Anyway, one question comes to mind when Guy and LFJ talk about the Bayer lineage and say that if you try it, it will be obvious that it is the most coherent and therefore obviously authentic system. But if that is so, wouldn't that be equally obvious to David Peterson and Gary Lam? ...Apparently not.


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Yes, my old sifu did this in his videos and books. He called it being "clever". You show enough to get people interested, but you never give away too much. _That_ would be what he called, "breaking your rice-bowl".
> 
> I understood the idea of not giving out certain information to people that weren't your students, by the idea of inserting deliberate errors into his videos and books seemed dishonest to me. But apparently it was a widely accepted practice among traditional Chinese sifus of the older generation.



Indeed, my only issue is that in a circumstance like we have here you need to prove it is the case.  Simply saying it is a tradition, with no evidence to show this tradition is in action here is, at least imo, an attempt to simply dismiss an argument rather than addressing and then disproving it.


----------



## guy b

> As for the first part; WSL and other more modern teachers actually started producing lists of people authorized to teach their system in an effort to prevent controversies such as what we saw with the passing of YM himself.  Among the places such a list can be found is http://www.wslstudents.org/? ,  Among others.



There is zero QC done with that list



> Anything about "who studied with whom longer" is looking at subjective data and that is all but impossible to verify and since  I make decisions based on verifiable objective data it means little.  If we didn't have a plethora of videos showing Peterson and Leung together, not only training but at seminars through out SE Asia and Oceania to also support things maybe I would go along with you.  However yet again you say "learn/study X" without producing any actual evidence, well when we have studied the art and the history and have a different conclusion, Occam's Razor applies, the simplest answer based on verifiable objective facts.



What's the simplest explanation for the fact that different people are teaching different things?


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Anyway, one question comes to mind when Guy and LFJ talk about the Bayer lineage and say that if you try it, it will be obvious that it is the most coherent and therefore obviously authentic system. But if that is so, wouldn't that be equally obvious to David Peterson and Gary Lam? ...Apparently not.



Do you mean that it will be obvious to DP that PB is teaching material and understanding that DP is not, and to a much higher level? I would say yes it will be obvious to DP.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The what now?
> 
> 
> 
> Go learn what they teach, then take a look at their history and time spent with WSL. Things will be very clear at that point.


So, "it's complicated, you wouldn't understand"?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> There is zero QC done with that list
> 
> 
> 
> What's the simplest explanation for the fact that different people are teaching different things?


That they have different interpretations of the art.


----------



## KPM

Applying Occam's Razor.....David Petersen calls WSL "Sifu" and claims to be teaching WSL's system.  Same is true of Phillip Bayer.  Both Bayer and Petersen traveled to HK to study and were not residents.   David Petersen speaks fluent Chinese.  Does Bayer?  I don't know.  David Petersen traveled often with WSL when he went abroad teaching  seminars and acted as his translator.  David Petersen was also chosen to give the eulogy at WSL's funeral.   So applying Occam's Razor we have no reason to believe that Petersen learned a substandard version of WSLVT.   

But really, no one cares to try and explain some of the things wrong in the WSL video?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> That they have different interpretations of the art.



That is a very complex explanation. It requires a lot more work for lots of different people came up with such very different interpretations, compared to the simpler explanation of just not many people learning it correctly, which only requires a lack of work or care by Yip Man


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> we have no reason to believe that Petersen learned a substandard version of WSLVT



There is indeed an excellent reason to believe this- his VT and his understanding of the system



KPM said:


> really, no one cares to try and explain some of the things wrong in the WSL video?



That video is so far removed from the actual practice of WSL VT, even in branches without the full picture, that it is difficult to know where to start. It portrays a very faded image but covers none of the important detail. Anyone can see that it contains no important strategic information, and that the fighting method shown is cartoonish to say the least.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> There is indeed an excellent reason to believe this- his VT and his understanding of the system
> 
> 
> 
> That video is so far removed from the actual practice of WSL VT, even in branches without the full picture, that it is difficult to know where to start. It portrays a very faded image but covers none of the important detail. Anyone can see that it contains no important strategic information, and that the fighting method shown is cartoonish to say the least.


So what you are saying is that the person who traveled with WSL, who was chosen to give his eulogy would not be close, not know his art fully?  What's?!?!?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## ShortBridge

Wing Chun politics are tiring and disappointing.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> That is a very complex explanation. It requires a lot more work for lots of different people came up with such very different interpretations, compared to the simpler explanation of just not many people learning it correctly, which only requires a lack of work or care by Yip Man



Ok.  Now that almost makes sense.  I think that is the most succinctly and directly that you have stated it so far.


----------



## guy b

ShortBridge said:


> Wing Chun politics are tiring and disappointing.



In what way is this politics?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> So what you are saying is that the person who traveled with WSL, who was chosen to give his eulogy would not be close, not know his art fully?  What's?!?!?



Have a look, you decide. It takes a lot of effort, and some people just put in a lot more than others.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Ok.  Now that almost makes sense.  I think that is the most succinctly and directly that you have stated it so far.



This is a different (weaker) argument made because Juany wanted to talk about simplicity as a criterion for judging reality. The broken to fixed/fixed to broken probability argument is a better one overall.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> That is a very complex explanation. It requires a lot more work for lots of different people came up with such very different interpretations, compared to the simpler explanation of just not many people learning it correctly, which only requires a lack of work or care by Yip Man


No, it doesn't take a lot more work. It just takes some intelligent people who emphasize different areas of what they were taught. People are not computers - they do not replicate what they were taught (even if they try to do so). It is *always *re-interpreted to a greater or lesser degree.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> There is indeed an excellent reason to believe this- his VT and his understanding of the system
> 
> 
> 
> That video is so far removed from the actual practice of WSL VT, even in branches without the full picture, that it is difficult to know where to start. It portrays a very faded image but covers none of the important detail. Anyone can see that it contains no important strategic information, and that the fighting method shown is cartoonish to say the least.


A nicely vague reply, giving not a single bit of actual information in reply to a question.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Have a look, you decide. It takes a lot of effort, and some people just put in a lot more than others.


I have looked.  The evidence available says one thing, you say another so I ask you to present evidence.  I have presented videos, links to the WSL student's web site.  Now, besides a fiat statement please produce evidence.  If I am wrong I actually welcome it.  I love fixing mistakes, learning knew things, I thirst for data.  Fiat statements without supporting verifiable data however aren't informative.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Both Bayer and Petersen traveled to HK to study and were not residents.



Actually, PB lived there, training every day, for the first 18 months of his VT education under WSL. WSL spent a lot of time with him in Europe and prior to his untimely death, he was in the process of moving to Germany to live above PB's school.

DP, on the other hand, was an occasional visitor who came for a month or two on holidays. Not long enough to learn more than a few basic ideas to take back home and fill the gaps with previous WC experience and looking at other lineages and assuming they should be similar enough. The seminars he hosted were also brief, public, and basic.

PB speaks of how for such a long time all he did was _seung-ma_/_teui-ma_ drills, to the point he thought it was the only drill in VT. It's very important and teaches a ton of things. Yet, an occasional visitor is gong to learn VT in great depth in a month or two per year? Not a chance.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> WSL and other more modern teachers actually started producing lists of people authorized to teach their system in an effort to prevent controversies such as what we saw with the passing of YM himself.  Among the places such a list can be found is http://www.wslstudents.org/? ,  Among others.



You realize that student association was founded 15 years after the passing of WSL?!

He never authorized such a list or named any heirs. The certificates he gave out were merely a "thank you" to students, according to PB.

The founders of that association were also teens or pre-teens when WSL died. They didn't ever spend much time with WSL and learned mostly from _si-hing_ like DP. They attempt to claim gate-keeper status over the lineage and standardize the system without really knowing it.

They also list "1st gen. students" with even far less experience than them. Low quality control, as guy b stated.

Plus, at first they wanted to charge 1st gen. students membership fees to join, but they couldn't get anyone's support. So, they awarded honorary lifetime memberships to them so that it seems as if the most senior students are all on board now with their ideas. It's a sham.



> I am a data driven guy.  If you post something that contradicts my data I am open to changing my mind.  It's an occupational hazard that I follow the evidence vs simply what someone says.



We have discussed DP's understanding of VT before you came to the forum here. It's not something I try to detail often because it's difficult to avoid causing offense when talking about deficiencies in a well-known teacher's learning.

But here goes again;

DP's interpretation of VT, the forms and everything, is all application-based. It's as if what he received from WSL during his brief visits was a phrasebook. He could put a few "words" together, but never learned to actually "speak the language", never mind fluently. He lacked the immersion experience.

An example is the so-called "_paau-bong_" section of _Cham-kiu_. His interpretation of this action is a direct application for when your hands are down and a punch suddenly comes your way, so you "throw" your _bong-sau_ at it with _wu-sau_ as a backup defense, using the structure as an emergency shield.

He says in application, you will actually step backward, but the form steps forward to ingrain the idea of advancing. So, basically, he's saying what we train thousands of times in the form is incorrect footwork for the application!

This is illogical and impractical, plus, he has never ever even touched on the VT fighting strategy of _wu-sau_. It's all application thinking. His _wu-sau_ from SNT is a literal application drawing a punch in and off line. _Wu-sau_ is drawn back in the form so that we can train a full _fuk_ elbow, but he has given an application to it.

Without knowing better, you might not find these ideas problematic. But what this section of CK is actually training is abstract. It's developing synchronicity of the step, elbow rotation, and punch (_kwan-sau_). It is an uncompleted action that DP has given an impractical defensive application to. We're thinking develop body unity and elbow control coupled with the punch. He's thinking "uh-oh, my hands are down and a punch is coming, what do I do?"

The hand being held lower than the elbow isn't representing a scenario where your hands are down. It is simply to turn off the hand and focus on the elbow rotation, so that the forearm isn't flailing around or doing anything strange leading with the wrist. It's all about unifying the step, hip/elbow, and punch (_wu_). But this has to do with VT fighting strategy, which DP never got to, as evidenced by his not knowing it.

When you go through the system as taught by DP, it leaves a lot to be desired and many doubts and contradictions. When you learn the system from someone who has spent proper time training with WSL, everything becomes crystal clear and there are no contradictions, and most importantly the strategy of VT is revealed (how to really speak the language), whereas before all you'd have are random application ideas (a phrasebook).


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> You realize that student association was founded 15 years after the passing of WSL?!
> 
> He never authorized such a list or named any heirs. The certificates he gave out were merely a "thank you" to students, according to PB.
> 
> The founders of that association were also teens or pre-teens when WSL died. They didn't ever spend much time with WSL and learned mostly from _si-hing_ like DP. They attempt to claim gate-keeper status over the lineage and standardize the system without really knowing it.
> 
> They also list "1st gen. students" with even far less experience than them. Low quality control, as guy b stated.
> 
> Plus, at first they wanted to charge 1st gen. students membership fees to join, but they couldn't get anyone's support. So, they awarded honorary lifetime memberships to them so that it seems as if the most senior students are all on board now with their ideas. It's a sham.
> 
> 
> 
> We have discussed DP's understanding of VT before you came to the forum here. It's not something I try to detail often because it's difficult to avoid causing offense when talking about deficiencies in a well-known teacher's learning.
> 
> But here goes again;
> 
> DP's interpretation of VT, the forms and everything, is all application-based. It's as if what he received from WSL during his brief visits was a phrasebook. He could put a few "words" together, but never learned to actually "speak the language", never mind fluently. He lacked the immersion experience.
> 
> An example is the so-called "_paau-bong_" section of _Cham-kiu_. His interpretation of this action is a direct application for when your hands are down and a punch suddenly comes your way, so you "throw" your _bong-sau_ at it with _wu-sau_ as a backup defense, using the structure as an emergency shield.
> 
> He says in application, you will actually step backward, but the form steps forward to ingrain the idea of advancing. So, basically, he's saying what we train thousands of times in the form is incorrect footwork for the application!
> 
> This is illogical and impractical, plus, he has never ever even touched on the VT fighting strategy of _wu-sau_. It's all application thinking. His _wu-sau_ from SNT is a literal application drawing a punch in and off line. _Wu-sau_ is drawn back in the form so that we can train a full _fuk_ elbow, but he has given an application to it.
> 
> Without knowing better, you might not find these ideas problematic. But what this section of CK is actually training is abstract. It's developing synchronicity of the step, elbow rotation, and punch (_kwan-sau_). It is an uncompleted action that DP has given an impractical defensive application to. We're thinking develop body unity and elbow control coupled with the punch. He's thinking "uh-oh, my hands are down and a punch is coming, what do I do?"
> 
> The hand being held lower than the elbow isn't representing a scenario where your hands are down. It is simply to turn off the hand and focus on the elbow rotation, so that the forearm isn't flailing around or doing anything strange leading with the wrist. It's all about unifying the step, hip/elbow, and punch (_wu_). But this has to do with VT fighting strategy, which DP never got to, as evidenced by his not knowing it.
> 
> When you go through the system as taught by DP, it leaves a lot to be desired and many doubts and contradictions. When you learn the system from someone who has spent proper time training with WSL, everything becomes crystal clear and there are no contradictions, and most importantly the strategy of VT is revealed (how to really speak the language), whereas before all you'd have are random application ideas (a phrasebook).



Interesting post, thx LFJ


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> You realize that student association was founded 15 years after the passing of WSL?!
> 
> He never authorized such a list or named any heirs. The certificates he gave out were merely a "thank you" to students, according to PB.
> 
> The founders of that association were also teens or pre-teens when WSL died. They didn't ever spend much time with WSL and learned mostly from _si-hing_ like DP. They attempt to claim gate-keeper status over the lineage and standardize the system without really knowing it.
> 
> They also list "1st gen. students" with even far less experience than them. Low quality control, as guy b stated.
> 
> Plus, at first they wanted to charge 1st gen. students membership fees to join, but they couldn't get anyone's support. So, they awarded honorary lifetime memberships to them so that it seems as if the most senior students are all on board now with their ideas. It's a sham.
> 
> 
> 
> We have discussed DP's understanding of VT before you came to the forum here. It's not something I try to detail often because it's difficult to avoid causing offense when talking about deficiencies in a well-known teacher's learning.
> 
> But here goes again;
> 
> DP's interpretation of VT, the forms and everything, is all application-based. It's as if what he received from WSL during his brief visits was a phrasebook. He could put a few "words" together, but never learned to actually "speak the language", never mind fluently. He lacked the immersion experience.
> 
> An example is the so-called "_paau-bong_" section of _Cham-kiu_. His interpretation of this action is a direct application for when your hands are down and a punch suddenly comes your way, so you "throw" your _bong-sau_ at it with _wu-sau_ as a backup defense, using the structure as an emergency shield.
> 
> He says in application, you will actually step backward, but the form steps forward to ingrain the idea of advancing. So, basically, he's saying what we train thousands of times in the form is incorrect footwork for the application!
> 
> This is illogical and impractical, plus, he has never ever even touched on the VT fighting strategy of _wu-sau_. It's all application thinking. His _wu-sau_ from SNT is a literal application drawing a punch in and off line. _Wu-sau_ is drawn back in the form so that we can train a full _fuk_ elbow, but he has given an application to it.
> 
> Without knowing better, you might not find these ideas problematic. But what this section of CK is actually training is abstract. It's developing synchronicity of the step, elbow rotation, and punch (_kwan-sau_). It is an uncompleted action that DP has given an impractical defensive application to. We're thinking develop body unity and elbow control coupled with the punch. He's thinking "uh-oh, my hands are down and a punch is coming, what do I do?"
> 
> The hand being held lower than the elbow isn't representing a scenario where your hands are down. It is simply to turn off the hand and focus on the elbow rotation, so that the forearm isn't flailing around or doing anything strange leading with the wrist. It's all about unifying the step, hip/elbow, and punch (_wu_). But this has to do with VT fighting strategy, which DP never got to, as evidenced by his not knowing it.
> 
> When you go through the system as taught by DP, it leaves a lot to be desired and many doubts and contradictions. When you learn the system from someone who has spent proper time training with WSL, everything becomes crystal clear and there are no contradictions, and most importantly the strategy of VT is revealed (how to really speak the language), whereas before all you'd have are random application ideas (a phrasebook).


Brief visit?  Traveling, training and translating for a man across all of Oceania and SE Asia, being one of only 2 Instructors from Australia personally authorized to teach WSLVT by WSL himself and being selected to give the eulogy at his funeral.  These facts fly in the face of a claim that he "visited briefly" with WSL sorry.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> A nicely vague reply, giving not a single bit of actual information in reply to a question.



I don't think information is required?

The VT of DP can be seen by looking for clips on youtube- you can compare directly with the VT of other people if you like. You can also read what he has written about the system and compare to the writings of other people. 

The WSL video that I commented on doesn't contain the strategic information required to make the system work- you can tell this because it is missing (none is provided). 

What else do you need?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Brief visit?  Traveling, training and translating for a man across all of Oceania and SE Asia, being one of only 2 Instructors from Australia personally authorized to teach WSLVT by WSL himself and being selected to give the eulogy at his funeral.  These facts fly in the face of a claim that he "visited briefly" with WSL sorry.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



LFJ: Provides info

Juany: I don't like that info. Provide different info


----------



## wingchun100

geezer said:


> Yes, my old sifu did this in his videos and books. He called it being "clever". You show enough to get people interested, but you never give away too much. _That_ would be what he called, "breaking your rice-bowl".
> 
> I understood the idea of not giving out certain information to people that weren't your students, by the idea of inserting deliberate errors into his videos and books seemed dishonest to me. But apparently it was a widely accepted practice among traditional Chinese sifus of the older generation.


 
Exactly. Why would you put out errors and make people think "wow, that looks like it wouldn't work?"


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> I don't think information is required?
> 
> The VT of DP can be seen by looking for clips on youtube- you can compare directly with the VT of other people if you like. You can also read what he has written about the system and compare to the writings of other people.
> 
> The WSL video that I commented on doesn't contain the strategic information required to make the system work- you can tell this because it is missing (none is provided).
> 
> What else do you need?


You could start with a brief explanation of what this "strategic information" would look like. Saying it's not there is like me saying, "Your car doesn't have the right colors for you. You can tell because they're not there." Unless I give you some idea what the heck those colors might be, my statement is circular.


----------



## wingchun100

geezer said:


> Who are the better known students of WSL? I am aware of David Peterson, Philip Bayer and Gary Lam. I'm sure there are others....
> 
> Anyway, one question comes to mind when Guy and LFJ talk about the Bayer lineage and say that if you try it, it will be obvious that it is the most coherent and therefore obviously authentic system. But if that is so, wouldn't that be equally obvious to David Peterson and Gary Lam? ...Apparently not.


 
Well, what Leung Sheung taught must have therefore seemed pretty coherent to a man like Jack Ling. What Ip Ching teaches is coherent to Russ Cichon...and so on into infinity.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> LFJ: Provides info
> 
> Juany: I don't like that info. Provide different info


Actually: LFJ: Provides info.
Juany: Provides info that appears to conflict.

That's how a debate works. If LFJ doesn't feel Juany's information is accurate, or has a reason why that information isn't in conflict, it should be easy enough to continue the discussion. To me, the apparent contact of the long-term travel together implies there would have been more discussions and possibly training along the way, rather than just what happened during the visit(s) to his dojo. That may be a mistaken perception, and LFJ may be able to clarify it.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> These facts fly in the face of a claim that he "visited briefly" with WSL sorry.



He has said so himself! He visited about once per year when he had time over holidays, and had WSL out for a few public seminars.

Yes, he was an occasional visitor and seminar student by that frequency.

WSL spent so much more time establishing VT in Europe. He spent months there every year teaching real students, and before his death, he was in the process of moving to Germany with PB, to live above his school. 

He went to Australia only a total of five times over the years for brief public seminars where he taught basic "phrasebook" ideas to people of various backgrounds.

But also ignore the technical analysis of what DP teaches in your "following of evidence" and believe what you want...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> He has said so himself! He visited about once per year when he had time over holidays, and had WSL out for a few public seminars.
> 
> Yes, he was an occasional visitor and seminar student by that frequency.
> 
> WSL spent so much more time establishing VT in Europe. He spent months there every year teaching real students, and before his death, he was in the process of moving to Germany with PB, to live above his school.
> 
> He went to Australia only a total of five times over the years for brief public seminars where he taught basic "phrasebook" ideas to people of various backgrounds.
> 
> But also ignore the technical analysis of what DP teaches in your "following of evidence" and believe what you want...


That's reasonable. What of the time DP spent traveling with WSL, translating and spending time with him. Do you suppose that time included discussion and perhaps training? I would imagine if I were traveling with an instructor, we'd spend a good bit of time talking about our practices, philosophies, and the way we express the principles in the art.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> LFJ: Provides info
> 
> Juany: I don't like that info. Provide different info



But I provide info that is verifiable.  There is a difference between evidence that can be verified and that which can not.  I am still waiting for some verifiable source for the "brief stay." Without that it is, from a logical point of view, an unsubstantiated fiat claim.  I actually change opinions when I see verifiable evidence, not an unsubstantiated claim that at best appears to be based on another unsubstantiated claim.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> He has said so himself! He visited about once per year when he had time over holidays, and had WSL out for a few public seminars.
> 
> Yes, he was an occasional visitor and seminar student by that frequency.
> 
> WSL spent so much more time establishing VT in Europe. He spent months there every year teaching real students, and before his death, he was in the process of moving to Germany with PB, to live above his school.
> 
> He went to Australia only a total of five times over the years for brief public seminars where he taught basic "phrasebook" ideas to people of various backgrounds.
> 
> But also ignore the technical analysis of what DP teaches in your "following of evidence" and believe what you want...



So someone who only attended occasional seminars became one of only 2 people on a Continent almost 25 million people to be personally authorized by WSL to teach his system?  That appears to beggar logic, which is something you and Guy have both asked us to use.  Add to this that close friends, family or greatly respected persons who knew the person provide the eulogy, not someone who only occasionally saw them at seminars. 

No one is arguing where WSL spent more or less time.  The problem is the use of the term "brief".  Without further verifiable information that is simply not substantiated.  After that we enter the subjective land because once a certain amount of time is spent training with someone it all becomes relative. Which is why I suspect you played semantics with "brief."


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> So someone who only attended occasional seminars became one of only 2 people on a Continent almost 25 million people to be personally authorized by WSL to teach his system?



WSL didn't teach 25 million Australians. And the certificates were merely "thank you" gestures, not naming of heirs.



> Add to this that close friends, family or greatly respected persons who knew the person provide the eulogy, not someone who only occasionally saw them at seminars.



Visiting once per year for 9 years or so, friendship and mutual respect can be built, but this says nothing about his experience and understanding of the VT system. Why are you ignoring the technical facts?



> No one is arguing where WSL spent more or less time.  The problem is the use of the term "brief".  Without further verifiable information that is simply not substantiated.  After that we enter the subjective land because once a certain amount of time is spent training with someone it all becomes relative. Which is why I suspect you played semantics with "brief."



You were comparing the experience of DP and PB. 

Compared to the first 18 months straight as a live-in student in HK, visiting once per year for a month or so is brief. Especially in learning something like VT, it is very brief indeed.


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> So someone who only attended occasional seminars became one of only 2 people on a Continent almost 25 million people to be personally authorized by WSL to teach his system?  That appears to beggar logic, which is something you and Guy have both asked us to use.  Add to this that close friends, family or greatly respected persons who knew the person provide the eulogy, not someone who only occasionally saw them at seminars.
> 
> No one is arguing where WSL spent more or less time.  The problem is the use of the term "brief".  Without further verifiable information that is simply not substantiated.  After that we enter the subjective land because once a certain amount of time is spent training with someone it all becomes relative. Which is why I suspect you played semantics with "brief."



DP traveled and spent time with WSL.  Enough time that he was an instructor in WSL's system.  WSL went to Australia more than once and saw DP's students.  If there were issues with what DP was doing and teaching in WSL's name, wouldn't have WSL noted that and attempted to correct it?   If DP had gaps in his knowledge over the years he was associated with WSL, wouldn't he have asked WSL to teach him what was needed to fill those gaps?  DP has said he spoke with WSL regularly on the phone when he wasn't able to train with him directly.   Why would WSL not go to efforts to make sure DP was understanding and transmitting the "correct" VT?  

Again, DP was teaching in WSL's name and calling WSL "sifu."   So why would WSL not have ensured that DP fully understood his system?   Was he another "negligent" teacher like Ip Man?


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> WSL didn't teach 25 million Australians. And the certificates were merely "thank you" gestures, not naming of heirs.



This, imo, simply shows how little you know about how important such a blessing is in Chinese Martial Culture.  They simply do not personally name someone as a teacher of their system if they aren't, in their opinion, capable of doing so.



> Visiting once per year for 9 years or so, friendship and mutual respect can be built, but this says nothing about his experience and understanding of the VT system. Why are you ignoring the technical facts?



The problem is you first, pull a # out of thin air, forget the days, sometimes weeks of traveling together etc.  In the end you actually haven't presented facts.  Facts are verifiable from independent sources (which I have done.) An unsubstantiated claim is not a verifiable fact.  If you provide verifiable facts I will gladly accept them with an open mind.



> You were comparing the experience of DP and PB.
> 
> Compared to the first 18 months straight as a live-in student in HK, visiting once per year for a month or so is brief. Especially in learning something like VT, it is very brief indeed.



Actually no, I never compared the two.  All I said was that Peterson lived in Hong Kong and studied with WSL.  That after he completed this training he traveled with WSL across Oceania and SE Asia being his "training dummy" and translator and that when WSL visited Australia (which he did quite a bit) he would stay with Peterson, often for weeks at a time and they would discuss WSLVT.  In addition when he was done teaching for the school year Peterson himself would travel back to Hong Kong and study with WSL, for up to 2 months at a time, same as Bayer.  

I never tried to compare this to the time Bayer spent, not question how much time Bayer spent with WSL, that sir is your invention.  All I did was say that simply dismissing this as "brief" is disingenuous because the time Peterson spent was far from brief.

Both clearly spent more than enough time with WSL to be able to claim with validity that they teach "real" WSLVT and to be declared a Sifu by WSL himself.  In the case of Peterson, this time also brought him close enough to WSL that he was given the honor to give the eulogy at WSL's funeral.

Because of this, to say one teaches "true" WSLVT and the other doesn't due to a lack of understanding can only be justified by Dogma.

That said, and I should have noted this sooner, I find it odd that you miss something that might inform the difference between Peterson and Bayer.  Philipp Bayer

The relevant line... "He sat down seriously dealing with the problem of a missing hand and put the training in terms of it. " 
So if one's training is changed to address an amputation I would definitely say their practice and thus their teaching would be different.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> DP traveled and spent time with WSL. Enough time that he was an instructor in WSL's system.



Have a check who else is an instructor


----------



## wckf92

guy b said:


> Have a check who else is an instructor



Guy...is there a way to do this for the WSL style? Is there a website that has current, sanctioned 'instructor lists' by name/country etc? Bayer I think is in Europe, but in the US as far as I know, there is only Gledhill in NYC? (*by lists, I mean a list that would have names/locations of practitioners who, in your opinion, have learned the real WSL stuff).


----------



## Juany118

wckf92 said:


> Guy...is there a way to do this for the WSL style? Is there a website that has current, sanctioned 'instructor lists' by name/country etc? Bayer I think is in Europe, but in the US as far as I know, there is only Gledhill in NYC? (*by lists, I mean a list that would have names/locations of practitioners who, in your opinion, have learned the real WSL stuff).



Earlier in the thread I posted a list of a WSL student organization.  I also think Guy is missing an important point when it comes to teaching WSLVT.  There is a big difference between someone who achieves Sifu status via their current organization and someone who WSL personally said "you may teach my art."


----------



## KPM

Thanks for the link to Bayer's website.   I came across an interesting quote from him:

*….”Understanding the genius of Ving Tsun should take no longer than an afternoon. By then everything should be clear” *


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Thanks for the link to Bayer's website.   I came across an interesting quote from him:
> 
> *….”Understanding the genius of Ving Tsun should take no longer than an afternoon. By then everything should be clear” *



He means in person. If you went to visit him then I am sure you would end up in agreement.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> He means in person. If you went to visit him then I am sure you would end up in agreement.



Ok.  In person.  But it sure seems to me that DP spent much more than an afternoon with WSL....in person.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Thanks for the link to Bayer's website.   I came across an interesting quote from him:
> 
> *….”Understanding the genius of Ving Tsun should take no longer than an afternoon. By then everything should be clear” *



Well there is a difference between knowing how to properly practice a Martial Art and seeing, that on paper at least, it is an effective art, which I am sure VT is.  Taking that theory and putting it into practice is what is time consuming.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> All I said was that Peterson lived in Hong Kong and studied with WSL.



Which is false. He never lived there.



> Peterson himself would travel back to Hong Kong and study with WSL, for up to 2 months at a time, same as Bayer.



False again. 

PB spent the first 18 months of his VT education under WSL training every day as a live-in student in HK.

Very different, but whatever. Believe what makes you happy.

I guess we're just going to continue ignoring the content of what they teach, which is the most important. 

There is no comparison. DP just doesn't know the VT fight strategy or development system, and was never a fighter. Funny how it's still better than most YM lineages though...


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> Which is false. He never lived there.
> 
> 
> 
> False again.
> 
> PB spent the first 18 months of his VT education under WSL training every day as a live-in student in HK.
> 
> Very different, but whatever. Believe what makes you happy.
> 
> I guess we're just going to continue ignoring the content of what they teach, which is the most important.
> 
> There is no comparison. DP just doesn't know the VT fight strategy or development system, and was never a fighter. Funny how it's still better than most YM lineages though...



And your verifiable source?   I tend to rely on them... Sifu David Peterson Wing Chun Interview | Obsessed With Wing Chun Kung Fu?

So I would say true, not false and that, unless your could produce verifiable evidence to counter the plethora of sources such as the link, well yeah... Full of sound and fury comes to mind


----------



## KPM

Thanks for another good link!   According to DP:

*Is Wong Shun Leung’s Wing Chun different than everyone else’s?*
_
The best answer is that his Wing Chun is different. The reason for this is, before he became a Wing Chun man, he was a very good western boxer. When he arrived at Wing Chun he had a fighter’s mentality. Fighting was exactly that, it was two people trying to hit each other.   Many people get into the art form, prolonging a tradition.  They might be afraid to get into a boxing ring or they just want to do something less violent.  He, being a fighter, came to Wing Chun and saw the potential.   He used the tools exactly what they were meant for, fighting.  A lot of people get into Wing Chun with a scholarly attitude, the only people they ever work with are their own people/classmates and they think they know what a fight is, but they never had a fight.  The result is they end up chasing hands and do fancy moves that never work in real combat.  My Sifu, looked at the tools and said “can I use those to smash a guy.”

His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise._

Sure sounds to me like DP would agree with what I have been saying!


----------



## LFJ

Your link says nothing different than what I said.

Besides, even if all the evidence would suggest to you that he should know more about VT, the fact remains that he has phrasebook level knowledge.

So, I don't know what your point is.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> Thanks for another good link!   According to DP:
> 
> *Is Wong Shun Leung’s Wing Chun different than everyone else’s?*
> _
> The best answer is that his Wing Chun is different. The reason for this is, before he became a Wing Chun man, he was a very good western boxer. When he arrived at Wing Chun he had a fighter’s mentality. Fighting was exactly that, it was two people trying to hit each other.   Many people get into the art form, prolonging a tradition.  They might be afraid to get into a boxing ring or they just want to do something less violent.  He, being a fighter, came to Wing Chun and saw the potential.   He used the tools exactly what they were meant for, fighting.  A lot of people get into Wing Chun with a scholarly attitude, the only people they ever work with are their own people/classmates and they think they know what a fight is, but they never had a fight.  The result is they end up chasing hands and do fancy moves that never work in real combat.  My Sifu, looked at the tools and said “can I use those to smash a guy.”
> 
> His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise._
> 
> Sure sounds to me like DP would agree with what I have been saying!


Interesting. This reminds me of a discussion in the Karate forum, including references to a major proponent who was a fighter by nature, and what he brought to the evolution of Karate.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Your link says nothing different than what I said.
> 
> Besides, even if all the evidence would suggest to you that he should know more about VT, the fact remains that he has phrasebook level knowledge.
> 
> So, I don't know what your point is.


I think the assertion is that the deeper knowledge you point to (which others may see as simply a different approach) may have come from WSL, rather than YM. This could explain why it is different than other lines.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Your link says nothing different than what I said.
> 
> Besides, even if all the evidence would suggest to you that he should know more about VT, the fact remains that he has phrasebook level knowledge.
> 
> So, I don't know what your point is.



You are not reading very closely.   DP said "_His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise."    _Which is in line with my assertion that WSL's VT differs from everyone else's because of WSL's own refinements/improvements/interpretations.  THAT was my point!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> You are not reading very closely.   DP said "_His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise."    _Which is in line with my assertion that WSL's VT differs from everyone else's because of WSL's own refinements/improvements/interpretations.  THAT was my point!


And may I point out that this would be an indication that WSL was pretty good at doing that? This would not be an accusation or any sort of derogatory comment about WSLVT, but an acknowledgement that WSL did some very good work.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^ Well, I've stated more than once now that I seem to have more respect and admiration for WSL's talent and experience than some of his own followers.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I guess we're just going to continue ignoring the content of what they teach, which is the most important.
> 
> There is no comparison. DP just doesn't know the VT fight strategy or development system, and was never a fighter. Funny how it's still better than most YM lineages though...



I am not ignoring the content that they teach.  If you read all my posts my argument can be summed up as follows...

1. I have evidence anyone can find and read for themselves that shows extensive teaching to DP by WSL.  
2. the following corroborate the relationship.  A. being personally declared an authorized teacher of his system by WSL himself, B. a multitude of videos with DP acting as WSL's demonstration partner and translator from Australia to Malaysia and C. Selected to deliver the eulogy at WSL's funeral.

Now this does not take away from PB at all.
1. PB also had a close relationship with WSL and I will not say "false" that he may have trained with him longer.  HOWEVER more than a bit of that training was about adapting WSLVT to his disability.
2. The later noted above will clearly have an impact on what he teaches.

So what I say is that In light of the available evidence we have two students of WSLVT who were close to WSL but were clearly taught in different ways. Next simply because you study longer doesn't give you a fiat blessing that your WSLVT is the true WSLVT and that another chosen by WSL to pass on his legacy doesn't.  To make such a claim brings to mind a quote by Carl Sagan...



> To make extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence.



as of yet your argument is based upon fiat statements...these are not evidence.  So I await you to stand up and do what I have done, present verifiable evidence, links, to show that the links I have posted are false and that PB has a blessing from WSL that DP lacks.  Until then these words of William Shakespeare will ring in my head...



> ...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Thanks for another good link!   According to DP:
> 
> *Is Wong Shun Leung’s Wing Chun different than everyone else’s?*
> _
> The best answer is that his Wing Chun is different. The reason for this is, before he became a Wing Chun man, he was a very good western boxer. When he arrived at Wing Chun he had a fighter’s mentality. Fighting was exactly that, it was two people trying to hit each other.   Many people get into the art form, prolonging a tradition.  They might be afraid to get into a boxing ring or they just want to do something less violent.  He, being a fighter, came to Wing Chun and saw the potential.   He used the tools exactly what they were meant for, fighting.  A lot of people get into Wing Chun with a scholarly attitude, the only people they ever work with are their own people/classmates and they think they know what a fight is, but they never had a fight.  The result is they end up chasing hands and do fancy moves that never work in real combat.  My Sifu, looked at the tools and said “can I use those to smash a guy.”
> 
> His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise._
> 
> Sure sounds to me like DP would agree with what I have been saying!



No worries, I have a thing for research, probably again the lapsed History teacher in me.  That, and the cop in me, make fiat statements we have seen thus far REALLY annoy.  So I go a digging.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I am not ignoring the content that they teach.  If you read all my posts my argument can be summed up as follows...
> 
> 1. I have evidence anyone can find and read for themselves that shows extensive teaching to DP by WSL.
> 2. the following corroborate the relationship.  A. being personally declared an authorized teacher of his system by WSL himself, B. a multitude of videos with DP acting as WSL's demonstration partner and translator from Australia to Malaysia and C. Selected to deliver the eulogy at WSL's funeral.
> 
> Now this does not take away from PB at all.
> 1. PB also had a close relationship with WSL and I will not say "false" that he may have trained with him longer.  HOWEVER more than a bit of that training was about adapting WSLVT to his disability.
> 2. The later noted above will clearly have an impact on what he teaches.
> 
> So what I say is that In light of the available evidence we have two students of WSLVT who were close to WSL but were clearly taught in different ways. Next simply because you study longer doesn't give you a fiat blessing that your WSLVT is the true WSLVT and that another chosen by WSL to pass on his legacy doesn't.  To make such a claim brings to mind a quote by Carl Sagan...
> 
> 
> 
> as of yet your argument is based upon fiat statements...these are not evidence.  So I await you to stand up and do what I have done, present verifiable evidence, links, to show that the links I have posted are false and that PB has a blessing from WSL that DP lacks.  Until then these words of William Shakespeare will ring in my head...


Juany, what is the disability you speak of, with respect to PB? This is the first time I've seen it mentioned, and I'm curious how it might affect his approach to the art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> No worries, I have a thing for research, probably again the lapsed History teacher in me.  That, and the cop in me, make fiat statements we have seen thus far REALLY annoy.  So I go a digging.


"lapsed history teacher" - I love it! Reminds me of referrring to myself as a "lapsed Catholic".


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Juany, what is the disability you speak of, with respect to PB? This is the first time I've seen it mentioned, and I'm curious how it might affect his approach to the art.



It's detailed in the link I posted earlier but I understand if you didn't read it.  PB lost his left hand in 1980.  Losing a hand can have a rather interesting impact on WC/VT/WT.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> "lapsed history teacher" - I love it! Reminds me of referrring to myself as a "lapsed Catholic".



Lol I am a lapsed Catholic as well.  I dropped out of a student teacher program in 1991 because now I understand I lacked patience.  I wanted to say one day "you 4 stay everyone else to the Principal's office because you have no interest in learning what I have to teach." (Doing that at the US I graduated from probably didn't help because students knew me as Juany vs Mr. X) so next stop was the Army recruiter since patriotic fervor bit me at the same time (same day the ground war of Gulf War I started).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> It's detailed in the link I posted earlier but I understand if you didn't read it.  PB lost his left hand in 1980.


That could certainly explain the emphasis of one-handed work. That's a significant factor to consider when looking at the differences between the two lines under discussion.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That could certainly explain the emphasis of one-handed work. That's a significant factor to consider when looking at the differences between the two lines under discussion.



Indeed, that is while I feel a little sheepish for not raising it earlier.  That is why I believe that both can 100% say they teach what WSL taught them and be truthful.  So WSL did what YM himself did, he taught his student's to their strengths and weaknesses inside the system he learned from YM which was tailored to his personal strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Indeed, that is while I feel a little sheepish for not raising it earlier.  That is why I believe that both can 100% say they teach what WSL taught them and be truthful.  So WSL did what YM himself did, he taught his student's to their strengths and weaknesses inside the system he learned from YM which was tailored to his personal strengths and weaknesses.


That would be a testament to the ability of both WSL as a teacher and PB as a student.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That would be a testament to the ability of both WSL as a teacher and PB as a student.



Indeed and that is what I don't get.  Acknowledging that DP, without such a disability, is a skilled teacher who passes on what WSL taught him as truly as possible doesn't mean that PB does not do the same.  I can only think that adherence to dogma creates such a denial.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Indeed and that is what I don't get.  Acknowledging that DP, without such a disability, is a skilled teacher who passes on what WSL taught him as truly as possible doesn't mean that PB does not do the same.  I can only think that adherence to dogma creates such a denial.


Agreed. I'd find it odd if a one-handed student didn't have a different approach than a two-handed student. In fact, it would probably be a bad thing. Now knowing that one of them had that limitation, it's clear that he would have been focused on one-handed technique, and might even have found a better way. It's possible WSL's best version was what he worked on with that student, but it's unlikely he taught the same way to students who had the use of both arms. Both may, in fact, be transmitting exactly what they were taught, and exactly what WSL wanted them to teach.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Agreed. I'd find it odd if a one-handed student didn't have a different approach than a two-handed student. In fact, it would probably be a bad thing. Now knowing that one of them had that limitation, it's clear that he would have been focused on one-handed technique, and might even have found a better way. It's possible WSL's best version was what he worked on with that student, but it's unlikely he taught the same way to students who had the use of both arms. Both may, in fact, be transmitting exactly what they were taught, and exactly what WSL wanted them to teach.


The only issue I would have is the "best version".  That seems to me a bit too subjective and DEFINITELY getting into the weeds for a conversation like this.  That is why I prefer to simply leave it at "they both teach what WSL taught them and if it works when it hits the fan that is all that matters."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> The only issue I would have is the "better way".  That seems to me a bit too subjective and DEFINITELY getting into the weeds for a conversation like this.  That is why I prefer to simply leave it at "they both teach what WSL taught them and if it works when it hits the fan that is all that matters."


That's why I said "might have" - it's a possibility that this different approach could produce a "better way". Not a foregone conclusion, by any means, but a possibility. Your point is valid - if both work when it hits the fan, then the differences are nuance.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> That could certainly explain the emphasis of one-handed work.



What "one-handed work" are you guys on about? Both _arms_ are used together. PB didn't lose a whole freaking arm!

Thing is, the VT method is not about the hands. It's the "way of the elbow". So to say PB couldn't learn the standard method shows you know nothing about how VT works.

Other students who spent significant time with WSL share PB's understanding of VT.

Do you think he taught them all "disabled" VT?

The more time people spent with WSL, the more their VT matches PB's. The less time, the less so. Predictably. 

As I said earlier, go through the system as taught by PB, or someone with simular time spent with WSL, and it clears away every doubt, inconsistency, and impracticality in what DP teaches.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> You are not reading very closely.   DP said "_His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise."    _Which is in line with my assertion that WSL's VT differs from everyone else's because of WSL's own refinements/improvements/interpretations.  THAT was my point!



The system as passed via WSL to some others is not streamlined in that it contains many things lacking from the other wing chun I have seen. The fight strategy would be one of these. The full conceptual base and the full understanding of it would be another. It is blatantly obvious that WSL did not just cut bits off a wing chun that was the average of the other YM wing chun systems I have seen.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> And may I point out that this would be an indication that WSL was pretty good at doing that? This would not be an accusation or any sort of derogatory comment about WSLVT, but an acknowledgement that WSL did some very good work.



WSL VT is not streamlined and does not have a narrow focus. It contains a strategic approach and conceptual understanding that is lacking from other YM derived wing chun that I have seen and which is the key to making it both understandable and functional. Without this it is reduced to application based thinking.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> And your verifiable source?   I tend to rely on them... Sifu David Peterson Wing Chun Interview | Obsessed With Wing Chun Kung Fu?
> 
> So I would say true, not false and that, unless your could produce verifiable evidence to counter the plethora of sources such as the link, well yeah... Full of sound and fury comes to mind



Post a clip of David Peterson doing his VT. Beside it post a clip of Philipp Bayer.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> No worries, I have a thing for research, probably again the lapsed History teacher in me.  That, and the cop in me, make fiat statements we have seen thus far REALLY annoy.  So I go a digging.



But this digging has unearthed nothing useful, beyond acting to confirm what you already thought.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> You are not reading very closely.   DP said "_His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise."    _Which is in line with my assertion that WSL's VT differs from everyone else's because of WSL's own refinements/improvements/interpretations.  THAT was my point!



DP's understanding of VT is limited, as I've briefly detailed, so I don't think he can accurately describe much, but in this case I think "it" doesn't mean other WC that WSL "refined". 

Rather "it" refers to fighting and fight training, and this is just the simple, no-nonsense VT approach to punching people directly in the face. 

It wasn't WSL's invention and he didn't have to streamline anything himself. That's just VT.


----------



## KangTsai

KPM said:


> This was the video that got me interested and involved in Wing Chun many many years ago.  I've always thought it was a great video.  And as I've learned more and more about Wing Chun through the years, this still looks to me like pretty standard Ip Man lineage Wing Chun.  By "standard" I mean not departing to any great measure from what other Ip Man people do.  But WSL himself looks better than average on this video!


I turned on the captions on that video...

"Good fight"
"Yeah"
"Yeah"
"Yeah"
"Yeah"
"Oh God"
"Yeah"
"Yeah"


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> It's detailed in the link I posted earlier but I understand if you didn't read it.  PB lost his left hand in 1980.  Losing a hand can have a rather interesting impact on WC/VT/WT.



Yes.  One of the key things being that any kind of grabbing or Kum Na applications are not very viable.  So your method would focus on punching and clearing the way for punching and any thing Kum Na related methods would be dropped.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> The system as passed via WSL to some others is not streamlined in that it contains many things lacking from the other wing chun I have seen. The fight strategy would be one of these. The full conceptual base and the full understanding of it would be another. It is blatantly obvious that WSL did not just cut bits off a wing chun that was the average of the other YM wing chun systems I have seen.



Like LFJ, you don't seem to be reading very closely.   I've never said anything about "cut bits off a wing chun."  I've said "refining/improving/updating and words such as that.  All you are saying above is that WSL appears to have been as inattentive a teacher as you guys make Ip Man out to be if he passed on an incomplete version of his system to some.

And WSLVT does have a narrower focus.  You've pointed that out yourself in the past!  It was you that pointed out that WSLVT does not include any kind of Kum Na element because it contradicts the conceptual and strategic approach.  In the past you've talked about how WSLVT is "all about the punch."   Other Wing Chun versions from Ip Man do include some Kum Na, even if rudimentary, and do things like angle and control the opponent when necessary instead of always going for the punch.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> DP's understanding of VT is limited, as I've briefly detailed, so I don't think he can accurately describe much, but in this case I think "it" doesn't mean other WC that WSL "refined".
> 
> Rather "it" refers to fighting and fight training, and this is just the simple, no-nonsense VT approach to punching people directly in the face.
> 
> It wasn't WSL's invention and he didn't have to streamline anything himself. That's just VT.




So why do you think WSL would not have put out the effort to ensure the DP had this bit?  He was certainly with DP enough!   Even if DP wasn't a "live in" student for 18 months he certainly spent a considerable amount of time with WSL.   PB himself said that the approach of the system could be taught in an afternoon!   If it is all so "simple and no-nonsense VT approach", then why didn't WSL teach it to DP?   DP is obviously a smart guy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> What "one-handed work" are you guys on about? Both _arms_ are used together. PB didn't lose a whole freaking arm!
> 
> Thing is, the VT method is not about the hands. It's the "way of the elbow". So to say PB couldn't learn the standard method shows you know nothing about how VT works.
> 
> Other students who spent significant time with WSL share PB's understanding of VT.
> 
> Do you think he taught them all "disabled" VT?
> 
> The more time people spent with WSL, the more their VT matches PB's. The less time, the less so. Predictably.
> 
> As I said earlier, go through the system as taught by PB, or someone with simular time spent with WSL, and it clears away every doubt, inconsistency, and impracticality in what DP teaches.


That was why I used the term "one-handed". If you think not having the weight and 5-6 inches of length where the hand would be (to say nothing of the dexterity of that extension) doesn't change how someone uses the arm, you're kidding yourself.

I was positing that WSL may have learned some new depths to his own teaching when teaching PB, because of those limitations. Many times an instructor will discover a better way while working around a student's current limitation (be it flexibility, speed, bad knees, or whatnot), and it's reasonable that WSL experienced that in this case. Perhaps this led to better efficiency. Once he discovered how well what he taught to PB worked, perhaps he worked some of those changes into improving what he taught to everyone.

I'm curious - what was the timeline for DP and PB training with WSL? When did DP start? I remember from the article that PB started around 1981.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> The system as passed via WSL to some others is not streamlined in that it contains many things lacking from the other wing chun I have seen. The fight strategy would be one of these. The full conceptual base and the full understanding of it would be another. It is blatantly obvious that WSL did not just cut bits off a wing chun that was the average of the other YM wing chun systems I have seen.


The implication isn't the he just cut bits off something, but that he improved upon it. Why is that so objectionable to you?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> WSL VT is not streamlined and does not have a narrow focus. It contains a strategic approach and conceptual understanding that is lacking from other YM derived wing chun that I have seen and which is the key to making it both understandable and functional. Without this it is reduced to application based thinking.


Again, that's not contrary to my post. Why is it so unlikely that WSL brought a better focus and strategic view than others, and improved upon what he learned?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> DP's understanding of VT is limited, as I've briefly detailed, so I don't think he can accurately describe much, but in this case I think "it" doesn't mean other WC that WSL "refined".
> 
> Rather "it" refers to fighting and fight training, and this is just the simple, no-nonsense VT approach to punching people directly in the face.
> 
> It wasn't WSL's invention and he didn't have to streamline anything himself. That's just VT.


Is this one of the concepts that appears to be lacking in other areas of WC?


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> What "one-handed work" are you guys on about? Both _arms_ are used together. PB didn't lose a whole freaking arm!



In another thread either you or Guy had stated that simultaneous attack and defense, if properly executed, is done so with one arm in WSLVT.  As you also put a premium on punching (which is difficult to do without a hand), well I think the connection is rather obvious.

No one is saying that he taught a disabled form of anything but if you have ever taught anything you would know how and what you are personally taught does inform your teaching to a degree.



> As I said earlier, go through the system as taught by PB, or someone with simular time spent with WSL, and it clears away every doubt, inconsistency, and impracticality in what DP teaches.



And we return to fiat statements based in dogma.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Again, that's not contrary to my post. Why is it so unlikely that WSL brought a better focus and strategic view than others, and improved upon what he learned?



Because to say this means they can't say it is the true VT of WSL and connection of that sort to WSL is the corner stone as to why PB's > than the other students even ones like GL.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Post a clip of David Peterson doing his VT. Beside it post a clip of Philipp Bayer.



Sorry it's actually about time you and LFJ address all of the historical links I have posted.  You both made historical claims without supporting evidence.  I posted actual links noting the history and the relationships.  Now you just say "ignore that, do this." Sorry I am done playing your game with moving goal posts.  You can answer to the fact your fiat statements have no supporting evidence or really I suggest bowing out because it only undermines your point at this juncture.

It's never good to ask questions or lay down challenges and then when answered simply move on to another question or challenge because the response proves inconvenient.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> Because to say this means they can't say it is the true VT of WSL and connection of that sort to WSL is the corner stone as to why PB's > than the other students even ones like GL.


Here's what I don't get:

Let's start by assuming (for argument's sake) their stance that PB's WSLVT is the best. I can't judge one way or the other, so let's accept it for this post. Why would this not be a testament of the abilities of both WSL and PB to refine and improve the art? What is so awful about them both, perhaps, being extraordinary instructors and practitioners? If this is the best line, why is it not because these two are the best at what they do? Why would it have to be because others weren't told the whole story?


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> Here's what I don't get:
> 
> Let's start by assuming (for argument's sake) their stance that PB's WSLVT is the best. I can't judge one way or the other, so let's accept it for this post. Why would this not be a testament of the abilities of both WSL and PB to refine and improve the art? What is so awful about them both, perhaps, being extraordinary instructors and practitioners? If this is the best line, why is it not because these two are the best at what they do? Why would it have to be because others weren't told the whole story?



Because some people, for some reason, need to say "my Sifu..." or Sifu's Sifu, "...was the student of X and he teaches to true version of what X taught."  Some teachers do admittedly empower this dynamic but in the end I agree with you and see your view as not only more healthy but simply more logical because unless we get everyone, including the dead, in the same room the question can never be definitively answered causing some to resort to dogma rather than facts.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Losing a hand can have a rather interesting impact on WC/VT/WT.



Why do you think losing a hand would be important?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Yes.  One of the key things being that any kind of grabbing or Kum Na applications are not very viable.  So your method would focus on punching and clearing the way for punching and any thing Kum Na related methods would be dropped.



WSL had two hands


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Why do you think losing a hand would be important?



As was pointed out, it appears the lack of grappling in WSLVT is rare when one looks at other Lineages.  If WSLVT had grappling it would be problematic with one hand. 

Additionally not being able to lap, palm strike, biu (etc.) with both limbs will force changes in tactics.  It doesn't necessarily make the person a less effective fighter but it will certainly influence how the practitioner fights.  I actually can't believe you even asked such an obvious question.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Like LFJ, you don't seem to be reading very closely.   I've never said anything about "cut bits off a wing chun."  I've said "refining/improving/updating and words such as that



If you are agreeing that "steamline and simplify it", whith the misunderstanding that "it" is VT, then you have the wrong end of the stick:



			
				KPM said:
			
		

> DP said "_His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise." _Which is in line with my assertion that WSL's VT differs from everyone else's because of WSL's own refinements/improvements/interpretations. THAT was my point!



You continue:



> All you are saying above is that WSL appears to have been as inattentive a teacher as you guys make Ip Man out to be if he passed on an incomplete version of his system to some.



I don't see why it is WSL's fault that various partly trained people have tried to make themselves out to be more important and knowlegeable than they really are, after his death. I don't see why you feel that it was WSL's responsibility to manage the learning outcomes of people that didn't train with him very much. 



> And WSLVT does have a narrower focus.  You've pointed that out yourself in the past!  It was you that pointed out that WSLVT does not include any kind of Kum Na element because it contradicts the conceptual and strategic approach.



Not having grappling is not a narrower approach. WSL VT approaches the whole fight in a specific way. It doesn't approach part of the fight. It is a full system. Other YM derived wing chun that I have seen approaches situations or badly conceived conceptual formulations with technique based solutions. It lacks the systematic understanding of WSL VT, and the conceptual base. Gaps are filled with strange ideas which contradict basic concepts and solutions are derived from the imaginings of people who never understood the systematic approach to combat that is WSL VT. 

[/QUOTE]In the past you've talked about how WSLVT is "all about the punch."   Other Wing Chun versions from Ip Man do include some Kum Na, even if rudimentary, and do things like angle and control the opponent when necessary instead of always going for the punch.[/QUOTE]

The punch is the primary weapon of WSL VT. Including grappling is a gap filling approach which is required due to incomplete understanding of the system. Since all of the different interpretations of YM wing chun that I have seen are different, it is disingenuous to make out that they are all similar while only WSL VT is different. In reality they are all very divergent, pointing to a widespead lack of understanding. 

WSL VT is the only one I have seen that takes a fully systematic approach, has the strategic approach to fighting, and has the full, non-contradictory conceptual base.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> If you are agreeing that "steamline and simplify it", whith the misunderstanding that "it" is VT, then you have the wrong end of the stick:



First that comment is regarding WSL and his VT.  Every other YM lineage has some degree of Chin Na.  According to PB WSLVT has no "grappling or bone breaking.". So it is more likely WSL streamlined WSLVT even further.  This would not be unheard of since YM streamlined his WC.



> I don't see why it is WSL's fault that various partly trained people have tried to make themselves out to be more important and knowlegeable than they really are, after his death. I don't see why you feel that it was WSL's responsibility to manage the learning outcomes of people that didn't train with him very much.



A fiat statement not supported by any verifiable evidence.  Such evidence has been presented to the contrary, which you ignore or dismiss in order to continue on this unsupported track.



> Not having grappling is not a narrower approach. WSL VT approaches the whole fight in a specific way. It doesn't approach part of the fight. It is a full system. Other YM derived wing chun that I have seen approaches situations or badly conceived conceptual formulations with technique based solutions. It lacks the systematic understanding of WSL VT, and the conceptual base. Gaps are filled with strange ideas which contradict basic concepts and solutions are derived from the imaginings of people who never understood the systematic approach to combat that is WSL VT...



First the very definition of having a specific or precise approach to something is to be narrow.  This state is not by definition bad or inferior.



> The punch is the primary weapon of WSL VT. Including grappling is a gap filling approach which is required due to incomplete understanding of the system.


No it's because some arts are focused around a more holistic view of combat.  There are times when having Chin Na is a preferred option, such as when dealing with a person armed with a weapon as the principles of Chin Na can be used to control the limb and even disarm the subject.  If you are unarmed and your opponent has a weapon, unless you completely out class them in terms of skill, you will get cut or bludgeoned if you simply go to punch them down regardless of the art you study.  This is a hard earned fact of life.


> Since all of the different interpretations of YM wing chun that I have seen are different, it is disingenuous to make out that they are all similar while only WSL VT is different. In reality they are all very divergent, pointing to a widespead lack of understanding.



It is not disingenuous to say that WSLVT is the different one IF the basis of the comment is the specific point that the other lineages have some form of Chin Na but WSLVT doesnt.



> WSL VT is the only one I have seen that takes a fully systematic approach, has the strategic approach to fighting, and has the full, non-contradictory conceptual base.



Then you need to study a bit more.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So why do you think WSL would not have put out the effort to ensure the DP had this bit?  He was certainly with DP enough!



No, he wasn't. If PB, who spent 18 months straight training daily with WSL in HK, said he spent so much time on _seung-ma/teui-ma_ drilling to the point he thought it was the only drill in VT, how on Earth do you expect someone to drop in for a month or two once per year and learn VT to great depths? He lacked close observance and guidance for the other 10 or 11 months in the year!



> PB himself said that the approach of the system could be taught in an afternoon!



Yes, the VT strategy is simple and easy to explain and understand. But VT can't be learned in one day or two months!

The actual system is very technical and takes close guidance over time in order for the student to receive it. It's easy to screw up when a student is on their own and left to their imagination or looking elsewhere without knowing better.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Once he discovered how well what he taught to PB worked, perhaps he worked some of those changes into improving what he taught to everyone.



PB's seniors were training the same system before he got there, and they weren't handicapped. The system hasn't changed.


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> Since all of the different interpretations of YM wing chun that I have seen are different, it is disingenuous to make out that they are all similar while only WSL VT is different. In reality they are all very divergent, pointing to a widespead lack of understanding.



Yes, and the divergence begins most strikingly at _Biu-ji_ level and the weapons, demonstrating that most never got that far into the system and had to make up a bunch of nonsense while not understanding the whole picture of VT.


----------



## wckf92

Question, did wsl ever mention his thoughts on who taught ym this VT fighting method? Wouldn't the choices be either chan wah shun or this Leung bik person?


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> In another thread either you or Guy had stated that simultaneous attack and defense, if properly executed, is done so with one arm in WSLVT.  As you also put a premium on punching (which is difficult to do without a hand), well I think the connection is rather obvious.



Actually, PB pads his residual limb.  He has a wrist disarticulation, which leaves a strong impact resist surface behind.  So he can still actually punch pretty well with his "stump."  But he obviously can't grab anything, and so any Kum Na is out!


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> WSL had two hands



Indeed!  Which leads one to wonder how much of PB's VT is actually tailored to PB....including the strategic and conceptual approach of focusing almost exclusively on the punch!  This would explain differences between PB and DP.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> And we return to fiat statements based in dogma.



Actually it's based on experience of the two "versions" of the system and an objective technical analysis of their contents.

I have already detailed some of it in an earlier post, which you have ignored completely, otherwise I could add more to further illustrate the truth of how much DP doesn't know about VT.



Juany118 said:


> Sorry it's actually about time you and LFJ address all of the historical links I have posted.  You both made historical claims without supporting evidence.



None of your links have said anything different than what I have said. 

DP visited HK once per year for a few years, for one or two months at a time, max, and had WSL to Australia for seminars a few times as well.

You have only assumed what DP must have learned given a period of time you think is sufficient to learn something you have no experience of.

Since you don't actually know what you're talking about, you've had to ignore the technical analysis, and continue to do so because it shows that despite what you consider sufficient time, without even knowing what for, and despite a friendship developing over the years, DP still only had a phrasebook level understanding of VT.

This is objectively verifiable through technical analysis of what he teaches, regardless of what further timeline you want to point to.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> Here's what I don't get:
> 
> Let's start by assuming (for argument's sake) their stance that PB's WSLVT is the best. I can't judge one way or the other, so let's accept it for this post. Why would this not be a testament of the abilities of both WSL and PB to refine and improve the art? What is so awful about them both, perhaps, being extraordinary instructors and practitioners? If this is the best line, why is it not because these two are the best at what they do? Why would it have to be because others weren't told the whole story?



There is another long-standing custom and tradition in Chinese martial arts.  The sales slogan in the west for decades has been to refer to something as "new and improved!" in order to increasing its value.  But the custom in the east has been the opposite.  In CMA circles the sales slogan has always been "original and traditional!"  It was seen as disrepectful to  assume that you could improve upon what your teacher taught you or what your lineage contains.  Therefore any changes were always attributed to one's sifu or an ancestor in the system.  That is why there are so many stories of "hidden" methods being revealed.  People in CMA circles would value something much more if they thought they were learning the "hidden" method of some long lost ancestor than if they were learning the "new and improved" version from their own teacher!    So there is carry over of this tradition in Wing Chun as well.   If asked, WSL is very likely to tell someone that he is teaching them just what Ip Man taught him than he is to say, "well, I improved and adjusted and changed this part"......because that would have been seen as being disrepectful to Ip Man!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So he can still actually punch pretty well with his "stump."  But he obviously can't grab anything, and so any Kum Na is out!



Would agree, except that there was never any in, so it isn't out either.



KPM said:


> Indeed!  Which leads one to wonder how much of PB's VT is actually tailored to PB....including the strategic and conceptual approach of focusing almost exclusively on the punch!  This would explain differences between PB and DP.



No. Because, again, PB's seniors were training the same way before he got there, and the longer people spent with WSL the more they match this understanding of VT.

It's not a handicapped version, and that's offensive.

Luckily, VT works great despite PB's condition. It would not work so great if it were all hand and wrist focused, like the LTWT he started in and had to be turned away from, saying they couldn't help him.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Actually, PB pads his residual limb.  He has a wrist disarticulation, which leaves a strong impact resist surface behind.  So he can still actually punch pretty well with his "stump."  But he obviously can't grab anything, and so any Kum Na is out!



Oh I know that, which is why I think the premium is on punching.  In my lineage we punch of course but palm strikes and bil sau/jee are more preferable once you have learned how to punch with proper structure.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Why do you think losing a hand would be important?


Why would you think it wouldn't?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> It's not a handicapped version, and that's offensive.


KPM never called it a "handicapped version".


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I have already detailed some of it in an earlier post, which you have ignored completely,



There is a difference between you simply making a statement and also posting an independent link that serves as verifiable evidence of said statement.  Thus far you have failed to do this.  What's sad is if you did this, and I could not find similar evidence to contradict it, my opinion on the issue covered may actually be swayed.  



> None of your links have said anything different than what I have said.



Ummm wrong.  I posted that DP lived in Hong Kong and trained there with WSL, though I also admitted that it was not for as long as PB.  I then also noted that during breaks in the school year he would return to Hong Kong for as long as 2 months at a time to train with WSL until WSL's death.  You claimed these to be false.  I posted the link to the interview this came from.  So a link I posted did indeed contradict your accusation of falsehood.  I still await a rebuttal backed by an independent link so I can verify the source.

I don't know if you forgot this, didn't read the link or are simply saying whatever you feel must be said in order to defend your position but regardless I think it clear reason debate backed by verifiable facts is hopeless with you.



> DP visited HK once per year for a few years, for one or two months at a time, max, and had WSL to Australia for seminars a few times as well.



So you contradict yourself.  You claimed this to be simply false before.  Even when contradicting yourself you have to again try to minimize the significance of this as you were clearly ignorant of it previously (hence the claim of falsehood.). Simply further proof of what I said above.  To remind you where you simply said "false"... WSLVT



> You have only assumed what DP must have learned given a period of time you think is sufficient to learn something you have no experience of.



Well first I already said I once studied WSLVT.  That aside, you actually don't post any evidence that explains why WSL would personally appoint DP as a teacher of WSLVT if his knowledge was so lacking.  Your insistence on this beggars logic.


> Since you don't actually know what you're talking about,



Translation, I have yet to post anything resembling verification of my fiat statements so I will resort to attacking the source.  See above.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> KPM never called it a "handicapped version".



No one did, all anyone did was say that the disability will natural inform how he fights.  This isn't to demean it in the least.  The hyperbole is strong in this argument.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> In another thread either you or Guy had stated that simultaneous attack and defense, if properly executed, is done so with one arm in WSLVT. As you also put a premium on punching (which is difficult to do without a hand), well I think the connection is rather obvious.



The problem is really that you don't understand. I guess it would help if you tried to listen


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> The implication isn't the he just cut bits off something, but that he improved upon it. Why is that so objectionable to you?



Extremely improbable looking at the VT of WSL vs the mess that he supposedly improved upon. More likely that the mess represents degeneration of the understanding in WSL VT.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Here's what I don't get:
> 
> Let's start by assuming (for argument's sake) their stance that PB's WSLVT is the best. I can't judge one way or the other, so let's accept it for this post. Why would this not be a testament of the abilities of both WSL and PB to refine and improve the art? What is so awful about them both, perhaps, being extraordinary instructors and practitioners? If this is the best line, why is it not because these two are the best at what they do? Why would it have to be because others weren't told the whole story?



It isn't awful. I would be perfectly happy if the WSL VT I preactice was a product of YM, WSL or PB. It doesn't really matter to me who created it. It is just extremely improbable that this is the case, given the content and organisation of the system vs that which it is supposed to have evolved from by those who do not understand it.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> First that comment is regarding WSL and his VT. Every other YM lineage has some degree of Chin Na. According to PB WSLVT has no "grappling or bone breaking.". So it is more likely WSL streamlined WSLVT even further. This would not be unheard of since YM streamlined his WC.



DP doesn't mean that WSL streamlined VT is that quote. It is just a misinterpretation by KPM



Juany118 said:


> Such evidence has been presented to the contrary, which you ignore or dismiss in order to continue on this unsupported track.



You didn't present any evidence



Juany118 said:


> First the very definition of having a specific or precise approach to something is to be narrow.



It isn't narrow to approach the broad sweep of combat situations with a certain strategy. It is systematisation. Non systematisation (i.e. lack of depth) is narrow, which is the problem with non-WSL VT



> No it's because some arts are focused around a more holistic view of combat. There are times when having Chin Na is a preferred option, such as when dealing with a person armed with a weapon as the principles of Chin Na can be used to control the limb and even disarm the subject.



Unarmed vs armed is low % fantasy land. WSL VT is a pragmatic system.



> It is not disingenuous to say that WSLVT is the different one IF the basis of the comment is the specific point that the other lineages have some form of Chin Na but WSLVT doesnt.



It is disingenuous because while some might contain grappling, they are still wildly divergent from each other, and therefore do not represent some common system of which WSL VT is a refinement or specialisation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Extremely improbable looking at the VT of WSL vs the mess that he supposedly improved upon. More likely that the mess represents degeneration of the understanding in WSL VT.


Perhaps both occurred? Is it possible that YM had a coherent system that WSL made superior, while some others took it in a direction that wasn't as good as the original? From what I've heard, WSL seems an extraordinary martial artist and effective instructor - it seems unlikely he wouldn't have a positive impact on the overall structure and functionality of an art.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> It isn't narrow to approach the broad sweep of combat situations with a certain strategy. It is systematisation. Non systematisation (i.e. lack of depth) is narrow, which is the problem with non-WSL VT



I think the difference is in the use of "narrow". One can have a narrow approach that fits a broad range of situations. As someone commented in a different thread, just punching well works in a wide range of circumstances. So, perhaps the difference on this point is semantics - you're just using the term "narrow approach" to mean different things.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> The problem is really that you don't understand. I guess it would help if you tried to listen


Or, since I am using the very words used in this case, that more often than not the responses given by LFJ and yourself are so vague that you can give such a response regardless of what you are actually responding to.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> DP doesn't mean that WSL streamlined VT is that quote. It is just a misinterpretation by KPM
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't present any evidence
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't narrow to approach the broad sweep of combat situations with a certain strategy. It is systematisation. Non systematisation (i.e. lack of depth) is narrow, which is the problem with non-WSL VT
> 
> 
> 
> Unarmed vs armed is low % fantasy land. WSL VT is a pragmatic system.
> 
> 
> 
> It is disingenuous because while some might contain grappling, they are still wildly divergent from each other, and therefore do not represent some common system of which WSL VT is a refinement or specialisation.



I have presented links to articles, referred you to the videos you are already aware of as well as links to biographies and interviews.  These are called evidence.  You may disagree with it but it is then incumbent upon you to produce similar evidence to support a counter argument, vs unsupported statements which is all we have received to date.

Unarmed vs armed is not small % fantasy land.  Check out the FBI crime statistics.  Almost 20% of all Robberies, and over 50% of all Aggravated assaults, in the US are committed with knive/cutting instruments or other dangerous weapons (firearms and unarmed are seperate categories).  This also doesn't count weapon use in simple assaults or sexual assaults.  So if one is learning a Martial arts system to defend yourself in one of these scenarios in real life training to address an armed subject is very pragmatic.

Violent Crime

On the last bit, again, it is not disingenuous if you are simply asking "how many WC Lineages have Chin Na vs those that don't."


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I think the difference is in the use of "narrow". One can have a narrow approach that fits a broad range of situations. As someone commented in a different thread, just punching well works in a wide range of circumstances. So, perhaps the difference on this point is semantics - you're just using the term "narrow approach" to mean different things.



I tried to make a similar point earlier.  If I specialize in Narcotics Investigations and don't train in Sex Crime Investigations it doesn't mean I am a bad cop, it just means that my focus is specialized/narrow.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> It isn't awful. I would be perfectly happy if the WSL VT I preactice was a product of YM, WSL or PB. It doesn't really matter to me who created it. It is just extremely improbable that this is the case, given the content and organisation of the system vs that which it is supposed to have evolved from by those who do not understand it.



But how do YOU know what it is "supposed to have evolved from"???   You've said yourself you haven't seen all versions of Ip Man Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM

*DP doesn't mean that WSL streamlined VT is that quote. It is just a misinterpretation by KPM*

---And just how did I misinterpret that quote?



*You didn't present any evidence*

---He has presented far more tangible evidence than you have!

*It isn't narrow to approach the broad sweep of combat situations with a certain strategy. It is systematisation. Non systematisation (i.e. lack of depth) is narrow, which is the problem with non-WSL VT*

----You are simply choosing to apply one definition of "narrow" and  ignore the other to suit your own purposes.  If within your strategy you are focused on only landing the punch, then this is a more "narrow" focus than a strategy that is focused on breaking the opponent's balance and controlling them....whether by striking, or Kum Na, or simply angling.



*Unarmed vs armed is low % fantasy land. WSL VT is a pragmatic system.*

---Now that's funny!  As one that has studied both Filipino Martials arts and Silat, I know plenty of people that would laugh you right out of the forum!   Silat in particular spends lots of time with the blade!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> *Unarmed vs armed is low % fantasy land. WSL VT is a pragmatic system.*
> 
> ---Now that's funny!  As one that has studied both Filipino Martials arts and Silat, I know plenty of people that would laugh you right out of the forum!   Silat in particular spends lots of time with the blade!



The problem is that pragmatism is not universal, what is pragmatic in one environment may not be in another.  From my understanding of the challenge/roof top culture of HK in WSLs era his VT would indeed be pragmatic.  In terms of self defense on the streets of the US, as illustrated by the FBI crime statistics, one could argue that WSLVT is missing a tool of real value.

One of the reasons I study both WC and FMA is because, while TWC does have Chin Na, I believe that knowing how to use various types of weapons makes for a more effective defense against such weapons.  You more readily understand that your zoning and footwork needs to be more "open" than the typically tight foot work of WC due to the added reach a weapon provides (as one example.). The stick work is also directly applicable to my occupation as well but the first idea is a huge factor.  Thing is, even without the FMA, TWC has the techniques to address the presence of a weapon in a safer manner.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Perhaps both occurred? Is it possible that YM had a coherent system that WSL made superior, while some others took it in a direction that wasn't as good as the original? From what I've heard, WSL seems an extraordinary martial artist and effective instructor - it seems unlikely he wouldn't have a positive impact on the overall structure and functionality of an art.



It is possible that WSL made a good system better. 

But it is extremely unlikely that WSL made the system from anything like what I have seen of other YM VT in existence today, since those are lacking very large and important bits of information


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> None of your links have said anything different than what I have said.
> 
> DP visited HK once per year for a few years, for one or two months at a time, max, and had WSL to Australia for seminars a few times as well.
> 
> You have only assumed what DP must have learned given a period of time you think is sufficient to learn something you have no experience of.
> 
> Since you don't actually know what you're talking about, you've had to ignore the technical analysis, and continue to do so because it shows that despite what you consider sufficient time, without even knowing what for, and despite a friendship developing over the years, DP still only had a phrasebook level understanding of VT.
> 
> This is objectively verifiable through technical analysis of what he teaches, regardless of what further timeline you want to point to.



Excellent post


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Indeed!  Which leads one to wonder how much of PB's VT is actually tailored to PB....including the strategic and conceptual approach of focusing almost exclusively on the punch!  This would explain differences between PB and DP.



What would explain the similarity between WSL and PB?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I have presented links to articles, referred you to the videos you are already aware of as well as links to biographies and interviews.  These are called evidence.  You may disagree with it but it is then incumbent upon you to produce similar evidence to support a counter argument, vs unsupported statements which is all we have received to date.



This evidence isn't showing anything that I disagree with. DP studied a short while with WSL compared to PB and others.



> Unarmed vs armed is not small % fantasy land.  Check out the FBI crime statistics.  Almost 20% of all Robberies, and over 50% of all Aggravated assaults, in the US are committed with knive/cutting instruments or other dangerous weapons (firearms and unarmed are seperate categories).  This also doesn't count weapon use in simple assaults or sexual assaults



By low % I mean the chance of success of the person without the weapon in an armed vs unarmed situation. Chance of succes is low. Since 80% of robberies and 50% of assaults are committed without weapons, and since I have a much greater chance of success in crimes without weapons, it is best to focus my efforts on high % tactics vs unarmed opponents (since these are more likely to happen, and my success % is higher).



> On the last bit, again, it is not disingenuous if you are simply asking "how many WC Lineages have Chin Na vs those that don't."



It is disingenuous since those other wing chuns are wildly divergent and the grappling they contain is not based on anything but a need to fill gaps.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> But how do YOU know what it is "supposed to have evolved from"???   You've said yourself you haven't seen all versions of Ip Man Wing Chun.



I have not seen all versions of Yip Man wing chun. I am using what I have experienced as a guide. If you would like to present an example of YM derived wing chun that is different then I would be interested to see it.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> And just how did I misinterpret that quote?



You misconstrued what DP meant



> He has presented far more tangible evidence than you have!



His evidence says that DP studied VT for less time than PB. This is not news.



> You are simply choosing to apply one definition of "narrow" and  ignore the other to suit your own purposes.  If within your strategy you are focused on only landing the punch, then this is a more "narrow" focus than a strategy that is focused on breaking the opponent's balance and controlling them....whether by striking, or Kum Na, or simply angling.



I disagree. If your approach to fighting doesn't contain a strategy or a conceptual base then it will not work in fighting, no matter how many gaps you try to fill with grappling. A martial arts system lacking systematisation and not suitable for fighting is quite narrow in approach.



> As one that has studied both Filipino Martials arts and Silat, I know plenty of people that would laugh you right out of the forum!   Silat in particular spends lots of time with the blade!



Defending unarmed against an armed attacker is lower % than defending against an unarmed attacker. Being attacked by an armed attacker is less likely than being attacked by an unarmed attacker. What am I missing?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Why would you think it wouldn't?



Hands not important in VT


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> This evidence isn't showing anything that I disagree with. DP studied a short while with WSL compared to PB and others.



And I never said otherwise.  My issue was with dismissive terms such as "brief".  If you total up the time and accept WSL personally authorized DP to teach WSLVT, the time had to be of some significance.


> By low % I mean the chance of success of the person without the weapon in an armed vs unarmed situation. Chance of succes is low. Since 80% of robberies and 50% of assaults are committed without weapons, and since I have a much greater chance of success in crimes without weapons, it is best to focus my efforts on high % tactics vs unarmed opponents (since these are more likely to happen, and my success % is higher).



He thing is it isn't laughable IF you train to deal with an armed assailant.  You changes of disarming someone in your typical street encounter go up dramatically if you train.  Simply saying "well since I will only be faced with a subject armed with a knife, club etc in 30% of all encounters so why bother" isn't being pragmatic, it's being dismissive.  That would be like me saying at work "well in over 18 years I haven't been shot at so I don't need my bullet proof vest.". It's actually worse in this case because at least 1/3 of the time in all major violent crimes (I omitted homicides but the % there is also significant) you would simply say "why bother?"



> It is disingenuous since those other wing chuns are wildly divergent and the grappling the contain is not based on anything but a need to fill gaps.



This only makes sense if you accept the premise that WSLVT is the only WC to not have gaps.  It's actually kinda odd how here you said the others have it to fill gaps and then try to dismiss the serious possibility that WSLVT has a gap when it comes to addressing an armed assailant.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> And I never said otherwise.  My issue was with dismissive terms such as "brief".  If you total up the time and accept WSL personally authorized DP to teach WSLVT, the time had to be of some significance.



You say this because you have no clue what the WSL VT system entails and how much time and effort it takes to learn properly. DP spent a brief time with WSL and the results are pretty clear to see. I am not sure why you are getting offended on his behalf?



> He thing is it isn't laughable IF you train to deal with an armed assailant.  You changes of disarming someone in your typical street encounter go up dramatically if you train.  Simply saying "well since I will only be faced with a subject armed with a knife, club etc in 30% of all encounters so why bother" isn't being pragmatic, it's being dismissive.  That would be like me saying at work "well in over 18 years I haven't been shot at so I don't need my bullet proof vest.". It's actually worse in this case because at least 1/3 of the time in all major violent crimes (I omitted homicides but the % there is also significant) you would simply say "why bother?"



I think there are much better ways to prepare for with people armed with knives when you are unarmed (if that is your concern) than to train awful wing chun grappling in an attempt to deal with it. It reminds me of the comments where people were trying to convince me that adding grappling to VT is worth doing when bjj, judo and wrestling exist and are easily available in most places.

From what I have seen of wing chun grappling I would prefer to rely upon good WSL VT skills if I was unarmed, than to attempt some second rate grappling. But since I am a judo blackbelt and bjj purple in all honestly if someone came at me with a knife I would most likely try to secure the weapon arm, trip them to the ground, and break the arm.

Thankfully defending unarmed against weapon attacks has not been a big part of my life so far, whereas I have had a few unarmed altercations. If people were regularly attacking me with knives then I would carry a weapon.



> This only makes sense if you accept the premise that WSLVT is the only WC to not have gaps.  It's actually kinda odd how here you said the others have it to fill gaps and then try to dismiss the serious possibility that WSLVT has a gap when it comes to addressing an armed assailant.



VT addresses an armed assailant through the weapons. A much higher % approach.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> You say this because you have no clue what the WSL VT system entails and how much time and effort it takes to learn properly. DP spent a brief time with WSL and the results are pretty clear to see. I am not sure why you are getting offended on his behalf?



I don't have a horse in that race.  My issue is that you seem to dodge WSL personally saying DP was fit to teach WSLVT.  When something like that happens it is the head of the "family" saying the person's knowledge of his art is very extensive.  As you say it takes time to learn WSLVT, heck any art.  So this is, in essence, an indicator of the time involved.




> I think there are much better ways to prepare for with people armed with knives when you are unarmed (if that is your concern) than to train awful wing chun grappling in an attempt to deal with it. It reminds me of the comments where people were trying to convince me that adding grappling to VT is worth doing when bjj, judo and wrestling exist and are easily available in most places.


 I think it is inappropriate to make a global statement that all WC lineage has bad grappling.  

I agree with your last bit though.  To personally try to add something into any existing system, not just WSLVT, and maintain coherence isn't a good idea.  However cross training in another art would, imo not be out of the question and as I said, some WC Lineages do have functional Chin Na.



> From what I have seen of wing chun grappling I would prefer to rely upon good WSL VT skills if I was unarmed, than to attempt some second rate grappling. But since I am a judo blackbelt and bjj purple in all honestly if someone came at me with a knife I would most likely try to secure the weapon arm, trip them to the ground, and break the arm.



And here you kinda make my point.  My point was simple really, just 3 parts.

1. A significant amount of self defense scenarios have someone encountering a weapon.
2.thus if you are training for self defense Chin Na is an advisable skill.
3. Some WC Lineages have function Chin Na, so they should be considered IF #2 is true.  If you want to cross train as you have done, that works as well.



> Thankfully defending unarmed against weapon attacks has not been a big part of my life so far, whereas I have had a few unarmed altercations. If people were regularly attacking me with knives then I would carry a weapon.


 I look at such skills as a "be prepared" thing.  Off duty I usually carry weapon(s) of some sort but action beats reaction and sometimes trying to deploy a weapon can put you in a bad spot, you just need to control that weapon bearing limb and do what you have to to disarm the suspect.  Sadly where I work violence is not uncommon.



> VT addresses an armed assailant through the weapons. A much higher % approach.



As do other Lineages BUT walking around with the pole or butterfly swords is a bit impractical for street self defence.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> My issue is that you seem to dodge WSL personally saying DP was fit to teach WSLVT



Have a look at who else WSL provided certificates to. It is not an inspiring list.



Juany118 said:


> So this is, in essence, an indicator of the time involved



The time involved is the time involved. Not enough in the case of DP. As you can probably see by looking at video of him



Juany118 said:


> some WC Lineages do have functional Chin Na.



Assuming that is true it is still not as good as the easily available alternatives, so why bother with it?



Juany118 said:


> And here you kinda make my point. My point was simple really, just 3 parts.
> 
> 1. A significant amount of self defense scenarios have someone encountering a weapon.
> 2.thus if you are training for self defense Chin Na is an advisable skill.
> 3. Some WC Lineages have function Chin Na, so they should be considered IF #2 is true. If you want to cross train as you have done, that works as well.



I think unarmed vs weapon ideas are very low %, no matter what they entail. VT takes the approach of using weapons against weapons, which is much more sensible



Juany118 said:


> walking around with the pole or butterfly swords is a bit impractical for street self defence.



If you regularly encounter weapons when unarmed then there are much better ways to deal with it than wing chun grappling. Simply carrying a weapon would be the best way. It doesn't need to be a wing chun weapon. A gun would be the best bet. A baton would be a good thing to have if you didn't have a gun. 

If for some strange reason you need to remain unarmed when facing a high chance of weapon attack then a stab vest and good grappling, or a specific weapon countering system would be a good idea. Relying on wing chun grappling would probably amount to semi insanity in such a scenario.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Have a look at who else WSL provided certificates to. It is not an inspiring list.
> 
> 
> 
> The time involved is the time involved. Not enough in the case of DP. As you can probably see by looking at video of him
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming that is true it is still not as good as the easily available alternatives, so why bother with it?
> 
> 
> 
> I think unarmed vs weapon ideas are very low %, no matter what they entail. VT takes the approach of using weapons against weapons, which is much more sensible
> 
> 
> 
> If you regularly encounter weapons when unarmed then there are much better ways to deal with it than wing chun grappling. Simply carrying a weapon would be the best way. It doesn't need to be a wing chun weapon. A gun would be the best bet. A baton would be a good thing to have if you didn't have a gun.
> 
> If for some strange reason you need to remain unarmed when facing a high chance of weapon attack then a stab vest and good grappling, or a specific weapon countering system would be a good idea. Relying on wing chun grappling would probably amount to semi insanity in such a scenario.



As for the list of teachers comment... That seems to infer that WSL did not have pride in his art because, at least according to tradition, the instructors chosen by the Master, and their ability, is a reflection of the Master himself.

As for why bother with WC that has effective Chin Na, why not bother?  Many of the better grappling systems are not as proficient at striking, as an example.  If the WC system is well rounded and effective in its various techniques do it.  So people only have time to study one art so going for something that is well rounded (again so long as it maintains effectiveness) is a reasonable choice.

As for the last bit, I understand that VT addresses weapons with weapons but the weapons involved are impractical to carry in the modern world and in some jurisdictions illegal.  As for why use a more rounded WC lineage, for only one of the reasons see above.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> As for the list of teachers comment... That seems to infer that WSL did not have pride in his art because, at least according to tradition, the instructors chosen by the Master, and their ability, is a reflection of the Master himself.



Lol, make of it what you will. 



Juany118 said:


> As for why bother with WC that has effective Chin Na, why not bother?



Because BJJ will teach you strategies vs strikers, strategies vs weapons, along with fantastic grappling. Wing Chun grappling is a complete waste of time in comparison. Play to your strengths. Simple, direct, efficient. 



Juany118 said:


> As for the last bit, I understand that VT addresses weapons with weapons but the weapons involved are impractical to carry in the modern world and in some jurisdictions illegal.



VT uses the weapons of its time and place. The idea though couldn't be more obvious: use weapons when confronting weapons. The VT weapons also teach a lot about weapons in general.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Lol, make of it what you will.



Well I dont make it to be that way so, using logic, the people personally chosen by WSL should be skilled as they are a direct  reflection upon him.  You can always debate who the better one is, but those debates always exist.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> the people personally chosen by WSL



The list you found is not a list of people personally chosen by WSL.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> The list you found is not a list of people personally chosen by WSL.



That is true, I only linked that as proof that DP was a member of the WSL student association.  That has nothing to do with the fact that DP himself was personally chosen however.  Even LFJ acknowledged this as a fact, he tried to dismiss this by saying it was just a "thank you" which is simply illogical, a man like WSL would not do so for the reason I noted in the previous post, DP and his knowledge (or lack there of) would be a reflection on WSL due to such a selection.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> That is true, I only linked that as proof that DP was a member of the WSL student association.  That has nothing to do with the fact that DP himself was personally chosen however.  Even LFJ acknowledged this as a fact, he tried to dismiss this by saying it was just a "thank you" which is simply illogical, a man like WSL would not do so for the reason I noted in the previous post, DP and his knowledge (or lack there of) would be a reflection on WSL due to such a selection.



WSL granted certificates to many people, many of whom don't understand the system and are far from being able to teach it effectively. The idea of these lame duck people setting themselves up as gatekeepers was probably unthinkable to WSL, but in many places that is exactly what they did. 

I have personal experience with one of these people, and to hear someone that knows nothing of the situation defending a person like that on the basis of a bit of paper (they love bits of paper) is quite annoying, to say the least.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Hands not important in VT


So, a shorter arm, with less weight, and a lack of dexterity that can adjust its movement mid-arc is all somehow irrelevant? Shorter reach doesn't change anything? We're talking about the human body - removing that hand does have an effect. Some of the effect may, in fact, be positive. Some would certainly be negative. Some arts would be far more affected than VT, but I find it difficult to believe that it would have no effect, at all. Heck, if the arm was complete but 6 inches short, that would have a dramatic effect on some of the interplay of limbs. At the very least, the lower inertia/momentum of that arm would have an impact.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I posted that DP lived in Hong Kong and trained there with WSL, though I also admitted that it was not for as long as PB.  I then also noted that during breaks in the school year he would return to Hong Kong for as long as 2 months at a time to train with WSL until WSL's death.  You claimed these to be false.



 What I said was false was your claim that he lived there. The link only talks about his relatively short visits. He said those yearly visits started in '93 until WSL's death, which would make 3 or 4 times for "up to" two months.



> So you contradict yourself.  You claimed this to be simply false before.  Even when contradicting yourself you have to again try to minimize the significance of this as you were clearly ignorant of it previously (hence the claim of falsehood.).



I have repeated the same thing at least 4 or 5 times in this thread, including before you posted links that say the same thing.

You have magnified the significance of holiday visits into "lived there".

He even said much of his time spent there was not under direct instruction of WSL.



Juany118 said:


> That is true, I only linked that as proof that DP was a member of the WSL student association.



He's the big brother to the founders who all basically decided to give themselves membership. It means nothing.



> That has nothing to do with the fact that DP himself was personally chosen however.  Even LFJ acknowledged this as a fact, he tried to dismiss this by saying it was just a "thank you" which is simply illogical, a man like WSL would not do so for the reason I noted in the previous post,



This didn't come from me. PB said that's what they were. Probably why he never waves it around claiming "authorization", like some of these people whose knowledge and skill is not enough to speak for itself and need the sifu namedrop to get any attention.

For you to call this illogical based on a perception of a man you didn't know is kind of dumb.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> What I said was false was your claim that he lived there. The link only talks about his relatively short visits. He said those yearly visits started in '93 until WSL's death, which would make 3 or 4 times for "up to" two months.
> 
> 
> 
> I have repeated the same thing at least 4 or 5 times in this thread, including before you posted links that say the same thing.
> 
> You have magnified the significance of holiday visits into "lived there".
> 
> He even said much of his time spent there was not under direct instruction of WSL.
> 
> 
> 
> He's the big brother to the founders who all basically decided to give themselves membership. It means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> This didn't come from me. PB said that's what they were. Probably why he never waves it around claiming "authorization", like some of these people whose knowledge and skill is not enough to speak for itself and need the sifu namedrop to get any attention.
> 
> For you to call this illogical based on a perception of a man you didn't know is kind of dumb.


Translation... Blah blah blah... Sorry if you are somewhere for months you are living there.  That isn't just a "visit".

You have been reduced to semantics and that is not worthy debating.


----------



## LFJ

I don't consider a month or two living there. I did the same thing when studying another style in China. Spent summer vacations in the school and also had the teacher to the States for seminars. 

But I know better than to think I learned anywhere as deeply as the domestic students who trained all day long year-round. I was on my own the rest of the year back home, and always had corrections when I returned.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I don't consider a month or two living there...



That is subjective

That said he went there when his career allowed him on a regular basis over years.  Then add WSL not only living in his home when WSL was in Australia (where he spent a fair bit of time) then you are the guy being the punching bag an being the translator for a man I would call a genius throughout the region.

As a lapsed teacher, and former soldier, that is one of the best ways to learn.  Finishing a meal and just talking, "shooting the ****" in a casual atmosphere.  I learned at least as much during my first years as a cop on "smoothy nights" (hanging out and drinking a few beers on our last shift of the cycle) at a squad mates house as I did sitting next to my field training officer in a patrol car.  In the end learning is learning regardless of the skill.


----------



## LFJ

What you are suggesting is that someone can learn just as well and completely as others who train all day, every day year-round under close guidance of their teacher in a fraction of the time. Literally thousands of hours less per year. At least, you are convinced that it's sufficient to learn something you've never learned.

Close personal guidance is extremely important in one's formative years. That's why PB stayed there for his first 18 months straight. DP never had such experience, and it shows.

In any case, you have a timeline and figure it must be enough for DP to have learned the full system. So, what do we do now? 

The next logical step to objectively confirm your theory would be to perform a technical analysis of what he teaches and compare it to that of longterm students, but when we do this we find application-based thinking every step of the way, phrasebook level knowledge, and no understanding of the conceptual or strategic base of VT.

Ask why, then look at his timeline and it becomes obvious. He lacked close guided instruction at the time it was most important and never had uninteruppted training for more than a couple months once per year for a few years.

The problem now is that you ignore these facts and stick to your theory that no! he _must have_ learned fully, because... Who knows?


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> There is zero QC done with that list
> 
> 
> 
> What's the simplest explanation for the fact that different people are teaching different things?



The simple answer is that some people find what is affective. Does not mean that things have to be diluted, just improved upon. If the technique is sound, I.E. sticking to the core of what that technique has evolved, there is nothing to say that an improvement is invalid. Sticking to doctrine is a sticky wicket, and one that can be found out, especially when one is blind to doctrine.


----------



## KPM

*What you are suggesting is that someone can learn just as well and completely as others who train all day, every day year-round under close guidance of their teacher in a fraction of the time. Literally thousands of hours less per year. At least, you are convinced that it's sufficient to learn something you've never learned.*

----No one would argue that part-time training is as good as full-time training.  But PB has written that the approach of WSLVT could be learned in person in an afternoon.  You yourself have even referred to the "simplicity" of WSLVT.    Wing Chun is a much simpler system than the majority of other CMAs.   What we have been saying is that DP spent enough time with WSL to grasp the conceptual and strategic approach you guys have mentioned.   And if he hadn't, wouldn't that have been apparent to WSL when they were together?  Wouldn't have WSL sought to correct that deficiency?   You are making WSLVT out to be far more complicated than most of us have seen Wing Chun to be.


*
Ask why, then look at his timeline and it becomes obvious. He lacked close guided instruction at the time it was most important and never had uninteruppted training for more than a couple months once per year for a few years.*

----And you actually believe that during those month long sessions with WSL DP would have never said...."but Sifu, how do you fight with Wing Chun?".....which would have prompted an explanation of the strategic and conceptual approach of WSLVT?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Translation... Blah blah blah... Sorry if you are somewhere for months you are living there.  That isn't just a "visit".
> 
> You have been reduced to semantics and that is not worthy debating.



It simply isn't enough time. Look at the results and see.


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Sticking to doctrine is a sticky wicket, and one that can be found out, especially when one is blind to doctrine.



I believe this may be a content free sentence


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> But PB has written that the approach of WSLVT could be learned in person in an afternoon.



You can understand the goals of the system in an afternoon. You won't have a clue how to achieve them though



> What we have been saying is that DP spent enough time with WSL to grasp the conceptual and strategic approach you guys have mentioned.



I don't know exactly what DP learned and what he didn't, but he doesn't have any appreciation of the technical workings of the WSL VT strategy and mostly takes an application based approach. 



> And if he hadn't, wouldn't that have been apparent to WSL when they were together? Wouldn't have WSL sought to correct that deficiency? You are making WSLVT out to be far more complicated than most of us have seen Wing Chun to be.



WSL VT is both more pared down in that it contains nothing superfluous, and much more complex in that it is a real system. I don't know what WSL thought of DP, but quite obvious that whatever time they spent together was not enough just by looking at what he teaches.


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> I believe this may be a content free sentence



No not at all. I could exand, but you clearly have no idea what it is to face the situation where you have to fight. Trolling is not fighting, real life is. Why don't you just accept that, it does not matter what skill set is used, and to what doctrine is used. There is only one, the opponent goes down hard. I have to question just what you have been taught. Go into a real live situation, you seem like mince meat. And yes, I was drunk the other night, but I have mixed it. What have you done?, apart from disparaged every other user on this forum, and continue to do so.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> No not at all. I could exand, but you clearly have no idea what it is to face the situation where you have to fight. Trolling is not fighting, real life is. Why don't you just accept that, it does not matter what skill set is used, and to what doctrine is used. There is only one, the opponent goes down hard. I have to question just what you have been taught. Go into a real live situation, you seem like mince meat. And yes, I was drunk the other night, but I have mixed it. What have you done?, apart from disparaged every other user on this forum, and continue to do so.


I have been wanting to go here but then decided against it because in an earlier post he responded to someone saying that what ultimately matters is that it works in a real encounter.  He said that he doesn't accept such a premise.  He is so steeped in the dogma and theory of his particular WSLVT that he can't see past the theory to the practical application of a TMA in a real life violent encounter.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> I have been wanting to go here but then decided against it because in an earlier post he responded to someone saying that what ultimately matters is that it works in a real encounter.  He said that he doesn't accept such a premise.  He is so steeped in the dogma and theory of his particular WSLVT that he can't see past the theory to the practical application of a TMA in a real life violent encounter.



Yes agree. To be quite honest about it, in a real life situation,  I did use a knee tickle as I put it, but to use what I know, would have likely meant doing bird (slang meaning prision). I just get a bit het up around trolls that clearly don't know what it means to be in a real life encounter. Especially true around here when quite a few members are ex forces, current LEO's, or both. Simply put, you could not use Wing Chun on the street, a person would simply be crusified under U.K. law (no offesnse intended with the use of that term). So my take is, anybody who thinks that the Martial Arts has any street application is deluded. I will opnengly admit that Guy B winds me up, not so much with Wing Chun speak, more to the point that even I would not disparage members that are clearly more skilled than I am. You just don't do it, especially if you have the skills that are conveyed in posts. Maybe I am just being naive, but there are things you just don't do. Self defence is about what is necessary, no amount of WSLVT is going to change. Which I suspect Guy B will never understand. Cupcakes probably.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But PB has written that the approach of WSLVT could be learned in person in an afternoon.  You yourself have even referred to the "simplicity" of WSLVT.



The theory is simple, but the system is complex.

In other words, VT fighting is simple, but VT training is complex.

It's easy to screw things up without close guidance during your formative years. That's exactly what DP lacked.



> ----And you actually believe that during those month long sessions with WSL DP would have never said...."but Sifu, how do you fight with Wing Chun?".....which would have prompted an explanation of the strategic and conceptual approach of WSLVT?



DP noted in one of those interview links that much of his time in WSL's school was not even under direct instruction of WSL. It's not like he had month long private lessons.

So, it sounds like WSL, similar to YM, was more attentive to regular students, and taught phrasebook ideas to the occasional visitors and seminar attendees into whom he didn't have the time to invest careful instruction.

DP would not need to ask that question because he already had an application in mind for everything in the forms, from his phrasebook, which is what he teaches still today. That's how he thinks one fights with VT.

He would have naturally learned more had he spent more time and fought. He was also never a fighter. In fact, PB has said that whenever WSL mentioned there being sparring planned for the next class, few people would even turn up.

It's no mystery why we have a bunch of _chi-sau_ addicts in WSLVT, but only a few real fighters. Similar situation, I suspect, with YM students. Very few were actual fighters, and most testing was done outside, while class was used for correcting. No fighting, no correcting, nothing to improve. Just endless hours of _chi-sau_ games.


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Yes agree. To be quite honest about it, in a real life situation,  I did use a knee tickle as I put it, but to use what I know, would have likely meant doing bird (slang meaning prision). I just get a bit het up around trolls that clearly don't know what it means to be in a real life encounter. Especially true around here when quite a few members are ex forces, current LEO's, or both. Simply put, you could not use Wing Chun on the street, a person would simply be crusified under U.K. law (no offesnse intended with the use of that term). So my take is, anybody who thinks that the Martial Arts has any street application is deluded. I will opnengly admit that Guy B winds me up, not so much with Wing Chun speak, more to the point that even I would not disparage members that are clearly more skilled than I am. You just don't do it, especially if you have the skills that are conveyed in posts. Maybe I am just being naive, but there are things you just don't do. Self defence is about what is necessary, no amount of WSLVT is going to change. Which I suspect Guy B will never understand. Cupcakes probably.



Well I am one of the LEOs and have actually used WC and it works but you are half right.  It works for me because I know if I _bil sau_ to the eyes I better be able to justify lethal force, if I kick the knee intentionally and hyper extend it I best be able to articulate that the suspect was not only using active aggression but was of a size (or high on something) that my skinny butt was not going to be able to control him otherwise.  In short I know the laws governing use of force and so adapt my fighting strategy to meet the level of resistance I am encountering.

Where you are right is that, in my experience, most Traditional Martial Arts instructors teach the "how" but not the "when" of fighting.  Heck some actually teach with what we call "Cobra Kai" (Karate kid reference) strategy as the only way to fight regardless of the circumstance... Put the opponent down with extreme prejudice.

My instructor teaches the when but he is also a former operator and also a Forensics and Combatives consultant for a number of LE agencies  but, at least in my area, he is the exception that proves this rule.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> Well I am one of the LEOs and have actually used WC and it works but you are half right.  It works for me because I know if I _bil sau_ to the eyes I better be able to justify lethal force, if I kick the knee intentionally and hyper extend it I best be able to articulate that the suspect was not only using active aggression but was of a size (or high on something) that my skinny butt was not going to be able to control him otherwise.  In short I know the laws governing use of force and so adapt my fighting strategy to meet the level of resistance I am encountering.
> 
> Where you are right is that, in my experience, most Traditional Martial Arts instructors teach the "how" but not the "when" of fighting.  Heck some actually teach with what we call "Cobra Kai" (Karate kid reference) strategy as the only way to fight regardless of the circumstance... Put the opponent down with extreme prejudice.
> 
> My instructor teaches the when but he is also a former operator and also a Forensics and Combatives consultant for a number of LE agencies  but, at least in my area, he is the exception that proves this rule.



Thanks, learnt something new there. It must be quite difficult to choose what technique as it were. With the knee, would that be statistics, or would you favour that move as something that works. Of course within the confines of the law. I mean it become like half a move? Or just something that if you followed through, would than likely be excessive force. Just curious, just how far could you go?


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> I have been wanting to go here but then decided against it because in an earlier post he responded to someone saying that what ultimately matters is that it works in a real encounter.  He said that he doesn't accept such a premise.  He is so steeped in the dogma and theory of his particular WSLVT that he can't see past the theory to the practical application of a TMA in a real life violent encounter.



You said "application"!!!!!


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> You said "application"!!!!!



Yes. Hence why I asked why you get way with?


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:
			
		

> Transk angry


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Thanks, learnt something new there. It must be quite difficult to choose what technique as it were. With the knee, would that be statistics, or would you favour that move as something that works. Of course within the confines of the law. I mean it become like half a move? Or just something that if you followed through, would than likely be excessive force. Just curious, just how far could you go?



It doesn't actually take a lot of thought.  I have little "boxes" in my head and based on what I encounter I open the appropriate box. If the person is only giving me Defensive resistance (basically just trying to pull away to prevent control) the joint lock/control box is the only one opened.  If they are engaged in an assault to prevent control I can strike but need to limit targets (unless bigger, high etc) so the striking box gets opened.  If they are trying to straight up whoop my butt, I open the box that includes all targets and my baton, I sometimes joke and call that "Kali time." 

As for the knee, to avoid headaches and oops moments, I don't move to kick it unless I am justified in hyperextension/breaking the joint.


----------



## Juany118

On a side note, yesterday I found myself teaching coworkers the arm structure of a WC punch.  I prefer palm strikes but the structure became relevant due to an incident the night before.  An officer ended up going to the hospital after fighting with a subject.  He had lacerations to his head due to the bad guy but he had injured his hand an wrist punching.  He was doing western boxing style punches, some of which can cause injury if you aren't taped up because stuff doesn't naturally line up.  The WC punch however lines everything up naturally though.  It doesn't 100% prevent injury of course but it does reduce the possibility a fair degree.


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> Question, did wsl ever mention his thoughts on who taught ym this VT fighting method? Wouldn't the choices be either chan wah shun or this Leung bik person?



Both.

He came to VT and found YM because of stories of CWS and LJ.

He also said YM explained to him that the preference for _gaang-sau_ or _jam-sau_ in the SNT form differed between CWS and his second teacher LB, due to height difference.

WSL of course kept both in.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> It doesn't actually take a lot of thought.  I have little "boxes" in my head and based on what I encounter I open the appropriate box. If the person is only giving me Defensive resistance (basically just trying to pull away to prevent control) the joint lock/control box is the only one opened.  If they are engaged in an assault to prevent control I can strike but need to limit targets (unless bigger, high etc) so the striking box gets opened.  If they are trying to straight up whoop my butt, I open the box that includes all targets and my baton, I sometimes joke and call that "Kali time."
> 
> As for the knee, to avoid headaches and oops moments, I don't move to kick it unless I am justified in hyperextension/breaking the joint.



Very interesting. Thanks for the reply on that. The use of boxes makes a lot of sense, that way I imagine you find it easier to maintain control. Not that I emply anything of course, stick within the box seems to have a relative safety net attached.


----------



## Transk53

Sorry to disappoint you, but no. No mileage from me today. I just think you should stop being so rude, and be constructive. It's not that hard a thing to do you know.


----------



## Callen

guy b said:


> David Peterson doesn't have a full understanding of the system (by far).





guy b said:


> There is zero QC done with that list


Why all the judgment?


----------



## KPM

^^^ Haven't you heard?   David Peterson doesn't do the "real" WSLVT.


----------



## Callen

KPM said:


> ^^^ Haven't you heard? David Peterson doesn't do the "real" WSLVT.


As a community, we're better than this. If Guy B is an actual WSLVT practitioner, I doubt his sifu would approve of such a comment.


----------



## LFJ

Callen said:


> Why all the judgment?



I guess you haven't read through the whole thread.

"Data" was requested, and therefore provided. See, for example, Post #30 and the end, Post #147.

As I said, it's difficult to avoid causing offense when detailing deficiencies in the learning of a well-known teacher.

However, the truth is the truth, and anyone who claims to be a fighter able to take a punch, should be able to handle non-sugarcoated discussion of the truth. We shouldn't avoid or cover the truth just to spare the feelings of some grown men.

To be honest, I once believed in what DP taught, mostly because he's an articulate speaker who can explain things in a convincing way. When I heard a different perspective, my first reaction was also defensiveness, to rationalize what I thought was decent WC in a world of non-so-decent WC. (I still think it's better than most.)

Once I laid down my bias and observed the evidence as it was shown to me, I had no choice but to accept it.

So, just because some people don't like straight talk, doesn't mean others won't appreciate it or learn from it. I was one of those who did, so I don't mind sharing the data when asked for it.



Callen said:


> As a community, we're better than this. If Guy B is an actual WSLVT practitioner, I doubt his sifu would approve of such a comment.



Any sifu should respect their students' right to free speech, especially if it's only discussing objective data in the spirit of sharing for the purpose of learning and growth. I know I appreciated hearing it.


----------



## guy b

Callen said:


> As a community, we're better than this. If Guy B is an actual WSLVT practitioner, I doubt his sifu would approve of such a comment.



On these threads it is common to find a picture, a video, or the name of someone teaching VT who appears to do it differently to the WSL VT that I have experienced. This is a common theme and has carried on over meany threads, not just this one. The intent is to show that WSL VT is not different to other wing chun and that it is not true to argue that it is. This is from people who have no experience of WSL VT. 

I guess that if you don't think WSL VT is different then you would see no need to argue. I do think that it is different though, and so when something like this is brought up I do feel that I need to clarify what the difference is, and why it exists. 

There is an element of trolling going on here: David Peterson is a favourite person for KPM and others to mention and I think that they derive a certain pleasure from seeing me or LFJ criticise other WSL VT. Gary Lam was another favourite but since Gary Lam is quite open in saying that he has added to the system it is easier to explain differences in his case. 

Personally I started with a teacher in the UK who, like David Peterson, had quite a large following and was the face of the system in that country. He is mentioned on that list provided by Juany. It took me quite a few years of reading messages on boards like this, or exchanging emails with people doing WSL VT under other teachers to realise that what I was learning was not the same thing, and that a lot was missing or misinterpreted. Ironically a visit from DP to the UK was a bit of a watershed moment in the realisation of a lot of this teacher's students that something wasn't right, but I hadn't been with him long enough at that point to realise and stayed. Later I made the move to another teacher and since then can see huge differences in what is being taught, and the level of understanding of the system between different teachers. 

I think that all teachers have something to offer and I am thankful to the one I started with for what he showed me, but he was not teaching WSL VT as I now know it to exist, and I feel slightly cheated that I was led to believe I was learning something that I really was not. I think for many of the teachers who learned a bit from the odd WSL seminar or short visit, it would be better if they just taught under their own names, rather than use the name of WSL under what they must know to be somewhat false pretences. 

I don't think anything wrong in putting this kind of information out there as it is the way that I found my way to better WSL VT, even though it took me a lot of wasted time. If all WSL VT was the same then there would be no need to do this, but sadly it isn't.


----------



## Vajramusti

So on this list we have two frequent posters who have attended PB seminars and watched videos as experts
on WSL's wing chun.. They have stated their belief in PBVT again and again and again.Hpw about moving on to other topics?
One hopes for some fresh air.


----------



## guy b

Vajramusti said:


> So on this list we have two frequent posters who have attended PB seminars and watched videos as experts
> on WSL's wing chun.. They have stated their belief in PBVT again and again and again.Hpw about moving on to other topics?
> One hopes for some fresh air.



We also have an infrequent poster who (when he does post) generally makes negative comments and contributes virtually nothing. When asked for clarification he generally stops replying. 

If you want something to change then suggest you make yourself part of that change. You are only responsible for your own actions after all.


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> So on this list we have two frequent posters who have attended PB seminars and watched videos as experts
> on WSL's wing chun.. They have stated their belief in PBVT again and again and again.Hpw about moving on to other topics?
> One hopes for some fresh air.



Who are you?

If you're not interested, you can stop clicking into these threads.

If you want other topics, you can start one.


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> It is possible that WSL made a good system better.



FINALLY!!!


----------



## guy b

wtxs said:


> FINALLY!!!



I've never denied that this is possible. Unlikely but possible. If true what would it change?


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> I've never denied that this is possible. Unlikely but possible. If true what would it change?



Base on how long this thread is ... not a thing.


----------



## guy b

wtxs said:


> Base on how long this thread is ... not a thing.



Make a new thread if you have interesting stuff to talk about?


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> We also have an infrequent poster who (when he does post) generally makes negative comments and contributes virtually nothing. When asked for clarification he generally stops replying.
> 
> If you want something to change then suggest you make yourself part of that change. You are only responsible for your own actions after all.



So does actually validate anything you say? I'll say good luck with the fanatical belief that VT is being the end game. That's what are saying right, that you part of some Wing Chun master race? Get over yourself man. Jeez louise!


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> So does actually validate anything you say? I'll say good luck with the fanatical belief that VT is being the end game. That's what are saying right, that you part of some Wing Chun master race? Get over yourself man. Jeez louise!



?


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> ?



Lol.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I've never denied that this is possible. Unlikely but possible. If true what would it change?



What do you mean "what would it change"????!!!!!!!   Your entire premise this whole time has been that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught.  Yet you say that you have come across no other Ip Man student that taught exactly what WSL taught....and in fact that ALL of them teach a "broken" version of Wing Chun.  When it has been pointed that the differences you see may be due to WSL himself refining or updating the system based on is own talent and experience you have vehemently denied that possibility as so unlikely as to not even being willing to consider it.   And now you say "If true what would it change?"!!!   It would negate your entire argument thus far!  That is what it would change!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> When it has been pointed that the differences you see may be due to WSL himself refining or updating the system based on is own talent and experience you have vehemently denied that possibility as so unlikely as to not even being willing to consider it.



Why consider something unlikely to be as important as something likely in terms of considering what (probably) happened? And why relegate something unlikely to impossible when it is only unlikely? 

Wouldn't make any sense, on either count.


----------



## KPM

Classic case of not being able to come out on top in a discussion, so back-pedaling a bit to suggest that you weren't completely opposed to what the other side was saying all along!


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Classic case of not being able to come out on top in a discussion, so back-pedaling a bit to suggest that you weren't completely opposed to what the other side was saying all along!



I fully embrace everything I have said and it isn't like I haven't said it before. Are you saying that you disagree with giving more weight to the theory that is more likely and less to that which is not? Are you saying that something unlikely should be considered impossible, rather than just unlikely?

Like Geezer you seem to have a mind that cannot tolerade ambiguity.


----------



## wingchun100

Could it be said that this thread has also degenerated into some people (not naming names) not being on their "best behavior?"


----------



## wtxs

KPM said:


> What do you mean "what would it change"????!!!!!!!   Your entire premise this whole time has been that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught.  Yet you say that you have come across no other Ip Man student that taught exactly what WSL taught....and in fact that ALL of them teach a "broken" version of Wing Chun.  When it has been pointed that the differences you see may be due to WSL himself refining or updating the system based on is own talent and experience you have vehemently denied that possibility as so unlikely as to not even being willing to consider it.   And now you say "If true what would it change?"!!!   It would negate your entire argument thus far!  That is what it would change!



Thanks for jumping in KPM.

As to "if true what it would change?"  Before it had been proven to be incorrect a few centuries ago, people believes the world is square, if you sail or go pass any sides, you would fall off the face of the earth, now we can go safely round and round and round the world ... HEY WAITA MINUTE ... sure sound like some of the threads lately!


----------



## dudewingchun

I think the way WSL guys go forward is an easy way to get ko'd. How do you guys prevent that?


----------



## LFJ

dudewingchun said:


> I think the way WSL guys go forward is an easy way to get ko'd. How do you guys prevent that?



You mean DP guys.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> You mean DP guys.


Are you certain that's what he meant?


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Are you certain that's what he meant?



That's where his experience with WSLVT was, and we've had the discussion before.

Walking straight into round punches? We prevent it by not doing that.


----------



## dudewingchun

LFJ said:


> That's where his experience with WSLVT was, and we've had the discussion before.
> 
> Walking straight into round punches? We prevent it by not doing that.



Every wsl lineage iv seen goes forward in the same way. Not everyone throws a round punch on the first go and it doesn't have to be a round punch that hits you, any angle could clock you while going forward like that.

You act like PB has the best fighting system but all the videos of him are chi sao which is nothing like fighting at all


----------



## LFJ

dudewingchun said:


> Every wsl lineage iv seen goes forward in the same way.



You should see more.



> You act like PB has the best fighting system but all the videos of him are chi sao which is nothing like fighting at all



Nor is it presented as such.


----------



## guy b

dudewingchun said:


> Every wsl lineage iv seen goes forward in the same way. Not everyone throws a round punch on the first go and it doesn't have to be a round punch that hits you, any angle could clock you while going forward like that.



Which WSL VT lineages go forward "like that". What do you mean by "like that"?



dudewingchun said:


> you act like PB has the best fighting system but all the videos of him are chi sao which is nothing like fighting at all



PB is one of the best exponents of VT. Why are you judging his fighting ability on videos of chi sau? I suggest meeting up if you are interested.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> ...PB is one of the best exponents of VT. Why are you judging his fighting ability on videos of chi sau? I suggest meeting up if you are interested.



Odd response. I took the Dude's comment simply to mean that there aren't any PB-VT fighting videos  posted. Didn't read anything in his post that was negative about the quality of PB's chi sau. He simply implied that fighting and chi sau are very different. Haven't you said as much?


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> Which WSL VT lineages go forward "like that". What do you mean by "like that"?
> 
> 
> 
> PB is one of the best exponents of VT. Why are you judging his fighting ability on videos of chi sau? I suggest meeting up if you are interested.



Think you confuse fighting ability that is something can be taught. It is intrinsic IMHO. Hone skills through drills and training, but you are either a fighter or not. Do you truely appreciate what it is, to harm to another human being?


----------



## geezer

Transk53 said:


> Think you confuse fighting ability that is something can be taught. It is intrinsic IMHO. Hone skills through drills and training, but you are either a fighter or not. Do you truely appreciate what it is, to harm to another human being?



I think I agree. And I'm _not_ a fighter by temperament. Although there are a few times when I did want to harm people ...the moments quickly passed. Anyway I sense that you do have the "fighter" in you, which is one reason I value your posts.

Not so sure about some of the other know-it-all keyboard warriors posting here.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Didn't read anything in his post that was negative about the quality of PB's chi sau. He simply implied that fighting and chi sau are very different. Haven't you said as much?


 
It is a criticism of the opinion that PB is good:

"you act like PB has the best fighting system but all the videos of him are chi sao which is nothing like fighting"

He's saying that we shouldn't be of the opinion that PB is good until we have videos of PB fighting which show that he is good at fighting. Videos of chi sau don't cut it. 

Well I would agree, but there are obviously other ways to find out about PB if anyone is interested in doing so


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Think you confuse fighting ability that is something can be taught. It is intrinsic IMHO. Hone skills through drills and training, but you are either a fighter or not. Do you truely appreciate what it is, to harm to another human being?


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


>



Seriously? I could be bothered with the obvious Troll response, but I'm not. You can't answer my question can you, that says a lot Guy B, it says a lot


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Think you confuse fighting ability that is something can be taught. It is intrinsic IMHO. Hone skills through drills and training, but you are either a fighter or not. Do you truely appreciate what it is, to harm to another human being?


Do you really believe someone is born able to fight or not, and cannot change that?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> I think I agree. And I'm _not_ a fighter by temperament. Although there are a few times when I did want to harm people ...the moments quickly passed. Anyway I sense that you do have the "fighter" in you, which is one reason I value your posts.
> 
> Not so sure about some of the other know-it-all keyboard warriors posting here.


I think there are some people who would have a VERY hard time developing their fight-ability, and others for whom fighting comes easily. However, I think nearly anyone CAN fight, under the right circumstances, and some of the mental obstacles can be overcome through progressive work (same as dealing with phobias).


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Do you really believe someone is born able to fight or not, and cannot change that?



You know, you are probably right, forget I said anything, just a bit of personal bias.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> I think there are some people who would have a VERY hard time developing their fight-ability, and others for whom fighting comes easily. However, I think nearly anyone CAN fight, under the right circumstances, and some of the mental obstacles can be overcome through progressive work (same as dealing with phobias).



I remember years ago Paul Vunak had a program out on "how to develop killer instinct."


----------



## dudewingchun

guy b said:


> It is a criticism of the opinion that PB is good:
> 
> "you act like PB has the best fighting system but all the videos of him are chi sao which is nothing like fighting"
> 
> He's saying that we shouldn't be of the opinion that PB is good until we have videos of PB fighting which show that he is good at fighting. Videos of chi sau don't cut it.
> 
> Well I would agree, but there are obviously other ways to find out about PB if anyone is interested in doing so



I would meet PB if he was in the area. I honestly think if i gloved up and sparred him and was not giving him feeder punches he would not look that impressive.


----------



## guy b

I suggest if interested that you make contact.


----------



## BlueBoy11

gpseymour said:


> That's reasonable. What of the time DP spent traveling with WSL, translating and spending time with him. Do you suppose that time included discussion and perhaps training? I would imagine if I were traveling with an instructor, we'd spend a good bit of time talking about our practices, philosophies, and the way we express the principles in the art.


hi guy  from melbourne Australia i am loving this thread i am not the only one who questions mr peterson firstly mr peternon At no time lived in hong kong for any length of time he was a school teacher and had to be back at the start of term he went three weeks only when i vistedf his school  he was aways back late jan thats  fact llook at the way he teaches footwork compaired to the great barry lee  huge difference the same with the great philip bayer its good to see some in our clan waking up cheers


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BlueBoy11 said:


> hi guy  from melbourne Australia i am loving this thread i am not the only one who questions mr peterson firstly mr peternon At no time lived in hong kong for any length of time he was a school teacher and had to be back at the start of term he went three weeks only when i vistedf his school  he was aways back late jan thats  fact llook at the way he teaches footwork compaired to the great barry lee  huge difference the same with the great philip bayer its good to see some in our clan waking up cheers


That doesn't seem relevant to the question I asked in the post you replied to. I was curious about the time he spent traveling with WSL, translating for him - not the time he visited/lived in Hong Kong.

(PS - Please add some punctuation, as it makes your posts much easier to read.)


----------



## geezer

gpseymour said:


> ...(PS - Please add some punctuation, as it makes your posts much easier to read.)



I did not know that Sifu Peterson was a school teacher. Cool.  BTW, perhaps BlueBoy would have benefitted if he had a little more respect for that profession!


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Do you really believe someone is born able to fight or not, and cannot change that?



Thinking about this yes I do. Some people IMHO have the born skills with which to fight. Only have to hone technique. Others have to learn technique to fight. Those that are born with the ability to fight, have it easier, over those that have to make do with a blank canvas if you will. I do believe that genetics have a big sway over those who know how to punch out of the womb, over those who have to learn how to punch. Yes I had to learn how to effectively kick, in my limited capacity, but never had to learn how to punch. 

Just semantics of course, but I never had to learn how to fight, I just did it. I put that down to my Aberdonian hard as nails Grandad who was a RSM, and fought as a youngster in WW1. Maybe sheer folly, and have no real world substance, but having predominantly English genes, with a smattering of Irish and Scottish blood, that is how I see it. Of course though, I ain't quite right in the head, but my Grandad Mac is a hero to me, so I effectiontly blame him


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Ah! That's different than the way I read your original post. You're not saying it's not changeable - just that some people are naturally predisposed to be able to fight. I agree with that, entirely. I'm not sure if I was in that group or not. I wouldn't have thought of myself as a natural fighter, but I was never one to back down, so maybe that's just the story I had in my head.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> Ah! That's different than the way I read your original post. You're not saying it's not changeable - just that some people are naturally predisposed to be able to fight. I agree with that, entirely. I'm not sure if I was in that group or not. I wouldn't have thought of myself as a natural fighter, but I was never one to back down, so maybe that's just the story I had in my head.



Difficult to define I guess. I was able to always counter a threat, probably rather on the dirty side, but still still.


----------

