# Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory



## LFJ

KPM said:


> .........start a thread that talks about the technical differences between WSLVT and everyone else's Wing Chun in the Ip Man lineage and why they think those differences could not be due to WSL's own refinements or innovations of the system based on his own talent and experience.



Unfortunately, you don't see the improbability of your theory, or the complexity of your request.

I don't know if others can relate, but I would liken it to a translator trying to "refine" a mangled result from Google Translate.

Despite my sufficient experience and bit of talent in translation, what is generated by GT often barely resembles a coherent language, and trying to turn that into a clear and accurate rendering of the source text would be a nightmare.

It would take at least double the time, be frustrating as heck, and would require more complete rewritings than "refinements". Better quality translation would come from just working straight with the source text. 

Without a complete and comprehensible source text available, refining a GT result would be impossible or result in something almost entirely new.

But, WSL was coming to YM to learn how to fight, not to repair YM's martial art or create a new one out of something that didn't work for him.

If what YM taught him was as confused and contradictory as much of what's out there now, I'm sure WSL would have wasted no time in moving right along to another style.

Now, I sense someone might want to stay with the translation analogy and say different translators may come up with different wordings that are all still accurate and acceptable as merely differences in stylistic preference (though some could also be inaccurate due to misunderstanding the source text, or missing chunks, which could also lead to misinterpretation of the bits the translators do have).

The analogy doesn't quite carry over here, though, because making changes to the VT system (YMVT) would be akin to making changes in the source text, not just the translation.

If changes are made to the system, it could very well result in a break, especially if one does not fully understand the complete system to begin with. 

A concrete example of this we have discussed in the past is adding footwork to _daan-chi-sau_.

There is a reason _seung-ma_ / _teui-ma _stepping drills are trained from _pun-sau_ with both arms in contact.

Teach stepping and turning with one hand in DCS to a beginner who hasn't learned _pun-sau _yet and there is bound to be all sorts of problems; errors in distance, facing, angles, and footwork that will be difficult to correct and easy for an opponent to exploit, like over-turning.

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

Other examples of "cart before the horse" appear in fighting strategy, such as using secondary actions (e.g. _paak_; _jat_) as primary actions. Doing this when the primary action is available is superfluous and violates all three of the core VT principles; Simplicity, Directness, Efficiency.

It is not just the understanding of the complete content of YMVT that is important, it is also sequence- and timing-dependent. Break the sequence and timing, break the system, break the functionality.

It is so incredibly unlikely that WSL's logical, consistent, and orderly version of the VT system would have been created by him from the illogical, inconsistent, and disorderly mess that has become mainstream.

It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand. 

Many things can be argued in words but undeniable and irrefutable in practice.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Unfortunately, you don't see the improbability of your theory, or the complexity of your request.
> 
> I don't know if others can relate, but I would liken it to a translator trying to "refine" a mangled result from Google Translate.
> 
> Despite my sufficient experience and bit of talent in translation, what is generated by GT often barely resembles a coherent language, and trying to turn that into a clear and accurate rendering of the source text would be a nightmare.
> 
> It would take at least double the time, be frustrating as heck, and would require more complete rewritings than "refinements". Better quality translation would come from just working straight with the source text.
> 
> Without a complete and comprehensible source text available, refining a GT result would be impossible or result in something almost entirely new.
> 
> But, WSL was coming to YM to learn how to fight, not to repair YM's martial art or create a new one out of something that didn't work for him.
> 
> If what YM taught him was as confused and contradictory as much of what's out there now, I'm sure WSL would have wasted no time in moving right along to another style.
> 
> Now, I sense someone might want to stay with the translation analogy and say different translators may come up with different wordings that are all still accurate and acceptable as merely differences in stylistic preference (though some could also be inaccurate due to misunderstanding the source text, or missing chunks, which could also lead to misinterpretation of the bits the translators do have).
> 
> The analogy doesn't quite carry over here, though, because making changes to the VT system (YMVT) would be akin to making changes in the source text, not just the translation.
> 
> If changes are made to the system, it could very well result in a break, especially if one does not fully understand the complete system to begin with.
> 
> A concrete example of this we have discussed in the past is adding footwork to _daan-chi-sau_.
> 
> There is a reason _seung-ma_ / _teui-ma _stepping drills are trained from _pun-sau_ with both arms in contact.
> 
> Teach stepping and turning with one hand in DCS to a beginner who hasn't learned _pun-sau _yet and there is bound to be all sorts of problems; errors in distance, facing, angles, and footwork that will be difficult to correct and easy for an opponent to exploit, like over-turning.
> 
> Stepping in DCS is a system defect. This is putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> Other examples of "cart before the horse" appear in fighting strategy, such as using secondary actions (e.g. _paak_; _jat_) as primary actions. Doing this when the primary action is available is superfluous and violates all three of the core VT principles; Simplicity, Directness, Efficiency.
> 
> It is not just the understanding of the complete content of YMVT that is important, it is also sequence- and timing-dependent. Break the sequence and timing, break the system, break the functionality.
> 
> It is so incredibly unlikely that WSL's logical, consistent, and orderly version of the VT system would have been created by him from the illogical, inconsistent, and disorderly mess that has become mainstream.
> 
> It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand.
> 
> Many things can be argued in words but undeniable and irrefutable in practice.


Actually, since every person must interpret every single communication through his or her own filters, process them through his or her own memories, then feed them to subsequent students back through their filter and (flawed) memories, it would be practical to assume that WSL's transmission of the system is not entirely YM's. Given that, we then have to decide if WSL changed things only as a transmission error, or whether he saw parts he thought could be improved upon (which should be the case in every re-transmission of an art).

So, rather than simply contrasting one version with all other versions (a false dichotomy, from what I can tell), why not enter the discussion that was posited, looking at what is different in each and why those differences might exist? You're looking at what you consider all the downsides to those choices you consider erroneous. Might there also be upsides to them?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Actually, since every person must interpret every single communication through his or her own filters, process them through his or her own memories, then feed them to subsequent students back through their filter and (flawed) memories, it would be practical to assume that WSL's transmission of the system is not entirely YM's. Given that, we then have to decide if WSL changed things only as a transmission error, or whether he saw parts he thought could be improved upon (which should be the case in every re-transmission of an art).
> 
> So, rather than simply contrasting one version with all other versions (a false dichotomy, from what I can tell), why not enter the discussion that was posited, looking at what is different in each and why those differences might exist? You're looking at what you consider all the downsides to those choices you consider erroneous. Might there also be upsides to them?



I believe you don't do wing chun, or have only a very basic understanding of the system?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> I believe you don't do wing chun, or have only a very basic understanding of the system?


That is correct (the former - the latter would overstate my understanding). I'm speaking not out of any expertise in WC, but as someone who understands how information is transmitted - which is never 100% accurate, even with documentation and repetition.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> That is correct (the former - the latter would overstate my understanding). I'm speaking not out of any expertise in WC, but as someone who understands how information is transmitted - which is never 100% accurate, even with documentation and repetition.



What makes you think that WSL VT lacks measures to make sure information is transmitted correctly, or that the people currently involved with the system lack an appreciation and understanding of information dynamics?

I guess that if you don't know WSL VT is designed as an error correcting system which builds attributes and understanding via mutually beneficial partner and equipment based exercises, then you might think that simply memorising all of that detail would be difficult, and transmission problematic? As it stands I think that the system has this covered. This can be seen in the similarity between good practitioners. 

Problems arise when learning is incomplete, but this is not a system problem as far as I can tell.


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> This can be seen in the similarity between good practitioners.



This is a good point. In fact, I've researched a TCMA in central China that split from a common ancestor into two villages 500+ years ago that remained isolated from each other. Yet, while they have evolved seperately, they are still remarkably similar.

Their forms still follow the same sequence of postures and they still have the same functions. The only major difference is in footwork where one has just made the movements cover more space with leaping steps.

This is evidence that when understood fully, systems can remain intact for centuries.

These were farming villages where kung fu is their passtime, and had been used in the past to protect against invasions. So, villagers had nothing but time to put into training properly and passing it on through the centuries.

If this is possible, simple filters and faulty memories cannot account for so much contradiction between WC lineages from the same teacher in just one generation.

Obviouly not everyone spent the time and learned completely, as much as some people don't want to imagine it.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> You're looking at what you consider all the downsides to those choices you consider erroneous. Might there also be upsides to them?



Well, since they damage the functionality of the system, contradict its core principles, and create fighting errors we try to prevent or work to correct, I can't think of any upsides.

VT fight training is all about ingraining desirable behaviors and correcting undesirable habits, which we all have enough of. Things happen too fast for thinking about doing the right things at the right time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Well, since they damage the functionality of the system, contradict its core principles, and create fighting errors we try to prevent or work to correct, I can't think of any upsides.
> 
> VT fight training is all about ingraining desirable behaviors and correcting undesirable habits, which we all have enough of. Things happen too fast for thinking about doing the right things at the right time.


Your first sentence sounds like you're being absolutist about those differences. I've rarely seen a difference between similar styles where all the advantages were on one side, though I have seen differences where both sides claimed all the advantages were theirs. I suspect that those things you refer to contradict the core principles *as you understand them*, and not as the people in those other lines see them. A difference in the approach to some significant principles is not uncommon between styles of the same art - that's what differentiates them.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I suspect that those things you refer to contradict the core principles *as you understand them*, and not as the people in those other lines see them. A difference in the approach to some significant principles is not uncommon between styles of the same art - that's what differentiates them.



VT aims for the highest level of simplicity, directness, and efficiency. If anything can be made more so, we do it. This is what makes VT.

Using two arms and/or multiple steps to achieve what one arm could do in one step, for example, is objectively violating these core principles. 

And keeping to these principles is not dogmatic, but a matter of percentages in fighting. The further away from these principles we move, the lower percentages become.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Your first sentence sounds like you're being absolutist about those differences. I've rarely seen a difference between similar styles where all the advantages were on one side, though I have seen differences where both sides claimed all the advantages were theirs. I suspect that those things you refer to contradict the core principles *as you understand them*, and not as the people in those other lines see them. A difference in the approach to some significant principles is not uncommon between styles of the same art - that's what differentiates them.



This simply doesn't happen though in a single generation where the system is learned correctly


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> This simply doesn't happen though in a single generation where the system is learned correctly


Sure it does. I can point to instructors within NGA - at a similar level to me - who have a different approach. Theirs isn't wrong compared to mine, and some of them actually spend time dissecting differences looking to borrow and learn from each other (including me). This is among students of the same primary instructor, who is alive and still teaching. Differences can absolutely develop between instructors in a single generation, and without anyone having to be wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> VT aims for the highest level of simplicity, directness, and efficiency. If anything can be made more so, we do it. This is what makes VT.
> 
> Using two arms and/or multiple steps to achieve what one arm could do in one step, for example, is objectively violating these core principles.
> 
> And keeping to these principles is not dogmatic, but a matter of percentages in fighting. The further away from these principles we move, the lower percentages become.


If adding a second arm makes a technique less fallible, then the complexity (second arm) has a payoff (more likely the techniques succeeds). One could interpret that as increased efficiency trumping simplicity. Or, one could interpret the single arm as simplicity trumping efficiency. Or there could be a third, fourth, and fifth viewpoint on that one example. Claiming to be the arbiter of "rightness" doesn't automatically negate others' considered opinions.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> VT aims for the highest level of simplicity, directness, and efficiency. If anything can be made more so, we do it. This is what makes VT.
> 
> Using two arms and/or multiple steps to achieve what one arm could do in one step, for example, is objectively violating these core principles.
> 
> And keeping to these principles is not dogmatic, but a matter of percentages in fighting. The further away from these principles we move, the lower percentages become.



No. because the source isnt the scripture. It is in the application. you are focused on the finger. Not the moon. As the saying goes.

Wing chun wasn't built correctly. If it was it would be obvious in its application. Where has that assumption come from?


----------



## geezer

gpseymour said:


> If adding a second arm makes a technique less fallible, then the complexity (second arm) has a payoff (more likely the techniques succeeds). One could interpret that as increased efficiency trumping simplicity. Or, one could interpret the single arm as simplicity trumping efficiency. Or there could be a third, fourth, and fifth viewpoint on that one example. Claiming to be the arbiter of "rightness" doesn't automatically negate others' considered opinions.



You are absolutely right here. The various WC/VT/WT branches all emphasize _simplicity, directness, _and _efficiency. _However, in fighting, you also have to take into account _reliability_ under adverse conditions. The most finely tuned and efficient machine may not be the most reliable. Similarly, I've found that some very efficient WC techniques are not always high percentage movements.

And more importantly, no fighting system is perfect. And even if there were one _nearly_ perfect system, it wouldn't fit all people equally well.  So variation is inevitable. Honestly, there is no way to resolve this argument.  It reminds me of trying to discuss the factual reality of evolution with a good friend who is a creationist. Our worldviews are just too different to make conversing on the topic worthwhile.


----------



## KPM

_I don't know if others can relate, but I would liken it to a translator trying to "refine" a mangled result from Google Translate.
_
---Actually.  I don't think that is a good analogy.  I have done some work as a medical and scientific editor.   I think a better analogy would be taking technical writing that isn't as clear and concise as it could be and refining it so that the meaning is clearer to the reader.  That isn't nearly as tough as what you described.  Because WSL would not have started with something that "barely resembles a coherent language."  He would have started with Ip Man's Wing Chun, which was already good!
_

But, WSL was coming to YM to learn how to fight, not to repair YM's martial art or create a new one out of something that didn't work for him.
_
---Again, you seem to be assuming that what WSL started with from Ip Man was in terrible shape.  That is not at all what I was suggesting.
_

If what YM taught him was as confused and contradictory as much of what's out there now, I'm sure WSL would have wasted no time in moving right along to another style._

----I'm sure that's true!   And I'm sure there is a lot out there that is "confused and contradictory".  I never said there wasn't!  What I have objected to was your theory that what EVERYONE else learned was "confused and contradictory" except for what WSL learned.   I have stated that I believe that where WSL differs from the other senior students of Ip Man was likely due to WSL's own refinements, experience, and understanding.  And I don't think the Wing Chun of men like Ho Kam Ming, Tsiu Tsun Ting, Lok Yiu, etc is as "confused and contradictory" as you make them out to be. 



_If changes are made to the system, it could very well result in a break, especially if one does not fully understand the complete system to begin with. _

----One could start from a system that was bit broader in scope and "refine" it to concentrate on the delivery of the punch and then rework the conceptual and strategic approach to focus on that.  Hence any standing grappling would be dropped.  The idea of broader "applications" of techniques that didn't contribute to delivering the punch would be dropped, etc. Why would that be so difficult?



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

---Good explanation.  Easy to see how over generations that explanation would get skipped and people would think that adding the step from the beginning was a good thing.  But when I learned Ip Man Wing Chun, that  step wasn't added to Dan Chi Sau until well after it had been learned in Seung Chi Sau. 


_Other examples of "cart before the horse" appear in fighting strategy, such as using secondary actions (e.g. paak; jat) as primary actions. Doing this when the primary action is available is superfluous and violates all three of the core VT principles; Simplicity, Directness, Efficiency_.

---But only if your conceptual and strategic approach is focused on delivering the punch.  There are plenty of times when you may not want to use a maximum response and punch the other person out. And things never go as planned in a real situation.  So you may not be able to deliver that punch directly.  And if you are facing multiple opponents it my be more efficient to use a Kum Na technique to throw one opponent into the path of an approaching opponent to provide you with time to get the heck out of there!     So again, in a system with a bit broader scope than just the punch, things like that would not be seen as "broken."



_It is so incredibly unlikely that WSL's logical, consistent, and orderly version of the VT system would have been created by him from the illogical, inconsistent, and disorderly mess that has become mainstream._

---But again, no one said he would have started from the "illogical, inconsistent, and disorderly mess that has become mainstream."  The "mess" largely exists in people that are now several generations removed from Ip Man and likely have "filled gaps."  But that description does not apply to everyone as you seem to suggest!   Why don't you assume that WSL was starting with a system very similar to what Ho Kam Ming teaches?  Then I don't think that the idea is as "incredibly unlikely" as you make it out to be!


_It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand. _

---Maybe so.  But then we are still left with the support for your theory essentially being "because I said so!"


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Sure it does. I can point to instructors within NGA - at a similar level to me - who have a different approach. Theirs isn't wrong compared to mine, and some of them actually spend time dissecting differences looking to borrow and learn from each other (including me). This is among students of the same primary instructor, who is alive and still teaching. Differences can absolutely develop between instructors in a single generation, and without anyone having to be wrong.



Ok great. Maybe try VT, I guess it is a bit different to your system


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> f adding a second arm makes a technique less fallible, then the complexity (second arm) has a payoff (more likely the techniques succeeds). One could interpret that as increased efficiency trumping simplicity.



WSL VT depends upon having two arms working seperately on one level, with both containing independent attack and defence functionality, while working together in terms of an overarching strategic approach. Using two arms to accomplish what one arm can do ruins the built in defensive strategy of the system, and being hit is inefficient. It also ruins the automatic attacking strategy and puts the fighter into a trading punches situation where attack % goes down.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Because WSL would not have started with something that "barely resembles a coherent language." He would have started with Ip Man's Wing Chun, which was already good!



If Yip Man's VT was the same as some of the wing chun descended from him today, then it must indeed have barely resembled a coherent language compared to WSL VT. 

Which VT do you think is a good representation of YM's system if WSL VT represents an evolution? We can then compare directly. 



KPM said:


> What I have objected to was your theory that what EVERYONE else learned was "confused and contradictory" except for what WSL learned.



This has never been a theory of mine, or as far as I am aware of LFJ's. I would really like it if you would stop repeating this line in every single discussion. Thanks



KPM said:


> One could start from a system that was bit broader in scope and "refine" it to concentrate on the delivery of the punch and then rework the conceptual and strategic approach to focus on that



In other YM wing chun that I have seen, the whole strategic approach has been missing, and the conceptual understanding is totally buggered, for want of a better word. It isn't something that you could "refine" to come up with WSL VT



KPM said:


> Why don't you assume that WSL was starting with a system very similar to what Ho Kam Ming teaches? Then I don't think that the idea is as "incredibly unlikely" as you make it out to be!



It would be great if someone would discuss the VT of HKM. It is not one I have ever seen


----------



## KPM

_Which VT do you think is a good representation of YM's system if WSL VT represents an evolution? We can then compare directly. _

----Ho Kam Ming's Wing Chun for one.  Tsui Tsun Ting's Wing Chun for another.  


_This has never been a theory of mine, or as far as I am aware of LFJ's. I would really like it if you would stop repeating this line in every single discussion. Thanks_


---Well the problem is that you have stated something along the lines of "but there may be other systems of Wing Chun out there that are good other than WSLVT".....but then you cannot give an example and name any other Ip Man lineages that you approve of.  So even though you protest what I said above, you still essentially  believe that it is true.  



_In other YM wing chun that I have seen, the whole strategic approach has been missing, and the conceptual understanding is totally buggered, for want of a better word. It isn't something that you could "refine" to come up with WSL VT_

---See.  You do essentially believe what I said above.  So your protest is a bit hollow.  


_
It would be great if someone would discuss the VT of HKM. It is not one I have ever seen._

---Yes.  It would be good if Joy would actually engage and provide detail.  Its been too long since I studied in that lineage for me to make good and accurate comments.   But maybe Danny will talk about his lineage for comparison.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Ho Kam Ming's Wing Chun for one. Tsui Tsun Ting's Wing Chun for another



Do you mean Chu Shong Ting? 

Are these two approaches to the system very similar, or are they different?

I have no experience of HKM VT



KPM said:


> Well the problem is that you have stated something along the lines of "but there may be other systems of Wing Chun out there that are good other than WSLVT".....but then you cannot give an example and name any other Ip Man lineages that you approve of. So even though you protest what I said above, you still essentially believe that it is true.



Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have not seen one of the two that you single out as good representations of YM's system so I am at a disadvantage in being able to write it off at this point. I must remain agnostic on the question of HKM VT



KPM said:


> See. You do essentially believe what I said above. So your protest is a bit hollow.



That isn't true, because I have not seen all of the wing chun derived from Yip Man. I can't judge what I haven't seen. 



KPM said:


> Yes. It would be good if Joy would actually engage and provide detail. Its been too long since I studied in that lineage for me to make good and accurate comments. But maybe Danny will talk about his lineage for comparison



It would indeed be very helpful if Joy would discuss, but I fear it is unlikely to happen. If it did then I would just listen because information is so thin on the ground


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Ok great. Maybe try VT, I guess it is a bit different to your system


Why would I try VT? I have a perfectly functional system to work with, with other instructors who have opinions and leave an imprint on the art, allowing it to evolve and match the needs of a changing world. You put forth VT as ever-unchanging, which to me sounds like something well on its way to being antiquated.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> WSL VT depends upon having two arms working seperately on one level, with both containing independent attack and defence functionality, while working together in terms of an overarching strategic approach. Using two arms to accomplish what one arm can do ruins the built in defensive strategy of the system, and being hit is inefficient. It also ruins the automatic attacking strategy and puts the fighter into a trading punches situation where attack % goes down.


It's only inefficient if the one-arm approach is equally reliable and effective. If the one-arm approach sacrifices effectiveness, it would lead to a second technique which is, by definition, less efficient.


----------



## geezer

Guy, you quoted KPM as saying, _What I have objected to was your theory  that what EVERYONE else learned was"confused and contradictory" except for what WSL learned. _To which your responded:



guy b said:


> This has never been a theory of mine, or as far as I am aware of LFJ's. I would really like it if you would stop repeating this line in every single discussion. Thanks



Then immediately below you stated:



guy b said:


> In other YM wing chun that I have seen, the whole strategic approach has been missing, and the conceptual understanding is totally buggered, for want of a better word...



Talk about confused and contradictory!  Is it any wonder that Joy and others don't waste their time answering you?


----------



## LFJ

Did the "_that I have seen_" part not compute for you guys?

Neither guy nor I have seen all YM lineage WC, but what we have seen has been problematic.


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...
> 
> ...I have not seen all of the wing chun derived from Yip Man. I can't judge what I haven't seen.



Don't know how much clearer you can be!

Agnosticism is apparently not allowed because then they can't strawman you, and making you out to be an elitist is one of their main lines of attack, since they don't know much about the systems being compared.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> If adding a second arm makes a technique less fallible, then the complexity (second arm) has a payoff (more likely the techniques succeeds). One could interpret that as increased efficiency trumping simplicity. Or, one could interpret the single arm as simplicity trumping efficiency.



A single arm performing the functions of two arms essentially creates a four-arm strategy. It is both simpler and more efficient than using two arms to do the work of one which is superfluous and creates more steps between attacks.

The percentage of success with the VT method also relies on this dual-capability in both arms because it enables sustained attack with automatic defense. 

Dividing the work between two arms when unnecessary creates a more defensive approach, which gives the opponent more opportunity to counter, rather than cutting off their options with a sustained flow of direct attacks.


----------



## drop bear

LFJ said:


> A single arm performing the functions of two arms essentially creates a four-arm strategy. It is both simpler and more efficient than using two arms to do the work of one which is superfluous and creates more steps between attacks.
> 
> The percentage of success with the VT method also relies on this dual-capability in both arms because it enables sustained attack with automatic defense.
> 
> Dividing the work between two arms when unnecessary creates a more defensive approach, which gives the opponent more opportunity to counter, rather than cutting off their options with a sustained flow of direct attacks.



Provided it does the job. Having two two legged horses is not as good as having 1 four legged horse.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Did the "_that I have seen_" part not compute for you guys?
> 
> Neither guy nor I have seen all YM lineage WC, but what we have seen has been problematic.



Then you both should stop from making "blanket" and "generalized" comments about "broken" Wing Chun.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Did the "_that I have seen_" part not compute for you guys?
> 
> Neither guy nor I have seen all YM lineage WC, but what we have seen has been problematic.


His reply clearly says he considers all the other WC he has seen to be screwy. To try to get out of it by saying "that I've seen" doesn't include everyone is like me saying, "I don't think all other people are fools. I've just never met one who wasn't." Nobody would take that to mean I think there are a bunch of non-fools I've simply not met yet.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> A single arm performing the functions of two arms essentially creates a four-arm strategy. It is both simpler and more efficient than using two arms to do the work of one which is superfluous and creates more steps between attacks.
> 
> The percentage of success with the VT method also relies on this dual-capability in both arms because it enables sustained attack with automatic defense.
> 
> Dividing the work between two arms when unnecessary creates a more defensive approach, which gives the opponent more opportunity to counter, rather than cutting off their options with a sustained flow of direct attacks.


That's a cogent reply. This is the first time I've had either you or guy reply with something that attempts to explain beyond some vagueness. This seems like a good stand on principles - an explanation that makes sense, and something folks with different WC experience could debate.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> His reply clearly says he considers all the other WC he has seen to be screwy. To try to get out of it by saying "that I've seen" doesn't include everyone is like me saying, "I don't think all other people are fools. I've just never met one who wasn't." Nobody would take that to mean I think there are a bunch of non-fools I've simply not met yet.



Well, we can't falsely state what has been our experience thus far just to please everyone.

If "that I've seen" refers only to a few lineages, how can it mean every lineage?

Guy has even named a few he is agnostic about since he lacks the experience to judge them, and has expressed interest in learning about them.

But then we still hear "see! you do believe everyone else is wrong!"  

Just seems like an attempt to make us appear like irrational zealots in order to automatically discredit anything we say. Also why it's repeated on every thread.


----------



## LFJ

Double


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Well, we can't falsely state what has been our experience thus far just to please everyone.
> 
> If "that I've seen" refers only to a few lineages, how can it mean every lineage?
> 
> Guy has even named a few he is agnostic about since he lacks the experience to judge them, and has expressed interest in learning about them.
> 
> But then we still hear "see! you do believe everyone else is wrong!"
> 
> Just seems like an attempt to make us appear like irrational zealots in order to automatically discredit anything we say. Also why it's repeated on every thread.


I'm not suggesting either of you should "falsely state" your experience. My point is that saying everything he's seen outside his lineage is kinda crap means he's seen nothing else you would consider reasonable. That he hasn't seen it all doesn't change the fact that his assertion is that he's not yet seen anything else that's not kinda crap. 

It's the nature of the statement that's causing the problems. I don't think I've seen those posts you mention where he was agnostic about some (not surprising, since I don't read much of the WC posts, so I'm not saying they don't exist). If he actually has that experience, then it would be clearer NOT to say that everything he has seen thus far is incoherent or inconsistent. It would be clearer to refer to specific groups or lineages, rather than to lump all of them together if there are exceptions.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> I'm not suggesting either of you should "falsely state" your experience. My point is that saying everything he's seen outside his lineage is kinda crap means he's seen nothing else you would consider reasonable. That he hasn't seen it all doesn't change the fact that his assertion is that he's not yet seen anything else that's not kinda crap.



And at what point is it justified to interpret this as "everything else that exists"?



> I don't think I've seen those posts you mention where he was agnostic about some



Try page 1 of this only 2 page thread!



> It would be clearer to refer to specific groups or lineages, rather than to lump all of them together if there are exceptions.



Maybe, but tiresome. Easier to qualify a statement with "that I've seen", as long as others wouldn't strawman that into "everything else that exists".


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Why would I try VT? I have a perfectly functional system to work with, with other instructors who have opinions and leave an imprint on the art, allowing it to evolve and match the needs of a changing world. You put forth VT as ever-unchanging, which to me sounds like something well on its way to being antiquated.



The point is that WSL VT obviously functions differently to your system. 

If you are interested in WSL VT, then trying it is better than talking about it. If you do want to talk about it then not disagreeing with everything might also be helpful in terms of furthering understanding.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Guy, you quoted KPM as saying, _What I have objected to was your theory  that what EVERYONE else learned was"confused and contradictory" except for what WSL learned. _To which your responded:
> _
> This has never been a theory of mine, or as far as I am aware of LFJ's. I would really like it if you would stop repeating this line in every single discussion. Thanks_
> 
> Then immediately below you stated:
> 
> _In other YM wing chun that I have seen, the whole strategic approach has been missing, and the conceptual understanding is totally buggered, for want of a better word.._
> 
> Talk about confused and contradictory!  Is it any wonder that Joy and others don't waste their time answering you?



I have no idea what your point is with this post. I don't see any contradiction above, nor any confusion except perhaps in your strange interpretation of what I wrote.

Wing chun that I have seen has not been good. I have not seen all wing chun. I cannot judge what I have not seen.Therefore it is not possible for me to have an opinion about "what EVERYONE else learned"


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> And at what point is it justified to interpret this as "everything else that exists"?
> 
> 
> 
> Try page 1 of this only 2 page thread!



This thread is getting a bit strange


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> I'm not suggesting either of you should "falsely state" your experience. My point is that saying everything he's seen outside his lineage is kinda crap means he's seen nothing else you would consider reasonable. That he hasn't seen it all doesn't change the fact that his assertion is that he's not yet seen anything else that's not kinda crap.
> 
> It's the nature of the statement that's causing the problems. I don't think I've seen those posts you mention where he was agnostic about some (not surprising, since I don't read much of the WC posts, so I'm not saying they don't exist). If he actually has that experience, then it would be clearer NOT to say that everything he has seen thus far is incoherent or inconsistent. It would be clearer to refer to specific groups or lineages, rather than to lump all of them together if there are exceptions.



There are no exceptions. Everything I have seen so far in wing chun that was not WSL VT was really bad. I also experienced a really bad teacher who claimed to be teaching WSL VT. What these awful examples shared was a broken or missing understanding of the conceptual base, and a broken or missing strategic method. In my experience this is very common, while a coherent and strategically functional system is very uncommon.

I have not seen or experienced all of wing chun though, and obviously I don't have any opinion about wing chun I have not at least seen. This is pretty obvious, yes?


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Just seems like an attempt to make us appear like irrational zealots in order to automatically discredit anything we say. Also why it's repeated on every thread.



When someone who portrays themselves on the forum like friendy old "geezer" starts down this track, it is hard to come to any other conclusion. Or explaining to the aikido guy how the system functions and he _disagrees. _WTF!?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> The point is that WSL VT obviously functions differently to your system.
> 
> If you are interested in WSL VT, then trying it is better than talking about it. If you do want to talk about it then not disagreeing with everything might also be helpful in terms of furthering understanding.


No, trying it is not better than discussion for my purposes. I'm trying to get some understanding of other arts, and I do not have the opportunity to go and practice every art I want to learn about, so I reach out here to learn from those who have practiced it and have some understanding. In the end, I'll hopefully find one or two I can add to my training.

And I challenge you to look at the posts I've made in WC-related threads. I do not "disagree with everything" - I state where I disagree with the approaches to the argument and over-broad statements. I also note where I find information useful, and when arguments raise good questions I'd like to hear answered by folks on the other side.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> There are no exceptions. Everything I have seen so far in wing chun that was not WSL VT was really bad. I also experienced a really bad teacher who claimed to be teaching WSL VT. What these awful examples shared was a broken or missing understanding of the conceptual base, and a broken or missing strategic method. In my experience this is very common, while a coherent and strategically functional system is very uncommon.
> 
> I have not seen or experienced all of wing chun though, and obviously I don't have any opinion about wing chun I have not at least seen. This is pretty obvious, yes?


And you don't see how this is saying, "Every example I've ever seen is kinda crap"? You're claiming there's no redeeming value in a single variation you've ever seen, and then trying to say you're not impugning all variations - that you're confident somewhere out there, there might be one that is not as crappy as everything you've ever seen. That's a very weak "but", which doesn't at all alter the fact that you're saying everything you've ever been able to find is crap.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> When someone who portrays themselves on the forum like friendy old "geezer" starts down this track, it is hard to come to any other conclusion. Or explaining to the aikido guy how the system functions and he _disagrees. _WTF!?


Show me where I ever disagreed with how the system functions.


----------



## LFJ




----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> Wing chun that I have seen (other than WSL-PB-VT) has not been good. I have not seen all wing chun. I cannot judge what I have not seen.Therefore it is not possible for me to have an opinion about "what EVERYONE else learned"


 --portion in parentheses added for disambiguation.

Yep. Just like sayin' "I've never seen a flyin' purple unicorn, now bein' open minded, I'll admit they _may_ exist, but in all mah years, I ain't never seen one".

In short you just trashed every other VT/WC branch you have ever seen. Then you add a caveat that somewhere, somebody may practice a  WC system that is functional, but that you have never seen it. Sorry, that doesn't change the gist of what you are saying. You are bashing other people's martial arts, and that's not allowed here.

...So don't get your knickers in a twist when KPM calls you on it.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Yep. Just like sayin' "I've never seen a flyin' purple unicorn, now bein' open minded, I'll admit they _may_ exist, but in all mah years, I ain't never seen one".



Do you think that functional wing chun coming from YM is as unlikely as a purple unicorn? I don't think so. There seems to be a distinct dislike for remaining undecided here. I am not saying something I don't know about is good, therefore I must consider it bad. How horrible of me.



> In short you just trashed every other VT/WC branch you have ever seen. Then you add a caveat that somewhere, somebody may practice a WC system that is functional, but that you have never seen it. Sorry, that doesn't change the gist of what you are saying. You are bashing other people's martial arts, and that's not allowed here.
> 
> ...So don't get your knickers in a twist when KPM calls you on it.



I can't help it if you dislike agnosticism. I feel you are being a bit obsessive about trying to force me onto one side or the other. My experience is not good. My perfectly normal position is that I am not impressed by what I did experience and I don't know about things I did not experience. If you ask me a specific question I will give you a specific answer. Since I have not been talking specifics I don't see how I could possibly be accused of "bashing" other people's martial arts, especially since the one specific example I did give was of a teacher from WSL VT.

What do you want me to do, lie about it to make you feel more comfortable?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Show me where I ever disagreed with how the system functions.





gpseymour said:


> Sure it does...Differences can absolutely develop between instructors in a single generation, and without anyone having to be wrong.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> you're confident somewhere out there, there might be one that is not as crappy as everything you've ever seen.



It's certainly possible. I don't know one way or the other, so impossible to express an opinion.


----------



## wtxs

guy b said:


> Do you think that functional wing chun coming from YM is as unlikely as a purple unicorn? I don't think so. There seems to be a distinct dislike for remaining undecided here. I am not saying something I don't know about is good, therefore I must consider it bad. How horrible of me.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help it if you dislike agnosticism. I feel you are being a bit obsessive about trying to force me onto one side or the other. My experience is not good. My perfectly normal position is that I am not impressed by what I did experience and I don't know about things I did not experience. If you ask me a specific question I will give you a specific answer. Since I have not been talking specifics I don't see how I could possibly be accused of "bashing" other people's martial arts, especially since the one specific example I did give was of a teacher from WSL VT.
> 
> What do you want me to do, lie about it to make you feel more comfortable?



Regardless you are not impressed by what WC you had experienced,  since you stated you don't know about other things you had not experience (assuming you are referring to other WC lineages you had not exposed to), labeling non WSL VT as "broken" system qualifies as "bashing" IMHO.


----------



## guy b

wtxs said:


> Regardless you are not impressed by what WC you had experienced,  since you stated you don't know about other things you had not experience (assuming you are referring to other WC lineages you had not exposed to), labeling non WSL VT as "broken" system qualifies as "bashing" IMHO.



I haven't labelled non WSL VT as broken. I have labelled some other wing chun that I have seen as broken, which means non-functional in conceptual and strategic terms, which is true based upon what I experienced. If mentioning facts without naming names is "bashing", then it is probably time to close down the forum.


----------



## Marnetmar

This idea that literally everyone besides WSL changed the system requires _far_ more assumptions than the idea that WSL took what he learned from Yip Man and made something more functional out of it, especially when we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to _literally demonstrate _that. "Not everyone, just everyone I've seen" is a cop out.

Using the Google Translate analogy to say that other styles are _really, really, really, really, really, really _bad so any and all evidence that contradicts your conclusions doesn't matter does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that your point of view is correct.

In addition, the fact that you brought up people doing footwork in dan chi sau makes me think that you're purposely looking for bad examples to further your point, since as someone from a non WSL lineage, when I watch videos of Clive Potter or David Petersen doing their thing, _there's really never very much that I disagree with._


----------



## Gerry Seymour

How is that disagreeing with how the system of VT works? That's disagreeing about the assertion that a system cannot have significant differences between instructors within a single generation. No point made.


----------



## LFJ

Marnetmar said:


> This idea that literally everyone besides WSL changed the system requires _far_ more assumptions than the idea that WSL took what he learned from Yip Man and made something more functional out of it,



None of the YM lineages are the same. So, they did get changed.

And it's a bigger (ridiculous) assumption that YM would have had multiple contradictory versions of his MA, than that he just didn't teach everyone fully.



> as someone from a non WSL lineage, when I watch videos of Clive Potter or David Petersen doing their thing, _there's really never very much that I disagree with._



Sorry, to hear that. As someone from the WSL lineage, I agree with almost nothing they say or do.


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> None of the YM lineages are the same. So, they did get changed.
> 
> And it's a bigger (ridiculous) assumption that YM would have had multiple contradictory versions of his MA, than that he just didn't teach everyone fully.



A better way to understand the divergent  transmission of the lineage would be to consider the well known story of the blid men and the elephant:
Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

Back to Yip Man Ving Tsun. As it got passed down, sure stuff got changed. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each branch of the lineage picked up and emphasized different aspects of GM Yip's Ving Tsun. In addition, probably many did not receive the complete system, so some parts were learned second hand or fabricated. Others may have added elements from other styles. Still other students may teach based on information entirely received from Yip Man but interpreted through the eyes and abilities of that particular student. And some may have actually _narrowed _the focus of the style to make it even more coherent, but also more limited in scope.

I'm not asking anyone to give up their devotion to their sifu or lineage, or even saying that all WC/VT is equally functional. It isn't. I'm just suggesting that we show a little humility and respect for others. If someone can't do that, this forum really isn't the place for them to be posting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

geezer said:


> A better way to understand the divergent  transmission of the lineage would be to consider the well known story of the blid men and the elephant:
> Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia
> 
> Back to Yip Man Ving Tsun. As it got passed down, sure stuff got changed. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each branch of the lineage picked up and emphasized different aspects of GM Yip's Ving Tsun. In addition, probably many did not receive the complete system, so some parts were learned second hand or fabricated. Others may have added elements from other styles. Still others may have been entirely received from Yip Man but interpreted through the eyes and abilities of the student. And some may have actually _narrowed _the focus of the style to make it even more coherent, but also more limited in scope.
> 
> I'm not asking anyone to give up their devotion to their sifu or lineage. I'm just suggesting that we show a little humility and respect for others. If someone can't do that, this forum really isn't the place for them to be posting.


This is a reasonable assumption. I know, for instance, that the man who brought NGA to the US (Richard Bowe) produced two very significant lines of NGA. One was led by Steven Weber Jr., and the other by Robert McEwen. Their approaches are not the same, and some who studied directly with Mr. Bowe in the early years assert that he was occasionally teaching differently to different students. Note that this was within a single school, so it's entirely plausible that YM taught quite differently to students who weren't training at the same time.

We can see the same assertions in discussions of Ueshiba's Aikido. Discussions about the differences in pre-war vs. post-war Aikido abound.


----------



## Nobody Important

Just food for thought. If you are someone who has come from a "broken" system to a "functional" system, yet have not trained in other related systems. How do you know that you haven't simply gone from a poorly represented art to a mediocre one? Simply because your preferences & beliefs align with a certain methodology doesn't mean that another methodology is incorrect. This linear approach can only reliably be applied to the accepted methodology of a certain sect. It's like arguing over the validity of different factions of Christianity. They all argue who has the right approach, but all believe in the same outcome. So what difference does it make?


----------



## Nobody Important

gpseymour said:


> This is a reasonable assumption. I know, for instance, that the man who brought NGA to the US (Richard Bowe) produced two very significant lines of NGA. One was led by Steven Weber Jr., and the other by Robert McEwen. Their approaches are not the same, and some who studied directly with Mr. Bowe in the early years assert that he was occasionally teaching differently to different students. Note that this was within a single school, so it's entirely plausible that YM taught quite differently to students who weren't training at the same time.
> 
> We can see the same assertions in discussions of Ueshiba's Aikido. Discussions about the differences in pre-war vs. post-war Aikido abound.


I have a Sifu who still teaches in this manner. His reasoning is that very few will go on to learn the entire art in his lifetime. So, he teaches to their interests in the hopes that the "family" will continue to share with & support one another to grow the art after he is gone. If not, then the individual at least got something they feel is useful to them.


----------



## guy b

Marnetmar said:


> as someone from a non WSL lineage, when I watch videos of Clive Potter or David Petersen doing their thing, _there's really never very much that I disagree with._



Why do you think that might be?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> How is that disagreeing with how the system of VT works? That's disagreeing about the assertion that a system cannot have significant differences between instructors within a single generation. No point made.



Because your disagreement is based on misunderstanding about how the system works, is learned, is propagated


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> A better way to understand the divergent  transmission of the lineage would be to consider the well known story of the blid men and the elephant:
> Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia
> 
> Back to Yip Man Ving Tsun. As it got passed down, sure stuff got changed. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each branch of the lineage picked up and emphasized different aspects of GM Yip's Ving Tsun



Do you think it likely that Yip Man would not pass the whole system to anyone? The WSL VT system isn't an optional grab bag where you use what you like and drop what you don't. It is much to interdependent to do that.



> I'm not asking anyone to give up their devotion to their sifu or lineage, or even saying that all WC/VT is equally functional. It isn't. I'm just suggesting that we show a little humility and respect for others. If someone can't do that, this forum really isn't the place for them to be posting.



What do you mean by humility and respect? I don't see avoidance of truth as being either modest or respectful. It is dishonest more than anything, and does nothing to help anyone.


----------



## guy b

Nobody Important said:


> Just food for thought. If you are someone who has come from a "broken" system to a "functional" system, yet have not trained in other related systems. How do you know that you haven't simply gone from a poorly represented art to a mediocre one?



This is why it is important to look around and to ry different things.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> None of the YM lineages are the same. So, they did get changed.
> 
> And it's a bigger (ridiculous) assumption that YM would have had multiple contradictory versions of his MA, than that he just didn't teach everyone fully.
> 
> 
> .



So is the same true of WSL?   Because Dave Petersen differs from Phillip Bayer who differs from Gary Lam who differs greatly from Wan Kam Leung.   So in your opinion was WSL as poor a teacher as Ip Man and didn't teach everyone fully?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Because your disagreement is based on misunderstanding about how the system works, is learned, is propagated


No, it's based upon an understanding of how humans learn and transmit information. The psychology of human learning and memory doesn't magically change within one system. People do not ever learn exactly. They do not ever remember exactly. They do not ever transmit exactly. Given those truths, an exact transmission of any system to any person is not improbable, it is impossible. Every person learning from a teacher will bring something different to the art, because they learn it at least slightly differently. A very good teacher will actually teach significantly differently at times, best fitting each student's needs, abilities, and level of understanding.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Do you think it likely that Yip Man would not pass the whole system to anyone? The WSL VT system isn't an optional grab bag where you use what you like and drop what you don't. It is much to interdependent to do that.


Given the limitations of human learning and memory, it is actually impossible for any instructor to pass along the entirety of what he knows of his system. Likewise, it is actually impossible for any student to only know about a system that which he was taught by his instructor, and impossible for him to know everything his instructor ever taught him.


----------



## KPM

Here is the bottom line for me.   Both Guy and LFJ protest that their criticism of non-WSLVT doesn't necessarily apply to everyone.  They say that what WSL taught is exactly what Ip Man taught and that everyone doing something different from WSLVT is doing a "broken" version.  The people doing this broken version had to be taught incompletely or incorrectly by Ip Man and then "filled the gaps" in their knowledge on their own.   When others point out that that this is very elitist and it is unlikely that Ip Man would have taught ONLY WSL the "real deal", they protest and say...."we never said that!"  They say that Ip Man may have taught others the same thing he taught WSL....... they just haven't found those "others" yet!

So that is the key point of their theory.  I might be willing to go along with them of they could point out another senior student of Ip Man that spent several years with him and that then taught the same things as WSLVT.....someone that Guy and LFJ recognize as "good and complete VT." 

Until then, the theory that Ip Man taught different students to their own strengths and weaknesses, and that WSL used his own talent and experience to refine and improve his understanding of VT.....seems much more probable to me than the theory that Ip Man was such a poor and inattentive teacher that WSL was the only student that learned the "real thing" from him.   When I see another lineage from Ip Man completely independant of WSL but teaching the same VT as WSL  (and I should probably say....the same VT as WSL/PBVT, because that is the one that Guy and LFJ seem to think is the "true" WSLVT).....then and only then will the theory of Guy and LFJ take on more merit.   This is just common sense and application of "Occam's Razor."


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So is the same true of WSL?   Because Dave Petersen differs from Phillip Bayer who differs from Gary Lam who differs greatly from Wan Kam Leung.   So in your opinion was WSL as poor a teacher as Ip Man and didn't teach everyone fully?



YM was an excellent teacher, as was WSL.

Not every student learned fully from either of them, just like in any MA school.

GL and WKL differ because they openly altered the system.

DP differs due to lack of experience.

Others who spent the most time with WSL and didn't change the system, e.g., CKM, share PB's understanding of VT.

It's all so easy to see.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> YM was an excellent teacher, as was WSL.
> 
> Not every student learned fully from either of them, just like in any MA school.
> 
> GL and WKL differ because they openly altered the system.
> 
> DP differs due to lack of experience.
> 
> Others who spent the most time with WSL and didn't change the system, e.g., CKM, share PB's understanding of VT.
> 
> It's all so easy to see.



CKM?


----------



## guy b

wckf92 said:


> CKM?



Chan Kim Man


----------



## wckf92

guy b said:


> Chan Kim Man



Ok cool. Thanks.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> When others point out that that this is very elitist



Why is it elitist to acknowledge the truth?



KPM said:


> it is unlikely that Ip Man would have taught ONLY WSL the "real deal"
> 
> So that is the key point of their theory. I might be willing to go along with them of they could point out another senior student of Ip Man that spent several years with him and that then taught the same things as WSLVT.....someone that Guy and LFJ recognize as "good and complete VT."



I think very unlikely that many people learned the system completely given that it takes a lot of time and effort and is difficult. That some people didn't learn correctly is no fault of YM. I have not experienced the VT of HKM who seems to be your most likley candidate for having learned the system, and so cannot comment on his understanding of it compared to that of WSL. You seem to want me to compliment certain people from a position of zero experience. It isn't really possible for me to do this. Nor is it possible for me to criticise their VT. I simply don't have the information.



KPM said:


> Until then, the theory that Ip Man taught different students to their own strengths and weaknesses, and that WSL used his own talent and experience to refine and improve his understanding of VT.....seems much more probable to me than the theory that Ip Man was such a poor and inattentive teacher that WSL was the only student that learned the "real thing" from him.



This is because you have no understanding of the system that WSL taught compared to that of others. When you understand the system, you see how unlikely it is that WSL originated that by himself from something like the average of other YM derived wing chun.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> No, it's based upon an understanding of how humans learn and transmit information. The psychology of human learning and memory doesn't magically change within one system.



You said this:



			
				gpseymour said:
			
		

> Differences can absolutely develop between instructors in a single generation, and without anyone having to be wrong.



In WSL VT differences can't develop between instructors in a single generation without anyone having to be wrong. This is due to the way the system works and is propagated. An understanding of how humans learn and transmit information doesn't magically change that fact just because you wish it to be so (apparently for the purposes of interminable argument which you seem to enjoy)



> A very good teacher will actually teach significantly differently at times, best fitting each student's needs, abilities, and level of understanding.



Try the system, then comment. Thanks


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Given the limitations of human learning and memory, it is actually impossible for any instructor to pass along the entirety of what he knows of his system. Likewise, it is actually impossible for any student to only know about a system that which he was taught by his instructor, and impossible for him to know everything his instructor ever taught him.



In VT learning is not done in the way you are familiar with. Try before comment.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> So is the same true of WSL?   Because Dave Petersen differs from Phillip Bayer who differs from Gary Lam who differs greatly from Wan Kam Leung.   So in your opinion was WSL as poor a teacher as Ip Man and didn't teach everyone fully?



Correct, many people did not learn the full system from WSL. Many people are not learning the full system today from x, y and z. 

This is not due to poor teaching; WSL was one of the best. Yip Man was one of the best.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> In WSL VT differences can't develop between instructors in a single generation without anyone having to be wrong.


You have made absolutely no statement to explain precisely how WSL VT can defy the evidence of psychology and produce exact replication, when absolutely nothing else in human endeavor can do so from one human to another.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> In VT learning is not done in the way you are familiar with. Try before comment.


What I'm familiar with is how the human brain works - how it processes, retains, and recalls information. And yes, that works exactly the same way in VT, unless you are claiming there are no humans involved.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Try the system, then comment. Thanks


Study the psychology of learning and memory, then comment. Thanks.


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b said:


> In WSL VT differences can't develop between instructors in a single generation without anyone having to be wrong.


What if the differences are not errors but preferences that are based on the students strengths?  A student who is really good with kicking will have a different approach to Wing chun than a student who is good with punching.  In a situation like that the person will shape Wing Chun in a way that allows them to fight within their strength.

The reason I say this is because the way I use Jow Ga is not the same as the way the other instructor in my school uses Jow Ga.  We are so different that in the approach that we literally tell students how we differ and encourage them to fall within one of these 2 approaches as needed.  But it's all Jow Ga.  

As a person from the outside, it all looks the same to me with slight differences.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

JowGaWolf said:


> What if the differences are not errors but preferences that are based on the students strengths?  A student who is really good with kicking will have a different approach to Wing chun than a student who is good with punching.  In a situation like that the person will shape Wing Chun in a way that allows them to fight within their strength.
> 
> The reason I say this is because the way I use Jow Ga is not the same as the way the other instructor in my school uses Jow Ga.  We are so different that in the approach that we literally tell students how we differ and encourage them to fall within one of these 2 approaches as needed.  But it's all Jow Ga.
> 
> As a person from the outside, it all looks the same to me with slight differences.


His argument appears to be that nobody can have personal variations within WSL VT without being in error. Given the full range of arts I've studied, tinkered with, sparred against, and watched, I find it an extraordinary claim, since that cannot be said of any other style I can think of.


----------



## wckf92

question for LFJ and Guy: you guys named CKM as someone who shares PB's understanding of VT. I'd never heard of him so looked him up once Guy provided his name. I found a couple videos and wondered if this is the person?






If so, watch at around the :31 mark...the dude on the left seems to use what you would call a secondary or ancillary(?) action as a primary action to the guys attacking punch. Now, I could be misreading the situation of course, and/or, as we've learned from you two, this could be an intentional mistake due to the public recording/viewing it? Overall, the VT folks in this video seem to me at least to differ a little from PB.

Anyway, appreciate any feedback you two may have on this. Thx.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Not every student learned fully from either of them, just like in any MA school.
> 
> .



Ok.  Once again, name one student other than WSL that "learned fully" from Ip Man.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> This is not due to poor teaching; WSL was one of the best. Yip Man was one of the best.



And yet you cannot name a single Ip Man student other than WSL that "learned the system fully"!! ???


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> His argument appears to be that nobody can have personal variations within WSL VT without being in error. Given the full range of arts I've studied, tinkered with, sparred against, and watched, I find it an extraordinary claim, since that cannot be said of any other style I can think of.


I don't think it can be said of any other style including theirs which is why Wing Chun has these type of heated debates. From the little I know I have yet to see these types debates in other systems.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> You have made absolutely no statement to explain precisely how WSL VT can defy the evidence of psychology and produce exact replication, when absolutely nothing else in human endeavor can do so from one human to another.



Show me the evidence from psychology that people cannot learn psychomotor skills to within a negligible level of difference depending on the psychomotor learning task in question. 

You can learn to drive a car according to the rules of the road and reliably fail to crash into other people or break the rules of the road every day. You can learn to play music and reliably replicate pieces devised hundreds of years ago, even performing them in concert with many other individuals in an orchestra. You can learn to fly a complex modern aeroplane in battle with others, according to different strategic doctrines and varying individual battle plans, against a resisting enemy trying to do the same thing, and reliably win time and time again with eventualities being dealt with despite changing conditions and uncertainty. You can learn to operate on the bodies of other people with a team of others, accessing and utilising a vast standardised background knowledge of medical information, performing tiny and complex physical movements reliably day after day on physically different patients with different problems in an adaptable but precise and reproducible way. 

The importance of exact replication depends of the task, with some tasks tolerating wider envelopes of variation (e.g. driving) than others (e.g. brain surgery, fighter piloting). Your objection sounds fairly irrelevant to me in light of what can be achieved in terms of producing the same psychomotor skills in different people (to within negligible levels of difference with respect to the task) which are variable and adaptable depending on different bodies of sometimes changing conceptual, strategic and factual knowledge. 

The process of doing VT is incredibly complex, but does not require conscious thought. Pilots learn very complex physical tasks by doing to failure over and over and over again in simulators. One part of the process of physical learning is similar in VT and produces similar results. Uniformity of reaction is produced by the time and sequence dependent development process which is very specifically and carefully structured. The system of VT creates in the student the reactions, structure and movement of VT via mutually beneficial exercises carried out with others who have already developed and internalised these movement habits.

The ideas and strategy behind VT on the other hand are very simple. These ideas, in conjunction with the physical body development of VT, produce the VT system.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> What I'm familiar with is how the human brain works - how it processes, retains, and recalls information. And yes, that works exactly the same way in VT, unless you are claiming there are no humans involved.



Without knowledge of what learning VT entails you would be wasting your time commenting.


----------



## guy b

JowGaWolf said:


> What if the differences are not errors but preferences that are based on the students strengths? A student who is really good with kicking will have a different approach to Wing chun than a student who is good with punching. In a situation like that the person will shape Wing Chun in a way that allows them to fight within their strength.



The system will be the same provided it was learned correctly, no matter what the individual preferences, because of the WSL VT learning process.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> His argument appears to be that nobody can have personal variations within WSL VT without being in error. Given the full range of arts I've studied, tinkered with, sparred against, and watched, I find it an extraordinary claim, since that cannot be said of any other style I can think of.



Have you tried WSL VT?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Ok.  Once again, name one student other than WSL that "learned fully" from Ip Man.



I don't have that information. Why is it wrong not to know? We can only speak from our experience


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I don't have that information. Why is it wrong not to know? We can only speak from our experience



Well, like I already stated.....without being able to point out someone other than WSL who learned what you  consider to be the "real" and "correct" version of VT, your theory is just not as plausible as the other theory.  And continuing to repeat an argument that is essentially "because I said so!" is not going to change that.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Well, like I already stated.....without being able to point out someone other than WSL who learned what you  consider to be the "real" and "correct" version of VT, your theory is just not as plausible as the other theory.  And continuing to repeat an argument that is essentially "because I said so!" is not going to change that.



I am sorry that you haven't understood the argument. 

It is the content of the system of WSL VT compared to others and the improbability of evolution from broken (unlikely) vs degeneration from the original system (likely) that makes it more likely that WSL VT is the original system, and others I have seen are incomplete or misunderstood versions


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I am sorry that you haven't understood the argument.
> 
> It is the content of the system of WSL VT compared to others and the improbability of evolution from broken (unlikely) vs degeneration from the original system (likely) that makes it more likely that WSL VT is the original system, and others I have seen are incomplete or misunderstood versions



That is your opinion and another case of  "because I  said  so."   Just because you say it is true does not make it more probable.   It is far more probable that one man taught many and they diverged and changed and...yes...some learned incompletely and that one of those men who was taught then refined and improved upon what he learned....resulting in a different approach from others.  It is far less probable that one man taught many but only taught one man correctly and everyone else poorly.   Until you show that more than one person was taught correctly by Ip Man other than WSL (which would be the evidence for your theory), then your theory remains less probable. Again, that's just common sense and application of "Occam's Razor."  No amount of "but you have to know the  system"....which is just a version of  "because I said so"....is going to change that.  

Saying "everyone else is bad and we are good therefore we are doing Ip Man's real system" is not evidence.  To state it again.......until you show evidence that someone else learned exactly the  same system from Ip Man as what WSL taught.....it remains more probable that WSL's system differs so much as you think from everyone else due to WSL's own input.  It is less probable that  EVERYONE else learned incorrectly from Ip Man.   And until you show someone other than WSL that DID learn correctly....then you are still implying that EVERYONE else learned incorrectly regardless of how much you say that's not what you mean.  

Can I state it any clearer than that?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> That is your opinion and another case of "because I said so." Just because you say it is true does not make it more probable



There have been many instances where technical discussion has been attempted. They usually fail because people feel insulted. Systematic differences do make it more probable that WSL VT is the system, but if you don't want to know then not a lot I can do about it. For you, given mindset, I would suggest a trip to Germany.



KPM said:


> It is far less probable that one man taught many but only taught one man correctly and everyone else poorly



This is not the argument



KPM said:


> Until you show that more than one person was taught correctly by Ip Man other than WSL (which would be the evidence for your theory), then your theory remains less probable. Again, that's just common sense and application of "Occam's Razor."



It isn't simpler to suppose that YM taught various things to different people, or that people changed a system like VT in many different ways after learning it fully (assuming you understand what it is, which apparently you don't). It is more simple to assume that those who spent most time with YM and who were more interesting to teach, got more of the system, while those who spent less time and were less interesting got less. This is normal in martial arts. 



KPM said:


> you are still implying that EVERYONE else learned incorrectly regardless of how much you say that's not what you mean.



I am not. I am simply saying that I don't know. You don't seem to have the kind of brain that can tolerate ambiguity?


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b said:


> The system will be the same provided it was learned correctly, no matter what the individual preferences, because of the WSL VT learning process.


I don't double that.  My observations are more of a comparison of what I see from other systems and in Wing Chun discussions.  Like from a past discussions in here the "split hair" was in regards to how one pivots on the foot as "being the correct way" (I've my memory is correct. I could be confusing 2 different arguments).  In other systems how one pivots on the foot isn't a game breaker for correct and being incorrect.  I'll use Jow Ga for an example,  we do a lot of pushing with the heel down, but the only reason why we stress that is because heel down is the optimum position for generating power and maintaining stability for the types of punches we do.  It's the "Best"way to throw that punch and all of the Sifu's will give the student a hard time for not having the heel down.  If another Sifu teaches to do the punch down, then it's not the "correct / best" way to do that punch. That one "flaw" in teaching isn't enough to say that one school is "real Jow Ga" and the other school is "fake Jow Ga"  

When I read the Wing Chun debates here, and here it from other schools, it seems that the differences are very slight in comparison to the whole system.  This debate is so big that it was even highlighted in the IP 3 movie with tyson, where one sifu was from the "real wing chun school" and IP man was accused of having an "inferior" Wing Chun.
And this is the same them that I hear in Wing Chun debates.  Aka "My wing chun is better than your wing chun."  

I'm not saying that this is what is going on , but that's what it looks like from an outsider looking in.  In Jow Ga, there are 2 different schools, one teaches to move back foot first to punch and the other to move front foot first and the old guys will debate about it, but everyone else just looks at both systems as being Jow Ga.  One school teaches like this and another school teaches differently.  Both schools are correct.  My first school taught to move the back foot first to do certain punches, my new school teaches to move the front foot. I used to think the new school was crazy, but after I saw the techniques that followed, it made sense to move the front foot first.

Again as someone outside looking in, it would appear that much of the debate in Wing Chung falls in such a small category that a person would actually have to take wing chun just to know who the lineage is. I'm not saying that there aren't some Bum Wing Chun schools out there that are just wrong from beginning to end, but from the debates that  often include, history, lineage, how some sifu who is probably no longer living used to teach, it just seems like if the method was truly "wrong" that someone could show why it's wrong without invoking the Historical God of Wing Chun.

It just seems like a person could just say, "My school doesn't do that technique like that, here's how we use it, and this why the technique is done this way in our school."  

Maybe the Wing Chun war will end one day.


----------



## KPM

*There have been many instances where technical discussion has been attempted. They usually fail because people feel insulted. Systematic differences do make it more probable that WSL VT is the system, but if you don't want to know then not a lot I can do about it. For you, given mindset, I would suggest a trip to Germany.*

---You and LFJ were invited to create a technical discussion that explained to us how WSL could not possibly have come up with the differences in his system on his own based upon his own talent and experience.  But you chose not to do that.   Instead your presentation has been a case of "because I said so"  and "you have to go study WSLVT for yourself....and BTW....it  takes many years to learn it effectively!"  



*It isn't simpler to suppose that YM taught various things to different people, or that people changed a system like VT in many different ways after learning it fully (assuming you understand what it is, which apparently you don't). It is more simple to assume that those who spent most time with YM and who were more interesting to teach, got more of the system, while those who spent less time and were less interesting got less. This is normal in martial arts. *

---Why are you not following what I wrote?  Are you even trying?  



*I am not. I am simply saying that I don't know. You don't seem to have the kind of brain that can tolerate ambiguity?*

----We've spoken of  evidence.   Showing that someone other than WSL learned what you consider the  "correct" Wing Chun would be good evidence for your theory.  Do you not understand that?   Saying that everyone else's Wing Chun is broken other than WSLVT is not evidence.


----------



## guy b

JowGaWolf said:


> When I read the Wing Chun debates here, and here it from other schools, it seems that the differences are very slight in comparison to the whole system.



Actually the differences are huge, like the entire strategic approach of the system being missing, rendering it non-functional.

It probably doesn't look that way because you don't understand VT


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> your presentation has been a case of "you have to go study WSLVT for yourself....and BTW....it takes many years to learn it effectively!



This is because of the way you are KPM. If you acted in a different way then you would probably be involved in a productive technical discusion. It isn't like we haven't tried before. But you need to want to listen. It is your choice. 



KPM said:


> Why are you not following what I wrote?



I am following it but it isn't making a lot of sense. 



KPM said:


> Showing that someone other than WSL learned what you consider the "correct" Wing Chun would be good evidence for your theory.



I don't think that is true. The theory is based upon differences in system understanding and content, plus the probability of order arising from chaos vs chaos arising from order. 

You seem to want me to show someone else who learned the full system but I don't know of anyone, sorry. That doesn't mean they don't exist. HKM would be a possibility but I have no idea about what he teaches so cannot say. Without intervention from Joy we will remain in the dark.


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b said:


> Actually the differences are huge, like the entire strategic approach of the system being missing, rendering it non-functional.


  I wouldn't bound a system to a "Strategic Approach"  Strategy changes with each practitioner and each situation.  There is no one size fits all strategic approach that can define a fighting system. You could not possibly fight against a Jow Ga student and then fight a BJJ student with the same Strategic Approach.  Then your approach would be different than a fellow student.  As a matter of fact your strategic approach to using Wing Chun is going to be based on your strengths in Wing Chun, which may not be the same strengths for someone else.

What is the strategic approach for the Wing Chun you study?  Or was Strategic Approach not the accurate phrase for what you are trying to highlight?


----------



## guy b

JowGaWolf said:


> I wouldn't bound a system to a "Strategic Approach"  Strategy changes with each practitioner and each situation.  There is no one size fits all strategic approach that can define a fighting system. You could not possibly fight against a Jow Ga student and then fight a BJJ student with the same Strategic Approach.



TCMA (never mind VT) is defined by strategic approach and conceptual base.



> Then your approach would be different than a fellow student.  As a matter of fact your strategic approach to using Wing Chun is going to be based on your strengths in Wing Chun, which may not be the same strengths for someone else.
> 
> What is the strategic approach for the Wing Chun you study?  Or was Strategic Approach not the accurate phrase for what you are trying to highlight?



Great, another armchair strategist.


----------



## geezer

Classical examples of circular reasoning.

"If you study the TRUE WSL-VT you _will_ understand and agree. However, if like ...possibly David Peterson? ....you do study WSL-VT and _still _don't agree with exactly what we say and do, then you obviously either didn't study TRUE WSL long enough, or for some other reason just weren't able to comprehend it. Because in any case, we have the TRUTH!!!"

I wen't through the same stuff with YM-LT-WT. Why did the EWTO do what they did? Well (according to the orthodox doctrine), some (Emin, etc.) were very good, but the EWTO wasn't teaching the true Honk-Kong system and added stuff unlike what LT taught us, right? No._Wrong._

I later learned from many other folks, including Rene Latosa, and also Martin Torres of DTE, just how universal the core concepts of combat are, and that _nobody _has the absolute TRUTH. To believe that is arrogant and ignorant in any field of human endeavor.


----------



## KPM

*This is because of the way you are KPM. If you acted in a different way then you would probably be involved in a productive technical discusion.* 

---Now that's rich!  


*It isn't like we haven't tried before. But you need to want to listen. It is your choice. *

----You don't listen to what we have been saying either.  That has been your choice.  So I guess this discussion is over.  


*I am following it but it isn't making a lot of sense. *

----No I don't think you are following.  Because I have been making sense to everyone other than you and LFJ.  



*You seem to want me to show someone else who learned the full system but I don't know of anyone, sorry. *

---Yes.  We are all well aware of that now!  So you have very little evidence for your theory other than "because I said so" and "you have to spend years studying WSLT to understand."    And you never even attempted to explain what is so revolutionary about it that WSL could not have arrived at it himself from "standard" Wing Chun other then your vague comment about chaos and order.  That isn't much of an explanation.    So you cannot in honesty say that your theory is more probable than ours in any kind of convincing fashion.   That's the final conclusion here.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

I


guy b said:


> Show me the evidence from psychology that people cannot learn psychomotor skills to within a negligible level of difference depending on the psychomotor learning task in question.
> 
> You can learn to drive a car according to the rules of the road and reliably fail to crash into other people or break the rules of the road every day. You can learn to play music and reliably replicate pieces devised hundreds of years ago, even performing them in concert with many other individuals in an orchestra. You can learn to fly a complex modern aeroplane in battle with others, according to different strategic doctrines and varying individual battle plans, against a resisting enemy trying to do the same thing, and reliably win time and time again with eventualities being dealt with despite changing conditions and uncertainty. You can learn to operate on the bodies of other people with a team of others, accessing and utilising a vast standardised background knowledge of medical information, performing tiny and complex physical movements reliably day after day on physically different patients with different problems in an adaptable but precise and reproducible way.
> 
> The importance of exact replication depends of the task, with some tasks tolerating wider envelopes of variation (e.g. driving) than others (e.g. brain surgery, fighter piloting). Your objection sounds fairly irrelevant to me in light of what can be achieved in terms of producing the same psychomotor skills in different people (to within negligible levels of difference with respect to the task) which are variable and adaptable depending on different bodies of sometimes changing conceptual, strategic and factual knowledge.
> 
> The process of doing VT is incredibly complex, but does not require conscious thought. Pilots learn very complex physical tasks by doing to failure over and over and over again in simulators. One part of the process of physical learning is similar in VT and produces similar results. Uniformity of reaction is produced by the time and sequence dependent development process which is very specifically and carefully structured. The system of VT creates in the student the reactions, structure and movement of VT via mutually beneficial exercises carried out with others who have already developed and internalised these movement habits.
> 
> The ideas and strategy behind VT on the other hand are very simple. These ideas, in conjunction with the physical body development of VT, produce the VT system.


I'll just touch on one example, because the reply to each would be the same. You referred to music. Any good musician will tell you that every musician plays a bit differently, even when they are emulating someone. There's always a significant difference unless they replicate the exact playing for an exact piece of music, and then it gets very close...but never exactly the same. In fact, the same musician won't play it exactly the same twice. Surely you're not going to argue that any instructor teaches every single possible sequence of events to near-exact precision. To do so for only a few score variations of responses would require every waking moment of a lifetime.

None of your responses even come close to explaining how both motor movements AND strategy AND theory can be replicated without error. That's not how the human mind works. If you really need me to, I'll be happy to go pull a couple of juried journal articles that make it clear. It's boring reading, but I'll be happy to pass it along if you actually don't believe it exists.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Without knowledge of what learning VT entails you would be wasting your time commenting.


Without knowledge of how human brains work, you're wasting your time commenting about learning.


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b said:


> TCMA (never mind VT) is defined by strategic approach and conceptual base.


To the best of my knowledge Jow Ga doesn't have a strategic approach. 

If a guy had one arm and came into your school to learn wing chun and because of his one arm he had to alter some of the techniques to fit his limitations, then would he still be doing wing chun? If your school was the only place where he was learning martial arts, then it would mean that he made the changes by understanding Wing Chun techniques that you taught him and how to best use Wing Chun to fight with one arm.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> If you study the TRUE WSL-VT you _will_ understand and agree. However, if like ...possibly David Peterson? ....you do study WSL-VT and _still _don't agree with exactly what we say and do, then you obviously either didn't study TRUE WSL long enough, or for some other reason just weren't able to comprehend it.



David Peterson understands how the system should look and he would agree that doing it that way is best. He just can't do it because he hasn't learned long enough. 



geezer said:


> I later learned from many other folks, including Rene Latosa, and also Martin Torres of DTE, just how universal the core concepts of combat are, and that _nobody _has the absolute TRUTH. To believe that is arrogant and ignorant in any field of human endeavor.


.

In the early years of BJJ in the UK some people from Brazil came over and started teaching it. People enthusiastically joined the classes. After some years questions started being asked about the results of the training. When the real BJJ guys came to the UK (Mauricio Gomez to start), some of the fake teachers had a horrible time and were kicked out. In any system there is doing it right, and doing it wrong. Wrong doesn't work. Of course some variation is possible but the basics need to be there. VT is quite a pared down system and the fact that massive chunks of information are missing from some interpretations does not inspire confidence.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> I
> 
> I'll just touch on one example, because the reply to each would be the same. You referred to music. Any good musician will tell you that every musician plays a bit differently, even when they are emulating someone. There's always a significant difference unless they replicate the exact playing for an exact piece of music, and then it gets very close...but never exactly the same. In fact, the same musician won't play it exactly the same twice. Surely you're not going to argue that any instructor teaches every single possible sequence of events to near-exact precision. To do so for only a few score variations of responses would require every waking moment of a lifetime.
> 
> None of your responses even come close to explaining how both motor movements AND strategy AND theory can be replicated without error. That's not how the human mind works. If you really need me to, I'll be happy to go pull a couple of juried journal articles that make it clear. It's boring reading, but I'll be happy to pass it along if you actually don't believe it exists.



Within the bounds of acceptable variation, as mentioned in my post, psychomotor skills can be reproduced exactly from teacher to student. When a very tight envelope of variation is required (e.g. brain surgery, fighter piloting), training takes a long time. When a wider envelope is ok (driving) training is shorter. VT training takes a long time.


----------



## Transk53

Another click bait thread then.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Within the bounds of acceptable variation, as mentioned in my post, psychomotor skills can be reproduced exactly from teacher to student. When a very tight envelope of variation is required (e.g. brain surgery, fighter piloting), training takes a long time. When a wider envelope is ok (driving) training is shorter. VT training takes a long time.


Okay, so let's go down that rabbit hole. All you're talking about in that scope is the ability to reproduce the punch. Yes, small bits like that can be reproduced within a reasonable tolerance. But that's not the art, is it? You, yourself, have said that WSL VT is not an application-based art, so exact replication of the specific movements isn't the art. The mental portions (strategy, principles, etc.) and how the movements are selected and stitched together _in situ _(based upon the correct use and interpretation of the mental portions) would be the art. And that's the part that cannot be replicated exactly. 

Either the movements are the entire art (which you've made clear they aren't), or the art - like every other bit of mental learning - cannot be precisely reproduced. Like everything else we learn, WSL VT is affected by the deficiencies in human communication, understanding, comprehension, retention, and recall. It may be cohesive enough to suffer less than other systems, but without removing the humans, you cannot change the fact that transmission is always flawed.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Like everything else we learn, WSL VT is affected by the deficiencies in human communication, understanding, comprehension, retention, and recall. It may be cohesive enough to suffer less than other systems, but without removing the humans, you cannot change the fact that transmission is always flawed.



Did you miss my post about the style in China that split between two villages that have been isolated for 500+ years, but the style has remained remarkably similar despite evolving independently between the two lineages? 

It's not impossible to change little even after centuries. I have seen VT through at least 5 generations from YM remain intact. I think it's gonna be fine. All it takes is full learning of the system.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Yes, small bits like that can be reproduced within a reasonable tolerance. But that's not the art, is it?



As Philipp Bayer has said, chi sau is the soul of VT. Not learning it in this way is the reason that someone like DP doesn't have the system. It is learned physically and passed from those to have it to those who do not over a long period of time. The physical movement is the main part of the system, yes. It is an automatic error correcting system. It is a work of genius. 

The conceptual base and strategic understanding are both simple and profound. Not too hard for anyone to remember once explained. But without the physical, they are nothing. 



> You, yourself, have said that WSL VT is not an application-based art, so exact replication of the specific movements isn't the art



This is where the fact that you don't understand the learning process of VT is important. Without that understanding you don't know what you are talking about. In this case it is an odd decision to jump in and argue without listening first. It appears as if arguing is more important than learning for you?



> The mental portions (strategy, principles, etc.) and how the movements are selected and stitched together _in situ _(based upon the correct use and interpretation of the mental portions) would be the art. And that's the part that cannot be replicated exactly.



Great, tell me more about this system you don't understand and have never experienced.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Either the movements are the entire art (which you've made clear they aren't), or the art - like every other bit of mental learning - cannot be precisely reproduced.



WSL VT is a system that is learned physically. As I have said before, an idiot can learn VT from a good teacher. 



gpseymour said:


> Like everything else we learn, WSL VT is affected by the deficiencies in human communication, understanding, comprehension, retention, and recall. It may be cohesive enough to suffer less than other systems, but without removing the humans, you cannot change the fact that transmission is always flawed.



I don't really understand why you are so keen to tell me about WSL VT from your position of no experience, and so resistant to learning anything about it before you comment.


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> As Philipp Bayer has said, chi sau is the soul of VT. Not learning it in this way is the reason that someone like DP doesn't have the system. It is learned physically and passed from those to have it to those who do not over a long period of time. The physical movement is the main part of the system, yes. It is an automatic error correcting system. It is a work of genius.
> 
> The conceptual base and strategic understanding are both simple and profound. Not too hard for anyone to remember once explained. But without the physical, they are nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where the fact that you don't understand the learning process of VT is important. Without that understanding you don't know what you are talking about. In this case it is an odd decision to jump in and argue without listening first. It appears as if arguing is more important than learning for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Great, tell me more about this system you don't understand and have never experienced.



Poor response Guy B. Why don't you something constructive and elaborate on the latter of the post, rather than pour scorn on anything that does not sit with you?


----------



## LFJ

wckf92 said:


> watch at around the :31 mark...the dude on the left seems to use what you would call a secondary or ancillary(?) action as a primary action to the guys attacking punch.



Not even a secondary/auxiliary action. That was a remedial action used at an inappropriate time.

But that was a snippet from a university lecture and we couldn't see or hear what was being read from the projector just before they said "go".

It was probably a section on timing and showing first what some people _expect_ can be done when using things out of order.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Did you miss my post about the style in China that split between two villages that have been isolated for 500+ years, but the style has remained remarkably similar despite evolving independently between the two lineages?
> 
> It's not impossible to change little even after centuries. I have seen VT through at least 5 generations from YM remain intact. I think it's gonna be fine. All it takes is full learning of the system.


I never said it was impossible for it to change little. I said it was impossible for it to be transmitted perfectly. Again, if we are looking at the movements, those can, in fact, proceed without change. Mind you, a lack of change over 500 years speaks of a lack of evolution and a clinging to what once worked regardless of changing circumstances, which in my opinion, leads to obsolescence. But that's a different issue. If the strategy and choices made remained quite close, that's a remarkable example, and probably speaks to over-limiting of choices. If we rule out enough options, then there are only a certain number of variations that can result, and statistically speaking we should expect to occasionally see the same procession between some unconnected lines. A single case study doesn't overturn the principle. "Statistically unlikely" does not equate to "impossible", so while it is highly unlikely to have two unconnected lines to find the same result after 500 years, it's not impossible, even with the small changes that will inevitably occur along the way.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> As Philipp Bayer has said, chi sau is the soul of VT. Not learning it in this way is the reason that someone like DP doesn't have the system. It is learned physically and passed from those to have it to those who do not over a long period of time. The physical movement is the main part of the system, yes. It is an automatic error correcting system. It is a work of genius.
> 
> The conceptual base and strategic understanding are both simple and profound. Not too hard for anyone to remember once explained. But without the physical, they are nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> This is where the fact that you don't understand the learning process of VT is important. Without that understanding you don't know what you are talking about. In this case it is an odd decision to jump in and argue without listening first. It appears as if arguing is more important than learning for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Great, tell me more about this system you don't understand and have never experienced.


You're dancing around the fact that people simply cannot transmit anything exactly from one person to another. With ONLY physical motion, it can get close, but never exact (especially given the differences between individual human bodies). You can say that the physical motion leads to the strategy, but that's ignoring the fact that the strategy is actually NOT physical motion, but a concept, and concepts are more problematic in transmission. Your reference to the teaching styles is not pertinent. I don't need to know HOW it is taught, nor to understand the system in order to make the statements I make. My statements are based upon the science and research about how the human brain works. That is fact, and your attempt to point at what I don't know doesn't change that.

Here's a last attempt to bring this discussion back to a logical flow: If an engineer can calculate the strain a load produces on a support beam, given the characteristics of the load and the beam, he doesn't need to understand the geology of the ground the edifice is constructed upon to be able to state that the beam cannot support the load. Bad geology (unstable ground, etc.) could make it less likely to support the load, but no amount of fantastically good geology can make a beam capable of supporting a load it otherwise could not. My statements have to do with whether the beam can support the load, and you're arguing that the geology is so good in the area that the beam's ability to support the load is irrelevant. A change in the structure of the edifice could change the calculations in favor of the beam, but the geology cannot.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> WSL VT is a system that is learned physically. As I have said before, an idiot can learn VT from a good teacher.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really understand why you are so keen to tell me about WSL VT from your position of no experience, and so resistant to learning anything about it before you comment.


I've not tried to tell you anything about WSL VT. I've simply commented that it is subject to the same limitations as EVERYTHING humans teach and learn. There are no exceptions to that, so I don't need to know anything about WSL VT, nor even about martial arts, to be able to make the statements I make.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> With ONLY physical motion, it can get close



VT is transmitted by physical motion. Base concept is written down for the avoidance of error. Strategy is simple, and written down for reference. 



gpseymour said:


> I don't need to know HOW it is taught, nor to understand the system in order to make the statements I make.



You do need to know, since VT is transmitted physically. Within the envelope of error that is acceptable to VT, transmission can be exact. It just takes a long time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> VT is transmitted by physical motion. Base concept is written down for the avoidance of error. Strategy is simple, and written down for reference.
> 
> 
> 
> You do need to know, since VT is transmitted physically. Within the envelope of error that is acceptable to VT, transmission can be exact. It just takes a long time.


Okay, since you've chosen to ignore the pertinent sections of my last two replies, I'll just accept that you're not interested in understanding the concept. As long as what you're doing works for you, there's no reason you need to.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> My statements have to do with whether the beam can support the load, and you're arguing that the geology is so good in the area that the beam's ability to support the load is irrelevant. A change in the structure of the edifice could change the calculations in favor of the beam, but the geology cannot.



You are assuming that VT is built in the normal way with beams and whatever. It is not.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Okay, since you've chosen to ignore the pertinent sections of my last two replies, I'll just accept that you're not interested in understanding the concept. As long as what you're doing works for you, there's no reason you need to.



You are avoiding the fact that VT is transmitted physically. Psychomotor skills can be transmitted exactly to within an acceptable envelope of error, which you already agreed. You seem to want me to say that VT is something it is not now.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:
			
		

> Disagree x *1* gpseymour



Lol, what are you disagreeing about? You said it yourself:



			
				gpseymour said:
			
		

> Again, if we are looking at the movements, those can, in fact, proceed without change.



Go and give yourself a big red x as well please


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Poor response Guy B. Why don't you something constructive and elaborate on the latter of the post



The bit about chi sau is elaboration


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> You can say that the physical motion leads to the strategy, but that's ignoring the fact that the strategy is actually NOT physical motion, but a concept, and concepts are more problematic in transmission.



Strategy is automatic in VT, it comes out via the physical training. It isn't something that needs to be pondered or consciously thought about. The only people approaching VT in this kind of "if this, then this" manner are those who never learned correctly and who are filling the gaps.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> I
> 
> I'll just touch on one example, because the reply to each would be the same. You referred to music. Any good musician will tell you that every musician plays a bit differently, even when they are emulating someone. There's always a significant difference unless they replicate the exact playing for an exact piece of music, and then it gets very close...but never exactly the same. In fact, the same musician won't play it exactly the same twice. Surely you're not going to argue that any instructor teaches every single possible sequence of events to near-exact precision. To do so for only a few score variations of responses would require every waking moment of a lifetime.
> 
> None of your responses even come close to explaining how both motor movements AND strategy AND theory can be replicated without error. That's not how the human mind works. If you really need me to, I'll be happy to go pull a couple of juried journal articles that make it clear. It's boring reading, but I'll be happy to pass it along if you actually don't believe it exists.



Let's not even talk about "error".  Martial Arts must flow from you naturally, if they don't then you will not react fast enough to be an effective fighter.  There is a guy in my class who is 6'3 and over 300 lbs., some middle age fat but most of it is muscle from lugging cases of whatever to fill the vending machines that is his business.  His WC isn't mine.  He has the size where opening like a charging rhino is an option.  I am 5'10 and bounce between 165 and 170 odd lbs.  When we spar I have to use my speed and constantly zone to a flank.  As long as I can keep him having to change his facing I can usually prevent him from pulling the rhino.  IF I tried to fight him the way he fights I would be done, if he tried to fight like I do he would not be utilizing his size.  We study under the same Sifu but when we fight his WC is not my WC.  There is no Universal strategy and the above is only one of a many factors that will inform your strategy at any given time.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Now that's rich!



Feel free to ask any question you like if you ever decide you would like to learn something



KPM said:


> I have been making sense to everyone other than you and LFJ



It isn't a popularity contest



KPM said:


> you have very little evidence for your theory other than "because I said so" and "you have to spend years studying WSLT to understand."



It is up to you if you wish to gather the evidence you need. Since listening isn't something you like to do, I suggest you book a flight to Germany and find out if you are really interested, otherwise don't worry so much about it. 



KPM said:


> nd you never even attempted to explain what is so revolutionary about it that WSL could not have arrived at it himself from "standard" Wing Chun other then your vague comment about chaos and order. That isn't much of an explanation. So you cannot in honesty say that your theory is more probable than ours in any kind of convincing fashion.



Many attemps have been made. Usually they result in you getting angry.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Strategy is automatic in VT, it comes out via the physical training. It isn't something that needs to be pondered or consciously thought about. The only people approaching VT in this kind of "if this, then this" manner are those who never learned correctly and who are filling the gaps.



There is no such thing.  There are so many factors that go into a fight a universal strategy beyond "hit the other guy and put him down" is impossible.  First, in terms of teaching strategy the mindset and, in the case of Martial Arts, physical attributes of the practitioner will be vital.  A strategy for a 6'3" person weighing 250 lbs will be different than 5'5" and 120 and if you try to enforce a universal strategy then you end up compromising the benefits of certain physical attributes.  Mind set is also very important, for this I will use Military History.  Omar Bradley was methodical to the point of being overly cautious.  Thus he often missed tactical and strategic opportunities.  Contrast this with Patton whose watch words were "audacity, audacity, always audacity." They were both educated at the same institution, to the same standards but they could not be more different.

Then you step beyond the individual.  What is your environment?  Is there a size/strength difference between you and your opponent?  You can have a shared philosophy behind a Martial Art but a universal strategy is quite simply impossible.


----------



## KPM

*
It is up to you if you wish to gather the evidence you need. Since listening isn't something you like to do, I suggest you book a flight to Germany and find out if you are really interested, otherwise don't worry so much about it.*

----Given that you guys don't think all the time that DP spent with WSL was enough to learn the system, how on earth do you think anyone would be able to with a single trip to visit PB in Germany??!!!




*Feel free to ask any question you like if you ever decide you would like to learn something.   Many attemps have been made. Usually they result in you getting angry*

----Oh, I haven't been angry, and you haven't made "many attempts" to actually explain things as you claim.   You drop a tidbit here and there, but it is usually lost in the noise of a much bigger thread and discussion.  So I will suggest one more time.....how about you and LFJ start a thread with a technical discussion about the differences you see between WSLVT and all the other lineages of Ip Man you have experienced, and point out exactly why these differences are something that WSL could not possibly have arrived at based on his own talent and experience.   And I promise to read closely, and participate/contribute as much as I can in an unbiased and reasonable way.   Is it a deal?


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> There are so many factors that go into a fight a universal strategy beyond "hit the other guy and put him down" is impossible. .



If all you are worried about is facing an unarmed opponent in a streetfight, this isn't necessarily true.  I'm thinking of western boxing.   A good boxer can handle himself pretty well in a streetfight with just punching.   And this seems to be the strategy of WSLVT.....it is optimized to for facing an unarmed opponent in a streetfight.  Maybe this hearkens back to the rooftop "Bei Mo" days in HK.   Nothing wrong with that.  But regardless of Guy's protests to the contrary, this is a rather narrow and specialized approach.

Now....factor in facing an armed attacker (which maybe happens more often in the US than in the UK?) or being "blind-sided" in a dark alley before you can "face off" with the attacker and bring your punching skills to bear, and there might be a problem.  But Guy has BJJ to "fill that gap" in his WSLVT.


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> If all you are worried about is facing an unarmed opponent in a streetfight, this isn't necessarily true.  I'm thinking of western boxing.   A good boxer can handle himself pretty well in a streetfight with just punching.   And this seems to be the strategy of WSLVT.....it is optimized to for facing an unarmed opponent in a streetfight.  Maybe this hearkens back to the rooftop "Bei Mo" days in HK.   Nothing wrong with that.  But regardless of Guy's protests to the contrary, this is a rather narrow and specialized approach.
> 
> Now....factor in facing an armed attacker (which maybe happens more often in the US than in the UK?) or being "blind-sided" in a dark alley before you can "face off" with the attacker and bring your punching skills to bear, and there might be a problem.  But Guy has BJJ to "fill that gap" in his WSLVT.



Used to a less of a problem a few years ago, but while most knife crime is still little anonymous to the British public, I.E. knife crime just doesn't connect, or maybe that just me. Still, though more and more carry these days, not to mention the more insidious stuff like credit card blades. So yeah, there is big gap between us nations, but on some level not that much. Just my take on that, I'm sure Tez could a more informative version on that.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> If all you are worried about is facing an unarmed opponent in a streetfight, this isn't necessarily true.  I'm thinking of western boxing.   A good boxer can handle himself pretty well in a streetfight with just punching.   And this seems to be the strategy of WSLVT.....it is optimized to for facing an unarmed opponent in a streetfight.  Maybe this hearkens back to the rooftop "Bei Mo" days in HK.   Nothing wrong with that.  But regardless of Guy's protests to the contrary, this is a rather narrow and specialized approach.
> 
> Now....factor in facing an armed attacker (which maybe happens more often in the US than in the UK?) or being "blind-sided" in a dark alley before you can "face off" with the attacker and bring your punching skills to bear, and there might be a problem.  But Guy has BJJ to "fill that gap" in his WSLVT.


When I speak of strategy I am going deeper than just punching though.  If a 150 lbs dude is fighting a 300 lbs dude he doesn't want to go in like a "swarmer" who is often willing to take hits to deliver hits.  Instead he is going to want to dance, try to hit fast and move so the big guy cant nail him with a "good night Irene."


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> Used to a less of a problem a few years ago, but while most knife crime is still little anonymous to the British public, I.E. knife crime just doesn't connect, or maybe that just me. Still, though more and more carry these days, not to mention the more insidious stuff like credit card blades. So yeah, there is big gap between us nations, but on some level not that much. Just my take on that, I'm sure Tez could a more informative version on that.


What I just found interesting was when I typed "knife crime in..." into Google it auto filled "...the UK." I found this article that references the Guardian quite a bit.  https://www.google.com/amp/townhall...n2026497?amp=true?client=ms-android-sprint-us


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Feel free to ask any question you like if you ever decide you would like to learn something
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't a popularity contest
> 
> 
> 
> It is up to you if you wish to gather the evidence you need. Since listening isn't something you like to do, I suggest you book a flight to Germany and find out if you are really interested, otherwise don't worry so much about it.
> 
> Many attemps have been made. Usually they result in you getting angry.



People are listening.  The problem is you use vague generalized terms such as "strategy" without defining what the strategy is in any detail and then when asked for clarification or something is said that contradicts your position you either engage in circular logic or simply get condescending.


----------



## Juany118

To address the original premise.  Humans are flawed creatures, thus anything we create will be flawed.  Flaws by definition, regardless of how small they may be, create the possibility for refinement.

Now sometimes an attempt to refine something does indeed break it.  Think of the gem cutter who misses the mark while trying to add facets to a diamond and ruins the stone.  Sometimes the refinement can go far enough that what you have is technically something you could consider a different animal, think Jiu-Jitsu to Judo.

These dynamics however do not mean that refinement isn't possible and arguably a vital part of the human condition.


----------



## Juany118

Hmmm found an interesting quote that I completely agree with that kinda makes the point about how you will use a different specific strategy in every fight...

"When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him.”

Who said this... Wong Shun Leung.

So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy."


----------



## Vajramusti

Juany118 said:


> Hmmm found an interesting quote that I completely agree with that kinda makes the point about how you will use a different specific strategy in every fight...
> 
> "When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him.”
> 
> Who said this... Wong Shun Leung.
> 
> So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy."


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strategy and tactics are not exactly the came thing........


----------



## Juany118

Vajramusti said:


> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Strategy and tactics are not exactly the came thing........



Oh I understand that sir I have worn green or blue since 1991 so knowing the difference is job requirement. I am simply using the context Guy appears to use, but it is hard to tell since he has been characteristicly vague.

@Vajramusti  Late edit (had an emergency call sorry for the incomplete thought)... I am basically using the context of his answers.  When I or others have talked tactics he has said that WSLVT has its own strategy that is superior.  So it appears he sees strategy and tactical execution as synonymous, vs strategy simply the overall plan of the art.

If I have misinterpreted his meaning, he could clear it up quote easily by explaining what he sees as WSLVT's strategy, and how it applies to tactical considerations.


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> People are listening....



Not anymore. Not, me anyway. Frankly I've had enough. I'm far more interested in talking with people that are interested in an exchange of ideas. If I were looking for someone with all the answers, I could have stayed with my old organization, I guess.

...Anyone for a _new thread? _


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> Not anymore. Not, me anyway. Frankly I've had enough. I'm far more interested in talking with people that are interested in an exchange of ideas. If I were looking for someone with all the answers, I could have stayed with my old organization, I guess.
> 
> ...Anyone for a _new thread? _



Actually that is a good idea this thread gave me an idea for a new one.  I will be posting it on the Self Defense forum under the title "tactical considerations in self defense" if you are interested.  Just got home though so first take off the monkey suit, second pour scotch, third start typing lol.


----------



## drop bear

KPM said:


> If all you are worried about is facing an unarmed opponent in a streetfight, this isn't necessarily true.  I'm thinking of western boxing.   A good boxer can handle himself pretty well in a streetfight with just punching.   And this seems to be the strategy of WSLVT.....it is optimized to for facing an unarmed opponent in a streetfight.  Maybe this hearkens back to the rooftop "Bei Mo" days in HK.   Nothing wrong with that.  But regardless of Guy's protests to the contrary, this is a rather narrow and specialized approach.
> 
> Now....factor in facing an armed attacker (which maybe happens more often in the US than in the UK?) or being "blind-sided" in a dark alley before you can "face off" with the attacker and bring your punching skills to bear, and there might be a problem.  But Guy has BJJ to "fill that gap" in his WSLVT.



Hitting an attacker is also a lot quicker than people expect. You get that hit in you gain a lot of initiative. Weapon or not. 

Good training and tactics can counter this of course.  And there are some elements like the ability to eat return shots. Which is why other tactics also exist.

For me I think there are safer approaches to street fighting. Like good striking moving backwards.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Hmmm found an interesting quote that I completely agree with that kinda makes the point about how you will use a different specific strategy in every fight...
> 
> "When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him.”
> 
> Who said this... Wong Shun Leung.
> 
> So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy."



You have this a bit confused, if I may say so... 

That _is_ the VT strategy, to allow the opponent to show you how to hit them. It doesn't change. That quote came directly from YM.

What is dictated by the opponent is not our own strategy, but the specific tactics we use in response to the rapid changes during the fight.

If you allow the opponent to dictate your strategy, you become their puppet. The VT approach is to impose our strategy onto the opponent, closing options and forcing them into errors that show us how to hit them.

A relevant quote from PB recently; "So I have to go into his future, destroy it... and come back."


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> The problem is you use vague generalized terms such as "strategy" without defining what the strategy is in any detail



I don't think that "strategy" is a vague generalised term. The strategy of WSL VT has also been discussed in detail over several threads and someone like KPM has read all about the strategic approach of WSL VT. Strangely though it doesn't appear to make a lot of difference in these never ending arguments.


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> Not anymore. Not, me anyway. Frankly I've had enough. I'm far more interested in talking with people that are interested in an exchange of ideas



How about you stop cropping up on threads regarding WSL VT and making disapproving comments then? You sound a bit like Joy at this point.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I don't think that "strategy" is a vague generalised term. The strategy of WSL VT has also been discussed in detail over several threads and someone like KPM has read all about the strategic approach of WSL VT. Strangely though it doesn't appear to make a lot of difference in these never ending arguments.




No, I appreciate the directness of the strategy of WSLVT.  You just haven't yet convinced me that this is something that WSL himself couldn't have possibly arrived at based upon his own talent and experience.    Why are you avoiding starting an actual technical thread about the differences between WSLVT and all other versions of VT you have seen and explain why you think WSL could not be the source for many of these differences?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Why are you avoiding starting an actual technical thread about the differences between WSLVT and all other versions of VT you have seen and explain why you think WSL could not be the source for many of these differences?



Has this question not been answered many times now? 

That kind of thread always gets locked, because it's difficult for people to not get worked up emotionally when they perceive that type of discussion as their systems being "attacked", particularly yourself... So it's ironic that you of all people would be requesting it.

And as I said in the OP of this thread; 

"It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Has this question not been answered many times now?
> 
> That kind of thread always gets locked, because it's difficult for people to not get worked up emotionally when they perceive that type of discussion as their systems being "attacked", particularly yourself... So it's ironic that you of all people would be requesting it.
> 
> And as I said in the OP of this thread;
> 
> "It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand."


I think the idea is simply to post technical differences, rather than pointing out deficiencies. It would look more like this:

"In WSL VT, we do ____ this way."
"In Bob's Random WC, we do it a different way. It looks like the WSL VT way might make X more available - how do you avoid the vulnerability that exists on the left side when you do that?"
"Good question. In WSL VT, we tend to ____ when doing that, so the left side is difficult to get to. On top of that, we also ____ a lot, so we're used to responding to the attacks that opening invites."

See? Nobody saying "That's just crap. If you do it that way, they'll eat your spleen!" People are less likely to get defensive (and offensive) if questions are asked with a genuine desire to learn.


----------



## KPM

*Has this question not been answered many times now?*

---No it has not.  Neither of you have detailed the differences you see in one concise thread.  And certainly neither of you have explained why any of the differences you see could not possibly have come from WSL's own talent and experience, other than a vague comment about chaos and order.    Since you do not know of any other Ip Man lineage that does things exactly as WSLVT does, this would help support your position and your theory.


*That kind of thread always gets locked, because it's difficult for people to not get worked up emotionally when they perceive that type of discussion as their systems being "attacked", particularly yourself... So it's ironic that you of all people would be requesting it.*


---No, these kinds of threads get locked because it's difficult for either you or Guy to post in a tactful way that is not condescending or insulting to others.  People react to that.  But Guy has been doing much better lately.


*"It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand.*

---And so, again, we will just be left with your opinion and an "because I said so" justification for it.   But I guess it is becoming apparent that that will be as good as it gets!


----------



## LFJ

In WSLVT, there is an unbroken conceptual thread that connects each part of the system, in logical sequence of development, from the opening movements of SNT to _gwo-sau_ practice.

This thread is not present in other lineages I've observed so far, and its cohesiveness is too strong for it to have been a coincidence that the system could be interpreted this way if it were not this way originally, or after generations of work.

It's simply easier and far more likely for various people to have looked at actions in the forms and come up with random, disjointed applications for them, and to have taken "sticking hands" literally, than for one man to have created this unbroken conceptual thread in disjointed material that already exists without changing the material.

KPM will remain unconvinced, and say it is "because I said so", but this is because he hasn't gone to examine the evidence. That is what one would do if they were genuinely interested in finding out. The evidence is not in words, but in the system, and the system is there for anyone to go experience.

Maybe my explanations have not been very intriguing, but if he and others, for whatever reason, are not really interested enough to go find out for themselves, then they should make peace with that and not worry about it anymore.


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> I think the idea is simply to post technical differences, rather than pointing out deficiencies. It would look more like this:
> 
> "In WSL VT, we do ____ this way."
> "In Bob's Random WC, we do it a different way. It looks like the WSL VT way might make X more available - how do you avoid the vulnerability that exists on the left side when you do that?"
> "Good question. In WSL VT, we tend to ____ when doing that, so the left side is difficult to get to. On top of that, we also ____ a lot, so we're used to responding to the attacks that opening invites."
> 
> See? Nobody saying "That's just crap. If you do it that way, they'll eat your spleen!" People are less likely to get defensive (and offensive) if questions are asked with a genuine desire to learn.



Have a look back over some old threads and see what tends to happen. There is one on dan chi sau that might be useful. There are some on elbow usage. I think a lot of the problem is that differences are large, and difficult to explain. When concepts are used to justify then people tend to become angry.  

It is worth making the effort if someone is interested to learn, less so when people just like arguing and/or taking offence.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> In WSLVT, there is an unbroken conceptual thread that connects each part of the system, in logical sequence of development, from the opening movements of SNT to _gwo-sau_ practice.
> 
> This thread is not present in other lineages I've observed so far, and its cohesiveness is too strong for it to have been a coincidence that the system could be interpreted this way if it were not this way originally, or after generations of work.
> 
> It's simply easier and far more likely for various people to have looked at actions in the forms and come up with random, disjointed applications for them, and to have taken "sticking hands" literally, than for one man to have created this unbroken conceptual thread in disjointed material that already exists without changing the material.
> 
> KPM will remain unconvinced, and say it is "because I said so", but this is because he hasn't gone to examine the evidence. That is what one would do if they were genuinely interested in finding out. The evidence is not in words, but in the system, and the system is there for anyone to go experience.
> 
> Maybe my explanations have not been very intriguing, but if he and others, for whatever reason, are not really interested enough to go find out for themselves, then they should make peace with that and not worry about it anymore.


I have seen two styles where - from what I have seen of them - it appears the cohesiveness and tight integration of the parts is largely or entirely due to a single person who came one or more generations after the founder (one directly trained by the founder). Such tight cohesion and integration seems more likely the work of a single person, since they can draw that single line (thread) through the whole system all at once. It's more difficult for multiple people in multiple generations to create such tight integration, though it is entirely possible. You could be right in the case of VT - I'm not able to dig through the pieces to see the nature of the integration vs. lack thereof that you see. I'm just pointing out that a single individual with an organized mind and deep understanding can likely more easily create such a tightly integrated system as you speak of.


----------



## LFJ

The thing is, most YM lineages share superficial similarities in the actions of the forms and basic drills. It is mainly the understanding of the content that differs.

Without rearranging, removing, and adding parts, it's incredibly unlikely, I would say in fact impossible, for this thread to just happen to be able to be interpreted into the existing material throughout the system if it were not already there.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> The thing is, most YM lineages share superficial similarities in the actions of the forms and basic drills. It is mainly the understanding of the content that differs.
> 
> Without rearranging, removing, and adding parts, it's incredibly unlikely, I would say in fact impossible, for this thread to just happen to be able to be interpreted into the existing material throughout the system if it were not already there.


Okay, so that's obviously part of why you think something was lost in those lineages that don't have that thread running through them. That's an interesting derivation - I wish I understood a bit more about the art so I could dig deeper with you on that. I can think of some counter-points, but I'm not sure if any would apply (again, not enough knowledge of the art).


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> You have this a bit confused, if I may say so...
> 
> That _is_ the VT strategy, to allow the opponent to show you how to hit them. It doesn't change. That quote came directly from YM.
> 
> What is dictated by the opponent is not our own strategy, but the specific tactics we use in response to the rapid changes during the fight.
> 
> If you allow the opponent to dictate your strategy, you become their puppet. The VT approach is to impose our strategy onto the opponent, closing options and forcing them into errors that show us how to hit them.
> 
> A relevant quote from PB recently; "So I have to go into his future, destroy it... and come back."



Here is the problem.  I know it is YM strategy, it is also TWC's strategy.  The problem is this.   In other words the WSL quote is indeed the strategy but the tactical execution will change based on your opponent's actions.  When the topic of tactics has been raised Guy has responded in such a way that he sees strategy and tactics as synonymous, that the strategy is Unique to WSLVT and that, when we have given a specific example of tactical execution consistent with WSLs words, we were wrong.

That is why I am confused.  Heck to be honest with you, that quote by WSL is shared by virtually every Martial art I know of.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> I don't think that "strategy" is a vague generalised term. The strategy of WSL VT has also been discussed in detail over several threads and someone like KPM has read all about the strategic approach of WSL VT. Strangely though it doesn't appear to make a lot of difference in these never ending arguments.


No it wasn't discussed.  I just say this because the others would discuss strategy and the possible tactical executions that would be born of it.  You would say "wrong" and then use vague generalities as to why it was wrong and seemingly using strategy and tactics as synonyms.  This is even more odd in hind sight since what everyone was saying was absolutely consistent with the WSL quote I have posted.

If it was discussed then you would have contributed something of substance when you said "wrong" but I see why this may have not been the case, because they weren't wrong.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> In WSLVT, there is an unbroken conceptual thread that connects each part of the system, in logical sequence of development, from the opening movements of SNT to _gwo-sau_ practice.
> 
> This thread is not present in other lineages I've observed so far, and its cohesiveness is too strong for it to have been a coincidence that the system could be interpreted this way if it were not this way originally, or after generations of work.
> 
> It's simply easier and far more likely for various people to have looked at actions in the forms and come up with random, disjointed applications for them, and to have taken "sticking hands" literally, than for one man to have created this unbroken conceptual thread in disjointed material that already exists without changing the material.
> 
> KPM will remain unconvinced, and say it is "because I said so", but this is because he hasn't gone to examine the evidence. That is what one would do if they were genuinely interested in finding out. The evidence is not in words, but in the system, and the system is there for anyone to go experience.
> 
> Maybe my explanations have not been very intriguing, but if he and others, for whatever reason, are not really interested enough to go find out for themselves, then they should make peace with that and not worry about it anymore.



See my experience is kinda different.  First I will grant you the logical sequence of development of WSL is indeed different BUT WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method.  That is a BIG difference and I think may be part of the issue.  How things are taught can be pretty important.

I am also not saying that the conceptual thread doesn't go through WSL mind you but rather that TWC, and the Lineages of YM's sons also have the same thread.  The only difference I see is that in these other Lineages they see that the core concept can be applicable in more varied ways.  From all of my readings of WSL (never having met the man) I see someone who was trying to create a logical science of fighting vs an art of fighting.  This could easily lead to him narrowing his focus.  To use an example, Guy has routinely talked bout "poor VT Chin Na".  The think is not all lineages have poor Chin Na and when it is explained in training it is explained as adhereing to the same conceptual thread that begins in SLT.

Sometimes that happens.  One person will say "this makes perfect sense" another will say "no it doesn't, in that instance you are forcing it."  In the end these are little more that philosophical differences.  What matters then is, does it work in practice.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> No it wasn't discussed.  I just say this because the others would discuss strategy and the possible tactical executions that would be born of it.  You would say "wrong" and then use vague generalities as to why it was wrong and seemingly using strategy and tactics as synonyms.  This is even more odd in hind sight since what everyone was saying was absolutely consistent with the WSL quote I have posted.
> 
> If it was discussed then you would have contributed something of substance when you said "wrong" but I see why this may have not been the case, because they weren't wrong.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk



I don't really even know what you are talking about any more to be honest. If you want me to elaborate on something specific then please quote me and whoever else was involved so that I can see what you mean. 

If you want to look for old posts about WSL VT strategy I am sure you will find some here. 

I am busy with work today and don't have a lot of time for interminable argument.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method.  That is a BIG difference and I think may be part of the issue.  How things are taught can be pretty important.



No, he's not. This is what he actually said:

"_Ever since I have been teaching, I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man. *The only way by which I differ is that *after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee._"

This changes nothing of the actual content or sequence of the rest of the system, most importantly from the beginning.



> I am also not saying that the conceptual thread doesn't go through WSL mind you but rather that TWC, and the Lineages of YM's sons also have the same thread.



And what thread is that?

For example, how does the crossing arm action at the opening of the forms inform these lineages of the overall fighting strategy or relate to say, _daan-chi-sau_? How about the three "shaving" hand actions before the punches at the end of SNT?

In these lineages, and others, these actions are given various possible applications, rather than containing information on general strategy and tactics. If they have the same thread, you should be able to explain what this information is that ties them all together in sequence.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> No it wasn't discussed.



I'm pretty sure when guy said the strategy of VT has been discussed over several threads, he was referring to some that took place prior to you arriving here a few months ago. You might look back in the archives.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> No, he's not. This is what he actually said:
> 
> "_Ever since I have been teaching, I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man. *The only way by which I differ is that *after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee._"



Sequence alone is not a manner of teaching.  YM was very much a "traditional" Chinese teacher of the Confucian school.  This is very similar to what we call in the West the Socratic method.  You would demonstrate something and give a very brief explanation.  The idea being that your students engage you in a dialogue and encourage critical thinking.  If you didnt ask questions you could find yourself lacking understanding.  There really was no curriculum beyond the progression through the forms, it was very much a free flowing dialogue.

WSLVT doesn't teach via techniques BUT there is a curriculum of sorts between the forms.  In terms of teaching method it would be more familiar to a modern Western student unfamiliar with Confucian or Socratic method.



> This changes nothing of the actual content or sequence of the rest of the system, most importantly from the beginning.



I wasn't saying the sequence or content was changed at all.  The way something is taught however can create false perceptions.  



> And what thread is that?



Now I am going to pull a line from the play book of you and Guy but I will be more honest.  Where here you would start talking in circular reasoning and vague generalities.  Time and again we have asked you to explain the grand difference on this issue to no avail, I am not going to empower your hypocrisy any further by answering a question you have refused to for as long as I can remember.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I'm pretty sure when guy said the strategy of VT has been discussed over several threads, he was referring to some that took place prior to you arriving here a few months ago. You might look back in the archives.



Yes he did, that doesn't mean it was discussed, as I detailed after the cherry picked quote.


----------



## geezer

guy b said:


> How about you stop cropping up on threads regarding WSL VT and making disapproving comments then? You sound a bit like Joy at this point.



If you knew Joy, you'd realize that being compared to him is not an insult!  And as far as WSL VT goes.... we've had some very fruitful exchanges with some of the other WSL VT people. With you and LFJ.... not so much.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method.



Please provide the quote


----------



## guy b

geezer said:


> If you knew Joy, you'd realize that being compared to him is not an insult!  And as far as WSL VT goes.... we've had some very fruitful exchanges with some of the other WSL VT people. With you and LFJ.... not so much.



Like Joy, you keep posting on these threads that you find unproductive and pointless. Maybe the best thing would be to stop?


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I know it is YM strategy, it is also TWC's strategy.



WSL VT uses a strategy which ruins the opponents strategy and imposes itself upon them, forcing mistakes. To make the strategy work entails a certain tactical approach. 

Looking at TWC it doesn't appear to contain the same strategic understanding.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Please provide the quote



I probably should say that says you have failed to do this whenever requested that I should fail to do it as well however here is where WSL States how teaches differently than Yip Man did.



> Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have got the wrong meaning which they now pass on. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude. This is not a criticism of Yip Man but rather it reflects the attitude of the time which was very much traditional. Wherever and whomever I have been teaching, it has been my preference to convey the information to all people in attendance. I try to treat everyone equally during my lessons and seminars. If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job.



Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat

There is another interview, which I will search for where he specifically used the term systematic but he acknowledges the differences between both their training methods quite clearly here regardless of that word not being present. 

 weren't you the one that said I needed to learn the history of WSL VT? Because I seem to be quoting WSL himself far more than either you or LFJ.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> WSL VT uses a strategy which ruins the opponents strategy and imposes itself upon them, forcing mistakes. To make the strategy work entails a certain tactical approach.
> 
> Looking at TWC it doesn't appear to contain the same strategic understanding.



First I would suggest you read the quote by WSL that I posted previously which defines his strategy in his own words. He specifically states that you cannot impose your will upon an opponent in a fight. You are correct that TWC does not seek to impose Ones Will on the opponent because as WSL himself clearly states that is an impossibility. Unless of course you know I want to see the WSL misspoke because he was rather clear with no vagueness open to interpretation in the quote that I posted.

As I said before I did previously study WSLVT.  The quote previously posted is the strategy I learned.  It is also the strategy of TWC.


----------



## JowGaWolf

guy b said:


> WSL VT uses a strategy which ruins the opponents strategy and imposes itself upon them, forcing mistakes. To make the strategy work entails a certain tactical approach.


I know I don't do WIng Chun but this as just one of the many strategies that other martial arts have as well.  This is why I was saying that I wouldn't base the authenticity of a martial on strategy.

Jow Ga has this same strategy but it's not Wing Chun, so it would make sense that it is possible for different Wing Chun lineages to have the same strategy as it is not something that's unique to one style of Martial Arts.

One of the things that bridging allows a person to do is to Interrupt and ruin the opponents actions and not strategy.  To actually interrupt a strategy would actually be difficult to do, being that if you interrupt it, it will either reset to the same strategy, change to a different strategy, or change into a counter, (counters take into consideration that an interruption will occur and then plan an attack based on that interruption.)  These things are not unique to WC, Martial Arts, or Fighting.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> I know I don't do WIng Chun but this as just one of the many strategies that other martial arts have as well.  This is why I was saying that I wouldn't base the authenticity of a martial on strategy.
> 
> Jow Ga has this same strategy but it's not Wing Chun, so it would make sense that it is possible for different Wing Chun lineages to have the same strategy as it is not something that's unique to one style of Martial Arts.
> 
> One of the things that bridging allows a person to do is to Interrupt and ruin the opponents actions and not strategy.  To actually interrupt a strategy would actually be difficult to do, being that if you interrupt it, it will either reset to the same strategy, change to a different strategy, or change into a counter, (counters take into consideration that an interruption will occur and then plan an attack based on that interruption.)  These things are not unique to WC, Martial Arts, or Fighting.



The problem is that isn't the strategy considered I. The WSLVT I studied.  Here are the words of WSL himself on that matter...

" When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him.”

This is very different than imposing your will on the other even if it is through some form of trickery.  The easiest way to summarize it is "go with the flow."


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> First I would suggest you read the quote by WSL that I posted previously which defines his strategy in his own words. He specifically states that you cannot impose your will upon an opponent in a fight.



He doesn't say that at all. What he says is this: 



			
				WSL said:
			
		

> When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him



He doesn't mean that you must dance to your opponents tune. What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited



> You are correct that TWC does not seek to impose Ones Will on the opponent because as WSL himself clearly states that is an impossibility. Unless of course you know I want to see the WSL misspoke because he was rather clear with no vagueness open to interpretation in the quote that I posted.



You proclaim that WSL was "rather clear with no vagueness", and then proceed to get the understanding completely back to front. It would be slightly amusing if I didn't know you will just blunder on regardless. Anyway, a shame for you and apparently for TWC.



> As I said before I did previously study WSLVT.  The quote previously posted is the strategy I learned



Oh yes, who did you learn with?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> He doesn't say that at all. What he says is this:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't mean that you must dance to your opponents tune. What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited
> 
> 
> 
> You proclaim that WSL was "rather clear with no vagueness", and then proceed to get the understanding completely back to front. It would be slightly amusing if I didn't know you will just blunder on regardless. Anyway, a shame for you and apparently for TWC.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes, who did you learn with?



Lol... The logical contortions necessary to come to your conclusion here are ridiculous tbh.  It is incredibly clear and I was not even vaguely saying that you dance to the other person's tune.  You flow and use your awareness to sense where your opponent has made himself vulnerable and then strike.  That is quite explict in what he says.  There is simply no way to read that quote and see in that quote that you are imposing your will on the opponent, unless you are trying to force it to confirm to the definition.  

But if you wish please continue.  People who read the words of WSL and have critical thinking and reading skills can see the truth and ultimately that is all that matters.

Interesting that you completely avoid the fact that I produced the quote where WSL details the difference between how he teaches vs YM btw.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> You flow and use your awareness to sense where your opponent has made himself vulnerable and then strike.  That is quite explict in what he says.



WSL doesn't say anything like that. The strategy of WSL VT is about pressuring and shutting down options in order to force mistakes. Wouldn't you know this if you had studied WSL VT?



> There is simply no way to read that quote and see in that quote that you are imposing your will on the opponent



Where have I said that the aim is to impose ones will upon the opponent? WSL is saying that the opponent is in charge of their choices. Be ahead of them and limit their choices to force them into error, then capitalise. 



> But if you wish please continue.  People who read the words of WSL and have critical thinking and reading skills can see the truth and ultimately that is all that matters



A good example of where having google can be a strong detriment to learning



> Interesting that you completely avoid the fact that I produced the quote where WSL details the difference between how he teaches vs YM btw.



There is nothing problematic in the quote you provided, which is why I didn't reply. What do you want me to say about it?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> The problem is that isn't the strategy considered I. The WSLVT I studied.  Here are the words of WSL himself on that matter...
> 
> " When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him.”
> 
> This is very different than imposing your will on the other even if it is through some form of trickery.  The easiest way to summarize it is "go with the flow."


But this is only one strategy out of the many that a person may have to use during a fight.  So what you are saying is that Wing Chun only has one strategy?

I could be wrong but I don't think the Wing Chun Sifus wanted people to define the system by one strategy and then use that one strategy to invalidate other strategies that can be used with the system.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> But this is only one strategy out of the many that a person may have to use during a fight.  So what you are saying is that Wing Chun only has one strategy?
> 
> I could be wrong but I don't think the Wing Chun Sifus wanted people to define the system by one strategy and then use that one strategy to invalidate other strategies that can be used with the system.


I am looking at it, and was taught, that in this context fighting consists of two different things, strategy and tactics.  Strategy is the "overall" plan, philosophy etc.  That is essentially a universal tennant.  

Then you have tactical execution which is different from encounter to encounter and is informed by your immediate goal, the opponent and the circumstances of each individual encounter.  As an example, you can potentially impose your will if your opponent is overly cautious, hesitant etc. BUT the raison d'être isn't to impose your will, that was simply what the circumstances of that particular fight dictates to occur.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> I am looking at it, and was taught, that in this context fighting consists of two different things, strategy and tactics.  Strategy is the "overall" plan, philosophy etc.  That is essentially a universal tennant.
> 
> Then you have tactical execution which is different from encounter to encounter and is informed by your immediate goal, the opponent and the circumstances of each individual encounter.  As an example, you can potentially impose your will if your opponent is overly cautious, hesitant etc. BUT the raison d'être isn't to impose your will, that was simply what the circumstances of that particular fight dictates to occur.
> 
> Does that make sense?



Yes it does make sense. That is really good answer there, well I think so anyway


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> WSL doesn't say anything like that. The strategy of WSL VT is about pressuring and shutting down options in order to force mistakes. Wouldn't you know this if you had studied WSL VT?
> 
> 
> 
> Where have I said that the aim is to impose ones will upon the opponent? WSL is saying that the opponent is in charge of their choices. Be ahead of them and limit their choices to force them into error, then capitalise.
> 
> 
> 
> A good example of where having google can be a strong detriment to learning
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing problematic in the quote you provided, which is why I didn't reply. What do you want me to say about it?



So translation...

I am going to dismiss what you say via unsupported fiat statements as I have throughout these discussions, even when my fiat statements are contradicted by the explict words of the person who my system is named after.

Gotcha

It's funny really.  You make unsupported claims and when contradicted demand quotes and references.  Then when provided you turn around and Pooh Pooh on the quotes and references.


----------



## guy b

It is quite clear what WSL means in the quote provided but if you don't wish to understand there isn't a lot I can do to help.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> It is quite clear what WSL means in the quote provided but if you don't wish to understand there isn't a lot I can do to help.


Indeed it is clear, you simply didn't expect the quote to be produced.  Perhaps were even ignorant of it.  So the rest of us understand it's meaning and you are now let struggling to fit a contradictory statement to it.

This is what happens when you demand evidence from others and produce none yourself btw.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Indeed it is clear, you simply didn't expect the quote to be produced.





			
				Juany said:
			
		

> So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy."





			
				Juany said:
			
		

> You flow and use your awareness to sense where your opponent has made himself vulnerable and then strike. That is quite explict in what he says.



WSL isn't talking about varying strategy with each opponent. He is talking about tactical variations being employed depending on circumstances. The VT strategy is the VT strategy. I am sorry that you don't like what it means, but it is what it is.



Juany118 said:


> So the rest of us understand it's meaning



Again, you can't rely on google and your imagination to teach you VT



Juany118 said:


> This is what happens when you demand evidence from others and produce none yourself



I have no idea what you mean. You have usually posted about 50 furious messages every time I log in to the site so it can get a bit confusing following what you are on about sometimes. What evidence did I fail to provide you with and what evidence did I demand from others?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> WSL isn't talking about varying strategy with each opponent. He is talking about tactical variations being employed depending on circumstances. The VT strategy is the VT strategy. I am sorry that you don't like what it means, but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you can't rely on google and your imagination to teach you VT
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you mean. You have usually posted about 50 furious messages every time I log in to the site so it can get a bit confusing following what you are on about sometimes. What evidence did I fail to provide you with and what evidence did I demand from others?


You do realize that all you did here again was fiat statements.  So, yes again.  You demanded quotes/evidence, if suddenly you want to say otherwise everyone else knows.  You told people to study the words and history of WSL as well.

Twas done...twas posted and you respond with fiat statements.

As for tactical variations vs strategy, you basically rephrased EXACTLY what I said in my response to Jow.  That is flattering for me and embarrassing for you, especially since until after I did, you never made a distinction between tactics and strategy.

By the way still waiting for you to respond to LFJ's explicit and your implicit denial of my claims that WSL changed the teaching method of his lineage from that of YM.  You demanded the quote, I produced it and I have silence.  Any other response from me to you will simply be this because it is a clear example of what I have been saying, until you actually respond to that point, then we can move on.

You and LFJ claim that WSLVT is the true extension of YM WC.  When I pointed out they taught differently you had to deny it and infer I was making it up because if this is different what else may be different?  You demanded a quote.  I produced it.  Response?  Silence.  That is telling.


----------



## KPM

WSL said this:
*If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him*

Guy said this:
*What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited*
*
*
Now I truly am trying to be open-minded here and read things as neutrally as possible.  But there is just no way I can see that those two statements above are the same thing.  WSL's quote to me in no way implies "forcing" anything.  In fact, he seems to warn against such a thing when says one shouldn't try to "hit your opponent above all else."   And it also seems to me that one can certainly "create openings to be exploited" while flowing with the opponent and not "imposing" or "forcing" anything.   

So, as with the rest of the argument across several threads.....is this going to  come down to "well, you have to actually have studied WSLVT in depth to understand what he has said".....??????


----------



## KPM

Juany118 said:


> You do realize that all you did here again was fiat statements.  So, yes again.  You demanded quotes/evidence, if suddenly you want to say otherwise everyone else knows.  You told people to study the words and history of WSL as well.
> 
> Twas done...twas posted and you respond with fiat statements.
> 
> As for tactical variations vs strategy, you basically rephrased EXACTLY what I said in my response to Jow.  That is flattering for me and embarrassing for you, especially since until after I did, you never made a distinction between tactics and strategy.
> 
> I haven't posted 50 furious messages btw.  I only posted messages with quotes from WSL that contradict your fiat statements and then called you and LFJ on trying to dismiss said quotes... Or as with the GM teaching method quote you demanded, avoiding it.
> 
> When it comes to being furious I believe you are projecting.  Please feel free to simply make more fiat statements.  As I said before those with critical reading and thinking skils know the truth and that's all that matters really.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk




All of this is exactly what I have been seeing across several threads here recently as well.  Guy did demand quotes/evidence and when he got them he didn't like them.  Guy did just restate what Juany wrote previously as if it was his own ideas.  Guy is the one that has made multiple posts on several threads now but doesn't what to take the time to do what I have asked him to do at least 3 times.   So I think this vein of discussion has pretty much run its course.


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> .
> 
> So, as with the rest of the argument across several threads.....is this going to  come down to "well, you have to actually have studied WSLVT in depth to understand what he has said".....??????



Thing is this.  Unless Guy or LFJ studied under WSL directly they can't say even that.  I have two WC Teachers.  Both are students of GM Cheung's Closed door student, one is also a "Master" vs just a Sifu personally authorized by GM Cheung.  GM Cheung will be coming to visit next year and I will be attending.  Only then will I know how close their WC is to theirs because as humans we always add a bit of ourselves to such skills.

Why?  Because I refuse to take what my Sifu says as the Gospel words of GM Cheung.  We can see the issue from the debate on DP vs PB.  So I know what my Sifu and the visiting Master works but until next year I won't say it is the "Gospel" of GM Cheung.  That is how logic works.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> You do realize that all you did here again was fiat statements. So, yes again. You demanded quotes/evidence, if suddenly you want to say otherwise everyone else knows



In terms of VT, without being able to show you what is meant, all anyone can provide is what they know to be true from experience. You say that WSL is saying one thing based on your lack of experience of WSL VT. I know that he isn't. There isn't a lot of proving that can be done one way or the other without experiencing what is meant. 



Juany118 said:


> As for tactical variations vs strategy, you basically rephrased EXACTLY what I said in my response to Jow



You said the opposite, as quoted above, i.e. that VT strategy varies with circumstances. This is a gross misunderstanding of the difference between tactic and strategy, and of the WSL VT system. If you vary your strategy with each opponent then you are thinking consciously rather than operating automatically according to the system. The reason I mainly talk of strategy is that it is a major point of difference compared to other VT, as evidenced by your understanding of TWC strategy and misinterpretation of WSL VT strategy. 



Juany118 said:


> By the way still waiting for you to respond to LFJ's explicit and your implicit denial of my claims that WSL changed the teaching method of his lineage from that of YM. You demanded the quote, I produced it and I have silence.



There isn't anything indicating that WSL changed the teaching of VT in such a way that would alter the system information being conveyed compared to YM in the quote you provided. He had a different attitude to his students compared to YM and was a great teacher, but taught the same system. The quote explains very well the differences and misunderstandings seen in the various branches of YM wing chun that are not via WSL and that exist today, a reality generally denied by most people on this forum:



			
				WSL said:
			
		

> Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners.



You continue:



Juany118 said:


> You and LFJ claim that WSLVT is the true extension of YM WC. When I pointed out they taught differently you had to deny it and infer I was making it up because if this is different what else may be different? You demanded a quote. I produced it.



This quote and others show that WSL was teaching the same system as YM, but doing it more effectively. It is therefore irrelevant as an attack against the idea that WSL VT is the VT of YM. You seem to be arguing that if WSL was a more effective teacher than YM then... what else might be different!? It just reeks of...desperation more than anything. I can't really see a point here?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> All of this is exactly what I have been seeing across several threads here recently as well.  Guy did demand quotes/evidence and when he got them he didn't like them.



There isn't anything to react to in these quotes from WSL. I agree with everything he says



> Guy is the one that has made multiple posts on several threads now but doesn't what to take the time to do what I have asked him to do at least 3 times.   So I think this vein of discussion has pretty much run its course.



I am sorry for not running to put everything aside in order to serve your needs KPM. The thing is I don't believe you are interested and feel it might be a waste of my time. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> In terms of VT, without being able to show you what is meant, all anyone can provide is what they know to be true from experience. You say that WSL is saying one thing based on your lack of experience of WSL VT. I know that he isn't. There isn't a lot of proving that can be done one way or the other without experiencing what is meant.
> 
> 
> 
> You said the opposite, as quoted above, i.e. that VT strategy varies with circumstances. This is a gross misunderstanding of the difference between tactic and strategy, and of the WSL VT system. If you vary your strategy with each opponent then you are thinking consciously rather than operating automatically according to the system. The reason I mainly talk of strategy is that it is a major point of difference compared to other VT, as evidenced by your understanding of TWC strategy and misinterpretation of WSL VT strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't anything indicating that WSL changed the teaching of VT in such a way that would alter the system information being conveyed compared to YM in the quote you provided. He had a different attitude to his students compared to YM and was a great teacher, but taught the same system. The quote explains very well the differences and misunderstandings seen in the various branches of YM wing chun that are not via WSL and that exist today, a reality generally denied by most people on this forum:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue:
> 
> 
> 
> This quote and others show that WSL was teaching the same system as YM, but doing it more effectively. It is therefore irrelevant as an attack against the idea that WSL VT is the VT of YM. You seem to be arguing that if WSL was a more effective teacher than YM then... what else might be different!? It just reeks of...desperation more than anything. I can't really see a point here?


ROFL, you just completely dodged the point.  The original accusation was that I was, in essence, making up that they taught differently.  LFJ produced one quote claiming it was the only one.  You demanded I posted the quote I was referring to.  Then I did and now, miraculously, it's not " WSL didnt chang E the teaching of WC" now it's "WSL improved it.". It one response you have proved how disingenuous you are in such a way I don't even have to prove it.  The posts of you both in this one thread prove it sir.  Thank you for making my point for me.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Now I truly am trying to be open-minded here and read things as neutrally as possible. But there is just no way I can see that those two statements above are the same thing. WSL's quote to me in no way implies "forcing" anything. In fact, he seems to warn against such a thing when says one shouldn't try to "hit your opponent above all else." And it also seems to me that one can certainly "create openings to be exploited" while flowing with the opponent and not "imposing" or "forcing" anything.



It's a system of chasing, closing down, forcing errors, capitalising. Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung is the main part of the VT strategy. This isn't controversial.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> The original accusation was that I was, in essence, making up that they taught differently. LFJ produced one quote claiming it was the only one. You demanded I posted the quote I was referring to. Then I did and now, miraculously, it's not " WSL didnt chang E the teaching of WC" now it's "WSL improved it.



There has never been any disagreement that WSL was a great teacher. YM was also a great teacher. They had different teaching styles. Since the system they taught was the same then individual teaching styles are not relevant to the point you are trying to make.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I refuse to take what my Sifu says as the Gospel words of GM Cheung



You would probably be wise not to take what William Cheung says as gospel either.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> It's a system of chasing, closing down, forcing errors, capitalising. Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung is the main part of the VT strategy. This isn't controversial.



You do realized that you didn't address a blessed thing he said.  Instead you spoke in the WC equivalent of psychobabble, aka jargon with no substance, to avoid the salient points put forth.  I understand why though.  Until now, and I have been watching, you have been used to dismissing all challenges by saying "You don't know the teachings of WSL" because no one had the experience or bothered to spend the time to produce evidence to the contrary.  Well I have some experience and the time (and stubbornness) to not only dispute, but produce statements that anyone can verify, to support my dispute.  So you are uncertain as how to respond because, to date, fiat statements have been sufficient.

For goodness sake you essentially plagiarized my response to @JowGaWolf in a way that ignored I had ever said it.  That is the only thing you have done that actually evoked anything resembling an emotional response from me and that is a feat because I am your stereotypical "cold fish" when it comes to displays of emotion.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> You would probably be wise not to take what William Cheung says as gospel either.


 lol, lets dodge the point and engage in veiled ad hominem.  Classy sir lol, but I understand, since you can't produce the same level of proof you demanded, this is what you are reduced to.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> you spoke in the WC equivalent of psychobabble, aka jargon with no substance



You find the strategy of VT to be jargon? That's a new one. 

I have explained in great detail how you have misinterpreted what WSL said, feel free to read over it again if still confused.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> lol, lets dodge the point and engage in veiled ad hominem.  Classy sir lol, but I understand, since you can't produce the same level of proof you demanded, this is what you are reduced to.



I agree with what WSL says. There is nothing there that I don't agree with. I can't help your misinterpretation of it, that is up to you


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> I agree with what WSL says. There is nothing there that I don't agree with. I can't help your misinterpretation of it, that is up to you


No you say "WSL says this" then I post his words, and how they are used.  You then say I am wrong but then plagiarized my words to support you contention.  That is called being disingenuous, pure and simple sir.


----------



## LFJ

@Juany118 

In response to the following quote from WSL on YM's teaching style:



> Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have got the wrong meaning which they now pass on. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude. This is not a criticism of Yip Man but rather it reflects the attitude of the time which was very much traditional. Wherever and whomever I have been teaching, it has been my preference to convey the information to all people in attendance. I try to treat everyone equally during my lessons and seminars. If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job.



This only shows different personalities and teaching styles. It does not at all change the information that was conveyed, only the extent to which students received it.

YM was not careful to ensure all students received the information. Particularly clear is this part;

"_Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that *teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones*. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. *This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners*._"

This is exactly what we've been saying. He didn't care to ensure many students received the information fully, and it shows. No two students of YM share the same understanding of VT, as far as I've seen.

Conversely, WSL _was_ careful to ensure the information was passed on fully to more students, and it shows too. There are multiple students of WSL that share the same understanding of VT.

This quote just helps to confirm our suspicions, like many other student testimonies.

So again, all that changes between these different teaching styles, is the extent to which students receive the information. The information has always remained the same. So you have no point here.


----------



## LFJ

@Juany118 

In response to the following quote from WSL on VT strategy:

"_If your intentions are to hit your opponent *above all else*, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him._"

"Above all else" means attacking without strategy. Obviously this may lead to overcommitment and being countered easily.

But, "to allow your opponent to guide you" doesn't mean to let them have you by the puppet strings either! This is referring to the strategy of VT, which as we explained is to close options and force errors, so that you are always one step ahead of the opponent where they show you how to hit them. You don't let them put you in the past and guide from the future. That's a losing strategy.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> Now I am going to pull a line from the play book of you and Guy but I will be more honest.  Where here you would start talking in circular reasoning and vague generalities.  Time and again we have asked you to explain the grand difference on this issue to no avail, I am not going to empower your hypocrisy any further by answering a question you have refused to for as long as I can remember.



I don't remember you asking any specific questions. So of course you got general answers. 

I'll be glad to discuss specifics if you do as well. But I sense you are avoiding this specific question because you know it cannot be answered. These are disjointed applications devoid of strategic information in the lineages you mentioned (TWC, Yip1, Yip2).



LFJ said:


> For example, how does the crossing arm action at the opening of the forms inform these lineages of the overall fighting strategy or relate to say, _daan-chi-sau_? How about the three "shaving" hand actions before the punches at the end of SNT?
> 
> In these lineages, and others, these actions are given various possible applications, rather than containing information on general strategy and tactics. If they have the same thread, you should be able to explain what this information is that ties them all together in sequence.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> @Juany118
> 
> In response to the following quote from WSL on VT strategy:
> 
> "_If your intentions are to hit your opponent *above all else*, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him._"
> 
> "Above all else" means attacking without strategy. Obviously this may lead to overcommitment and being countered easily.
> 
> But, "to allow your opponent to guide you" doesn't mean to let them have you by the puppet strings either! This is referring to the strategy of VT, which as we explained is to close options and force errors, so that you are always one step ahead of the opponent where they show you how to hit them. You don't let them put you in the past and guide from the future. That's a losing strategy.



Please see my previous response I never said what you, or in different words but same point Guy said. I answered this already.  

I am actually reminded of an objection Lawyers make in US Courts here...

"Asked and answered." 

The fact you couldn't raise a new point...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## LFJ

You have posted several pages since I last logged in. Would you mind directing me to a post # so that I may address it?


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> The fact you couldn't raise a new point...



There is only one point to raise; the point of the quote.

Your misinterpretation of it has now been explained to you by people who understand the system WSL taught.

You disagree without knowing better and want a new point? Doesn't work like that.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> I am looking at it, and was taught, that in this context fighting consists of two different things, strategy and tactics.  Strategy is the "overall" plan, philosophy etc.  That is essentially a universal tennant.
> 
> Then you have tactical execution which is different from encounter to encounter and is informed by your immediate goal, the opponent and the circumstances of each individual encounter.  As an example, you can potentially impose your will if your opponent is overly cautious, hesitant etc. BUT the raison d'être isn't to impose your will, that was simply what the circumstances of that particular fight dictates to occur.
> 
> Does that make sense?


 I understand what you are saying but I don't think I understand the in fighting. Thanks for taking the time to share what you know.  My head is about to explode with why it's such a big deal for some people.  I did some reading about the differences between the 2 styles of Wing Chun and that was enough to end my curiosity.  So this is something that will probably never be resolved or even slightly resolved. I understand that there are people out there who don't fight the battle or get into the "who is fake and who isn't" arguments. 

I'm just more than happy that I don't have to go through this with my system.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> I understand what you are saying but I don't think I understand the in fighting. Thanks for taking the time to share what you know.  My head is about to explode with why it's such a big deal for some people.  I did some reading about the differences between the 2 styles of Wing Chun and that was enough to end my curiosity.  So this is something that will probably never be resolved or even slightly resolved. I understand that there are people out there who don't fight the battle or get into the "who is fake and who isn't" arguments.
> 
> I'm just more than happy that I don't have to go through this with my system.


I don't understand it either tbh.  I have studied both.  I am on the "other side" only because my current Sifu is former LE so we speak the same language and he knows first hand what I need because of it.  I do not see the difference in strategy (there are differences in application I can elaborate on private side to avoid further turmoil).  I will stop there because anything else may seem an ad hominem but it does boggle my mind because I go to an annual tournament in Maryland (Kuo Shu) where all of CMA show up, face to face, and only here, and because of two people, have I seen this pissing match.  Every where else it's "yeah, Cheung said this.. Leung said that.. can you fight?  Cool let's get a beer."

The problem is in knowing both I know how narrow the differences are and when people try to make it seem like there is some black and white, right and wrong, difference between lineages my Don Quixote complex kicks in and I tilt at windmills. Lol


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> You have posted several pages since I last logged in. Would you mind directing me to a post # so that I may address it?


Lol... You and Guy have told me, and others, to produce evidence to defend my point (which I did, including statements from WSL himself) and you can't be bothered to simply look at a single thread to try and defend your point?  That is telling and I am done playing Don Quixote to your windmill.


----------



## LFJ

I've addressed both of the quotes. You are ignoring them because your arguments have reached a dead end, just like on the Peterson discussion when it came down to technical analysis.


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> I've addressed both of the quotes. You are ignoring them because your arguments have reached a dead end, just like on the Peterson discussion when it came down to technical analysis.




No you haven't and here is the problem.  All I said, when it comes to teaching is that they had different teaching methods and that teaching methods impact learning, that's it. This was patently denied by both you and Guy.  You went so far as to produce a quote saying... you spin in another direction saying



> No, he's not. This is what he actually said:
> 
> "_Ever since I have been teaching, I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man. *The only way by which I differ is that *after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee._



And then when I produce the rest of his statements, in the same interview (I at least had the honesty to link the interview ), you try to spin it.. I will link it again.  Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat

So You and Guy call BS, I produce the words of WSL himself and then you still call BS.  tis telling and I am done.  respond if you wish but, thanks to this forum's setting I will not see it.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> No you haven't and here is the problem.  All I said, when it comes to teaching is that they had different teaching methods and that teaching methods impact learning, that's it.



This is what you said:

"_WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method._"

This seems that you are suggesting the system was altered, which is false and why I quoted WSL saying he didn't change it apart from starting the BJ form before completing the dummy.

If that is not your point, then you have no point. Their personalities and teaching styles differed which impacted learning and resulted in not many receiving the full system from YM, while more received it from WSL.

This has been our argument the whole time, as explained in Post #190 above. You are apparently agreeing with it then.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> I go to an annual tournament in Maryland (Kuo Shu) where all of CMA show up


I hope I can make it to the one in  2017


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> I hope I can make it to the one in  2017



Well obviously neither of us are going anywhere and I show up, even if just as a spectator, because I live only 90 minutes away in PA.  So maybe we can meet up and I buy ya a beer as penance for what you had to witness here.  No exaggeration.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> Well obviously neither of us are going anywhere and I show up, even if just as a spectator, because I live only 90 minutes away in PA.  So maybe we can meet up and I buy ya a beer as penance for what you had to witness here.


I need to get into a Lei Tai competition as requested by my Sifu.  I'll take you up on that beer offer. If I don't go all the way, you buy the beer.  If I go all the way then I'll buy you a beer. lol.  

Hopefully my Sifu can make it to the competition so he can see that I can punch faster than I do in training lol.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> No you say "WSL says this" then I post his words, and how they are used



I agree fully with every WSL quote that has been posted on this thread.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I am sorry for not running to put everything aside in order to serve your needs KPM. The thing is I don't believe you are interested and feel it might be a waste of my time. Wouldn't you agree?



You can believe whatever you want.  I believe you have been offered the opportunity to explain your position as clearly as you can and you have not taken up the offer.  I was certainly interested in a good technical discussion about the various aspects of WSLVT that you see as different from all other versions of Ip Man's VT that you have experienced. And very interested in learning why you thought these differences could not have originated with WSL himself.  But rather than make an effort to do that, you have instead invested your time in multiple posts across several threads that have done nothing but suggest that you are unable to actually do as I requested.  You have ended up wasting everyone's time that has attempted to read along.  I don't believe you are able to do what I have suggested here multiple times.  Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## KPM

"_If your intentions are to hit your opponent *above all else*, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him._"

_"Above all else" means attacking without strategy. Obviously this may lead to overcommitment and being countered easily._

---Not necessarily.  In fact, that quote seems to warn against having a strategy focused only on hitting the opponent.  If anything, it would suggest one use a strategy that is NOT focused only on hitting the opponent.  

_
But, "to allow your opponent to guide you" doesn't mean to let them have you by the puppet strings either! _

---No one has said it does!  Other versions of VT see Chi Sau as developing skills at sensitivity and control.  So "allow your opponent to guide you" could easily be seen as using those sensitivity skills to sense when the opponent has made a mistake or left an opening.  You can guide the action and control what happens without "forcing" or "imposing" anything.  Now we may actually be saying the same thing.  But when you use language like "force" or "impose" and talk about a strategy that is all about landing the punch it certainly seems to contradict the Wing Chun idea of not meeting force with force and WSL's comment about intending to "hit the opponent above all else."  

_
This is referring to the strategy of VT, which as we explained is to close options and force errors, so that you are always one step ahead of the opponent where they show you how to hit them. You don't let them put you in the past and guide from the future. That's a losing strategy._

-----I understand that you are talking about being proactive rather than reactive.   And I agree, that's a good thing.  But it is not always possible.  If you try to pursue that above all else against an opponent that you are unable to "force" or "impose" in such a way....then you better have a backup strategy!  I think THAT is what WSL is talking about when he warns against trying to "hit the opponent above all else."


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> This is what you said:
> 
> "_WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method._"
> 
> This seems that you are suggesting the system was altered, which is false and why I quoted WSL saying he didn't change it apart from starting the BJ form before completing the dummy.
> 
> .



Geez, how you guys can twist and turn!  You just quoted Juany and he clearly emphasized the "HOW" in what he wrote when referencing WSL teaching.  Then you try to say he meant that WSL altered the system.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Geez, how you guys can twist and turn!  You just quoted Juany and he clearly emphasized the "HOW" in what he wrote when referencing WSL teaching.  Then you try to say he meant that WSL altered the system.



But there is no controversy in the fact that YM and WSL had different styles of teaching VT. Juany seems excited about it, but it is what we have been saying for a long time as an explanation for differences seen in different YM wing chun. There isn't anything to argue about, unless someone is saying that WSL changed the system. 

Is that what you are saying?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> you have been offered the opportunity to explain your position as clearly as you can and you have not taken up the offer.  I was certainly interested in a good technical discussion about the various aspects of WSLVT that you see as different from all other versions of Ip Man's VT that you have experienced. And very interested in learning why you thought these differences could not have originated with WSL himself



Maybe if you stop trolling then things will be different?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Not necessarily. In fact, that quote seems to warn against having a strategy focused only on hitting the opponent. If anything, it would suggest one use a strategy that is NOT focused only on hitting the opponent.



The strategy of WSL VT is loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Not necessarily.



Well look, if you're familiar with WSL's system, that quote is very clear and simple.

I've given an elaboration on it from the WSLVT perspective. You are welcome to misinterpret it from the perspective of some other system, but all I can say is that you are simply wrong about this.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Geez, how you guys can twist and turn!  You just quoted Juany and he clearly emphasized the "HOW" in what he wrote when referencing WSL teaching.  Then you try to say he meant that WSL altered the system.



Yeah, "HOW *it was taught into a more logical/step by step method*." 

That is simply false!

The logical, step-by-step progression of the system has always been there. There is no record of WSL ever saying he changed or created it, like Juany claimed, only the contrary.

The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time.

This has resulted in no two students of YM that we know of sharing the same understanding of the system, and many not understanding it at all.

While, WSL was careful to share detailed explanations of what the students were doing at each step, and put effort into imparting the full information to students who spent the required time to learn properly and also put in the same effort to learn.

This has resulted in multiple students of WSL sharing the same understanding of the system.

That is literally the only difference. The system method has not changed.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Well look, if you're familiar with WSL's system, that quote is very clear and simple.
> 
> I've given an elaboration on it from the WSLVT perspective. You are welcome to misinterpret it from the perspective of some other system, but all I can say is that you are simply wrong about this.



I can't really imagine using google to look up quotes from William Cheung and then interpret them as I liked in order to shout at Juany about the contents of TWC. I also can't imagive arguing for months with KPM about the content of Pin Sun on an internet forum, just because I like to argue.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> I was certainly interested in a good technical discussion about the various aspects of WSLVT that you see as different from all other versions of Ip Man's VT that you have experienced. And very interested in learning why you thought these differences could not have originated with WSL himself.



Well, you can take it from my Post #144 where I state what I believe is probably the most significant thing missing from other YM derived WC, and Post #147 where I state why I believe it is incredibly unlikely to have originated with WSL.

Juany tried to say TWC, Yip1, and Yip2 lineages all share the same thread, but backed out when it got to specifics.

Maybe you'd like to take a stab at answering these questions then;


"And what thread is that?

For example, how does the crossing arm action at the opening of the forms inform these lineages of the overall fighting strategy or relate to say, _daan-chi-sau_? How about the three "shaving" hand actions before the punches at the end of SNT?

In these lineages, and others, these actions are given various possible applications, rather than containing information on general strategy and tactics. If they have the same thread, you should be able to explain what this information is that ties them all together in sequence."


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> I can't really imagine using google to look up quotes from William Cheung and then interpret them as I liked in order to shout at Juany about the contents of TWC. I also can't imagive arguing for months with KPM about the content of Pin Sun on an internet forum, just because I like to argue.



Every time Juany has reached a dead end, usually when it gets down to technical analysis, he has just backed out, like he was only arguing for the sake of arguing, because he really doesn't know anything about anything that isn't in an interview found on Google.

Hopefully KPM will continue the technical discussion he wants by answering the questions reposted just above.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> Every time Juany has reached a dead end, usually when it gets down to technical analysis, he has just backed out, like he was only arguing for the sake of arguing, because he really doesn't know anything about anything that isn't in an interview found on Google.
> 
> Hopefully KPM will continue the technical discussion he wants by answering the questions reposted just above.



Hopefully, although for a nice short thread you probably should have just provided no guidance and let them come up with an application


----------



## LFJ

guy b said:


> Hopefully, although for a nice short thread you probably should have just provided no guidance and let them come up with an application



Right, well, now they have time to think something up. Juany's apparently got nothing.


----------



## wckf92

Don't know and can't say about others, but I'll take a stab at LFJ's question. Probably get ambushed on all sides hahaha but here goes...
I was taught that the movement as we do it embeds ideas of power (specifically shock power generation); it also is about 'covering' (which, for us, is synonymous with 'attacking'); and about in graining the idea of limb position relative to the horizontal plane (IOW, if one hand is downstairs, the other one is upstairs etc, done simultaneously in the forms to teach effeciency); additionally, the limbs, when viewed as letters of the WC alphabet, are teaching the positions, arc, angle, and when combined contain the idea of Dai Gon Sao (furthered once one reaches 3rd form). 
Relating to DCS - we do not step in this drill since one must 'stabilize' before one 'mobilizes'. The form opening movement relates as ensuring one covers open areas with the correct elbow ideas and pressures, and also teaches us (our limbs) to not "go to sleep" if one limb is active vs passive. This is a huge part of what I see in the larger wc community. Any-whooo...there's my early morning .02
I'm typing from my phone and have only had one cup of Joe so it's likely I'm missing some items.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> The problem is that isn't the strategy considered I. The WSLVT I studied.  Here are the words of WSL himself on that matter...
> 
> " When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him.”
> 
> This is very different than imposing your will on the other even if it is through some form of trickery.  The easiest way to summarize it is "go with the flow."


It's very much the approach of the "aiki" Japanese arts, as well.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> He doesn't mean that you must dance to your opponents tune. What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited


Can you summarize what that strategy is? I'm trying to wrap my head around this statement. You've made it at least twice, and it seems like it should mean more to me than it does - I'm missing a key piece of information to process this.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> But there is no controversy in the fact that YM and WSL had different styles of teaching VT. Juany seems excited about it, but it is what we have been saying for a long time as an explanation for differences seen in different YM wing chun. There isn't anything to argue about, unless someone is saying that WSL changed the system.
> 
> Is that what you are saying?


This is where I get confused again.

You said that the way WSL VT is taught makes it impossible for it to not be transmitted completely. Yet here you point out that of course every instructor teaches a bit differently because of his different personality.

Help un-confuse me, please. I've either missed or misunderstood something in your posts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> The strategy of WSL VT is loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung


Could you put that in English terms for the non-CMA folks in the audience?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Yeah, "HOW *it was taught into a more logical/step by step method*."
> 
> That is simply false!
> 
> The logical, step-by-step progression of the system has always been there. There is no record of WSL ever saying he changed or created it, like Juany claimed, only the contrary.
> 
> The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time.
> 
> This has resulted in no two students of YM that we know of sharing the same understanding of the system, and many not understanding it at all.
> 
> While, WSL was careful to share detailed explanations of what the students were doing at each step, and put effort into imparting the full information to students who spent the required time to learn properly and also put in the same effort to learn.
> 
> This has resulted in multiple students of WSL sharing the same understanding of the system.
> 
> That is literally the only difference. The system method has not changed.


Not an accusation here - just an honest question. Given the variation in how YM taught, how are we certain that WSL's version is the same as YM's? How can we be sure it's not his understanding of YM's system?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Can you summarize what that strategy is? I'm trying to wrap my head around this statement. You've made it at least twice, and it seems like it should mean more to me than it does - I'm missing a key piece of information to process this.



The VT strategy is all about the application of pressure (loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chun)- space pressure, time pressure, distance pressure. We intercept and cut into the attack, disrupting the opponent. We apply forward pressure, cutting the way and eating up space. We force mistakes from the opponent in this way, i.e. they show us how to hit them (kiu loi kiu seung) which we do using the whole body as one, and if not then we create openings by other means (mor kiu ji jou kiu). At all times we pressure the centre rather than chase hands. By linking neutraliation and striking (lin siu dai da) we defend automatically as we attack, which increases the time and space pressure on the opponent, making us appear faster than we really are.


----------



## Lobo66

Very good summary of the VT strategy, guy b.

The idea of attacking into the attack or intercepting the opponent's attack with our own (counter) attack, cutting off and canalizing their possibilities while simultaneously disrupting their balance is key to VT and is the strategic thread that unites the entire system from poon sau through to sparring.

VT is a "counter assault" style and provides a way/concept and training methodology that provides one with a means to a) develop the (counter-intuitive) reflexes to combine attack and defense, b) recover a superior position and c) recycle and continue with our counter attacks (pressure), using our weapons "against our opponent's greatest vulnerability at his time of maximum imbalance."


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> The VT strategy is all about the application of pressure (loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chun)- space pressure, time pressure, distance pressure. We intercept and cut into the attack, disrupting the opponent. We apply forward pressure, cutting the way and eating up space. We force mistakes from the opponent in this way, i.e. they show us how to hit them (kiu loi kiu seung) which we do using the whole body as one, and if not then we create openings by other means (mor kiu ji jou kiu). At all times we pressure the centre rather than chase hands. By linking neutraliation and striking (lin siu dai da) we defend automatically as we attack, which increases the time and space pressure on the opponent, making us appear faster than we really are.


That's a good summary. Thanks!

How does that deal with someone who gets you, metaphorically speaking "on your heels" (a boxing term for someone temporarily overwhelming you)? What's the recovery when their pressure is better/more effective than your own?


----------



## wtxs

KPM said:


> WSL said this:
> *If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him*
> 
> Guy said this:
> *What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited
> 
> *
> Now I truly am trying to be open-minded here and read things as neutrally as possible.  But there is just no way I can see that those two statements above are the same thing.  WSL's quote to me in no way implies "forcing" anything.  In fact, he seems to warn against such a thing when says one shouldn't try to "hit your opponent above all else."   And it also seems to me that one can certainly "create openings to be exploited" while flowing with the opponent and not "imposing" or "forcing" anything.
> 
> So, as with the rest of the argument across several threads.....is this going to  come down to "well, you have to actually have studied WSLVT in depth to understand what he has said".....??????



If this is his believe of what WSL REALLY had said, then what effect does this have on his interpretation of WSL/PB VT?  Since he had no way of knowing EXACTLY what are the meaning behind what WSL saying, is he "filling in the gap" to suit his understanding?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> But there is no controversy in the fact that YM and WSL had different styles of teaching VT. Juany seems excited about it, but it is what we have been saying for a long time as an explanation for differences seen in different YM wing chun. There isn't anything to argue about, unless someone is saying that WSL changed the system.
> 
> Is that what you are saying?



You have actually completely changed your argument lol.  I said that WSL changed the structure of instruction.  LFJ denied it.  You denied it and demanded the quote.  I produce the quote and now you make a completely different argument.

Word of advice.  That might work in a verbal conversation there is no record of but here all people have to do is go back a couple pages and see how you essentially just say whatever is necessary in order to try a preserve your claims even if the statements end up contradicting each other.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That's a good summary. Thanks!
> 
> How does that deal with someone who gets you, metaphorically speaking "on your heels" (a boxing term for someone temporarily overwhelming you)? What's the recovery when their pressure is better/more effective than your own?



Sadly though this is one of many explanations over various threads as to what makes WSLVT different in actual practice.  Everytime someone makes a solid argument against his last claim, the words get spun around to try and make them fit the new counter argument so that he is still right.

I think @Lobo66  summary is better because it doesn't keep trying to say that we impose our will on the opponent.  To impose your will on another, at least to my old teacher, is an impossibility because you can't control another human. You can flow with them, it's the idea that Guy stated earlier if "imposing your will" on the opponent that is the problem.  He may have been taught to picture it that way but if you read Lobo's explanation it really is about flowing with your opponent.


----------



## wtxs

LFJ said:


> @Juany118
> 
> In response to the following quote from WSL on YM's teaching style:
> 
> 
> 
> This only shows different personalities and teaching styles. It does not at all change the information that was conveyed, only the extent to which students received it.
> 
> YM was not careful to ensure all students received the information. Particularly clear is this part;
> 
> "_Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that *teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones*. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. *This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners*._"
> 
> This is exactly what we've been saying. He didn't care to ensure many students received the information fully, and it shows. No two students of YM share the same understanding of VT, as far as I've seen.
> 
> Conversely, WSL _was_ careful to ensure the information was passed on fully to more students, and it shows too. There are multiple students of WSL that share the same understanding of VT.
> 
> This quote just helps to confirm our suspicions, like many other student testimonies.
> 
> So again, all that changes between these different teaching styles, is the extent to which students receive the information. The information has always remained the same. So you have no point here.



If my summary is correct by what you had presented, you give me the impression that WSL is the only one to receive the full VT from Ip Man that you aware of?


----------



## wtxs

JowGaWolf said:


> I need to get into a Lei Tai competition as requested by my Sifu.  I'll take you up on that beer offer. If I don't go all the way, you buy the beer.  If I go all the way then I'll buy you a beer. lol.
> 
> Hopefully my Sifu can make it to the competition so he can see that _*I can punch faster *_than I do in training lol.



By chance that's from doing WC or VT Chi Sao?


----------



## Juany118

wtxs said:


> If my summary is correct by what you had presented, you give me the impression that WSL is the only one to receive the full VT from Ip Man that you aware of?



Not in my opinion no.  I Actually think we will never know what the true form of YM WC was at this point.  Almost everyone of YM's students confirmed a quote that I posted earlier about how YM taught in a traditional Chinese way.  WSL stated it so he could compare/contrast his teaching method.  Others added to WSL's quote that YM taught to the strengths and weaknesses of his students as well and this would be consistent with traditional Chinese teaching

YM's teaching method means that every student could easily have something different to put on the table and that they could honestly call it "true YM WC."  We also have no way of knowing what personal refinement may have done later.  The only person capable of confirming any of itt,  if they wanted to, has been dead for many decades now, namely YM.


----------



## JowGaWolf

wtxs said:


> By chance that's from doing WC or VT Chi Sao?


neither. Lol I'm Jow Ga all the way. In my sparring videos all of my punches are slow so I get lectured a lot.


----------



## Juany118

Just to the teaching bit and it's impact for those arriving late... the quote I keep referencing from WSL


> Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation....



Now here is a quote from YM's own son Yip Ching



> ...Another characteristic of the Master's way of teaching was teaching a disciple according to his aptitude. He would thoroughly analyze the mentally, character, physical fitness, physique, education standard, cultural accomplishment as well as power of absorption of the disciple first. Then he would teach him ways and means according to the different needs of individual to make sure that every disciple would absorb and learn easily...



The problem arises when things become dogmatic.  If someone says _"I teach what YM taught me"_ and we read that quote outside of the context laid out by the two quotes above, quotes by two of the people who knew YM best no less, _"I teach what YM taught me"_ can be heard as _"I am the only one to teach true YM WC."_


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> It's very much the approach of the "aiki" Japanese arts, as well.



Yes.  I think part of the problem is, that as a striking art, when put into practice people think they are imposing something on the other person and you aren't.  In short, with no Chinese terminology.

An opponent attacks.  You do not meet force with force (meaning block al la a boxer) You counter with what both simultaneously a defense and an attack.  In doing so this creates openings for you to "follow through" and press the attack on the opponent.  The thing is though you impose nothing, you counter attack and then exploit the loss of structure and openings created, essentially moving around the barriers your opponent would raise and strike where he is vulnerable.

In my current school we have a few rules of engagement and I think the second to the last one sums this up well.  "Receive what comes and follow it back to a target."


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> Maybe if you stop trolling then things will be different?



So now inviting someone to actually state their position and explain clearly is "trolling"??!!!!


----------



## KPM

_The logical, step-by-step progression of the system has always been there. There is no record of WSL ever saying he changed or created it, like Juany claimed, only the contrary.

The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time._

---So, Ip Man then obviously didn't use this "logical step-by-step progression" is what you seem to be saying.

_This has resulted in no two students of YM that we know of sharing the same understanding of the system, and many not understanding it at all._

---So, WSL is the ONLY student of Ip Man that learned the "logical" version of his system is what you seem to be saying.  


_This has resulted in multiple students of WSL sharing the same understanding of the system._

----So WSL was able to impart the system to multiple students, but Ip Man was only able to impart it to one is what you seem to be saying.  

_That is literally the only difference. The system method has not changed._

----So how can you possibly know that the system method has not changed if Ip Man only managed to teach it to WSL?   You have nothing to compare WSLVT to that proves it is what Ip Man taught!  You know of no other student of Ip Man that taught the same thing as WSL.   So at this point there is no way to know for sure that WSL had not changed anything in what he learned from Ip Man.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I also can't imagive arguing for months with KPM about the content of Pin Sun on an internet forum, just because I like to argue.



Is that not EXACTLY  what you have been doing!  It seems very apparent to me and likely anyone that has been reading along that you would rather do that than simply start a technical thread discussing things in a non-offensive way and explaining your understanding of WSLVT and why he couldn't have developed the differences himself.


----------



## KPM

_Well, you can take it from my Post #144 where I state what I believe is probably the most significant thing missing from other YM derived WC, and Post #147 where I state why I believe it is incredibly unlikely to have originated with WSL._

----You really believe you have explained something in those two threads?   All you did was restate your belief.  Your explanation was only that you believe your explanation to be more likely!  What kind of an explanation is that?  Not one technical discussion to explain WHY you believe those things to be true.



For example, how does the crossing arm action at the opening of the forms inform these lineages of the overall fighting strategy or relate to say, _daan-chi-sau_? How about the three "shaving" hand actions before the punches at the end of SNT?

---And see, this is exactly the problem we have with you guys here!   All you have to do is engage in a nice and polite discussion where you would offer YOUR explanation of those points and why WSLVT views them the way it does.  But no.  Instead your throw things like that out as a challenge....as a "gotcha" kind of proposition so you can jump on the answer when given.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> So, Ip Man then obviously didn't use this "logical step-by-step progression" is what you seem to be saying.



He didn't bother with those who were not worth the effort.



KPM said:


> So, WSL is the ONLY student of Ip Man that learned the "logical" version of his system is what you seem to be saying.



I have not experienced all of the various approaches to YM VT, and I don;t think LFJ would claim to have seen them all either,



KPM said:


> So WSL was able to impart the system to multiple students, but Ip Man was only able to impart it to one is what you seem to be saying.



LFJ is saying probably few vs many, not none vs many. It is only possible to work with the info you have.



KPM said:


> So how can you possibly know that the system method has not changed if Ip Man only managed to teach it to WSL? You have nothing to compare WSLVT to that proves it is what Ip Man taught!



The method itself contains evidence. WSL provided evidence. 



KPM said:


> You know of no other student of Ip Man that taught the same thing as WSL.



Correct



KPM said:


> So at this point there is no way to know for sure that WSL had not changed anything in what he learned from Ip Man.



Incorrect


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> That's a good summary. Thanks!
> 
> How does that deal with someone who gets you, metaphorically speaking "on your heels" (a boxing term for someone temporarily overwhelming you)? What's the recovery when their pressure is better/more effective than your own?



Recovery methods are contained in the system


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> So now inviting someone to actually state their position and explain clearly is "trolling"??!!!!



There is plenty of technical information on this thread if you wish to take it forward in a positive way


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> But no. Instead your throw things like that out as a challenge....as a "gotcha" kind of proposition so you can jump on the answer when given.



It needs to be a two way street KPM.

If you want something for nothing then don't behave in a spiteful and bitter way while grubbing around for crumbs of info. Instead be pleasant and open so that people don't feel like you are taking the piss.

If you want to debate as equals then get debating and don't shy away from difficult questions. Answer what is asked then ask your own.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> It needs to be a two way street KPM.
> 
> If you want something for nothing then don't behave in a spiteful and bitter way while grubbing around for crumbs of info. Instead be pleasant and open so that people don't feel like you are taking the piss.
> 
> If you want to debate as equals then get debating and don't shy away from difficult questions. Answer what is asked then ask your own.



That has to be one of the most hypocritical things I have read an a long time!  I actually got a good laugh out of that one!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> Recovery methods are contained in the system


That's not really an answer to the question. "How" isn't answered by "in the system". I'm wondering what those recovery methods are.


----------



## drop bear

Ok. so curious. If you have a hundred people collaborating on a project. It should become better than the source.

So yip man invented a system. and people took that system and put time and resources into refining it.

So less about google translate and mabye more about the wright brothers plane compared to a modern plane.

Nobody would be really able to remake thw wright brother plane as well as they could. But most people may not want to either.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I said that WSL changed the structure of instruction.  LFJ denied it.



He didn't change the system into a more "logical, step-by-step method", as you claimed. All he did was tell students what they were actually doing.

So, what even is your point? That YM wasn't careful to pass on the full information to everyone, and so not many ending up learning fully? Whereas WSL was careful to do so and has more students with the full info? 

That's exactly what we've been saying. So, again, what's your point?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---So, Ip Man then obviously didn't use this "logical step-by-step progression" is what you seem to be saying.



How do you get that from what I said?! Let me edit the sentence for you then, since it seems difficult for you to follow:

"The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements < _in the logical, step-by-step progression of the system _> without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time."



> ---So, WSL is the ONLY student of Ip Man that learned the "logical" version of his system is what you seem to be saying.



I haven't found the same logical thread connecting each piece of the system from start to finish in other versions so far. Been looking.



> ----So WSL was able to impart the system to multiple students, but Ip Man was only able to impart it to one is what you seem to be saying.



Not "able". YM only _cared _to teach one good student vs ten lousy ones.



> ----So how can you possibly know that the system method has not changed if Ip Man only managed to teach it to WSL?   You have nothing to compare WSLVT to that proves it is what Ip Man taught!  You know of no other student of Ip Man that taught the same thing as WSL.   So at this point there is no way to know for sure that WSL had not changed anything in what he learned from Ip Man.



I didn't say he only managed to teach it to WSL, for the 10 trillionth time.

My position is not of absolute certainty, but one of evidence-based confidence, from a technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC, numerous student testimonials, the probability argument, and so on.

I don't care about absolute certainty, which is impossible, but I think to the extent we can know what YM's VT was probably like, the most likely candidate _by far_ is WSL's system. I think we have enough to say with confidence that WSL accurately taught YM's VT system.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ----You really believe you have explained something in those two threads?   All you did was restate your belief.  Your explanation was only that you believe your explanation to be more likely!  What kind of an explanation is that?  Not one technical discussion to explain WHY you believe those things to be true.



The "why" is that conceptual and strategic thread that is apparently missing in all other YM lineages I've seen.



> ---And see, this is exactly the problem we have with you guys here!   All you have to do is engage in a nice and polite discussion where you would offer YOUR explanation of those points and why WSLVT views them the way it does.  But no.  Instead your throw things like that out as a challenge....as a "gotcha" kind of proposition so you can jump on the answer when given.



Why do you find it challenging? 

If you have the "same thread" as Juany claimed, you should be able to just say what it is and that's that.

wckf92 wasn't "afraid" to share his understanding. I haven't commented on it yet because I'm waiting for your response, since you requested the discussion, and I don't want to influence anything further.

You wanted a technical discussion. So, discuss!


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> That's not really an answer to the question. "How" isn't answered by "in the system". I'm wondering what those recovery methods are.



Depends on the circumstance, of course, but in general terms, if our attack fails we have evasive footwork at still close proximity allowing us to return to baseline and find new opportunities.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> I think @Lobo66  summary is better because it doesn't keep trying to say that we impose our will on the opponent.  To impose your will on another, at least to my old teacher, is an impossibility because you can't control another human. You can flow with them, it's the idea that Guy stated earlier if "imposing your will" on the opponent that is the problem.  He may have been taught to picture it that way but if you read Lobo's explanation it really is about flowing with your opponent.



As I told KPM, you can misinterpret the quote from whatever perspective you like, or prefer another wording you misinterpret to more accurately describe your misinterpretation of the quote, but you are still wrong about the VT strategy.

Lobo66's wording was; 

"_attacking into the attack or intercepting the opponent's attack with our own (counter) attack, cutting off and canalizing their possibilities while simultaneously disrupting their balance_".

This is imposing VT strategy onto the opponent.

"Attacking into the attack" = imposing. 

"Cutting off and canalizing their possibilities" = imposing.

Again, you're welcome to misinterpret things all you want, and "flow" with your opponents, but you don't know WSLVT and are just wrong. So I don't know why you insist on telling WSLVT practitioners about their system strategy.


----------



## LFJ

drop bear said:


> If you have a hundred people collaborating on a project. It should become better than the source.



False premise. That's not what happened within YMVT.



> So yip man invented a system.



No, he didn't.


----------



## Transk53

Maybe Guy B and LFJ could expand on the above answers. Perhaps cite a credible source on the VT thing. Just seems like paraphrasing from Wiki, or whatever.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> That has to be one of the most hypocritical things I have read an a long time!  I actually got a good laugh out of that one!



The difference is that I have zero interest in your mainland style.

You seem to feel that you are on a mission to expose some problem with my/LFJ's understanding of WSL VT, but also (bizarrely) that we owe you as much detailed information as you require. This attitude makes me feel not all that keen to be charitable.

So if you want a robust technical discussion in order to expose issues with WSL VT then get going. We have started it, and to get what you want you will need to participate as well.

If you don't want such a discussion then please start being less of an assho1e about everything. You are acting like the world owes you an apology.

If you aren't interested then please just stop posting on WSL VT threads as your pal Geezer (mostly) manages to do

Thank you


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Maybe Guy B and LFJ could expand on the above answers. Perhaps cite a credible source on the VT thing. Just seems like paraphrasing from Wiki, or whatever.



Do you have any question?


----------



## guy b

drop bear said:


> Ok. so curious. If you have a hundred people collaborating on a project. It should become better than the source.
> 
> So yip man invented a system. and people took that system and put time and resources into refining it.
> 
> So less about google translate and mabye more about the wright brothers plane compared to a modern plane.
> 
> Nobody would be really able to remake thw wright brother plane as well as they could. But most people may not want to either.



The fact that VT is already highly optimised for the purposes to which it is designed would suggest that Yip Man did not invent it. It is possible but unlikely, as then what you see today would be the result of only two people's work: YM and WSL. More likely that a greater number of people were involved and that it is older than Yip Man. How much older I don't know. The earliest verifiable real person associated with the system is Leung Jan. 

Since Yip Man, many people have been involved in degrading rather than further improving the system due to lack of understanding/never really learning it properly. It takes a long time to learn WSL VT, and so improvement if possible is likely to be slow.


----------



## guy b

LFJ said:


> So I don't know why you insist on telling WSLVT practitioners about their system strategy.



I think he claims knowledge of WSL VT. Which should make the technical discussion interesting


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> Do you have any question?



Just seems that the first paragraph from your running buddy, (post 249) seems straight out of a Wiki


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> False premise. That's not what happened within YMVT.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.



So what did happen exactly then with in YMVT. Would make a good historical post that. BTW, refinement in its self, is a source of invention. How else could you describe a linage, if in its self it is not invention.


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> I think he claims knowledge of WSL VT. Which should make the technical discussion interesting



Another generalist and sweeping statement. Think you will find that KPM's knowledge base is very broad. But you still persist that WSL VT is that much different?


----------



## LFJ

Transk53 said:


> Just seems that the first paragraph from your running buddy, (post 249) seems straight out of a Wiki



It is confirmed by numerous YM student testimonies (WSL, CST, HKM, DL, HC, etc...), that is how the man taught. Pretty common knowledge.


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Just seems that the first paragraph from your running buddy, (post 249) seems straight out of a Wiki



Post it here then so that we can all benefit


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Another generalist and sweeping statement. Think you will find that KPM's knowledge base is very broad. But you still persist that WSL VT is that much different?



What does it have to do with KPM?


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> BTW, refinement in its self, is a source of invention. How else could you describe a linage, if in its self it is not invention.



Refinement is explicitly not invention


----------



## LFJ

Transk53 said:


> So what did happen exactly then with in YMVT.



Read the discussion if you're gonna bother posting.

YM taught the full system to very few people, and each went their own way and has their own contradictory understanding. There was never a big group collaboration to improve VT.

So, false premise and the rest is pointless.



Transk53 said:


> Another generalist and sweeping statement. Think you will find that KPM's knowledge base is very broad. But you still persist that WSL VT is that much different?



Generalist and sweeping? He was talking about Juany who has claimed to train WSLVT before, but doesn't even understand a very clear and simple quote from WSL on strategy.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> It is confirmed by numerous YM student testimonies (WSL, CST, HKM, DL, HC, etc...), that is how the man taught. Pretty common knowledge.



Yes exactly, that was my point. What I am endeavouring to understand, is why quoting that has any relevance to the subject matter that you have posted?


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> Read the discussion if you're gonna bother posting.
> 
> YM taught the full system to very few people, and each went their own way and has their own contradictory understanding. There was never a big group collaboration to improve VT.
> 
> So, false premise and the rest is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> Generalist and sweeping? He was talking about Juany who has claimed to train WSLVT before, but doesn't even understand a very clear and simple quote from WSL on strategy.



Oh I see. There has never been a global collaboration to improve VT, or you mean in just HK for example?


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> Read the discussion if you're gonna bother posting.
> 
> YM taught the full system to very few people, and each went their own way and has their own contradictory understanding. There was never a big group collaboration to improve VT.
> 
> So, false premise and the rest is pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> Generalist and sweeping? He was talking about Juany who has claimed to train WSLVT before, but doesn't even understand a very clear and simple quote from WSL on strategy.



Oh, and I don't need your permission when to post, and what on lol.


----------



## LFJ




----------



## KPM

_"The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements < in the logical, step-by-step progression of the system > without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time."_

---Interesting that you have to edit this to make it say what you want it to say.

_

I haven't found the same logical thread connecting each piece of the system from start to finish in other versions so far. Been looking._

---Then you cannot say that WSL did NOT make these logical connections throughout the whole system himself.



_I didn't say he only managed to teach it to WSL, for the 10 trillionth time._

---But that is certainly your underlying thesis and the way you come across on the forum....that only WSLVT is the "real" VT.


_My position is not of absolute certainty, but one of evidence-based confidence, from a technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC, numerous student testimonials, the probability argument, and so on._

---You haven't made that technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC in detail, all in one place, for us to analyze.  Other YM students will testify that they learned YM's Wing Chun fully.....like HKM or CST.   Other people see the probabilities much differently than you do.  So maybe it is time you accept that and stop being so dogmatic about things.


----------



## KPM

_The "why" is that conceptual and strategic thread that is apparently missing in all other YM lineages I've seen._

---That is not an answer.  That is another case of "because I said so."   As Juany has pointed out, both you and Guy are very good at making fiat statements that you just expect everyone to take as true without actually explaining the technical aspects of it to show why you think it is true.



_wckf92 wasn't "afraid" to share his understanding. I haven't commented on it yet because I'm waiting for your response, since you requested the discussion, and I don't want to influence anything further._

---I'm not taking your bait and falling for your "gotcha" trap.   I've already pointed out.....if you posted in a "friendly" way....offered your own answer to your question and request other people to comment and explain their own understanding...you would get much better results.  Throwing something out as a challenge is not likely to get much of a response from people.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> So if you want a robust technical discussion in order to expose issues with WSL VT then get going. We have started it, and to get what you want you will need to participate as well.
> 
> If you don't want such a discussion then please start being less of an assho1e about everything. You are acting like the world owes you an apology.
> 
> If you aren't interested then please just stop posting on WSL VT threads as your pal Geezer (mostly) manages to do
> 
> Thank you



I have simply suggested a way for both you and LFJ to make your position more clear and perhaps more convincing.  But instead you have chosen to spread out little comments here and there over multiple threads and several days.  So what do you think you have accomplished?  Is anyone any more convinced than they were before?  No, instead of taking good advice both of you have done the "same ole thing" you always do and have not changed anything.  Too bad really.  I had hopes that you had changed your attitude somewhat.  But it has become apparent over the last several days that I was wrong.  So yeah, I need to do as my wise friend Geezer has done and simply try to ignore you both.


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> _"The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements < in the logical, step-by-step progression of the system > without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time."_
> 
> ---Interesting that you have to edit this to make it say what you want it to say.
> 
> _
> 
> I haven't found the same logical thread connecting each piece of the system from start to finish in other versions so far. Been looking._
> 
> ---Then you cannot say that WSL did NOT make these logical connections throughout the whole system himself.
> 
> 
> 
> _I didn't say he only managed to teach it to WSL, for the 10 trillionth time._
> 
> ---But that is certainly your underlying thesis and the way you come across on the forum....that only WSLVT is the "real" VT.
> 
> 
> _My position is not of absolute certainty, but one of evidence-based confidence, from a technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC, numerous student testimonials, the probability argument, and so on._
> 
> ---You haven't made that technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC in detail, all in one place, for us to analyze.  Other YM students will testify that they learned YM's Wing Chun fully.....like HKM or CST.   Other people see the probabilities much differently than you do.  So maybe it is time you accept that and stop being so dogmatic about things.



I wonder why everything Wing Chun around here has to be so dogmatic. Guess it will never change though sadly.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ---Interesting that you have to edit this to make it say what you want it to say.



They were my own words! I had to connect the pieces of what I already said for you because you're too slow to follow two sentences.



> ---Then you cannot say that WSL did NOT make these logical connections throughout the whole system himself.



Because everyone else's system is illogical? Good logic.



> ---But that is certainly your underlying thesis and the way you come across on the forum....that only WSLVT is the "real" VT.



Not saying it is, but what if that were the cold, hard truth? You'd still deny it because it's not hippie enough for you. You want everyone to be right even if facts don't allow it.



> ---You haven't made that technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC in detail, all in one place, for us to analyze.



You refuse to enter that discussion.



> Other YM students will testify that they learned YM's Wing Chun fully.....like HKM or CST.



CST said YM wouldn't give him details and he had to make up stuff on his own. At least he was honest about it.



KPM said:


> _The "why" is that conceptual and strategic thread that is apparently missing in all other YM lineages I've seen._
> 
> ---That is not an answer.  That is another case of "because I said so."   As Juany has pointed out, both you and Guy are very good at making fiat statements that you just expect everyone to take as true without actually explaining the technical aspects of it to show why you think it is true.



You could enter the discussion and we'd sort it out, but you are afraid of getting "got", which is just your insecurity showing.

If you were confident that other lineages you know share the same thread, then you could just say what it is and there'd be nothing to "getcha" on.



> ---I'm not taking your bait and falling for your "gotcha" trap.   I've already pointed out.....if you posted in a "friendly" way....offered your own answer to your question and request other people to comment and explain their own understanding...you would get much better results.  Throwing something out as a challenge is not likely to get much of a response from people.



So, I have to carry on a conversation with myself and let you comment where you like?

Do you not understand how discussion works?


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> But that is certainly your underlying thesis and the way you come across on the forum....that only WSLVT is the "real" VT.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Interesting that you have to edit this to make it say what you want it to say



He's spelling it out for you so that you understand



KPM said:


> You haven't made that technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC in detail, all in one place, for us to analyze



It is here in this thread. Analyze away and please stop cluttering the thread with your whining


----------



## Transk53

Here we go, another thread soon to be locked.


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> I'm not taking your bait and falling for your "gotcha" trap. I've already pointed out.....if you posted in a "friendly" way....offered your own answer to your question and request other people to comment and explain their own understanding...you would get much better results. Throwing something out as a challenge is not likely to get much of a response from people.



If you are not interested then please just stop posting on threads discussing WSL VT.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> Depends on the circumstance, of course, but in general terms, if our attack fails we have evasive footwork at still close proximity allowing us to return to baseline and find new opportunities.


Thanks!

Okay, so if I'm getting the basic gist of this, the strategy is to overwhelm (usually to centerline, if I recall correctly from some other discussions, though that might be a generic WC principle I'm remembering) with attacks that (when necessary) also provide protection/defense. And you have footwork (that word took me 4 tries to type correctly for some reason) that allows you to remain at your preferred distance (pretty damned close) to recover from someone whose strategy is similar, or who has at least a similar result to what you were looking for.

Am I getting the basics?

That's interesting to me, because part of the core is directly opposite - at least in how it's conceived - to our approach. We make the defense include the offense, rather than the reverse. When a punch comes in, we might redirect it as a defense, and that redirection is done in a way that off-balances them to allow us access to throws and locks. Quite the opposite approach.

For the WSL VT folks and the other WC folks - how different is the WSL VT strategy (again, assuming I have it paraphrased reasonably) from other lines of WC?


----------



## Nobody Important




----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> Here we go, another thread soon to be locked.



Why would the thread be locked? KPM makes accusation. Accusation is denied. KPM repeats accusation because he doesn't like to hear what we actually believe about WSL VT. There isn't a lot more to do in this case than ask KPM to stop repeating his lie. 

For the final time ever I hope, it is possible that YM taught other people besides WSL his system. I have not found any of these people so far. But since I have not seen every YM derived line of wing chun in existence, I cannot say that WSL was the only person to receive the system from YM. I cannot speak about what I have never experienced. This is what I believe regarding the VT of YM.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Transk53 said:


> Just seems that the first paragraph from your running buddy, (post 249) seems straight out of a Wiki


I'm trying to figure out which part of post #249 looks like a copy from some Wiki. All the comments appear to be LFJ's responses to another's comments.


----------



## Transk53

gpseymour said:


> I'm trying to figure out which part of post #249 looks like a copy from some Wiki. All the comments appear to be LFJ's responses to another's comments.



Yeah, I was just been a little general, not meaning to littearally quote a Wiki.


----------



## LFJ

gpseymour said:


> Am I getting the basics?



I suppose. That's a pretty general description though, and could be interpreted in different ways, and tactics may differ largely within someone else's interpretation of that.

I think Guy, Lobo, and I have given pretty clear descriptions of our strategy not long ago in this thread.



> That's interesting to me, because part of the core is directly opposite - at least in how it's conceived - to our approach.



Yeah, VT is just an aggressive striking skill. 

Disrupting balance is to make it harder to defend against our strikes, not to open up lock or throw opportunities.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

LFJ said:


> I suppose. That's a pretty general description though, and could be interpreted in different ways, and tactics may differ largely within someone else's interpretation of that.
> 
> I think Guy, Lobo, and I have given pretty clear descriptions of our strategy not long ago in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, VT is just an aggressive striking skill.
> 
> Disrupting balance is to make it harder to defend against our strikes, not to open up lock or throw opportunities.


I wouldn't expect to get much beyond generalities in most cases - WC/VT in general is quite different from what I've trained in. If I had the time to commit, I think some form of WC would be a good exploration for a year or two.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


>



Why are you shouting?  Are you angry?  

 Is there anyone else here other than Guy and LFJ that has NOT gotten the distinct impression that they both think that WSLVT is the only "real" version of VT???


----------



## guy b

KPM said:


> Is there anyone else here other than Guy and LFJ that has NOT gotten the distinct impression that they both think that WSLVT is the only "real" version of VT???



It doesn't matter what other people think I think, KMP. What matters is what I actually think.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

guy b said:


> It doesn't matter what other people think I think, KMP. What matters is what I actually think.


Actually, in communication it does matter whether the receiver is able to understand your point. There are at least two possibilities when miscommunication occurs: either the speaker mis-communicated, or the listener mis-understood. Since we can only control our own side of the communication, it is incumbent upon us as the speaker to be as clear as possible.


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> It doesn't matter what other people think I think, KMP. What matters is what I actually think.



To whom, or are just insinuating that only you have that capacity?


----------



## guy b

gpseymour said:


> Actually, in communication it does matter whether the receiver is able to understand your point



It doesn't matter in terms of the correctness of the point, which is all I am concerned about. KPM likes to do this thing where he conducts a straw poll of what people think, because he wrongly believes correctness to be determined by popularity. 



> There are at least two possibilities when miscommunication occurs: either the speaker mis-communicated, or the listener mis-understood. Since we can only control our own side of the communication, it is incumbent upon us as the speaker to be as clear as possible.



I think I have been pretty clear, repeating the same point many many times. KPM is either trolling or mentally deficient in terms of his capacity to understand at this point.

Is this clear enough for you:



			
				guy b said:
			
		

> For the final time ever I hope, it is possible that YM taught other people besides WSL his system. I have not found any of these people so far. But since I have not seen every YM derived line of wing chun in existence, I cannot say that WSL was the only person to receive the system from YM. I cannot speak about what I have never experienced


----------



## guy b

Transk53 said:


> To whom, or are just insinuating that only you have that capacity?





What are you even talking about?


----------



## Transk53

guy b said:


> What are you even talking about?




"It doesn't matter what other people think I think KMP <KPM>, what matters is what I actually think.

Yes exactly, what you think all the time, with no regard to anything else possibly being correct, and mainly no thought applied to what information could look like to another person. I'm dyslexic and prone to missing out words. Even so, not hard to work out picking up on KPM's post. Basically I am asking do you view yourself as the only athourity on WSL VT? That certainly comes across other lineages as well as WSL VT being the definitive version of Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM

guy b said:


> I think I have been pretty clear, repeating the same point many many times. KPM is either trolling or mentally deficient in terms of his capacity to understand at this point.
> :




So now Guy has returned to his true form!  He has called me a liar, a troll, and mentally deficient.  Just because I asked for him actually create one thread that outlined all the technical differences he sees in one place so it would be easier for everyone to follow his argument.


----------



## wtxs

KPM said:


> Why are you shouting?  Are you angry?
> 
> Is there anyone else here other than Guy and LFJ that has NOT gotten the distinct impression that they both think that WSLVT is the only "real" version of VT???



You can count me in.


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> So now Guy has returned to his true form!  He has called me a liar, a troll, and *mentally deficient. * Just because I asked for him actually create one thread that outlined all the technical differences he sees in one place so it would be easier for everyone to follow his argument.



Hope he says that to me. I can legitimately say, " takes one to one"


----------



## Juany118

LFJ said:


> False premise. That's not what happened within YMVT.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't.


Then you don't know the history of YMVT as well as you thought because the answer is far more nuanced than "no he didn't." YM overtime modified/refined the WC he had been originally taught.  

As for your previous post, perhaps English is your second language.  To impose is to force, control.  You claim a misinterpretation BUT this is clear language...

" When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions..."

There is no misinterpreting this and it is still consistent with Lobo's description.   

You can flow and be aggressive.  No one would say this is passive 



, it is aggressive as hell but it doesn't impose.  The kayaker can control the rapids no more than we can control how our opponent will move or think.  However when we counter it disturbs their structure, it creates vulnerabilities. Like the kayaker we flow through these and strike. 

To misinterpret statements the languages needs to be open to interpretation.  WSLs words are rather explicit here.  It seems to me this is a case similar to your denial that WSL changed the teaching method of VT as compared to YMs.  You have your current preconceptions which are contradicted by WSL's own words and rather than having your preconceptions informed by new documented and verfiable facts you try to twist the words to conform to your preconceptions.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Lobo66

Hey guys,

In a violent assault the perpetrator will try to stack the cards in his favor any way he can, seeking out an unaware victim and attacking at a moment of surprise and weakness.  He tries to impose his will/plan 100%.

In combat sports you try to impose your game plan on your opponent as much as possible.  This becomes tricky because your opponent is also skilled and has a gameplan of his own, which includes (most likely) counter strategies to yours.  But both you and your opponent are trying to impose your own game plans.

Rembemer Rousey vs Holm?  Classic example.  Rousey tried to impose her strategy of bull-rushing and taking Holm down, but Holm, using superior footwork and distance control, imposed her own carefuly crafted game plan, thus leading Rousey into over-extending herself.  Rousey "showed" Holm the way to victory.  Holm flowed with Rousey's movements, contracting and expanding in defense and attack - but she still imposed her strategy.

In WSLVT we also try to impose our strategy, which guy b has already described in this thread.  But imposing our strategy doesn't mean that we can't also "flow" with the movements of our opponent.  It doesn't mean that we are somehow "stiff" or "obstinate" in our actions.  Quite the contrary, we try to remain in a state of relaxed and centered focus.  Ready to change.  Ready to let our opponent "show us" the way to beat him.  This is how we impose our game plan.

Hope that helps Juany118.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> That's not really an answer to the question. "How" isn't answered by "in the system". I'm wondering what those recovery methods are.





Lobo66 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> In a violent assault the perpetrator will try to stack the cards in his favor any way he can, seeking out an unaware victim and attacking at a moment of surprise and weakness.  He tries to impose his will/plan 100%.
> 
> In combat sports you try to impose your game plan on your opponent as much as possible.  This becomes tricky because your opponent is also skilled and has a gameplan of his own, which includes (most likely) counter strategies to yours.  But both you and your opponent are trying to impose your own game plans.
> 
> Rembemer Rousey vs Holm?  Classic example.  Rousey tried to impose her strategy of bull-rushing and taking Holm down, but Holm, using superior footwork and distance control, imposed her own carefuly crafted game plan, thus leading Rousey into over-extending herself.  Rousey "showed" Holm the way to victory.  Holm flowed with Rousey's movements, contracting and expanding in defense and attack - but she still imposed her strategy.
> 
> In WSLVT we also try to impose our strategy, which guy b has already described in this thread.  But imposing our strategy doesn't mean that we can't also "flow" with the movements of our opponent.  It doesn't mean that we are somehow "stiff" or "obstinate" in our actions.  Quite the contrary, we try to remain in a state of relaxed and centered focus.  Ready to change.  Ready to let our opponent "show us" the way to beat him.  This is how we impose our game plan.
> 
> Hope that helps Juany118.



@Lobo66

It clarifies your view but when I studied WSLVT my instructor used the rapids analogy, I didn't come up with that on my own lol. The more I think about the more I think this may be an argument of semantics.  Let me explain...

I see strategy and tactics, as I said before, as different things. Strategy is the overall methodology behind the MA, similar to the overall methodology of a particular Military campaign.  The Strategy in both WSLVT, again as I was taught, and TWC is embodied by WSL's quote.

Next we have tactics, this is what happens in the individual fight/battle.  You have specific goals that you wish to impose on the other that can change from encounter to encounter but when I am speaking of flowing I mean the HOW only, basically your Rousey vs  Holm argument.  Holm said "I am top dog, you will lose" and flowed to that end. In another encounter maybe I don't want to beat the other person into unconsciousness, maybe my goal is simply to defend myself and if they stop their assault I still imposed my will, he stopped. However again I did so by flowing.  With this in mind do I understand you correctly?  If I do the misunderstanding to this point is largely my fault, I compartmentalize a lot so I was looking narrowly at the HOW.

I get the idea from how Guy and LFJ responded that they see the HOW as being/requiring an imposition as well.


----------



## geezer

Lobo66-- I just want to complement you on posting in a way that is engaging and informative without being at all insulting. You have no trouble explaining your system's strengths without implying that other groups are deficient. I hope you continue to stay active on this forum and help explain more about WSL-VT.


----------



## geezer

@ Juany118 -- Cool kayaking vid. I'm more old fashioned. I explain our VT/WC in terms of skiing the bumps. Something I did hard in my youth but had to give up decades ago due to injuries._ Loi lau hoi sung, Lat sau jik chung_ really applies when you hit the moguls hard. And Centerline? Track your opponent relentlessly. Yeah you better face the fall-line or you're toast!


----------



## Transk53

Lobo66 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> In a violent assault the perpetrator will try to stack the cards in his favor any way he can, seeking out an unaware victim and attacking at a moment of surprise and weakness.  He tries to impose his will/plan 100%.
> 
> In combat sports you try to impose your game plan on your opponent as much as possible.  This becomes tricky because your opponent is also skilled and has a gameplan of his own, which includes (most likely) counter strategies to yours.  But both you and your opponent are trying to impose your own game plans.
> 
> Rembemer Rousey vs Holm?  Classic example.  Rousey tried to impose her strategy of bull-rushing and taking Holm down, but Holm, using superior footwork and distance control, imposed her own carefuly crafted game plan, thus leading Rousey into over-extending herself.  Rousey "showed" Holm the way to victory.  Holm flowed with Rousey's movements, contracting and expanding in defense and attack - but she still imposed her strategy.
> 
> In WSLVT we also try to impose our strategy, which guy b has already described in this thread.  But imposing our strategy doesn't mean that we can't also "flow" with the movements of our opponent.  It doesn't mean that we are somehow "stiff" or "obstinate" in our actions.  Quite the contrary, we try to remain in a state of relaxed and centered focus.  Ready to change.  Ready to let our opponent "show us" the way to beat him.  This is how we impose our game plan.
> 
> Hope that helps Juany118.



Thank you for posting that. I look forward to the to potential discussions


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> @ Juany118 -- Cool kayaking vid. I'm more old fashioned. I explain our VT/WC in terms of skiing the bumps. Something I did hard in my youth but had to give up decades ago due to injuries._ Loi lau hoi sung, Lat sau jik chung_ really applies when you hit the moguls hard. And Centerline? Track your opponent relentlessly. Yeah you better face the fall-line or you're toast!



Never looked at it that way since I never skied, but it definitely gets the same point across, moguls or rocks, both are bad if handled wrong and if you don't stay lined up with the current you are in trouble lol.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I get the idea from how Guy and LFJ responded that they see the HOW as being/requiring an imposition as well.



WSL VT is all about imposing the VT strategy on the oppoenent. It isn't really a matter of choice to do this, it is how the system works. As Lobo66 says this does not require simplistic and predictable tactics, but the strategy is what it is. The system is designed to work with this strategy.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> WSL VT is all about imposing the VT strategy on the oppoenent. It isn't really a matter of choice to do this, it is how the system works. As Lobo66 says this does not require simplistic and predictable tactics, but the strategy is what it is. The system is designed to work with this strategy.



Yes but, and I await his response for clarification, I think you miss the difference between strategy, goals and tactics.

Lobo said here...



> ... But both you and your opponent are trying to impose your own game plans.
> 
> Rembemer Rousey vs Holm? Classic example. Rousey tried to impose her strategy of bull-rushing and taking Holm down, but Holm, using superior footwork and distance control, imposed her own carefuly crafted game plan, thus leading Rousey into over-extending herself. Rousey "showed" Holm the way to victory. Holm flowed with Rousey's movements, contracting and expanding in defense and attack - but she still imposed her strategy.



So you have the over all strategy which WSL explicitly states is to not try and impose your will on the _actions_ of the opponent.  Let me explain why I say this...

Maybe it's because I originally studied internal arts so I see a difference and I honestly believe this is what WSL meant because before VT he studied both Boxing and Tai Chi Chuan.

When you flow with the opponent they may over extend because they are expecting to meet resistance and do not.  The problem is, the minute many people start thinking about "imposing their will" on the _how_ side it can interrupt the ability to flow with the opponent because they allow the ego to intervene.  It stops being about flowing and starts being about forcing which violates not only what WSL (already quoted) and Yip Man himself said...



> Relax and calm your mind. Forget about yourself and follow your opponent's movement.





> Do not fight with the strength, absorb it, and it flows, use it.



And



> Greet what arrives, escort what leaves and rush upon loss of contact



The last one, phrased as follows... "Receive what comes, follow it back to a target" hangs on the wall of my current school as well as being consistent with WSL's comment.

I really think so many of the issues here are based in semantics and not practice.


----------



## JowGaWolf

gpseymour said:


> Actually, in communication it does matter whether the receiver is able to understand your point. There are at least two possibilities when miscommunication occurs: either the speaker mis-communicated, or the listener mis-understood. Since we can only control our own side of the communication, it is incumbent upon us as the speaker to be as clear as possible.


Lol.  that just fell right into your area of expertise.  I feel a business communication lesson coming on.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> Yes but, and I await his response for clarification, I think you miss the difference between strategy, goals and tactics.



The strategy of WSL VY is as described in post 225. It doesn't change. Tactics change, strategy does not. It is always llhs, lsjc. 

In fact it is you who is confusing the two as here:



			
				Juany said:
			
		

> First, in terms of teaching strategy the mindset and, in the case of Martial Arts, physical attributes of the practitioner will be vital. A strategy for a 6'3" person weighing 250 lbs will be different than 5'5" and 120 and if you try to enforce a universal strategy then you end up compromising the benefits of certain physical attributes.





			
				Juany said:
			
		

> So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy."



You are suggesting explicitly that the VT fighter vary the strategy with the opponent. This is not and will never be WSL VT. WSL VT is the strategy of llhs lsjc. No strategy, no system. That's how it works. 



			
				Juany" said:
			
		

> So you have the over all strategy which WSL explicitly states is to not try and impose your will on the _actions_ of the opponent.  Let me explain why I say this



WSL is not saying this. He is telling us that the opponent is in charge of their choices and so we should be ahead of them, cutting them off and applying distance, time and space pressure in order to limit their choices and produe errors, which we can then capitalise upon. Assuming that application of pressure means rigidity, over reaching, unawareness and attempting to mentally control the other person by a weird application of "will", sounds like the ideas of a person with no experience of fighting. 



> Maybe it's because I originally studied internal arts so I see a difference and I honestly believe this is what WSL meant because before VT he studied both Boxing and Tai Chi Chuan.



Great you studied everything. Where did you learn WSL VT again..? 



> the minute many people start thinking about "imposing their will" on the _how_ side it can interrupt the ability to flow



Nobody is suggesting any such thing, apart from in your fantasy argument with a person who doesn't exist. WSL is quite clear what he means, and it is of course in accord with the VT strategy detailed in post 225. It is very odd to think that WSL would suggest we do something different to VT when we fight.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> The strategy of WSL VY is as described in post 225. It doesn't change. Tactics change, strategy does not. It is always llhs, lsjc.
> 
> In fact it is you who is confusing the two as here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are suggesting explicitly that the VT fighter vary the strategy with the opponent. This is not and will never be WSL VT. WSL VT is the strategy of llhs lsjc. No strategy, no system. That's how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> WSL is not saying this. He is telling us that the opponent is in charge of their choices and so we should be ahead of them, cutting them off and applying distance, time and space pressure in order to limit their choices and produe errors, which we can then capitalise upon. Assuming that application of pressure means rigidity, over reaching, unawareness and attempting to mentally control the other person by a weird application of "will", sounds like the ideas of a person with no experience of fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> Great you studied everything. Where did you learn WSL VT again..?
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is suggesting any such thing, apart from in your fantasy argument with a person who doesn't exist. WSL is quite clear what he means, and it is of course in accord with the VT strategy detailed in post 225. It is very odd to think that WSL would suggest we do something different to VT when we fight.


No, and I think this proves your ignorance.  There is a very distinct difference between strategy and tactics.  As I said before you confabulate the two.  This confabulation creates a false understanding of physical conflict.
J
As for your last point I studied WSLVT in the United States years ago from someone who was a student of one of WSLs personal students.  I am not looking to open up that bag of worms however since to you only PB seems to be a true student... Even Gary Lam is lower on the totem pole to you and LFJ.  So what is the point.  Your idea is WSL+PB= WSLVT, everything else is modified to one degree or another and I refuse to play that game.

In the end though, if you could see the difference between strategy and tactics you would see our difference is semantics.  On the one side focusing on the flow that creates the opening or the over reach, on the other side the "effect".  You see it as your action creating a response, and due to an ego, based philosophy you see that you imposed your will.  On my side I see that my action simply resulted in my opponent opening themselves up to me.  I didn't impose anything. 

This is a very non-western mindset in my experience and @gpseymour can correct me as he teaches an art based in Aikido.  I will give an example.  In Aikido I was taught "when an enemy attacks we are never rude.  We are polite and assist the enemy in his travel." WC/VT is the same regardless of the Lineage.  We do not meet force with force.  We do not force our opponent to do this or that.  We act and in acting the opponent looses structure, creates openings anf we flow through them.

You are arguing semantics not words.


----------



## JowGaWolf

I would like to state that strategy always changes when it doesn't produce the desired results.  If you refuse to change strategy when required then you will lose.  For example, if a person tries to dominate me with their strategy then I may or may not allow it.  If my opponents strategy plays into my strength then I'll be more than happy to let my opponent  think his strategy can can work so that I can capitalize on it.  In this case my opponent will be at a higher risk of losing because of his strategy.  At this point the only path to victory would be for my opponent to change strategy.  

I really can't see a fighting system, in the context of self defense, being defined by one strategy.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> I would like to state that strategy always changes when it doesn't produce the desired results.  If you refuse to change strategy when required then you will lose.  For example, if a person tries to dominate me with their strategy then I may or may not allow it.  If my opponents strategy plays into my strength then I'll be more than happy to let my opponent  think his strategy can can work so that I can capitalize on it.  In this case my opponent will be at a higher risk of losing because of his strategy.  At this point the only path to victory would be for my opponent to change strategy.
> 
> I really can't see a fighting system, in the context of self defense, being defined by one strategy.



I think here you define the difference between strategy and tactics without expressing it.

I'll use WWII History to illustrate the difference.  Strategy is the island hopping campaign in the Pacific.  Specific islands, use of combined arms (sea, air and land power) to effectuate the landings. In that Corsair in the air or in that squad charging the beach though?  That is tactics, the individual fight.

Now maybe that's just the former soldier in me talking but the experience in green and blue makes that distinction razor sharp.  That is why I think the argument here is semantics.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> I think here you define the difference between strategy and tactics without expressing it.
> 
> I'll use WWII History to illustrate the difference.  Strategy is the island hopping campaign in the Pacific.  Specific islands, use of combined arms (sea, air and land power) to effectuate the landings. In that Corsair in the air or in that squad charging the beach though?  That is tactics, the individual fight.
> 
> Now maybe that's just the former soldier in me talking but the experience in green and blue makes that distinction razor sharp.  That is why I think the argument here is semantics.


So would the military use the same strategy of island hopping in today? Or would another strategy be used?


----------



## JowGaWolf

Comparing fighting and chess may give a better glimpse into strategy.  Chess = wing chun. The chess pieces = techniques. 

Is there only one strategy that defines chess? People take different approaches to chess and not one strategy defines what is correct or not.  

When people play chess, they build their strategy based on their strengths and the weaknesses of their opponent.  Because of this, each opponent will require a different strategy.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> So would the military use the same strategy of island hopping in today? Or would another strategy be used?



A different one would be used.  Before I became a soldier I studied to be a History teacher (long story).  This is the best brief definition I have found to differentiate strategy and tactics.

"The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution."

So technology changes the foundation of tactics, how the squad, company, does the nitty gritty. Today it would be different for the Navy because the can strike beyond the horizon.  However man vs man in melee, it hasn't changed and that is what this thread is about.

I get that this may be just how my mind works due to how compartmentalized it is and maybe that's my fault.  Due to my education this is the language I speak.

So, in my mind, chess is about training strategy, to use your example.  Tactics would be how the chess pieces would fight if they were actual combatants.  You move your piece and I move mine with a strategic mindset.  Those two pieces then fight, in the moment, with how the specific conditions dictate.

Think Sun Tzu's "Art of War", this in the book of strategy, the General, the macro level.  The individual unit however has to implement that on the micro level and the two are very different.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> However man vs man in melee, it hasn't changed and that is what this thread is about.


World history is full of examples of how man vs man in melee has changed. The fact that there is more than one martial art system that have different strategies is proof of that.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> World history is full of examples of how man vs man in melee has changed. The fact that there is more than one martial art system that have different strategies is proof of that.



It hasn't though, at least imo.  FMA, CMA, JMA, HEMA, all paths, based on their technology, to the same path.  I study Filipino Kali and Wing Chun today.  I see the lack of difference there but I also have a friend who studies HEMA (which includes grappling and striking according to the old manuals) and we share ideas.

A perfect example in history is Filipino Martial Arts.  Lapu Lapu and his forces defeated Magellan, heck killed Magellan, but due to "oh crap bring technology to bare" the Spanish eventually made the Philippines a colony.

Melee combat and the differences between them are about techniques and culture, not tactics an strategy.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> You are arguing semantics not words.



Here is what you said:



			
				Juany said:
			
		

> f you try to enforce a universal strategy then you end up compromising the benefits of certain physical attributes





			
				Juany said:
			
		

> So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy



Here is what I said:



			
				guy b said:
			
		

> The VT strategy is all about the application of pressure (loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chun)- space pressure, time pressure, distance pressure. We intercept and cut into the attack, disrupting the opponent. We apply forward pressure, cutting the way and eating up space. We force mistakes from the opponent in this way, i.e. they show us how to hit them (kiu loi kiu seung) which we do using the whole body as one, and if not then we create openings by other means (mor kiu ji jou kiu). At all times we pressure the centre rather than chase hands. By linking neutraliation and striking (lin siu dai da) we defend automatically as we attack, which increases the time and space pressure on the opponent, making us appear faster than we really are





			
				guy b said:
			
		

> WSL VT is the strategy of llhs lsjc. No strategy, no system. That's how it works



So really you couldn't be more clear in your misunderstanding of WSL VT. Not a semantic difference at all, more like full-on back to front confusion in that you are suggesting the VT strategy is not the above, and simply varies and "flows" as required according to conditions.

Either that or you have mixed up the meanings of strategy and tactics, but as an active police and former army person, surely that can't be the case?



Juany118 said:


> I studied WSLVT in the United States years ago from someone who was a student of one of WSLs personal students. I am not looking to open up that bag of worms



How convenient. And how strange that they taught you such a confused version


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Here is what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So really you couldn't be more clear in your misunderstanding of WSL VT. Not a semantic difference at all, more like full-on back to front confusion in that you are suggesting the VT strategy is not the above, and simply varies and "flows" as required according to conditions.
> 
> Either that or you have mixed up the meanings of strategy and tactics, but as an active police and former army person, surely that can't be the case?
> 
> 
> 
> How convenient. And how strange that they taught you such a confused version



The last line is all I need.  You have already dissed Gary Lam and David Peterson as being students of WSL but not the "true" student as PB and then you take that final shot.

If I needed any other proof of dogma over objective fact, I couldn't have made it any better.  To sum it up, Gary Lam in a seminar said, "why should I meet his action?".

All versions of WSLVT that don't flow from PB are confused?  But step back and look.  How many direct students did YM have?  Then even if you accept WSL as the one and true prophet of YM, how many did he proclaim a teacher?  Only one, that of PB, is not confused!?

That is funny.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> Melee combat and the differences between them are about techniques and culture, not tactics an strategy.


I don't the answer that one. It's like the question, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?  Or maybe it's one of the things where it flows both ways.  

I can see the techniques creating strategy, but I can also see the strategy creating techniques.   If my strategy requires that I take someone down to the ground then I design a technique that will allow me to use that strategy. 

If I have a take down technique then I can use that technique to create a strategy.  It would be like me having the conversation "I have these fighting skills, what will be the best strategy that takes advantage of my skill sets.


----------



## LFJ

Lobo66 said:


> In WSLVT we also try to impose our strategy, which guy b has already described in this thread.



But, but, but...

You were supposed to be the counterexample of a WSLVT practitioner who disagrees with us on trying to "impose our strategy"!

So, all of us posting here from WSLVT seem to share the same understanding of the system, but somehow Juany knows better.


----------



## Nobody Important

Arguing and semantics aside, shouldn't the goal be to fight your way and not your opponent's? Impose and react are both part of the same process.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> to you only PB seems to be a true student... Even Gary Lam is lower on the totem pole to you and LFJ.



That there's a goddamned lie!

KPM tried that sh!t before too. Sowing discord is his thing.

All I've _ever_ said about GLWC is that it is a modified system from what WSL taught, which GL openly admits.

And I have stated many times that WSL had multiple longterm students who share PB's understanding of the system. PB is only the most well-known and prolific.

So, if you'd kindly piss off with the lies trying to sow discord or somehow discredit us when reasoned argument fails you...


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> That there's a goddamned lie!
> 
> KPM tried that sh!t before too. Sowing discord is his thing.
> ...



Sounds like someone is excited and angry.   I told you that I wasn't the only one that had formed that impression by the way you post! I'm not the one "sowing discord."  I invited you both to try and make a more convincing presentation of your belief all in one place so it would be easier to follow.  But you both chose not to do that and ended up with the "same ole thing" as we have all come to expect from you.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Sounds like someone is excited and angry.   I told you that I wasn't the only one that had formed that impression by the way you post! I'm not the one "sowing discord."



Well, you idiots need to quote me if you're gonna start making such slanderous accusations.



> I invited you both to try and make a more convincing presentation of your belief all in one place so it would be easier to follow.  But you both chose not to do that and ended up with the "same ole thing" as we have all come to expect from you.



You dodged the opportunity to have the technical discussion, just like Juany did.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Well, you idiots need to quote me if you're gonna start making such slanderous accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> .




So now I'm an "idiot" as well as a liar, a troll, and a "mentally deficient" person?  You guys are on a roll!


----------



## guy b

How dare you not put your points in a separate thread to please KPM. It isn't like we have had enough threads on this topic or anything.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> I don't the answer that one. It's like the question, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?  Or maybe it's one of the things where it flows both ways.
> 
> I can see the techniques creating strategy, but I can also see the strategy creating techniques.   If my strategy requires that I take someone down to the ground then I design a technique that will allow me to use that strategy.
> 
> If I have a take down technique then I can use that technique to create a strategy.  It would be like me having the conversation "I have these fighting skills, what will be the best strategy that takes advantage of my skill sets.



I am just speaking from the lense of my education, nothing more or less.  In my study to be a History teacher intellectually and then a soldier and a LEO practically, tactics is the unit/individual methods used operationally to accomplish the strategy.  Now outside of those worlds are the two words sometimes used interchangeably?  Sure.  But my co-workers call me Sheldon sometimes and my wife "fffing Mr. Spock"

A strategy is broad strokes.  Think mindset and overall goals.  So in your takedown technique example, it provides a new tool, thus tactic to achieve the overall strategy.  It takes a huge leap for a tool to change tactics and thus inform strategy though.  Think 18th century through 19th century warfare, the era that is referred to as the age of Napoleonic Tactics.  They remained firmly entrenched (pun intended) until technology jumped clearly ahead in WWI with the mess that was trench warfare.  Even the slaughters that were our Civil War and that of the Franco-Prussian war weren't quite enough to get war planners to change mindsets when it came to tactics.  To continue the analogy if you had NO knowledge of takedowns at all, learning to execute them could influence tactics enough to create new strategies but if it is simply a new takedown, then all it does is give you a knew tactical tool to achieve existing strategies.  Think this way, one element of the strategy of modern warfare is achieving air superiority.  The fact that today aircraft can launch missiles beyond the horizon hasn't changed that BUT the introduction of effective combat aircraft added air superiority to the strategic playbook.

Like I said, while embarrassing. Juany = Sheldon, at least I own it lol.


----------



## LFJ

@Juany118 

I agree with your distinction between strategy and tactics. I've shared the same ideas on here before, many times.

But/So, I don't get why you don't understand our strategy being our goal of cutting off the opponent, closing options, and forcing errors to capitalize on, while our specific tactics to accomplish this goal are what change with the circumstances of the fight.

Yes, the strategy is imposing (the mindset and overall goal) and doesn't change, unless we're facing an armed opponent.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Juany118 said:


> I am just speaking from the lense of my education, nothing more or less.  In my study to be a History teacher intellectually and then a soldier and a LEO practically, tactics is the unit/individual methods used operationally to accomplish the strategy.  Now outside of those worlds are the two words sometimes used interchangeably?  Sure.  But my co-workers call me Sheldon sometimes and my wife "fffing Mr. Spock"
> 
> A strategy is broad strokes.  Think mindset and overall goals.  So in your takedown technique example, it provides a new tool, thus tactic to achieve the overall strategy.  It takes a huge leap for a tool to change tactics and thus inform strategy though.  Think 18th century through 19th century warfare, the era that is referred to as the age of Napoleonic Tactics.  They remained firmly entrenched (pun intended) until technology jumped clearly ahead in WWI with the mess that was trench warfare.  Even the slaughters that were our Civil War and that of the Franco-Prussian war weren't quite enough to get war planners to change mindsets when it came to tactics.  To continue the analogy if you had NO knowledge of takedowns at all, learning to execute them could influence tactics enough to create new strategies but if it is simply a new takedown, then all it does is give you a knew tactical tool to achieve existing strategies.  Think this way, one element of the strategy of modern warfare is achieving air superiority.  The fact that today aircraft can launch missiles beyond the horizon hasn't changed that BUT the introduction of effective combat aircraft added air superiority to the strategic playbook.
> 
> Like I said, while embarrassing. Juany = Sheldon, at least I own it lol.


To follow that analogy, Juany, would it be fair to say the following?

If there are no takedowns AND no ground game, a principle part of the strategy would be to avoid going to the ground at all costs.
If we add reasonable ground defense to the mix, the strategy could adjust to avoid going to the ground unless standing up is worse.
If we add reasonable takedowns, the strategy could adjust to stay standing as long as it's an advantage, and take them down if that's where the advantage is.
That's an over-simplification (and no implication about any art, style, or lineage) - just wanted to follow your train of thought about how available tactics can affect strategy.


----------



## Juany118

gpseymour said:


> To follow that analogy, Juany, would it be fair to say the following?
> 
> If there are no takedowns AND no ground game, a principle part of the strategy would be to avoid going to the ground at all costs.
> If we add reasonable ground defense to the mix, the strategy could adjust to avoid going to the ground unless standing up is worse.
> If we add reasonable takedowns, the strategy could adjust to stay standing as long as it's an advantage, and take them down if that's where the advantage is.
> That's an over-simplification (and no implication about any art, style, or lineage) - just wanted to follow your train of thought about how available tactics can affect strategy.



That would be in line with what I am trying to explain yes.  

I guess the easiest way to explain it is that the strategy is what General comes up with to win a war where as tactics are what the unit uses in a particular engagement. The strategy must account for the available tactics of the day and the tactics are in large part determined by the tools available.  In our context here tools would equal techniques, not just weapons, and the strategy would be the overall methodology/philosophy that underpins the art. 

Does that make more sense?  I have been on vacation since Sunday so last night I admittedly had a bit more to drink than is usual lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> I guess the easiest way to explain it is that the strategy is what General comes up with to win a war where as tactics are what the unit uses in a particular engagement. The strategy must account for the available tactics of the day and the tactics are in large part determined by the tools available. In our context here tools would equal techniques, not just weapons, and the strategy would be the overall methodology/philosophy that underpins the art.


Ok.  understand that much

So to bring it back to WC a little lets say that you and I both take WC from the same teacher.  We both have the same goal of winning.
As a WC student you use the strategy that you stated exists in the quote that you were discussing with the other WC Practitioners. Your strategy accounts for your strengths in WC.  You are able to win 5 out of 5 fights using that strategy

As a WC student I would use a different strategy that states waiting for the right moment to strike and not forcing the attack. My strategy accounts for my strengths in WC which are different from your strengths. I'm able to win 5 out of 5 fights using my strategy about timing.

We both grow to be Sifu's. You teach WC based on your perspective of WC and according to my strengths.  I teach WC based on my perspective of WC and according to my strengths

Now for the questions.
1. Did we learn the same WC?
2. Do we teach the same WC or do we teach the same WC as we understand it, from the perspective of strengths?
3. Which one is the correct WC?


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> Yes, the strategy is imposing (the mindset and overall goal) and doesn't change, unless we're facing an armed opponent.


What if your opponent doesn't have a gun but he's stronger, faster, and more skilled than you?


----------



## LFJ

What do you think will happen? I will switch to some other super strategy that allows me to defeat an opponent I'm weaker, slower, and less skilled than?


----------



## JowGaWolf

LFJ said:


> What do you think will happen? I will switch to some other super strategy that allows me to defeat an opponent I'm weaker, slower, and less skilled than?


I don't know that's why I asked.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> Ok.  understand that much
> 
> So to bring it back to WC a little lets say that you and I both take WC from the same teacher.  We both have the same goal of winning.
> As a WC student you use the strategy that you stated exists in the quote that you were discussing with the other WC Practitioners. Your strategy accounts for your strengths in WC.  You are able to win 5 out of 5 fights using that strategy
> 
> As a WC student I would use a different strategy that states waiting for the right moment to strike and not forcing the attack. My strategy accounts for my strengths in WC which are different from your strengths. I'm able to win 5 out of 5 fights using my strategy about timing.
> 
> We both grow to be Sifu's. You teach WC based on your perspective of WC and according to my strengths.  I teach WC based on my perspective of WC and according to my strengths
> 
> Now for the questions.
> 1. Did we learn the same WC?
> 2. Do we teach the same WC or do we teach the same WC as we understand it, from the perspective of strengths?
> 3. Which one is the correct WC?



I would simply argue that the quote I posted is broad enough to encompass what you noted and that what you noted is really a tactic.  I don't think it means to force an attack at all.  While some might argue it isn't a good tactic, waiting until the opponent attacks and starting "your fight" with  counters, which should create the right opportunity to strike, would be consistent.  That's the thing with strategies, they have to be broad enough to account for the dynamic nature of combat. To me a change in strategy would be if suddenly instead of allowing your opponent to show you where to strike you started to allow you opponent to show you where to control him, take him to the ground and "go to work" al la BJJ.

As for your last bit, which I believe is your real point, I think not only every Sifu but every student brings themselves to the art.  I essentially have 2 WC Sifus at the moment.  I have the head of school and then one day a week a Provisional Master comes from the mother school and teaches.  They both teach TWC but they are different in how they approach certain things. 

I am also different than my semi-regular training partner and both Sifus makes jokes about it.  My partner is very focused on punching, I prefer a combination of palm strikes and low kicks.  The reason why they make jokes is because, until the guy became my partner, his footwork was kinda meh.  He is pretty strong and an ex-lineman, so he would simply stay there, take punches and dish em out.  The kicks, not only got them calling me TKD boy, but "dance instructor" because it forced him to focus on his footwork.

Edit:. Unless of course you go the route of my BJJ reference, then I think it becomes something very different, the difference has to be rather profound imo.


----------



## JowGaWolf

Juany118 said:


> As for your last bit, which I believe is your real point, I think not only every Sifu but every student brings themselves to the art.


  I was only trying to present the subject in a different light in order to view something from a different perspective without the need of using names of Sifus because that seems to stir up a lot of issues that go no where.     First by taking a look at strategy in general (war, military, chess)  then using what came out of that discussion to view strategy in fighting.  I didn't have to use WC as the fighting style, any fighting system would still fit the question.



Juany118 said:


> To me a change in strategy would be if suddenly instead of allowing your opponent to show you where to strike you started to allow you opponent to show you where to control him, take him to the ground and "go to work" al la BJJ.


Not sure if you saw this video,  but  i thought it would be a good place to put it since if falls in ling with your comment.


----------



## Juany118

JowGaWolf said:


> I was only trying to present the subject in a different light in order to view something from a different perspective without the need of using names of Sifus because that seems to stir up a lot of issues that go no where.     First by taking a look at strategy in general (war, military, chess)  then using what came out of that discussion to view strategy in fighting.  I didn't have to use WC as the fighting style, any fighting system would still fit the question.
> 
> Not sure if you saw this video,  but  i thought it would be a good place to put it since if falls in ling with your comment.



I think the issue is that I am a bit more compartmentalized in my view of strategy and tactics.  Here is a chart I just found.



 

So, once in the fight you are using tactics that serve the overall strategy, not the strategy itself.

And yes I saw that video.  In another thread I showed how my WC does have takedowns and Chin Na.  My BJJ reference was to say if going to ground, al la BJJ, became the raison detre as it is in BJJ.


----------



## guy b

I thought you advocated a variable strategy?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> I thought you advocated a variable strategy?


I think all martial arts need a broad core strategy.  It is then the tactics used in each encounter that are variable.  I suppose one could argue we are talking about the same thing though, just using different language.


----------



## guy b

Juany118 said:


> I think all martial arts need a broad core strategy.  It is then the tactics used in each encounter that are variable.  I suppose one could argue we are talking about the same thing though, just using different language.



Well actually you talked specifically about varying the VT strategic approach depending on conditions, so I wouldn't say we are talking abot the same thing at all.

The two options are that you don't understand WSL VT (despite having a really great teacher), or that you got confiused about what the word strategy means, which would make the enourmous verbage you generate on the subject a bit laughable.

Would you like me to quote you again?


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Well actually you talked specifically about varying the VT strategic approach depending on conditions, so I wouldn't say we are talking abot the same thing at all.
> 
> The two options are that you don't understand WSL VT (despite having a really great teacher), or that you got confiused about what the word strategy means, which would make the enourmous verbage you generate on the subject a bit laughable.
> 
> Would you like me to quote you again?



Please do because you are the one who doesnt understand what strategy means and that is a big part of the problem.  I have quoted numerous times the definition of strategy and the differences between strategy and tactics.  These are the same principles taught in Military and Police academies, even business schools today.

Tactics will change from fight to fight, irl, and there is no denying that. 
-The environment will dictate changes (due to say bad footing if you are fighting in mud).  Heck wearing heavy winter closing can be a help(armor) and hinderances (limiting movement and speed).
-The size and aggressiveness of your opponent will be a contributing factor.
-Is the fight starting after you chased the guy 3 blocks and hopped 2 fences? how good is your conditioning?  
-Is your goal to put his lights out, simply get them to stop an assault or to restrain/detain them with minimal force?

Now if you are always just practicing in the school these realities may not occurred to you but this is the reality of conflict.

You are confabulating strategy and tactics, they are not the same thing.  You can keep insisting they are until the cows come home but either the basis of documented martial theory going back to the Battle of Meggido in 1457 BC is wrong OR you are wrong.

I think the answer is obvious.


----------



## guy b

Here is what you said:



			
				Juany said:
			
		

> If you try to enforce a universal strategy then you end up compromising the benefits of certain physical attributes





			
				Juany said:
			
		

> So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy



Here is what I said:



			
				guy b said:
			
		

> The VT strategy is all about the application of pressure (loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chun)- space pressure, time pressure, distance pressure. We intercept and cut into the attack, disrupting the opponent. We apply forward pressure, cutting the way and eating up space. We force mistakes from the opponent in this way, i.e. they show us how to hit them (kiu loi kiu seung) which we do using the whole body as one, and if not then we create openings by other means (mor kiu ji jou kiu). At all times we pressure the centre rather than chase hands. By linking neutraliation and striking (lin siu dai da) we defend automatically as we attack, which increases the time and space pressure on the opponent, making us appear faster than we really are



Not a semantic difference. WSL VT has one strategy as above. It isn't dictated by the circumstances of the fight. Tactics are dictated by the circumstances of the fight, not strategy.


----------



## Juany118

guy b said:


> Here is what you said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not a semantic difference. WSL VT has one strategy as above. It isn't dictated by the circumstances of the fight. Tactics are dictated by the circumstances of the fight, not strategy.



First I said universal strategy because you were, earlier, confabulating the two, which I have pointed out repeatedly.

As to you last point, my last post said exactly that the circumstances of a fight determine tactics. So again what's your point, other than to take the words I said, in various ways, multiple times (which you initially said were false) and try to make them you own.

You do however miss one thing and that is the fact that the available tactics do indeed influence the strategy.  The two basically synergize.  As an example; before effective combat aircraft existed air superiority simply wasn't a thing.  Tactical tools will influence strategy.  

The same applies in Martial arts.  The tools available for tactical deployment do indeed influence the strategic foundation of a MA.  BJJ and WC/VT certainly have a different strategic foundation, as an example.


----------



## Lobo66

I agree with your distinction between strategy and tactics, Juany.

Perhaps we can avoid confusion by limiting our use of jargon and using more familiar words.

Like "goals" (short and long-term) and the "means" to implement them.

Seen like this it becomes clear that changing goals often require different means.

WSLVT is best suited for a situation where the assault or fight is already on.  Your focused awareness has failed you, or your attempts to use dipomacy and de-escalation have had no effect and the aggresor is committed to or has already begun his attack.  Maybe you've even been hit and injured already.  

In this situation the short-term goal is to disrupt the perpetrator's attack with our own actions/reflexes. This will send him back to the beginning of the OODA loop and allow us the time to gain a superior position to carry out an effective counter-attack.  The means of regaining position and counter-attacking are the nuts and bolts of WSLVT and have already been described.

The long-term goal in an assault or self-defense situation is often a) survival and/or  b) escape.
If our counter-attack has been successful and we've knocked down the perp, our short term goal must change to safely leaving the area and alerting the authorities.

Sometimes WSLVT skills are ill-suited for certain situations.  I'm thinking in terms of restraining, detaining and/or arresting - things that LEOs have to deal with.  Or breaking up a fight between two people.  In these situations you can't just go in and smash the crap out of someone's face.  You need other means to meet your goals.  This is where a knowledge of grappling and body-locking comes in to play.  And these are not part of the WSLVT curriculum that I know.

Or perhaps you've been attacked and knocked down to the ground.  You're now facing a standing opponent.  Your gaol is to regain your feet as fast and safely as possible.  What are the means to do this?  What if you can't and the aggressor is standing over you trying to smash your head in? By what means will you protect yourself?  It's ovious that in situations like these you need some basic ground skills.  Also not included in the WSLVT system.


----------



## Juany118

Lobo66 said:


> I agree with your distinction between strategy and tactics, Juany.
> 
> Perhaps we can avoid confusion by limiting our use of jargon and using more familiar words.
> 
> Like "goals" (short and long-term) and the "means" to implement them.
> 
> Seen like this it becomes clear that changing goals often require different means.
> 
> WSLVT is best suited for a situation where the assault or fight is already on.  Your focused awareness has failed you, or your attempts to use dipomacy and de-escalation have had no effect and the aggresor is committed to or has already begun his attack.  Maybe you've even been hit and injured already.
> 
> In this situation the short-term goal is to disrupt the perpetrator's attack with our own actions/reflexes. This will send him back to the beginning of the OODA loop and allow us the time to gain a superior position to carry out an effective counter-attack.  The means of regaining position and counter-attacking are the nuts and bolts of WSLVT and have already been described.
> 
> The long-term goal in an assault or self-defense situation is often a) survival and/or  b) escape.
> If our counter-attack has been successful and we've knocked down the perp, our short term goal must change to safely leaving the area and alerting the authorities.
> 
> Sometimes WSLVT skills are ill-suited for certain situations.  I'm thinking in terms of restraining, detaining and/or arresting - things that LEOs have to deal with.  Or breaking up a fight between two people.  In these situations you can't just go in and smash the crap out of someone's face.  You need other means to meet your goals.  This is where a knowledge of grappling and body-locking comes in to play.  And these are not part of the WSLVT curriculum that I know.
> 
> Or perhaps you've been attacked and knocked down to the ground.  You're now facing a standing opponent.  Your gaol is to regain your feet as fast and safely as possible.  What are the means to do this?  What if you can't and the aggressor is standing over you trying to smash your head in? By what means will you protect yourself?  It's ovious that in situations like these you need some basic ground skills.  Also not included in the WSLVT system.



Oh I completely agree with you on the fact that WSLVT is ill suited for LE, it's the main reason I stopped studying it.  There are times for striking but 90% of the time the striking is a set up for takedowns and restraints.  

I think the other point you made, disrupting the OODA loop (which also applies to my "set up" scenario) is consistent.  The same principle applies to Aikido as well (the first Asian FMA I studied).  That is why I think, to an extent, semantics.  One person can say they are imposing their will on the other, the other can say they are flowing, even with a counter, because the counter wouldn't be possible if there hadn't been an attack in the first place.

As an example in another art; when you throw someone in Aikido you can say you imposed your will.  You moved out of the opponent's way, you applied principles of leverage to augment the opponent's momentum, he fall down go boom. Or you can say what my Sensei said at the time "Aikido is the practice of civility and so we are never so rude as to get in the way of our opponent.  Instead we step and and assist them on their way." Same action, same result simply semantics.  Now maybe because my WSLVT teacher didn't follow PB's playbook is why he explained it via the literal meaning of the quote I posted, but it just seems like we are arguing semantics at this point to some degree.


----------



## KPM

_Like "goals" (short and long-term) and the "means" to implement them.  Seen like this it becomes clear that changing goals often require different means._

---Good summary Lobo66.  I have been thinking of it all along like this  as well.


_In this situation the short-term goal is to disrupt the perpetrator's attack with our own actions/reflexes. This will send him back to the beginning of the OODA loop and allow us the time to gain a superior position to carry out an effective counter-attack.  The means of regaining position and counter-attacking are the nuts and bolts of WSLVT and have already been described._

---From what Guy and LFJ have written in the past, the impression I have formed (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that the long-term goal of WSLVT....as in any martial art....is to defeat the opponent or at least escape the encounter with as little damage as possible.  But the means to affect this, or the short-term goal for WSLVT, is to strike or "punch out" the opponent.  They have made numerous statements in the past to the effect that WSLVT is "all about the punch."  And there is nothing wrong with this!  But when it has been pointed out to them that this is a somewhat "specialized", "narrow", or "one-dimensional" approach they have protested.   I say this in comparison to other martial arts...including other versions of Wing Chun....that do have body manipulations, joint locks, and such.  For these "others" the short-term goal is often to control or disrupt the opponent's balance in some way so that they cannot effectively strike back.  Punching may be part of that, but so are various Kum Na-type techniques.   So some lineages see Chi Sau as having an aspect of training sensitivity to be able to establish some kind of control or dominant position over the opponent....as well as to detect or create openings for the punch.  So it has more than one dimension.....the punch, and therefore more than one tactic available. 



_Sometimes WSLVT skills are ill-suited for certain situations.  I'm thinking in terms of restraining, detaining and/or arresting - things that LEOs have to deal with.  Or breaking up a fight between two people.  In these situations you can't just go in and smash the crap out of someone's face.  You need other means to meet your goals.  This is where a knowledge of grappling and body-locking comes in to play.  And these are not part of the WSLVT curriculum that I know._

---I have pointed out more than once in the past that you cannot always see the use of your martial art as "smashing the crap out of someone's face."  I've even used the analogy of "drunk uncle Ed."   If you're drunk uncle Ed is with you at a family gathering and trying to get you to "show him your Kung Fu!"  then it is probably best to be able to divert, control and manipulate him without hurting him.   My Wing Chun can do that.  But when pointed out this was generally scoffed at by certain people.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> But when it has been pointed out to them that this is a somewhat "specialized", "narrow", or "one-dimensional" approach they have protested.



You state this, negatively, claiming WSL made VT so, thus suggesting WSLVT is "missing" all this good stuff.



> If you're drunk uncle Ed is with you at a family gathering and trying to get you to "show him your Kung Fu!"  then it is probably best to be able to divert, control and manipulate him without hurting him.   My Wing Chun can do that.  But when pointed out this was generally scoffed at by certain people.



I can do that without kung-fu. Just plant him on the couch and leave the room.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

KPM said:


> I have pointed out more than once in the past that you cannot always see the use of your martial art as "smashing the crap out of someone's face." I've even used the analogy of "drunk uncle Ed." If you're drunk uncle Ed is with you at a family gathering and trying to get you to "show him your Kung Fu!" then it is probably best to be able to divert, control and manipulate him without hurting him. My Wing Chun can do that. But when pointed out this was generally scoffed at by certain people.


I actually trained alongside a guy who took up NGA for that very reason. He had significant experience in a striking art (TKD, I think), and a cousin got drunk at a family reunion and basically forced him to "show his stuff", giving a serious enough attack he had to defend or get hurt. Of course, he hurt the guy, and was looking for a second art that gave him some other options.


----------



## guy b

> So it has more than one dimension.....the punch, and therefore more than one tactic available



WSL VT has many tactics, one strategy



> have pointed out more than once in the past that you cannot always see the use of your martial art as "smashing the crap out of someone's face."  I've even used the analogy of "drunk uncle Ed."   If you're drunk uncle Ed is with you at a family gathering and trying to get you to "show him your Kung Fu!"  then it is probably best to be able to divert, control and manipulate him without hurting him.   My Wing Chun can do that.  But when pointed out this was generally scoffed at by certain people.



The idea of long and hard training in order to cope with drunk uncle Ed is ludicrous.


----------



## KPM

gpseymour said:


> I actually trained alongside a guy who took up NGA for that very reason. He had significant experience in a striking art (TKD, I think), and a cousin got drunk at a family reunion and basically forced him to "show his stuff", giving a serious enough attack he had to defend or get hurt. Of course, he hurt the guy, and was looking for a second art that gave him some other options.



Thanks!  Looks like you understood my point, even if certain others didn't!


----------



## Juany118

KPM said:


> Thanks!  Looks like you understood my point, even if certain others didn't!


Well sadly that happens if anything that WSLVT isn't optimized for.  I raised knifes and other melee weapons and it was first "the % is so low it's laughable." Later changed to "% chance to defend is low" which then changed to "use BJJ."

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Nobody Important

Juany118 said:


> Well sadly that happens if anything that WSLVT isn't optimized for.  I raised knifes and other melee weapons and it was first "the % is so low it's laughable." Later changed to "% chance to defend is low" which then changed to "use BJJ."
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


Yes, the conversation has been had over & over. When an art is relegated to a singular use it has become specialized. Optimization and refinement are an inseparable part of how it became to be. Much more likely, that since WSLVT came a 100 years after the ancestral method it is based on, that it was refined to what it is and not that it was originally that way to begin with. Especially when being propagated by an individual incapable of grabbing effectively. But some will continue to argue that logic.


----------



## Juany118

Nobody Important said:


> Yes, the conversation has been had over & over. When an art is relegated to a singular use it has become specialized. Optimization and refinement are an inseparable part of how it became to be. Much more likely, that since WSLVT came a 100 years after the ancestral method it is based on, that it was refined to what it is and not that it was originally that way to begin with. Especially when being propagated by an individual incapable of grabbing effectively. But some will continue to argue that logic.



It's also even more likely because we know YM refined the art.  So we have the following chain of events.
1. YM refined what he knew.
2. He has multiple students, including his own sons, all saying they teach what YM taught and no actual verifiable evidence to prove otherwise.
3.  While all of them have some variations WSL is the only one, that I know of, that lacks Chin Na.

So if all students Have X but one, we either have to believe that a secret teaching, that WSL never made claim to, occurred makes his VT the True YM VT... Or, and here is where Occam's razor comes in...

A combination of the facts we know about YM's teaching methods + refinement = the differences.

We even know as fact that WSL is capable of such refinement.  He went to great lengths in his face teaching of PB, refining WSLVT so a man with only one hand would be equally effective.


----------

