# Wing Chun & Jeet Kune Do



## KPM (Jan 7, 2017)

Here is the interview with Guru Dan Inosanto that was referenced  couple of times on other thread.  Good explanation of the relationship between Wing Chun and JKD:


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 7, 2017)

Thanks for finding it.


----------



## kakkattekoi (Jan 7, 2017)

thank you!

Sent from my 404SH using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 8, 2017)

KPM said:


> Here is the interview with Guru Dan Inosanto that was referenced  couple of times on other thread.  Good explanation of the relationship between Wing Chun and JKD:



Thanks for posting indeed.

This, in reality, is the one I was referencing in the other thread (but didn't review myself), if it wasn't the one @wingchun100 was referencing, my bad.  

I think this also sets up a good place for me to explain in detail (sorry long explanation inc because I have thought about this video since I discovered it sometime ago and given it A LOT of thought due to my respect for Guro Dan.)

It's really the part where Guro Dan starts demonstrating that confused the hell out of me, more than the statements. That demo where he says the bridging is what JKD changed.  I was like... "ummm every WC system I know has kicks to permit for bridging before you enter optimal hand striking range.  Am I missing something?"  This confused me even more than others maybe for a specific reason.  I study both WC and Kali.  It is a like a romantic triangle in a bad soap opera where I love Kali a little bit more, and my Kali is Inosanto Kali, so in being confused I felt like I was questioning the man who created the MA I "click" best with and thus the Guro/Sifu I have the utmost respect for.

That specific part of the video is actually what made me ask what I said in the other thread "maybe that's why Sigung Cheung put kicks into the CK and BG forms?"  In terms of the basic 3 empty hand TWC forms there are only a few differences, when you consider each has (if I remember right) 108 movements per form.  To my knowledge of Yip Man lineage (which personal experience is admittedly limited to TWC and WSL via Sifu gary Lam's system), there are no kicks until you get to the Mook Jong forms outside of TWC.

Now I do not know, specifically, how Yip Man trained his students obviously BUT traditionally in CMA's your use of techniques in training often mirrors the stage you are at in terms of forms.  So if you haven't had kicking in your forms, you don't have kicking in your drills for application.  Since Bruce Lee never progressed beyond CK, this is why I say "maybe this is why Bruce felt that WC had absolutely no, nada, zilch, nyet, nein, bu, outside game in WC?" 

"Stock" YM WC forms don't have kicks until the mook jong forms (again to my experience and research, I might be wrong, please correct me if I am.)  This isn't to say that JKD doesn't have "more" of a long game because it allows you to stand "outside" of the "gates" we establish for the first time when we perform SLT.  My belief is simply that one having "more" doesn't mean the other has "absolutely none".

For reference the CK and then BJ forms of TWC, as I am one of only a few on these forums that apparently has direct study of it, I wanted to post these video so one could see the difference.  There are differences, more "stepping" than pivoting or shuffling etc, but overall the biggest difference is the earlier integration (in terms of the forms alone) of kicking, besides how we open the form and don't go "toes in" of course.

CK Master Keith Mazza






BG Sigung Willaim Cheung


----------



## Hazardi172 (Jan 8, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> To my knowledge of Yip Man lineage (which personal experience is admittedly limited to TWC and WSL via Sifu gary Lam's system), there are no kicks until you get to the Mook Jong forms outside of TWC.



What made you think this?


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 8, 2017)

Hazardi172 said:


> What made you think this?


I am talking the SLT, CM and BG forms specifically.  I can pull up videos of the remaining Yips and WSL himself if needed.  Bruce stopped his study under YM and was off to America when he started the CM form.  If there is an empty hand form (not drill, form), before the mook, that I am unaware of please enlighten me.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 8, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I am talking the SLT, CM and BG forms specifically.  I can pull up videos of the remaining Yips and WSL himself if needed.  Bruce stopped his study under YM and was off to America when he started the CM form.  If there is an empty hand form (not drill, form), before the mook, that I am unaware of please enlighten me.


 Late edit CK, not CM


----------



## KPM (Jan 8, 2017)

*It's really the part where Guro Dan starts demonstrating that confused the hell out of me, more than the statements. That demo where he says the bridging is what JKD changed.  I was like... "ummm every WC system I know has kicks to permit for bridging before you enter optimal hand striking range.  Am I missing something?*"

----This was formally produced film.  It was very likely edited down from a lot more footage of Guru Inosanto demonstrating.  So he may have elaborated more on that point and it didn't make it into the final cut.   All I can say is that from my experience with JKD, what is different is the extent of bridging used and the explicit "outside game" that is taught.   JKD assumes that you are starting at long range, have to manage at long range, and then close in continue the fight.  There is plenty of angular footwork to stay at long range if you choose, there are long range kicks if you choose to use them, and there are very specific ways to "close the gap" that Wing Chun simply does not have.  Too often Wing Chun seems to  assume you will stand in your ready stance and just wait for the opponent to attack and come into close range.  But, as I said before, TWC is the exception to this because TWC does have more footwork and bridging at long range than other Wing Chun.   And I think that is by design....William Cheung put it there.



*To my kno.wledge of Yip Man lineage (which personal experience is admittedly limited to TWC and WSL via Sifu gary Lam's system), there are no kicks until you get to the Mook Jong forms outside of TWC*

---No.  Most Ip Man Wing Chun I have seen has kicks in the Chum Kiu form.   And when I was studying it, kicks were taught in training drills even prior to the CK form.


*Since Bruce Lee never progressed beyond CK, this is why I say "maybe this is why Bruce felt that WC had absolutely no, nada, zilch, nyet, nein, bu, outside game in WC?"*

---Bruce progressed beyond the CK form and learned the first 4 or 5 sections of the dummy form, including the section that introduces kicks.


* This isn't to say that JKD doesn't have "more" of a long game because it allows you to stand "outside" of the "gates" we establish for the first time when we perform SLT.  My belief is simply that one having "more" doesn't mean the other has "absolutely none".*

---Like I said, your primary reference is TWC.  It has more of an outside game than most.   If Gary Lam Wing Chun also includes something of an outside game, it may be because Sifu Lam has developed it himself.  After all, the WSLVT guys are very fond of pointing out to us that SIfu Lam has changed his Wing Chun.

---A real "outside game" allows you to stay and fight at the outside ranges if you so choose.   Most Wing Chun kicks are designed to be delivered at closer range.  A good outside game gives you options for controlling the distance and bridging the gap in various  ways.  If your primary strategy at long range is to stand and wait for the opponent to close with you, or to simply use a step-slide footwork to step into the opponent waiting to draw a response that you can then defend and work at close range....then this isn't really an "outside game."  It is simply a way to transition to the "inside game".  This is what I have seen from most Ip Man lineages. Heck, I have to admit that this is true of the Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun that I study as well.   And, BTW, I have studied TWC in the past as well under John Clayton.  I learned SLT, CK, and BJ.  Didn't learn the dummy or the weapons from him though.

---Here is Ip Chun doing the Chum Kiu form with kicks:


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 8, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Thanks for posting indeed.
> 
> This, in reality, is the one I was referencing in the other thread (but didn't review myself), if it wasn't the one @wingchun100 was referencing, my bad.
> 
> ...



Ip Man had kicks in Chum Kiu. If you see the footage they took of him only a short time before he died, he had kicks in there.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 8, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Ip Man had kicks in Chum Kiu. If you see the footage they took of him only a short time before he died, he had kicks in there.


Okay (to both you and @KPM ).  My mistake on that one then.  As I said I don't have issue with someone pointing out a factual error.

Also thanks on the mook info.  Everything I have read about Bruce said he stopped studying under YM and moved during CK.

I guess I just had the weird fortune to study the two WC Lineages claiming YM descent that look at the outside game as not just a place to bridge from but a place to fight from if you absolutely have to.  The goal still is to "get in there" but sometimes you can't because in a fight the only truly known quantity is you.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 8, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Okay (to both you and @KPM ).  My mistake on that one then.  As I said I don't have issue with someone pointing out a factual error.
> 
> Also thanks on the mook info.  Everything I have read about Bruce said he stopped studying under YM and moved during CK.
> 
> I guess I just had the weird fortune to study the two WC Lineages claiming YM descent that look at the outside game as not just a place to bridge from but a place to fight from if you absolutely have to.  The goal still is to "get in there" but sometimes you can't because in a fight the only truly known quantity is you.



My previous Sifu was a student under Ip Ching. I met the man a couple times, which was awesome. At any rate, I guess when Bruce went back to China, he did get some of the dummy form, but not all of it. Judging by some things he did, I don't believe he finished CK or the dummy form.


----------



## KPM (Jan 8, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> My previous Sifu was a student under Ip Ching. I met the man a couple times, which was awesome. At any rate, I guess when Bruce went back to China, he did get some of the dummy form, but not all of it. Judging by some things he did, I don't believe he finished CK or the dummy form.



He didn't finish the dummy form.  But he finished Chum Kiu.  And remember, his Sifu was Ip Man, but his main teachers were two very prominent Wing Chun Masters.....William Cheung and Wong Shun Leung.  He remained in contact and friends with both of them after he left  Hong Kong.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 8, 2017)

KPM said:


> He didn't finish the dummy form.  But he finished Chum Kiu.  And remember, his Sifu was Ip Man, but his main teachers were two very prominent Wing Chun Masters.....William Cheung and Wong Shun Leung.  He remained in contact and friends with both of them after he left  Hong Kong.



Not saying you aren't correct but there are clearly contradictory sources of info on this point.  It seems Sigung Cheung will be visiting the "Mother School" this year and for some time staying with my Sifu's Sifu while doing so.  Since that's only a 40 minute drive from my school.  I might see if I can find the opportunity to ask some questions and get answers from "the horses mouth" so to speak.


----------



## KPM (Jan 9, 2017)

^^^^ Sounds good!  Where will your Sigung be holding seminars in the US?  And when?


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> ^^^^ Sounds good!  Where will your Sigung be holding seminars in the US?  And when?



When isn't 100% locked in yet, at least to my knowledge.  As my Sifu said predicting when Sigung Cheung arrives can be like predicting Santa Claus.  That said one of his stops is almost always the US Headquarters for TWC in New Jersey Traditional Wing Chun KungFu North American Headquarters

PS as soon as I get more details I'll PM ya


----------



## Hazardi172 (Jan 9, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I am talking the SLT, CM and BG forms specifically.  I can pull up videos of the remaining Yips and WSL himself if needed.  Bruce stopped his study under YM and was off to America when he started the CM form.  If there is an empty hand form (not drill, form), before the mook, that I am unaware of please enlighten me.



Different reaction here when I pointed out that CK has kicks and when others did same is funny. It seems you are determined not to agree with me on anything, yes?


----------



## KPM (Jan 9, 2017)

Hazardi172 said:


> Different reaction here when I pointed out that CK has kicks and when others did same is funny. It seems you are determined not to agree with me on anything, yes?



Actually, what you said here was:

_What made you think this? 
_
That is not the same thing as actually stating that in WSLVT you have kicks in the Chum Kiu form.   So I  think we can cut Juany some slack for not reacting to what you posted.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> Actually, what you said here was:
> 
> _What made you think this?
> _
> That is not the same thing as actually stating that in WSLVT you have kicks in the Chum Kiu form.   So I  think we can cut Juany some slack for not reacting to what you posted.




Well since I have another person on ignore it will be even harder for me to react.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Jan 9, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> As my Sifu said predicting when Sigung Cheung arrives can be like predicting Santa Claus.


So ... December 25th then?


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 9, 2017)

Tony Dismukes said:


> So ... December 25th then?


but do you know whose house he is going to hit first


----------



## wtxs (Jan 9, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> but do you know whose house he is going to_* hit first*_



Don't you know?  It's all over the news ... he crashed and burn into my house.


----------



## Hazardi172 (Jan 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> That is not the same thing as actually stating that in WSLVT you have kicks in the Chum Kiu form.   So I  think we can cut Juany some slack for not reacting to what you posted.



He reacted to say that I was wrong to question , seems quite a biased way to approach!


----------



## KPM (Jan 9, 2017)

Hazardi172 said:


> He reacted to say that I was wrong to question , seems quite a biased way to approach!



Actually, he said this:

_I am talking the SLT, CM and BG forms specifically. I can pull up videos of the remaining Yips and WSL himself if needed. Bruce stopped his study under YM and was off to America when he started the CM form. If there is an empty hand form (not drill, form, before the mook, that I am unaware of please enlighten me._

Seems to me he didn't understand what you were saying, since you didn't actually come out and say what you were thinking.   Nowhere above does he say you were wrong to question.  He just wasn't yet convinced because no one had yet provided him with video showing that Chum Kiu does indeed include footwork.  You could have done that rather than just ask a one-liner question that accomplished nothing.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 9, 2017)

KPM said:


> Actually, he said this:
> 
> _I am talking the SLT, CM and BG forms specifically. I can pull up videos of the remaining Yips and WSL himself if needed. Bruce stopped his study under YM and was off to America when he started the CM form. If there is an empty hand form (not drill, form, before the mook, that I am unaware of please enlighten me._
> 
> Seems to me he didn't understand what you were saying, since you didn't actually come out and say what you were thinking.   Nowhere above does he say you were wrong to question.  He just wasn't yet convinced because no one had yet provided him with video showing that Chum Kiu does indeed include footwork.  You could have done that rather than just ask a one-liner question that accomplished nothing.



Yeah since I actually said "oh you guys are right sorry" when you corrected me on CK.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 12, 2017)

For the cool hell of it, I am sharing this:


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 12, 2017)

FYI, I am not saying that is how I do the form, nor am I saying, "Check this out! It's the best Wing Chun EVER!!!"

I just wanted to share a video that showed kicks and stepping.


----------



## KPM (Jan 12, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> FYI, I am not saying that is how I do the form, nor am I saying, "Check this out! It's the best Wing Chun EVER!!!"
> 
> I just wanted to share a video that showed kicks and stepping.



Looks like pretty  standard Ip Man Chum Kiu to me.  Though his stepping Bong Sau's are a little wanky.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 13, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> To my knowledge of Yip Man lineage (which personal experience is admittedly limited to TWC and WSL via Sifu gary Lam's system), there are no kicks until you get to the Mook Jong forms outside of TWC.





Juany118 said:


> I am talking the SLT, CM and BG forms specifically.  I can pull up videos of the remaining Yips and WSL himself if needed.



You have never even seen YM kick in his CK form? 

You give the impression you've been involved in WC for a while, and understand WSLVT, but didn't get past SNT in GL's modified version either?

Interesting revelations.


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 13, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> For the cool hell of it, I am sharing this:


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lots of problems with that form


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 13, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> For the cool hell of it, I am sharing this:



What lineage is this?


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 14, 2017)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Lots of problems with that form



The point was not that I was sharing the best execution of Chum Kiu ever.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 14, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> What lineage is this?



No idea. I was sharing it simply because there was a question as to whether or not there were kicks in Chum Kiu.

"Don't concentrate on the finger."


----------



## Hazardi172 (Jan 14, 2017)

LFJ said:


> You have never even seen YM kick in his CK form?
> 
> You give the impression you've been involved in WC for a while, and understand WSLVT, but didn't get past SNT in GL's modified version either?
> 
> Interesting revelations.



While I don't want to attack anyone, this is a logical conclusion from what has been written on this thread. So Juany, can you please confirm where you got to with Gary Lam's wing chun? 

I would be a bit disturbed if you said SNT, given what you have alluded to on various threads. And if you say beyond CK, why then no idea of kicks there?


----------



## geezer (Jan 15, 2017)

Hazardi172 said:


> ?
> 
> .*..I would be a bit disturbed i*f you said SNT, given what you have alluded to on various threads. And if you say beyond CK, why then no idea of kicks there?



An honest question.

I get the impression that Juany has spent far more time in _William Cheung's_ _TWC_ than he did previously in _Gary Lam's WSL derived VT._ I can relate. back in the late 70s I trained a bit of the Ho Kam Ming - Augustine Fong branch of WC under someone I now know to be a poorly qualified ...before I later studied the LT-WT branch. At this point I cannot accurately remember much of anything about my time in that first system and would have to refer any questions on that branch to truly knowledgeable people like Joy (Vajramusti). I suspect Juany may be more or less in the same situation. 

Oh, and regarding being "a bit _disturbed_"  ...aren't we all on this forum!


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 15, 2017)

geezer said:


> An honest question.
> 
> I get the impression that Juany has spent far more time in _William Cheung's_ _TWC_ than he did previously in _Gary Lam's WSL derived VT._ I can relate. back in the late 70s I trained a bit of the Ho Kam Ming - Augustine Fong branch of WC under someone I now know to be a poorly qualified ...before I later studied the LT-WT branch. At this point I cannot accurately remember much of anything about my time in that first system and would have to refer any questions on that branch to truly knowledgeable people like Joy (Vajramusti). I suspect Juany may be more or less in the same situation.
> 
> Oh, and regarding being "a bit _disturbed_"  ...aren't we all on this forum!


----------



## Vajramusti (Jan 15, 2017)

Geezer- the guy you mentioned knew next to nothing about what he claimed
 about Ho Kam Ming and Augustine Fong. I dropped by and wtached one his classes. His students were throwing
Tkd types of kicks. Absent wing chun structure


----------



## LFJ (Jan 15, 2017)

geezer said:


> I suspect Juany may be more or less in the same situation.



He most definitely is, but still prefers to tell WSLVT practitioners what's what in their system and he "can google it for you if needed".


----------



## Hazardi172 (Jan 16, 2017)

geezer said:


> An honest question.
> 
> I get the impression that Juany has spent far more time in _William Cheung's_ _TWC_ than he did previously in _Gary Lam's WSL derived VT._ I can relate. back in the late 70s I trained a bit of the Ho Kam Ming - Augustine Fong branch of WC under someone I now know to be a poorly qualified ...before I later studied the LT-WT branch. At this point I cannot accurately remember much of anything about my time in that first system and would have to refer any questions on that branch to truly knowledgeable people like Joy (Vajramusti). I suspect Juany may be more or less in the same situation.
> 
> Oh, and regarding being "a bit _disturbed_"  ...aren't we all on this forum!



Hi Geezer, I think you are correct. But what _disturbed _me about the situation is that Juany has been arguing pretty forcefully about WSL VT and often using his experience with Gary Lam as evidence that his opinion matters. The point picked up by LFJ makes me question that to the point where I don't understand his motivation


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 16, 2017)

geezer said:


> An honest question.
> 
> I get the impression that Juany has spent far more time in _William Cheung's_ _TWC_ than he did previously in _Gary Lam's WSL derived VT._ I can relate. back in the late 70s I trained a bit of the Ho Kam Ming - Augustine Fong branch of WC under someone I now know to be a poorly qualified ...before I later studied the LT-WT branch. At this point I cannot accurately remember much of anything about my time in that first system and would have to refer any questions on that branch to truly knowledgeable people like Joy (Vajramusti). I suspect Juany may be more or less in the same situation.
> 
> Oh, and regarding being "a bit _disturbed_"  ...aren't we all on this forum!



This is indeed correct.  I even went so far at one point to say the reason I am in TWC is because something about GL WSLVT didn't quite fit.  As such I may well forget details of the forms from "back then".  At the same time, for the most part, I have TRIED (note I say tried  ) to keep my comments when it comes to WSLVT to be based in the ideas of principles, not specific techniques and forms.  My brain may be wired differently but I find it easier to recall intellectual concepts over time,vs physical techniques.

This then brings us to the hobgoblin in the room when it comes to WSLVT, and this may be what makes me come off as forceful and perhaps Hazardi being relatively here lacks the context.  Most, if not all of the "current" WSLVT practitioners who post around here study at one of the schools under the PB umbrella and something related to that makes my cop "articulable facts" instinct scream.  I haven't seen Hazardi post on the complete train of logic that follows but it still drives me nuts on occassion as the following train of logic has been expounded up repeatedly with no independent supporting evidence.  Said train of logic starting from the present.

1. Only PB WSLVT is actually true WSLVT.  His personal issues did not require any alternation or changes in training.  All other WSL students either teach something modified or were declared Sifu's by WSL and his organization when they should not have been.

2. WSLVT is the true translation of YMVT/WC.  All other Lineages claiming YM descent are incoherent and broken systems.

These are two extraordinary statements to make in this day and age.  That only one student in each generation teaches a "TRUTH."  There is a an saying Carl Sagan made popular.  "*Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."*

Tbh sometimes when I seem forceful I am actually playing devils advocate.  I don't claim to be an expert in anything.  Heck there is another TWC person around here who, when I am corrected, I "bow to".  When it comes to YM VT/WC in general I will always bow to @Vajramusti, because they will show evidence.

These two claims however are extraordinary and while I am open to being informed that would require more than the fiat statements we have seen to do so.  Heck there have been times when I have found videos of PB and WSL teaching together and I have posted it saying "wait?  they are doing it this way yet you said the first video with a different guy was right?"  The answer I was given was "the internet is a dangerous thing" no more no less.

So let me apologize @Hazardi172  if I sometimes come off forceful.  If it is born of anything it is born of a frustration that needs evidence.  My life essentially is governed by the idea of "what I know doesn't matter only what I can prove."  There are things I am taught even today where I debate with my Sifu.  Example he teaches TWC and Inosanto Kali.  When there are shared techniques he will try to draw the connection saying both come from the same original source, the Southern Shaolin Temple.  I then go "Carl Sagan" on him (in private, never in front of the class), again working from the present.



> "Inosanto Kali is based in Filipino and Indochinese Martial arts but it is an amalgam of them.  These martial arts also have no written documented history from the practitioners themselves akin to the manuals of HEMA.  The occasional record written by a representative of a colonial power is all we have until the 20th century.  So we don't know how the creators of this art did so.  Biomechanics being what they are it is thus equally possible that this is pure coincidence because the human body can move in so many ways to address any particular circumstance.  Oh and lets not even mention the fact that scholars still debate if there is compelling evidence that the Southern Shaolin Temple even existed since stories of it didn't enter the record until those of its destruction popped up in the late 18th century."


  (Yes I studied to be a history teacher before I studied to be a police officer.  My Sifu actually lets me question like this, I assume, because he understands that it is how my brain must function to do my job and emptying the cup THAT much on going into a school would amount to a personality change that simply isn't possible.)   

This is just how my brain works.  Now the proof that the arts I learn work are proven to me by watching videos of one of my Sifu's in unsanctioned fights, that it worked for my Sifu and now me operationally in the real world, that it has one sanctioned competitions at tournaments etc.  The things regarding "history" however require it's own type of proof however and we all know how steeped in the mythical tradition the history of TMA's are.  My brain just seeks the evidence. /shrug


----------



## LFJ (Jan 16, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> My brain may be wired differently but I find it easier to recall intellectual concepts over time,vs physical techniques.



Is this you trying to claim experience beyond SNT in that system, without remembering there being kicks in CK? Not very convincing.



> Most, if not all of the "current" WSLVT practitioners who post around here study at one of the schools under the PB umbrella and something related to that



I was not aware of this. Which such posters do we have?



> 1. Only PB WSLVT is actually true WSLVT.



No one to my knowledge has said this. In fact, I know you've been told otherwise, repeatedly. 

Why do you cling to this strawman?



> His personal issues did not require any alternation or changes in training.



Obviously.



> All other WSL students either teach something modified or were declared Sifu's by WSL and his organization when they should not have been.



No one to my knowledge has said this. In fact, I know you've been told otherwise, repeatedly.

Why do you cling to this strawman?



> 2. WSLVT is the true translation of YMVT/WC.  All other Lineages claiming YM descent are incoherent and broken systems.



I don't think one will know exactly where this viewpoint is coming from if lacking experience in WSLVT and at least one of the other systems under comparison. 

No point in discussing further if you lack experience or interest to find out. Considering you didn't even know YM kicks in his CK form, I'd say you are very inexperienced, or completely uninterested in what YM actually taught.


----------



## geezer (Jan 16, 2017)

_*Juany: *Most, if not all of the "current" WSLVT practitioners who post around here study at one of the schools under the PB umbrella and something related to that...

*LFJ: *I was not aware of this. Which such posters do we have?

Y_ou know, I was under pretty much the same impression as _Juany._ Now there have been hundreds of posts on the subject, and I have only read a  limited portion, and don't remember them, so I would appreciate clarification from you and the other WSL-VT practitioners posting here. But from reading posts here and exploring the internet, I got the impression that some of the best known instructors publicly promoting the WSL-VT lineage include Philip Bayer, David Peterson, Gary Lam, Wang Zhi Peng and a few others.

Now _LFJ_, the most vocal posters on this forum who practice WSL-VT have been you and _Guy B_ (who has recently left us). Also we have had less frequent input from C_allen _and _T-Ray_, and more recently some good discussions with _Hazardi_. Sorry if I missed anyone. As _Juany_ noted, of the people named most have said that they practice something in line with the Philip Bayer version of WSL-VT. I do not remember anybody posting who trains under David Peterson, Gary Lam or Wang Zhi Peng. So that leaves us with posters who strongly adhere to the WSL-VT system as presented by Sifu Bayer.

Indeed, I believe you and Guy have repeatedly insisted that _this_ version of WSL-VT (as practiced by Bayer and some other, less publicly known WSL students) is the _correct _system and that other interpretations such as Mr. Peterson's, are the result of incomplete, seminar-style training, or like Mr. Lam's VT, are openly modified.

Based on what I've stated above, _Juany's _comment's quoted above seem fairly accurate. Now, I do not train WSL-VT and to my knowledge there is none available in my area, so I welcome clarification if I've misunderstood.


----------



## geezer (Jan 16, 2017)

BTW, I see that _T-Ray _has been following along. Any input would be great.


----------



## T_Ray (Jan 16, 2017)

Pm sent.


----------



## Hazardi172 (Jan 16, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> I haven't seen Hazardi post on the complete train of logic that follows but it still drives me nuts on occassion as the following train of logic has been expounded up repeatedly with no independent supporting evidence. Said train of logic starting from the present.
> 
> 1. Only PB WSLVT is actually true WSLVT. His personal issues did not require any alternation or changes in training. All other WSL students either teach something modified or were declared Sifu's by WSL and his organization when they should not have been.
> 
> 2. WSLVT is the true translation of YMVT/WC. All other Lineages claiming YM descent are incoherent and broken systems.



I haven't been on the forum very long so I don't follow most of your long post. But this bit again has me confused and a bit disturbed (sorry can't think of a better word) 

You seem to be saying that I have half said points 1 and 2 above "I haven't seen Hazardi post on the complete train of logic that follows"

1. I don't know how you could have gathered this from my post. I will explicitly say that there are other WSL teachers, who are not Philipp Bayer, who are teaching WSL VT. I will also explicitly say that Gary Lam's and WKL's wing chun has some things added, but that this is not a criticism, it just is a fact. They and their students would not see this as a derogatory thing to say.

2. I only have experience with WSL VT, so I don't know anything about any other wing chun. I have NEVER said any system that I don't understand is incoherent and broken!

Please tell me how you reached the point of making the post above? I am very confused how you could read what I wrote this way. Please tell me you are not going on the attack to avoid having to say that you maybe exaggerated about your studies with Gary Lam? You don't forget that there is kicking in CK (or call it by the wrong initials). The more I think about it the stranger this seems


----------



## Callen (Jan 16, 2017)

Hazardi172 said:


> I will also explicitly say that Gary Lam's and WKL's wing chun has some things added, but that this is not a criticism, it just is a fact. They and their students would not see this as a derogatory thing to say.


Agreed.



geezer said:


> so I would appreciate clarification from you and the other WSL-VT practitioners posting here


 I personally do not train under Philipp Bayer or any of his affiliations.


----------



## Callen (Jan 16, 2017)

KPM said:


> but his main teachers were two very prominent Wing Chun Masters.....William Cheung and Wong Shun Leung


 It might also be worth noting that William Cheung was Bruce's training partner for only a very short period of time, just before William Cheung left for Australia. They were both teens, and Bruce had not yet even become a serious Martial Artist.

Wong Shun Leung actually continued training Bruce after Cheung's departure for Australia. Wong Shun Leung taught Bruce Lee privately for over one-and-a-half years before Bruce’s departure to US & also watched him train under Yip Man. WSL also trained Bruce Lee at his own home.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 16, 2017)

Hazardi172 said:


> I haven't been on the forum very long so I don't follow most of your long post. But this bit again has me confused and a bit disturbed (sorry can't think of a better word)
> 
> You seem to be saying that I have half said points 1 and 2 above "I haven't seen Hazardi post on the complete train of logic that follows"
> 
> ...



No since you haven't been here long I was just trying to give you the background.  If you read elsewhere you will see KPM and Geezer at least share the same experience, that we have been confronted by the train of logic I noted.  Please do not take that as me saying YOU share that train of the logic.

Next it is simply me saying that I see proof as > fiat statements.  As an example, there is proof DP traveled extensively to Honk Kong (though not as much as PB) to study under WSL.  DP was also appointed a Sifu by WSL himself.  As such if DP lacks a full understanding of WSLVT and PB has full understanding I wish to know on what independent basis this judgement is made.  If Gary Lam does this thing different than PB and want to know, again with an independent basis, how that MUST be a modification by GL and not PB. 

I am never saying one is right or the other wrong in any categorical sense.  What I am saying is if someone is going to say something is wrong, proof must be offered beyond "because my Sifu says." (not saying this is you but others have gone down that road.)

As for GL, I know he added stuff, he admits it, but this is how my brain works...perhaps overly analytical so I will try to bullet point it for clarity.
1.  What did he change/add?  That isn't on any list.  Now his "closing" that includes trapping/standing grappling, is part of just about every YM WC/VT out there in one form or another.  I am told this is different from PB.  So my logical side says, this is unlikely to be an addition to WSLVT.  BUT most PB students will say it is because it isn't part of "their VT."
2.  I then look for reasons for undefined differences.  We all bring ourselves to our martial art.  We even often train with our difference in mind.  Case in point I study with a fellow student who suffers from a form of cerebral palsy that effects one of his legs rather severely.  Clearly his WC isn't mine.  However I know from sparring with him my advantage is my mobility because he punches like a dang truck since he makes up for that weakness where he is strong.

I could go on but that I think is enough to make the following point.  What does all of the above tell me? Not who is "right" or "wrong" only that unless the "horses mouth", in this case WSL, can speak, we simply can't know.  The best we can do is trust that our Sifu is teaching us an art that will serve us well, no more and no less.

On the other hand we have had people around here, not you, who have said YM taught only WSL his true WC/VT, PB is the ONLY student passing on true WSLVT and all the others are either flawed, incoherent or downright broken.  Now I have no issue with such a claim IF it isn't simply a claim.  That means presenting verifiable evidence of some sort.  I even accept circumstantial evidence if the weight meets the demand required for such.  Maybe its a fool's errand in the TMA community but it's how my brain is wired.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 16, 2017)

Callen said:


> It might also be worth noting that William Cheung was Bruce's training partner for only a very short period of time, just before William Cheung left for Australia. They were both teens, and Bruce had not yet even become a serious Martial Artist.
> 
> Wong Shun Leung actually continued training Bruce after Cheung's departure for Australia. Wong Shun Leung taught Bruce Lee privately for over one-and-a-half years before Bruce’s departure to US & also watched him train under Yip Man. WSL also trained Bruce Lee at his own home.



I will never deny that Wong Shun Leung taught Bruce Lee longer.  BUT I think a video with Guro Dan Inosanto has some weight here.  His knowledge of Bruce Lee's life came from Bruce himself.  In more than one video Guro Dan calls both Bruce's teachers.  My father was a full time teacher now and adjunct.  I studied to be one but chose the uniform instead.  One thing I know though, is the impact someone can have on your life.  If the impact you have is such that you declare someone a teacher of yours to friends, you were a teacher.  That isn't a title to be taken lightly.  Since WSL was only 5 years older it's not like we are talking different generations here.  WSL was there big brother but brother, no doubt.


----------



## KPM (Jan 17, 2017)

Callen said:


> It might also be worth noting that William Cheung was Bruce's training partner for only a very short period of time, just before William Cheung left for Australia. They were both teens, and Bruce had not yet even become a serious Martial Artist.
> 
> Wong Shun Leung actually continued training Bruce after Cheung's departure for Australia. Wong Shun Leung taught Bruce Lee privately for over one-and-a-half years before Bruce’s departure to US & also watched him train under Yip Man. WSL also trained Bruce Lee at his own home.



Very true!  William Cheung and Bruce Lee were pretty close to the same age.  Both were young teenagers at the time.  They were much more like "buddies" that did some training together than they were like a student/teacher relationship.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 17, 2017)

geezer said:


> As _Juany_ noted, of the people named most have said that they practice something in line with the Philip Bayer version of WSL-VT...
> ...So that leaves us with posters who strongly adhere to the WSL-VT system as presented by Sifu Bayer.



Something in line with PB's VT doesn't necessarily have to be from PB. 

Plus, those connected to PB who have posted here don't just "study at one of the schools", but are instructors themselves. All the more reason to take their word, rather than tell them what's what in their system when you didn't even get past SNT in a separate and modified version (Juany, obviously, not you).

In fact, the only reason PB's name even comes up on this forum or his VT is discussed, is because _you guys_ always single him out for some reason. Otherwise, we're all speaking on our own behalves, as far as I'm aware. Certainly I have made that clear many times.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> train of logic I noted.



That train of logic is a strawman that you have been corrected on _numerous_ times.

It is very dishonest for you to continue to attack this strawman. You should stop.



> As an example, there is proof DP traveled extensively to Honk Kong (though not as much as PB) to study under WSL.  DP was also appointed a Sifu by WSL himself.  As such if DP lacks a full understanding of WSLVT and PB has full understanding I wish to know on what independent basis this judgement is made.



Experience!

That's what you lack entirely and the reason you disappear every time it comes to technical analysis. Timelines and paper mean nothing. WSL didn't "appoint" sifus.

Since you have no experience of what either of them teach, or what WSL taught, I'm not sure how you think you can compare anything here.



> If Gary Lam does this thing different than PB and want to know, again with an independent basis, how that MUST be a modification by GL and not PB...
> 
> ...As for GL, I know he added stuff, he admits it,



You just answered your own question! He admits it!

The rest of your nonsense post is useless because you have no experience with either of their systems. You don't even know what you're comparing, for crying out loud!

If you're actually interested in finding out, go to them directly, ask them, learn. There are also many others who trained with WSL and can confirm what he taught.

If you are unable to make the trip, and don't want to take the word of anyone more experienced than yourself, then it would be great if you would just not talk about WSLVT anymore.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 17, 2017)

I wish I could find the interview where Jesse Glover talked about this, but he said how Bruce thought forms were useless, so he would look to people who were more experienced in fighting, like...drum roll please...William Cheung.


----------



## Dylan9d (Jan 17, 2017)

LFJ said:


> That train of logic is a strawman that you have been corrected on _numerous_ times.
> 
> *It is very dishonest for you to continue to attack this strawman. You should stop.*
> 
> ...



Or maybe he shouldn't stop, this is forum were people can state their opinions. So let him state his opinion.

Dude, don't know if you noticed but you don't own the style/system or whatever so people can say what they want about it.

If you Wing Chun or Ving Tsun or whatever you call it guys would work together and learn from eachother that system would be so much more evolved than what it is at this time.

You guys are actually holding eachother back with two words, the words of Wing Chun/Ving Tsun, * "authentic" *and* "lineage"*.... words I heard so many times from WC/VT guys.......stop being jerks to eachother and work together.........it's not hard at all......

To keep on topic, the JKD community does the same


----------



## LFJ (Jan 17, 2017)

Dylan9d said:


> you don't own the style/system or whatever so people can say what they want about it.



The problem is Juany has 0 experience in the system he wishes to speak authoritatively on and tells instructors in that system what's what because he googled it. It's incredibly arrogant and insulting.


----------



## Callen (Jan 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> As for GL, I know he added stuff, he admits it, but this is how my brain works...perhaps overly analytical so I will try to bullet point it for clarity.
> 1. What did he change/add? That isn't on any list. Now his "closing" that includes trapping/standing grappling, is part of just about every YM WC/VT out there in one form or another. I am told this is different from PB. So my logical side says, this is unlikely to be an addition to WSLVT.


There are many doors that can lead to the same place. Gary Lam has kept the core WSLVT principals in his teaching, just like Philipp Bayer. There's a massive difference between adding something to the way you teach, and modifying the subject that you teach.



Juany118 said:


> BUT most PB students will say it is because it isn't part of "their VT."


I would caution you in pitting the mindset of Philipp Bayer students against other WSLVT students. While Philipp Bayer does not teach "closing", I don't think _most_ of his students would have anything to say about it. What is learned from "closing" is still part of the core WSLVT principals. It's the end result and understanding of the system that matters most, not the label of a certain part of any curriculum.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 17, 2017)

Callen said:


> While Philipp Bayer does not teach "closing", I don't think _most_ of his students would have anything to say about it.



Wonder how Juany has anything to say about it if he didn't even get past SNT... DVDs?


----------



## Dylan9d (Jan 17, 2017)

LFJ said:


> Wonder how Juany has anything to say about it if he didn't even get past SNT... DVDs?



Maybe stop bitching.....


----------



## Hazardi172 (Jan 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> No since you haven't been here long I was just trying to give you the background. If you read elsewhere you will see KPM and Geezer at least share the same experience, that we have been confronted by the train of logic I noted. Please do not take that as me saying YOU share that train of the logic.



I don't have any interest in past arguments. I have nothing to do with it and don't want to have anything to do with it  



Juany118 said:


> Next it is simply me saying that I see proof as > fiat statements.



What is a fiat statement? If by proof you mean things that are available on the internet then I think personal experience is worth much more than that. There isn't much info on WSL VT available on the internet . If you tell me something about your wing chun then I am not going to argue it with you. 



Juany118 said:


> As an example, there is proof DP traveled extensively to Honk Kong (though not as much as PB) to study under WSL. DP was also appointed a Sifu by WSL himself. As such if DP lacks a full understanding of WSLVT and PB has full understanding I wish to know on what independent basis this judgement is made. If Gary Lam does this thing different than PB and want to know, again with an independent basis, how that MUST be a modification by GL and not PB.



If you mean David Peterson then he himself will tell you that he doesn't have as much experience in VT as Philipp Bayer does. We don't need to check his old flight tickets to HK to see this- just listen to what he says and look at what he does. Again it isn't insulting to David Peterson to say that he isn't the very most experienced and best, top, most gifted of WSL's students, it is just a fact, plainly observable if you have eyes. Nobody is "appointed a sifu" of WSL VT! DP does bring a lot to the table though, for example he has some excellent articles and even I think a book about WSL VT. 

I don't understand why you are telling me about this stuff, please stop. Nobody here is saying the things you are complaining about. I don't even think there is a student of Philipp Bayer here? 



Juany118 said:


> As for GL, I know he added stuff, he admits it, but this is how my brain works...perhaps overly analytical so I will try to bullet point it for clarity.
> 1. What did he change/add? That isn't on any list. Now his "closing" that includes trapping/standing grappling, is part of just about every YM WC/VT out there in one form or another. I am told this is different from PB. So my logical side says, this is unlikely to be an addition to WSLVT. BUT most PB students will say it is because it isn't part of "their VT."



Gary Lam has his teaching curriculum on his website I think? You can compare it with a standard WSL VT teaching progression if you really want to. Or you could even ask Gary Lam. I don't think he keeps it as any kind of secret. 



Juany118 said:


> On the other hand we have had people around here, not you, who have said YM taught only WSL his true WC/VT, PB is the ONLY student passing on true WSLVT and all the others are either flawed, incoherent or downright broken. Now I have no issue with such a claim IF it isn't simply a claim. That means presenting verifiable evidence of some sort. I even accept circumstantial evidence if the weight meets the demand required for such. Maybe its a fool's errand in the TMA community but it's how my brain is wired.



Nobody here is saying this thing?!?  I am confused


----------



## KPM (Jan 17, 2017)

* Most, if not all of the "current" WSLVT practitioners who post around here study at one of the schools under the PB umbrella *

---To be fair, I don't think all of the WSL guys here have claimed to be in PB lineage students.  But the vocal ones have certainly endorsed PB as the best example of WSLVT.


*1. Only PB WSLVT is actually true WSLVT.  His personal issues did not require any alternation or changes in training. *

---See above about the "only" part.  But this has most certainly been said here multiple times if you leave out "only".  And this is definitely NOT a "strawman"!  


* All other WSL students either teach something modified or were declared Sifu's by WSL and his organization when they should not have been.*

---I don't think we can go that far.  LFJ has stated that other WSL instructors do things very similarly to PB and are considered "legitimate."   Just not David Petersen evidently!  Or Gary Lam!  Or Wang Zhan Ping! Etc.  ;-)  


*2. WSLVT is the true translation of YMVT/WC.  All other Lineages claiming YM descent are incoherent and broken systems.*

---No, only all lineages that LFJ and Guy B. are aware of!   They have said that there MIGHT be other Ip Man lineages out there that are not "broken", they just haven't encountered them yet!  And THAT has been stated here more than once!  Again, no "strawman" here either!

---So I don't think Juany's post was too far off, and is fairly accurate in its summary of how WSLVT has been portrayed in this forum by Guy B. and LFJ.   Other WSL people here like Callen and Lobo/Sean have been much more reasonable in their discussions.


----------



## DanT (Jan 17, 2017)

I'm in a pretty unique situation because I study wing chun under a Sifu who studied under Wong shun Leung, chu shon ting, and moy yat, plus my Sifu is a white crane Grandmaster and studied Northern shaolin under two different Sifus, so we get some variety in our training especially our sparring. That being said in terms of kicks we practice:

-front kick
-side kick
-round kick
-hook kick
-turning back kick
-wheel kick
-sweep
There's a couple more but those are the main ones we do, and although in class we kick high for flexibility and power training, in application we kick low typically. Generally students will know all these kicks after a couple months.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 17, 2017)

Callen said:


> There are many doors that can lead to the same place. Gary Lam has kept the core WSLVT principals in his teaching, just like Philipp Bayer. There's a massive difference between adding something to the way you teach, and modifying the subject that you teach.
> 
> I would caution you in pitting the mindset of Philipp Bayer students against other WSLVT students. While Philipp Bayer does not teach "closing", I don't think _most_ of his students would have anything to say about it. What is learned from "closing" is still part of the core WSLVT principals. It's the end result and understanding of the system that matters most, not the label of a certain part of any curriculum.


I understand all of the above.  My only point in my post was to provide the past context for a new member.  Most of us here, regardless of lineage, try to engage in an informative give and take, without judgement towards our respective lineages.  However there have been a couple, who perhaps coincidentally come from the same lineage that have not only been dogmatically judgemental on this forum but another well.  I think understanding this history is important for a few reasons.  

First it has encouraged some of us to be a bit more detailed than we may typically be.  This might not seem like a big deal but it possibly informs the following.  Now as things progressed _Haz_ went into greater detail but initially I was having PM conversations with people where we were wondering if the dogmatic "WSLVT via PB uberalles" attitude was actually a standard attitude within the PB community.  

Now is it right that two people managed to create this impression?  I won't say it is but it is a preconception that has been created.  So, sadly, even if it is a misconception born of say English as a second language issue, if someone appears to be going down that road, they may find themselves called out due to the frustration born of past debates.  Kind of an "oh no here we go again" kinda thing.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 17, 2017)

Hazardi172 said:


> I don't have any interest in past arguments. I have nothing to do with it and don't want to have anything to do with it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I don't want to pay to learn from a website, let alone from a purely "compare and contrast" position.  And I agree GL doesn't tend to keep secrets or misinform.

As for the last all I was doing was trying to explain what happened before and make it clear that sometimes people will interpret categorical statements, without supporting evidence, as "omg here we go again!".  Let me give an example.

Someone says "we do this in WSLVT via GL." Someone else responds "PB does that differently than GL".  This is not seen as a problem in the least if you study PB.  

However if someone says "we do this in WSLVT via GL" and someone says "Well that isn't WSLVT then" simply because it isn't in WSLVT via PB there are likely going to be a few people who call the respondent out because of the last history I noted.  There is simply less tolerance for fiat statements as a response.  Not saying right or wrong but there is a strong sense of "distrust and verify" around these parts anymore, largely because of two posters.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 17, 2017)

DanT said:


> I'm in a pretty unique situation because I study wing chun under a Sifu who studied under Wong shun Leung, chu shon ting, and moy yat, plus my Sifu is a white crane Grandmaster and studied Northern shaolin under two different Sifus, so we get some variety in our training especially our sparring. That being said in terms of kicks we practice:
> 
> -front kick
> -side kick
> ...


Interesting.  By hook kick do you mean a TKD style hook kick.
We do a few kicks as well.
Front kick
Side kick
Round kick
Oblique kick
Sweep kick

Some used more commonly than others of course.  Also some will debate if there are other kicks but, to my mind due to how I am taught I am sure, they all basically fall into the above categories because angle doesn't matter, it's foot orientation and how the leg travels to attack, vs angle, that makes the kick.


----------



## DanT (Jan 17, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Interesting.  By hook kick do you mean a TKD style hook kick.
> We do a few kicks as well.
> Front kick
> Side kick
> ...


Yeah I guess "tkd" style is about right, we do it both with the spin and without the spin. The hook kick we've adopted more from northern shaolin and just kinda do it along with them, it works great in sparring. Yeah really in my mind for kicks either it's a whip or it's a thrust at the most basic level. Example:
Thrust: side, back, front kicks
Whip: roundhouse, hook, wheel, snap


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 17, 2017)

DanT said:


> Yeah I guess "tkd" style is about right, we do it both with the spin and without the spin. The hook kick we've adopted more from northern shaolin and just kinda do it along with them, it works great in sparring. Yeah really in my mind for kicks either it's a whip or it's a thrust at the most basic level. Example:
> Thrust: side, back, front kicks
> Whip: roundhouse, hook, wheel, snap



We actually kinda "snap" all of the "straight" kicks.  We break it down to... raise knee>extend>retract>lower.  The idea being that if you just "thrust" (if I am understanding you correctly) it gives an opportunity for the leg to be caught.  By snapping the kick, in both directions, if the kick is "caught" you either pull the opponent off balance or simply free your leg as a natural consequence of the mechanics of the kick.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 17, 2017)

KPM said:


> *1. Only PB WSLVT is actually true WSLVT.  His personal issues did not require any alternation or changes in training.*
> 
> ---See above about the "only" part.  But this has most certainly been said here multiple times if you leave out "only".  And this is definitely NOT a "strawman"!



Leaving out "only" changes the entire statement, doesn't it?!!

"Only" is the strawman, and it has been corrected countless times, yet Juany keeps saying it. 



> *2. WSLVT is the true translation of YMVT/WC.  All other Lineages claiming YM descent are incoherent and broken systems.*
> 
> ---No, only all lineages that LFJ and Guy B. are aware of!   They have said that there MIGHT be other Ip Man lineages out there that are not "broken", they just haven't encountered them yet!  And THAT has been stated here more than once!  Again, no "strawman" here either!



And no one will understand this point of view without having experience with the systems under comparison. If you don't even know what we're comparing, how could you?

If you guys can't make the trip or aren't interested, there's no point in discussing it further.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 18, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> However if someone says "we do this in WSLVT via GL" and someone says "Well that isn't WSLVT then" simply because it isn't in WSLVT via PB



That has NEVER been stated! Stop with the strawman already.

It has nothing to do with PB whatsoever. PB's name only comes up because _you_ single him out for some reason.

GLWC isn't WSLVT because _he altered it_, and he changed the spelling to reflect that it is _his own_ system. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!

What is so difficult to understand?


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 18, 2017)

Last Sunday when I went to the little Chi Sao gathering that happens every weekend at Skidmore College, I was talking with one of the senior students who believes Wing Chun has no kicks. I was like, "Uh, then what is it we do in Chum Kiu?"

However, the more I thought about it, the more I saw his point. I can't quite articulate it just yet, so please be patient with me. However, I will say this: in that footage of Ip Man doing Chum Kiu, in the section where he turns, does a Lan Sao, and "kicks," it does indeed look more like a blocking leg than an actual kick because although he lifts it with leg bent, he does NOT straighten the leg out (AKA kick) and then bring the leg back. Instead it goes straight up and straight down. It looks more like a Bong Gerk-Jut Gerk motion.

Just an observation I had, with my own eyes, shared here with no intention of discrediting anyone else's opinions/experience/observations.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 18, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Last Sunday when I went to the little Chi Sao gathering that happens every weekend at Skidmore College, I was talking with one of the senior students who believes Wing Chun has no kicks. I was like, "Uh, then what is it we do in Chum Kiu?"
> 
> However, the more I thought about it, the more I saw his point. I can't quite articulate it just yet, so please be patient with me. However, I will say this: in that footage of Ip Man doing Chum Kiu, in the section where he turns, does a Lan Sao, and "kicks," it does indeed look more like a blocking leg than an actual kick because although he lifts it with leg bent, he does NOT straighten the leg out (AKA kick) and then bring the leg back. Instead it goes straight up and straight down. It looks more like a Bong Gerk-Jut Gerk motion.
> 
> Just an observation I had, with my own eyes, shared here with no intention of discrediting anyone else's opinions/experience/observations.




Remember something else though, and this may be seen as heresy.  I look at the YM videos and say "not bad, for a guy literally on his death bed from cancer who needed long breaks simply between forms because he was so exhausted.

Admittedly in TWC the kicks are clearly kicks in the form (above the waist even), but I have always found using the YM films as definitive source problematic at best due to his physical state at the time.  Some of the videos, afaik, were actually filmed as little as a week or even days before he died.  Then we have the disputed use of Opium.  Even if one wants to say the claims of use, according tosome of his students, are exaggerated I don't think it would be out of bounds to say he would have been using leading up to his death as throat cancer in particular can be VERY painful, let alone the complications.  Even if we discount the Opium the combination of his age, the harsh life he had had at times and the cancer itself makes those videos a wonderful tribute to his passion and legacy but I think a poor source of instruction.


----------



## wckf92 (Jan 18, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> ...the little Chi Sao gathering that happens every weekend at Skidmore College,...


That's cool!!! Do you go there often and get to practice with lots of different lineages?



wingchun100 said:


> I was talking with one of the senior students who believes Wing Chun has no kicks.


Wow...a "senior" student said this!?!? Interesting. What lineage is he from?



wingchun100 said:


> However, I will say this: in that footage of Ip Man doing Chum Kiu, in the section where he turns, does a Lan Sao, and "kicks," it does indeed look more like a blocking leg than an actual kick because although he lifts it with leg bent, he does NOT straighten the leg out (AKA kick) and then bring the leg back. Instead it goes straight up and straight down. It looks more like a Bong Gerk-Jut Gerk motion.


Maybe Yip Man was trying to tell us something about the nature of WC leg methods / kicking?


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 18, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> Remember something else though, and this may be seen as heresy.  I look at the YM videos and say "not bad, for a guy literally on his death bed from cancer who needed long breaks simply between forms because he was so exhausted.
> 
> Admittedly in TWC the kicks are clearly kicks in the form (above the waist even), but I have always found using the YM films as definitive source problematic at best due to his physical state at the time.  Some of the videos, afaik, were actually filmed as little as a week or even days before he died.  Then we have the disputed use of Opium.  Even if one wants to say the claims of use, according tosome of his students, are exaggerated I don't think it would be out of bounds to say he would have been using leading up to his death as throat cancer in particular can be VERY painful, let alone the complications.  Even if we discount the Opium the combination of his age, the harsh life he had had at times and the cancer itself makes those videos a wonderful tribute to his passion and legacy but I think a poor source of instruction.


 

Hmmm..I would like to offere a different take on that. We could take them as a practitioner showing us the way someone would have to modify their training in the face of all those forms of adversity. There is way in which our teachers show us Wing Chun. However, in time we make it "our own." While I am not saying this means someone who is young and virile should do the leg movements in the same manner as Ip Man's last videos, I AM suggesting that they still could be a good source of instruction.

I am not trying to say you are wrong...merely seeking to offer a different perspective.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 18, 2017)

wckf92 said:


> Wow...a "senior" student said this!?!? Interesting. What lineage is he from?


 
I don't understand the quotes around the word "senior." If someone has been studying for twice as long as I have, then that makes them a senior above me. As for lineage, I prescribe no importance to those politics. Anyone from any lineage has the ability to offer a perspective you might not have had before they said it. Even within the same lineage, we can meet people who open our eyes to new interpretations...if we allow it to happen. So again, I don't see what difference it makes if the people I meet are all from the same lineage or different ones. You can get different levels of interpretation even within the same lineage.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 18, 2017)

wingchun100 said:


> Hmmm..I would like to offere a different take on that. We could take them as a practitioner showing us the way someone would have to modify their training in the face of all those forms of adversity. There is way in which our teachers show us Wing Chun. However, in time we make it "our own." While I am not saying this means someone who is young and virile should do the leg movements in the same manner as Ip Man's last videos, I AM suggesting that they still could be a good source of instruction.
> 
> I am not trying to say you are wrong...merely seeking to offer a different perspective.



And that's fine the practice of all of us will change as we age, become ill etc.  My only point is that to use the videos of a 79 year old man in the final stages of death to be instruction for a healthy person to do WC isn't the best of choices is all.


----------



## wingchun100 (Jan 18, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> And that's fine the practice of all of us will change as we age, become ill etc.  My only point is that to use the videos of a 79 year old man in the final stages of death to be instruction for a healthy person to do WC isn't the best of choices is all.


 
I understand.

I guess a better example would be if I could find a younger, healthier practitioner doing the move in a similar manner.

I think there is some merit to what my Sihing said though. So much in Wing Chun relies on our stance, our rooting, and our structure. It is incredibly easy to blow that all to hell when you kick and have one foot off the ground. Since rooting is one of the things with which I currently struggle, I tend to skip on the kicking practice and work on rooting. (See my post about Kim Sut.)


----------



## KPM (Jan 18, 2017)

LFJ said:


> That has NEVER been stated! Stop with the strawman already.
> 
> It has nothing to do with PB whatsoever. PB's name only comes up because _you_ single him out for some reason.
> 
> ...



But, by default,  Gary Lam's system is now "broken" by your standards, since it is no longer WSLVT.  Isn't that true?


----------



## KPM (Jan 18, 2017)

*Leaving out "only" changes the entire statement, doesn't it?!!

"Only" is the strawman, and it has been corrected countless times, yet Juany keeps saying it.*

---Yes it does.   But....when posting in arguments you and Guy B. have not always emphasized that PB is not the "only" one.  Maybe that's because PB is the one with the most vids up on youtube to use as examples.  Regardless, the impression left behind is often that he is the only one, even if that is unintended.



*And no one will understand this point of view without having experience with the systems under comparison. If you don't even know what we're comparing, how could you?*

---Because it just goes against logic and probabilities that WSLVT is the ONLY lineage of Wing Chun that is not "broken".  And that multiple people that were students of WSL that don't do things like PB are also "broken."   I think this is part of the "logic chain" that Juany was talking about.


----------



## Juany118 (Jan 18, 2017)

KPM said:


> *Leaving out "only" changes the entire statement, doesn't it?!!
> 
> "Only" is the strawman, and it has been corrected countless times, yet Juany keeps saying it.*
> 
> ...




You last point is precisely the logical chain I am speaking of and it starts with YM's first gen students.

If all of YM's first gen students say simply "I teach what YM taught me" and not "I am the only one to teach true YM WC" how do we, other than via a twisted adherence to dogma, say "the head of my lineage is the only true YM WC."  This is especially true when it is documented by more than one student that those taught personally by GM were taught with their strengths and weaknesses in mind. 

You can then go to any of the students of YM's students.  None of them, to my knowledge, say "I alone teach the true...", WSL, Ting, IP Ching or Chun WC etc.  They say "I teach what they taught me.   

To turn these personal statements into a global statement of "Truth" has no logical basis.  It has a dogmatic basis which is by definition has no evidence that can be observed or verified, where as a logical conclusion is based on verifiable observation.


----------



## DanT (Jan 18, 2017)

Juany118 said:


> We actually kinda "snap" all of the "straight" kicks.  We break it down to... raise knee>extend>retract>lower.  The idea being that if you just "thrust" (if I am understanding you correctly) it gives an opportunity for the leg to be caught.  By snapping the kick, in both directions, if the kick is "caught" you either pull the opponent off balance or simply free your leg as a natural consequence of the mechanics of the kick.



I agree with the way you break down the kick 100%. For example, front kick could be broken down into: 
-lift knee up
-thrust foot forward like kicking down a door
-quickly pull leg back into chambered position
-put foot on ground 

I don't like the idea that many wing chun schools have of just lifting the leg into the target in a straight line with no prior flexion of the knee. I used to go to a school that did that, and the power was maybe 5% of what I have now.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 18, 2017)

KPM said:


> But, by default,  Gary Lam's system is now "broken" by your standards, since it is no longer WSLVT.  Isn't that true?



No! What the hell, dude? You just quoted me saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Why do you keep trying to sow discord on here?



KPM said:


> But....when posting in arguments you and Guy B. have not always emphasized that PB is not the "only" one.  Maybe that's because PB is the one with the most vids up on youtube to use as examples.  Regardless, the impression left behind is often that he is the only one, even if that is unintended.



I have _never_ brought PB's name up on my own. It is _always_ you guys bringing him in.

And I most certainly _have_ emphasized that he is not the only one. In fact, every single time you prop this strawman back up after it's been knocked down!

Don't tell me "the impression left behind is often..." when I explicitly correct you _every single time_.



> ---Because it just goes against logic and probabilities that WSLVT is the ONLY lineage of Wing Chun that is not "broken".  And that multiple people that were students of WSL that don't do things like PB are also "broken."   I think this is part of the "logic chain" that Juany was talking about.



The problem is you're working blindly with "logic" and "probabilities" to set up a hippy theory that says everyone can be right in their own ways, rather than analyzing facts and data to arrive at a justified conclusion regardless of how uncomfortable it might make you feel.

You can't even begin to calculate anything while missing huge chunks of data (experience/knowledge of systems to be compared), and what you think is probable is only that... what you think is probable about something you have no experience with. How can you analyze and compare what you have no knowledge of?

I have summed up the point of view previously, toward the end here for example.

You guys are either unable or uninterested in going to examine the evidence yourselves, taking the necessary trips and whatnot. So, best just to leave it.

I don't feel like drawing this discussion out with you guys again. You never listen and will turn around in a couple weeks or months and claim I said the exact opposite. I'll do you all a favor and won't mention it again, but I hope to not see the same strawman accusations later.


----------



## KPM (Jan 18, 2017)

*Why do you keep trying to sow discord on here?*

---I am just supporting what Juany wrote, since you attempted to blow it off and make it sound like he didn't know what he was saying.  You and/or Guy B. have most definitely said that WSLVT is the only lineage that you know of teaching what Ip Man actually taught.  You have said that there might be other lineages out there from Ip Man that teach what WSL taught, but that you haven't seen them yet.  You have said that other Ip Man lineages that don't do things as WSLVT does them are somehow broken.  Don't try to deny either of those points, because too many people here were around when they were written in this forum!  Now, since you have also said that Gary Lam is no longer doing WSLVT because he has changed things....logically he must fall within that grouping of "others" outside of WSLVT that are broken.   So are you saying that you don't consider Gary Lam Wing Chun to now be "broken" because he changed things from what WSLVT taught?  Are you saying his Wing Chun isn't "broken" even though it seems quite different from PB's Wing Chun?  If not, then you really need to clarify that.  Because saying that you are "ok" with the fact that he changed things is not the same thing!   So....Gary Lam WIng Chun..."broken"....or just as good as PB's Wing Chun?  Which is it?   I'm not sowing discord.  I'm just following up on your own statements here, and backing up what Juany said before.




*The problem is you're working blindly with "logic" and "probabilities" to set up a hippy theory that says everyone can be right in their own ways, rather than analyzing facts and data to arrive at a justified conclusion regardless of how uncomfortable it might make you feel.*

---No.  The problem is that you seem to have a very different sense of logic and analysis of facts than the rest of us.  



*You can't even begin to calculate anything while missing huge chunks of data (experience/knowledge of systems to be compared), and what you think is probable is only that... what you think is probable about something you have no experience with. How can you analyze and compare what you have no knowledge of?*

----So are you saying you have huge chunks of data and first hand experience/knowledge of....Ho Kam Ming Wing Chun?  Traditional Wing Chun?  Tsui Tsung Ting Wing Chun?  Ip Ching Wing Chun?  Duncan Leung Wing Chun?  Hawkins Cheung Wing Chun?  Etc.???   Or is your analysis that all of these are "broken" compared to WSLVT based upon the same kind of data that the rest of us are using?

---Do you have in-depth knowledge and first hand experience with all of the more well-known lineages from Ip Man other than WSLVT that you have declared to be "broken"?   And remember, you and/or Guy B. have stated that there MIGHT be another lineage out there that teaches what Ip Man really taught, but that you had not encounter it yet.



*You guys are either unable or uninterested in going to examine the evidence yourselves, taking the necessary trips and whatnot. So, best just to leave it.*

---I agree it is best just to leave it.  But then you can't just blow off Juany's summary that was done for Hazardi's benefit either.  You completely dismissed his opinion and what he had to say.  That is the only reason I have been replying.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 18, 2017)

KPM said:


> So are you saying that you don't consider Gary Lam Wing Chun to now be "broken" because he changed things from what WSLVT taught?  Are you saying his Wing Chun isn't "broken" even though it seems quite different from PB's Wing Chun?  If not, then you really need to clarify that.  Because saying that you are "ok" with the fact that he changed things is not the same thing!   So....Gary Lam WIng Chun..."broken"....or just as good as PB's Wing Chun?  Which is it?



I just answered you, again! 



LFJ said:


> KPM said:
> 
> 
> > But, by default,  Gary Lam's system is now "broken" by your standards, since it is no longer WSLVT.  Isn't that true?
> ...



What part of "No!" are you having trouble with?

There is a difference between a valid variation and a broken system.

A variation is a result of innovation and still works.

If it's a result of misunderstanding the original and doesn't work, it's a broken system.

In most cases, it's immediately obvious which one they are, unless all you know is a broken system.


----------



## KPM (Jan 18, 2017)

*I just answered you, again! *

----And I also just pointed out that saying it is "ok" is not the same as acknowledging that it isn't "broken"!  So no, you hadn't answered.


*There is a difference between a valid variation and a broken system.

A variation is a result of innovation and still works.*

---OK!  Now THAT"S an answer.  Thanks for clarifying!  But you didn't bother to answer my other questions.  Why is that?


----------

