# WSL...guarding the method



## wckf92 (Dec 20, 2016)

Saw this in the cutting punch thread...(sorry, it's locked so can't quote it)...
Guy posted this (see circled portion).
What does this mean or allude to?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2016)

The assertion (and I can't speak to whether or not it is accurate) is that some instructors (in this case WSL) purposely put errors into almost anything that was preservable (like videos) in order to obscure their teaching, keeping it hidden from those who weren't officially students.

I'm not sure what this would possibly gain, since students would also see those videos and would likely gain some misunderstandings of their art from them. It would be like me putting together some online courses about VBA programming, and purposely putting in some bad syntax so people who didn't pay for the course wouldn't learn proper syntax. It seems unlikely to be successful (people will eventually figure out things that work), and will slow the learning of those who should be learning.

I think it's a holdover from the days when different styles would have been in literal physical conflict (in Japanese terms, the days when one Ryu might meet another Ryu on the battlefield, if they were aligned with different shogun and daimyo). I see little justification for the practice of such deception today. Either don't have videos (so no need to obscure) or teach accurately in them.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 20, 2016)

It means videos made for the public are "marked" with intentional errors or subtractions from what legit students learn.

This is a very common practice in TCMAs in China. If some master put full information into public resources they'd receive major backlash from their peers.

And legit students will know better than to use such videos as learning material, and wouldn't need to, anyway.

An older example would be written manuals that would have missing techniques, or directions of movements in a form would be flipped, making it very hard to follow the sequence of the form from the description.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2016)

Kinda makes ya wonder why make the videos in the first place?

Well, we all gotta pay the rent somehow...


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 20, 2016)

It's bad idea to put up wrong information into the public domain. After you die, people will criticize you not knowing the correct information. It will be your life time reputation that you may take the risk.

For example, if you public a "Taiji for health" book, even if you may understand the "Taiji application", but since you didn't include Taiji application into your book, people will assume that you don't understand any "Taiji application". IMO, it's better not to put out any information instead of to put out some information that will hurt you later on.

Another example, your teacher intentional hide some information from you. After your teacher's death, one day you find out that piece information from a book. You may lose respect to your teacher just because that.

You may hide as much information as you may like to. After your death, people will say that you just don't know.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> It's bad idea to put up wrong information into the public domain. After you die, people will criticize you not knowing the correct information. It will be your life time reputation that you may take the risk.
> 
> For example, if you public a "Taiji for health" book, even if you may understand the "Taiji application", but since you didn't include Taiji application into your book, people will assume that you don't understand any "Taiji application". IMO, it's better not to put out any information instead of to put out some information that will hurt you later on.
> 
> You may hide as much information as you may like to. After your death, people will say that you just don't know anything.


I'd argue it's more problematic than that. If that video, in fact, has purposeful errors, then following WSL's death there will be a point when students who don't realize this will attempt to learn from him as a master source in those videos. They will catch some of the inserted errors, but others, some will miss and think are refinements. They will base some bit of their learning on that misunderstanding, and will someday become instructors. Over generations of instructors, the "correct" information gets a bit diluted, while the "errors" are preserved perfectly in video. This process won't happen immediately, but at some point it probably will happen. The veneration that is common for the "old masters" nearly ensures this sort of problem with videos that contain errors. The same probably happened, though perhaps to a lesser extent, with the manuals LFJ mentioned.

This process is an issue even when there aren't purposely-created errors. People try to read too much into the "old ways", rather than moving forward with the information they already have. Even if the old source is perfect, it was perfect for the art as it was at that time and may be imperfect for the art as it evolves.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> If that video, in fact, has purposeful errors, ...


I'll call that "cheating".

My teacher won't teach me any counters for his favor technique "leg twisting". At least he would be honest to let me know. He won't teach me any wrong counter that won't work.

It's better to be "honest" IMO. There is nothing wrong for a teacher to honestly tell his students that there are some information that he just won't teach. If you have spent all your life time to develop some "door guarding" skill, you just don't want to teach your students how to counter it.

If you want to teach, you should teach 100%. Otherwise, you can take all your secret into your grave. This "intentional error video" idea is wrong, wrong, and still wrong.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'll call that "cheating".
> 
> My teacher won't teach me any counters for his favor technique "leg twisting". At least he would be honest to let me know. He won't teach me any wrong counter that won't work.
> 
> ...


I agree, except that I'll teach everything I have once students are ready. I'm there to give them the best chance I can, and won't hold back anything I think could help them.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

Regarding the OP.  It came about in a series of threads when people would point to a video of WSL, say demonstrating a form, to make a point or counter a claim by a couple of people who study WSLVT via PB's method.  Basically "oh I can explain that because the video has WSL adding an error intentionally to 'guard the method'.". The same was applied to interviews.  It could be raised when someone tries to show that there is little apparent practical difference between say WSL's method and Yip Ching's.  As an example, I recall a WSL video mentioning that part of chi sau was to develop touch sensitivity.  This was dismissed as an intentional error and if you use videos to suggest that what PB teaches is based on the documented fact WSL worked to refine VT to better function with PB's amputation...

The thing is it's a bit illogical for a few reasons.

First the claim is almost entirely justified by using Chinese Tradition as an excuse.  What makes that even more odd other Chinese traditions are dismissed (such as lineages passing through in  one's oldest son.) There is old saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Second WSL, unlike the Chinese Masters who would conceal things from the uninitiated, went on a massive self-promotion run giving seminars and helping promote the schools of his students in Europe, Oceania and SE Asia and eventually Mainland China.  Promoting one's art so openly and globally while at the same time engaging in obfuscation of what you demonstrate is contradictory.  It would make more sense to simply not address certain methods in the seminar.

Third WSL would not ignore his legacy.  He was a smart man and not ignorant of the impact of technology as evidenced by not simply allowing his seminars to be filled but having professionally produced videos of him demonstrating the forms etc.  One consequence of technology is that it is saved for posterity.  If there are errors there, intentional or not, the legacy is damaged.  This is something else the Chinese Masters of the past did not have to deal with.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Regarding the OP.  It came about in a series of threads when people would point to a video of WSL, say demonstrating a form, to make a point or counter a claim by a couple of people who study WSLVT via PB's method.  Basically "oh I can explain that because the video has WSL adding an error intentionally to 'guard the method'.". The same was applied to interviews.  It could be raised when someone tries to show that there is little apparent practical difference between say WSL's method and Yip Ching's.  As an example, I recall a WSL video mentioning that part of chi sau was to develop touch sensitivity.  This was dismissed as an intentional error and if you use videos to suggest that what PB teaches is based on the documented fact WSL worked to refine VT to better function with PB's amputation...
> 
> The thing is it's a bit illogical for a few reasons.
> 
> ...


Since some of those videos appeared to be from seminars, that is odd. It would seem counter-productive in the extreme to say and demonstrate intentional errors during a seminar, then leave the local instructor to deal with students saying, "But at the seminar...."


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Since some of those videos appeared to be from seminars, that is odd. It would seem counter-productive in the extreme to say and demonstrate intentional errors during a seminar, then leave the local instructor to deal with students saying, "But at the seminar...."


Pretty much.  Also problematic when one of your filmed seminars was instructing the PLA.  Something tells me Bejing would have been upset with that.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2016)

One might ask of those who say the video had intentional errors, how do they know that to be the case?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> One might ask of those who say the video had intentional errors, how do they know that to be the case?


They answered that before and the short answer is "because that isn't what is passed down by PB.  Then you raise the fact that PB's own biography says...



> After visits with various teachers, he found, in January 1983, Wong Shun Leung. Sifu Wong accepted the ambitious German than students in the traditional sense. He sat down seriously dealing with the problem of a missing hand and put the training in terms of it.



As a possible reason for a difference in what PB teaches than what WSL taught in seminars elsewhere and the conversation disintegrates even faster.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2016)

Ah.  Well.  Some things perhaps are not worth discussing.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Dec 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> Since some of those videos appeared to be from seminars, that is odd.


There is possibility that the instructor didn't know his stuff. When proved to be wrong, he just said that he had shown the wrong information in order to hide his secret.

Student: In your workshop, why did you always move back your front leg before you move it forward?
Teacher: The shortest distance between 2 points is the straight line, but why do you want to let the public to know that "secret"?

The truth is that instructor had developed some bad habit through his basic training that he didn't even realize.


----------



## geezer (Dec 20, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> One might ask of those who say the video had intentional errors, how do they know that to be the case?



You guys know I can be quick to disagree with LFJ, but I believe his basic point is right. A lot of Chinese Sifus of that period did conceal portions of their system from outsiders and casual students, and did deliberately insert errors into their public presentations, books, and later, videos as a means of controlling who got the "real stuff".

I agree that it is a foolish and even dishonest for the many reasons stated above, but it absolutely _did_ (and still does) happen. I discovered this myself after doing "bai-si" and becoming a disciple of my old Chinese sifu. It is unfortunate, especially, because many who never trained closely with him have a very wrong idea of his skill and knowledge, and his many cheesy books and videos just perpetrate these errors and misconceptions!

WSL was said to be a man of (hopefully) greater integrity, but I have no reason to doubt that he may also have engaged in such practices.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

geezer said:


> You guys know I can be quick to disagree with LFJ, but I believe his basic point is right. A lot of Chinese Sifus of that period did conceal portions of their system from outsiders and casual students, and did deliberately insert errors into their public presentations, books, and later, videos as a means of controlling who got the "real stuff".
> 
> I agree that it is a foolish and even dishonest for the many reasons stated above, but it absolutely _did_ (and still does) happen. I discovered this myself after doing "bai-si" and becoming a disciple of my old Chinese sifu. It is unfortunate, especially, because many who never trained closely with him have a very wrong idea of his skill and knowledge, and his many cheesy books and videos just perpetrate these errors and misconceptions!
> 
> WSL was said to be a man of (hopefully) greater integrity, but I have no reason to doubt that he may also have engaged in such practices.



I don't think anyone denies that it COULD happen but there is more than a little circumstantial evidence that leans towards WSL not having done this and less conspiratorial reasons for some differences. 

If we were just talking about the teaching methods of Traditional Chinese Masters it would be one thing, but the idea WSL guarded the "true" teachings has been used more than once to dismiss documented evidence.  Should not an argument used to dismiss verifiable and documented evidence be equally verifiable and documented, vs a fiat statement that is founded only in a generality?

This is my main issue.  In short anytime a video or interview with either WSL or one of his students appears to contradict what PB teaches they can simply say "oh well WSL carefully guarded the true nature of the art" without even producing a quote from a WSL version of you, a direct student who was told such first hand.  Making such a claim without some sort of independent support just seems intellectually disingenuous.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 20, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I'd argue it's more problematic than that. If that video, in fact, has purposeful errors, then following WSL's death there will be a point when students who don't realize this will attempt to learn from him as a master source in those videos. They will catch some of the inserted errors, but others, some will miss and think are refinements. They will base some bit of their learning on that misunderstanding, and will someday become instructors. Over generations of instructors, the "correct" information gets a bit diluted, while the "errors" are preserved perfectly in video. This process won't happen immediately, but at some point it probably will happen. The veneration that is common for the "old masters" nearly ensures this sort of problem with videos that contain errors. The same probably happened, though perhaps to a lesser extent, with the manuals LFJ mentioned.
> 
> This process is an issue even when there aren't purposely-created errors. People try to read too much into the "old ways", rather than moving forward with the information they already have. Even if the old source is perfect, it was perfect for the art as it was at that time and may be imperfect for the art as it evolves.



Of course you could test it and if it is silly change it.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2016)

geezer said:


> You guys know I can be quick to disagree with LFJ, but I believe his basic point is right. A lot of Chinese Sifus of that period did conceal portions of their system from outsiders and casual students, and did deliberately insert errors into their public presentations, books, and later, videos as a means of controlling who got the "real stuff".
> 
> I agree that it is a foolish and even dishonest for the many reasons stated above, but it absolutely _did_ (and still does) happen. I discovered this myself after doing "bai-si" and becoming a disciple of my old Chinese sifu. It is unfortunate, especially, because many who never trained closely with him have a very wrong idea of his skill and knowledge, and his many cheesy books and videos just perpetrate these errors and misconceptions!
> 
> WSL was said to be a man of (hopefully) greater integrity, but I have no reason to doubt that he may also have engaged in such practices.


It happened (and possibly still does) in some Japanese arts, as well, though from what I've heard not as ubiquitously. Your second paragraph is the key to me. There was a time in the past when there was a good reason for this. Now, especially with the media that preserves these inaccuracies, the "errors" can (and often will) eventually become canon in many arts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 20, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Of course you could test it and if it is silly change it.


If it is silly, it will be easy to spot. The issue is that these don't have to be silly. They can simply be leaving out better methods, or even giving answers that seem to make sense but don't actually help anyone comprehend the principles of a technique. And when people get into venerating some old master, they often accept everything that person says or does as being "the answer". No one person ever has "the answer", and that attitude is problematic for the growth and evolution of any art or style.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2016)

Honestly, if you trust your sifu, then I wouldn't worry about it and I wouldn't get too hung up, or even at all hung up, over what someone on the Internet might be saying.  And if you don't trust your sifu, then you need to find a different school.

It's a common practice: we've got the real teachings, and nobody else does.  Oh yeah, believe what you want, until you meet someone from one of those "lesser" schools who mops the floor with you. People can believe whatever it is that gives them a hard-on.

These politics can be sooooo tiresome, and they will NEVER be satisfied or resolved over the Internet.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> Honestly, if you trust your sifu, then I wouldn't worry about it and I wouldn't get too hung up, or even at all hung up, over what someone on the Internet might be saying.  And if you don't trust your sifu, then you need to find a different school.
> 
> It's a common practice: we've got the real teachings, and nobody else does.  Oh yeah, believe what you want, until you meet someone from one of those "lesser" schools who mops the floor with you. People can believe whatever it is that gives them a hard-on.
> 
> These politics can be sooooo tiresome, and they will NEVER be satisfied or resolved over the Internet.


I know and I have usually avoid your "typical" politics arguments such as simply "my Lineage better than yours pphhhhppppptt!"

Where I get annoyed is when someone makes a statement as "fact", verifiable sources are provided that contradict the validity of said "fact" and it's dismissed by simple mumbo jumbo like "oh that was an intentional misstatement... Yes over the course of his entire public career" or cherry picking singular statements out of context etc.  I think apparent intellectual dishonesty needs to be questioned.  If clarification is offered and it is shown to not be dishonest I apologise for my mistake, if they stick to their guns however it needs to be pointed out before moving on.


----------



## lansao (Dec 20, 2016)

It's an interesting, but not very scientific, approach. Newton screwed himself over with Leibniz on the Calculus for similarly unscientific reasons. He sent Leibniz a puzzle hinting/gloating at his discovery. Leibniz, having solved the puzzle, expanded on and published the finding before Newton did. In life, Newton had the last laugh because he was in a position of authority over Leibniz at the royal academy of science. In death, Leibniz had the last laugh because his approach and symbology became the accepted standard.

Moral of the story, this stuff all works itself out in the end and what's secret today is obvious and transparent tomorrow. Self defense and martial arts are no exception. Well maintained open source software benefits from community critique/development and tends to be more secure because it's security is not dependent on obscurity. Kung Fu is no different.

Open source Kung Fu is actually a project I'm working on (and hoping to draw collaboration from subject matter experts of different arts on).

~ Alan


----------



## drop bear (Dec 20, 2016)

lansao said:


> It's an interesting, but not very scientific, approach. Newton screwed himself over with Leibniz on the Calculus for similarly unscientific reasons. He sent Leibniz a puzzle hinting/gloating at his discovery. Leibniz, having solved the puzzle, expanded on and published the finding before Newton did. In life, Newton had the last laugh because he was in a position of authority over Leibniz at the royal academy of science. In death, Leibniz had the last laugh because his approach and symbology became the accepted standard.
> 
> Moral of the story, this stuff all works itself out in the end and what's secret today is obvious and transparent tomorrow. Self defense and martial arts are no exception. Well maintained open source software benefits from community critique/development and tends to be more secure because it's security is not dependent on obscurity. Kung Fu is no different.
> 
> ...



Isolation definitely retards a martial art.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

lansao said:


> It's an interesting, but not very scientific, approach. Newton screwed himself over with Leibniz on the Calculus for similarly unscientific reasons. He sent Leibniz a puzzle hinting/gloating at his discovery. Leibniz, having solved the puzzle, expanded on and published the finding before Newton did. In life, Newton had the last laugh because he was in a position of authority over Leibniz at the royal academy of science. In death, Leibniz had the last laugh because his approach and symbology became the accepted standard.
> 
> Moral of the story, this stuff all works itself out in the end and what's secret today is obvious and transparent tomorrow. Self defense and martial arts are no exception. Well maintained open source software benefits from community critique/development and tends to be more secure because it's security is not dependent on obscurity. Kung Fu is no different.
> 
> ...




If there was a love emote I would have used it.  I drive my wife nuts when I get home on occassion because there is one thing I bring home from work and there is nothing I can do to stop it.  I sum it up with the following 2 sentences

"What I 'know' doesn't matter.  All that matters is what I can prove."

When your wife asks for your opinion on some matter and your response is "sorry I don't have enough data to formulate one but when I do I will let you know..." Yeah.

Not surprising my Captain calls me "Sheldon."


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 20, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I know and I have usually avoid your "typical" politics arguments such as simply "my Lineage better than yours pphhhhppppptt!"
> 
> Where I get annoyed is when someone makes a statement as "fact", verifiable sources are provided that contradict the validity of said "fact" and it's dismissed by simple mumbo jumbo like "oh that was an intentional misstatement... Yes over the course of his entire public career" or cherry picking singular statements out of context etc.  I think apparent intellectual dishonesty needs to be questioned.  If clarification is offered and it is shown to not be dishonest I apologise for my mistake, if they stick to their guns however it needs to be pointed out before moving on.


What is said on martialtalk, or any and all other forums, isn't going to change the world.

Most people in the world can smell BS when it's shoved under their nose.  You don't have to be an expert to get that funny feeling, or to spot someone who is just a little too smug.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

lansao said:


> It's an interesting, but not very scientific, approach. Newton screwed himself over with Leibniz on the Calculus for similarly unscientific reasons. He sent Leibniz a puzzle hinting/gloating at his discovery. Leibniz, having solved the puzzle, expanded on and published the finding before Newton did. In life, Newton had the last laugh because he was in a position of authority over Leibniz at the royal academy of science. In death, Leibniz had the last laugh because his approach and symbology became the accepted standard.
> 
> Moral of the story, this stuff all works itself out in the end and what's secret today is obvious and transparent tomorrow. Self defense and martial arts are no exception. Well maintained open source software benefits from community critique/development and tends to be more secure because it's security is not dependent on obscurity. Kung Fu is no different.
> 
> ...


As a funny aside, since it is referenced....


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 20, 2016)

Flying Crane said:


> What is said on martialtalk, or any and all other forums, isn't going to change the world.
> 
> Most people in the world can smell BS when it's shoved under their nose.  You don't have to be an expert to get that funny feeling, or to spot someone who is just a little too smug.


Agreed.  It's admittedly a character flaw.  I can't turn "work mode" completely off and a couple things, like calling shenanigans, is one of em I guess.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Basically "oh I can explain that because the video has WSL adding an error intentionally to 'guard the method'.".



And that's the truth. Your favorite guy, DP, has said so before. Why don't you look at this thread from 2002. Obviously, I did not just make this up!

Posts from that thread;



> _Actually Dave Peterson knows the (I think it is 8) deliberate mistakes in the film. WSL was pressed into making the film grudgingly therefore he was not too happy and bothered about getting it all correct and deliberately did some thing wrong._



Another guy who trained a bit with WSL explained;



> _I remember a student from Germany asking several times about why this or that is different, compared to the video.
> Sifu shyly admitted that there where several mistakes and that, the video was not meant to be viewed as a bible, as so many people have tried to.
> 
> The first time he ever saw the video was when he was in Canada.
> ...



I think you can shut up about this now, as you have no idea what you are even talking about.



Juany118 said:


> It would make more sense to simply not address certain methods in the seminar.



That's exactly what he did! 

He often taught common WC ideas taught by the host sifus that invited him out, so as to avoid contradictions and causing embarrassment. He often simply did not show what he learned from YM. That's a fact!

Once again, you have NO IDEA what you're talking about here. So, just stop.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> the documented fact WSL worked to refine VT to better function with PB's amputation...



That is entirely your own fabrication!



Juany118 said:


> They answered that before and the short answer is "because that isn't what is passed down by PB.  Then you raise the fact that PB's own biography says...
> 
> 
> > After visits with various teachers, he found, in January 1983, Wong Shun Leung. Sifu Wong accepted the ambitious German than students in the traditional sense. He sat down seriously dealing with the problem of a missing hand and put the training in terms of it.



That quote does not say the VT system was refined or altered in any way whatsoever!

They first sat down to discuss his potential limitations, things that other lineages had previously turned him away for, but the only modification that was necessary was making an attachment tool so that he could hold the pole and knife on his arm. The VT system did not need to function in any other way.

PB's old training partners and sihings who started training with WSL in the 70's share the same understanding of VT.

Your implication is that they all learned a handicapped version of VT. This is excessively rude, insulting, and offensive!

You know absolutely nothing about WSLVT or the people in the lineage.

I don't know what your mission is here, but you need to stop.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Your implication is that they all learned a handicapped version of VT. This is excessively rude, insulting, and offensive!


You are the one referring to it as a "handicapped version". Whether Juany's assertion is accurate or not, he is only asserting that it is an adapted version, not an inferior one.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> You are the one referring to it as a "handicapped version". Whether Juany's assertion is accurate or not, he is only asserting that it is an adapted version, not an inferior one.



Precisely.  Simply because something is refined to deal with a physical difference doesn't make it inferior in the least and I just don't get why a couple people won't even consider the idea. 

The last time I checked people can only teach what they themselves have personally learned and put into practice.  It is a fact that WSL changed VT to account for PB's difference so that is what he learned and practiced.

Hell this idea should be seen as a tribute to the both of them but I suppose personal pride and wanting to preserve certain lines of argument are more important that looking at genuine possibilities.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Precisely.  Simply because something is refined to deal with a physical difference doesn't make it inferior in the least and I just don't get why a couple people won't even consider the idea.
> 
> The last time I checked people can only teach what they themselves have personally learned and put into practice.  It is a fact that WSL changed VT to account for PB's difference so that is what he learned and practiced.
> 
> Hell this idea should be seen as a tribute to the both of them but I suppose personal pride and wanting to preserve certain lines of argument are more important that looking at genuine possibilities.



You need to quit telling lies! 

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

The problem with looking at your "genuine possibilities" is that you have no clue what WSLVT is or what history and understanding various students of WSL have/had with it.

How do you think it is that WSL would have taught students before PB with all their appendages a version of VT modified for amputees?!

Is that not the stupidest idea ever??


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You need to quit telling lies!
> 
> You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
> 
> ...



He wouldn't have. After the former, PB would have had to adapt, so would have any Sifu teaching someone, or even just refining what was before. Perhaps you are ignorant of those partially disabled LFJ?


----------



## Callen (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It is a fact that WSL changed VT to account for PB's difference so that is what he learned and practiced.


It's important not to confuse adaptation with modification. WSLVT was never changed to fit Philipp Bayer's physical condition. Wong Shun Leung simply helped PB to adapt to the system that he was teaching. If there are any discrepancies in PB's WSLVT it's not because of what WSL taught him, it's because of PB himself.

PB trained with students like Gary Lam and Cliff Au Yeung during his time at the Hong Kong kwoon. Any of the first generation WSL students that trained with PB will tell you that they all did the same drills and worked the same VT core principals together.



LFJ said:


> He often simply did not show what he learned from YM. That's a fact!


As far as the original topic, it is well known in the WSLVT community that WSL kept his understanding of the system close. He chose when to share it, and who to share it with.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

Callen said:


> It's important not to confuse adaptation with modification. WSLVT was never changed to fit Philipp Bayer's physical condition. Wong Shun Leung simply helped PB to adapt to the system that he was teaching. If there are any discrepancies in PB's WSLVT it's not because of what WSL taught him, it's because of PB himself.
> 
> PB trained with students like Gary Lam and Cliff Au Yeung during his time at the Hong Kong kwoon. Any of the first generation WSL students that trained with PB will tell you that they all did the same drills and worked the same VT core principals together.
> 
> ...



A few things.  First, the quote I posted where it says that WSL adjusted the training for PB comes from the biography of PB on the web page of one of PB's own school so it is what it is imo.  As for adaptation vs modification I think that is really a matter of semantics.

As for doing the same drills, sure they did but if you are missing a hand there is obviously going to be some differences say with a lap sau or pak sau drill.  No one said the drills would not be done but obviously practical execution in a violent encounter is going to be different and the overall training regime needs to account for this.

An example is how Sifu Gary Lam teaches Chin Na, ambient only standing grappling as part of closing to hold and restrain the opponent so one can more efficiently strike.  This however is only practical if you have two functional hands.  So on the GL side you have grappling and then on the PB side when interviewed he says his WSLVT has no grappling.

In either case when they say they teach what WSL taught them they are speaking truth when we look logically at the big picture.  Unless of course we want to say PB got his own biography wrong.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> A few things.  First, the quote I posted where it says that WSL adjusted the training for PB



It doesn't say that! Why don't you contact PB and ask him directly if VT was adjusted for him?



> So on the GL side you have grappling and then on the PB side when interviewed he says his WSLVT has no grappling.



GL has openly changed the system and no longer even uses the VT spelling!

You need to quit googling info on a system you know absolutely nothing about, quit lying about people you don't know, and ask these people yourself if you won't take my word for it.

Either way your BS is getting old.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> As for adaptation vs modification I think that is really a matter of semantics.



It's not. 

Modification is changing the system for the practitioner. 

Adaptation is the practitioner working from their own strengths and weaknesses within the system as is. 

VT can accommodate a variety of physical conditions without modification.

This has been explained to you before. To continue to suggest PB can't learn unmodified VT is ignorant and insulting.


----------



## geezer (Dec 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> GL ...no longer even uses the VT spelling!



What does spelling have to do with anything? Many branches of Yip Man Ving Tsun use the VT spelling since it was the spelling used by GM Yip. Others use WC, WT, and other variations. In other words, "VT" isn't a trademark of the WSL branch. Just to be clear.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> To continue to suggest PB can't learn unmodified VT is ignorant and insulting.


There's nothing insulting about noting that an arm missing a hand is slightly shorter and has less mass at the extremity. That's just a clear, objective observation. Nobody here has insulted any of the subjects of the discussion. It's possible PB was able to adapt the style to his strengths (yep, there are some technical advantages to that limb, as well) and around his weaknesses. We all do a bit of that (or should, anyway). It's also possible WSL did some of that adaptation, teaching an approach that better fit those strengths and weaknesses. And this is where I get frustrated about you calling all of that insulting, because I would be in no way surprised if the process they went through to make that happen produced some understanding and adaptation that turned out to be useful, regardless of how many hands you have. So, it may be that other students of WSL from that point on learned a better version (or at least from a better version of their instructor) because of the work WSL did with PB.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> There's nothing insulting about noting that an arm missing a hand is slightly shorter and has less mass at the extremity. That's just a clear, objective observation. Nobody here has insulted any of the subjects of the discussion. It's possible PB was able to adapt the style to his strengths (yep, there are some technical advantages to that limb, as well) and around his weaknesses. We all do a bit of that (or should, anyway). It's also possible WSL did some of that adaptation, teaching an approach that better fit those strengths and weaknesses. And this is where I get frustrated about you calling all of that insulting, because I would be in no way surprised if the process they went through to make that happen produced some understanding and adaptation that turned out to be useful, regardless of how many hands you have. So, it may be that other students of WSL from that point on learned a better version (or at least from a better version of their instructor) because of the work WSL did with PB.


I really don't see why the above is an issue.  It also fits in with Occam's Razor.  Here are facts we know.
1. There are differences between what various first gen WSL students teach, this includes PB.  
2. PB has stated in his interviews that his VT completely lacks some of what other WSL students include.
3. PB in his biography on the website of one of his own organizations states that WSL 





> After visits with various teachers, he found, in January 1983, Wong Shun Leung. Sifu Wong accepted the ambitious German than students in the traditional sense. He sat down seriously dealing with the problem of a missing hand and put the training in terms of it.



The last fact can easily explain the differences and is something supported by some level of proof and is the simplest answer to boot.

On the other hand the idea that WSL was intentionally deceptive and that PB was one of the few he revealed the "truths" to is only supported by what amounts to legend steeped in dogma.  It almost requires suspension of disbelief to accept this answer.

The sad thing is the simpler answer doesn't take away from WSL or PB, it actually adds to them.  You have a master who was tenacious enough to accept a student others had turned away and was skilled enough to make work what the others feared they would fail at and you have a student who was strong enough that he did not allow being turned away time an again to stop him.  Instead of giving up and staying in Germany he traveled halfway around the world to succeed and has done so admirably for over 30 years now.  Some people however saddly want to be able to say their method is inherently superior and others are incoherent and/or broken and the above truly inspiring history is cast aside for a story of superiority founded in dogma.


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 21, 2016)

Seriously guys, this is all spiraling down the same porcelain porthole where all the other discussions end up.

Might be best if some people just don't engage with each other.


----------



## Callen (Dec 21, 2016)

All good points! There seem to be several different ideas being discussed. Here are my thoughts...



Juany118 said:


> First, the quote I posted where it says that WSL adjusted the training for PB comes from the biography of PB on the web page of one of PB's own school so it is what it is imo. As for adaptation vs modification I think that is really a matter of semantics.


Indeed that info is posted on his site. As a WSLVT practitioner I'm just doing my part to help inform others that may not be as familiar with the lineage and it's proponents. I'm in no way challenging you as an individual, I'm just clarifying that the quote you mentioned does not mean that WSL changed his VT for Philipp Bayer. The takeaway is that WSL helped Bayer to adapt and adjusted the way he trained.

As far as semantics, sometimes the words we use to explain a situation are important. In this case, the difference of the definition between adapt and modify are paramount to the understanding of how WSL did not in fact change the system for Bayer. No part of the WSLVT core was modified. WSL adjusted the training for Bayer, and in-turn Bayer adapted because of his missing hand.



Juany118 said:


> As for doing the same drills, sure they did but if you are missing a hand there is obviously going to be some differences say with a lap sau or pak sau drill.


Yes! Very true. If WSL changed the system (as in core principals of VT) for Bayer, then he wouldn't be able to train and drill effectively with his WSLVT brothers.



Juany118 said:


> An example is how Sifu Gary Lam teaches Chin Na, ambient only standing grappling as part of closing to hold and restrain the opponent so one can more efficiently strike. This however is only practical if you have two functional hands. So on the GL side you have grappling and then on the PB side when interviewed he says his WSLVT has no grappling.


Fair assessment. It's also important to note that Gary Lam, like other first generation WSL students, has created his own method of teaching. He incorporates additional concepts that reinforce the WSLVT core. While Sifu Lam likes to incorporate wrist locks into his own Wing Chun, there officially isn't any Chin Na in his curriculum.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You need to quit telling lies!
> 
> You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.
> 
> ...



So it's a lie that the PB organization published this...



> After visits with various teachers, he found, in January 1983, Wong Shun Leung. Sifu Wong accepted the ambitious German than students in the traditional sense. He sat down seriously dealing with the problem of a missing hand and put the training in terms of it.


Philipp Bayer

It's a lie that the above is consistent with the biological fact that some techniques have to be prioritized over others as some require an actual intact hand (bil sau strikes, palm strikes) or the standing Chin Na grappling other first gen WSL students teach?

You may disagree with my train of thought that begins with the quote above but to call me a liar is simply unsupportable and imo an act of desperation because all you can do at the moment is respond with fiat statements that twist my point into something unrecognizable.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

Callen said:


> All good points! There seem to be several different ideas being discussed. Here are my thoughts...
> 
> 
> Indeed that info is posted on his site. As a WSLVT practitioner I'm just doing my part to help inform others that may not be as familiar with the lineage and it's proponents. I'm in no way challenging you as an individual, I'm just clarifying that the quote you mentioned does not mean that WSL changed his VT for Philipp Bayer. The takeaway is that WSL helped Bayer to adapt and adjusted the way he trained.
> ...



First let me simply clarify, I am not saying that WSL changed the core precepts of WSLVT for PB. Note I see precepts/principles as one thing and then method as the way to execute said principles. I only mean that he looked at the methods and said "okay, this will work for him, this not so much, so let's focus on what will really work well."  Then you run into the fact that when one later becomes a teacher themselves how and what they teach is informed a great deal by how they were taught themselves.



> Fair assessment. It's also important to note that Gary Lam, like other first generation WSL students, has created his own method of teaching. He incorporates additional concepts that reinforce the WSLVT core. While Sifu Lam likes to incorporate wrist locks into his own Wing Chun, there officially isn't any Chin Na in his curriculum.



This prompted me doing some digging. When I studied WSLVT it was under a student of Sifu Gary and I was taught the locks so I assumed it was part of the curriculum.  Here is what GARY LAM WING CHUN - AN INTRODUCTION says regarding the 5 main branches of training empty handed combat...


> _Crossing hand - Striking techniques_
> _Closing - Standing grappling_
> _Footwork - Kicking and leg destruction_
> _Pushing - One and two handed projections_
> _Pulling - Outside, inside and turning projections_



So at least now, and when I studied, it was officially part of the curriculum.  If it always was I can't say with authority.  I'll see if I can ask my old Sifu though.  As for including his own things, I am sure he did.  Some questions that need to be asked though are "where does WSL end and the student's own influence begin" and since most (if not all) of WSL's students have done this is it not a bit off to then turn and say "but PB didn't, that is the pure vision of WSL."?  

In order to avoid that discussion it seems some have decided to take "WSL closely guarded the method" and twisted it from a point of interesting intellectual discussion into a cop out


----------



## Callen (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> First let me simply clarify, I am not saying that WSL substantially changed the core precepts of WSLVT for PB. Only that he looked at it and said "okay, this will work for him, this not so much, so let's focus on what will really work well." Then you run into the fact that when one later becomes a teacher themselves how and what they teach is informed a great deal by how they were taught themselves.


I get what you're saying, and I agree that what teachers show others is influenced by how they were taught. One of the traits of a good Wing Chun teacher/coach is to find out what drills or training methods work best for which students, and to implement those methods to effectively help them grow. The training itself isn't the system, it's only a means to understand the system.



Juany118 said:


> So at least now, and when I studied, it was officially part of the curriculum. If it always was I can't say with authority. I'll see if I can ask my old Sifu though.


All good. You're mostly referring to "Closing". It's within Level One - Crossing Hands. While Chin Na is not specifically listed in the curriculum, you're right in that "Closing" includes concepts similar to Chin Na.


----------



## Callen (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> In order to avoid that discussion it seems some have decided to take "WSL closely guarded the method" and twisted it from a point of interesting intellectual discussion into a cop out


I can only speak to the fact that in the WSLVT community, it's well known that WSL guarded his knowledge of the system.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

Callen said:


> I can only speak to the fact that in the WSLVT community, it's well known that WSL guarded his knowledge of the system.


My point is the "place" of such an allegation.  Virtually every time something WSL is shown doing is different than what certain people have been taught the "guarded knowledge" trope is virtually a reflex response.  Example, chi sau has many purposes but every to lineage I know of has one of those purposes being to acquire touch sensitivity.  Some people denied this was part of WSLVT globally, not just via PB.  I found a video of WSL where what they spoke of was mentioned but sensitivity was also mentioned... Immediately "that was an intentional error" was mentioned.  In short they don't have to actually prove their point, they can simply say "intentional error" everytime something they learned is different than something WSL is shown to have said publically.  This is the issue I have


----------



## Hazardi172 (Dec 21, 2016)

Callen said:


> One of the traits of a good Wing Chun teacher/coach is to find out what drills or training methods work best for which students, and to implement those methods to effectively help them grow. The training itself isn't the system, it's only a means to understand the system.



Correct. Some students need a different path, but the system is the same. 



> You're mostly referring to "Closing". It's within Level One - Crossing Hands. While Chin Na is not specifically listed in the curriculum, you're right in that "Closing" includes concepts similar to Chin Na.



Am I correct in assuming that Gary Lam added parts to his curriculum which were in addition to what WSL taught?


----------



## Hazardi172 (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> So it's a lie that the PB organization published this...
> 
> 
> Philipp Bayer
> ...



"Puting the training in terms of the missing hand" in this case means adding attachments which allow the holding of poles and knives. There is not anything more to it than this.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 21, 2016)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I'll call that "cheating".
> 
> My teacher won't teach me any counters for his favor technique "leg twisting". At least he would be honest to let me know. He won't teach me any wrong counter that won't work.
> 
> ...


I agree with this.  Not telling is one thing, intentionally misleading is something thing different.  Some things are purposely not taught because the teacher wants it to be part of the student's learning process that helps them to gain a better understanding of the system.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

Hazardi172 said:


> "Puting the training in terms of the missing hand" in this case means adding attachments which allow the holding of poles and knives. There is not anything more to it than this.


It also meant according to other interviews, addressing what I noted above, a deemphasis on specific methods that require the use of an open hand as you are supposed to be able to use the left and right with equal ability.  It would also even require minor alterations to the use of the swords and pole as well as the lack of the hand means that the wrist action isn't quite what it would be.

As Callen stated by good teacher will teach a student, within the overall principles of the topic, to their strengths and weaknesses.  He also point Ed out how virtually all of WSLs students made VT there own to an extent.  It beggars logic when we know everything we do about PB to not say PB made certain things his own, in all cases adhering to the core principles of VT.

I really don't understand why this is so bloody controversial and find something else a little suspicious but will withhold that for another time.


----------



## Hazardi172 (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> It also meant according to other interviews, addressing what I noted above, a deemphasis on specific methods that require the use of an open hand as you are supposed to be able to use the left and right with equal ability.



Do you have links to these other interviews? I would be interested to read them, as this understanding contradicts that which I have encountered before



> It would also even require minor alterations to the use of the swords and pole as well as the lack of the hand means that the wrist action isn't quite what it would be



It is quite possible to make the pole actions without a hand. Better even, since it eliminates distration. Why do you think that wrist action on the swords would be beyond the wit of man to overcome?



> As Callen stated by good teacher will teach a student, within the overall principles of the topic, to their strengths and weaknesses.



Please show me where Callen said this, I cannot see it above.

I do see a part where Callen says this:



			
				Callen said:
			
		

> Indeed that info is posted on his site. As a WSLVT practitioner I'm just doing my part to help inform others that may not be as familiar with the lineage and it's proponents. I'm in no way challenging you as an individual, I'm just clarifying that the quote you mentioned does not mean that WSL changed his VT for Philipp Bayer. The takeaway is that WSL helped Bayer to adapt and adjusted the way he trained.
> 
> As far as semantics, sometimes the words we use to explain a situation are important. In this case, the difference of the definition between adapt and modify are paramount to the understanding of how WSL did not in fact change the system for Bayer. No part of the WSLVT core was modified. WSL adjusted the training for Bayer, and in-turn Bayer adapted because of his missing hand.



You then attempt to frame this statement in terms of teaching to strengths and weaknesses. But I don't think Callen said it anywhere? In fact it appears to be a direct conradiction of what you claim above. Please correct me if I am wrong.



> He also point Ed out how virtually all of WSLs students made VT there own to an extent.  It beggars logic when we know everything we do about PB to not say PB made certain things his own, in all cases adhering to the core principles of VT.



Again I don't think Callen says this (although not sure why Callen is your go-to authority on all things WSL, when you refuse to acknowledge what others from that lineage have told you). What Callen actually says is this:



			
				Callen said:
			
		

> It's also important to note that Gary Lam, like other first generation WSL students, has created his own method of teaching. He incorporates additional concepts that reinforce the WSLVT core. While Sifu Lam likes to incorporate wrist locks into his own Wing Chun, there officially isn't any Chin Na in his curriculum



It is true that some other 1st gen students of WSL have created their own teaching methodology. WKL would be another good example in addition to GL. But not all of them have done this and many (probably more) follow exactly the methodology of WSL. There is nothing wrong in what GL and WKL have done. And there is nothing wrong in following WSL's methodology (as PB has done).


----------



## Hazardi172 (Dec 21, 2016)

JowGaWolf said:


> I agree with this.  Not telling is one thing, intentionally misleading is something thing different.  Some things are purposely not taught because the teacher wants it to be part of the student's learning process that helps them to gain a better understanding of the system.



A video is not teaching, it is promotion


----------



## Hazardi172 (Dec 21, 2016)

geezer said:


> What does spelling have to do with anything? Many branches of Yip Man Ving Tsun use the VT spelling since it was the spelling used by GM Yip. Others use WC, WT, and other variations. In other words, "VT" isn't a trademark of the WSL branch. Just to be clear.



It signifies his changing of the teaching method


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I really don't see why the above is an issue.  It also fits in with Occam's Razor.  Here are facts we know...
> ...The last fact can easily explain the differences and is something supported by some level of proof and is the simplest answer to boot.



The issue is that you're making an _uneducated guess_!



Juany118 said:


> So it's a lie that the PB organization published this...



It's a lie to keep reading into it whatever you want after it has been explained to you!

To continue to say PB couldn't learn unmodified VT is insulting. 

The first time you made the assumption maybe not, but after it has been explained to you that VT can accommodate his condition without modification, to continue to say he couldn't have learned unmodified VT is a lie and an insult.



Juany118 said:


> I only mean that he looked at the methods and said "okay, this will work for him, this not so much, so let's focus on what will really work well."  Then you run into the fact that when one later becomes a teacher themselves how and what they teach is informed a great deal by how they were taught themselves.



You are guessing and are wrong! Others started years before him and learned and teach the same thing.



> This prompted me doing some digging.





> Some questions that need to be asked though are "where does WSL end and the student's own influence begin"



Why don't you get off Google, stop trying to answer questions with "Occam's Razor", and waddle yourself into some of these schools, actually learn what they teach so you know what you're comparing, and ASK THEM this question personally!



Juany118 said:


> It also meant according to other interviews, addressing what I noted above, a deemphasis on specific methods that require the use of an open hand as you are supposed to be able to use the left and right with equal ability.  It would also even require minor alterations to the use of the swords and pole as well as the lack of the hand means that the wrist action isn't quite what it would be.



Whatever the interview, I'm sure it will be another case of you reading whatever you want into it, without evening knowing what WSLVT is in the first place!

There are no alterations to the knife and pole work. His attachments work just fine. You don't know the first thing about the weapons to even comment!


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 21, 2016)

Hazardi172 said:


> A video is not teaching, it is promotion


I was only referring to a teacher not teaching everything because I know my Sifu didn't teach me everything.  Some of the things I learned on my because I really explored the technique. I had successes and failures but I learned from them and became more aware of the body mechanics involved.  When I went back to my teacher and verified, he was happy that I was finally able to decode and translates the multiple applications that a technique had.   As for a video I'm not sure about it not being teaching.  It's not live teaching but it is an educational resource that is usually directed to someone who wants to learn (a student).

*But to your comment*
If I make a Jow Ga Video showing how to do a basic wheel punch and I was detailed about how to do it, the risks, the weaknesses, the opportunities, etc.  If you are my online student and you send me a video of you doing the wheel punch then I can analyze it and point out corrections that need to be made, and I can refer to the original video that I made to explain why what you did was wrong?  Would that be teaching? If I do almost everything that I would do in person (demonstrate, correct, review, interacted, assist) then would that be teaching?

A video by itself wouldn't be teaching.  It would just be a reference from which people can learn, similar to books.


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 21, 2016)

It always seemed like you guys are only PB.. but who are the other WSL guys you respect? Just curious. 

Wouldn't be surprised about guarding the method, seemed like a common thing that happened, just usually its Ip man who's the one who did it in stories.

So there is" who did Ip teach the real stuff".. then "who did WSL teach the real stuff".. and now I guess its "who did PB teach the real stuff too?"

This is the reason why I like Alan. He just teaches you without holding back information. No bs. Just train hard to master what you have learned. My first Sifu seemed to pick up or just copy that whole " only private students get the good stuff" mentality.. and all his students had completely different levels of skill because the information wasn't distributed properly, then you get other students holding back on each other so they stay better than the rest because they happened to get better tuition one day. 

Guy b and LFJ do talk alot of **** but I do think WSLVT prob has one of the highest standards in Ip Man WC. 

But we are supposed to be martial artists who go out and test our skills, but no one will ever meet up to settle this in person. A martial talk wing chun fight tournament is what will solve all these problems


----------



## lansao (Dec 21, 2016)

I'd like to offer the following:

Regardless of which branch we come from, we're not very far from the core collective of great masters that inspired the development of what we practice. We're all family here. Maybe not biologically, but in the literal sense of what the word Sifu means. Particularly in the context of fatherhood (師父/师父).

With that, I want to recommend using Sifu ahead of the names of those who train others as a reminder of the fatherly (or motherly e.g. Simo) role they play.

Sifu Leung seemed like a very charismatic teacher from videos of him that I've seen. That said, I never met him or benefited from studying with him.

Sifu Bayer seems like a very charismatic and energetic teacher from videos of him that I've seen. Again, never having met him in person or studied with him I will assume that the level of insight I can glean into his understanding of the art is about the same others have gleaned into my Sifu's via public online videos (e.g. not much).

I haven't seen Sifu Lam videos but regardless of that fact I respect him as I would a family member.

I would love to see us acknowledge each other's Sifus as we would each other's fathers. That said, I imagine every few threads someone posts a similar appeal and comes across as a "more holy than thou" jerk face. Key takeaway, sh**-talking directed at Sifus likely draws a similar response to that of sh**-talking directed at fathers.

@Juany118, I respect your thoughts and think you mean well here. That said, I think you're walking a fine line when referencing an important part of @LFJ's family. I think it's fair to stand down and redirect focus. What do you think are the benefits, in the age of the internet, of any Sifu of any lineage "guarding the method?"

@LFJ, I know absolutely nothing about Sifu Bayer, nothing about Sifu Leung's legacy, and won't pretend to here. That said, you take defense of them both regularly here, and in doing so (and respecting that words suck), become representative of them and the culture they encourage in the court of perception. With that, your comments can sometimes come across as elitist. It's not explicit, but implied in the way you phrase certain things. If you don't mean to come across this way, moving forward, I'll apply a "that must be a typo" filter to the stuff you write and just focus on the core analytical message. @Juany118, I'd recommend the same for you. So, in a similar redirection, do you think there is any value in concealing methods/understanding in the age of the internet?

~ Alan


----------



## lansao (Dec 21, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> It always seemed like you guys are only PB.. but who are the other WSL guys you respect? Just curious.
> 
> Wouldn't be surprised about guarding the method, seemed like a common thing that happened, just usually its Ip man who's the one who did it in stories.
> 
> ...


You know, that's a great approach. Mathematicians benefit greatly from studying under great mathematicians, but the materials are all openly accessible. In that way, mathematics has grown. Musicians benefit greatly from studying under great musicians, but the materials are all openly accessible. In that way, music and musicianship has grown. Having access to a fully transparent index of knowledge alone does not make you a great practitioner. You need to practice, and preferably under the instruction of someone who's been on the road before you.

I really love this article on the "Hidden Secrets of Wing Chun." I feel like he really hits the nail on the head although I imagine there may be more reasons for concealing the art than what he mentions.

Hidden Secrets of Wing Chun | Hypnotherapy & Certification, Holistic Psychiatry, Medical at Masters-Center BodySmart Wellness

As for the Martial Talk Wing Chun fight tournament, not sure it would help anyone get to work in one piece. That said, a sponsored convention might be interesting. Maybe even a video conference to help us demonstrate versus type.

~ Alan


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

Hazardi172 said:


> Do you have links to these other interviews? I would be interested to read them, as this understanding contradicts that which I have encountered before


 I'll have to dig when I get the chance.




> It is quite possible to make the pole actions without a hand. Better even, since it eliminates distration. Why do you think that wrist action on the swords would be beyond the wit of man to overcome?



Sorry but the first part makes no sense.  You need to connect to the pole, to feel it's weight and orientation to, as corny as it sounds, make it an extension of yourself.  This requires a hand or prosthetic.

Following that Biomechanics are what they are.  More than a few of the movements in the form require wrist movements to achieve certain angles.  Now you can adapt your personal method to minimize the need for such movements.  So yes wit is indeed used in the adaptation. 



> Please show me where Callen said this, I cannot see it above... You then attempt to frame this statement in terms of teaching to strengths and weaknesses. But I don't think Callen said it anywhere? In fact it appears to be a direct conradiction of what you claim above. Please correct me if I am wrong.





Callen said:


> I get what you're saying, and I agree that what teachers show others is influenced by how they were taught. One of the traits of a good Wing Chun teacher/coach is to find out what drills or training methods work best for which students, and to implement those methods to effectively help them grow.



My first career path was teaching.  The "best" way to teach an individual students is to, while maintaining the core principles/material, seeing the student's strength and weaknesses and taking this into account when teaching.  In this case it would be looking at the missing hand and simply saying, again while maintaining the core principles of WSLVT "these methods will work perfectly fine, these need a little tweeking and these might not work well at all." It's not changing WSLVT in the least, it's simply adapting the instruction so the student can still excel.

Using an example from teaching History wouldn't work (my personal teaching experience) but I will give one I see every week in Martial Arts.  My current school teaches TWC and Kali.  One of the members of the school has a form of cerebral palsy known as Spastic diplegia.  It primarily effects his left leg but the stiffness doesn't simply have the left hip and knee with limited movement but the left foot is permanently in a severe "pigeon toed" position.  

Now this of course limits mobility a bit, but with the tight footwork of WC it isn't as bad as it would be with other arts.  His kicking is more effected because of the limited hip movement of course but if you were to just watch his upper body move you would think you were watching a dancer, the way he flows in that manner is impressive..  A large reason for this is because when the rest of the class is performing drills that he would not be able to perform, Sifu or one of his assistants will partner with him for other drills.  Again the principles of neither art have been changed, Sifu simply sees the limits that the student has and focuses on the drills that are minimally effected (if at all) by the disease or that can help with the disease itself as he has done research into the various types of physical therapy that benefit the condition.  All of this so the student in question maximizes his application of the principles of TWC and Kali, the arts themselves have not been altered, the teaching of the art has simply been tailored within the already established boundaries.

The above is actually why I was personally offended when someone thought I was being disparaging about someone having a physical difference.  I would never be disparaging towards one of my fellow students and by extension WSL.      




> Again I don't think Callen says this (although not sure why Callen is your go-to authority on all things WSL, when you refuse to acknowledge what others from that lineage have told you).



Odd you know so much about what others have posted when you joined but today and only posted for the first time 3 hours ago.  That said if you actually look at Callen's posts, we do have some points where we are not precisely on the same page BUT when he responds it has substance.  It is simply someone who, in essence, is simply doing the martial arts equivalence of a catechism. 



> It is true that some other 1st gen students of WSL have created their own teaching methodology. WKL would be another good example in addition to GL. But not all of them have done this and many (probably more) follow exactly the methodology of WSL. There is nothing wrong in what GL and WKL have done. And there is nothing wrong in following WSL's methodology (as PB has done).



But the problem is this the idea that PB is teaching the "pure" version of WSLVT ignores the reality of his physical issue, as illustrated repeatedly, and the differences between himself and other first gen students.  As an example more than once WSL stated that one of the purposes of chi sau is to learn sensitivity to the movements of the opponent so that "...You begin to feel a pattern in your opponent’s movements, allowing you to sense the proper angle of attack...", that "...the highest achievement wing chun is to be able to allow your opponent to guide you into the exact method of attacking and defeating him."  The feel is important because touch allows for faster reaction.  Tests have shown that processing visual stimulus takes 250ms where as touch stimulus takes 150ms.  It's simple science.   

Now two of main proponents of PB here say that it's only about "setting up" and "baiting" your opponent as if the two concepts are mutually exclusive and that the idea that chi sau is about feeling the openings is simply repeated misinformation.  Thing is they arent mutually exclusive and in a real fight you want to feel and flow as well because while one of the goals of course is to use tactics that bait and set your opponent up, you can never rely on the fact that your opponent will "take the bait" and so being able to flow and strike where your opponent is vulnerable is an equally vital skill.  So logic dictates one of the following.

1. When WSL said a quote I posted in an older thread (and summarized above) about you never being able to completely control your opponents actions you need to be able to flow and let them show you where to strike he was speaking a truth anyone who has been in a real fight, especially against other styles, knows.
    a. if 1 is true then those who say the above is misinformation are wrong.  This then leads to another question.  Is this a misunderstanding of PB teaching on their part or has PB changed something as others changed things?

2. It was misinformation BUT then this also raises a few questions.
    a. how could someone with as much reported real fighting experience not realize you can never truly control the actions of every opponent regardless of the amount of "baiting" and "setting up" and that's where being sensitive and capable of flowing through the small gaps you feel with that sensitivity comes in?


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

lansao said:


> @Juany118, I respect your thoughts and think you mean well here. That said, I think you're walking a fine line when referencing an important part of @LFJ's family. I think it's fair to stand down and redirect focus. What do you think are the benefits, in the age of the internet, of any Sifu of any lineage "guarding the method?"
> 
> ~ Alan



I hope my more detailed explanation above (sorry if it appears to be a wall of text) and the anecdote of my classmate and the disease he suffers from, while still succeeding, will make clear nothing I am saying here has anything to do about disparaging anyone in any family.  Heck my mantra here more than once has been a qualifier "this is not meant to say that WSLVT or PB are lesser than any other lineage".  The only point is to say that WSL can say or demonstrate something that may appear different from what PB may teach and

1. not have it be misinformation to guard the system and
2. PB could still honestly say "I teach what I was taught by WSL" while maintaining the core principles of WSLVT if the WSL demonstration appears to be inconsistent.  
3. You can say "I teach what I was taught by <insert sifu> if you make it your own in certain ways.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 21, 2016)

lansao said:


> We're all family here. Maybe not biologically, but in the literal sense of what the word Sifu means. Particularly in the context of fatherhood (師父/师父).
> 
> With that, I want to recommend using Sifu ahead of the names of those who train others as a reminder of the fatherly (or motherly e.g. Simo) role they play.



We belong to different CLUBS which are part of different organisations. I've been in MA situations before Wing Chun that abused the concept of "family". I have two brothers. No one on here is a relative. When I see "Kung fu family", I think "Manson Family".

I ain't calling anyone "Sifu" that I don't know personally. I know some very highly ranked Kung Fu instructors and call them all by their first name. 



lansao said:


> I would love to see us acknowledge each other's Sifus as we would each other's fathers.



Sorry to disappoint. I've completed my instructor's grading system and helped bring a number of students up to instructor level. I'm older than some of the guys you suggest I treat like father figures.

I would be within my rights to request to be called "Sifu", "Sigung" or "Professor" in some circles. By your standards, I could demand it of you on here. But I'd give myself a savage uppercut if I ever caught myself doing that.

It's nearly 2017. Not 1850. Come on.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> As an example more than once WSL stated that one of the purposes of chi sau is to learn sensitivity to the movements of the opponent so that "...You begin to feel a pattern in your opponent’s movements, allowing you to sense the proper angle of attack...", that "...the highest achievement wing chun is to be able to allow your opponent to guide you into the exact method of attacking and defeating him."



Those are not his own words, and you don't even understand what it's saying.

Sensing the proper angle of attack and allowing your opponent to guide your attacks has nothing to do with tactile sensitivity!

WSL said any tactile sensitivity is a byproduct of training from contact, but is not the goal. In fighting, there is no such pre- or prolonged arm contact! Focusing on sticking and feeling is a waste of time!

In free fighting, you take what comes, take the flank that's given, the opponent's actions guide your attack in this sense.

Do yourself a favor and stop googling and guessing. Make your way into a WSLVT school where the full system is intact and unchanged and learn it directly.

Until you do so, you will continue to have no idea what you're talking about!


----------



## geezer (Dec 21, 2016)

anerlich said:


> .....I'd give myself a savage uppercut if I ever caught myself doing that.



Put that on video and you will get a lot of views!


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The only point is to say that WSL can say or demonstrate something that may appear different from what PB may teach and
> 
> 1. not have it be misinformation to guard the system and
> 2. PB could still honestly say "I teach what I was taught by WSL" while maintaining the core principles of WSLVT.



You don't know what WSL taught or what PB teaches.... So, just stop.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The above is actually why I was personally offended when someone thought I was being disparaging about someone having a physical difference.  I would never be disparaging towards one of my fellow students and by extension WSL.



If you continue to suggest PB can't learn unmodified VT, you are being disparaging.

Maybe he can't learn TWC, because you need both hands to chase the opponent's arm. But YMVT doesn't function that way.



> As an example more than once WSL stated that one of the purposes of chi sau is to learn sensitivity to the movements of the opponent so that "...You begin to feel a pattern in your opponent’s movements, allowing you to sense the proper angle of attack...", that "...the highest achievement wing chun is to be able to allow your opponent to guide you into the exact method of attacking and defeating him."



By the way, you deleted the quotation marks on "feel". Another doctoring of quotes not even from WSL to make it say what you want it to say.

The above has nothing to do with tactile sensation. You also omitted the line just before it that says _chi-sau_ practice also teaches strategy.

The strategy is abstract. Tactics do not include standing directly in front of the opponent and feeling their arms!


----------



## dudewingchun (Dec 21, 2016)

Imo the sensitivity really does help for gripfighting in no-gi bjj and in gi to some degree. But in no-gi people find it annoying grip fighting with me because they are just unaware of different movement.


----------



## geezer (Dec 21, 2016)

LFJ said:


> You don't know what WSL taught or what PB teaches.... So, just stop.



I must agree, and say that this thread has me a bit confused. I have on many occasions differed with your assessment of_ other _YM VT/WC/WT, but I would not presume to dispute your understanding of _your own lineage_ (of which I know nothing). Why others continue to do so is... a bit odd. Probably best to "disengage" and move on. Nothing productive can come of continuing along this line.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

Hazardi172 said:


> It signifies his changing of the teaching method



The Ving Tsun Athletic Association was formally established under YM in 1967  Origin 

WSL officially opened his first school in 1969.  However I think Leung Ting trademarked WingTsun (the lack of spacing is not an error) to differentiate his version. That is largely for western consumption though because the Chinese characters are the same.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 21, 2016)

geezer said:


> I must agree, and say that this thread has me a bit confused. I have on many occasions differed with your assessment of_ other _YM VT/WC/WT, but I would not presume to dispute your understanding of _your own lineage_ (of which I know nothing). Why others continue to do so is... a bit odd. Probably best to "disengage" and move on. Nothing productive can come of continuing along this line.



The only reason I am is because I too am confused.  I studied under a direct student of Sifu Gary Lam for a time.  I know Sifu Gary added a bit of himself to what WSL taught him but its not like he created a completely different Lineage and there are some differences, such as his method of closing, using grappling techniques similar to Chin Na.

Then we have some of PB's own students here saying that any differences are attributed to misunderstanding or lack of complete teaching (DP) or modification (Sifu Gary) yes PB's own organization states on there own web site that WSL worked hard with him to adapt certain things where other Masters said "give up".

Now all of this made me ask myself "hey Sifu Gary teaches his thing, yet was a first gen student of WSL, maybe some of these differences are about what is noted on PB's web site, rather than a "oh that must be something he added.  In this way both can honestly say "I learned from WSL and teach what he taught me" and be telling the truth even if certain things are different without alteration after the fact being the cause.

The above distills my wall of texts.  Both can be perfectly valid and correct translations of the teachings of WSL while they have some few differences.  Thats it.  However its attacked as if I am saying that PB is somehow teaching a broken form of WSLVT, which could NOT be further from the truth.  If the idea that PB is the only one to teach the unadulterated WSLVT had never been broached this line of thinking would never even have come to mind tbh.


Look at it outside the MA concept for a minute (as that brings a lot of baggage) and lets look at military history.  Patton, McArthur and Bradley all went to Westpoint within the same time frame (roughly) 1903, 1899 and 1911 respectively and so shared many instructors and if not the same instructors the same pre combined arms school of strategy but their styles of command, strategy and tactics were very different and the study of why is of great interest (at least to a history geek like me.)


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

lansao said:


> What do you think are the benefits, in the age of the internet, of any Sifu of any lineage "guarding the method?"



People have taken incomplete concepts and gone on to teach, often dishonestly, cheating people out of proper learning, not to mention time and money. Other people are irresponsible and/or foolish and ruin the method. Not feeding the parasites protects the host and those who wish to seek it out.



> your comments can sometimes come across as elitist. It's not explicit, but implied in the way you phrase certain things.



Can you quote what you find elitist? Pretty sure I have just been stating facts. I'm not saying superior or inferior.

Some people differ because they have openly made changes. Nothing wrong with that. That's their business.

Others differ because they lack a complete view of the system. It is what it is, and where this is the case I have given thorough explanations as to why their view is limited. It's purely technical, nothing personal or elitist.

When it comes down to technical analysis, this is where people like Juany drop out, because they don't know what they're talking about, and are here to argue for who knows what purpose.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 21, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> The Ving Tsun Athletic Association was formally established under YM in 1967  Origin
> 
> WSL officially opened his first school in 1969.  However I think Leung Ting trademarked WingTsun (the lack of spacing is not an error) to differentiate his version. That is largely for western consumption though because the Chinese characters are the same.



What does that have to do with GL changing the VT spelling used by WSL back to WC to signify change to his own GLWC system?



Juany118 said:


> The only reason I am is because I too am confused.  I studied under a direct student of Sifu Gary Lam for a time.  I know Sifu Gary added a bit of himself to what WSL taught him but its not like he created a completely different Lineage and there are some differences, such as his method of closing, using grappling techniques similar to Chin Na.
> 
> Then we have PB's own organization stating that WSL worked hard with him to adapt certain things where other Masters said "give up".  Now I said to myself "hey Sifu Gary teaches his thing, yet was a first gen student of WSL, maybe some of these differences are about the changes in teaching focus noted on PB's web site, rather than a "oh that must be something he added.  In this way both can honestly say "I learned from WSL and teach what he taught me" and be telling the truth even if certain things are different without alteration after the fact being the cause.
> 
> ...



The problem is you are GUESSING when the information is available!

GL openly changed the system. That's why it differs!

PB's understanding of the YMWSLVT system is no different than his old training partners who started years before him.

Stop googling and guessing, and just go find out directly if you really find it "fascinating".


----------



## anerlich (Dec 22, 2016)

geezer said:


> Put that on video and you will get a lot of views!



Hmmm .... advantages and drawbacks


----------



## anerlich (Dec 22, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> Imo the sensitivity really does help for gripfighting in no-gi bjj and in gi to some degree. But in no-gi people find it annoying grip fighting with me because they are just unaware of different movement.



To some degree with white or blue belts or people inexperienced with no gi IMO. I've yet to run into a brown or black belt that had significant problems dealing with my "Wing Chun sensitivity" in a grappling situation. I've yet to find a non-grappling Wing Chun guy that caused me any significant "sensitivity" problems in a grappling situation. I train Jiu Jitsu with one of Jim Fung's most senior guys and a number of people with a few years of Wing Chun of various styles.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> To some degree with white or blue belts or people inexperienced with no gi IMO. I've yet to run into a brown or black belt that had significant problems dealing with my "Wing Chun sensitivity" in a grappling situation. I've yet to find a non-grappling Wing Chun guy that caused me any significant problems in a grappling situation. I train Jiu Jitsu with one of Jim Fung's senior guys and a number of people with a few years of Wing Chun of various styles.



I got the feeling he was saying "a drill that is in part about gaining sensitivity helps with grappling" in a general sense vs "sensitivity helps a Wing Chun person deal with a grappler.". When you get to the higher ranks in a grappling art you have gained the sensitivity vis the grappling art (at least that is from my Aikido and Judo experience).  So if you have "WC sensitivity" and are new to grappling it can help.  Might be wrong though.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 22, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Look at it outside the MA concept for a minute (as that brings a lot of baggage) and lets look at military history. Patton, McArthur and Bradley all went to Westpoint within the same time frame (roughly) 1903, 1899 and 1911 respectively and so shared many instructors but their styles of command, strategy and tactics were very different and the study of why is of great interest (at least to a history geek like me.)



Maybe, but that subject has been dealt with by professional historians.

Wing Chun history on the other hand is a mish mash of legend, tall story, hagiography, misrepresentation and character assassination by a pack of chancers with hidden and not-so-hidden agendas. 

The "conclusions" you seem to be trying to draw are based on those, plus the fact they are on the net of a million lies makes the likelihood of their accuracy about as remote as the Andromeda Galaxy, M31.

No good will come from this.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 22, 2016)

LFJ said:


> What does that have to do with GL changing the VT spelling used by WSL back to WC to signify change to his own GLWC system?



Because this was the key part of the quote from Geezer that Hazardi was responding to was...



geezer said:


> In other words, "VT" isn't a trademark of the WSL branch. Just to be clear



So I was pointing out this was indeed the truth as it was used by YM's Association first and then noted the one person who, to my knowledge, did actually trademark a different spelling.

I'll leave it at this because as was just pointed out, nothing good can apparently come of this.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 22, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I got the feeling he was saying "a drill that is in part about gaining sensitivity helps with grappling" in a general sense vs "sensitivity helps a Wing Chun person deal with a grappler.". When you get to the higher ranks in a grappling art you have gained the sensitivity vis the grappling art (at least that is from my Aikido and Judo experience).  So if you have "WC sensitivity" and are new to grappling it can help.  Might be wrong though.



As I said earlier, and IMO, only at the beginning, and only with hand fighting. I found that trying to see grappling through Wing Chun coloured glasses hindered my progress after a while and I had to empty that cup.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> As I said earlier, and IMO, only at the beginning, and only with hand fighting. I found that trying to see grappling through Wing Chun coloured glasses hindered my progress after a while and I had to empty that cup.



Ahh then our perspectives are different is all.  My grappling training came before I studied WC so I didn't realize their was an "emptying the cup" dynamic eventually going on when it came to that.  I figured that eventually you just naturally moved beyond it rather than finding it a hinderance.  Thanks for the insight on that finer point.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 22, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> Because this was the key part of the quote from Geezer that Hazardi was responding to was...
> 
> So I was pointing out this was indeed the truth as it was used by YM's Association first and then noted the one person who, to my knowledge, did actually trademark a different spelling.
> 
> I'll leave it at this because as was just pointed out, nothing good can apparently come of this.



No one said WSL trademarked the VT spelling, but that's the spelling he used because YM did.

Those who have changed the system under WSL have used different spellings or renamed their systems.

"Gary Lam Wing Chun" is one example.
"Wan Kam Leung Practical Wing Chun" is another.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 22, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I'll leave it at this because as was just pointed out, nothing good can apparently come of this.



Cool. It'd be great if in two months you didn't bring up this same topic and have to be told _again_.


----------



## Hazardi172 (Dec 22, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> You need to connect to the pole, to feel it's weight and orientation to, as corny as it sounds, make it an extension of yourself. This requires a hand or prosthetic.
> 
> Following that Biomechanics are what they are. More than a few of the movements in the form require wrist movements to achieve certain angles. Now you can adapt your personal method to minimize the need for such movements. So yes wit is indeed used in the adaptation.



The fact that Philipp Bayer uses a prosthetic in order to hold the pole was already discussed here by someone else. I was assuming you had seen this comment. The lack of a hand does not impede Bayer's use of the pole in any way- he uses the standard method very well and is in fact the best I have seen with the long pole. To be clear, the pole method of Philipp Bayer is not altered in any way to account for his lost hand. 



Juany118 said:


> In this case it would be looking at the missing hand and simply saying, again while maintaining the core principles of WSLVT "these methods will work perfectly fine, these need a little tweeking and these might not work well at all." It's not changing WSLVT in the least, it's simply adapting the instruction so the student can still excel.





			
				Juany said:
			
		

> As Callen stated by good teacher will teach a student, within the overall principles of the topic, to their strengths and weaknesses



Again what you are saying appears to be contrary to what Callen is saying:



			
				Callen said:
			
		

> One of the traits of a good Wing Chun teacher/coach is to find out what drills or training methods work best for which students, and to implement those methods to effectively help them grow



Callen is talking about focus on particular drills within the system in order to address student-specific strengths and weaknesses. This is a standard approach in WSL VT. You are talking about changing methods and teaching _in terms of_ student specific strengths and weaknesses. This is a different approach, not something that is done in the WSL VT that I have experienced. The system is the system- it isn't tailored to be person specific, and it remains fundamentally what it is as it is passed from teacher to student. 



Juany118 said:


> Now this of course limits mobility a bit, but with the tight footwork of WC it isn't as bad as it would be with other arts. His kicking is more effected because of the limited hip movement of course but if you were to just watch his upper body move you would think you were watching a dancer, the way he flows in that manner is impressive.. A large reason for this is because when the rest of the class is performing drills that he would not be able to perform, Sifu or one of his assistants will partner with him for other drills. Again the principles of neither art have been changed, Sifu simply sees the limits that the student has and focuses on the drills that are minimally effected (if at all) by the disease or that can help with the disease itself as he has done research into the various types of physical therapy that benefit the condition. All of this so the student in question maximizes his application of the principles of TWC and Kali, the arts themselves have not been altered, the teaching of the art has simply been tailored within the already established boundaries.



If this is supposed to be some kind of relevant comparison with Philipp Bayer, then I can see why people might find your point of view to be offensive



Juany118 said:


> Odd you know so much about what others have posted when you joined but today and only posted for the first time 3 hours ago. That said if you actually look at Callen's posts, we do have some points where we are not precisely on the same page BUT when he responds it has substance



I am just responding to what I read on the thread. Callen appears to be a WSL VT practitioner who has trained under Gary Lam. LFJ appears to be a WSL VT practitioner who has trained with someone else. You seem to want to agree with Callen (although often appearing to misunderstand or twist his meaning), while being antagonistic towards whatever LFJ says. Since the subject is WSL VT, it makes no sense to disregard 50% of the info being provided about that system from people that practice it.



Juany118 said:


> the problem is this the idea that PB is teaching the "pure" version of WSLVT ignores the reality of his physical issue, as illustrated repeatedly, and the differences between himself and other first gen students.



P Bayer teaches mainstream WSL VT. His lack of a hand has been covered and does not change the system he learned from WSL. Your examples are poorly chosen in that David Peterson is not on the same level, and Gary Lam teaches his own system in his own way based upon what he learned from WSL. Philipp Bayer is the only example of mainstream VT that you have mentioned at this point. You are in effect comparing PB to different things and being surprised when there are differences.



Juany118 said:


> As an example more than once WSL stated that one of the purposes of chi sau is to learn sensitivity to the movements of the opponent so that "...You begin to feel a pattern in your opponent’s movements, allowing you to sense the proper angle of attack...", that "...the highest achievement wing chun is to be able to allow your opponent to guide you into the exact method of attacking and defeating him."



WSL VT is not a a system that relies upon sensing and feeling. But you seem to want it to be that way. What more can I say?



Juany118 said:


> the idea that chi sau is about feeling the openings is simply repeated misinformation. Thing is they arent mutually exclusive and in a real fight you want to feel and flow as well because while one of the goals of course is to use tactics that bait and set your opponent up, you can never rely on the fact that your opponent will "take the bait" and so being able to flow and strike where your opponent is vulnerable is an equally vital skill. So logic dictates one of the following.



I think you have some misconceptions about how WSL VT works in reality. There is no feeling for openings and flowing in WSL VT because fighting does not resemble the chi sau drill. 



Juany118 said:


> When WSL said a quote I posted in an older thread (and summarized above) about you never being able to completely control your opponents actions you need to be able to flow and let them show you where to strike he was speaking a truth anyone who has been in a real fight, especially against other styles, knows.



Can you please provide the quote? It is hard to respond when I don't know what you are talking about. I think though that you are a bit confused. 



Juany118 said:


> a. if 1 is true then those who say the above is misinformation are wrong. This then leads to another question. Is this a misunderstanding of PB teaching on their part or has PB changed something as others changed things?
> 
> 2. It was misinformation BUT then this also raises a few questions.
> a. how could someone with as much reported real fighting experience not realize you can never truly control the actions of every opponent regardless of the amount of "baiting" and "setting up" and that's where being sensitive and capable of flowing through the small gaps you feel with that sensitivity comes in?



Simple, PB hasn't changed anything, he teaches what WSL taught and what YM taught. VT is not anything to do with sensing gaps and flowing through- this doesn't work in reality. It is simply a fighting method with a particular aproach, apparently quite different to the wing chun you have seen before. That it isn't completely foolproof is not really a criticism; no fighting method works 100% of the time. What is needed is a method which increases the odds, something WSL VT does very well.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 22, 2016)

Hazardi172 said:


> Can you please provide the quote? It is hard to respond when I don't know what you are talking about. I think though that you are a bit confused.



It was a quote on strategy, and he had it explained to him by at least three different WSLVT practitioners, but still wants to argue with us and tell _us_ what WSL meant when he hasn't the faintest clue what WSL actually taught. That's about the height of arrogance, wouldn't you say?


----------



## lansao (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> We belong to different CLUBS which are part of different organisations. I've been in MA situations before Wing Chun that abused the concept of "family". I have two brothers. No one on here is a relative. When I see "Kung fu family", I think "Manson Family".
> 
> I ain't calling anyone "Sifu" that I don't know personally. I know some very highly ranked Kung Fu instructors and call them all by their first name.
> 
> ...



That's very fair. Congratulations on your teaching accomplishments.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Dec 22, 2016)

Given that I have never met WSL or studied WSLVT, I have no opinion as to whether WSL engaged in the practice of "guarding" the method by deliberately presenting incorrect information on video or at seminars or in interviews. I've encountered enough stories of this happening in both Chinese and Japanese martial arts circles, that I assume it must happen at least occasionally. I have no idea whether WSL was the sort of person who would do such a thing.

I will say that in my opinion any instructor who engages in such a practice in this day and age is being unethical.

Personally I'm a big fan of the open source approach to martial arts. I believe it's the best way for martial arts to grow and progress. Anything I've learned is freely available to those who are interested. That said, I will offer no negative judgment towards those who choose to hold back some of what they know, for whatever reason. I _will_ judge those who deliberately offer misinformation. I believe it violates the spirit of being a teacher. I also believe it causes the state of a martial art to deteriorate. Those who engage in such a practice have only themselves to blame if the art they practice and teach becomes worse in their time.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> We belong to different CLUBS which are part of different organisations. I've been in MA situations before Wing Chun that abused the concept of "family". I have two brothers. No one on here is a relative. When I see "Kung fu family", I think "Manson Family".
> 
> I ain't calling anyone "Sifu" that I don't know personally. I know some very highly ranked Kung Fu instructors and call them all by their first name.
> 
> ...


I understand your stance on this, anerlich, but your tone is a bit more aggressive than is necessary.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 22, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Those who engage in such a practice have only themselves to blame if the art they practice and teach becomes worse in their time.



lol Because of people learning off videos? Even if everything were accurate, people learning off videos would still screw it up.

No worries. VT is alive and well in the hands of those who know it and teach it freely to all who show up and put in the time and effort. It is only growing.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 22, 2016)

Hazardi172 said:


> The fact that Philipp Bayer uses a prosthetic in order to hold the pole was already discussed here by someone else. I was assuming you had seen this comment. The lack of a hand does not impede Bayer's use of the pole in any way- he uses the standard method very well and is in fact the best I have seen with the long pole. To be clear, the pole method of Philipp Bayer is not altered in any way to account for his lost hand.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will simply leave it at this.  Everything above is largely a straight up mischatacterization of what I have said.

As an example I always said PB can honestly say he taught exactly what WSL taught him.  This does not mean however that someone else who teaches things in a slightly different manner can not say the exact same thing and they can both be telling the 100% truth.  

As another example I didn't say WSLVT relies on any particular thing.  No fighting system can be successful if in a specific facet it relies on any particular thing and that was my entire point.

As for chi sau I know fighting isn't chi sau, chi sau is something done to develop skill sets used in fighting, and is a "bridge" of sorts to sparring.  

I put forward the quotes of WSL, I could also put forward quotes by PB himself, that are consistent with ones by Sifu Gary, that I learned from actual instruction, about how the students must engage in a co-operative reciprocal exchange of force with the partner.  That kind of co-operation can only happen if you pay attention and feel what your partner is doing.  I'm not trying to make this sound like some Zen mystical "feel the force Luke" BS, I am talking actual biological facts, science.  

I could keep going but as I said earlier I am done with this.  I don't mind when people have a different opinion but I do mind when statements I make are mischaracterized.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 22, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> As an example I always said PB can honestly say he taught exactly what WSL taught him.  This does not mean however that someone else who teaches things in a slightly different manner can not say the exact same thing and they can both be telling the 100% truth.



It doesn't matter. 

We (not you) can clearly see why someone's thinking is different by analyzing their whole understanding of VT and looking at their training history. 

Those who spent the most time with WSL and didn't openly change the system share the same understanding of it. Those who don't share this same thinking either changed it, and have done so openly, or didn't learn it fully as evidenced by their comparatively limited experience and lack of cohesiveness and functionality in the system they teach. It's clear as day to anyone who knows.

This may upset someone, but it is what it is. Your "everyone can be right in their own way" theory, even though their fundamentals are conflicting, isn't true and in the end just doesn't matter. What feels good has no bearing on the truth.

If you disagree, you can explain to me why my critique of the misunderstanding/misuse of the _paak-sau_ drill in the other thread is flawed. These are things people who didn't learn fully unknowingly get caught up in.



> I put forward the quotes of WSL, I could also put forward quotes by PB himself, that are consistent with ones by Sifu Gary, that I learned from actual instruction, about how the students must engage in a co-operative reciprocal exchange of force with the partner.  That kind of co-operation can only happen if you pay attention and feel what your partner is doing.  I'm not trying to make this sound like some Zen mystical "feel the force Luke" BS, I am talking actual biological facts, science.



I could ask you what you think "exchange of force" means and how it relates to fighting, but it's clear you don't know and aren't interested in finding out. Your mind has been made up. You have mastered WSL's method already and google quotes that you (mis)interpret to say what you want.



> I could keep going but as I said earlier I am done with this.



We all know you can keep going, digging your hole, and as I said earlier, it'd be great if you didn't bring this same topic back up in two months and have to be told_ again _how you are way off the mark on every point_._


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Maybe, but that subject has been dealt with by professional historians.
> 
> Wing Chun history on the other hand is a mish mash of legend, tall story, hagiography, misrepresentation and character assassination by a pack of chancers with hidden and not-so-hidden agendas.
> 
> ...



I guess I was projecting.  My father is a retired history professor and I remember one of the things that made me take that path first as a kid was reading some of his published papers.  Some of of them were purposefully taking obscure stuff that were scant on original sources and taking what was there, the "folk tales", and the overall context of the time and place and then breaking it all down then analysing it to create a plausible picture of the real person or events.  This works even better when you have open minded people bouncing ideas off of one another.

I enjoy that kind of back and forth, which is why I enjoyed my back and forth with Callen because it was an actual dialogue that at least acknowledged certain possibilities.  In my experience people can acknowledge that something else is possible even if they believe the truth more likely lays elsewhere.  But this is an anonymous internet forum so I should have reminded myself that kind of dialogue isn't all that common at times.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 22, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> I understand your stance on this, anerlich, but your tone is a bit more aggressive than is necessary.



That's a fair point, and I should apologise for my tone to lansao and yourself for that. And to anyone else that was offended. No sarcasm intended.

Not that it's an excuse, but I did spend way too much time with a Xingyi / Bagua teacher that used the family and father sort of schtick to manipulate a number of people to deleterious effect. My marriage was lucky to survive my dealings with him, others were less fortunate.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 22, 2016)

LFJ said:


> lol Because of people learning off videos? Even if everything were accurate, people learning off videos would still screw it up.



Not arguing, but I wonder why this seems to only be a problem with TMAs. 

I've learned some great Jiu Jitsu techniques from video and use them to good effect. Some of my goto techniques I first learned from video. I think nearly all BJJ guys would have done the same. 

I don't think there is more "subtlety" or "feel" in Wing Chun than anything else. Maybe it's the relative speed of the movements.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 22, 2016)

Tony Dismukes said:


> Given that I have never met WSL or studied WSLVT, I have no opinion as to whether WSL engaged in the practice of "guarding" the method by deliberately presenting incorrect information on video or at seminars or in interviews. I've encountered enough stories of this happening in both Chinese and Japanese martial arts circles, that I assume it must happen at least occasionally. I have no idea whether WSL was the sort of person who would do such a thing.
> 
> I will say that in my opinion any instructor who engages in such a practice in this day and age is being unethical.
> 
> Personally I'm a big fan of the open source approach to martial arts. I believe it's the best way for martial arts to grow and progress. Anything I've learned is freely available to those who are interested. That said, I will offer no negative judgment towards those who choose to hold back some of what they know, for whatever reason. I _will_ judge those who deliberately offer misinformation. I believe it violates the spirit of being a teacher. I also believe it causes the state of a martial art to deteriorate. Those who engage in such a practice have only themselves to blame if the art they practice and teach becomes worse in their time.



Isolationist as a red flag pretty much.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 22, 2016)

LFJ said:


> lol Because of people learning off videos? Even if everything were accurate, people learning off videos would still screw it up.
> 
> No worries. VT is alive and well in the hands of those who know it and teach it freely to all who show up and put in the time and effort. It is only growing.



Not if they have a the other tools in place. It depends what you are learning.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Not arguing, but I wonder why this seems to only be a problem with TMAs.
> 
> I've learned some great Jiu Jitsu techniques from video and use them to good effect. Some of my goto techniques I first learned from video. I think nearly all BJJ guys would have done the same.
> 
> I don't think there is more "subtlety" or "feel" in Wing Chun than anything else. Maybe it's the relative speed of the movements.



BJJ is trained differently. in mabye two ways that apply here.

1. Each BJJ player has a different game. There is no one linage of the correct BJJ. So my methods do not have to be my instructors methods. I can go on line and look up super cool move A. and if it works for me it is the true BJJ.

2. It gets tested by quality guys who are all connected. So if the youtube super cool move A. Has kinks in it. Then some other expert will look at it try it out work it out and re post it. It is much harder to spread misinformation.


----------



## drop bear (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> That's a fair point, and I should apologise for my tone to lansao and yourself for that. And to anyone else that was offended. No sarcasm intended.
> 
> Not that it's an excuse, but I did spend way too much time with a Xingyi / Bagua teacher that used the family and father sort of schtick to manipulate a number of people to deleterious effect. My marriage was lucky to survive my dealings with him, others were less fortunate.



Yeah. brothers would be a better dynamic of family. Than father and son.


----------



## lansao (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> That's a fair point, and I should apologise for my tone to lansao and yourself for that. And to anyone else that was offended. No sarcasm intended.
> 
> Not that it's an excuse, but I did spend way too much time with a Xingyi / Bagua teacher that used the family and father sort of schtick to manipulate a number of people to deleterious effect. My marriage was lucky to survive my dealings with him, others were less fortunate.



Hey man, totally cool. Definitely sounds like there are some people who abuse that relationship. Also sorry to hear that you went through that. If I could ship you a beer, I would.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> That's a fair point, and I should apologise for my tone to lansao and yourself for that. And to anyone else that was offended. No sarcasm intended.
> 
> Not that it's an excuse, but I did spend way too much time with a Xingyi / Bagua teacher that used the family and father sort of schtick to manipulate a number of people to deleterious effect. My marriage was lucky to survive my dealings with him, others were less fortunate.


As I said, I understand your stance. While I don't share it, you're certainly not the only person who has had a bad experience from someone abusing the "family" concept. My attitude falls somewhere between yours and lansao's.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 22, 2016)

anerlich said:


> Not arguing, but I wonder why this seems to only be a problem with TMAs.
> 
> I've learned some great Jiu Jitsu techniques from video and use them to good effect. Some of my goto techniques I first learned from video. I think nearly all BJJ guys would have done the same.
> 
> I don't think there is more "subtlety" or "feel" in Wing Chun than anything else. Maybe it's the relative speed of the movements.


I think it tends to be a problem more often in TMA's (in this case, using "TMA" to refer to arts with a relatively long history) because of the historical practices Tony and others have mentioned. Arts with a relatively short history didn't have that as part of their history, so they tend to be more open.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 22, 2016)

drop bear said:


> Yeah. brothers would be a better dynamic of family. Than father and son.


I've always had a bit of trouble with this. The relationship in some arts is somewhat father/son (probably more true in the older TMA's), part mentor/mentee (or coach/coachee). In some areas (likely including MMA and boxing) there's a different dynamic. I think the filial sense is somewhat driven by the Chinese and Japanese cultures many of those arts spring from. It can be problematic when it gets out of hand, and can be very supportive and useful when it works well.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 23, 2016)

The fundamental dynamic in MA is that of instructor and student. I don't see how gilding that with quasi-familial relationships adds anything positive.

A class needs discipline from both parties for success. Adding artificial layers of authority is irrelevant and distracting.

I'm not learning about "life" from any of my instructors, Sifus, or Sigungs. They all have made silly mistakes in life, and have character flaws, as have I. And at least one was a poor role model IMO.

I ain't going to their places for Christmas dinner, they ain't coming to mine. See you at the academy next year!


----------



## drop bear (Dec 23, 2016)

anerlich said:


> The fundamental dynamic in MA is that of instructor and student. I don't see how gilding that with quasi-familial relationships adds anything positive.
> 
> A class needs discipline from both parties for success. Adding artificial layers of authority is irrelevant and distracting.
> 
> ...



The issue is that martial arts is an emotional journey as well as a physical one. MMA especially because it is really hard. And because of that you are quite often vunerable.

 Not exposing yourself to vulnerability hinders your martial arts progression.

If our fighters did not train untill they puked or cried. If they were not scared out of their wits or if they were not devastated by loss. They would not be very good fighters.

To counter that you need to surround yourself with people you can trust with that vulnerability. And be humble enough to accept that you will be vunerable.

You take that journey with people you trust and the concept of family becomes more applicable.

And one of our instructors was invited over for Christmas dinner with a student. Being fresh out of brazil and no family.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2016)

anerlich said:


> The fundamental dynamic in MA is that of instructor and student. I don't see how gilding that with quasi-familial relationships adds anything positive.
> 
> A class needs discipline from both parties for success. Adding artificial layers of authority is irrelevant and distracting.
> 
> ...


The semi-familial aspect is, as I said, a holdover from other cultures. That said, I've been to instructors' homes for dinners and hung out with them over beers. And some of my students do come to me for advice beyond MA, but that's because of my experience outside the dojo. As I said, there's nothing inherently harmful in the semi-familial approach, in and of itself. It doesn't actually add any complication or layers of authority - it's still the basic hierarchy of teacher and student.


----------



## Juany118 (Dec 23, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> The semi-familial aspect is, as I said, a holdover from other cultures. That said, I've been to instructors' homes for dinners and hung out with them over beers. And some of my students do come to me for advice beyond MA, but that's because of my experience outside the dojo. As I said, there's nothing inherently harmful in the semi-familial approach, in and of itself. It doesn't actually add any complication or layers of authority - it's still the basic hierarchy of teacher and student.



I think the trick is this.  Does that relationship have an origin in actual friendship and mutual respect earned overtime or is it something that has its origin in some form of indoctrination.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 23, 2016)

drop bear said:


> You take that journey with people you trust and the concept of family becomes more applicable.



I'll go as far as "team". I will stop short of "family", thanks all the same.


----------



## anerlich (Dec 23, 2016)

gpseymour said:


> As I said, there's nothing inherently harmful in the semi-familial approach, in and of itself. It doesn't actually add any complication or layers of authority - it's still the basic hierarchy of teacher and student.



If it's still the basic hierarchy, and doesn't add complication or layers of authority, what positive DOES it add?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2016)

Juany118 said:


> I think the trick is this.  Does that relationship have an origin in actual friendship and mutual respect earned overtime or is it something that has its origin in some form of indoctrination.


That is the issue, and why it can become problematic when we have cultural hold-overs like that. In the US, it too often (though probably not the majority of cases) is the latter.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2016)

anerlich said:


> If it's still the basic hierarchy, and doesn't add complication or layers of authority, what positive DOES it add?


I don't know that it adds. It's just another way of getting to the same place.


----------



## lansao (Dec 23, 2016)

anerlich said:


> I'll go as far as "team". I will stop short of "family", thanks all the same.



I think I lean more and more with your take on it anerlich. Re-reading what I wrote late at night I think I was being a little overly sentimental in an attempt to make peace.

I think my note on fatherhood was really meant to indicate that for many the relationship gets close and insulting someone's Sifu can trigger responses that are in line with insulting family. In the same breath, people may also be quick to interpret comments as insults for the same reason.

The "let's call each other's Sifus Sifu" was a bit much! 

My Sifu would probably say the same thing. I remember once he was like "Alan...? What are you doing in my kitchen? It's 2am and you woke up the baby..." and I was like "Daddy!!!" He gave me a quick closed door sparring lesson that night and sent me on my way.

He changed his locks after that, haha. What a sense of humor on that guy. I'm sure he'll send my key someday, it's only been two years.

~ Alan


----------



## Transk53 (Dec 24, 2016)

I do wonder (maybe OFT here) that those of you are fathers, was it a natural thing that your children would follow you in the Martial Arts? Probably really obvious as a question, but curious all the same.


----------

