# Does WSLVT exist?



## KPM

Guy wrote this on the punching thread:

*My system is called VT. It is the system taught by YM. There is no special different thing called WSLVT- there is only VT, and this is what I practice. It is your business if you also practice VT
*
He seems to be saying the "Ving Tsun" spelling uniquely defines Ip Man's own personal version of Wing Chun and that Wong Shun Leung taught EXACTLY what Ip Man taught.  He believes that WSL did not update, personalize or change Ip Man's Wing Chun in any way.  Therefore there is no "WSLVT", only Ip Man "VT".  So anyone doing Wing Chun differently that what is being done by those taught by WSL is not really doing Ip Man's "VT".  If they have changed things in any way, then it is no longer "VT"....which is Guy's way to say Ip Man Wing Chun.

So does WSLVT exist?  Did WSL teach EXACTLY what Ip Man was practicing?  You be the judge!

First, that classic footage of Ip Man doing the forms:






Wong Shun Leung doing Siu Nim Tao:






Wong Shun Leung doing Chum Kiu:






Wong Shun Leung  doing the dummy:






Just a note.....that original footage of Ip Man was put up by Sam Kwok.  Kwok has learned from both Ip brothers and I am sure would maintain that HE is doing exactly what Ip Man taught!   From what I have seen, he does things quite differently from WSL people!


----------



## LFJ

lol

You just need to drop this. Guy has his opinion. You have yours.

His is based on solid ground like system coherence and functionality and witnessing this passed on intact through several generations.

Yours is based on Appeal to Majority and Wishful Thinking fallacies, and video footage of a sick old man on the brink of death.

Forms are not the system. Until you learn the system in detail, you won't have a clue where Guy is coming from or even understand the videos you're looking at.

Go learn it from someone who knows it well, then come back and pick up this conversation.


----------



## SaulGoodman

You are an arrogant, patronizing individual aren't you? Must be wonderful being able to speak to us ill educated practitioners from such an enlightened position. All you and Guyb seem to do is create ill feeling and conflict on seemingly every thread you participate in. This is supposed to be a "discussion" forum yet you slap people down with provocative statements like "forms are not the system". Are you kidding me? Do you truly believe that? I doubt WSL would have agreed with that. Speaking of which Didn't WSL say (I'm paraphrasing here) "don't be a slave to Wc, make it your own" which makes guyb's views on never deviating from the original teachings null and void imo.

The thing that attracted me to wing chun in the first place is that it's a TRUE art of "self expression" not a "painting by numbers" art where lots of mindless clones are produced on a conveyor belt who never shift paradigms because they would be "violating" the core tenets of the system. Wing chun is a system you then make your own "style" from that systems tools. Moy Yat, Chu Sheung Tin, Augustine Fong, Leung Ting etc are all those individuals PERSONAL EXPRESSIONS of what they learnt from their teachers. WSL is absolutely no different, he learnt the SYSTEM from yip man and taught his own style/expression of that system based on his own preferences/experiences/shortcomings. That's how it SHOULD be, although as a teacher we should tailor what we teach to help each student and not force them to adopt a mindless dogma regardless of whether that individual can perform the art that way or not. This certainly explains why there are so many "strains" of yip man wing chun imo.


----------



## guy b.

Hi KPM


----------



## LFJ

SaulGoodman said:


> This is supposed to be a "discussion" forum yet you slap people down with provocative statements like "forms are not the system". Are you kidding me? Do you truly believe that?



That's a slap down and provocative? lol

You think if you learn to stand there and do the movements you have learned the system? No, no, no.

Many people have learned the forms, learned to play _chi-sau_ and other drills, yet don't have a clue about free fighting strategy. 

They merely have an empty shell of VT training methods and theorize about fighting while playing _chi-sau _games. That is sadly the general state of Wing Chun today, like it or not.



> Speaking of which Didn't WSL say (I'm paraphrasing here) "don't be a slave to Wc, make it your own" which makes guyb's views on never deviating from the original teachings null and void imo.



He said that in a specific context which everyone takes it out of in order to make it mean all interpretations are of equal value and okay. He was not saying that at all.


----------



## guy b.

Careful LFJ, this forum is on a war footing when Saul Goodman gets rolled out


----------



## LFJ

guy b. said:


> Careful LFJ, this forum is on a war footing when Saul Goodman gets rolled out



I don't understand people who base their standards on footage of YM with one foot in the grave. The how and why has to be learned directly from someone who understands it. And the forms alone tell us nothing about someone's understanding of VT fighting strategy and tactics, which are the ultimate goal of training this _fighting_ system. Without them, you just have empty forms and rudderless drills. Forms are not the system.

Look at YM's feet while doing SNT. By the end of the form his feet are turned out. Is that some secret stance introduced in the latter sections?

And in the first section of CK, with the shifting _bong-sau_. When doing the right arm, he keeps his elbow high before turning. Then when doing the left arm, he drops the elbow low before shifting to _bong_. Which is the "right way"? Two different people can point to the same footage and "justify" their way, but doing so is plain stupid.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> And in the first section of CK, with the shifting _bong-sau_. When doing the right arm, he keeps his elbow high before turning. Then when doing the left arm, he drops the elbow low before shifting to _bong_. Which is the "right way"? Two different people can point to the same footage and "justify" their way, but doing so is plain stupid.



And yet.....you guys have maintained that Wong Shun Leung was doing exactly what Ip Man was doing.  There is no WSLVT...just VT!  And if anyone deviates from what WSL was teaching, then it must not be VT and should be called something else!   THAT is just plain stupid as your last post illustrates!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And yet.....you guys have maintained that Wong Shun Leung was doing exactly what Ip Man was doing.  There is no WSLVT...just VT!  And if anyone deviates from what WSL was teaching, then it must not be VT and should be called something else!   THAT is just plain stupid as your last post illustrates!



lol, How do you figure?

For WSL to have been teaching the system as taught to him by YM, you want him to do the forms like a sick old man on the brink of death who's left arm doesn't agree with his right arm?


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> lol, How do you figure?
> 
> For WSL to have been teaching the system as taught to him by YM, you want him to do the forms like a sick old man on the brink of death who's left arm doesn't agree with his right arm?



I think he is simply stating what is your point of view, rest of this community seems to share a view that YM taught many people the system and they all teach that same system to others. That there is no pure version of it, simply different lineages due to different interpretations.

You are the one saying WSL is teaching the only true WC/VT and that all else made changes themselves.

Sad to say but you have no proof other than a quote where WSL said he teaches what he was taught by YM. A quote that does not mean he teaches a system identical to what YM was doing, but rather that he is trying to  get everyone to learn exactly what he learnt from YM.

To assume what others learned is bad because of it is arrogant and ignorant. WSL had his interests, his personality and his way of fighting. He was already a fighter before studying for YM and as such had a different base compared to many of YM's other students. Perhaps WSL was not taught a more pure version because a pure version would not serve WSL very well in terms of the questions he asked to YM. If someone else had other questions they got other answers compared to WSL, but they also had different scenarios for which they were learning WC.

So saying WSL said he teaches only what YM taught him does not mean that it is pure WC/VT. Nor does it mean anyone else has a pure version either, perhaps YM was just trying to make fighters of them all. Everyone had their area of focus because there were areas they needed to improve. Doubt WSL had to learn things closely related to boxing for instance.

Take what works, throw away the rest. Does not mean the rest is crap, it just means it is useless to you, do not assume you are similar to someone else.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> lol, How do you figure?
> 
> For WSL to have been teaching the system as taught to him by YM, you want him to do the forms like a sick old man on the brink of death who's left arm doesn't agree with his right arm?



So you are admitting the very real and common sense idea that Ip Man probably taught things differently and did things differently at various stages of his Wing Chun career?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> So you are admitting the very real and common sense idea that Ip Man probably taught things differently and did things differently at various stages of his Wing Chun career?



No! How the hell do you figure that?!

I'm saying you are basing form standards on the performance of a sick, old man who was, with all due respect, practically dead and couldn't even hold a stance.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You are the one saying WSL is teaching the only true WC/VT and that all else made changes themselves.



To make changes suggests they had the system to begin with. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that YM taught _very_ few people the system, especially the free fighting strategy and tactics.



> Sad to say but you have no proof other than a quote where WSL said he teaches what he was taught by YM.



I don't believe it just because he said so. I'm quite confident it is true based on the incredible system coherence and functionality of it compared to the useless mess most others teach.



> To assume what others learned is bad because of it is arrogant and ignorant.



Most Wing Chun in the world is bad because the system is broken and it doesn't work.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> No! How the hell do you figure that?!
> 
> I'm saying you are basing form standards on the performance of a sick, old man who was, with all due respect, practically dead and couldn't even hold a stance.



And yet.....Leung Ting studied with Ip Man at the end of Ip Man's career but before he was sickly and near death.   Leung Ting learned a back-weighted stance from Ip Man, which actually matches what we see in those videos.  Sam Kwok uses a back-weighted stance that also matches pretty closely to what we see in those videos.  Both Kwok and Ting can come closer to saying they do exactly what Ip Man did than Wong Shun Leung....given the evidence we have to go by.  I'm not saying they do, I'm just saying it is stupid to say that YOUR version of Ip Man's Wing Chun is the only TRUE version....and that the system doesn't allow for variations as Saul pointed out.  WSLVT exists, just as LTWT exists.   To say you are doing exactly what Ip Man taught and that anyone that sees things a little differently from you must not be doing Ip Man's "VT" is stupid.   And you and Guy still wonder why every thread you participate in degenerates into an argument?  Its because you are convinced that you are right and therefore everyone else that is different from you must be wrong!


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> There is no WSLVT...just VT!



Correct, you are getting there


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> Correct, you are getting there



Now you are just trolling. Not something that is expected from an adult.


----------



## Transk53

So where EWTO come in then, if there is only VT?


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> And yet.....Leung Ting studied with Ip Man at the end of Ip Man's career but before he was sickly and near death.   Leung Ting learned a back-weighted stance from Ip Man, which actually matches what we see in those videos.  Sam Kwok uses a back-weighted stance that also matches pretty closely to what we see in those videos.



Do they do a YJKYM with the toes pointed out too? Do their left arms disagree with their right arms?



> Both Kwok and Ting can come closer to saying they do exactly what Ip Man did than Wong Shun Leung....given the evidence we have to go by.



lol 

If they do a form exactly like a guy on his last breaths, good for them. They watched the video and mimicked it. They don't have the same understanding of VT as a fighting system. It's not even a debate.

If you think the crap in this video is what YM decided to teach at the end of his career, and you would take this guy's advice on fighting seriously... I have no more words.


----------



## LFJ

This is the Eight Spazzing Knife form YM decided to teach at the end of his career too?


----------



## KPM

^^^^ You don't read very closely do you LFJ?  What I actually said was:

  "Both Kwok and Ting can come closer to saying they do exactly what Ip Man did than Wong Shun Leung....given the evidence we have to go by. _ I'm not saying they do_, I'm just saying it is stupid to say that YOUR version of Ip Man's Wing Chun is the only TRUE version."

So to spell it out in plain English for you....I do not think that Leung Ting or Sam Kwok are doing exactly what Ip Man was doing any more than I believe that Wong Shun Leung was doing exactly what Ip Man was doing.   That should be pretty clear.  So your last 2 posts were just trolling.


----------



## jks9199

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please remember that there is a rule against bashing entire arts.  Discuss the merits of a style, but avoid the wholesale attacks on the art.

jks9199
MT Admin


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> This is the Eight Spazzing Knife form YM decided to teach at the end of his career too?



Apparently YM taught a great system until he was old, then he taught batsh1t crazy stuff for some reason, until he passed away.


----------



## wckf92

guy b. said:


> Apparently YM taught a great system until he was old, then he taught batsh1t crazy stuff for some reason, until he passed away.



Opium usage perhaps (?)


----------



## Transk53

Would be nice for once if the Wing Chun forum could have a intelligent aspect to it rather than fanboys having a whose is bigger contest. These sort of idiotic fanboy conflabs, only cause guest traffic to must the fact that some members need to let **** go. Leave the little boys to be little boys. Seriously, Wing Chun deserves better than these stupid linage and whatever argument. Grow up will you!!


----------



## geezer

Transk53 said:


> Would be nice for once if the Wing Chun forum could have a intelligent aspect to it rather than fanboys having a whose is bigger contest. These sort of idiotic fanboy conflabs, only cause guest traffic to must the fact that some members need to let **** go. Leave the little boys to be little boys. Seriously, Wing Chun deserves better than these stupid linage and whatever argument. Grow up will you!!



Honestly, _Transk,_ most of the 'Chunners on this forum are pretty friendly toward other lineages and eager to share ideas. There are only a couple of provocateurs who are consistently  and deliberately getting the others riled up by claiming to practice the only coherent, correct, and functional VT that accurately reflects Yip Man's teachings. 

...Not that those two don't have something to add. I've learned a bit from previous discussions, but since I'm not one of their co-religionists they'd probably deny that I understood them at all. ...sigh....


----------



## Transk53

geezer said:


> Honestly, _Transk,_ most of the 'Chunners on this forum are pretty friendly toward other lineages and eager to share ideas. There are only a couple of provocateurs who are consistently  and deliberately getting the others riled up by claiming to practice the only coherent, correct, and functional VT that accurately reflects Yip Man's teachings.
> 
> ...Not that those two don't have something to add. I've learned a bit from previous discussions, but since I'm not one of their co-religionists they'd probably deny that I understood them at all. ...sigh....



Thankfully you are a voice of reason  Can understand chunners, or anybody else really, can be fanatical (mean that without the worldly troubles attached), but the click baiting just ruins a discussion. I actually think KPM posted a good one. Enjoy reading his posts, just wish he could be left to post and discuss.


----------



## Marnetmar

I know a mod has already stepped in but...

Isn't life a bit too short for this kind of pettiness? For God's sake it can't be hard to keep this all in a string of PMs between you three and not take it public where everyone else has to deal with it. "HEY EVERYONE, GUY B. SAID THIS" is stupid and childish.

Even better I'd encourage y'all to get in a group Skype video session or something to debate and show your ideas to each other in real time. I think some good things could come out of it.


----------



## Transk53

Marnetmar said:


> I know a mod has already stepped in but...
> 
> Isn't life a bit too short for this kind of pettiness? For God's sake it can't be hard to keep this all in a string of PMs between you three and not take it public where everyone else has to deal with it.



Exactly. Not taking KPM's point as a personal thing, just more professional as it were. Guy B and LFJ need to reign it in. I could condescend them, but will not because that would mean being the same. Either way, Wing Chun is Wing Chun. Each individual subtracts or adds. The core would always be what it is, something that blinds many. No slight towards Keith, but idiocy has to stop. Keep it to Wing Chun, lineage should not be an issue, but personal experience on how those techniques are applied. A bridge is what it is, an object to carry. Maybe some of the members around here should heed that, not blind devotion to an ages old scripture.


----------



## KPM

Marnetmar said:


> I know a mod has already stepped in but...
> 
> Isn't life a bit too short for this kind of pettiness? For God's sake it can't be hard to keep this all in a string of PMs between you three and not take it public where everyone else has to deal with it. "HEY EVERYONE, GUY B. SAID THIS" is stupid and childish.
> 
> Even better I'd encourage y'all to get in a group Skype video session or something to debate and show your ideas to each other in real time. I think some good things could come out of it.



Don't you guys get tired of the same old rhetoric from the dynamic duo?  But hardly anyone will speak up and call them on their BS.  But Ok.  If you guys would rather just let them keep up the same old line of running down everyone else's Wing Chun, that's fine with me and I'll keep quite.  But they aren't going to stop until they come to the realization that nobody believes them and that their viewpoint of superiority is not welcome here.  When you are not challenging them on what they are saying, they just assume they have made a valid point and you have conceded the discussion to their superior viewpoint and better "VT."  What has frustrated me in the past is that I know nearly everyone here is agreeing with me when I call them on things.  But until recently no one else would ever spoke out to back me up. 

But Ok.  If that's what you guys want, I'll keep quite and just let them do their thing.


----------



## SaulGoodman

No KPM, this is a discussion forum and just as they have a right to their opinions you have a right to yours. Unfortunately Wing Chun is an art that brings out the partisan in a lot of us, I'm certainly as guilty as the next man on occasion. However, there is such a thing as tact and being even handed when standing up for ones own system. I haven't posted in a long time but as you have done yourself sometimes I have to get involved when I feel people are denigrating others in an arrogant and condescending manner simply because they can. It's ok (and sometimes useful) for someone to have conflicting views but not cool when it's done to create unpleasantness. This seems to be the case on many occasions on threads that could have been beneficial to many of us.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Don't you guys get tired of the same old rhetoric from the dynamic duo?  But hardly anyone will speak up and call them on their BS.


I enjoy friendly discussion. I don't enjoy unfriendly argument. Sometime, some opinion are just too much contradict to what I have believed in, I'll jump in and say something.

There is always a price that I have to pay for it. If I just ignore those comments, I can have a happy, peaceful day of life. If I want to get involve serious argument with them, not only my blood pressure will go up, I will be in bad mode whole day. Is that truly worthwhile?


----------



## SaulGoodman

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I enjoy friendly discussion. I don't enjoy unfriendly argument. Sometime, some opinion are just too much contradict to what I have believed in, I'll jump in and say something.
> 
> There is always a price that I have to pay for it. If I just ignore those comments, I can have a happy, peaceful day of life. If I want to get involve serious argument with them, not only my blood pressure will go up, I will be in bad mode whole day. Is that truly worthwhile?



To be honest it's rarely worth engaging as it does tend to induce a little stress. But sometimes statements are so (probably deliberate) provocative I simply have to say something


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

To me it is super clear that WSL has taken wing chun in a certain direction and was an innovator. He had his own style and fighting philosophy. It is clearly NOT exactly what Yip Man taught, but why is that a bad thing? I just don't see why that is something to be so offended by. I even like the WSL approach. 

This whole argument is really taking away from useful constructive discussions. I am really surprised moderators are not picking this up.


----------



## SaulGoodman

It's not the different approach that some find "offending", it's the simple fact that we are constantly being told that the WSL approach is the ONLY approach and anything else is irrelevant.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Yep we need to move on from this.


----------



## geezer

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Yep we need to move on from this.



True. ...Say I had an interesting experience today. I crashed another WC school from a different  and demanded to do chi sau with their guys to defend the honor of my lineage! Yeah, and then I got hit in the mouth. (It's the biggest target on my body as you can tell from my posts. ) But I gave as well as I took. _It was really great! _I will visit them again or invite them to visit us. In fact I'm gonna start a thread about this.


----------



## Marnetmar

KPM said:


> Don't you guys get tired of the same old rhetoric from the dynamic duo?  But hardly anyone will speak up and call them on their BS.  But Ok.  If you guys would rather just let them keep up the same old line of running down everyone else's Wing Chun, that's fine with me and I'll keep quite.  But they aren't going to stop until they come to the realization that nobody believes them and that their viewpoint of superiority is not welcome here.  When you are not challenging them on what they are saying, they just assume they have made a valid point and you have conceded the discussion to their superior viewpoint and better "VT."  What has frustrated me in the past is that I know nearly everyone here is agreeing with me when I call them on things.  But until recently no one else would ever spoke out to back me up.
> 
> But Ok.  If that's what you guys want, I'll keep quite and just let them do their thing.



What makes you think this is only about you? It's about all three of you, and I'm inclined to agree with your viewpoints and logic on most things as well. But the ONLY reason this is even an issue is because the *three* of you, not just you, not just Guy, not just LFJ, keep dragging it on in the public sphere.

I don't care who started it and I don't care which one of you is right. At this point it doesn't matter.


----------



## geezer

Marnetmar said:


> What makes you think this is only about you? It's about all three of you ...I don't care who started it and I don't care which one of you is right. At this point it doesn't matter.



True enough, Keith does get sucked into these arguments in spite of himself. Oh well. On the bright side, I've noticed that the forum is way more active when these arguments get heated. The flip side is that it's a negative sort of activity. If only people could just show a little restraint. I mean arguments end pretty quickly when everybody just shrugs and walks away.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

geezer said:


> On the bright side, I've noticed that the forum is way more active when these arguments get heated.


This is absolute true. Most of the treads that I have started all die after 3 or 4 pages. The thread "WC punch" last for 11 pages so far.

In another CMA forum, after few major persons left, that forum is almost dead.


----------



## geezer

Kung Fu Wang said:


> This is absolute true. Most of the treads that I have started all die after 3 or 4 pages. The thread "WC punch" last for 11 pages so far.



Of course John, because when you make well reasoned assertions, others may agree or not, but either way there's no argument.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> It is clearly NOT exactly what Yip Man taught,



And what do you base this on? You follow the lineage of a guy who openly admitted making up his own ideas because YM wouldn't give him details, and he didn't care about fighting skill.



> but why is that a bad thing? I just don't see why that is something to be so offended by. I even like the WSL approach.



It's not offensive at all. Just isn't true. There's a ton of evidence concerning YM that I don't feel like rehashing. But the alternative is a relativist attitude that everyone is right in their own little way, and Appeals to Majority and Wishful Thinking fallacies are all that support that view.



> This whole argument is really taking away from useful constructive discussions.



That kind of discussion doesn't gain much traction. The "Deficiencies in WSL teachings" thread is an example. We welcome critique. I make very detailed and constructive posts... and things go silent or get diverted to trivialities like someone's objection to the abbreviations we use.

It seems rather than having constructive discussions with us, people would rather argue about stupid stuff. I can't help that. Whataya want me to do? I already told him to let it go on post #2!


----------



## Phobius

LFJ, people unlike you don't feel it appropriate to bash lineages. Therefore they have to target how people themselves do...

Here you guys are impossible to argue with because you alter the table as the discussion moves forward by adding new set of rules and situations.

This makes people surrender arguments altogether and start arguing about how offensive you are and the fact that you bash every single lineage with a mix of what is sometimes very juvenile responses.

Noone is bashing WSLVT because noone disagrees that much with it. They just disagree with you.

You however disagree with everything. And the arguments on why other lineages don't work are often vague words like incoherent which makes it impossible to even have a discussion on that topic.

Some posts you have done have been very good and in those cases I have stated so to you. With clear arguments. The rest is just you clapping yourself on the back...


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Noone is bashing WSLVT because noone disagrees that much with it.



Interesting.



> You however disagree with everything. And the arguments on why other lineages don't work are often vague words like incoherent which makes it impossible to even have a discussion on that topic.



I explain exactly what I find problematic whenever talking about a specific lineage. 
I use the word "incoherent" when talking about systems in general terms.

I would like to agree with more, honestly, but sadly the current state of Wing Chun is that most of it is riddled with problems, and I can't pretend these problems don't exist.

If I'm wrong about them being problems, it should be very easy to clarify. Yet, as you have witnessed, when I make very detailed posts about things, people either agree with it outright or brush it off with only one-liners and refuse to engage.


----------



## Transk53

LFJ said:


> Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> I explain exactly what I find problematic whenever talking about a specific lineage.
> I use the word "incoherent" when talking about systems in general terms.
> 
> I would like to agree with more, honestly, but sadly the current state of Wing Chun is that most of it is riddled with problems, and I can't pretend these problems don't exist.
> 
> If I'm wrong about them being problems, it should be very easy to clarify. Yet, as you have witnessed, when I make very detailed posts about things, people either agree with it outright or brush it off with only one-liners and refuse to engage.



Wing Chun is riddled with problems?


----------



## Phobius

Transk53 said:


> Wing Chun is riddled with problems?



I think better question would be what problems. 

I think some are very obvious even to me, just look at YouTube, it is flooded with people wanting to show how much they know and yet seem to not comprehend fighting at all. 

Others mistake softness for no power, force or no offensive strategy whatsoever and treat wing chun as it is a spa event that will teach you how to fight any and everything. 

Thirdly we have a million people who seem to think that first real grade makes them a sifu and that they are gonna be supreme fighters and excellent teachers just by that alone. This I find to be okay but it can spread WC in watered down versions where people try to fill in gaps on their own. Is great until they consider chi-sao to be the tool to validate new additions. 

Fourth point is the chi-sao sparring group. Those that think chi-sao resembles fighting and can replace sparring. 

Just to name some. 

Think all MAs have problems of their own.


----------



## Transk53

Phobius said:


> I think better question would be what problems.
> 
> I think some are very obvious even to me, *just look at YouTube, it is flooded with people wanting to show how much they know and yet seem to not comprehend fighting at all. *
> 
> Others mistake softness for no power, force or no offensive strategy whatsoever and treat wing chun as it is a spa event that will teach you how to fight any and everything.
> 
> Thirdly we have a million people who seem to think that first real grade makes them a sifu and that they are gonna be supreme fighters and excellent teachers just by that alone. This I find to be okay but it can spread WC in watered down versions where people try to fill in gaps on their own. Is great until they consider chi-sao to be the tool to validate new additions.
> 
> Fourth point is the chi-sao sparring group. Those that think chi-sao resembles fighting and can replace sparring.
> 
> Just to name some.
> 
> Think all MAs have problems of their own.



Yes.The trumpet brigade as I dub them. Remember back in the day with video tapes, what you saw may have been grainy and badly dubbed, there was quiet confidence that what was being seen, was actually something of substance. Had it not been for the members on here to comment on a thread I started that was a Jake Mace vid, I would not have known that what I was seeing was not 100 percent correct. 

You make very good points, the second one though sounds like people that have watched Ip Man too much. Maybe one of the problems in the modern day world is the pace of life. Too many wanting to get somewhere too quickly, and end up omitting things that are deemed superfluous. Think that applies to some MA as well, not for the technical side of things, but as you say with things being watered down. Whatever the motive.


----------



## KPM

Marnetmar said:


> What makes you think this is only about you? It's about all three of you, and I'm inclined to agree with your viewpoints and logic on most things as well. But the ONLY reason this is even an issue is because the *three* of you, not just you, not just Guy, not just LFJ, keep dragging it on in the public sphere.
> 
> I don't care who started it and I don't care which one of you is right. At this point it doesn't matter.




Well no.  It hasn't been about "all three of us"....at least not lately.  Because as I noted above, other people have started to speak out to back me up and call them on their BS.  When other people are willing to just sit back and let them say whatever they want about other lineages, then yeah....it looks like its all about the 3 of us.   If you are agreeing with my viewpoint and logic on most things, then why aren't you posting to say so?  If you did, then it becomes clear to them that the majority disagrees with what they are saying and its NOT just about the "three of us."   When most of these things end as a 2 on 1 situation with me as the lone voice of dissent, that's when it turns into a convulated argument.


----------



## Transk53

KPM said:


> Well no.  It hasn't been about "all three of us"....at least not lately.  Because as I noted above, other people have started to speak out to back me up and call them on their BS.  When other people are willing to just sit back and let them say whatever they want about other lineages, then yeah....it looks like its all about the 3 of us.   If you are agreeing with my viewpoint and logic on most things, then why aren't you posting to say so?  If you did, then it becomes clear to them that the majority disagrees with what they are saying and its NOT just about the "three of us."   When most of these things end as a 2 on 1 situation with me as the lone voice of dissent, that's when it turns into a convulated argument.



That is the problem though. No doubt the gruesome twosome will retort. Gets to a point where nothing can be written without a sarky reply, or whatever other reply. Speaking or replying Objectively ceases to exist because things go beyond the point of no return. Resulting in members disappearing even if they do speak with a loaded bias towards themselves and, or, their cohorts.


----------



## LFJ

@KPM 

You've actually done very little to no refutation when I've given specific and detailed critiques of other methods and clearly laid mine out.

Your "calling us on our BS" has been nothing more than complaining about our use of abbreviations, our views on VT history, and other trivialities which you could just ignore; never anything really meaningful or of substance with regards to actual methods.

I know you have different views on VT history. That's fine. I don't care. Everyone is free to believe what they want and let it be known. I'm interested in talking substance but you keep dragging discussions back down with trifles.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^   The post above just proves my point!   I take issue with the dynamic duo now starting to say there is no WSLVT, only "VT" which is what Ip Man taught.  Its not about abbreviations at all.  Its about now taking the attitude that they are going to use "VT" as their own way of referring to what they think is the only true way of doing Wing Chun....the way WSL does it.  Its not about any specific abbreviation at all!  Most of you get that, right?  But not LFJ. 

Their view of history is that Ip Man taught very few people the "real" Wing Chun, and very few people were smart enough to "get it."  Apparently only WSL (and possibly a few unnamed other people thrown in so the idea doesn't look quite as bad) were smart enough and spent time enough and were the "chosen" to get the "real thing" from Ip Man.  Tell me I'm not the only one that has a problem with that "different view on VT history"! 

LFJ says he is interested in "talking substance"....but just said in the other thread that there were "purposeful omissions"....omissions that were very likely the reason we weren't following his argument.   

But if you guys want me to simply ignore the dynamic duo and let them go on with such drivel, I will.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> but just said in the other thread that there were "purposeful omissions"....omissions that were very likely the reason we weren't following his argument.



You weren't following the argument because _you weren't following the argument._ You were leading with questions to get me to concede that your clever techniques are good and I'd probably use them too.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> And what do you base this on? You follow the lineage of a guy who openly admitted making up his own ideas because YM wouldn't give him details, and he didn't care about fighting skill.



LOL! You come across as being offended and therefore deciding to attack my lineage. What is wrong with WSL taking his wing chun in a certain direction that differes from YM? Why do you lack faith in WSL to come up with his own conclusions and way of doing things? He was an intelligent guy. Give him more credit.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Its not about abbreviations at all. Its about now taking the attitude that they are going to use "VT" as their own way of referring to what they think is the only true way of doing Wing Chun....the way WSL does it. Its not about any specific abbreviation at all!





KPM said:


> Their view of history is that Ip Man taught very few people the "real" Wing Chun, and very few people were smart enough to "get it." Apparently only WSL (and possibly a few unnamed other people thrown in so the idea doesn't look quite as bad) were smart enough



So you are confirming that all you are complaining about is our use of abbreviations, our views on VT history, and other trivialities. I think that you should just ignore such unimportant things and try talking substance and detail instead. 



KPM said:


> if you guys want me to simply ignore the dynamic duo and let them go on, I will.



Please do. Your constant trolling about abbreviations, historical disagreement, and trivialities is really making the forum a less attractive place


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> LOL! You come across as being offended and therefore deciding to attack my lineage. What is wrong with WSL taking his wing chun in a certain direction that differes from YM? Why do you lack faith in WSL to come up with his own conclusions and way of doing things? He was an intelligent guy. Give him more credit.



I don't think LFJ comes across as offended. He replies in great detail mostly and is remarkably even tempered.

The argument (which has been made before) is a probabilistic one; it is extremely unlikely that WSL made a coherent and non contradictory system like VT out of a mess of incoherent conceptual and strategic thinking with many inherent contradictions. Much more likely that he simply taught what he learned from YM, something which evolved and became so perfect over a long period of time as a product of many brains.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Well the two of you have avoided the question that many have asked you. Which is how do you know what YM taught? You were not there. You don't actually know.


----------



## guy b.

1. Probabilistic argument as above. This is an evidence based argument, not a faith based argument.
2. WSL said it. I see no good reason to assume he lied.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> 1. Probabilistic argument as above. This is an evidence based argument, not a faith based argument.
> 2. WSL said it. I see no good reason to assume he lied.



1. What evidence? It is very faith based IMO. 
2. This was said by many YM students and can not be relied upon for a variety of reasons. Just saying because someone said that is hardly evidence. And even if he did believe that, it is still his interpretation of what YM taught.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> 1. What evidence? It is very faith based IMO.
> 2. This was said by many YM students and can not be relied upon for a variety of reasons. Just saying because someone said that is hardly evidence. And even if he did believe that, it is still his interpretation of what YM taught.



You're just feeding the trolls now bud...


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> 1. What evidence? It is very faith based IMO.



How can a probabilistic argument be faith based? It is the opposite. Please address the argument.



Wing Chun Auckland said:


> This was said by many YM students



Was it? Please provide quotes.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Think I will go with Saul on this matter....


----------



## dudewingchun

WSL and Duncan Leung have both said they teach just what Ip Man taught them but there way of wing chun is completely different... just saying. 

Guy b and LFJ which lineage do you guys think resembles WSL the most out of the Ip man students? Just curious.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> LOL! You come across as being offended and therefore deciding to attack my lineage.



Maybe you feel offended and see it as an attack. All apologies.

I'm just saying the guy whose lineage you follow _openly admitted_ making up his own ideas because YM didn't give him any details.

So, I'm just confused how you think you would know what YM taught and how "obviously" different WSL's teachings were to that.



> What is wrong with WSL taking his wing chun in a certain direction that differes from YM? Why do you lack faith in WSL to come up with his own conclusions and way of doing things? He was an intelligent guy. Give him more credit.



As Guy said. I wouldn't mind if WSL came up with things on his own. I just find it very hard to believe he did for reasons mentioned by Guy, and he also said he didn't and wasn't an obvious liar like some lineage heads I need not name for you to know.



> Well the two of you have avoided the question that many have asked you. Which is how do you know what YM taught? You were not there. You don't actually know.



In addition to the probabilistic argument, we have quite a bit of testimony regarding YM's teaching style and temperament which shows that he'd rather teach one good student than ten lousy ones, and in fact didn't teach details to many people at all. That's including testimony from your own lineage head who said he wasn't given details and had to come up with his own ideas.

Other testimony shows that YM only opened public classes to support himself financially in Hong Kong (mostly his opium addiction) and only cared about passing VT on to serious fighters.

So, we can look at people who didn't spend much time with him, or were never fighters, and see that what they teach is not at all functional. It then becomes quite obvious (speaking from evidence-based confidence) that this was not YM's fighting method.

Whereas, what the most prolific fighting student of YM taught is an incredibly logical, systematic approach to developing nothing more or less than practical fighting skill.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

.... so .....hard....not.... to ...get ....drawn in...... 
Cant do it. 



What makes you think YM didn't give CST any details? 






Watch the above interview. CST never said he wasn't taught details. He questioned the meaning of SNT. He was encouraged to believe and train. He was relentless in his training. 

CST lived with YM for 5 years and was one of the four first generation students that reached a high level. Most of the YM photos and antiques at the wing chun athletic association were donated by CST. 

CST frequently attended Beimo fights together with WSL and Lok Yu. They would go together. CST recalls many times he went with WSL to fight. All of them would. He tells a good story of one time when they all went to fight. WSL won his fight easily and Lok Yu got beaten badly on this occasion. CST won his fight against a much bigger opponent. WSL was just way more active in fighting than others. 

CST later years he changed his teaching approach. This is to be expected when one reaches a high level. All YM sifus will have taken there own direction. YM included. This can't be avoided. It is naive to think so. 

Only two people were teaching YM's third generation students; CST and WSL. THere is no need to compare these two great masters who were great friends right up until the moment WSL died. They toured in Europe together. And one of CST most well known students who opened a huge chain of schools in Australia (Jim Fung) had WSL visit his schools several times for seminars. 

YM used CST to demonstrate force concepts on other students and encouraged them to follow his example. YM was also quoted in a chinese newspaper as saying that CST had surpassed his skill. He said the same thing of HKM. I don't put much stock in things like this. I have heard of YM saying this about at least one other person. So it is apparent to me that YM was quite humble and openly praised his students in this way. 

Regarding WSL's temperament. We can make some assumptions about what kind of person he was. He came in fighting from the get go and was active in Beimo throughout his training. To me this paints a certain picture of quite an aggressive and confident person. He would have been very outspoken and it is clear that he had huge influence in YM's school. He would have taken that aggressive approach to his wing chun and chi sao and his wing chun would have gone in that direction. This sort of personality profile doesn't strike me as someone who would be a cookie cutter follower of anyone. There is the famous story of him fighting a another kung fu stylist where he kneed the guy in the head. The other guy questioned whether this was real kungfu and he responded by saying his knee was close to his head and was the best thing to use. WSL would have taken that attitude with wing chun, discarding what he deemed useless. 

While WSL had a really good take on fighting and application. He is missing some of the force generation concepts found in other YM teachers. CST had amazing force and power. He didn't make it up. He was taught this by YM. There have been a lot of people who got to meet WSL who were students of other YM sifus who found some of this power and force stuff missing from his chi sao. Nothing wrong with this. WSL had at least some force and structure. He probably figured that only a certain amount was required for actual fighting. That might be a fair assertion .... who knows.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> What makes you think YM didn't give CST any details?
> 
> Watch the above interview. CST never said he wasn't taught details. He questioned the meaning of SNT. He was encouraged to believe and train. He was relentless in his training.



You just answered your own question. All he was ever told was "believe and train". That's not being given details.

He trained hard and came up with his own ideas, which he openly admitted, and thought the meaning of SNT is the interpretation anyone gives it.

There are no secrets or just "believe and train" and make up whatever you want in what WSL learned and taught. Everything has a clear meaning and purpose. It answers all the stuff that makes no sense in other lineages.



> While WSL had a really good take on fighting and application. He is missing some of the force generation concepts found in other YM teachers.



And most others are missing everything that matters, like fighting strategy and tactics, and how abstract drills relate.

I met a LS lineage guy a couple weeks ago. He had some weird force generation stuff that I don't have. I wouldn't say I'm "missing" it though, because it's entirely useless.

YM taught a specific approach to fighting. This stuff has nothing to do with fighting.



> CST had amazing force and power. He didn't make it up. He was taught this by YM.



If you consider "just believe and train" teaching.


----------



## KPM

^^^^ Auckland your version of history doesn't match their version of history.  So expect it to be discounted immediately!    But thanks for the info.  That was very interesting.

Edit:  It happened even as I was typing to predict it!  Go figure!


----------



## Transk53

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> .... so .....hard....not.... to ...get ....drawn in......
> Cant do it.
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think YM didn't give CST any details?
> 
> 
> Watch the above interview. CST never said he wasn't taught details. He questioned the meaning of SNT. He was encouraged to believe and train. He was relentless in his training.
> 
> CST lived with YM for 5 years and was one of the four first generation students that reached a high level. Most of the YM photos and antiques at the wing chun athletic association were donated by CST.
> 
> CST frequently attended Beimo fights together with WSL and Lok Yu. They would go together. CST recalls many times he went with WSL to fight. All of them would. He tells a good story of one time when they all went to fight. WSL won his fight easily and Lok Yu got beaten badly on this occasion. CST won his fight against a much bigger opponent. WSL was just way more active in fighting than others.
> 
> CST later years he changed his teaching approach. This is to be expected when one reaches a high level. All YM sifus will have taken there own direction. YM included. This can't be avoided. It is naive to think so.
> 
> Only two people were teaching YM's third generation students; CST and WSL. THere is no need to compare these two great masters who were great friends right up until the moment WSL died. They toured in Europe together. And one of CST most well known students who opened a huge chain of schools in Australia (Jim Fung) had WSL visit his schools several times for seminars.
> 
> YM used CST to demonstrate force concepts on other students and encouraged them to follow his example. YM was also quoted in a chinese newspaper as saying that CST had surpassed his skill. He said the same thing of HKM. I don't put much stock in things like this. I have heard of YM saying this about at least one other person. So it is apparent to me that YM was quite humble and openly praised his students in this way.
> 
> *Regarding WSL's temperament. We can make some assumptions about what kind of person he was. He came in fighting from the get go and was active in Beimo throughout his training. To me this paints a certain picture of quite an aggressive and confident person. He would have been very outspoken and it is clear that he had huge influence in YM's school. He would have taken that aggressive approach to his wing chun and chi sao and his wing chun would have gone in that direction. This sort of personality profile doesn't strike me as someone who would be a cookie cutter follower of anyone.* There is the famous story of him fighting a another kung fu stylist where he kneed the guy in the head. The other guy questioned whether this was real kungfu and he responded by saying his knee was close to his head and was the best thing to use. WSL would have taken that attitude with wing chun, discarding what he deemed useless.
> 
> While WSL had a really good take on fighting and application. He is missing some of the force generation concepts found in other YM teachers. CST had amazing force and power. He didn't make it up. He was taught this by YM. There have been a lot of people who got to meet WSL who were students of other YM sifus who found some of this power and force stuff missing from his chi sao. Nothing wrong with this. WSL had at least some force and structure. He probably figured that only a certain amount was required for actual fighting. That might be a fair assertion .... who knows.



Very interesting. I would say that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## WcForMe

Ok I've read most of this thread and I'm only hearing the same old stuff being spouted. Before I say anymore more let it be clear I have nothing but respect for the Yip family and wing chun and the way the family brought wc to the mainstream. Without him or BL I would have probably never heard of it.

That said these arguements of who was taught the correct wc and who teaches wc as originally taught by Yip man is ridiculous. How does anybody expect a theory of fighting from 1800s ish not to be changed by the year 2016. 

Times change, people change. In China at that time around 1800s how many people where over 6ft weighing in at the weights people weight today? My bet is none. Chinese are usually a lot less weighty and smaller in height and build than us westerners. That's just one small example of how times and people change there are many to consider.

As much as Yip man is undoubtedly the biggest public name in wc ever, has anybody you personally know or have you ever seen him fight? I havnt. I'm gunna annoy pretty much most practioniers now. How do I personally know his wc was amongst the best the world has seen? Chinese love a story. From my understanding rightly or wrongly they like to elloborate stories. I have no doubt that he was one of the best due to the quality of students he had. Which brings me to my next part. 

Hands up with hand on heart what sifus teach EXACTLY what you where taught. I teach a very small amount and I'm certainly no Sifu. I try to teach unbiasedly and to the standard I'm taught at. However subconsciously I teach and remember things that work for me personally. I'm short ish, my legs are not that flexible compared to my Sifu with flexible legs over 6ft tall. We are never going to do combat the same way. What he can do and what I can do is worlds apart. So if I teach people that are much taller than me I have to think very hard about what I'm teaching to help the student adapt the theory to fit his or her needs not just my own. 

All anybody in this world should be concerned about is 1. Does this theory work for me when it actually comes to a violent situation 2. Do you understand what you are learning completely. As some of you guys have posted this is a fighting art. If you can't make it work in a fight then why bother. What do I care if you don't like my Sifu or you think I'm doing it wrong. If I can apply what I've learnt and it works for me who is anybody else to tell me different. If some of you prefer wsl more for you, for the ones that don't well done to you. Just train and enjoy. Lineage is a political battle that will never end. People always want to feel they have the best wc, train with the best Sifu they can and that includes me. But if somebody from pan nam for an example shows me something that works I'm all for it. 

I'm not the best wc source or fighter ever but il stand up and bang. If I lose I learn some valuable lessons if I win I analyse to see where I could do something better, quicker, what opportunities I missed and could capitalise on etc etc. All of that improves my wc and me as a person not what lineage I'm from.


----------



## LFJ

WcForMe said:


> I try to teach unbiasedly and to the standard I'm taught at. However subconsciously I teach and remember things that work for me personally. I'm short ish, my legs are not that flexible compared to my Sifu with flexible legs over 6ft tall. We are never going to do combat the same way. What he can do and what I can do is worlds apart. So if I teach people that are much taller than me I have to think very hard about what I'm teaching to help the student adapt the theory to fit his or her needs not just my own.



A good principle based system can accommodate all shapes and sizes without requiring change.


----------



## LFJ

Edit: Double Post


----------



## WcForMe

LFJ said:


> A good principle based system can accommodate all shapes and sizes without requiring change.



Please clarify your point as I may be reading it wrong. Core principles like say centreline won't change I agree with that. However from what I've read and seen even wsl agreed with me on this point. If you think every single person should fight the same I would totally disagree. But thats my opinion from the limited combat I have done. I put up a pretty massive post and I was waiting for some more shall we say feedback LFJ.


----------



## Transk53

WcForMe said:


> Please clarify your point as I may be reading it wrong. Core principles like say centreline won't change I agree with that. However from what I've read and seen even wsl agreed with me on this point. *If you think every single person should fight the same I would totally disagree.* But thats my opinion from the limited combat I have done. I put up a pretty massive post and I was waiting for some more shall we say feedback LFJ.



What you originally posted makes sense. Most of the time in reality from my POV is that most of the time it is slapsies. Even then, every live situation is different.



WcForMe said:


> Hands up with hand on heart what sifus teach EXACTLY what you where taught. I teach a very small amount and I'm certainly no Sifu. I try to teach unbiasedly and to the standard I'm taught at. However subconsciously I teach and remember things "*that work for me"* personally. I'm short ish, my legs are not that flexible compared to my Sifu with flexible legs over 6ft tall. We are never going to do combat the same way. What he can do and what I can do is worlds apart. So if I teach people that are much taller than me I have to think very hard about what I'm teaching to help the student adapt the theory to fit his or her needs not just my own.



Concur. The emboldened I think is aspect that many overlook. I guess on a general level while training, the areas being trained are very similar in execution. The crux of it would be what person would do in any situation that could escalate into a full blown fight. I am not ignorant to suggest that martial arts have no impact on the mindset, but that fighting mindset I think it different. At least on a non scientific view that I hold. And I have had to adapt many times while training and trying new things in different arts.


----------



## SaulGoodman

My wing chun is different in many ways to my Sifu's, is that wrong? As long as I am not abandoning the core principles I don't think so. What a depressing thought, busting my hump trying to be a carbon copy of my teacher! Once again I quote (again paraphrasing) the great WSL (yes I like WSL a lot, almost was my choice of lineage at one point!). "Don't be a slave to Wing Chun, make it your own".


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

SaulGoodman said:


> My wing chun is different in many ways to my Sifu's, is that wrong? As long as I am not abandoning the core principles I don't think so. What a depressing thought, busting my hump trying to be a carbon copy of my teacher! Once again I quote (again paraphrasing) the great WSL (yes I like WSL a lot, almost was my choice of lineage at one point!). "Don't be a slave to Wing Chun, make it your own".



Absolutely. And my approach is different from my Sifu's. You can't get away from it. FWI CST said exactly the same thing. He said "Don't let Wing Chun own you. You own wing chun". He was referring to people's obsession with exact arm positions.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> You just answered your own question. All he was ever told was "believe and train". That's not being given details.
> 
> He trained hard and came up with his own ideas, which he openly admitted, and thought the meaning of SNT is the interpretation anyone gives it.



Lol! Is that what you took from that? Then it is not surprising how you reached many of your other conclusions.


----------



## dudewingchun

In my brief experience with WSL and CST here in NZ. CST produce alot more power and have better structure. Cant compare the effectiveness in fighting though, the focus of training between the two are completely different. 

Guy B and LFJ have you guys touched hands with a good CST student at all? Also my other question, what do you guys think is the most similar VT to WSL?


----------



## SaulGoodman

CST was an exceptional talent imo. He comes across as very humble and knowledgeable.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

SaulGoodman said:


> CST was an exceptional talent imo. He comes across as very humble and knowledgeable.



Yeah, he was pretty humble. And just a good natured person in general. Great article about this by Mark Spence who has amazing skill. See link:

Training with Sigung Chu Shong Tin | Chi Sau Club Wing Chun Kung Fu Surry Hills Sydney

In regards to level, many of his students regarded him as a freak.


----------



## SaulGoodman

Thanks for the link bud, very interesting


----------



## Transk53

Nice to see some constructive answers here


----------



## KPM

SaulGoodman said:


> My wing chun is different in many ways to my Sifu's, is that wrong? As long as I am not abandoning the core principles I don't think so. What a depressing thought, busting my hump trying to be a carbon copy of my teacher! Once again I quote (again paraphrasing) the great WSL (yes I like WSL a lot, almost was my choice of lineage at one point!). "Don't be a slave to Wing Chun, make it your own".



But that is taken out of context Saul!  We can take WSL at his word and with a literal understanding when he said he taught just what Ip Man taught.  But we don't take him as literally meaning what you quote above.  You have to have just the right context for that one!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Wait! 

I can fix this all with a simple letter that if we all agree on, will help us to move on. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear KPM and Guy B, 

We thank you for your vigilant efforts to educate us regarding the true history of Yip Man wing chun and its most direct transmission via WSL and subsequently PB. 
While we may not always be able to follow your logic, we do not doubt your conviction. This lack of understanding may very well be our lack of intellect or ignorance. 

We promise to visit PB VT association in the future when we find circumstances favourable. In the mean time, we must practice our own versions of wing chun given that we are geographically disadvantaged. 
As a condition of us promising to visit PBVT at a future time (and discovering first hand what we have been missing out on), we would only request that all comments regarding WSL superiority and wing chun purity be put on hold until this time when we can discover these truths for ourselves by visiting and practicing PBVT directly. To the best of our current knowledge and understanding we are practicing the best version of wing chun that we possibly can given our individual personalities, needs and geographic circumstances. The best way forward for us is to carry on with our respective paths until such time that we can be further enlightened by a superior version. Until then, we would like to move the discussions towards constructive discussions that may enhance our practice or knowledge.


----------



## guy b.

I am all for constructive discussion. It seems to be a thing that people dislike.


----------



## SaulGoodman

I would like to see PB do some instructional DVDs showing his method. Always interested in seeing other lineages interpretations of our art.


----------



## KPM

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Wait!
> 
> I can fix this all with a simple letter that if we all agree on, will help us to move on.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Dear KPM and Guy B,
> 
> We thank you for your vigilant efforts to educate us regarding the true history of Yip Man wing chun and its most direct transmission via WSL and subsequently PB.
> While we may not always be able to follow your logic, we do not doubt your conviction. This lack of understanding may very well be our lack of intellect or ignorance.
> 
> We promise to visit PB VT association in the future when we find circumstances favourable. In the mean time, we must practice our own versions of wing chun given that we are geographically disadvantaged.
> As a condition of us promising to visit PBVT at a future time (and discovering first hand what we have been missing out on), we would only request that all comments regarding WSL superiority and wing chun purity be put on hold until this time when we can discover these truths for ourselves by visiting and practicing PBVT directly. To the best of our current knowledge and understanding we are practicing the best version of wing chun that we possibly can given our individual personalities, needs and geographic circumstances. The best way forward for us is to carry on with our respective paths until such time that we can be further enlightened by a superior version. Until then, we would like to move the discussions towards constructive discussions that may enhance our practice or knowledge.




Interesting that you included me, but not LFJ.  I am not the one advocating for the  "true history" or the "true version" of Ip Man Wing Chun.  As I noted before, if you guys want me to keep quite and not call the WSL religionists here on their BS, then so be it.  I will let them go on stating whatever they want and demeaning anyone they want.   I'll sit back and just wait and see how long "constructive" discussions with these two will last when you discover that they think they are the only ones that really know how Wing Chun should work.  Because we've seen this before.  Guy can straighten up and sound reasonable for awhile when he wants to.  But pretty soon he's right back to making definitive statements about how all Wing Chun should function based on how WSLVT does things.  Just wait and see.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> I am all for constructive discussion. It seems to be a thing that people dislike.


But Guy you're not. You will say "I'm very interested in xyz lineage approach and would like to understand more"
= PASSIVE.

Then whenever someone puts in the time and effort to explain something about their WC you never fail to jump on them and mock/denigrate what they have said with statements like "this is not correct VT" or "call it what you want but it's not VT"
= AGGRESSIVE


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

KPM said:


> Interesting that you included me, but not LFJ.  I am not the one advocating for the  "true history" or the "true version" of Ip Man Wing Chun.  As I noted before, if you guys want me to keep quite and not call the WSL religionists here on their BS, then so be it.  I will let them go on stating whatever they want and demeaning anyone they want.   I'll sit back and just wait and see how long "constructive" discussions with these two will last when you discover that they think they are the only ones that really know how Wing Chun should work.  Because we've seen this before.  Guy can straighten up and sound reasonable for awhile when he wants to.  But pretty soon he's right back to making definitive statements about how all Wing Chun should function based on how WSLVT does things.  Just wait and see.



Oh ****, meant LFJ ,,,, not you!!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

...it's the three letter thing....


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> whenever someone puts in the time and effort to explain something about their WC you never fail to jump on them and mock/denigrate what they have said with statements like "this is not correct VT" or "call it what you want but it's not VT"
> = AGGRESSIVE



I haven't mocked or denigrated anyone (except perhaps KPM because he seems to have made it his life's mission to stalk me on this forum, which is difficult not to smile about sometimes). For anyone else, besides obvious troll IDs, I am genuinely delighted to have the opportunity to talk VT and would much prefer to be doing so than engaging in silly arguments.

I refrain from telling people that they do not practice YM's VT because that is for them to decide, not me. I don't know who received the system from YM, apart from WSL. What I have done is explored what people do and pointed out contradiction of incoherence when I see it. I don't mean this in any personal way because I don't know any of you. It is just a discussion about VT on a forum. Unfortunately some people take honest discussion and a lack of emotion as being aggressive personal attack, when it is not. If I point out that something you do contradicts the conceptual base of the system, or leads to incoherence when considered alongside other parts of the system, then you should use that as an opportunity to look at your system and think about how it works. It is an opportunity, not an attack. Personally I would be happy if someone would help me in this way, which is why I started the thread about deficiencies in WSL's teaching.

I think that most of the drama here comes from people who are a bit too sensitive, and perhaps unsure of what they do, meaning that they prefer false agreement to honest disagreement and debate. I don't feel that offence taken in that way is anything to do with me, and I hope that we can return to more normal discussions soon. If you agree then please join me in open honest discussion, and please remember that it is not personal.


----------



## LFJ

WcForMe said:


> I put up a pretty massive post and I was waiting for some more shall we say feedback LFJ.



Was on a cell phone with bad internet, hence the short response and double post. I gave up.

What I mean is a good principle based system can accommodate all shapes and sizes because it's not about applying techniques. What we develop in training is our own structures and fighting behaviors.

Someone said they are tall and that if they do DCS with someone shorter, they'll have to change how they do it or end up doing it wrong. This sounds to me like they've taken their training partner as the "opponent" and they have to stop them from getting in on them. So, of course they'll be wrong. They're trying to do something to control the partner's arm.

For me, it's just about learning very basic elbow control. That is, control of _our own_ elbow in reference to our own structure. We just use a partner's arm to train the correct alignment and behaviors, like a live dummy that can move with us.

When it comes to fighting, people will of course fight from their own natural strengths, but the system gives them the skills to do so without need for change in what the system teaches or how it's structured. 

Changes people have made have fully castrated VT into something else, but more often than not, just a useless collection of techniques and vaguely defined principles. But I think I'll stop here.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Until then, we would like to move the discussions towards constructive discussions that may enhance our practice or knowledge.





When I make constructive posts all we hear is crickets from the main antagonists until I  use "the wrong abbreviation". 

If you people actually stuck to talking substance we would never have these kinds of whiny threads, but then we'd have no threads at all.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Someone said they are tall and that if they do DCS with someone shorter, they'll have to change how they do it or end up doing it wrong. This sounds to me like they've taken their training partner as the "opponent" and they have to stop them from getting in on them. So, of course they'll be wrong. They're trying to do something to control the partner's arm.



Being a tall guy I wanted to add something here. DCS does not need to be trained as if there is an opponent in order to be needing change for tall people. 

If you are taller the angles are off on the moves from your partner. The moves despite being same have completely different angle on you, at least for forward punching motion. This problem is mostly just mitigated by changing to a less small partner. 

Having to change the drill has nothing to do with trying to control an opponents arm or partners arm. That is an assumption without foundation but when doing a drill where you sense you want to do something else and your partner resist that change or drops hands the reflexes can get you to quickly attack your partner by accident. 

This is what has happened to me many times. So I think you made some false assumptions when there is a huge difference in height.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> If you are taller the angles are off on the moves from your partner. The moves despite being same have completely different angle on you, at least for forward punching motion. This problem is mostly just mitigated by changing to a less small partner.
> 
> Having to change the drill has nothing to do with trying to control an opponents arm or partners arm. That is an assumption without foundation but when doing a drill where you sense you want to do something else and your partner resist that change or drops hands the reflexes can get you to quickly attack your partner by accident.
> 
> This is what has happened to me many times. So I think you made some false assumptions when there is a huge difference in height.



I'm 6'2" and don't have this problem. This is because you're not training angles with your own structure as reference. You're treating it as a reflex drill and trying to "attack" your partner. 

At DCS stage, beginners haven't learned basic control of their own elbow yet. It's no place for training attack reflexes so early. 

You can't look at every VT drill as combative or you will create all sorts of problems like this and need to change the drill, and thereby lose its meaning.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I'm 6'2" and don't have this problem. This is because you're not training angles with your own structure as reference. You're treating it as a reflex drill and trying to "attack" your partner.



You are so very wrong here. What I do you should read and not assume once again. No offense. I am 6'5''.

The angles are not just my own as base. My opponent has an angle on me that is sometimes on partners not near my height completely off. This causes me to not do the drill as expected but react differently to force. 

If it is very off then my body wants that side to attack differently altogether in ways that are counter productive. 

Everyone knows it is not a combat drill, you know there is one side doing nothing. Not that I do DCS often. 



LFJ said:


> At DCS stage, beginners haven't learned basic control of their own elbow yet. It's no place for training attack reflexes so early.



Reflexes once trained exist in all drills as well, just because beginners don't have it does not mean you put yours on pause. 

Or you don't train with beginners? Maybe you should, they act differently and do not follow drills. It is good for practice. 




LFJ said:


> You can't look at every VT drill as combative or you will create all sorts of problems like this and need to change the drill, and thereby lose its meaning.



Please elaborate, you and your partner has an angle to each other. You are supposed to do techniques C, D, E or F when your partner does B. Then return to A. Angles are off and you want to do movement P, your partner does B, you do movement U. He attempts to get back to A and you are doing M. Nothing else feels right and the loop is broken. Uneven drill. 

Not saying it can't be done but forcing myself against partner is wrong, of course all drills can be reset but in doing DCS as above is not optimal. 

It happeneds on smaller partners only but just adding that nothing can be assumed to work for all.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> You are so very wrong here. What I do you should read and not assume once again. No offense. I am 6'5''.
> 
> The angles are not just my own as base. My opponent has an angle on me that is sometimes on partners not near my height completely off. This causes me to not do the drill as expected but react differently to force.



The palm and the punch in DCS can both be angled to deal with height differences. The DCS drill is abstract and is intended to begin to train your elbow after SNT. It is not about learning attacks and combat reactions and as long as your partner can reach your elbow it should work. I am pretty sure that even at 6ft 5 you can find a person who can reach your elbow, unless you are training with young children?


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You are so very wrong here. What I do you should read and not assume once again. No offense. I am 6'5''.
> 
> The angles are not just my own as base. My opponent has an angle on me that is sometimes on partners not near my height completely off. This causes me to not do the drill as expected but react differently to force.
> 
> If it is very off then my body wants that side to attack differently altogether in ways that are counter productive.
> 
> Everyone knows it is not a combat drill, you know there is one side doing nothing. Not that I do DCS often.
> 
> 
> 
> Reflexes once trained exist in all drills as well, just because beginners don't have it does not mean you put yours on pause.
> 
> Or you don't train with beginners? Maybe you should, they act differently and do not follow drills. It is good for practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate, you and your partner has an angle to each other. You are supposed to do techniques C, D, E or F when your partner does B. Then return to A. Angles are off and you want to do movement P, your partner does B, you do movement U. He attempts to get back to A and you are doing M. Nothing else feels right and the loop is broken. Uneven drill.
> 
> Not saying it can't be done but forcing myself against partner is wrong, of course all drills can be reset but in doing DCS as above is not optimal.
> 
> It happeneds on smaller partners only but just adding that nothing can be assumed to work for all.



You seem to be taking an adversarial, technique based approach to DCS. That, as I said, is what's making things go wrong. You're trying to counter your partner's action with a certain technique to keep them out. When you feel your angle is off, you want to change techniques that will accomplish your task. It's a adversarial mindset and inserting all sorts of elements where they don't belong. Of course things will not work and you'll have to change it.

In my DCS, we don't look at the partner as an opponent and we aren't trying to thwart their "attacks" then hit them back. We are just learning beginning elbow ideas; the contraction and expansion of the elbow to and from the line with _taan_ and _jam_, correct elbow rotation in _bong_, and recycling to neutral position. None of this relies on pre-contact, feeling, sticking, or rolling. We are just using each other's opposing actions to train our own basic elbow control. It's abstract, conceptual. 

That's why I said a good "principle-based" system can accommodate all shapes and sizes without requiring change. Approaching it in a technique-based fashion as you describe will of course not work.

At this stage, beginners are just learning the idea. Taking an adversarial mindset in the drill with force exchange and attack reflexes is all too early. Doing this will interrupt proper learning. If beginners can't control their own elbows yet, they can't be expected to go all free flow in a "versus" exercise without basic VT quickly going out the window.

But I'm not gonna tell you you're doing it wrong. You have found out yourself that the most basic partner drill doesn't work for you and you've had to change it. I would be asking myself why. Is it just because I'm tall, or because I'm misusing the drill?

We have giants in our lineage too, and they don't need to change the system to develop skills because it's not technique based. They learn to control their own actions and can drill with or fight any sized person. Besides, training with a shorter person is good for low elbow training. We also like to keep our dummies a bit lower for the same purpose. It's about alignment with our own structures as reference, not an imaginary opponent. Any sized person can train this way and develop skills to fight any sized person.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> You seem to be taking an adversarial, technique based approach to DCS. That, as I said, is what's making things go wrong. You're trying to counter your partner's action with a certain technique to keep them out. When you feel your angle is off, you want to change techniques that will accomplish your task. It's a adversarial mindset and inserting all sorts of elements where they don't belong. Of course things will not work and you'll have to change it.



We consider an approach coming at certain angle and to get proper feeling in elbow to meet that force. But you are talking about a no force movement? With force I call it an attack not because it is a fight, or that there is an enemy/opponent but because it is a force going into my personal space. 

Inserting elements that should not be part of drill is because partner if short enough does stuff from close range to reach and angles give me other patterns than those part of drills. Why sink my elbow if the opponent is practically inside them. 

Note that I am not saying DCS can't be done. Just that sometimes if your partner is too short it is not a working drill for me. 



LFJ said:


> In my DCS, we don't look at the partner as an opponent and we aren't trying to thwart their "attacks" then hit them back. We are just learning beginning elbow ideas; the contraction and expansion of the elbow to and from the line with _taan_ and _jam_, correct elbow rotation in _bong_, and recycling to neutral position. None of this relies on pre-contact, feeling, sticking, or rolling. We are just using each other's opposing actions to train our own basic elbow control. It's abstract, conceptual.



I guess this is the difference. Why we don't do DCS much. We deal with the forces. Not just our own elbow. Forms are a good place besides beginner application drills to learn about your own elbow



LFJ said:


> That's why I said a good "principle-based" system can accommodate all shapes and sizes without requiring change. Approaching it in a technique-based fashion as you describe will of course not work.



There are no techniques, and yet it is all techniques. You focusing on your own elbow is also a technique. The system however does not change because the drill does. We all do drills none of our masters did before us. Drills not even being mentioned. It does not change the system unless the principles themselves are changed. I guess you won't agree so let's agree to disagree. 



LFJ said:


> At this stage, beginners are just learning the idea. Taking an adversarial mindset in the drill with force exchange and attack reflexes is all too early. Doing this will interrupt proper learning. If beginners can't control their own elbows yet, they can't be expected to go all free flow in a "versus" exercise without basic VT quickly going out the window.



So you never let any non beginner do this drill? We teach about elbow before DCS, not during. 



LFJ said:


> But I'm not gonna tell you you're doing it wrong. You have found out yourself that the most basic partner drill doesn't work for you and you've had to change it. I would be asking myself why. Is it just because I'm tall, or because I'm misusing the drill?



The drill is still there, but I do not need to use the expected movements if my opponent is too short. So drill gets to be something other than it should be. I don't change the drill, it gets changed. 



LFJ said:


> We have giants in our lineage too, and they don't need to change the system to develop skills because it's not technique based. They learn to control their own actions and can drill with or fight any sized person. Besides, training with a shorter person is good for low elbow training. We also like to keep our dummies a bit lower for the same purpose. It's about alignment with our own structures as reference, not an imaginary opponent. Any sized person can train this way and develop skills to fight any sized person.



Two interesting things here,  if I need to sink my elbows further we shift to different movements to rather deflect than having to compromise my back and structure. Yes we have a few people that are That short. 

Not saying I face those people all the time but I was simply saying it CAN occur for tall people. Not that it always does. 

How much lower do you keep your dummies? We always keep them at proper level.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> We consider an approach coming at certain angle and to get proper feeling in elbow to meet that force. But you are talking about a no force movement? With force I call it an attack not because it is a fight, or that there is an enemy/opponent but because it is a force going into my personal space.



No force exchange. Just basic mechanics. Each action to displace the other, teaches elbow control and physical effect. It's not time to "deal with forces" yet.



> We deal with the forces. Not just our own elbow. Forms are a good place besides beginner application drills to learn about your own elbow



Forms are done in the air where no effect can be seen. 

Application drills before basic coordination and elbow control is bound to lead to bad habits. Better to not rush the training.



> You focusing on your own elbow is also a technique.



What is a technique to you? That makes no sense. The punching action is broken into two movements in the drill to train elbow control. It won't be used like that. Not a technique.



> The system however does not change because the drill does. We all do drills none of our masters did before us. Drills not even being mentioned. It does not change the system unless the principles themselves are changed. I guess you won't agree so let's agree to disagree.



Yes. What you have done to the drill changes the principle entirely as far as I'm concerned. So, I must disagree.



> So you never let any non beginner do this drill? We teach about elbow before DCS, not during.



Elbow training runs through the entire system in stages of development that can't be skipped or have orders swapped.

If a non-beginner practices DCS with a beginner and tries to hit them, they've learned it incorrectly to begin with. There is no force exchange, no attacking each other. Way too early for that.



> Two interesting things here,  if I need to sink my elbows further we shift to different movements to rather deflect than having to compromise my back and structure.



Are you training with children to cause such a compromise? 

What is your usual movement and what do you change it to?



> How much lower do you keep your dummies? We always keep them at proper level.



We keep them at "proper level" too.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Inserting elements that should not be part of drill is because partner if short enough does stuff from close range to reach and angles give me other patterns than those part of drills. Why sink my elbow if the opponent is practically inside them.



I can't understand what you are describing. Can your partner reach your elbow or not?

Why would you sink your elbow in DCS?



> We deal with the forces. Not just our own elbow.



What is dealing with the forces teaching you?


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> No force exchange. Just basic mechanics. Each action to displace the other, teaches elbow control and physical effect. It's not time to "deal with forces" yet.



You end this topic like that makes it impossible to discuss further. Not all are beginners.




LFJ said:


> Forms are done in the air where no effect can be seen.
> 
> Application drills before basic coordination and elbow control is bound to lead to bad habits. Better to not rush the training.



Your opinion only. No point continuing discussion since discussing opinions will lead nowhere.




LFJ said:


> What is a technique to you? That makes no sense. The punching action is broken into two movements in the drill to train elbow control. It won't be used like that. Not a technique.



Technique is whatever you do within a set of rules. A single action. A technique can also be a set of techniques done in sequence.

A movement can contain multiple techniques as time and need changes.

If you are a programmer I see technique same as they do a function. A function can call other functions. A movement is like a thread calling different functions based on events or other reasons.

Techniques can be for drill only purposes or fighting applicable as well. It can be as simple as having 135 degree angle and hands up. Not needing to be defined by rules all the way to smallest piece.

A punch can be a technique with sets of techniques but during application in real time it is a movement that would be called punching but is not the same because that punch may change on input. A technique is nothing you do but rather something that defines something so it can be taught and trained.



LFJ said:


> Yes. What you have done to the drill changes the principle entirely as far as I'm concerned. So, I must disagree.



As I said,  agree to disagree. The rest is just fluff you added now to make a point that you want final word anyway.




LFJ said:


> Elbow training runs through the entire system in stages of development that can't be skipped or have orders swapped.




Then by god if you ever become sick and can't practice for a week or two you Ving Tsun will always be inferior because you changed order of how it was taught.



LFJ said:


> If a non-beginner practices DCS with a beginner and tries to hit them, they've learned it incorrectly to begin with. There is no force exchange, no attacking each other. Way too early for that.



So the drill contains no force, meaning it is near static drill for you. Understand why your students do it very early. Attacking each other is what I call a motion that puts them with force into you personal space. It is not a punch.

Edit : with force I mean there is a forward intent. Not brute force. 

And in case you missed something. I don't try to hit anyone. But I do not move against my muscle reflex.





LFJ said:


> Are you training with children to cause such a compromise?



What? You have something against shorter people? Or women perhaps? This sounds rather offensive claiming they have to be kids because they are short.



LFJ said:


> What is your usual movement and what do you change it to?



If you know anything about VT you would not ask me to define a movement. It depends is the best answer I can give.




LFJ said:


> We keep them at "proper level" too.



So your arms out from center are right between the upper arms? Then why say you keep it lower?


----------



## kakkattekoi

Not sure if I understand the original post correctly but here goes my reply : WSLVT, YMWC, CTCWC... Etc 
Everyone absorb the "system" differently and adding their own experience to better suit their fighting style or body build .  Like yang style tai chi, one of the 八卦master learned it and turned into his own style of tai chi.  So it is still tai chi? The same goes for WC/ VT.  In my opinion, as long as it follows the principle of the system (form n centre line, etc) then it's worth learning from and it is consider as WC/ VT 
By the way, it's hard to just use YM video as guideline since I read somewhere that he even taught his own students differently (1st generation comparing to 2nd generation)


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> You end this topic like that makes it impossible to discuss further. Not all are beginners.



DCS is advanced training for you?



> Your opinion only. No point continuing discussion since discussing opinions will lead nowhere.



It's extraordinarily rare for anyone to use elbows correctly in full moving, free flow exercises before even learning DCS. Even at later points in development it's often the first thing to give under pressure.



> Technique is whatever you do within a set of rules. A single action. A technique can also be a set of techniques done in sequence.
> 
> A movement can contain multiple techniques as time and need changes.
> 
> If you are a programmer I see technique same as they do a function. A function can call other functions. A movement is like a thread calling different functions based on events or other reasons.
> 
> Techniques can be for drill only purposes or fighting applicable as well. It can be as simple as having 135 degree angle and hands up. Not needing to be defined by rules all the way to smallest piece.
> 
> A punch can be a technique with sets of techniques but during application in real time it is a movement that would be called punching but is not the same because that punch may change on input. A technique is nothing you do but rather something that defines something so it can be taught and trained.







> Then by god if you ever become sick and can't practice for a week or two you Ving Tsun will always be inferior because you changed order of how it was taught.



W-W-What? Why?  What are you talking about? Students aren't taught at their own pace in your organization?



> Edit : with force I mean there is a forward intent. Not brute force.
> 
> And in case you missed something. I don't try to hit anyone. But I do not move against my muscle reflex.



No forward intent or muscle reflex in DCS. Too early. Must learn basic elbow control before worrying about that kind of stuff that can screw it up. Horse before the cart, please.



> What? You have something against shorter people? Or women perhaps? This sounds rather offensive claiming they have to be kids because they are short.



There is no reason you should need to contort yourself in order to do DCS with anyone above 5 feet tall, unless you are doing something terribly wrong.



> If you know anything about VT you would not ask me to define a movement. It depends is the best answer I can give.



DCS to you is a drill in which you are free to attack and defend as you wish?

I've been talking about _taan _> palm > _bong /_ _fuk _> _jam _> punch. One of those is getting messed up for you and you are forced to change it to something else? Like what?



> So your arms out from center are right between the upper arms? Then why say you keep it lower?



Some set the dummy to resemble a person of a certain height, often a taller person. Many will place the upper arms at shoulder level. That's too high and will encourage lifting and reaching. Everything will be wrong. 

The dummy is supposed to refine position by restricting our actions to within our own boundaries, not in reference to an imaginary opponent of a supposed height.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> DCS is advanced training for you?



I thought we were having a serious discussion. This is just silly comment. You think forms, a VT punch, footwork or anything else for that matter being advanced training? There are just two types of training. One is to learn what you dont know, the other is to improve what you already know.




LFJ said:


> It's extraordinarily rare for anyone to use elbows correctly in full moving, free flow exercises before even learning DCS. Even at later points in development it's often the first thing to give under pressure.



This is a problem for VT? Perhaps you should reconsider your way of training in such cases.



LFJ said:


>



Hey, it is easily understood for me. But putting too much worth with a word like technique you must understand serves little value. You can do a VT punch and call it a technique, or a bong-sau... or whatever. When you however do it at other points its not a technique, its a lot of techniques creating a movement. Nothing is frozen in order to identify it as a technique unless you freeze time. Whatever is, changes to whatever will be. So a technique becomes no longer a technique but a move...

I am not making myself clearer, am I? Perhaps helps if you are a programmer, my mind is kind of binary. Whatever that gives me, I am terrible with names and non-logical matters.




LFJ said:


> W-W-What? Why?  What are you talking about? Students aren't taught at their own pace in your organization?



We dont need to keep our students away from drills of the rest of class for very long. They do not perform well for some time, but doing drills and training with better students actually force them to learn and improve. Plus they don't get bored from doing same tedious drills for beginners over and over. What I see is that in the end they learn quicker some of them at least this way.

Others I dont think would learn either way because their mind and heart is not into it. Of course then there are other classes, other lessons where beginners do not attend. But they are in addition to normal training.

As to how and why this occurs, well I will not give more details on the matter because this is a system that my sifu operates.



LFJ said:


> No forward intent or muscle reflex in DCS. Too early. Must learn basic elbow control before worrying about that kind of stuff that can screw it up. Horse before the cart, please.



This is VT specific concern. We dont see that problem, those that already have forward intent will not get rid of it just because of a drill. Those who dont well then they have another value from DCS drill that others don't. I have said before that me personally dont do DCS often anymore.

I am not concerned about DCS, I was simply correcting you when you said something similar to there being no difference being a tall guy. Something I disagree on since there are some exceptions that may or may not be the norm pending on who your partner is.




LFJ said:


> There is no reason you should need to contort yourself in order to do DCS with anyone above 5 feet tall, unless you are doing something terribly wrong.



You understand that means there is a 1'5'' height difference. This probably means a 5-7'' reach difference on the arms. Do you grasp how little space there will be between these two people when doing DCS. The short person will feel to the tall person like he/she is practically hugging you given your own reach. That feeling makes you want to move back to get to better range, or to knock/throw/trip down to the ground. You will feel it in every fiber of your body (yes I do grappling as well not as part of WT but on the side).





LFJ said:


> DCS to you is a drill in which you are free to attack and defend as you wish?
> 
> I've been talking about _taan _> palm > _bong /_ _fuk _> _jam _> punch. One of those is getting messed up for you and you are forced to change it to something else? Like what?



I see, missunderstood you. The palm is coming from low point moving straight forward, so in order to control the arm I need to collapse my arm and sink my elbow (because of tight space between us or short person will be too far away). To me that collapse is not desirable, it is not how I have been taught because a collapsed elbow just works during drills but real life it will give you a lot of pain.

As for the punch it will come up from a hard angle meaning the bong sau will be forced because it is not the natural rolling action that would trigger a bong sau. As such the feeling is off.

Once more this is something that can happend with a big heigh difference. Because you said it can't I simply said that you miss the situation when height difference is present.

I mean I do not recollect the details perfectly in my head so this is an effort to try and analyze a vague memory. This was not a drill I did recently with a short person, but in the last year or two I have some memory of having been in such a situation twice.



LFJ said:


> Some set the dummy to resemble a person of a certain height, often a taller person. Many will place the upper arms at shoulder level. That's too high and will encourage lifting and reaching. Everything will be wrong.
> 
> The dummy is supposed to refine position by restricting our actions to within our own boundaries, not in reference to an imaginary opponent of a supposed height.



Hey, I said nothing. You were the one stating it was shorter than normal. I found it interesting and not bad in any way. That is why I asked the question as to how much shorter in general does VT practitioners set their wooden dummy. If you do not set it to be shorter then fine, I did not say you did.

Being as tall as I am, the wooden dummy at my school is a lot shorter than what should be the norm for me. It does not serve a problem as it is not TOO short. I was just interested in the reasoning why you did it not to satisfy the height of most but rather as a general rule, in case it was a general rule.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Yep, then you see some of the people who YM taught before he moved to Hong Kong like Lun Gai.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> The palm is coming from low point moving straight forward, so in order to control the arm I need to collapse my arm and sink my elbow (because of tight space between us or short person will be too far away).



Are you saying that the short person can't reach your elbow with their palm? This seems a bit unlikely. 



Phobius said:


> To me that collapse is not desirable, it is not how I have been taught because a collapsed elbow just works during drills but real life it will give you a lot of pain.



What is a collapsed elbow?



Phobius said:


> As for the punch it will come up from a hard angle meaning the bong sau will be forced because it is not the natural rolling action that would trigger a bong sau. As such the feeling is off.



You are just training your elbow to move tan to bong. What trigger do you need? You seem to be treating the drill as some kind of reflex development thing? As long as your arms can meet I don't see an issue. If you really are training with dwarves or children then I suggest you kneel down to do it.


----------



## Nobody Important

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Yep, then you see some of the people who YM taught before he moved to Hong Kong like Lun Gai.


Interesting, is this related to William Cheung, or not? Looks like his material.


----------



## KPM

Nobody Important said:


> Interesting, is this related to William Cheung, or not? Looks like his material.



Yes it is!  This is Linda Bernieckie doing a demo of her stuff while visiting the Lun Kai school.  This is NOT Lun Kai Wing Chun!   She and her husband call their thing "Jee Shim Wing Chun", but they are a spin off from Cheung's TWC.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> Yes it is!  This is Linda Bernieckie doing a demo of her stuff while visiting the Lun Kai school.  This is NOT Lun Kai Wing Chun!   She and her husband call their thing "Jee Shim Wing Chun", but they are a spin off from Cheung's TWC.


Ah, I see. The post was very misleading, I thought it was supposed to represent Lun Kai Wing Chun. Thank you.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Doh! Got that wrong. I have seen a form of Lun Kai's though that looks way different.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland




----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

But on the subject of William Cheung, I have a friend who is adamant that his system is too perfect to have been made up and therefore it must have been taught to him exclusively by YM.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Any training that you only move your arm without moving your body is a no no to me.






I like to see "body movement" instead of just "arm movement". I like the following clip better. I can see his body and arm are function as one unit. I can also see his power comes from the ground. What do you guy think about this clip?


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

Depends how you look at it. 
For us we learn force generation from the static position in SNT. Then build on that with other forms that slowly introduce movement.


----------



## KPM

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> But on the subject of William Cheung, I have a friend who is adamant that his system is too perfect to have been made up and therefore it must have been taught to him exclusively by YM.


 
Yeah.  That's a load of BS.


----------



## KPM

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I like to see "body movement" instead of just "arm movement". I like the following clip better. I can see his body and arm are function as one unit. I can also see his power comes from the ground. What do you guy think about this clip?



Using whole body power is good!  But that clip is very exaggerated.  Unnecessarily so!   This is where Andreas Hoffman learned to do his forms so "exaggerated."  Cheng Kwong is his primary teacher.


----------



## KPM

This little jewel of a comment was just made on another forum.  It has nothing to do with the dynamic duo, but was simply summing up someone else's impression of WSL lineage people.  I thought I would leave it here for your enjoyment.  

_ IMO... (Oh God, I can already feel the responses coming)... WSL lineage guys have a certain mindset that comes directly from the way they train. It's a relatively simple approach to Wing Chun, with no complicated or sophisticated power generation methods, and is based around heavily training a fairly simple set of drills that maintain a line, cut angles, etc., and with a focus on disengaging (so placing very little emphasis, sometimes none at all, on sticking). It's simple, and it works well, especially when playing with people from 'other WCK' lineages. Why? Because a 'simple, trained well' method often beats 'detailed, but longer to master' methods. Because of this, many people from the WSL lineage seem to have a feeling of superiority. Simply put, WSL guys often do what they do better than other Wing Chun lineages doing what they do. To me, WSL guys often look a little stiff in their movements, and often use a fair amount of muscle, but... they make it work._


----------



## Nobody Important

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Any training that you only move your arm without moving your body is a no no to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like to see "body movement" instead of just "arm movement". I like the following clip better. I can see his body and arm are function as one unit. I can also see his power comes from the ground. What do you guy think about this clip?


I appreciate the idea of body movement. It is a practical method of unifying movements and generation of power from the ground up. But this is a little too exaggerated. It reminds me of beginner stage. Wing Chun is more refined like Tai Gik Kuen, the movements are smaller and led by the body. Rotation adds to power generation, evasiveness and extension. Emphasis is on unified body movement in a small space. This video shows big movement not yet refined . And the springiness does not allow for hard bridge application, just whipping and sticking. That being said I can appreciate what is being expressed. Everyone has a different approach.


----------



## Nobody Important

KPM said:


> This little jewel of a comment was just made on another forum.  It has nothing to do with the dynamic duo, but was simply summing up someone else's impression of WSL lineage people.  I thought I would leave it here for your enjoyment.
> 
> _ IMO... (Oh God, I can already feel the responses coming)... WSL lineage guys have a certain mindset that comes directly from the way they train. It's a relatively simple approach to Wing Chun, with no complicated or sophisticated power generation methods, and is based around heavily training a fairly simple set of drills that maintain a line, cut angles, etc., and with a focus on disengaging (so placing very little emphasis, sometimes none at all, on sticking). It's simple, and it works well, especially when playing with people from 'other WCK' lineages. Why? Because a 'simple, trained well' method often beats 'detailed, but longer to master' methods. Because of this, many people from the WSL lineage seem to have a feeling of superiority. Simply put, WSL guys often do what they do better than other Wing Chun lineages doing what they do. To me, WSL guys often look a little stiff in their movements, and often use a fair amount of muscle, but... they make it work._


Simplicity and practicality go hand in hand. Many branches of Wing Chun over complicate with sophisticated theory and convoluted applications when the solution can be solved with the simplest of methods. I would rather learn something that can be learned today and applied effectively in a short span, than learn something that takes months or years before it can be used effectively. The simple and practical applications can be honed over time just as the sophisticated ones are. Difference is the time invested before you get a profitable return.


----------



## PiedmontChun

You can generate power using your whole body without bobbing up and down, or swaying in and out. SNT teaches this in the punch / palm strikes, and especially in the fak sau / gum sau portion. The arms might seem to be moving in isolation but it involves the whole body cooperating to have power.
Your body can "move as one unit" without having all of your limbs constantly retract, using exaggerated movements to do so. Moving more than necessary to perform an attack or defend seems to me to be the antithesis to good Wing Chun, not sure why it would be a good thing for forms to reinforce such an idea.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> This is a problem for VT? Perhaps you should reconsider your way of training in such cases.



Loss of elbow control (and balance, facing, footwork, etc..) under pressure is a problem for humans. VT training helps, but only if you don't screw up the process by inserting things where they don't belong or learning things out of order.



> We dont need to keep our students away from drills of the rest of class for very long. They do not perform well for some time, but doing drills and training with better students actually force them to learn and improve. Plus they don't get bored from doing same tedious drills for beginners over and over. What I see is that in the end they learn quicker some of them at least this way.



Sounds like more of a student retention tactic than a systematic approach to developing fighting skills.



> I am not concerned about DCS, I was simply correcting you when you said something similar to there being no difference being a tall guy.



You didn't correct anything. I said a "principle based system" can accommodate all shapes and sizes without change. What you have described is a technique based "versus" drill. 

Your problems are caused by what you have been taught the drill is for and how to do it, not by your height.



> The palm is coming from low point moving straight forward, so in order to control the arm I need to collapse my arm and sink my elbow (because of tight space between us or short person will be too far away).



Your partner is doing the palm incorrectly and you're chasing hands because you have been told you must control their arm.



> As for the punch it will come up from a hard angle meaning the bong sau will be forced because it is not the natural rolling action that would trigger a bong sau. As such the feeling is off.



Your partner is doing the punch incorrectly and you're chasing hands because you have been told you must stick to their arm.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> Loss of elbow control (and balance, facing, footwork, etc..) under pressure is a problem for humans. VT training helps, but only if you don't screw up the process by inserting things where they don't belong or learning things out of order.



Learning things out of order will always occur unless you put all your starting students in a specific course where they need to do each step individually before being allowed to pass on to the next. As such not being able to see or hear what other students on next steps are doing.

This was ways of old, not way of the europeans in a modern society. So every time a student miss a few classes which they will for sickness, vacation, working overtime, training something else... you name it. They will miss out on parts of the teaching and continue where everyone else are at the point when they return. Perhaps not a good thing but it is reality, and another thing that is reality as well. In time those students have a chance to become just as good and sometimes even a lot better than other students.

Their path is not doomed from the start.




LFJ said:


> Sounds like more of a student retention tactic than a systematic approach to developing fighting skills.



Cant teach someone martial art if they are not present during class. But way to ignore the part where I said we see no downside with it.



LFJ said:


> You didn't correct anything. I said a "principle based system" can accommodate all shapes and sizes without change. What you have described is a technique based "versus" drill.
> 
> Your problems are caused by what you have been taught the drill is for and how to do it, not by your height.



Actually you are wrong in more ways than one. I was the one saying I cant do what I am supposed to do in that drill properly if the height difference is too big. You are the one saying this drill should just be about the technique of using your elbow properly. No realistic force management, no reaction to force. No reflexes, no sensing nothing. So you are the one describing the drill as purely technique based.

Or perhaps you mean something else with technique, because you may no sense right now?




LFJ said:


> Your partner is doing the palm incorrectly and you're chasing hands because you have been told you must control their arm.



Hey, you are wrong yet again. Chasing hands are what you are doing given that you do the drill in a forced way to focus on elbow without any care for what your partner is moving, the angles, any potential force (Or you claim there is no force ever? Nice going then to have your students so in control they have no force in their move.)

So I say to you, stop chasing their hands. I know you call it a beginner drill but as you said, it leads to bad habits.



LFJ said:


> Your partner is doing the punch incorrectly and you're chasing hands because you have been told you must stick to their arm.



You are chasing a conclusion that is pretty far out there. This logic is similar to me saying I have a car and you following up saying "You need to stop buying yellow cars thinking you are some kind of race driver" when my car is in silver color. 

Here is a little newsflash for you, you are not me. You have no clue what I do, or how I do it. Next time you feel the need to make assumptions out of thin air then stop writing that text altogether and realize you are just a troll. Truth hurts but then again self realization and understanding who and what you are may be a critical element of being a martial artist.

And yes I reported myself now for this post but I despise trolling.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> Learning things out of order will always occur unless you put all your starting students in a specific course where they need to do each step individually before being allowed to pass on to the next. As such not being able to see or hear what other students on next steps are doing.
> 
> This was ways of old, not way of the europeans in a modern society. So every time a student miss a few classes which they will for sickness, vacation, working overtime, training something else... you name it. They will miss out on parts of the teaching and continue where everyone else are at the point when they return. Perhaps not a good thing but it is reality, and another thing that is reality as well. In time those students have a chance to become just as good and sometimes even a lot better than other students.
> 
> Their path is not doomed from the start.



I disagree with this teaching method and class management.



> I was the one saying I cant do what I am supposed to do in that drill properly if the height difference is too big.



What's causing the problem is not height difference, but what you have been told you're supposed to do in the drill.



> You are the one saying this drill should just be about the technique of using your elbow properly. No realistic force management, no reaction to force. No reflexes, no sensing nothing. So you are the one describing the drill as purely technique based.



A martial art technique in English usually means something like a kick, punch, block, lock, throw, etc. as it is applied. VT isn't based on this technique vs that technique. That's why we say we are not a technique-based system, but a principle-based one.

Contraction, expansion, and rotation of the elbow are not techniques against other techniques. They are just basic elbow mechanics.

Doing some specific action to control your opponent's arm, like you said you do, is a "this vs that" technique-based exercise.



> Chasing hands are what you are doing given that you do the drill in a forced way to focus on elbow without any care for what your partner is moving, the angles, any potential force (Or you claim there is no force ever? Nice going then to have your students so in control they have no force in their move.)



DCS is not a fight. I'm not looking at my partner as an opponent whose arm I must control. I'm not even thinking about hitting someone. We are simply using each other's arms to mutually train our elbow control together in an abstract manner.

You are thinking stick, feel, roll, control, hit, this technique vs that technique. It's a technique-based approach and you have already discovered for yourself that it doesn't work and you need to change it.



> Here is a little newsflash for you, you are not me. You have no clue what I do, or how I do it.



You just explained to me what you do and how you do it. And you are not the first WT guy to have done that. I've had this conversation in person.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Learning things out of order will always occur unless you put all your starting students in a specific course where they need to do each step individually before being allowed to pass on to the next. As such not being able to see or hear what other students on next steps are doing.



A beginner can practice with anyone more advanced with them in training the next step of their development. Teaching the beginner will help the more advanced person. Two beginners can also practise together. There is no need to have the whole class doing the same thing. There is no need for the beginner to learn out of order and in fact doing so is very damaging to their development. The order of learning exists for a reason.



Phobius said:


> Actually you are wrong in more ways than one. I was the one saying I cant do what I am supposed to do in that drill properly if the height difference is too big. You are the one saying this drill should just be about the technique of using your elbow properly. No realistic force management, no reaction to force. No reflexes, no sensing nothing. So you are the one describing the drill as purely technique based.



Learning elbow is not application of technique. It is attribute development, of which there is a large amount in VT. Approaching DCS as a drill whereby you are sensing force and reacting as if a technique based application is a flawed approach when it is just a first stage elbow development drill. If it is something else for you then great- you haven't described what it is though or what you think it is training?



Phobius said:


> Hey, you are wrong yet again. Chasing hands are what you are doing given that you do the drill in a forced way to focus on elbow without any care for what your partner is moving, the angles, any potential force (Or you claim there is no force ever?



Lol, you do get very emotional. There is no chasing hands when you are focused only on development of your own elbow. The drill as you practice it will lead to hand chasing because arm contact is what you are training to work from.



Phobius said:


> Here is a little newsflash for you, you are not me. You have no clue what I do, or how I do it. Next time you feel the need to make assumptions out of thin air then stop writing that text altogether



Look, nobody is trying to make a fool of you. If your WT is something different then define what it is and defend why you do things the way you do. When LFJ points out that your drill will train hand chasing from a VT perspective then of course he is correct. You look a bit daft shouting reactively back "no YOU chase hands". Please take the time to explain what you are doing and why. Maybe your entire conceptual base is different to ours? I don't know until you decide to participate in a non adversarial way. 

In VT there is no reason that a tall person can't train with a short person in DCS, beyond ridiculous extremes like 5yo child and adult training together. You are very vague on this point, first talking about having to sink your elbow, then failing to respond to further questions. Please just explain exactly where your problem is in physical terms because I can't imagine what you are doing. If it turns out that you exaggerated for effect and that you can in fact train with short adults then please just admit it and we can move on. I will not hold it against you.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> Guy b and LFJ which lineage do you guys think resembles WSL the most out of the Ip man students?



I have never seen any that was similar, but then I haven't seen them all.


----------



## guy b.

dudewingchun said:


> Guy B and LFJ have you guys touched hands with a good CST student at all?



Never have. I think they might be lacking from UK, unless you know of any?


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> A beginner can practice with anyone more advanced with them in training the next step of their development. Teaching the beginner will help the more advanced person. Two beginners can also practise together. There is no need to have the whole class doing the same thing. There is no need for the beginner to learn out of order and in fact doing so is very damaging to their development. The order of learning exists for a reason.



That is your thoughts. I have said previously we don't see DCS as a big drill nor do we do it often anymore. 




guy b. said:


> Learning elbow is not application of technique. It is attribute development, of which there is a large amount in VT. Approaching DCS as a drill whereby you are sensing force and reacting as if a technique based application is a flawed approach when it is just a first stage elbow development drill. If it is something else for you then great- you haven't described what it is though or what you think it is training?



What do you mean with elbow training if you have no techniques in it for your beginners? They can just do what they please as long as their elbow moves a certain way? If they move in a pre defined motion they are doing a technique. So therefore it is technique based drill for you. 

Call it whatever you want but that is all it is if it is all you do. 





guy b. said:


> Lol, you do get very emotional. There is no chasing hands when you are focused only on development of your own elbow. The drill as you practice it will lead to hand chasing because arm contact is what you are training to work from.



Because I try to write to you and you respond in telling me what you think I do which as if it is fact. That is not discussing. It is telling me I was wasting my time talking with you. 

If you wanted to know what I do you (or LFJ)  would ask,  not state what you believe to be facts. I just don't like trolling. It makes me think about all the time I lost on the forum that could be better spent.



guy b. said:


> Look, nobody is trying to make a fool of you. If your WT is something different then define what it is and defend why you do things the way you do. When LFJ points out that your drill will train hand chasing from a VT perspective then of course he is correct. You look a bit daft shouting reactively back "no YOU chase hands". Please take the time to explain what you are doing and why. Maybe your entire conceptual base is different to ours? I don't know until you decide to participate in a non adversarial way.



First of all there is no shouting. Second of all you do a drill where you do something despite angles to an incoming move without force. That if anything should be chasing hands. If there is no force to Palm or Punch then why not just punch forward. You sound as if you chase hands because you force for instance a bong Sau with nothing causing it to roll. 

We are simply doing it with forward intent. If an angle is steep it does not trigger the same movement. It would break principles. 



guy b. said:


> In VT there is no reason that a tall person can't train with a short person in DCS, beyond ridiculous extremes like 5yo child and adult training together. You are very vague on this point, first talking about having to sink your elbow, then failing to respond to further questions. Please just explain exactly where your problem is in physical terms because I can't imagine what you are doing. If it turns out that you exaggerated for effect and that you can in fact train with short adults then please just admit it and we can move on. I will not hold it against you.



Well I am trying to say it simple way. It causes me to do other movements that are not part of DCS. Like for instance I can just punch through. It depends on the angles but it sounds as if you force yourself to do a technique in order to train elbow. If you force yourself to do something no matter what of course you can make the drill work because you ignore efficiency and going forward when way is free.


----------



## LFJ

@Phobius

You keep thinking there is an opponent and we must do "this vs that" in DCS.

That is causing a mental block for you to understand what we're talking about when we say we're just using each other's arms to train contraction, expansion, and rotation of the elbow.

There can be no such thing as chasing hands when there is no hand in our minds. There's no opponent and no arm to control. It's not even considered that there's a person in front of us, much less one that is trying to hit us. We are out of range to even hit each other. 

We just use each other's arms to train control of our own elbow within the boundaries of our own structures, like on the dummy later. 

We lay the foundation in SNT, then learn the effect with a borrowed limb in DCS. Dummy further refines position. But DCS is too early to talk about exchanging force. You don't teach calculus before algebra. You don't teach algebra before addition. And you don't teach addition before counting to 10!

It's an entirely differently mental shift from what you're doing now.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> @Phobius
> 
> You keep thinking there is an opponent and we must do "this vs that" in DCS.
> 
> That is causing a mental block for you to understand what we're talking about when we say we're just using each other's arms to train contraction, expansion, and rotation of the elbow.



So you do DCS on a dummy? If your partner moves towards you then you are not alone. To act as if you are despite having a partner doing a punch or palm strike or reacting to your move then you are not doing a solo drill. Acting as if you are is same as imposing your action on your partner rather than reacting to his/her actions...  This is chasing hands given you stick to their hands.



LFJ said:


> There can be no such thing as chasing hands when there is no hand in our minds. There's no opponent and no arm to control. It's not even considered that there's a person in front of us, much less one that is trying to hit us. We are out of range to even hit each other.



It is at least the way I used to train it that the partners move causes us to move in order to deflect their palm or punch by sensing how it causes the arm to roll. It is not to impose a deflecting move but to sense how it forces your arm to roll or move. 



LFJ said:


> We just use each other's arms to train control of our own elbow within the boundaries of our own structures, like on the dummy later.



We do too,  it's a drill. You are using a partner in a drill. But our structure is not done despite our partner but because of what our partner does. I guess this is the big difference in how we see the drill. You seem to impose yourself and do stuff no matter what your partner does. We act due to the movement of the partner. 



LFJ said:


> We lay the foundation in SNT, then learn the effect with a borrowed limb in DCS. Dummy further refines position. But DCS is too early to talk about exchanging force. You don't teach calculus before algebra. You don't teach algebra before addition. And you don't teach addition before counting to 10!
> 
> It's an entirely differently mental shift from what you're doing now.



Actually in my view you are doing a drill different to how I do it. So it means different things because to you it is static and just teaching how to do a "technique" correctly. We focus on the transition mostly. We don't do because we are told but because we feel it. We have other drills to do our moves against someone without initial contact.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> So you do DCS on a dummy? If your partner moves towards you then you are not alone. To act as if you are despite having a partner doing a punch or palm strike or reacting to your move then you are not doing a solo drill. Acting as if you are is same as imposing your action on your partner rather than reacting to his/her actions...  This is chasing hands given you stick to their hands.



You're still thinking "on the partner". You don't get it... There is no sticking and following either.



> It is at least the way I used to train it that the partners move causes us to move in order to deflect their palm or punch by sensing how it causes the arm to roll. It is not to impose a deflecting move but to sense how it forces your arm to roll or move.
> 
> 
> We do too,  it's a drill. You are using a partner in a drill. But our structure is not done despite our partner but because of what our partner does. I guess this is the big difference in how we see the drill. You seem to impose yourself and do stuff no matter what your partner does. We act due to the movement of the partner.



Yes. I know. You are sticking, feeling, yielding, rolling, etc.. That's why you're making problems for yourself. What does all this do for you? You think you are going to stick, feel, yield, and roll with arms that are flying at you in a fight?



> Actually in my view you are doing a drill different to how I do it. So it means different things because to you it is static and just teaching how to do a "technique" correctly.



If I move my arm it's not static. Elbow contraction, for example, is not a technique. How do you think I'm going to contract my elbow on you?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

KPM said:


> Using whole body power is good!  But that clip is very exaggerated.  Unnecessarily so!   This is where Andreas Hoffman learned to do his forms so "exaggerated."  Cheng Kwong is his primary teacher.


IMO, during the beginner level training, the "exaggeration" will be needed. Many CMA systems use "exaggeration" to train certain "body method".


----------



## wtxs

Wing Chun Auckland said:


>



I recalled awhile back someone said there is no back fist strike used in WC.  Watching this video, there it is ... since Lun  Kai learn WC from directly fromYM, it must be legit?

Now we will have to decide who has the real YM WC/VT that had been debated?


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> You're still thinking "on the partner". You don't get it... There is no sticking and following either.



So you do not have contact with your partner during DCS drill? You do not keep contact either?



LFJ said:


> Yes. I know. You are sticking, feeling, yielding, rolling, etc.. That's why you're making problems for yourself. What does all this do for you? You think you are going to stick, feel, yield, and roll with arms that are flying at you in a fight?



Sticking is a thing that may exist for a moment or more in chi sao and some drills. Not fighting. Feeling exist in fights whenever there is contact for a microsecond. You need to train to grasp that moment of contact which it seems to me your WSLVT care little about.

Yes it is there even on a quick jab. No it is not chasing hands. Chasing hands means seeking the contact, this is about understanding contact.





LFJ said:


> If I move my arm it's not static. Elbow contraction, for example, is not a technique. How do you think I'm going to contract my elbow on you?



If you move your arm you are not static. But if you drill does not change appearance it is static drill.

I consider it to be a technique if done as a pre defined move and not as a natural response.

When you contract you elbow you have no forward intent? We do it as part of feeling an incoming force.

When a palm to me gets pointed to my stomach it comes in at a 0 degree angle or slight upward angle.  Jut sao would not do anything to an actual attack at this point unless you can get your elbow lower. Unless collapsed towards the body the elbow will only slightly touch the arm of your partner.

I mean I barely recall it, just that the drill became so wrong at such height difference. I am trying to recreate the event I barely remember.

IF you are a very tall person against a very short person.

We are talking about a 4'11'' partner to a 6'5'' guy. Or something of that sort. A lot of text about a non normal encounter.

And to clarify more. Force means not brute force such as forcing your way in but rather an intent for palm/punch to reach its target in front of me. DCS is not about fighting or hitting.


----------



## KPM

wtxs said:


> I recalled awhile back someone said there is no back fist strike used in WC.  Watching this video, there it is ... since Lun  Kai learn WC from directly fromYM, it must be legit?



There is a "Gwai Choi" in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun as well as Tang Yik Weng Chun.   I believe Koo Sang also taught a backfist strike.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

wtxs said:


> I recalled awhile back someone said there is no back fist strike used in WC.  Watching this video, there it is ... since Lun  Kai learn WC from directly fromYM, it must be legit?
> 
> Now we will have to decide who has the real YM WC/VT that had been debated?



No, we don't have to decide that. We just have to practice a version of wing chun/martial arts that agrees with us the most. 
These are the actual facts, there rest is just hearsay and guessing:
1. YM changed his wing chun serveral times. 
2. YM taught people differently
3. Only people who trained with YM know exactly what he taught


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^ Common sense!


----------



## Nobody Important

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> No, we don't have to decide that. We just have to practice a version of wing chun/martial arts that agrees with us the most.
> These are the actual facts, there rest is just hearsay and guessing:
> 1. YM changed his wing chun serveral times.
> 2. YM taught people differently
> 3. Only people who trained with YM know exactly what he taught


The real question is what makes what Yip Man taught the standard that all Wing Chun branches must follow? Popularity? Seems to me that most of the dissent comes from the descendents of Yip Man, the rest comes from the weird ramblings of those that would seek to knock Yip Man from his throne of popularity.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> I consider it to be a technique if done as a pre defined move and not as a natural response.



It's a drill FFS. You are training elbow positions and movement between. You are entraining attributes, not training techniques you will use in fighting. 



Phobius said:


> When a palm to me gets pointed to my stomach it comes in at a 0 degree angle or slight upward angle.



Then get them to point it at your elbow so that you can do something with it. It isn't training a response to an attack on your nether regions from a mdget, it is just giving your elbow something to move around. 



Phobius said:


> Jut sao would not do anything to an actual attack at this point unless you can get your elbow lower. Unless collapsed towards the body the elbow will only slightly touch the arm of your partner.



Jut sao? I don't understand. Why would you be jutting the palm when elbow not extended? What are you intending to train with this?


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> 1. YM changed his wing chun serveral times



Nope. VT is VT



> 2. YM taught people differently



Different people certainly arrived at different results



> 3. Only people who trained with YM know exactly what he taught



That is why we remember what they told us


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> I have said previously we don't see DCS as a big drill nor do we do it often anymore.



It is a big drill for beginners. Do you not have any in your classes?



Phobius said:


> If they move in a pre defined motion they are doing a technique. So therefore it is technique based drill for you.



A technique in MA is a complex physical movement which can be applied to an opponent as is, like a triangle choke, a footsweep, an uppercut. Technique based MA teach techniques and work on stringing them together. Principle based MA teach ideas and build from them to fighting. Technique based approach is faster but relies on massive personal effort to achieve coherence. Principle based starts coherent (or should do) but is difficult to maintain that coherence in the face of adversity.  VT is a concept and principle based system. 

Basic abstract elbow movements are not techniques because they have no direct application- they are just a fundamental piece of the jigsaw. A technique based approach to DCS imagines that it is something like 1 handed fighting, where you are learning reflexive reactions which can be applied directly to fighting. What you are doing in other words. 



Phobius said:


> If you wanted to know what I do you (or LFJ) would ask, not state what you believe to be facts. I



We are debating. Come back with your own points when challenged, or reformulate your argument if discussion exposes a flaw in it. Don't get emotional about it, it is a waste of your and my time. 



Phobius said:


> That if anything should be chasing hands. If there is no force to Palm or Punch then why not just punch forward. You sound as if you chase hands because you force for instance a bong Sau with nothing causing it to roll.



Bong is not a reactive technique in VT. <akes no sense to "force" a bong in this way.



Phobius said:


> It depends on the angles but it sounds as if you force yourself to do a technique in order to train elbow.



You are training your elbow in DCS, not fighting an opponent!

You don't "just punch forward" because you are doing a drill to develop basic elbow usage, not lat sau jik chung.


----------



## wtxs

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> *No, we don't have to decide that. We just have to practice a version of wing chun/martial arts that agrees with us the most. *
> These are the actual facts, there rest is just hearsay and guessing:
> 1. YM changed his wing chun serveral times.
> 2. YM taught people differently
> 3. Only people who trained with YM know exactly what he taught



We all know that ... except for a few.  Lun Kai must have "fill in the gap", because their YM VT don't have that nor they do that.    Can't resist baiting, got plenty of popcorn and tons of cold beer.


----------



## guy b.

wtxs said:


> We all know that ... except for a few.  Lun Kai must have "fill in the gap", because their YM VT don't have that nor they do that.    Can't resist baiting, got plenty of popcorn and tons of cold beer.



I wouldn't call it "baiting" to be proudly and ignorantly wrong. Baiting requires the possibility of discussion where none is intended.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> Jut sao? I don't understand. Why would you be jutting the palm when elbow not extended? What are you intending to train with this?



Huh? We are talking about the drill not working with a large height difference. Not talking about the drill working. You wanted an example of it not working, not of it working.

If I was doing jut sao then why would I say it did not work? I was simply giving an example as to why it did not work. You are saying that in your lineage you would simply redirect your partners arm to a higher region so it works for you.Given that you want to treat your partner as a dummy that might work well. For me asking them to do the punch in upward angle does not give that feeling I seek and its like asking to get hit. Of course it is easily remedied by moving differently but it is no longer doing what is part of the drill itself. (Yes this would be looking at the techniques to identify the drill and as such it could be called technique based even if the techniques themselves are not in focus.)

You were the one saying if the drill is changed, it is no longer part of the system.

For me it is simply one of those times where you hope your partner gets the practise he or she needs and then you move on to another partner. DCS is not really the drill I spend a lot of time doing or worrying about.

Anyways, this discussion is over. If you ever find yourself in this scenario you need to grow a lot in height which you most likely wont. For me I have given it far more attention than it is worth, discussing a scenario of two people of such major height difference just because it was stated that no matter the height the drill would always stay the same. Something I objected stating that there are exceptions to that rule.

You simply wish to refute that example is sort of like discussing stuff on a schoolyard where everyone simply has to win an argument. "What if the guy was blind, having only one arm and one leg... what then?!"

Lets end the discussion as it gives me no more value.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Huh? We are talking about the drill not working with a large height difference. Not talking about the drill working. You wanted an example of it not working, not of it working



If you are trying to jut it then possibly a clue as to why it is not working for you



Phobius said:


> For me asking them to do the punch in upward angle does not give that feeling I seek and its like asking to get hit.



I still don't understand what the intention of this drill is for you. Can you explain please?


----------



## wtxs

guy b. said:


> I wouldn't call it "baiting" to be proudly and ignorantly wrong. Baiting requires the possibility of discussion where none is intended.



FINALLY!  I'm happy you feel that way.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> If you are trying to jut it then possibly a clue as to why it is not working for you



So what kind of movement would you tell people to do when explaining how to do the drill? To counter the palm? Or are you simply saying "Just do whatever, but consider the elbow"? Because if you are, then heck yea the drill works perfectly for everyone or almost everyone all the time. 

And to clarify because your memory is failing: I said that I don't consider the drill to work because I do another technique other than what is expected. I do not say I force myself to do such a techniue, that was you saying you guys do such a thing. Which made me say that your way of doing it sounds more technique based than principle. 

You assume that when I say your drill seems technique based you get offended thinking I said your system is technique based. Something I never said.

Reason the discussion is over is because you are not interested in anything other than proving you are right no matter what angle you have to take. Do you even remember that the discussion is about height difference scenario still?

As for discussing DCS itself you put more value to that drill than I do. To me it teaches you proper movement with one arm before getting ready to separate two arms doing their own things individually without your brain having to focus on both arms. It is a stepping drill in regards to it being a step towards chi-sao. Not even a big step to be honest to some.



guy b. said:


> I still don't understand what the intention of this drill is for you. Can you explain please?



I wrote about that already, suggest you read it. If you do not grasp feeling and rolling as part of transitions maybe you are missing something. If that is the case, then I must ask. Are you doing Bong-sau as a technique to counter an opponent? How does that in such case work out for you and your shoulders?


----------



## SaulGoodman

Phobius said:


> So what kind of movement would you tell people to do when explaining how to do the drill? To counter the palm? Or are you simply saying "Just do whatever, but consider the elbow"? Because if you are, then heck yea the drill works perfectly for everyone or almost everyone all the time.
> 
> And to clarify because your memory is failing: I said that I don't consider the drill to work because I do another technique other than what is expected. I do not say I force myself to do such a techniue, that was you saying you guys do such a thing. Which made me say that your way of doing it sounds more technique based than principle.
> 
> You assume that when I say your drill seems technique based you get offended thinking I said your system is technique based. Something I never said.
> 
> Reason the discussion is over is because you are not interested in anything other than proving you are right no matter what angle you have to take. Do you even remember that the discussion is about height difference scenario still?
> 
> As for discussing DCS itself you put more value to that drill than I do. To me it teaches you proper movement with one arm before getting ready to separate two arms doing their own things individually without your brain having to focus on both arms. It is a stepping drill in regards to it being a step towards chi-sao. Not even a big step to be honest to some.
> 
> 
> 
> I wrote about that already, suggest you read it. If you do not grasp feeling and rolling as part of transitions maybe you are missing something. If that is the case, then I must ask. Are you doing Bong-sau as a technique to counter an opponent? How does that in such case work out for you and your shoulders?


It's always been my understanding that bong is a transitory movement, a pressure valve if you like. I would never conciously  DO a bong Sao eg an opponent throws a punch from long bridge and I think "bong sao", rather in closer range as I'm trying to strike someone if my punching arm gets the right stimulus  (attribute gained from chi Sao) I MIGHT collapse into bong to then re-open a striking line.  "Bong Sao never remains" I believe is the saying. And I can't agree more with you on DCS, to me it's just an introduction to sticking hands. Once a student can smoothly perform the drill I would endeavor to move them on to double stick. People are sometimes way too precious regarding timeframes.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> Nope. VT is VT
> 
> Different people certainly arrived at different results
> 
> 
> That is why we remember what they told us



HIGHLY unlikely that Wing Chun hasn't changed in each generation that it has been passed down. 
HIGHLY unlikely YM wing chun doesn't look vastly different from that which founders developed.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^  Again, just good common sense!


----------



## KPM

guy b. said:


> Nope. VT is VT
> 
> 
> 
> Different people certainly arrived at different results
> 
> 
> 
> That is why we remember what they told us



Its just too bad that common sense doesn't seem to be common in some circles.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> I do not say I force myself to do such a techniue, that was you saying you guys do such a thing. Which made me say that your way of doing it sounds more technique based than principle.



That's not what we said, and you're misusing the term technique. Maybe it means something else in your language.



> Do you even remember that the discussion is about height difference scenario still?



Again, it's not the height difference that is causing you problems, but what you have been told the drill is for and how to do it that is causing you problems.

Your partner is doing the palm and punch incorrectly, and you have been told to use a certain technique to control their arm. Due to the height difference, if you used that technique your angles would be off, so you want to change to a different technique.

If your partner did the palm and punch correctly, and you weren't told to try and control their arm, you wouldn't have these problems. You have been taught a literal interpretation of the drill, and it doesn't work.



> If you do not grasp feeling and rolling as part of transitions maybe you are missing something. If that is the case, then I must ask. Are you doing Bong-sau as a technique to counter an opponent? How does that in such case work out for you and your shoulders?



This conversation is not working. Your WT mental block is too strong.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> So what kind of movement would you tell people to do when explaining how to do the drill? To counter the palm? Or are you simply saying "Just do whatever, but consider the elbow"? Because if you are, then heck yea the drill works perfectly for everyone or almost everyone all the time



The first thing you need to do is get the palm where your elbow can interact with it. The palm is an aid in training your elbow. The punch is the same. They are not attacks for you to feel and react to. You partner is palming in the wrong place so the drill is failing.

Jut is done from an extended elbow position. When you receive the palm your elbow is neutral, so jut not a sensible response, no matter who you are training with.



Phobius said:


> I said that I don't consider the drill to work because I do another technique other than what is expected. I do not say I force myself to do such a techniue, that was you saying you guys do such a thing. Which made me say that your way of doing it sounds more technique based than principle.



DCS is not teaching technique or principle. It is teaching basic elbow mechanics.



Phobius said:


> As for discussing DCS itself you put more value to that drill than I do. To me it teaches you proper movement with one arm before getting ready to separate two arms doing their own things individually without your brain having to focus on both arms. It is a stepping drill in regards to it being a step towards chi-sao. Not even a big step to be honest to some.



But it sounds like you do not have this basic drill functioning, as you describe with a shorter person. Moving on from a non-functional drill sounds like a bad idea.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> The first thing you need to do is get the palm where your elbow can interact with it. The palm is an aid in training your elbow. The punch is the same. They are not attacks for you to feel and react to. You partner is palming in the wrong place so the drill is failing.



Could be that they are aiming slightly below my center. Not a forward palm but an upward for them so if aiming at my center it would be a bit beneath the center due to not being at hitting range.

Not sure you grasp this concept of angles but it is like that. So in your view you would ask them to aim higher which shortens the distance even more. Just to have their palm at center height.

As I said. Point of reference if they hit straight forward they hit me in the stomach so that is why their palm is upward angle.

It is needed not to be within hitting range  to get proper training in it. If I can hit then I will hit. Or it won't remain true. And I do not intend to hit other students in that drill.



guy b. said:


> Jut is done from an extended elbow position. When you receive the palm your elbow is neutral, so jut not a sensible response, no matter who you are training with.



Hmm, meant jum sao btw. Just noticed I have been writing jut. I can accept this being partially confusing because of it.

I have a terrible memory for names. Always had, a biological thing.



guy b. said:


> DCS is not teaching technique or principle. It is teaching basic elbow mechanics.



Without doing a technique? Interesting. Your beginners are not ready for force but they already know all about force to do proper elbow mechanics without a technique? Seems we have different meaning of the word techniques. And don't say it is because of language. It is because of how we are taught to view the world. Philosophy 101.



guy b. said:


> But it sounds like you do not have this basic drill functioning, as you describe with a shorter person. Moving on from a non-functional drill sounds like a bad idea.



Yes this must be it. Thanks to you I am now aware of the enlightenment and will forever seek the higher knowledge you hold on everything.

Mocking aside.

I said the drill does not work against a shorter person. Because I do not have the space or angles I need. If you say DCS is  drill where you can do whatever you want then fine,  it works against anyone. But to me it is only the drill if we keep within the confines of the drill. Otherwise it is another drill.

Does it matter? Only if the elbow movement that is to be trained is not the one you can do. But the drill is different and therefore not the same.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> I said the drill does not work against a shorter person. Because I do not have the space or angles I need. If you say DCS is  drill where you can do whatever you want then fine,  it works against anyone. But to me it is only the drill if we keep within the confines of the drill. Otherwise it is another drill.



It is as I said _taan_ > palm > _bong_ / _fuk_ > _jam_ > punch, not whatever we want, and it works _*with*_ anyone if you both do it correctly with the right conceptual basis.

As an arm-feeling and controlling "versus" drill with techniques taken at face value, it doesn't work as you have found but misattribute to height differences.

Without getting together and showing it to you, I don't think you will be able to get past your WT mental block here and grasp the concept that is being described to you. 

You also seem unbothered by a broken foundational exercise. So, I think we should just hang this one up.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> It is as I said _taan_ > palm > _bong_ / _fuk_ > _jam_ > punch, not whatever we want, and it works _*with*_ anyone if you both do it correctly with the right conceptual basis.
> 
> As an arm-feeling and controlling "versus" drill with techniques taken at face value, it doesn't work as you have found but misattribute to height differences.
> 
> Without getting together and showing it to you, I don't think you will be able to get past your WT mental block here and grasp the concept that is being described to you.
> 
> You also seem unbothered by a broken foundational exercise. So, I think we should just hang this one up.



I can accept this. Also I find it problematic to explain in English so lets agree to drop this. 

I have personally already moved past DCS and don't give it a high value anymore. 

Still interested in touching hands as well as sparring with someone from WSLVT and someday I  might. After all that lineage has mastered the punching itself in my view.


----------



## Phobius

Can also add, since I cannot edit my previous post. I am not interested in winning some debate, that would not make me a better martial artist.

All I am interested in is finding new ways to view things, new angles of approach. Not because I doubt anything I do, but because I believe in mixing martial arts to get the best of all worlds. Not a purist.

So what I am saying is I do listen to what you write about how you do things despite arguing my own case.


----------



## geezer

Phobius said:


> ...I have personally already moved past DCS and don't give it a high value anymore.



I would recommend against writing-off Dan Chi Sau just because you are at a more advanced level in your training.

Returning to DCS and e_levating it _to the level of your current understanding can be very valuable. Advanced Dan Chi Sau will involve more subtle manipulations of energy, more variation in power and position, stepping and turning,  ....in general it allows for more possibilities. Periodically returning to DCS to explore these possibilities, while isolating them to the use of one hand in the context of a non-competitive drill can be very instructive. Then when you switch back  to Chi Seung Sau/Poon Sau, things will often seem clearer.

Anyway it works in _my _VT/WT/WC. Guy and LFJ do something else, I'm sure.


----------



## Phobius

geezer said:


> I would recommend against writing-off Dan Chi Sau just because you are at a more advanced level in your training.
> 
> Returning to DCS and e_levating it _to the level of your current understanding can be very valuable. Advanced Dan Chi Sau will involve more subtle manipulations of energy, more variation in power and position, stepping and turning,  ....in general it allows for more possibilities. Periodically returning to DCS to explore these possibilities, while isolating them to the use of one hand in the context of a non-competitive drill can be very instructive. Then when you switch back  to Chi Seung Sau/Poon Sau, things will seem seem clearer.
> 
> Anyway it works in _my _VT/WT/WC. Guy and LFJ do something else, I'm sure.



That kind of drill we already do but not in sequence such as Dan chi sao according to most. We do it with random movements as well as focusing on a single one. Not specifically Dan chi sao, but parts of it. And sometimes even longer drills.

In no way sticking to a purist view but following the concepts.

Also I don't say we skip DCS, we still do it. Just that I have not put much attention at all to it lately. 

But I will try that out with a non short person. A short person some  people say will work but if my attack lands on them it is not Dan chi sao anymore.


----------



## geezer

Phobius said:


> ...But I will try that out with a non short person. A short person some  people say will work but if my attack lands on them it is not Dan chi sao anymore.



If you are not doing stepping with the drill, just put the short guy on a crate, you know, ....to boost the little runt up a bit! 

...Unfortunately for me I _am _the short guy! Not a midget, but only 5' 8". When I work with really tall guys (anyone over about 6' 2") I feel like I'm working uphill to stay on our connected centerlines. I remember my old sifu used to tell us that the _drill _of chi-sau worked best when practiced with a partner of similar height. In the context of our lineage or branch of VT I still believe that to be so.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> Also I don't say we skip DCS, we still do it. Just that I have not put much attention at all to it lately.


Actually, when one of your arms contact with one of your opponent's arms, your other arm hasn't made contact with your opponent's other arm yet is a much more common situation in fighting.


----------



## Phobius

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Actually, when one of your arms contact with one of your opponent's arms, your other arm hasn't made contact with your opponent's other arm yet is a much more common situation in fighting.



Thing is that using both arms is not about dealing with two arms for me. It is about disconnecting the arms so they can operate individually. Well that is one of many things at least.

So doing chi sao for me with both arms has little to do with fighting. It is just perfecting my skills, senses, structure, movement and correcting my elbow (heard this one a few times before).


----------



## Kung Fu Wang

Phobius said:


> To doing chi sao for me with both arms has little to do with fighting. It is just perfecting my skills, senses, structure, movement and correcting my elbow (heard this one a few times before).


Chi Shou can be part of your fighting. If you use it to train fighting, it will be good for fighting.

For example,

- Both you and your opponent have right leg forward.
- You use your left hand to parry down your opponent's leading right arm (one of your arms contact with one of your opponent's arms).
- When he responds your left arm, your right hand punch at his face.

Your right hand function as "door knocking" (similar to a boxing jab). When your opponent responds to it (open his door), you enter his door and punch him (similar to boxing cross).


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> HIGHLY unlikely that Wing Chun hasn't changed in each generation that it has been passed down



Actually the argument from probability points in the other direction


----------



## guy b.

Kung Fu Wang said:


> Chi Shou can be part of your fighting. If you use it to train fighting, it will be good for fighting.



But you wouldn't do that, because you would be practicing VT, not something you made up yourself


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> Actually the argument from probability points in the other direction



How so?


----------



## LFJ

Forgot to respond to this one...



Wing Chun Auckland said:


> HIGHLY unlikely that Wing Chun hasn't changed in each generation that it has been passed down.



I've seen VT passed down through 5 generations intact. That's 4 active generations down from WSL that share the same complete understanding of the system. Each generation can say they teach what their teachers taught them and we can observe the truth of it. This traces right back to WSL who said the same thing, that he taught just what YM taught him.

If the system is changing with each generation it either means people have purposely made changes to it, or some understanding is lacking. There's is no other way an abstract training system could be passed down through 5 generations with everything intact, than for the thinking to be clearly understood. That doesn't happen by accident.



> HIGHLY unlikely YM wing chun doesn't look vastly different from that which founders developed.



No doubt it took some time for the full system to develop from its inception. But that's just the training methods for what is a very simple approach to fighting.


----------



## wckf92

LFJ said:


> I've seen VT passed down through 5 generations intact. That's 4 active generations down from WSL that share the same complete understanding of the system. Each generation can say they teach what their teachers taught them and we can observe the truth of it. This traces right back to WSL who said the same thing, that he taught just what YM taught him..



To the extent this is true and accurate, it's quite impressive IMO.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^  But that's the million dollar question, isn't it?  Lots of claims have been made here....like "thousands" of people converting to the new religion!   Like sparring and fighting being so important to the lineage when no one in the lineage provides very much video evidence of it.   Sure, you can have 5 generations of guys....realize that each generation may only have 3 or 4 years of training.....that each have exposure to and pretty strict guidelines from just one or two individuals... so what they do is going to match pretty closely.  And in modern times people are fairly mobile and can travel back and forth to study with one teacher even if they live a good distance away.   But when you start talking about Ip Man teaching in the 50's and 60's in Hong Kong, you had guys that studied for a time and then went their own way without much further contact with their Sifu and Sihings.   So of course they are going to begin to "evolve" and develop things in their own way.  You could say that is due to incomplete understanding and teaching.  Or you can say that is because they are no longer closely associated with other people that they copy, so they are free to develop things that work for them or to change things a bit based on their own background.  It just goes against common sense to say that you have a very "abstract" and "conceptual" system, but that everyone does it physically the exact same way.  But, like I said, common sense isn't always that common it seems.


----------



## KPM

Here's an example of common sense......out of all the direct students of Ip Man, no one else that I am aware of does things exactly as what LFJ and Guy describe other than the WSLVT people (and then not even some of them!).   So, was ONLY WSL taught Ip Man's "real" art? Was WSL the ONLY one smart enough and dedicated enough to "get" what Ip Man was really teaching?  Was EVERY student other than WSL somehow deficit?  Did Ip Man choose to teach the "real" thing to only one person...WSL?

Or......was WSL a particularly bright and talented guy with good fighting experience that took what Ip Man taught him, refined the concepts and ideas in his own mind a bit, and then tailored what he taught to match up with those concepts as closely as possible?  He didn't add anything from an outside system.  He didn't change anything drastically.  So he could honestly say he was teaching what Ip Man taught. He just refined his understanding and the way he taught the system to suit himself and to make it his own.  I would argue than PB has done much the same process and made what he teaches even more "specialized" or "one dimensional".

So......I think  LFJ and Guy should be arguing that Ip Man was a known fighter and had "updated" and refined his Wing Chun to match his experience and make it more effective.....then Ip Man taught WSL, who was also a sharp guy and known fighter who further refined and "updated" the system based on his own experience.....therefore WSLVT is like WCK version 3.0.   Rather than arguing that their "VT" is "old and traditional and exactly what master X taught"....which is the typical thing in traditional CMA circles.....they should be arguing that their "VT" is the best "new and improved" version of WCK and THAT is why it is different than what others do.   THAT is an argument that would be much harder to refute!  

Because think about it.  What if Bruce Lee hadn't made Ip Man famous?   What if Ip Man had died BEFORE Bruce Lee left for the USA?  Then when Bruce Lee started crediting his former system, WSL would have been the one in the limelight and not Ip Man.   WSL would have become THE Wing Chun master to study with rather than Ip Man.  Today no one cares whether Ip Man was teaching exactly what his teacher taught him.  In fact, everyone assumes what he did was a combination of teaching from at least two Sifus.   So if WSL had become the face of Wing Chun rather than Ip Man, no one today would be concerned about whether what he taught was exactly what Ip Man taught.   In fact, people would just expect that he had changed the  system around to make it more effective.....like we assume now that Ip Man did.

Again....just common sense!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> Forgot to respond to this one...
> 
> I've seen VT passed down through 5 generations intact. That's 4 active generations down from WSL that share the same complete understanding of the system. Each generation can say they teach what their teachers taught them and we can observe the truth of it. This traces right back to WSL who said the same thing, that he taught just what YM taught him.
> 
> If the system is changing with each generation it either means people have purposely made changes to it, or some understanding is lacking. There's is no other way an abstract training system could be passed down through 5 generations with everything intact, than for the thinking to be clearly understood. That doesn't happen by accident.
> 
> No doubt it took some time for the full system to develop from its inception. But that's just the training methods for what is a very simple approach to fighting.



5 generations from Wsl. So I assume this starts from PB. The only problem with what you are saying here is that PB is still alive and presumably available to train with. Therefore even PB's great great grand students can still learn from and train with PB as well as their grand teachers and great grand teachers. 

The dynamic here is exactly the same as the dynamic found in Leung Tings European association for those that are still a part of it. Grand students and great grand students all pretty much do their wing Chun the exact same way. 

This dynamic wasn't the case with yip man. 

Plus we know that Wsl had many students. And we can already see differences amongst his students: PB, Gary Lam, Barry Lee, Cliff Au Young, Bruce Lee....etc.


----------



## LFJ

@KPM

Common sense would be to not make assumptions about something with which you have no experience. Like I said on post #2, go learn it from someone who knows it well, then come back and pick up the conversation.

"New and improved" would be the best line to tout effectiveness. "Old and traditional" would be the best to sell authenticity.

But I'm not trying to make a case for either. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I'm simply stating what I believe with strong confidence based on hard evidence. You've not even experienced the same system to form an opinion one way or another.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> 5 generations from Wsl. So I assume this starts from PB. The only problem with what you are saying here is that PB is still alive and presumably available to train with. Therefore even PB's great great grand students can still learn from and train with PB as well as their grand teachers and great grand teachers.
> 
> The dynamic here is exactly the same as the dynamic found in Leung Tings European association for those that are still a part of it. Grand students and great grand students all pretty much do their wing Chun the exact same way.
> 
> This dynamic wasn't the case with yip man.



Why do you assume PB? He's not the only one to have received the system from WSL, only perhaps the most prolific.

LT teaches a technique-based system. That's much easier to pass on intact. You just copy the moves. An abstract training system is not one that can just be copied. The thinking must be received and understood.



> Plus we know that Wsl had many students. And we can already see differences amongst his students: PB, Gary Lam, Barry Lee, Cliff Au Young, Bruce Lee....etc.



And we know why some of them differ. In some cases, they've openly changed things for whatever reason, and in others, they didn't learn fully and were never serious fighters. Much the same with YM's students. Not hard to see.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> out of all the direct students of Ip Man, no one else that I am aware of does things exactly as what LFJ and Guy describe other than the WSLVT people



Have you seen all of the direct students of YM? I have not so wouldn't speculate in this way. 



KPM said:


> .I think LFJ and Guy should be arguing that Ip Man was a known fighter and had "updated" and refined his Wing Chun to match his experience and make it more effective.....then Ip Man taught WSL, who was also a sharp guy and known fighter who further refined and "updated" the system based on his own experience.....therefore WSLVT is like WCK version 3.0. Rather than arguing that their "VT" is "old and traditional



When you understand VT, it is easy to see how unlikely it is that it is the product of one mind or one lifetime. The fact that the VT of WSL is completely coherent and non contradictory, while that of others is not, points to the likelihood of WSL's VT being the VT system of YM, and that of some others being a misunderstanding of the system. If you say that what is shown by various YM derived systems is what YM taught at various times in his life, then you are arguing that YM had an incherent and contradictory mess of a system that somehow, one day, he made into something perfect, by accident. Things evolve when they are not optimal. VT is optimised for a particular usage. Changing it breaks it.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

You said you have seen 5 generations from Wsl and you are from PB so I assumed you were talking about PB's students, grand students etc.

Just saying it's easy to look like or practice the same way as your great grand teacher if he is still alive and actively teaching.


----------



## guy b.

By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality. I just think it is exceedingly unlikely for reasons detailed above, and that other explanations are more likely. 



KPM said:


> He didn't change anything drastically. So he could honestly say he was teaching what Ip Man taught. He just refined his understanding and the way he taught the system to suit himself and to make it his own. I would argue than PB has done much the same process and made what he teaches even more "specialized" or "one dimensional"



If WSL didn't change anything drastically, then why is WSL's VT so utterly different to other wing chun? Either WSL made it up himself (unlikely in terms of basic probability), or he is teaching a system optimised over a period of time that he received from YM (likely). The importance given to the conceptual basics in WSL VT is unique amonst the other YM lines that I have experienced, but is similar to the emphasis given in some other "real" TCMA systems that I have experienced. I think that WSL's VT is the VT system, and that most other wing chun is not. This is not to say that there are not other examples of YM's VT around, or that the system you practice is not YM's. I am not making any personal attack.


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> You said you have seen 5 generations from Wsl and you are from PB so I assumed you were talking about PB's students, grand students etc.
> 
> Just saying it's easy to look like or practice the same way as your great grand teacher if he is still alive and actively teaching.



There are others from WSL


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> You said you have seen 5 generations from Wsl and you are from PB so I assumed you were talking about PB's students, grand students etc.
> 
> Just saying it's easy to look like or practice the same way as your great grand teacher if he is still alive and actively teaching.



Who told you I am "from PB"?

WSL passed away in '97. When we look back at old footage of his teaching, it's all the same stuff being taught several generations later, and not just through the one line of PB.


----------



## KPM

When you understand VT, it is easy to see how unlikely it is that it is the product of one mind or one lifetime.

----I didn't say that.  Go back and read a little more closely.


The fact that the VT of WSL is completely coherent and non contradictory, while that of others is not, points to the likelihood of WSL's VT being the VT system of YM, and that of some others being a misunderstanding of the system.

---Like I said, it appears that "common sense" isn't so common in some circles.


----------



## LFJ

guy b. said:


> By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality. I just think it is exceedingly unlikely for reasons detailed above, and that other explanations are more likely.



Same. I would be more than happy to admit this. The evidence just doesn't support it.


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Go back and read a little more closely.



I have addressed your argument, here:


guy b. said:


> If WSL didn't change anything drastically, then why is WSL's VT so utterly different to other wing chun? Either WSL made it up himself (unlikely in terms of basic probability), or he is teaching a system optimised over a period of time that he received from YM (likely).



Please respond


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> Same. I would be more than happy to admit this. The evidence just doesn't support it.



There is a strange assumption among people like KPM that if VT originated with WSL, it is some kind of victory. Why would anyone care? It is just very unlikly to have happened that way


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

So you are not in the PB line?

If you are referring to generations, it usually refers to students, grand students etc. not the different people that Wsl taught.

PB, Gary Lam, Cliff Au Young, Barry Lee etc are not 5 different generations of Studnets. They are all direct students of Wsl.


It is interesting that can't comprehend how YM could have possibly have taught people differently despite many accounts of this. As well as the clear
Evidence found in the wide variety of interpretations. This is something you can't seem to get passed. 

The only black and white no nonsense, no heresay facts we have is that YM students all have very different interpretations of the art. We also know he changed his teaching style by the time he got to his second generation students. 

You rely a lot on the perfection of your system as evidence for this not being true.
You think the wing Chun you practice is so perfect that there is no way it can't be a direct transmission.
Unfortunately you are not the only one who thinks this. Pretty much every lineage believes their one to be the best and purest interpretation of YM wing Chun. They also believe it to be perfect.


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> The only black and white no nonsense, no heresay facts we have is that YM students all have very different interpretations of the art.



Most of which are incoherent and contradictory. Draw your own conclusions


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> They also believe it to be perfect.



Then lets talk concepts


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> So you are not in the PB line?
> 
> If you are referring to generations, it usually refers to students, grand students etc. not the different people that Wsl taught.
> 
> PB, Gary Lam, Cliff Au Young, Barry Lee etc are not 5 different generations of Studnets. They are all direct students of Wsl.



No ****.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> Most of which are incoherent and contradictory. Draw your own conclusions



To each lineage others are just as incoherent.
I find your stuff to be focused on a single area,  simplified thus making your abstract drills somewhat impractical for its purposes. Too many abstract drills for a simplified Ving Tsun with much more narrow focus.

With simplified I do not mean worse. Look at boxing, very simple and yet incredibly effective. And tough to learn well.

Edit: I can't say your drills are impractical, just it feels that way. I don't know enough to state facts.


----------



## SaulGoodman

@guy b, so if you aren't a PB student who did you learn WSL method from? You seem VERY guarded about your Wc background. As you are a Brit I'm presuming its likely that it's someone like Clive Potter/Nino Bernado/Jim Halliwell?  The basement back in the day had some good practioners, were you one of them?


----------



## KPM

_By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality._

---Again, that is NOT what I said.  You don't read very closely. 


If WSL didn't change anything drastically, then why is WSL's VT so utterly different to other wing chun?

---Its only "utterly different" in your own mind.  People have tried to point that out. 

_Either WSL made it up himself (unlikely in terms of basic probability), or he is *teaching a system optimised over a period of time that he received from YM* (likely)._

----Are you saying that WSL would not have continued that optimization in his own way?  That WSL would not have taken what Ip Man gave him and continued to develop it along similar lines?   That WSL would not have "optimized" it further based on his own fighting experience?  That is what I'm saying he did.  That is just common sense.  But that is exactly what you guys have been denying. 


_The importance given to the conceptual basics in WSL VT is unique amonst the other YM lines that I have experienced,_

---Maybe because WSL was a pretty sharp guy and chose to give it this emphasis on "conceptual basics"????   And then aligned the way he taught the system to reinforce and follow these "conceptual basics" as closely as possible????



_  I think that WSL's VT is the VT system, and that most other wing chun is not._

---WSL's VT is WSL's VT.   Leung TIng's WT is Leung Ting's WT.  CST's WC is CST's WC.   Why is that so difficult to admit?   Ip Man's Wing Chun died with Ip Man.  You are going to get along far better with other people when you admit that.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> No ****.



You are the one who said the following: 

"I've seen VT passed down through 5 generations intact. That's 4 active generations down from WSL that share the same complete understanding of the system. Each generation can say they teach what their teachers taught them and we can observe the truth of it. This traces right back to WSL who said the same thing, that he taught just what YM taught him."


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> Most of which are incoherent and contradictory. Draw your own conclusions



Well you said it a few posts ago Guy,

By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality. 

Exactly! Who cares where it came from if you find so much depth, logic and fulfilment in it. I feel the same way about what I do. As do the other posters on this forum. A big part of what you appreciate about it, is WSL's own focus and direction. David Petterson was so in awe of WSL's approach and knowledge that he has written books about him. But what I have heard from Darren Elvie directly and David Petterson in written works is that WSL streamlined his wing chun and improved on it. There is no sense that WSL faithfully and robotically copied YM's wing chun.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> @guy b, so if you aren't a PB student who did you learn WSL method from? You seem VERY guarded about your Wc background. As you are a Brit I'm presuming its likely that it's someone like Clive Potter/Nino Bernado/Jim Halliwell?  The basement back in the day had some good practioners, were you one of them?



I think you are confusing me with LFJ


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> _By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality._
> 
> ---Again, that is NOT what I said.  You don't read very closely.



Ok


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> You are the one who said the following:
> 
> "I've seen VT passed down through 5 generations intact. That's 4 active generations down from WSL that share the same complete understanding of the system. Each generation can say they teach what their teachers taught them and we can observe the truth of it. This traces right back to WSL who said the same thing, that he taught just what YM taught him."



What is your point?


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Well you said it a few posts ago Guy,
> 
> By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality.
> 
> Exactly! Who cares where it came from if you find so much depth, logic and fulfilment in it.



The question of the likely origin of VT and whether I like it and derive emotional fulfillment from it are not related in any way.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> What is your point?



I'm not sure anymore. LFJ said that he has seen 5 generations of VT stay in tact. Then I pointed out that if a teacher like PB is still alive and teaching, then it is not hard to have great grand students wing chun look very similar to their great grand teacher. Then you or LFJ said something to the effect of "WSL had other students beside PB". And I am saying different students under WSL is not counted as generations.
Even if you mean generations under these other students of WSL, then the it's the same thing. Teachers like Gary Lam, Cliff Au Yeung are still alive and well and teaching. They are still living, breathing examples of their wing chun that their students and grand students can refer to. The fact that their wing chun will look the same is to be expected.

Also to the extent that WSL's own students look similar in application or practice, is the extent to which WSL had a more specific and direct teaching approach as compared to YM.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> The question of the likely origin of VT and whether I like it and derive emotional fulfillment from it are not related in any way.



You are the one who said; "By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality." 

Happiness is a type of emotional fulfilment.


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> You are the one who said; "By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality."
> 
> Happiness is a type of emotional fulfilment.



I don't mind it is what I mean. It makes no difference to me. The argument about where it came from is not an emotional argument; it us a probabilistic one


----------



## Transk53

Look guy's, while I empathize, yes that is bias, but still, this thread has turned into Mothercare as usual. You want to nappies, you're prerogative. However, this deconstructive art trolling is getting really boring!!


----------



## guy b.

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I'm not sure anymore. LFJ said that he has seen 5 generations of VT stay in tact. Then I pointed out that if a teacher like PB is still alive and teaching, then it is not hard to have great grand students wing chun look very similar to their great grand teacher. Then you or LFJ said something to the effect of "WSL had other students beside PB". And I am saying different students under WSL is not counted as generations.
> Even if you mean generations under these other students of WSL, then the it's the same thing. Teachers like Gary Lam, Cliff Au Yeung are still alive and well and teaching. They are still living, breathing examples of their wing chun that their students and grand students can refer to. The fact that their wing chun will look the same is to be expected.
> 
> Also to the extent that WSL's own students look similar in application or practice, is the extent to which WSL had a more specific and direct teaching approach as compared to YM.



I think he probably means generations under different students of wsl, not PB, look the same as generations under PB, etc


----------



## guy b.

Transk53 said:


> Look guy's, while I empathize, yes that is bias, but still, this thread has turned into Mothercare as usual. You want to nappies, you're prerogative. However, this deconstructive art trolling is getting really boring!!



Go away then


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> Go away then



Now that could be a major slip. You not trolling then lol. Anyway and whatever, go and bait someone else


----------



## guy b.

Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.






 "We seem to have a hypocrite in our midst..."


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.



Then it is quite simple, have the balls to quote me, then just go away Guy B. You are
a troll, and you are barking up the tree, you ain't no PitBull


----------



## Transk53

guy b. said:


> Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.



Oh dear lovely lord (Yes I included the profanity for effect) You called me out once, I declined because you are somewhat lost. Wing Chun is WC. My advice to you would ask what is fighting actually is. Anyway, next time quote me!!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

guy b. said:


> I don't mind it is what I mean. It makes no difference to me. The argument about where it came from is not an emotional argument; it us a probabilistic one



There is nothing "probabilistic" about what you are saying. The points I get from the two of you are basically:
1. WSL said so, so it must be true. (hearsay)
2. WSL VT is too perfect and well designed for it to be have been developed or changed by YM (opinion)
3. YM couldn't have taught people differently because that would be weird (again, opinion)
4. VT is perfect and therefore proper transmission of it will result in no change of it (opinion) 

It is emotional to you because you are in the WSL line. You see everything through a WSL lense. You are invested in it. You have an extremely high bias. As we all do. 

The only way for an unbiased appraisal of what YM taught is if someone who was not connected to any YM lineage went around and did his own research and practiced these different lineages and did his own investigation.


----------



## geezer

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> There is nothing "probabilistic" about what you are saying. The points I get from the two of you are basically:
> 1. WSL said so, so it must be true. (hearsay)
> 2. WSL VT is too perfect and well designed for it to be have been developed or changed by YM (opinion)
> 3. YM couldn't have taught people differently because that would be weird (again, opinion)
> 4. VT is perfect and therefore proper transmission of it will result in no change of it (opinion)
> 
> It is emotional to you because you are in the WSL line. You see everything through a WSL lense. You are invested in it. You have an extremely high bias. As we all do.
> 
> The only way for an unbiased appraisal of what YM taught is if someone who was not connected to any YM lineage went around and did his own research and practiced these different lineages and did his own investigation.




I was having "deja vu all over again" reading this earlier. Now I remember where I heard it before. It was a religious fundamentalist I met as a kid back in school. He was justifying "biblical inerrancy" regarding the creation myth in Genesis. His argument for God literally creating Adam and Eve some 6,000 years ago like little clay puppets went like this:

1. God said so, so it must be true (We know this because the Bible is the word of God, and we know that because it says so in the Bible!)
2. Man and woman, and creation in general, is too perfect and well designed to for it to have evolved through natural selection so it must be the work of a Divine Creator.
3. There is only one way to understand God's teaching, as revealed through his Word, the Holy Bible.....
4. My church is the one and only church that accurately and fully understands and teaches God's revealed word.....

No wonder reading Guy's and LFJ's posts seemed so familiar all this time!!!!!! 

Sorry folks I'm just an incorrigible VT sinner. I'm bound to die and _get warm in Heck_  ...VT Heck, that is!


----------



## Nobody Important

Make a copy of an image on a copy machine. Take that copy and reproduce it by making another copy, repeat. Overtime as more copies of copies are produced, detail is lost. Whisper a phrase in the ear of the person next to you. Have them repeat these words in the ear of the person next to them, continue through 100 people. Chances are good the original phrase will be altered. All things are susceptible to influence and change over time. This is especially true when exceptional people are given the choice to interpret and analyze something they find interesting. Innovation is unavoidable, people will interpret according to their understanding and modify what they don't to comply. This is evidenced throughout history from philosophy, religion, law, politics etc. Why would martial arts be any different?


----------



## LFJ

Nobody Important said:


> Make a copy of an image on a copy machine. Take that copy and reproduce it by making another copy, repeat. Overtime as more copies of copies are produced, detail is lost. Whisper a phrase in the ear of the person next to you. Have them repeat these words in the ear of the person next to them, continue through 100 people. Chances are good the original phrase will be altered. All things are susceptible to influence and change over time. This is especially true when exceptional people are given the choice to interpret and analyze something they find interesting. Innovation is unavoidable, people will interpret according to their understanding and modify what they don't to comply. This is evidenced throughout history from philosophy, religion, law, politics etc. Why would martial arts be any different?



Faulty analogies. Mathematics has been taught for centuries and the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 has not changed by interpretation or error. If someone says 1 + 1 = 3, it does not become true under their interpretation. They may believe so, and maybe their teacher told them so, but they are just wrong. They simply don't understand the abstract science of numbers, quantity, and space.

VT is a scientific approach to combat not based on opinion or interpretations. So long as the concepts and principles are clearly defined and understood, it will be passed on intact unless someone decides to change it, at which point it becomes something other than VT.

If the concepts and principles are left open to interpretation, that means they have not been clearly defined and so change is bound to happen, but we are again no longer talking about VT which is a specific conceptual approach to fighting and fight training.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> There is nothing "probabilistic" about what you are saying. The points I get from the two of you are basically:
> 1. WSL said so, so it must be true. (hearsay)
> 2. WSL VT is too perfect and well designed for it to be have been developed or changed by YM (opinion)
> 3. YM couldn't have taught people differently because that would be weird (again, opinion)
> 4. VT is perfect and therefore proper transmission of it will result in no change of it (opinion)



1. Never said that.
2. Observable, probable.
3. Never said that.
4. Never said that.



> It is emotional to you because you are in the WSL line. You see everything through a WSL lense. You are invested in it. You have an extremely high bias. As we all do.



I have changed my views to match the evidence on several occasions. If I were biased or invested (emotionally, financially, professionally), I would be unwilling to do so.



> The only way for an unbiased appraisal of what YM taught is if someone who was not connected to any YM lineage went around and did his own research and practiced these different lineages and did his own investigation.



That's exactly what I did before I got into VT. My own research and practice has brought me to where I am today. The system coherence and functionality of what WSL taught compared to that of others makes for no going back.

Again, difficult to have this conversation with people who have 0 experience with VT as taught by WSL.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> 1. Never said that.
> 2. Observable, probable.
> 3. Never said that.
> 4. Never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> I have changed my views to match the evidence on several occasions. If I were biased or invested (emotionally, financially, professionally), I would be unwilling to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I did before I got into VT. My own research and practice has brought me to where I am today. The system coherence and functionality of what WSL taught compared to that of others makes for no going back.
> 
> Again, difficult to have this conversation with people who have 0 experience with VT as taught by WSL.



I think people are not asking you to have this conversation. People are asking you to leave that kind of talk out of the forum to keep an inviting environment for normal discussions.

A little example:
"What do you think about taan-sau?"

A good answer might be "We dont believe taan-sau is a technique but rather an abstract move to teach....."

A Bad answer might be "Taan-sau is not a technique but abstract training, it is too incoherent to be a technique part of the true VT as taught by YM. We have understood this but then again we are training the only coherent system as taught directly by YM. All other lineages are interpreting things wrong, problems maybe caused by not following the concepts correctly. Or doing the drills wrong.

Many has seen this, thousands have already moved over to WSLVT from other lineages because they have seen we teach the only coherent VT system."

Ramblings like these you can get anywhere on the street, believers of all kinds have a similar way of phrasing themselves to push their opinion onto others. Preachings are similar in nature.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> Again, difficult to have this conversation with people who have 0 experience with VT as taught by WSL.



Yep, but by saying this you are implying one of my four points above. If I practice WSL wing chun (which I did by the way for 3-4 years while training with my regular school), I am going to see how perfect it is and then I will see how it is an exact science (as much as 1+1 = 2) and how it must indeed be Wing Chun as passed down by YM.

You are making a huge leap of faith in that assumption. Why couldn't it have just been WSL who came up with the way you obviously like to practice it.


----------



## LFJ

Phobius said:


> I think people are not asking you to have this conversation. People are asking you to leave that kind of talk out of the forum to keep an inviting environment for normal discussions.
> 
> A little example:
> "What do you think about taan-sau?"
> 
> A good answer might be "We dont believe taan-sau is a technique but rather an abstract move to teach....."
> 
> A Bad answer might be "Taan-sau is not a technique but abstract training, it is too incoherent to be a technique part of the true VT as taught by YM. We have understood this but then again we are training the only coherent system as taught directly by YM. All other lineages are interpreting things wrong, problems maybe caused by not following the concepts correctly. Or doing the drills wrong.
> 
> Many has seen this, thousands have already moved over to WSLVT from other lineages because they have seen we teach the only coherent VT system."
> 
> Ramblings like these you can get anywhere on the street, believers of all kinds have a similar way of phrasing themselves to push their opinion onto others. Preachings are similar in nature.



I don't just say that. This is all you come away with if you have an emotional response. I give very detailed explanations for what I think about specific concepts or techniques, which usually results in crickets, because no one talks substance.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Yep, but by saying this you are implying one of my four points above. If I practice WSL wing chun (which I did by the way for 3-4 years while training with my regular school), I am going to see how perfect it is and then I will see how it is an exact science (as much as 1+1 = 2) and how it must indeed be Wing Chun as passed down by YM.



As far as I know from what you've shared here, you haven't studied VT from anyone who spent any extended period of time with WSL.



> You are making a huge leap of faith in that assumption. Why couldn't it have just been WSL who came up with the way you obviously like to practice it.



This has been answered a billion times.


----------



## Nobody Important

LFJ said:


> Faulty analogies. Mathematics has been taught for centuries and the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 has not changed by interpretation or error. If someone says 1 + 1 = 3, it does not become true under their interpretation. They may believe so, and maybe their teacher told them so, but they are just wrong. They simply don't understand the abstract science of numbers, quantity, and space.
> 
> VT is a scientific approach to combat not based on opinion or interpretations. So long as the concepts and principles are clearly defined and understood, it will be passed on intact unless someone decides to change it, at which point it becomes something other than VT.
> 
> If the concepts and principles are left open to interpretation, that means they have not been clearly defined and so change is bound to happen, but we are again no longer talking about VT which is a specific conceptual approach to fighting and fight training.


True, 1+1=2, I'm not refuting that. However there are other ways to achieve that based upon the information available, and consequently it will be approached differently depending on the equation used. Mathematics have evolved from addition & subtraction to multiplication & division to geometry, algebra & calculus etc. because of part of the information being unavailable. They did not exist at the same time.

Innovations of thought, processes & application of various things are continuously occurring. That is progress . That is a driving force of evolution. Life is not stagnant. Change is a universal concept. All things are susceptible to the ravages of time, both positively and negatively. But we must remember what is negative for one may be positive for another. There is no universal acceptance of what one individual believes should be the standard and accepted as truth.

There must be allowance for variation if change is to be occur. This is true in physics and as such applies to human thoughts and ideas. Wing Chun is not a science. Science can be applied to it, but the same can be said of any physical movement. It is not restricted to martial arts. It is nothing more than the thoughts and ideas of those who created it and steered it's course of development. It was not handed down from God as one of the commandments to never be broken or reevaluated. It was created by mankind and will be modified by mankind as he/she see befitting for the times and situation.

You say it is a specific conceptual approach to fighting & fight training. This may be true, but only to an extent. That approach is going to be different for each individual. Some things will overlap some will vary greatly. A 4' 8" 115 b. individual will not approach a fist fight with a 6' 5" 320 b. individual the same as a 6' 2" 350 lb. individual would. This simple truth affects many factors, including the concepts , let alone when we start factoring in disposition, intelligence, athletic ability, psycological factors etc.

I sincerely doubt that when Wing Chun was developed all these factors and more were considered to create a universal method of unarmed combat. Wing Chun is an idea of the individual(s) who founded it, not a universal truth. You may believe otherwise and you are free to your opinion. Thank you for the discussion sir.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I don't just say that. This is all you come away with if you have an emotional response. I give very detailed explanations for what I think about specific concepts or techniques, which usually results in crickets, because no one talks substance.



(EDIT: Added quote, it got missing)

Crickets occur sometimes because people don't disagree in those cases.

People often tend to be more talkative when offended, agreeing people have a tendency to just read and move on.

Same goes with people that consider it different to what they do. Sometimes they do not care enough to state their own ways.

If you offend people you get them to talk by saying how wrong you are. Problem is, they do not talk about the techniques or concepts in that case. They talk about the words you used to offend them. So your threads become off-topic talks.

Now this last behavior is what is called trolling. You offend people to get them to write when they would otherwise not. As such the threads will derail and the troll can keep insulting people. Given that the troll knows what he/she knows what they are doing, they themselves do not get offended.


----------



## LFJ

So when I talk substance, topics go silent because people are either agreeing with me or they don't care to state their own ways?

Then why join a MA discussion forum if all they want to do is cry when people undermine their beliefs? 

If they can't even handle logical criticism of what they do and defend their methods, it's hard to believe I'm talking to a group of fighters.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> As far as I know from what you've shared here, you haven't studied VT from anyone who spent any extended period of time with WSL..



By your own admission, WSL VT shouldn't lose anything its transmission, so then whether I trained with anyone who was a direct student of WSL becomes irrelevant. 





LFJ said:


> This has been answered a billion times.


I'm sure it has, because people cant comprehend it. You are not giving us anything concrete to base your claims on besides the 4 points I listed above which you deny. Your claims are just as wild as those of William Cheung's and countless others. Easy to make them because they are hard to prove. 

Even if I were to fly over to Europe and train under PB, and I thought "Wow this is totally awesome! This makes total sense! This is the best wing chun I have ever seen. It's totally logical in its approach and learning progression!", it is still a massive leap to think that this must be what YM taught exactly.


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> So when I talk substance, topics go silent because people are either agreeing with me or they don't care to state their own ways?
> 
> Then why join a MA discussion forum if all they want to do is cry when people undermine their beliefs?
> 
> If they can't even handle logical criticism of what they do and defend their methods, it's hard to believe I'm talking to a group of fighters.



You are not talking to a group of fighters, you are writing on a forum that is sometimes read by fighters.

Difference is that this is the internet. People may not have the time or care to write but rather just take the knowledge that is here and move on. Others post to their hearts content. Others simply want to use the forum to show how incredibly awesome they are, boosting their egos. Others want to prove to themselves that their art is the best badass art in the world, some of those may not even care to read anything that states otherwise.

World of a forum is not so straight forward.

We are martial artists when we train, fight and study. On forums we neither train nor fight, sometimes we study but often we are not doing that either. For me this is just a place to find information on what I should look up more. Some of those things I investigate by trying out myself, others I see if I need to find a teacher in order to feel or grasp properly. 

So we are martial artists but being here automatically removes some of our martial artsness in us. 

Forums are nothing more than what they are.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> By your own admission, WSL VT shouldn't lose anything its transmission, so then whether I trained with anyone who was a direct student of WSL becomes irrelevant.



... If fully understood, is what I said.

If whoever was the first generation under WSL in the line you studied spent very little time with him and didn't receive the full picture, neither did you.



> I'm sure it has, because people cant comprehend it. You are not giving us anything concrete to base your claims on besides the 4 points I listed above which you deny. Your claims are just as wild as those of William Cheung's and countless others. Easy to make them because they are hard to prove.
> 
> Even if I were to fly over to Europe and train under PB, and I thought "Wow this is totally awesome! This makes total sense! This is the best wing chun I have ever seen. It's totally logical in its approach and learning progression!", it is still a massive leap to think that this must be what YM taught exactly.



That has never been my argument, only a part. There is much, much more and all evidence based.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

LFJ said:


> ... If fully understood, is what I said.
> 
> If whoever was the first generation under WSL in the line you studied spent very little time with him and didn't receive the full picture, neither did you.



If you get a chance to train with Darren Elvey I would be interesting in hearing your assessment. He is pretty active in attending international WSL conventions and exchanges positively with those that attend. 



LFJ said:


> That has never been my argument, only a part. There is much, much more and all evidence based.



I have a hard time seeing what this "evidence" could be. Either way, you are not going to share it so I assume we have to take your word for it.


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> If you get a chance to train with Darren Elvey I would be interesting in hearing your assessment. He is pretty active in attending international WSL conventions and exchanges positively with those that attend.



I see he teaches to walk straight into retarded round punches from out of range with a direct application from one of the forms. This is a stupid idea that will get people knocked out and is a technique-based approach to what they claim is a concept/principle-based system.

I know the people who organize those gatherings. A small group of them are all close buddies who share the same ridiculous ideas about VT each having spent very little time with WSL. I am not a fan.








> I have a hard time seeing what this "evidence" could be. Either way, you are not going to share it so I assume we have to take your word for it.



It has been shared countless times on this forum. I don't feel like rehashing it all again because it gets people's panties all in a twist.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

How do you know these guys? 

Darren Elvie is not in this video.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

By the way those guys will play around with a range of hooks from wide to tight. 

They are aware of how they could get knocked out with hooks. They play around with random attacks and spar etc. 

Here is a clip of the Melbourne school:


----------



## Phobius

LFJ said:


> I see he teaches to walk straight into retarded round punches from out of range with a direct application from one of the forms. This is a stupid idea that will get people knocked out and is a technique-based approach to what they claim is a concept/principle-based system.
> 
> I know the people who organize those gatherings. A small group of them are all close buddies who share the same ridiculous ideas about VT each having spent very little time with WSL. I am not a fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been shared countless times on this forum. I don't feel like rehashing it all again because it gets people's panties all in a twist.



If you're right, DP did not spend much time with WSL.  Did you spend more time with him?

Also the drill above looks silly on one point. Those punches are not realistic. I think it is important to learn to punch as expected before doing said punching drill.






This is just a small group of people however?


----------



## LFJ

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> How do you know these guys?
> 
> Darren Elvie is not in this video.



The guys in the video? I don't. They are a branch of his though.



Phobius said:


> If you're right, DP did not spend much time with WSL.  Did you spend more time with him?



Who one has learned from and how long they spent with them is not the point. What matters is what they received, or didn't receive.

It's just an observable fact that those who spent very little time with WSL have a shallow, technique-based understanding of the system and know almost nothing about VT fighting strategy.

Those who are several generations removed from WSL, but in a line through someone who spent a substantial amount of time with him have an entirely different (coherent, functional) understanding of the system and fighting strategy.



> Also the drill above looks silly on one point. Those punches are not realistic. I think it is important to learn to punch as expected before doing said punching drill.



Yes. The punches are thrown at the space two feet to the side of the defender's head with no real intent or power. The proposed response will not work against a real punch. 

Even if the technique could somehow hold up, they are walking straight into the punch from out of range with both arms extended. It's a terrible lack of fighting strategy that will get them knocked out for sure.



> This is just a small group of people however?



Unfortunately, no. There's a small group of people who hold these ideas, in Hong Kong and Australia, but teach it to many students while attempting to hold gatekeeper status in the lineage.


----------



## KPM

_Same goes with people that consider it different to what they do. Sometimes they do not care enough to state their own ways._

----Sometimes people don't state their own  ways because they know the person asking isn't interested in what they do for good reasons, but only interested in what they do so they can state how wrong it is compared to what THEY do!   So they figure it is just better to avoid an argument and move on.   Silence does not equal consent!   



_Now this last behavior is what is called trolling. You offend people to get them to write when they would otherwise not. As such the threads will derail and the troll can keep insulting people. Given that the troll knows what he/she knows what they are doing, they themselves do not get offended._

---Exactly!   Stating "tell me more about the HKM lineage" after just insulting the person you are asking this of, and where the intent sure seems to be to look for something to criticize....is trolling plain and simple.


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> So when I talk substance, topics go silent because people are either agreeing with me or they don't care to state their own ways?
> 
> Then why join a MA discussion forum if all they want to do is cry when people undermine their beliefs?
> 
> If they can't even handle logical criticism of what they do and defend their methods, it's hard to believe I'm talking to a group of fighters.



Why try and carry on any kind of discussion with someone with a track record like yours?  Why try and carry on any kind of discussion when it is clear that you are simply looking for things to "undermine" and criticize?  Why try and carry on any kind of discussion with a pompous a55 that is convinced that his  way is the only correct way and everyone else is wrong?   Is that the kind of person you would seek out for conversation in the pub or over dinner?   Not me!


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> Stating "tell me more about the HKM lineage" after just insulting the person you are asking this of, and where the intent sure seems to be to look for something to criticize....is trolling plain and simple.



Pointing out a perceived flaw is not a personal insult, and if there is something to be criticized, why get upset about it unless you're not interested in improving?

Either clarify the misjudgment or acknowledge the validity and seek betterment. Crying about it helps nothing and ruins the discussion.

I'm never looking for something to criticize. I have no ill-will toward any lineage. Unfortunately, the problems are often so glaring like the dead _wu-sau_ in the most recent HKM lineage video I broke down, which is detrimental to LSJC. You rather I pat your backs and say 'good job' anyway? I can't be so insincere.


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^  Like  I said, pompous a55.   Why would anyone want to carry on a discussion with you?


----------



## LFJ

Just resort back to name-calling instead...


----------



## SaulGoodman

KPM said:


> Why try and carry on any kind of discussion with someone with a track record like yours?  Why try and carry on any kind of discussion when it is clear that you are simply looking for things to "undermine" and criticize?  Why try and carry on any kind of discussion with a pompous a55 that is convinced that his  way is the only correct way and everyone else is wrong?   Is that the kind of person you would seek out for conversation in the pub or over dinner?   Not me!



I get the impression that face to face this individual's demeanour would be slightly different to his internet "persona"...


----------



## KPM

LFJ said:


> Just resort back to name-calling instead...



Its not name-calling when you keep proving my point!


----------



## Vajramusti

I'm never looking for something to criticize. I have no ill-will toward any lineage. Unfortunately, the problems are often so glaring like the dead _wu-sau_ in the most recent HKM lineage video I broke down, which is detrimental to LSJC. You rather I pat your backs and say 'good job' anyway? I can't be so insincere.[/QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know whose dead wu is being referred to here. Does not matter.


----------



## LFJ

Vajramusti said:


> Does not matter.



Then why post?


----------



## Dylan9d

I have been following this post for a while now and man! what can WC/VT/WT people type. You reckon the old masters did it the same way and sent eachother letters.

I would say, have a big event going for all the MT KungFu guys and fight eachother and see whos best, I think that was the Ving Tsun way in the past right?

I thought Silat guys were always acting like bickering children.....


----------



## Vajramusti

KPM said:


> Why try and carry on any kind of discussion with someone with a track record like yours?  Why try and carry on any kind of discussion when it is clear that you are simply looking for things to "undermine" and criticize?  Why try and carry on any kind of discussion with a pompous a55 that is convinced that his  way is the only correct way and everyone else is wrong?   Is that the kind of person you would seek out for conversation in the pub or over dinner?   Not me!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No point in asking or commenting IMO


----------



## geezer

LFJ said:


> I see he teaches to walk straight into retarded round punches from out of range with a direct application from one of the forms. This is a *stupid idea* that will get people knocked out and is a technique-based approach to what they claim is a concept/principle-based system.
> I know the people who organize those gatherings. A small group of them are all close buddies who share the same ridiculous ideas about VT each having spent very little time with WSL. I am not a fan.
> It has been shared countless times on this forum. I don't feel like rehashing it all again because it gets people's panties all in a twist.



Yeah, I can sure see why. For one thing he does what people variously call "biu-da" or "fook-da" as a counter, which is pretty close to a "tan-da" in concept. (just a little stronger structurally) ...and you and Guy have told us that _real WSL VT doesn't use that approach.
_
BTW_* if*_ WSL VT is so stucturally coherent, being based on clearly defined scientific principles that work equally for everybody, yada yada yada.... , _why then_ do all these other groups (Gary Lan, David Peterson, this guy -- Darren Elvey, et. al.) take the system in directions that you WSL-PB guys think is _so flawed? _Are the principles that tough to understand?
_
_


----------



## geezer

Dylan9d said:


> I thought Silat guys were always acting like bickering children.....



Hey, whattya you got against children!!!  I never saw children carry on bickering  _this_ long!


----------



## guy b.

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> No point in asking or commenting IMO



Yet you commented. Why?


----------



## guy b.

KPM said:


> Why would anyone want to carry on a discussion with you?



 You are carrying on a discussion with LFJ when you don't want to? That is a strange thing to do.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> Pointing out a perceived flaw is not a personal insult, and if there is something to be criticized, why get upset about it unless you're not interested in improving?



Pointing out a perceived flaw can only be helpful for everyone involved. I can see no reason for anyone to be insulted. 



LFJ said:


> You rather I pat your backs and say 'good job' anyway? I can't be so insincere.



It does seem that this is what some people prefer. I can't understand why. Makes no sense.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> Pointing out a perceived flaw can only be helpful for everyone involved. I can see no reason for anyone to be insulted.
> 
> 
> 
> It does seem that this is what some people prefer. I can't understand why. Makes no sense.




No ones asking for their backs to be patted. It's strange how guyb/lfj think we need their approval to confirm what WE already know to be true from our training and testing of our respective lineages. How arrogant.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> I think you are confusing me with LFJ


How am I confusing you with LFJ? Just curious who you learnt WSL method from. As I understand it LFJ is in the US and you are in the UK which is why I mentioned UK WSL guys.


----------



## Vajramusti

SaulGoodman said:


> How am I confusing you with LFJ? Just curious who you learnt WSL method from. As I understand it LFJ is in the US and you are in the UK which is why I mentioned UK WSL guys.


---------------------------------------------------
I believe that LFJ said that he was in mainland China.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland

I always respected WSL as well as my own line (CST) for not being one of those people to claim the WC throne by making outlandish claims about how they inherited the whole system or how they are the only ones that have the complete system. It is clear to me that these people didn't make these claims because YM didn't have an inheritor or one person that he shared all his secrets with. If you look at all YM's most dedicated students, be it WSL,CST, LS, LY, HKM etc, none of them make any claims of superiority over the others. None of them say that they are the inheritor of the art etc.


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> It's strange how guyb/lfj think we need their approval to confirm what WE already know to be true from our training and testing of our respective lineages.



I think that some people prefer having their backs patted, even insincerely, to having a perceived problem brought to their attention. Pointing out problems seems to be a problem for some.

I think that it is virtually impossible to read this as LFJ or me claiming that people need our approval.


----------



## Vajramusti

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I always respected WSL as well as my own line (CST) for not being one of those people to claim the WC throne by making outlandish claims about how they inherited the whole system or how they are the only ones that have the complete system. It is clear to me that these people didn't make these claims because YM didn't have an inheritor or one person that he shared all his secrets with. If you look at all YM's most dedicated students, be it WSL,CST, LS, LY, HKM etc, none of them make any claims of superiority over the others. None of them say that they are the inheritor of the art etc.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HKM Ming had good relationship with the others.


----------



## Juany118

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> To me it is super clear that WSL has taken wing chun in a certain direction and was an innovator. He had his own style and fighting philosophy. It is clearly NOT exactly what Yip Man taught, but why is that a bad thing? I just don't see why that is something to be so offended by. I even like the WSL approach.
> 
> This whole argument is really taking away from useful constructive discussions. I am really surprised moderators are not picking this up.



Late but wanted to qft this.  People have to remember when  YM learned WC he learned one of the many lineages that existed.  He didn't quibble over Lineage, he simply learned and then taught WC.  His teaching of the Lineage didn't match his fellow students and  those other Lineages he didn't study also continue.  

Today while multiple people say they teach YM Lineage I notice differences there as well even in simply how they perform Siu Lim Tao from how they open the stance to how they perform a Wu Sau (chest or head oriented) during the execution of the form.  This is explained easily by the fact that YM taught in the old school Chinese way.  1. he taught to the student's strength, 2. He taught in a short form way that invited the student to question, not just regurgitate what he was told.  So when we speak of WC, they all share the same foundation but the details are going to be different depending on the teacher.  

Why?  There is a central idea in Ch'an Buddhist Philosophy that can be paraphrased as "unless to try to do something beyond what you have already mastered you will never grow." So unless the various people we see as the heads of our respective "schools", regardless of lineage, go beyond what they were taught, blending other concepts, adapting existing concepts to other circumstances etc., they will stagnate and along with that what they teach stagnates.

I'll give you a blunt example from the other art I study, FMA (specifically Inosanto Kali.) First, there is the concept of angles of attack, different Lineages will have them in a different order, the below is just an example of what stagnation can do.  

Now if you watch most teachers on YouTube they say "angle 1 is a slash to the upper body, angle 6 a thrust to the head or neck, angle 9 a slash to the lower body." Maybe this is the traditional way but in Inosanto Kali there are no specific targets, they are simply angles of attack that you launch from any position and which strike in direct relation from this to the enemies position, it is not trapping you in a specific move for a specific target.


----------



## Juany118

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> To me it is super clear that WSL has taken wing chun in a certain direction and was an innovator. He had his own style and fighting philosophy. It is clearly NOT exactly what Yip Man taught, but why is that a bad thing? I just don't see why that is something to be so offended by. I even like the WSL approach.
> 
> This whole argument is really taking away from useful constructive discussions. I am really surprised moderators are not picking this up.



Late but wanted to qft this.  People have to remember when  YM learned WC he learned one of the many lineages that existed.  He didn't quibble over Lineage, he simply learned and then taught WC.  His teaching of the Lineage didn't match his fellow students and  those other Lineages he didn't study also continue.  

Today while multiple people say they teach YM Lineage I notice differences there as well even in simply how they perform Siu Lim Tao from how they open the stance to how they perform a Wu Sau (chest or head oriented) during the execution of the form.  This is explained easily by the fact that YM taught in the old school Chinese way.  1. he taught to the student's strength, 2. He taught in a short form way that invited the student to question, not just regurgitate what he was told.  So when we speak of WC, they all share the same foundation but the details are going to be different depending on the teacher.  To quote YM's nephew ...

"The way of *Yip Man*’s instruction depended on every student’s degree of knowledge, natural ability, personal habits, and interests. *Yip Man*’s great innovation was to personalize instruction by making each student’s progress dependent on his own habits and will to succeed."

Next we have why one of YMs former students may alter WC even more.  There is a central idea in Ch'an Buddhist Philosophy that can be paraphrased as "unless to try to do something beyond what you have already mastered you will never grow." So unless the various people we see as the heads of our respective "schools", regardless of lineage, go beyond what they were taught, blending other concepts, adapting existing concepts to other circumstances etc., they will stagnate and along with that what they teach stagnates.


----------



## guy b.

Juany118 said:


> There is a central idea in Ch'an Buddhist Philosophy that can be paraphrased as "unless to try to do something beyond what you have already mastered you will never grow." So unless the various people we see as the heads of our respective "schools", regardless of lineage, go beyond what they were taught, blending other concepts, adapting existing concepts to other circumstances etc., they will stagnate and along with that what they teach stagnates.



Are you a Buddhist?



Juany118 said:


> The way of *Yip Man*’s instruction depended on every student’s degree of knowledge, natural ability, personal habits, and interests. *Yip Man*’s great innovation was to personalize instruction by making each student’s progress dependent on his own habits and will to succeed.



That sounds like a polite way of saying that if you were not natrally gifted, were lazy, or were stupid then YM was happy for you to misunderstand VT and wouldn't bother helping you out of your misconceptions



Juany118 said:


> Now if you watch most teachers on YouTube they say "angle 1 is a slash to the upper body, angle 6 a thrust to the head or neck, angle 9 a slash to the lower body." Maybe this is the traditional way but in Inosanto Kali there are no specific targets, they are simply angles of attack that you launch from any position and which strike in direct relation from this to the enemies position, it is not trapping you in a specific move for a specific target.



VT is not a technique based approach. However without a conceptual base any system will fall apart. If you ignore basic concepts in an effort not to get trapped into particular approaches then you are left with no conceptual base, or bits missing from your conceptual base. You then no longer have a coherent system. Maybe you can fix it, maybe not.


----------



## Juany118

guy b. said:


> Are you a Buddhist?



I do practice Buddhism.  I was raised Catholic but when I saw the 8 fold path and how it is affirming, "right..." vs accusatory "thou shalt not..." I investigated and found this fit me better.  I have been practicing for almost 2 decades now.



> That sounds like a polite way of saying that if you were not natrally gifted, were lazy, or were stupid then YM was happy for you to misunderstand VT and wouldn't bother helping you out of your misconceptions



Read it in context, it's not only about will to succeed but looking at the strengths of a student and helping them to maximize those strengths.  I think you are looking only at it purely from a negative stand point.  Now did this mean that if you did not engage in critical enquiry you may miss things?  Yes but this is actually a traditional Chinese form of teaching.  It is in some ways similar to the Socratic Method. The idea is to force the students to actually ask questions.  This shows the students are thinking and understanding not just the how but the why, that they are engaging in critical thinking, which is necessary for full understanding.




> VT is not a technique based approach. However without a conceptual base any system will fall apart. If you ignore basic concepts in an effort not to get trapped into particular approaches then you are left with no conceptual base, or bits missing from your conceptual base. You then no longer have a coherent system. Maybe you can fix it, maybe not.



No one is saying ignore basic concepts.  Of course if you move away from the foundation then it becomes something else, but simply because the core concepts remain does not mean one much adhere dogmatically to everything.


----------



## Juany118

PS, the main meaning of that quote, which is why I said it was roughly translated, is an acknowledgement that we must never say "I have mastered..." one must always strive to go beyond where you are today, look for the weaknesses in the self and try to improve them.  My Aikido Sensei many years ago (a practicing Zen Buddhist who also had a degree in eastern studies and Japanese) had in Kanji on a scroll at the school many year ago. 

For some reason the idea is often attributed to Emerson the last few years but you can never actually find the source or a citation.


----------



## LFJ

Juany118 said:


> look for the weaknesses in the self and try to improve them.



The self is but an illusion and so too the weakness.............................................


----------



## guy b.

I don't know if I agree that change is necessary in order to keep improving. VT is difficult. Changing concepts, blending concepts as you suggest only makes it not VT any more.


----------



## Juany118

guy b. said:


> I don't know if I agree that change is necessary in order to keep improving. VT is difficult. Changing concepts, blending concepts as you suggest only makes it not VT any more.



Well the thing is changes are inevitable, even if they are minor, because every Instructor, while they of course teach the core concepts and forms, will have prejudices, even if the are subconscious.  It can be influenced by body type, a larger more leggy person may put more emphasis on kicks than a person who is more compact and powerful in the upperbody.  I have seen some WC instructors say that WC from the beginning is in response to the opponent, others say you act first, always with an attack THEN you feed off of what your opponent does.  Do these philosophical difference mean one is WC and the other is not?

Look at all of the potential Lineages... WingChunPedia - The One and Only Wing Chun Encylopedia! | WCP / Lineages browse

They all have differences... which is proper?  In the end I think the only idea that is logical and does not create a circular argument is to first, look at the art and not the marketing of it.  In looking at the art look at it like a house, do they share the same foundation?  Do they share the same basic premise (types and number of rooms?). If the answer is yes to these, is it vital that one is designed with more of a focus on a particular room or rooms?  That furniture is arranged slightly different?

There is a difference between evolution and revolution. The former is simply natural in any human system the later I would agree fits with your concern.


----------



## Juany118

Personally I think all of these issues start with what amounts to a school yard pissing match.  There are so many Lineages of WC but the main known in the West is what we call the "YM" Lineage, but he was but one in a Line that already existed.  He had many students, one of whom is arguably the most famous Martial Artist in the West, Bruce Lee, which brought YM great fame.

Now many of YM's other students went on to move to the west along with Sifus of other Lineages but these students have something to "sell" their Flavor of WC, the YM name.  With so many former students, now Sifus themselves, looking to get students, how do they compete?  They claim to be somehow "special" in their relationship with YM or question the claim of another and here we are, student s of their's, perhaps as far as 3 times removed.

If we chose to join that battle we point to idiosyncratic differences between the various schools, often comparing them to the video of a weak, almost 90 year old man painfully dying of cancer as an "ah ha" moment that one school is wrong or we point to a unverifiable anecdotal account that contradicts a statement of a particular school we don't like.

For a logical debate to occur we need to first take things in context.  The context here is that YM is but a well known name in one of many existing Lineages.  Second we need independently verifiable facts, which we don't really have.  /Shrug.


----------



## guy b.

Juany118 said:


> Well the thing is changes are inevitable, even if they are minor, because every Instructor, while they of course teach the core concepts and forms, will have prejudices, even if the are subconscious.



I don't think that is true for VT, provided everything is understood correctly and gaps are not filled with other ideas. VT is an error correcting system used to perfe ct a particular approach to fighting. It is conceptually coherent and resitant to change because change breaks it. 



Juany118 said:


> It can be influenced by body type, a larger more leggy person may put more emphasis on kicks than a person who is more compact and powerful in the upperbody.



VT isn't taught on a technique basis and can accomodate personal expression without becoming changed. 



> I have seen some WC instructors say that WC from the beginning is in response to the opponent, others say you act first, always with an attack THEN you feed off of what your opponent does. Do these philosophical difference mean one is WC and the other is not?



VT is quite specific about strategy and there isn't a lot of room to change it without changing the system.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> I don't think that is true for VT, provided everything is understood correctly and gaps are not filled with other ideas. VT is an error correcting system used to perfe ct a particular approach to fighting. It is conceptually coherent and resitant to change because change breaks it.



Not true, did not even take a single generation from WSLVT before it was broken in that case. Not meant to be offensive, just saying this because the reasoning is flawed. It can not be resistant to change if long term students of it have changed it already by your standards.



guy b. said:


> VT isn't taught on a technique basis and can accomodate personal expression without becoming changed.



This is the part that I have been trying to get information from you on and also why I sometimes ask questions, to figure out how you guys interpretate the concepts.



guy b. said:


> VT is quite specific about strategy and there isn't a lot of room to change it without changing the system.



I think no comment, this is a VT view only so impossible for anyone to comment unless well taught within your lineage.

Personally I would say any system that need to depend on you attacking first or your opponent attacking first is a bit flawed. This is one thing that, call it strategy or not, can not be controlled. You can never know if you will be able to attack first or not. You can not even be sure you will be faster , stronger or more well versed than your opponent. No system should have to call surrender at that point.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Not true, did not even take a single generation from WSLVT before it was broken in that case. Not meant to be offensive, just saying this because the reasoning is flawed. It can not be resistant to change if long term students of it have changed it already by your standards.



They haven't. Some have added to it for personal reasons. 

Some with incomplete understanding have indeed changed it, but in that case it is not functioning properly anyway, and gaps need filled. 

It isn't impervious to change and people can do what they like with it. But it is resistant if fully understood.


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> They haven't. Some have added to it for personal reasons.
> 
> Some with incomplete understanding have indeed changed it, but in that case it is not functioning properly anyway, and gaps need filled.
> 
> It isn't impervious to change and people can do what they like with it. But it is resistant if fully understood.



Did you not say earlier that guys like DP did not train the same type of VT you do?


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Did you not say earlier that guys like DP did not train the same type of VT you do?



Yes, refer above


----------



## Phobius

guy b. said:


> Yes, refer above



Oh, sorry. Weird enough that text was not seen when I read it. But now it is present in my quote. 

Anyways I can not argue against what you said if you say it is not impervious but resistant. As for claims that others have changed it for personal reasons, I would not know. My involvement with WSLVT is still null. Just because I have found a club that study it does not mean I tried it yet.


----------



## Juany118

guy b. said:


> I don't think that is true for VT, provided everything is understood correctly and gaps are not filled with other ideas. VT is an error correcting system used to perfe ct a particular approach to fighting. *It is conceptually coherent and resitant to change because change breaks it.*
> 
> 
> 
> *VTisn't* taught on a technique basis and *can accomodate personal expression without becoming changed*.



The two bolded portions appear inherently contradictory.  Can you clarify?



> VT is quite specific about strategy and there isn't a lot of room to change it without changing the system.



Other Lineages of Wing Chun (please refer back to my link above regarding just how many existed before YM started learning WC), or even individual Sifus within the same lineage can be different yet equally firm about strateg.  That is actually to part of my core point.  A strategy ultimately is simply a detailed expression of how one should use the physical techniques.  You can have Sifus under the same lineage having their own take on what they see as the best strategy.  Strategies are often born of the personality of the practitioner, non-Martial Art case in point Omar Bradley vs George Patton.  The same principles effect the martial artist from Student to  Sifu.


----------



## guy b.

Phobius said:


> Oh, sorry. Weird enough that text was not seen when I read it. But now it is present in my quote.
> 
> Anyways I can not argue against what you said if you say it is not impervious but resistant. As for claims that others have changed it for personal reasons, I would not know. My involvement with WSLVT is still null. Just because I have found a club that study it does not mean I tried it yet.



Who is the teacher at the club you found?


----------



## guy b.

Juany118 said:


> The two bolded portions appear inherently contradictory. Can you clarify?



Differences in personal expression due to physical difference can be accomodated within the working of the system, the conceptual base, the strategy.


----------



## guy b.

Juany118 said:


> Other Lineages of Wing Chun (please refer back to my link above regarding just how many existed before YM started learning WC), or even individual Sifus within the same lineage can be different yet equally firm about strateg



I am only interested in YM VT. I have no interest in other systems.



Juany118 said:


> You can have Sifus under the same lineage having their own take on what they see as the best strategy.



Not in VT



Juany118 said:


> Strategies are often born of the personality of the practitioner, non-Martial Art case in point Omar Bradley vs George Patton. The same principles effect the martial artist from Student to Sifu.



Not in VT


----------



## Juany118

guy b. said:


> Differences in personal expression due to physical difference can be accomodated within the working of the system, the conceptual base, the strategy.



And my point is that this is the same with all of WC, VT is not unique in this manner.  You seem to be trying to create an argument where somehow VT is special, it isn't.  If it was then the link I showed you of all the different Lineages, it would NOT exist.


----------



## Juany118

guy b. said:


> I am only interested in YM VT. I have no interest in other systems.



Which is odd because VT is not a term coined by YM, it is a term most associated with one of his students, who had his own ideas about WC.  So technically YM is perhaps the grand father of VT.  I don't know about you but I am the direct product of my father.  If I would be asked to name myself if an old English way I would say "Juany son of Juany" not "Juany of Leslie".



> Not in VT


According to your definition of VT.  You have gone to some lengths to try and explain away how people have shown different ideas even within VT




> Not in VT



So what you are saying is that VT is first, somehow divorced from the human condition and second, is actually not suited to reality because having been involved in combat of one form or another for closing in on 30 years now there is one thing I have learned, if you do not have an open mind when it comes to strategy, if there is only one way, then you will be defeated because the core of strategy is adaptation.  There are only so many ways you can shoot a gun, or punch someone BUT how when, where and why?  These must be open to adaptation or you die.


----------



## guy b.

Juany118 said:


> And my point is that this is the same with all of WC, VT is not unique in this manner.  You seem to be trying to create an argument where somehow VT is special, it isn't.  If it was then the link I showed you of all the different Lineages, it would NOT exist.



Your point was that personal preferences change the system. Mine was that this is not the case in VT. If you are now agreeing then great. 

VT is certainly special compared to other wing chun systems I have seen. But then I haven't seen them all, so maybe there are some other great systems out there. Personally I am only interested in VT. VT does not have different lineages based on personal ideas and preferences. There is only VT.


----------



## Juany118

guy b. said:


> Your point was that personal preferences change the system. Mine was that this is not the case in VT. If you are now agreeing then great.
> 
> VT is certainly special compared to other wing chun sysunderstood"e seen. But then I haven't seen them all, so maybe there are some other great systems out there. Personally I am only interested in VT. VT does not have different lineages based on personal ideas and preferences. There is only VT.



Sorry but having room for personal expression and yet being static... These are mutually exclusive concepts, unless A. It's a bunch of marketing spin or B. The actual foundation is so opaque as to be unintelligible.  I suspect a combination of both, otherwise you would not have had the need to say this earlier...

"Some with incomplete understanding have indeed changed it, but in that case it is not functioning properly anyway, and gaps need filled.

It isn't impervious to change and people can do what they like with it. But it is resistant if fully understood"

Sorry this amounts to "my teacher said this, those who say otherwise are wrong... But let me hedge my bet, just in case"

You bounce all over the place... Basically you appear to have an image of VT in your mind but your argument to defend this vision is far from coherent, you simply answer from the hip with the first thing that comes to mind to the argument immediately in front of you.  Then when a new question is raised, on reflex, you respond again even if the latest response stretches the definition of the term "logical consistency"

Please note I am not challenging VT, I just have issue with the inconsistent argument you seem to have regarding a rather dogmatic approach which by your own admission format even exist universally in VT, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to throw out the "incomplete understanding" trope.


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> Sorry this amounts to "my teacher said this, those who say otherwise are wrong...
> 
> You bounce all over the place... Basically you appear to have an image of VT in your mind but your argument to defend this vision is far from coherent, you simply answer from the hip with the first thing that comes to mind to the argument immediately in front of you.
> 
> ...I just have issue with the inconsistent argument you seem to have regarding a rather dogmatic approach which by your own admission format even exist universally in VT, otherwise you wouldn't have needed to throw out the "incomplete understanding" trope.



You've made some good points _Juany,_ and I for one will acknowledge them. Don't expect the same from our two WSL-PB-VT followers. It simply won't happen.

_Juany_, as you are pretty new to this forum, you are just now coming to realize what became obvious to more seasoned forum members a long time ago. _Guy's_ position on WSL VT defies all logic. Like a lot of people who manifest this "true-believer" syndrome (to borrow KPM's term), _Guy_ is seemingly intelligent and expresses himself well with the written word. He may also be a good martial artist. But his stubborn and, IMO, absolutely _irrational _insistence on the unique, superior, and unchanging nature of WSL-VT makes it impossible tho have a meaningful two-way discussion with him.

Of course you are welcome to _try_ to engage with him, but be prepared for continued frustration and disappointment as he draws you in and then summarily dismisses all of your valid observations. On the other hand, you could do as many of the rest of us do and sit back, read his over-the-top and totally unsupportable statements, and have a quiet chuckle before moving on.  Good luck!


----------



## KPM

^^^^^^ Just as WTChap is discovering right now on another thread on this forum!


----------



## guy b.

Juany118 said:


> Which is odd because VT is not a term coined by YM, it is a term most associated with one of his students, who had his own ideas about WC.  So technically YM is perhaps the grand father of VT.  I don't know about you but I am the direct product of my father.  If I would be asked to name myself if an old English way I would say "Juany son of Juany" not "Juany of Leslie".



WSL taught the VT of YM




> According to your definition of VT.  You have gone to some lengths to try and explain away how people have shown different ideas even within VT



They haven't



> If you do not have an open mind when it comes to strategy, if there is only one way, then you will be defeated because the core of strategy is adaptation.  There are only so many ways you can shoot a gun, or punch someone BUT how when, where and why?  These must be open to adaptation or you die.



If you don't like the strategy of VT, then don't do VT. If you don't like the strategy of BJJ, then don't do BJJ, etc. If you are unsuited to MA systems then do your own thing, up to you.


----------



## guy b.

Juany118 said:


> Sorry but having room for personal expression and yet being static... These are mutually exclusive concepts, unless A. It's a bunch of marketing spin or B



Personal expression is possible without changing the system. Not mutually exclusive


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> You've made some good points _Juany,_ and I for one will acknowledge them. Don't expect the same from our two WSL-PB-VT followers. It simply won't happen.
> 
> _Juany_, as you are pretty new to this forum, you are just now coming to realize what became obvious to more seasoned forum members a long time ago. _Guy's_ position on WSL VT defies all logic. Like a lot of people who manifest this "true-believer" syndrome (to borrow KPM's term), _Guy_ is seemingly intelligent and expresses himself well with the written word. He may also be a good martial artist. But his stubborn and, IMO, absolutely _irrational _insistence on the unique, superior, and unchanging nature of WSL-VT makes it impossible tho have a meaningful two-way discussion with him.
> 
> Of course you are welcome to _try_ to engage with him, but be prepared for continued frustration and disappointment as he draws you in and then summarily dismisses all of your valid observations. On the other hand, you could do as many of the rest of us do and sit back, read his over-the-top and totally unsupportable statements, and have a quiet chuckle before moving on.  Good luck!



Geezer, yeah.  I became suspicious with the "are you Buddhist?" question.  That seemed to be looking for a gotcha moment.  I say that because one can study and understand another culture, even a philosophy or religion without "living it" or even agreeing it.  If this wasn't true entire fields of academic study, Anthropology, Asian, African, Middle Eastern Studies, various Religious studies etc., would never have existed.  

As you said though, I am "the new guy" and as such I usually try to take a wait and see approach.  From here on out I think will take the advice you closed with .  Cheers!


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> his stubborn and, IMO, absolutely _irrational _insistence on the unique, superior, and unchanging nature of WSL-VT makes it impossible tho have a meaningful two-way discussion with him



The most important thing for new members of this forum to understand is that they must be prepared to acknowledge the equal validity of every approach to be accepted here. If they discriminate (as in choose, prioritise) in any sense then they will be attacked. One of the most important rules for any new member is they must constantly reference their own subjective opinion in anything they say, and never generalise in terms of absolute truth or falsehood.


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> The most important thing for new members of this forum to understand is that they must be prepared to acknowledge the equal validity of every approach to be accepted here. If they discriminate (as in choose, prioritise) in any sense then they will be attacked. One of the most important rules for any new member is they must constantly reference their own subjective opinion in anything they say, and never generalise in terms of absolute truth or falsehood.


Really? This is exactly the opposite of what you do hypocrite, lol.


----------



## guy b.

Nobody Important said:


> Really? This is exactly the opposite of what you do hypocrite, lol.



Of course it is; I don't agree with this forum rule. Just letting new members know what it is. 

I think you logged in with the wrong account btw


----------



## Nobody Important

guy b. said:


> Of course it is; I don't agree with this forum rule. Just letting new members know what it is.
> 
> I think you logged in with the wrong account btw


Huh? This is my only account. Is there a Secret one I'm not privy to? Lol!


----------



## KPM

*I think you logged in with the wrong account btw
*
Hah!  First you thought I was "SaulGoodman", now you probably think I'm "Nobody Important"??  Did it ever occur to you that I'm not the only one that thinks so little of your posting style and methods of discussion here?

No.  The important thing for new people here to  realize is this.....this forum is moderated.  However, we don't have a moderator that is specific for the Wing Chun subforum.  This seems to mean that the moderators are not reading for content, but just scanning for "bad words."   Therefore it is acceptable for someone to behave like a "pompous a55" in their posts, but the minute you point out that they are behaving like a "pompous a55" you are going to get a private and personal warning from the moderator!


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> Hah!  ...now you probably think I'm "Nobody Important"??



Actually, until "Nobody" joined our forum, I was sure that _I was nobody important _(N.I.). In fact most of us could probably qualify for that name. Unless, you qualify for the other title of "pompous a55" (P.A.). Currently team N.I. soundly outnumbers team P.A. ....unless you are counting posts. Team P.A. have been really working their pompous butts off lately ...as have I (trying my best to speak up for all of us who are nobody important).

So where have you been lately KPM. Off doing a_ctual martial arts training_ or sparring? Enough of that already. Get back to posting. My fingers are cramping up from too much time at the keyboard. I need some help! 



KPM said:


> ...it is acceptable for someone to behave like a "pompous a55" in their posts, but the minute you point out that they are behaving like a "pompous a55" you are going to get a private and personal warning from the moderator!



No need to point out who's being a P.A. ...it's usually pretty damn obvious. Just let it go at that!


----------



## Juany118

Nvm


----------



## geezer

Juany118 said:


> Nvm



?


----------



## Juany118

geezer said:


> ?



I had posted something regarding hypocrisy associated with moving goal posts in arguments but decided to eat popcorn instead lol.  So I deleted it and said NeVer Mind.


----------



## guy b.

geezer said:


> Actually, until "Nobody" joined our forum, I was sure that _I was nobody important _(N.I.). In fact most of us could probably qualify for that name. Unless, you qualify for the other title of "pompous a55" (P.A.). Currently team N.I. soundly outnumbers team P.A. ....unless you are counting posts. Team P.A. have been really working their pompous butts off lately ...as have I (trying my best to speak up for all of us who are nobody important).
> 
> So where have you been lately KPM. Off doing a_ctual martial arts training_ or sparring? Enough of that already. Get back to posting. My fingers are cramping up from too much time at the keyboard. I need some help!
> 
> 
> 
> No need to point out who's being a P.A. ...it's usually pretty damn obvious. Just let it go at that!



You can always rely on Saul Goodman to back you up.


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> You can always rely on Saul Goodman to back you up.



Yeah, but that's not very satisfying since actually _Saul and I are the same person._ Same goes for Phobius, KPM, and a few others. Sort of like multiple personality disorder. It's OK though. We're getting therapy! 

BTW how do you like our newest personality: _Juany?_


----------



## Callen

I've been away for a while. Just catching up... this thread is sucking. Why is there so much shallow, bickering happening all over the forum? Shouldn't you guys be discussing something relevant an constructive about Wing Chun?


----------



## geezer

Callen said:


> I've been away for a while. Just catching up... this thread is sucking. Why is there so much shallow, bickering happening all over the forum? Shouldn't you guys be discussing *something relevant and constructive* about Wing Chun?



No. We couldn't do that while you were away or you might have missed something! Now that you're back, Callen, we'll get right to it. Better yet, you start a new thread and I'll do my darnedest to add something productive!


----------



## KPM

As you are catching up Callen, my challenge to you would be this.....as you read through the various recent threads that seem to be plagued by being "shallow and bickering", count how many times either Guy B. or LFJ are involved.


----------



## geezer

KPM said:


> As you are catching up Callen, my challenge to you would be this.....as you read through the various recent threads that seem to be plagued by being "shallow and bickering", count how many times either Guy B. or LFJ are involved.



...er, the only problem with that is that every time _they_ are involved, ._...so are we._ So I don't think counting proves anything.

On the other hand, every right-minded person will immediately see that whenever there is a dispute, _I _am absolutely right. Those other two are just being difficult. 

...actually the funny thing is ...._I really believe this..._


----------



## KPM

^^^^Good point Steve!  So let me rephrase!  Callen, count how many times the bickering *centers around* Guy B. or LFJ!


----------



## Callen

I get it. While I do see some lineage based "declarations" going on in the few threads that I've read, you guys should rise above and not feed into it. That goes for all parties 

It's easy to get caught up in the things that other people say about how Wing Chun is supposed to work. It's also easy to become offended when theories are discussed and people try to educate others on proper application and technique. When you add in the fact that many practitioners have extreme (and often bias) pride in their lineage, you've got an instant pissing contest. This is exactly why the Wing Chun community get's a bad rap.

If you can constructively contribute, do so. If you don't see something as a truth, move on. It hurts no one to let others think however they like because at the end of the day your skill will do the talking, not your words.

If you really want to make a point, simply don't respond to the threads that you feel are irrelevant. Without an audience, an argument is powerless.


----------



## Phobius

Callen said:


> I get it. While I do see some lineage based "declarations" going on in the few threads that I've read, you guys should rise above and not feed into it. That goes for all parties
> 
> It's easy to get caught up in the things that other people say about how Wing Chun is supposed to work. It's also easy to become offended when theories are discussed and people try to educate others on proper application and technique. When you add in the fact that many practitioners have extreme (and often bias) pride in their lineage, you've got an instant pissing contest. This is exactly why the Wing Chun community get's a bad rap.
> 
> If you can constructively contribute, do so. If you don't see something as a truth, move on. It hurts no one to let others think however they like because at the end of the day your skill will do the talking, not your words.
> 
> If you really want to make a point, simply don't respond to the threads that you feel are irrelevant. Without an audience, an argument is powerless.



That would mean stop using the forum. If you stop feeding the fire it will burn down all the wood that still remains.


----------



## Callen

Phobius said:


> That would mean stop using the forum. If you stop feeding the fire it will burn down all the wood that still remains.


Good work! But I'm more or less referring to the threads that are created to spark bias controversy, much like this one.


----------



## KPM

Callen said:


> Good work! But I'm more or less referring to the threads that are created to spark bias controversy, much like this one.



This thread was not created to "spark bias or controversy".  What you are not seeing is that many of us that do come here regularly tire of the repeated affirmations by a couple of people in this forum.  It ends up creeping into nearly every thread.  You think you are participating in an actual constructive discussion and it ends up simply being a "digging expedition" for certain people to try and look for things to criticize about what others do.  That gets old real fast.   I started this thread to point out the ridiculousness of one of those "repeated affirmations" that we kept seeing over and over.  Sure, its easy to take the moral high ground and tell everyone what they should do.  But just stick around.


----------



## Callen

I'm not telling anyone what they should do and I'm uncertain about the moral high ground. As good stewards of Wing Chun, we could all do better to represent our trade.

We are faced with this in almost everything we do in life. We must learn to ignore the criticism of others, cancel their power over us and let things go. I'll stick around.


----------



## wckf92

TBH...I actually started learning more about the _dynamic duo's_ VT when I basically ignored interacting to their posts. They drop hints of their WSL method(s) every now and then and I've found that when I don't wade into the quagmire...stay up on the shore and just "read"...I started to gain a clearer understanding of how they view VT and their tactical and strategic methods.


----------



## Juany118

Callen said:


> Good work! But I'm more or less referring to the threads that are created to spark bias controversy, much like this one.



To second KPMs point I just came along to say how students will use arts to their particular stengths and weaknesses, thus arts can slowly change overtime if they too become Sifus and that over time even "Masters" may change the art as they refine their understanding.

To illustrate the later of the two mechanisms of change I paraphrased an axiom shared by both Ch'an and Zen Buddhism.  The response to this axiom by one of the "usual suspects?" He asked "are you a Buddhist?" I do practice Buddhism but it was clear that if I said "no" he would have used that as a straw man argument to try and undermine my point.  Simply because some people will turn a discussion into an argument is no reason to say "no" to discussion.  If you asked "well will this person or that try to turn this, whether intentionally or not, into a senseless argument" half the threads on this forum may well not exist.  Then in the interest of trying to be a good student of our chosen arts we should not simply allow such comments to go universally unanswered.  If you don't question some shenanigans then those coming here looking for information, and lack formal training, can find themselves choosing a path without both points of view.


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> The most important thing for new members of this forum to understand is that they must be prepared to acknowledge the equal validity of every approach to be accepted here. If they discriminate (as in choose, prioritise) in any sense then they will be attacked. One of the most important rules for any new member is they must constantly reference their own subjective opinion in anything they say, and never generalise in terms of absolute truth or falsehood.






 

Man what a hypocrite? And who the hell are you to think you have the right to set the ground rules for new posters? Is there something we don't know? Are you now a moderator? That would be a bona fide case of "the lunatics have taken over the asylum"...


----------



## Dirty Dog

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:
*
It wold be advisable to end the debate over who should be allowed to post what, and return to the original topic of the thread.


----------



## LFJ

KPM said:


> ^^^^Good point Steve!  So let me rephrase!  Callen, count how many times the bickering *centers around* Guy B. or LFJ!



That's exactly it. You just love bickering at us. It's weird.

Would be nice if you did like wckf92 and read our posts objectively.


----------



## guy b.

LFJ said:


> That's exactly it. You just love bickering at us. It's weird.
> 
> Would be nice if you did like wckf92 and read our posts objectively.



KPM is an all or nothing kind of guy. I expect he will be signing up for your online mentorship programme any minute


----------



## guy b.

SaulGoodman said:


> View attachment 19916
> 
> Man what a hypocrite? And who the hell are you to think you have the right to set the ground rules for new posters?



These are the unwritten rules of the forum. They aren't determined by me, rather by opions like yours. As LFJ says, an argument requires someone to participate. It would be better for all if opinions could be read objectively and without emotion


----------



## geezer

guy b. said:


> These are the unwritten rules of the forum. They aren't determined by me, rather by opions like yours. As LFJ says, an argument requires someone to participate. *It would be better for all if opinions could be read objectively and without emotion*



At last, Guy B.'s true identity revealed:

http://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/GettyImages_143991155.jpg


----------



## SaulGoodman

guy b. said:


> These are the unwritten rules of the forum. They aren't determined by me, rather by opions like yours. As LFJ says, an argument requires someone to participate. It would be better for all if opinions could be read objectively and without emotion



You are the classic keyboard warrior, all cool and restrained and all knowing when you ain't face to face with the person you are berating . I do wonder how forceful your opinions would be if you found yourself in the situation where you would have to back up what you're saying. My money is that  (if you ever leave the safety of your basement) when/if you attend any seminars/classes that are not your invincible lineage, you are the grey man who wouldn't say a word to anyone about how bad their "VEETEE" is until you get home and strap on your keyboard. You're a joke mate.


----------



## Callen

Speaking of WSLVT exsisting, today is Sifu Wong Shun Leung's birthday! Good times. 祝您生日快樂


----------



## KPM

Callen said:


> Speaking of WSLVT exsisting, today is Sifu Wong Shun Leung's birthday! Good times. 祝您生日快樂



Happy Birthday Master Wong Shun Leung!


----------



## Vajramusti

Callen said:


> Speaking of WSLVT exsisting, today is Sifu Wong Shun Leung's birthday! Good times. 祝您生日快樂


Surely, yes


----------

