# David  Peterson's new book on Wong Shun Leung



## Vajramusti (Mar 22, 2016)

Just got my hard cover copy.Expensive but well formatted, printed and bound with lots of eassys and pictures.
Look like a keeper. I  might coment on it after I  read it.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 22, 2016)

Where is the book available?


----------



## Tames D (Mar 22, 2016)

Is this the book? Probably not, since it was published in 2006. 

*Look Beyond the Pointing Finger: The Combat Philosophy of Wong Shun Leung*
Jan 1, 2006
by David Peterson
*Paperback*
$34.95used & new(14 offers)
*Hardcover*
$45.00used & new(2 offers)
11


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 22, 2016)

Tames D said:


> Is this the book? Probably not, since it was published in 2006.
> 
> *Look Beyond the Pointing Finger: The Combat Philosophy of Wong Shun Leung*
> Jan 1, 2006
> ...


No-this a newer and larger book with tons of pics and many essays.


----------



## Danny T (Mar 22, 2016)

_*WSL Ving Tsun Kuen Hok - An Overview In The View Of Essay *_

_Mui Fa Publishing proudly present world-renowned WSL Ving Tsun Kuen Hok teacher and author Sifu David Peterson's new book._ 
_In this comprehensive and knowledge packed new book, *Sifu Peterson* offers a unique and detailed insight into the entire WSL Ving Tsun Kuen Hok method, exploring the forms, concepts, techniques, and drills as taught by the late Sifu Wong Shun Leung._


*About the Book*
_ 
WSL Ving Tsun Kuen Hok is the legacy of the late Sifu Wong Shun Leung, one of the most famous and formidable students of Ving Tsun (Wing Chun) Gung Fu patriarch, Grandmaster Ip Man. In the 1950s and 1960s, Wong Shun Leung almost single-handedly brought the fighting system of Ip Man to prominence in Hong Kong through his challenge matches, or Beimo, earning himself the nickname, Gong Sau Wong, the "King of Talking Hands", such was his prowess as a fighter. However, Wong Shun Leung was far more than just a "scrapper" with an unbeaten record. He was also a Ving Tsun scientist, philosopher, outstanding teacher, and creator of an approach to combat that is now recognized as one of the most simple, direct, and efficient fighting methods ever devised, Ving Tsun Kuen Hok (Ving Tsun Combat Science).


In this volume, Sifu David Peterson, author and student of the late Wong Shun Leung, presents a detailed overview of the entire WSL Ving Tsun Kuen Hok method in the form of individual essays that explore the forms, concepts, techniques, and drills that comprise the legacy of his teacher, as well as an exclusive look at the life of Sifu Wong Shun Leung and his teacher, Grandmaster Ip Man. The book also discusses the very important connection between Wong Shun Leung and the late Bruce Lee, to whom he was mentor, teacher, and friend. _
_
Fully illustrated, in both colour and black-and-white, with never-before-published photos, along with an extensive appendix containing extra references for the reader, WSL Ving Tsun Kuen Hok: An Overview in the Form of Essays is a book that all practitioners of Ving Tsun, regardless of lineage or experience, should have in their reference collection._
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting is the statement that WSL was the: _
 "...creator of an approach to combat that is now recognized as one of the most... efficient fighting methods ever devised, Ving Tsun Kuen Hok (Ving Tsun Combat Science)"_

This seems to imply WSL devised and created his own method?


----------



## geezer (Mar 22, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> Just got my hard cover copy.Expensive but well formatted, printed and bound with lots of eassys and pictures.
> Look like a keeper. I  might coment on it after I  read it.



Joy, I'm really looking forward to your review after you finish reading it. Please keep us posted! --Steve


----------



## geezer (Mar 22, 2016)

Danny T said:


> _*WSL Ving Tsun Kuen Hok - An Overview In The View Of Essay*_
> 
> Interesting is the statement that WSL was the:
> _"...creator of an approach to combat that is now recognized as one of the most... efficient fighting methods ever devised, Ving Tsun Kuen Hok (Ving Tsun Combat Science)"_
> ...



I guess we'll have to read the book to get Peterson's take on that. But it wouldn't surprise me. WSL was a major figure in WC/VT. He's bound to have left his mark on the system as he practiced it and taught it. I'd like to hear what the WSL-VT guys around here think.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

Definitely interested in this review as well. My interest in WSLVT may stem from some discussions here and sounds like interesting read.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2016)

"_Creator of an approach to combat_" sounds as if he invented VT, which is clearly not true and not something he ever claimed.

What he did "create" is the term "Ving Tsun Kuen Hok (Ving Tsun Combat Science)" to differentiate his line from others who are doing something else.

Whoever wrote the About the Book seems to have been confused about that.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> "_Creator of an approach to combat_" sounds as if he invented VT, which is clearly not true and not something he ever claimed.
> 
> What he did "create" is the term "Ving Tsun Kuen Hok (Ving Tsun Combat Science)" to differentiate his line from others who are doing something else.
> 
> Whoever wrote the About the Book seems to have been confused about that.



If you create a term to differentiate what you do from everyone else. That would mean you did create something else. As for inventing it, those are your words. Not David Peterson's I believe. Just because you create something does not mean you invented it, just that you used something to build something coherent or something that can be grasped.

EDIT: Just so noone misses the fact. That text is on the back side of the book cover. Any text written there is approved by David Peterson and his publisher.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

Phobius said:


> If you create a term to differentiate what you do from everyone else. That would mean you did create something else.



Not necessarily. It might also mean that you felt that others had changed or not grasped something about the original method, which you sought to preserve. 

It might also mean that you just changed the name for no reason beyond marketing. Not that I believe that to be the case with WSL


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Not necessarily. It might also mean that you felt that others had changed or not grasped something about the original method, which you sought to preserve.



True, but lets play with the meaning. If WSL did not "create"/"change" something. Would it exist? The answer in this case seems to be no. Without WSL, there would be nothing similar to WSLVT today. As such it is his creation. (This I mean without discussing where it came from, purely meaning of the words)



guy b. said:


> It might also mean that you just changed the name for no reason beyond marketing. Not that I believe that to be the case with WSL



Seems as if David Peterson believes that WSL created something. I can't say more for sure without reading his book, but I am so interested in this and what information he has to share that I actually ordered the book prior to seeing a review.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

Phobius said:


> As such it is his creation.



Again not necessarily. It may just have been something that he preserved, created by someone else. 



Phobius said:


> Seems as if David Peterson believes that WSL created something.



Enjoy the book by David Peterson


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2016)

Phobius said:


> True, but lets play with the meaning. If WSL did not "create"/"change" something. Would it exist? The answer in this case seems to be no. Without WSL, there would be nothing similar to WSLVT today. As such it is his creation. (This I mean without discussing where it came from, purely meaning of the words)



Play with the meaning? How 'bout, let's not.

"WSLVT" only tells us the lineage the system has been passed down through, not anything about who created it.

There not being anything similar to WSLVT today without WSL would just mean it would have died with YM.

The fact that there is this system today means WSL learned it and passed it on. So there is now WSL-PHB-VT or WSL-DMP-VT, for example. It only tells us the line of transmission.

Plus, I'm not even totally certain he came up with the name himself. It has been said that after his massive seminar in Beijing shortly before his death, participants found his teachings to be very scientific and started calling it "Ving Tsun Kuen Hok (Ving Tsun Combat Science)". The name stuck and China officially recognized it as such.

If that's the case, then he didn't create anything, not even the name.

There is an awful lot of hero worship in DP's speech and writings, with all the insistence upon an "unbeaten record" of 60-100+ blood matches and whatnot. It wouldn't surprise me if he thinks WSL was genius enough to create what actually took generations to develop.

WSL always claimed to have taught nothing more than what he learned from YM though, and that the system didn't need any changes although the BJ form may be open-ended. But that's it.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> WSL always claimed to have taught nothing more than what he learned from YM though, and that the system didn't need any changes although the BJ form may be open-ended. But that's it.



Since YM in your case changed the system to something else with time. The entire argument is void.

You are free to argue with David Peterson about his understandings being wrong and wording being incorrect. I did not know WSL and can not say what YM taught him, for the same reason I can find no proof what WSL would mean if he said he did not do any change whatsoever to any theory or practise or otherwise existing drill in WSLVT from what YM taught him.

I am sad to hear that however, it would mean WSLVT is not an evolution. I am a skeptic when it comes to traditionalists.

But once more, these are the words of DP, not mine. We don't need to argue over the sake that someone else claims something about a topic I do not know anything else about in detail and have no way of proving because evidence of it is non-existent at this time. I just wanted to say that people can create a system if it existed before but was lost in time, not all creations needs to be new or inventions, it just needs to not exist at the time of creation.

And adding a happy smiling face because this is not with hard feelins, just a sucker for definitions and pointing out the obvious.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

Phobius said:


> And adding a happy smiling face because this is not with hard feelins, just a sucker for definitions and pointing out the obvious



But what you have said about the name doesn't necessarily mean that WSL changed the system. In fact he said himself that he didn't. Therefore you have not pointed out something that leads to an inevitable conclusion either way. 

You seem to want to believe that David Peterson means WSL changed VT when he says "Creator of an approach to combat" and that is up to you. I don't know what David Peterson means, not having read the book.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

LFJ said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if he thinks WSL was genius enough to create what actually took generations to develop.
> 
> WSL always claimed to have taught nothing more than what he learned from YM though, and that the system didn't need any changes although the BJ form may be open-ended. But that's it.



This is what I have always been told. It seems unlikely that WSL could have single handedly developed VT. But I guess it is one interpretation of the facts, however unlikely. I don't know what David Peterson believes.


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

guy b. said:


> But what you have said about the name doesn't necessarily mean that WSL changed the system. In fact he said himself that he didn't. Therefore you have not pointed out something that leads to an inevitable conclusion either way.
> 
> You seem to want to believe that David Peterson means WSL changed VT when he says "Creator of an approach to combat" and that is up to you. I don't know what David Peterson means, not having read the book.



I never said that, I said he is doing something different to everyone else apparently. As such he created whatever it is he does. The idea might be from YM, might not. Have not seen evidence to support either claims.

Since there is no evidence the only thing we have is that WSLVT exist, it is not same as the rest and WSL created WSLVT. All other statements are unknown to us.

EDIT: It is not required that WSL changed the system, all it takes is that YM changed the system. Then WSL created a system based on the old ways. This is what I mean. No matter how we twist it the outcome is the same, WSL created something.

UNLESS YM never changed the system and always taught WSLVT and later all other students created brand new systems on their own. In that case WSL branded a system that was never needed to be branded and as such he created a trademarked system.


----------



## LFJ (Mar 23, 2016)

lol. You're making very little sense with your "as such" deductions.

I think you know my take on how things in other lineages under YM came about. I think it's more than obvious, but anyway. 

If I say 1+1=2, like my teacher taught me, but a bunch of other classmates leave saying it equals 3 instead, or that 1+3=2, that doesn't suddenly mean I came up with 1+1=2 on my own.

There is evidence that YM simplified some things in the system when he came to HK, yes, but created it himself? No. It developed over generations. WSL felt at this point it no longer has any apparent changes needing to be made to it. We imperfect humans have to use the system to improve ourselves.

There is quite a bit of evidence, in my opinion, that changing it in fundamental ways makes it less effective. So I'd be careful trying to be an evolutionist with something I'm not yet perfect in.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 23, 2016)

Phobius said:


> I said he is doing something different to everyone else apparently. As such he created whatever it is he does. The idea might be from YM, might not.



If the idea came from YM, then YM or someone else created it, not WSL. Not really sure where you are going with this.



Phobius said:


> It is not required that WSL changed the system, all it takes is that YM changed the system. Then WSL created a system based on the old ways. This is what I mean. No matter how we twist it the outcome is the same, WSL created something.



Unless YM or another person(s) created it, in which case WSL didn't


----------



## Marnetmar (Mar 23, 2016)

Can you guys take it to your PM box please?


----------



## Phobius (Mar 23, 2016)

Marnetmar said:


> Can you guys take it to your PM box please?



Agree and sorry, never thought something like that would lead to a huge discussion. Anyways I will eventually receive the book myself, gonna be an interesting read.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 23, 2016)

geezer said:


> Joy, I'm really looking forward to your review after you finish reading it. Please keep us posted! --Steve


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I finished reading it--330 Pages-a collection of well written eassays with sections on the forms, concepts, drills, biographical essays, a photo gallery and  appendices. Its the most complete  to date of writing on WSL. Should be part of every wing chun collection.

WSL was the best known of Ip Man's students though, in my judgement alaways the best informed among his contemporaries.
.
My sigung is Ho Kam Ming and there are similarities and diffrences between them. Both learned directly frol Ip Man-though Ip Man is likely to have taken some things with  him. Though WSL said that he taught what he learned from Ip Man- some WSL folks in their understandable hero worship tend
to mininmize Ip Man's greatness by saying that Ip Man changed some things because of WSL's advice here and  there.
Most of the basic wc/wt things are there in the book- the square facing,combined attack and defense, the importance of slt and chum kiu (including the importance of chor ma)
The concept section could have been developed more and more details on footwork-afterall IM was even better with his feet than his excellent hands.
But that is just an observation not a complant. All  in all a good but  expensive(hard cover) book.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 24, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I finished reading it--330 Pages-a collection of well written eassays with sections on the forms, concepts, drills, biographical essays, a photo gallery and  appendices. Its the most complete  to date of writing on WSL. Should be part of every wing chun collection.
> 
> WSL was the best known of Ip Man's students though, in my judgement alaways the best informed among his contemporaries.
> ...



Thanks for summarising. It is very expensive!

What would you say are the main differences between HKM teachings as you have received and DP's WSL VT?


----------



## geezer (Mar 24, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Thanks for summarising. It is very expensive!
> 
> What would you say are the main differences between HKM teachings as you have received and DP's WSL VT?



Hey Guy, while we are on the subject, what are the main differences between Philip Bayer's WSL WC and David Peterson's based on what you've seen?


----------



## guy b. (Mar 24, 2016)

geezer said:


> Hey Guy, while we are on the subject, what are the main differences between Philip Bayer's WSL WC and David Peterson's based on what you've seen?



I have only been to one DP seminar personally. I have met a few people who are affiliates of his but don't know if they are fully representative. 

Philipp Bayer is a much better exponent of the system than DP so it is hard to compare directly based on the feel of what they do. I think he would be physically and mentally better no matter the system. PB, although well past his best years, still feels overwhelming. DP feels like a normal person. 

In terms of ideas though I think PB much more complete, coherent and satisfying. PB teaches a full system, real kung fu, no gaps. DP is more like my first teacher, from what I have heard from him. I have never trained long term with DP though so could be wrong, just my impression. I think DP is a good historian of VT and he produces some good categorisations, documentation, essays.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 25, 2016)

Ip Man had his own sense of humor. He gave nicknames to some of his students. For WSL it was  Yat  Ji Wong
(One formula Wong).Apparently WSL often gave herbal suggestions to his students. WSL's father was an herbalist.WSL seemeed to have a single formula. When asked about this IM repportedly said "Well it can cure you
or kill you-You only need one formula".


----------



## guy b. (Mar 31, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> Ip Man had his own sense of humor. He gave nicknames to some of his students. For WSL it was  Yat  Ji Wong
> (One formula Wong).Apparently WSL often gave herbal suggestions to his students. WSL's father was an herbalist.WSL seemeed to have a single formula. When asked about this IM repportedly said "Well it can cure you
> or kill you-You only need one formula".



What would you say are the main differences between HKM teachings as you have received and DP's WSL VT as presented in his book?


----------



## geezer (Mar 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> What would you say are the main differences between HKM teachings as you have received and DP's WSL VT as presented in his book?



This is an exact re-posting of post #24. Joy may be a bit hard of hearing (as am I) but it seems to me that his reading comprehension is just fine. So there's no point in repeating yourself. If he chose not to respond the first time, so be it. Let's move on.


----------



## Tames D (Mar 31, 2016)

geezer said:


> This is an exact re-posting of post #24. Joy may be a bit hard of hearing (as am I) but it seems to me that his reading comprehension is just fine. So there's no point in repeating yourself. If he chose not to respond the first time, so be it. Let's move on.


I thought this was a fair question to ask again. Maybe Joy missed it the first time? I would also be interested in hearing Joys answer to the question.
If I recall Joy started this thread, it would be nice if he would answer questions. Although he certainly has the right to ignore them.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 31, 2016)

geezer said:


> This is an exact re-posting of post #24. Joy may be a bit hard of hearing (as am I) but it seems to me that his reading comprehension is just fine. So there's no point in repeating yourself. If he chose not to respond the first time, so be it. Let's move on.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup-nothing wrong with my reading and understanding.Hard of hearing yes- that does not affect reading, understanding, punching, timing and many other things. I gave a review of Peteson's book. I have met and chi saoed with WL twice in San Francisco and Texas during his US visit, watched his demos and whatever videos I could find. I respect him-but I am just fine with the path that I have taken in the Augustine Fong and Ho Kamming versions of wing chun.My faults are mine- not theirs..
Without putting anyone down-that should be  a clear enough answer.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 31, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> Yup-nothing wrong with my reading and understanding.Hard of hearing yes- that does not affect reading, understanding, punching, timing and many other things. I gave a review of Peteson's book. I have met and chi saoed with WL twice in San Francisco and Texas during his US visit, watched his demos and whatever videos I could find. I respect him-but I am just fine with the path that I have taken in the Augustine Fong and Ho Kamming versions of wing chun.My faults are mine- not theirs..
> Without putting anyone down-that should be a clear enough answer



You can always answer in a diplomatic way if the idea of being disrespectful to WSL bothers you. Personally I will not be offended whatever you say and would prefer you speak plainly- it avoids misunderstanding. PM me if you don't want to say anything on the open forum.

More than your opinion that HKM is better than WSL, which is obvious since you train HKM VT, I am interested to know about specific differences in approach, what you see as strengths and weaknesses. That kind of thing. Nothing that should cause a diplomatic incident between different branches of VT?


----------



## KPM (Mar 31, 2016)

I would be interested in Joy's response as well.  Because I'm guessing he would end up telling you that what he saw and experienced from WSL himself is not necessarily what Phillip Bayer is doing.  But I could be wrong.


----------



## guy b. (Mar 31, 2016)

KPM said:


> I would be interested in Joy's response as well.  Because I'm guessing he would end up telling you that what he saw and experienced from WSL himself is not necessarily what Phillip Bayer is doing.  But I could be wrong.



That would be no problem. I am not invested in a particular personality, only a method.

What would be interesting would be to contrast WSL and DP (in terms of DP's book), and WSL/DP and HKM, who I have no experience of but am curious about.


----------



## Vajramusti (Mar 31, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You can always answer in a diplomatic way if the idea of being disrespectful to WSL bothers you. Personally I will not be offended whatever you say and would prefer you speak plainly- it avoids misunderstanding. PM me if you don't want to say anything on the open forum.
> 
> More than your opinion that HKM is better than WSL, which is obvious since you train HKM VT, I am interested to know about specific differences in approach, what you see as strengths and weaknesses. That kind of thing. Nothing that should cause a diplomatic incident between different branches of VT?


-----------------------------------------------------
I am not a concerned about you being offended as I am about appearing to disrespect WSL.
HKM's stsnce is more "united" and his elbow work subtle, detailed and strong Now ofcourse he is about 90 years old
and WSL is gone.
WSL staggered a bit in moving chi sao (no blows). HKM never did-more stable structure.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 1, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> -----------------------------------------------------
> I am not a concerned about you being offended as I am about appearing to disrespect WSL.
> HKM's stsnce is more "united" and his elbow work subtle, detailed and strong Now ofcourse he is about 90 years old
> and WSL is gone.
> WSL staggered a bit in moving chi sao (no blows). HKM never did-more stable structure.



Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 3, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I finished reading it--330 Pages-a collection of well written eassays with sections on the forms, concepts, drills, biographical essays, a photo gallery and  appendices. Its the most complete  to date of writing on WSL. Should be part of every wing chun collection.
> 
> WSL was the best known of Ip Man's students though, in my judgment not always the best informed among his contemporaries.
> ...


----------



## Jens (Apr 3, 2016)

Joy Ho Kam Ming was no wck god either. lol

"It pity to say that all those who were first trained by me and particularly Ho Kam Ming had never say a thank to me. Quite disappointed. Before I brought Ho Kam Ming to Master Yip Man, I had taught Ho Kam Ming with Siu Nim Tau and Chum Kiu. I had difficult time in teaching Ho who then, practised other type of Chinese Kung Fu. By then, Ho had difficult time at punching centre line. I had used harsh words - such as "you will never practised Ving Tsun Well". However, I made many suggestion to Ho Kam Ming to improve his Ving Tsun. Skill. Nevertheless, Ho had never appreciated my advises."   

Hang Lum Andrew Ma senior disciple of Master Yip Man.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 3, 2016)

Jens said:


> Joy Ho Kam Ming was no wck god either. lol
> 
> "It pity to say that all those who were first trained by me and particularly Ho Kam Ming had never say a thank to me. Quite disappointed. Before I brought Ho Kam Ming to Master Yip Man, I had taught Ho Kam Ming with Siu Nim Tau and Chum Kiu. I had difficult time in teaching Ho who then, practised other type of Chinese Kung Fu. By then, Ho had difficult time at punching centre line. I had used harsh words - such as "you will never practised Ving Tsun Well". However, I made many suggestion to Ho Kam Ming to improve his Ving Tsun. Skill. Nevertheless, Ho had never appreciated my advises."
> 
> Hang Lum Andrew Ma senior disciple of Master Yip Man.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone has opinions.


----------



## dudewingchun (Apr 4, 2016)

Jens said:


> Joy Ho Kam Ming was no wck god either. lol
> 
> "It pity to say that all those who were first trained by me and particularly Ho Kam Ming had never say a thank to me. Quite disappointed. Before I brought Ho Kam Ming to Master Yip Man, I had taught Ho Kam Ming with Siu Nim Tau and Chum Kiu. I had difficult time in teaching Ho who then, practised other type of Chinese Kung Fu. By then, Ho had difficult time at punching centre line. I had used harsh words - such as "you will never practised Ving Tsun Well". However, I made many suggestion to Ho Kam Ming to improve his Ving Tsun. Skill. Nevertheless, Ho had never appreciated my advises."
> 
> Hang Lum Andrew Ma senior disciple of Master Yip Man.



That Andrew Ma has a lot to say from what iv read from him ! Anyone know anything about him ?


----------



## KPM (Apr 4, 2016)

dudewingchun said:


> That Andrew Ma has a lot to say from what iv read from him ! Anyone know anything about him ?



Never heard of him!  But obviously he was speaking of a Ho Kam Ming early in his Wing Chun learning.  What he has to say is completely irrelevant to Ho Kam Ming after he established himself with Ip Man and got good at Wing Chun.  I'm sure everyone here had similar problems when first starting out!  

But this does bring up an interesting point.   It appears that Ip Man was not Ho Kam Ming's first teacher.  Andrew Ma "opened his hands" to Wing Chun it seems.   In the traditional Chinese approach, it would some times be said that Andrew Ma was Ho Kam Ming's first "Sifu" and therefore he shouldn't refer to anyone else as "Sifu."  Just as Ip Man never referred to Ng Chung So as his "Sifu" even though he learned the majority of his Wing Chun from Ng Chung So.  Just an interesting side point.


----------



## Danny T (Apr 4, 2016)

Jens said:


> Joy Ho Kam Ming was no wck god either. lol
> 
> "It pity to say that all those who were first trained by me and particularly Ho Kam Ming had never say a thank to me. Quite disappointed. Before I brought Ho Kam Ming to Master Yip Man, I had taught Ho Kam Ming with Siu Nim Tau and Chum Kiu. I had difficult time in teaching Ho who then, practised other type of Chinese Kung Fu. By then, Ho had difficult time at punching centre line. I had used harsh words - such as "you will never practised Ving Tsun Well". However, I made many suggestion to Ho Kam Ming to improve his Ving Tsun. Skill. Nevertheless, Ho had never appreciated my advises."
> 
> Hang Lum Andrew Ma senior disciple of Master Yip Man.


"...all those who were first trained by me... never say a thank to me."
"I had taught HKM with SNT & CK. I had difficult time in teaching Ho... Ho had difficult time at punching centre line..."

Was the problem HKM or the instruction of Hang Lum Andrew Ma?
How much time did HKM spend training under HLAM? 
If HKM was so bad why would HLAM bring him to IM...   Advanced training...  When his basics were poor... 
HLAM taught CK when SNT was poor?

Hmmmm...


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 5, 2016)

KPM said:


> Never heard of him!  But obviously he was speaking of a Ho Kam Ming early in his Wing Chun learning.  What he has to say is completely irrelevant to Ho Kam Ming after he established himself with Ip Man and got good at Wing Chun.  I'm sure everyone here had similar problems when first starting out!
> 
> But this does bring up an interesting point.   It appears that Ip Man was not Ho Kam Ming's first teacher.  Andrew Ma "opened his hands" to Wing Chun it seems.   In the traditional Chinese approach, it would some times be said that Andrew Ma was Ho Kam Ming's first "Sifu" and therefore he shouldn't refer to anyone else as "Sifu."  Just as Ip Man never referred to Ng Chung So as his "Sifu" even though he learned the majority of his Wing Chun from Ng Chung So.  Just an interesting side point.


----------



## dudewingchun (Apr 5, 2016)

^^ Was there a point to that post ? ^^


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 5, 2016)

CMA is full  of egos and Andrew Ma has his share.Ma and others assisted Ip Man in the latter's public classes.
Ip Man's real teaching was in private classes with selected students.Two different worlds
You can google Hang lam Andrew Ma for his facebook page
 and his letter to the VTAA. MA's beef with HKM is that HKM suppsedly did not thank Ma.
In his letter Ma's main target is Chow Tse Chun


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 23, 2016)

In response to the discussion about PB verses DP etc., will just add my 2 cents. 
While I haven't trained with either of them, I have trained with a group branched off from DP's Melbourne school. 
This Melbourne school is now run by Darren Elvey while DP teaches in Malaysia. 
I have been to several of Darren's seminars and he is very good. As with all sifu's, he has taken the Melbourne school in a different direction while wtill being true to the WSL method. There are WSL lineage conferences that he attends and he is in regular contact with WSL sifu's in HK. I have trained with these guys and have seen PB students and sifu's practice on youtube. The application looks almost identical to what Darren Elvey teaches. 

Darren Elvey is very direct and no-nonsense. He doesn't mess around with fancy techniques, traps etc. He has a good strong horse. He has great structure and with a boxing background knows his stuff. 

While I don't train so much with these guys these days as I am mostly CST focussed (and trying to get my own school going), I respect what they do and believe it is fit for the purpose that they are focussed for and train in. I have personally seen the teacher of this club easily dominate (in chi sao) wing chunners from the other big schools in my city who have come to visit.


----------



## KPM (Apr 23, 2016)

^^^^ I don't see anything "funny" about those comments.  Sounds like an honest observation and opinion to me.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 23, 2016)

Ip Man had group classes supervised by senior students including Ma .where people got started. Some good folks in the classes went on to take private lessons with varying arrangements and for varying lengths of time.HKM did just that- went on to private learning from Ip Man for a longer period than others. Ip Man also came to visit and correct students in HKM's classes.
Andrew Ma was not HKM's sifuand Ma not surprisingly.  has his ego He has a nice facebook page of his own.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 23, 2016)

Vajramusti said:


> Ip Man had group classes supervised by senior students including Ma .where people got started. Some good folks in the classes went on to take private lessons with varying arrangements and for varying lengths of time.HKM did just that- went on to private learning from Ip Man for a longer period than others. Ip Man also came to visit and correct students in HKM's classes.
> Andrew Ma was not HKM's sifuand Ma not surprisingly.  has his ego He has a nice facebook page of his own.



HKM is one of the only Yip Man lineages I haven't had the chance to come into contact with. Unfortunately, none in NZ or Australia. Maybe when I visit HK, I can find someone who does it.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 24, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I have trained with these guys and have seen PB students and sifu's practice on youtube. The application looks almost identical to what Darren Elvey teaches.



What DP teaches and what PB teaches are fairly different. I don't know about Darren Elvey


----------



## Phobius (Apr 24, 2016)

guy b. said:


> What DP teaches and what PB teaches are fairly different. I don't know about Darren Elvey



If DP and PB teach so vastly different (or fairly different) styles. Does that mean WSL was not as good at teaching? Or does it mean he wanted people to make VT a style of their own? Or is there some other reason behind this? Dont think personally there could be much room of doubt that both DP and PB are well trained people in terms of WSLVT and have had the correct teaching and continued respect for WSL.

Not meant as a disrespect. We all know WSL was very good in WC, but there is no disrespect in wondering if difference in teachings could be by some lack in talent of tutoring others. Some people are fighters, others teachers. Not many are both.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 24, 2016)

Admittedly when I watch PB videos of him chi sao, it looks stylistically different. However, recently someone showed me youtube videos of one of his instructors teaching his own school, I would honestly wouldn't not have been able to tell the difference in approach or application. 

Every Wing Chun lineage I see is SOOOOOO different from each other. LT, WC, CST, WSL, HKM etc are really all very different. But when I saw that PB instructor teaching, I was like "that's exactly the same stuff that is taught in the Melbourne school". 

There is definitely a WSL flavour that you can see across all his students. People in WSL say Gary Lam is a little bit less direct than others, but you can still see the WSLness in there.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 24, 2016)

Phobius said:


> If DP and PB teach so vastly different (or fairly different) styles. Does that mean WSL was not as good at teaching?



I have been reflecting on this lately, but not about WSL. One of the frustrating thing I have found in CST lineage is that every teacher I have met has quite a different take on what CST taught. We all basically want the same thing, but people have different approaches to get there. It's interesting that even while CST was alive, people would take different things away from what they learned from him and focus on that. Does that make him a bad teacher? No, he had enormous patience when teaching. I think you get this when you have someone who has a huge depth of knowledge and skill. Then this person (with this depth) teaches students, and a student gets stuck or magnetised to a certain concept that they learned. They might find huge depth in just that one particular aspect. Then they go open a school and their school continues with that focus. 

So if there is huge variance in WSL schools, that is actually a testament to WSL's depth of knowledge and skill. So you also have it in CST lineage, but lets look at Yip Man. All his famous students teach in a very different way from each other. Again, I think this is a testament to his huge depth in knowledge and skill. Allwell-knownknown students took particular aspects of this and ran with it making an approach based on that. 

Even in Aikido with O-sensei, you have all these lineages. Each lineage has a strength and a focus that the lineage holder must have taken away from O-sensei. 

So in short, no, it does not make WSL a bad teacher.


----------



## KPM (Apr 24, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I
> 
> So if there is huge variance in WSL schools, that is actually a testament to WSL's depth of knowledge and skill. So you also have it in CST lineage, but lets look at Yip Man. All his famous students teach in a very different way from each other. Again, I think this is a testament to his huge depth in knowledge and skill. Allwell-knownknown students took particular aspects of this and ran with it making an approach based on that.
> 
> .



I agree with you.  I think it makes perfect sense that people took away different things from what they were taught.  Some chose to really develop along one line and some along another.  That doesn't necessarily mean that someone's learning was deficient.  It makes much more sense to conclude that if someone is doing WSLVT quite differently than every other WSL school out there....it is likely because he took part of the teaching and developed it in his own way.....NOT that every other person doing WSLVT differently from him is different because there was something wrong with either the way they were taught or their ability to grasp and learn what was being taught.


----------



## NewburyParkTKD (Apr 24, 2016)

What is this book about?


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 24, 2016)

NewburyParkTKD said:


> What is this book about?



See posts 1, 4, and 23 (?)


----------



## Phobius (Apr 24, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I have been reflecting on this lately, but not about WSL. One of the frustrating thing I have found in CST lineage is that every teacher I have met has quite a different take on what CST taught. We all basically want the same thing, but people have different approaches to get there. It's interesting that even while CST was alive, people would take different things away from what they learned from him and focus on that. Does that make him a bad teacher? No, he had enormous patience when teaching. I think you get this when you have someone who has a huge depth of knowledge and skill. Then this person (with this depth) teaches students, and a student gets stuck or magnetised to a certain concept that they learned. They might find huge depth in just that one particular aspect. Then they go open a school and their school continues with that focus.
> 
> So if there is huge variance in WSL schools, that is actually a testament to WSL's depth of knowledge and skill. So you also have it in CST lineage, but lets look at Yip Man. All his famous students teach in a very different way from each other. Again, I think this is a testament to his huge depth in knowledge and skill. Allwell-knownknown students took particular aspects of this and ran with it making an approach based on that.
> 
> ...



That was not my question. I did not say he was a bad teacher.

My question was if people that train WSLVT think the reason there is a difference is intentional or bad. That is why my second question which was removed from the quote stated "Or does it mean he wanted people to make VT a style of their own?"

I of course believe personally that all WT/WC/VT should be personal, reason being that it is a concept based fighting and my way of following concepts are never gonna be identical to anyone else. Because if my actions are identical then the concepts are not being followed since I am myself different.

There is however great interest, related to this book, to know if students of WSLVT does not believe in individualistic shapings of WSLVT. If their belief is that the system is so complete that any alteration would mean defects/flaws then that would change the meaning of the text in the book itself.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

Sorry to misunderstand you. 

I can't speak to for the rest of the WSL community, but from what I have heard and seen from the WSL guys in Auckland and Melbourne, WSL style should evolve and can be streamlined and improved. I believe WSL said himself something along the lines of "throw away what is useless". So already there is an aspect of never ending improvement and refinement in the DNA of WSL wing chun. The Melbourne and Auckland school also adhere to the slogan "Simple, Direct and Efficient". I am not sure if that is taken from WSL himself or not. But they measure all techniques and applications against this. Is it simple, direct and efficient? If not, throw it away. Can it be more simple, direct and efficient? If so do it. 

I was a member of a big wing chun school for a few years where there really was this sense that the system was perfect and no changes were needed to it. We were really discouraged from questioning things too much. And all the positions and shapes had to be perfect. 

In the WSL school here in Auckland, there is open debate with the teacher. The teacher will also often reflect and change something if he thinks it is not working as well as it could or if something works better. I think this is a very WSLish approah and a pretty healthy one in general.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 25, 2016)

Some variation in WSLVT is for the same reason there's variation in YMVT. That being that some students spent significantly more time studying with WSL or YM than others, some indeed spent very little, and some actually put their skills to the test weekly while others just played _chi-sau_ in class.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

I would disagree with that. Take the most dedicated YM students and there is still massive variance. 

And putting your skills to the test, is going to result in variance based on your experience in those fights. It is said WSL adjusted what he learned based on his experience in fighting. So he took his wing chun in a certain direction that worked for him. I don't think YM expected his students to go and test their skills in fights and all reach the same conclusion as a result.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

I would disagree with that. Take the most dedicated YM students and there is still massive variance. 

And putting your skills to the test is going to result in variance based on your experience in those fights. It is said WSL adjusted what he learned based on his experience in fighting. So he took his wing chun in a certain direction that worked for him. I don't think YM expected his students to go and test their skills in fights and all reach the same conclusion as a result.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

Crap.... saw my message was unsent, so sent it again only to see that it had actually been posted!


----------



## guy b. (Apr 25, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Admittedly when I watch PB videos of him chi sao, it looks stylistically different. However, recently someone showed me youtube videos of one of his instructors teaching his own school, I would honestly wouldn't not have been able to tell the difference in approach or application



Who did you see in the video clip?

Watching videos can be quite different to experiencing VT directly.

I assure you that DP doesn't teach the same thing as PB.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

Michael Kurth was one of them. 

Then I saw another guy who was bald doing pak sau entry drill that was identical.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 25, 2016)

The difference between MK and DP is quite large. Maybe you can't see it on video. If not then I would recommend you travel to experience it in person.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

Yes so I can't speak to David Patterson because I haven't met him in person. 

Darren Elvey probably got most of his instruction from David Patterson in his Melbourne school and has been doing wing chun for 25 years I think he said. Now Darren runs that same school and Darren moved to Malaysian and runs that. Darren has met WSL several times and took different things from this experience in meeting WSL than DP did. He made a lot of adjustments to the instruction and I believe it has taken a more direct approach based on what I have seen of DP in youtube videos and from what I hear from people who have trained with both. As I was saying before, Darren is also active in exchanging with other WSL teachers via conferences and keeps in regular contact many. I have heard him say that he has adopted many things from these meetings with these guys. 

It would be good to meet some PB guys one day. But I am primarily a CST guy.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 25, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I would disagree with that. Take the most dedicated YM students and there is still massive variance.



Being dedicated doesn't mean they received much direct transmission, or that they understood the big picture.



> And putting your skills to the test is going to result in variance based on your experience in those fights.



Speaking strictly about interpretations of things, only ever playing in _chi-sau_ without much guidance and no fighting experience is going to limit one's understanding of the system.

The main goal of testing isn't to change or adapt the system to fill your gaps, but to find your errors so the system can correct them. The system is really a self-correction tool. 

Without understanding that, _chi-sau_ has no clear goal and becomes a playground where all sorts of blind theories get made up. 

Fundamentally changing the system based on fighting experience would be revealing a misunderstanding of the purpose of the system. It's not a grab bag of applications that are to be swapped out.



Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Michael Kurth was one of them.
> 
> Then I saw another guy who was bald doing pak sau entry drill that was identical.



Pretty sure I know the clip you're talking about. It's in French, right? That's MK's student and the way they do this drill is not identical to DP's branch. It may seem so from an outside perspective, but there are subtle tactical ideas missing from DP's branch.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Being dedicated doesn't mean they received much direct transmission, or that they understood the big picture.



Sure, but there are plenty of people we can name that got direct transmission from YM and they still look way different. 

Regarding the rest, I would just say variance happens. 


LFJ said:


> Speaking strictly about interpretations of things, only ever playing in _chi-sau_ without much guidance and no fighting experience is going to limit one's understanding of the system.



Sure, but that still won't stop variance of interpretation and focus. 



LFJ said:


> The main goal of testing isn't to change or adapt the system to fill your gaps, but to find your errors so the system can correct them. The system is really a self-correction tool.



If you are implying that this would result in us all reaching the same conclusions having done these things and eventually having identical wing chun, I think you would be mistaken. 



LFJ said:


> Without understanding that, _chi-sau_ has no clear goal and becomes a playground where all sorts of blind theories get made up.



There's plenty of variance in YM wing chun chi sao. Are you suggesting that chi sao that doesn't have the same objectives and looks like PB/WSL is wrong? 



LFJ said:


> Fundamentally changing the system based on fighting experience would be revealing a misunderstanding of the purpose of the system. It's not a grab bag of applications that are to be swapped out.



Please expand on this. My understanding is that WSL made adjustments based on his fighting experience. I don't think that means he added things that weren't in the wing chun he learned. But you might change a position or an approach or entry.... 



LFJ said:


> Pretty sure I know the clip you're talking about. It's in French, right? That's MK's student and the way they do this drill is not identical to DP's branch. It may seem so from an outside perspective, but there are subtle tactical ideas missing from DP's branch.



I don't remember it being French. COuld be. I would reiterate that the Melbourne branch which was DP's original school has taken on somewhat different approach than it did when run by DP. Not that I necessarily think there is anything wrong with DP. Haven't met him so cant say. 


Look, I am not even with this school. It would be better to talk to one of the guys that is. Maybe one of them could go to europe one day. Or you could go to Melbourne. 
I am just calling it like I see it. Could there be things that are very different? Sure, I would expect that anyway. Every school will and probably should have a different approach - its healthy.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 25, 2016)

Thanks for your view on the matter. It seems like there are some nuances to the question I asked.

At least it answered the one major question I had which was if WSL taught as part of his system that it should continue to evolve. Seems not all have that teaching within WSLVT and as such it must not be one of the major points of the lineage.

As for differences, name several of the best boxers. Noone can say they do not optimize their sport nor that they are good. Still even the best of them are individually unique in their styles, while the art and way they were taught are identical. Reason being that they themselves are unique in how their body work, heigh, composition, the size of the opponents they had when starting training... the aggressivenes of their sparring partners. Their own mentality, and how they were born and raised. Heck even what block or street they lived on has a huge impact in style.

Stating that a style must never be unique as there can only be one way that is optimal for all people. It to me sounds like a belief that system/style/lineage is what wins a fight, not a fighter or his physique. (Wont say that does not exist, it just is not my belief. I can be wrong just like anyone else can be)


----------



## LFJ (Apr 25, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Are you suggesting that chi sao that doesn't have the same objectives and looks like PB/WSL is wrong?



Right or wrong is subjective. Some methods are objectively more useful than others. Most are pretty useless.



> Please expand on this. My understanding is that WSL made adjustments based on his fighting experience. I don't think that means he added things that weren't in the wing chun he learned. But you might change a position or an approach or entry....



What adjustments did you hear he made?

What I mean is that when you find errors revealed in fighting, the training system should be used to correct them.

If instead the system is being modified to fill gaps, one's understanding is inverted. That's using errors to fix the system, rather than using the system to fix the errors.

The result is not better VT fighting skills, but a different VT fighting style.

The latter could go on forever, to the point of having a vastly different style, without the former ever having a chance to improve. (We see this a lot today...)


----------



## Phobius (Apr 25, 2016)

LFJ said:


> If instead the system is being modified to fill gaps, one's understanding is inverted. That's using errors to fix the system, rather than using the system to fix the errors.



System is not same as style. Style in my meaning is what each individual fighter has. The system itself is what it is, the concepts basically and the forms. Interpretation is what becomes your style.

Systems has to change because style is individual. Each teacher has his own interpretation of the concepts and movements. This means that his students will make their own interpretation based on their teachers style mixed with the system he teaches. If not then you do not think style should be an individual thing but rather identical between everyone training a specific system.

The system already contains errors by the way, which it probably did not earlier times. Those errors are being taught because they are needed due to the change in other arts as well as the world. Everything changes and if your martial art style and system does not it becomes stale and spoilt with time. Noone learning biu jee can say that WC/WT/VT is without need of errors in order to work in all situations.

But I would not call it errors, rather other theories and movements. Errors would mean inferior. One thing we learn early on, there are not inferior movements. Just suited and non-suited ones, the rest is a matter of training them properly.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 25, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I don't remember it being French



Please post it here so that we can see what you mean. You said it was on youtube right?


----------



## LFJ (Apr 25, 2016)

Phobius said:


> The system already contains errors by the way, which it probably did not earlier times. Those errors are being taught because they are needed due to the change in other arts as well as the world. Everything changes and if your martial art style and system does not it becomes stale and spoilt with time. Noone learning biu jee can say that WC/WT/VT is without need of errors in order to work in all situations.
> 
> But I would not call it errors, rather other theories and movements. Errors would mean inferior. One thing we learn early on, there are not inferior movements. Just suited and non-suited ones, the rest is a matter of training them properly.



That is a bizarre use of the term errors, and is not what I meant.

Errors in fighting means I overturn, overshoot, overreact, underreact, etc..

The training system is there to fix these errors through _chi-sau_, _gwo-sau_ drills, etc. until I get back up to free fighting speed and go again to see if the errors have been fixed and/or to find more.

If instead of doing this, I alter the system to fix the errors, eventually I will end up doing something other than VT.

Maybe that's fine if it works, and you no longer call it VT, but how many people are really doing that? 

Most modifications people have made to the system have been done just theorizing while playing around with what works and doesn't work in _chi-sau_, which is probably entirely useless for free fighting.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 25, 2016)

Sorry if I misunderstand what you mean with errors. So you are claiming that one or both of DP and PB are doing these errors and as such it explains the difference?

Or am I missing something in your meaning.?

Asking because it does not seem like something you would want to say.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 25, 2016)

I'm talking about what the system is to be used for. That is, after laying the foundation, it is used to correct errors made in free fighting to continually improve VT fighting skill. Everyone makes errors. Otherwise we wouldn't need the training system.

However, if people aren't testing their skills but only playing _chi-sau_ and theorizing, especially if they aren't getting close instruction over time, they are bound to come up with ideas that only work in _chi-sau_ with other people doing the same thing, because their training has no frame of reference outside of that unrealistic environment.

So, my point is to say that much of the variation in YMVT and WSLVT lines is due to few people actually testing their skills and using the system for its designed purpose... plus lack of longterm, careful instruction and not understanding the system in the big picture of fight training.


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2016)

LFJ said:


> However, if people aren't testing their skills but only playing _chi-sau_ and theorizing, especially if they aren't getting close instruction over time, they are bound to come up with ideas that only work in _chi-sau_ with other people doing the same thing, because their training has no frame of reference outside of that unrealistic environment.
> 
> .



Can you provide us all with some video examples of WSL people testing their skills with something other than Chi Sau?


----------



## Phobius (Apr 25, 2016)

KPM said:


> Can you provide us all with some video examples of WSL people testing their skills with something other than Chi Sau?



Do not go into that discussion, it leads us nowhere nice. There are schools we could visit for that part. 

YouTube is a bad place to find sparring videos, it only holds bragging videos mostly.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 25, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Systems has to change because style is individual. Each teacher has his own interpretation of the concepts and movements. This means that his students will make their own interpretation based on their teachers style mixed with the system he teaches.



A coherent error correcting system like VT shouldn't change because of individual stylistic differences. Changing it for this kind of reason is a misunderstanding of what it is for. Someone's own interpretation of concepts is a change to the system, not a stylistic difference.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 25, 2016)

KPM said:


> Can you provide us all with some video examples of WSL people testing their skills with something other than Chi Sau?



No


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

It sounds like what you are suggesting is that WSL's wing chun is the best and closests to Yip Man's wing chun. As such, all other YM students who do not resemble WSL's focus/theory/interpretation are wrong. Also that PB is the closest representation of WSL. Therefore anything different from him is wrong. 

In other words YM = WSL = PB?


----------



## KPM (Apr 25, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> It sounds like what you are suggesting is that WSL's wing chun is the best and closests to Yip Man's wing chun. As such, all other YM students who do not resemble WSL's focus/theory/interpretation are wrong. Also that PB is the closest representation of WSL. Therefore anything different from him is wrong.
> 
> In other words YM = WSL = PB?



That is certainly what guy and LFJ have suggested in the past!  But I can't wait to see how they dance around that point this time around!


----------



## guy b. (Apr 25, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> It sounds like what you are suggesting is that WSL's wing chun is the best and closests to Yip Man's wing chun. As such, all other YM students who do not resemble WSL's focus/theory/interpretation are wrong. Also that PB is the closest representation of WSL. Therefore anything different from him is wrong.
> 
> In other words YM = WSL = PB?



I don't think LFJ said anything like that. He was speaking in general terms.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 25, 2016)

Hmmmm ..... wonder where I got that impression from then? 

It sounded like he was saying that variance in WC is caused by arious deficiencies in the student and that is all. But I must have completely misunderstood him. My bad, seemed like he was being a wing chun snob there for a minute.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 25, 2016)

Or maybe he is saying DP is the one without the errors? Or maybe both of them are doing it with errors? The only thing that is clear so far is that someone of them is deemed to do VT with errors.

This is at least what seems to be explained here in this thread.

I am fairly certain both DP and PB respect and believe each other to have the correct training and skill set.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 25, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Hmmmm ..... wonder where I got that impression from then?



Not sure, since I already told you I wasn't talking in terms of right or wrong.



> It sounded like he was saying that variance in WC is caused by arious deficiencies in the student and that is all.



I said much of not all. There are some branches in the WSL line that have modified the entire system for whatever reason but not for any apparent deficiency.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 25, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Or maybe he is saying DP is the one without the errors? Or maybe both of them are doing it with errors? The only thing that is clear so far is that someone of them is deemed to do VT with errors.



I was never talking about errors in the system, but errors made during a fight. Whoever doesn't make errors in fighting is already perfect and doesn't need any MA training... I don't think either of them is perfect.



> I am fairly certain both DP and PB respect and believe each other to have the correct training and skill set.



Have you trained or spoken with either of them?


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I was never talking about errors in the system, but errors made during a fight. Whoever doesn't make errors in fighting is already perfect and doesn't need any MA training... I don't think either of them is perfect.



Yes, this part I was not questioning you on. But you were saying that these errors then gets integrated into their system/style and it is no longer optimal. This eans that one or both of them integrate errors into their WSLVT. Keep in mind that my own opinion is that changes are not errors because it would imply there is an optimal fighting system for all. If you have ever been a head taller than all your opponents that whole thought on an optimal style that fits all goes right out the window.

I am trained in believing that we are the style, and we do what suits us best. The more we train, the better we know what suits us in a given moment. (Not talking mere techniques). This belief is also something I have felt has been verified myself. Just adding it so we are clear on why I have a different mind set and dont need to argue, but rather discuss as it is interesting as long as we stay away from "my lineage is better than yours" ********.



LFJ said:


> Have you trained or spoken with either of them?



It was a comment meant more out of respect, not saying that they are somehow spreading any ill thoughts about the other. That this discussion does not explode into something else.

Had I met PB or DP I would not be asking you these questions. And if I could, I would gladly go and meet as well as train with these guys.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 26, 2016)

Phobius said:


> But you were saying that these errors then gets integrated into their system/style and it is no longer optimal. This eans that one or both of them integrate errors into their WSLVT.



That is not at all what I said.

An error in fighting is when something doesn't work right and possibly causes you to get hit or lose the fight. Why would anyone integrate errors into their system? 

What I said is that there are two ways of dealing with these errors. Either you use the system to correct them, as it was designed to do. Or you modify the system / fighting strategy / tactics to do something else to fill the gap.

Some people will do the latter, claiming to be evolving the system based on their experience. But I would say perhaps they haven't understood the system to begin with and haven't given it a chance to do what it's supposed to do.

Unless one is already perfect, I see no need to change the system. Just train harder and keep improving upon errors you find in free fighting.


----------



## KPM (Apr 26, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Being dedicated doesn't mean they received much direct transmission, or that they understood the big picture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just reposting for the record, since some people tend to lose track of what they have actually said.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 26, 2016)

How is that any different from what I've been saying in each post here?


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That is not at all what I said.
> 
> An error in fighting is when something doesn't work right and possibly causes you to get hit or lose the fight. Why would anyone integrate errors into their system?
> 
> ...



I now know where my understanding of what you mean was off, you wrote:

"If instead the system is being modified to fill gaps, one's understanding is inverted. That's using errors to fix the system, rather than using the system to fix the errors."

I interpreted this as errors to fix the system meant people integrate errors into their styles in your view. You mean that errors during execution would change the style into something that is not errors but also no longer the same system. I can accept that view.

So is above text what you actually mean? Just so I know if this is where I missunderstood you.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 26, 2016)

Let's say for example that I keep getting hit because my _wu-sau_ is bad. It's always sleeping or I'm using bad lines.

I can use the VT system to train it in _chi-sau_ and _gwo-sau_ drills until I get it back up to fighting speed without it breaking down, then have a go again to see if it has improved. That's what the system is designed to do.

But if I don't understand the system as a corrective tool for free fighting, and more importantly don't know how to use it as such, I may just think the _wu-sau_ "technique" is flawed and attempt to "evolve" it by changing something about it, replacing it with something else, or changing my fighting strategy to remedy the problem.

Do that enough and I'll end up with something that is no longer VT with no guarantee that it's an actual improvement upon VT.

But again, as I said, how many people are actually using free fighting experience like that? I think most changes to the system come from people playing around with what works and doesn't work in _chi-sau_.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Let's say for example that I keep getting hit because my _wu-sau_ is bad. It's always sleeping or I'm using bad lines.
> 
> I can use the VT system to train it in _chi-sau_ and _gwo-sau_ drills until I get it back up to fighting speed without it breaking down, then have a go again to see if it has improved. That's what the system is designed to do.
> 
> ...



Ignoring that last comment since it is nothing but vinegar and will only cause unnecessary fighting or bickering here.

My view is that what you are describing is the reason why lineages can never find common terms. We are concept and not technique based so if I try to convince you that one "technique" should be done in a certain way, it wont work for you unless the other movements are changed as well. They are not techniques but movements, so I cant convince you that one needs to be changed or is done differently.... because all of them has to be in that case.

Not meaning you are doing it wrong, you are doing things differently. That is why you train WSLVT or even WSLPBVT perhaps and I don't.

I believe also in evolution, not in keeping the old. Not because system is flawed but because world is changing. And also my style differs to that of others, I am taller than most. My angles are never same as others.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 26, 2016)

LFJ said:


> What I said is that there are two ways of dealing with these errors. Either you use the system to correct them, as it was designed to do. Or you modify the system / fighting strategy / tactics to do something else to fill the gap.
> 
> Some people will do the latter, claiming to be evolving the system based on their experience. But I would say perhaps they haven't understood the system to begin with and haven't given it a chance to do what it's supposed to do.
> 
> Unless one is already perfect, I see no need to change the system. Just train harder and keep improving upon errors you find in free fighting.



Absolutely. 

I would add that if you don't believe in the system, then modify away to your hearts content. Or do something else. But to gap fill by changing things when an error is discovered is a gross misunderstanding of what the system is designed to do. This is why the various drills exist and are so important in VT. 



Phobius said:


> My view is that what you are describing is the reason why lineages can never find common terms. We are concept and not technique based so if I try to convince you that one "technique" should be done in a certain way, it wont work for you unless the other movements are changed as well.





Phobius said:


> That is why you train WSLVT or even WSLPBVT perhaps and I don't.



I don't agree that everything is ok when groups have radically different interpretations of the system or fighting strategy. Obviously one of those groups has gap filled, i.e. has not understood the purpose of the system.


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 26, 2016)

Phobius said:


> My view is that what you are describing is the reason why lineages can never find common terms. *We are concept and not technique based* so if I try to convince you that one "technique" should be done in a certain way, it wont work for you unless the other movements are changed as well. They are not techniques but movements, so I cant convince you that one needs to be changed or is done differently.... because all of them has to be in that case.



I think LFJ gave a good example with his Wu sao story.
And to your point, if the concept of Wu ("guarding" hand, or "protective" hand, whatever) for you is failing you consistently (i.e. the "concept" has gone to sleep under pressure) you can either chose to fix it or not. One would have to go back to system drills or whatever and analyze why/where/how your Wu concept became 'lazy' and fix it. (or live with the incessant fists in your teeth)


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> I think LFJ gave a good example with his Wu sao story.
> And to your point, if the concept of Wu ("guarding" hand, or "protective" hand, whatever) for you is failing you consistently (i.e. the "concept" has gone to sleep under pressure) you can either chose to fix it or not. One would have to go back to system drills or whatever and analyze why/where/how your Wu concept became 'lazy' and fix it. (or live with the incessant fists in your teeth)



That is my point.

I dont know why/if these things failed for you and you had to change things in your system. You see my point? I am not the one sayings things have to be wrong to be different, my belief is that things are different because people are. I have seen that if someone would copy my movements they would not follow the concepts of the system. So styles have to be different.

So if things are different because they don't work that is you that needs to answer that statement.

To emphasize and give an example, when punching people in the face most often I punch in straight or downward angle. When others punch me they often punch in an upward angle. Concepts are the same, movements are not.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

Oh and to clarify. If a movement fails then yes one needs to go back to drills to figure out why and resolve it. 

We are talking about differences between lineages and even within such as between PB and DP.  

Not basic training to improve.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 26, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Oh and to clarify. If a movement fails then yes one needs to go back to drills to figure out why and resolve it.
> 
> We are talking about differences between lineages and even within such as between PB and DP.
> 
> Not basic training to improve.



Gap filling is often how such differences arise.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 26, 2016)

Phobius said:


> That is my point.
> 
> I dont know why/if these things failed for you and you had to change things in your system. You see my point?



I don't see your point. LFJ's point is that you don't change the system if things fail- you use the system to correct your error.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Gap filling is often how such differences arise.



Which is an OK answer. Was just misunderstanding LFJ thinking he said differences were errors introduced or introduced because of errors in their training.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I don't see your point. LFJ's point is that you don't change the system if things fail- you use the system to correct your error.



 Who do you claim changed a system to correct their errors?


----------



## guy b. (Apr 26, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Which is an OK answer. Was just misunderstanding LFJ thinking he said differences were errors introduced or introduced because of errors in their training.



I believe you are not understanding LFJ's point. He is saying that VT is a self correction system. When you discover an error through sparring or fighting, VT provides a self contained error correction process allowing you to fix your error before going back to a pressure situation, where more errors will arise. In this way we get better.

If instead of looking within the system to fix your error, you instead graft something on, change something, re-invent something then you are filling the gap in your current knowledge and skill set with something not VT. This is gap filling.



Phobius said:


> Who do you claim changed a system to correct their errors?



Apparently most of the people who learned something from YM did this, resulting in current systemic differences


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I believe you are not understanding LFJ's point. He is saying that VT is a self correction system. When you discover an error through sparring or fighting, VT provides a self contained error correction process allowing you to fix your error before going back to a pressure situation, where more errors will arise. In this way we get better.



Everyone does this, it is called basic training. 



guy b. said:


> If instead of looking within the system to fix your error, you instead graft something on, change something, re-invent something then you are filling the gap in your current knowledge and skill set with something not VT. This is gap filling.



That can then be argued towards you,  me and all. Because WC was changed by YM. 




guy b. said:


> Apparently most of the people who learned something from YM did this, resulting in current systemic differences


----------



## guy b. (Apr 26, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Everyone does this, it is called basic training.



Not everyone does this. Some people gap fill, resulting in changes to the system.



Phobius said:


> That can then be argued towards you, me and all. Because WC was changed by YM.



VT is what was taught by YM. Changes since that time by various people as a result of gap filling have produced the various things calling themselves VT that exist today.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Not everyone does this. Some people gap fill, resulting in changes to the system.
> 
> 
> 
> VT is what was taught by YM. Changes since that time by various people as a result of gap filling have produced the various things calling themselves VT that exist today.



This is not true. WSL made changes to your system from what was taught by YM. Not saying it was bad, just different.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 26, 2016)

I am pretty certain WSL's wing chun looked a lot different from what YM taught. I think PB's probably looks different from WSL's. 

WSL was known as an innovator. There are plenty of stories of him making adjustments and improving his system according to his focus and needs. WSL footwork is something that I have not seen in other wing chun lineages. I don't believe YM taught it. I think he came up with it himself and it works bloody well. 

I believe WSL's approach was to make Wing CHun your own and continue to evolve and refine it. He had an aggressive competitive mindset and a win the fight at all costs type approach. I believe he was highly influential with YM's school as someone that other students looked up to. It seems YM had a much more peaceful and passive mindset. 

But WSL wing chun is just one expression of wing chun based on a particular focus and mindset. Yes, WSL had a certain mindset and approach that was his own and to some extent has been passed down to his students. 


Now gap-filling is a somewhat dismissive term that implies someone didn't learn something as well as they should have. This is pure and unadulterated snobbery and a pile of steaming BS. There is infinite room for differences in expression, interpretation, focus etc. It is also quite well known that YM taught his students differently. 

And the fact is guys, WSL did miss some things that you can find in other lineages. I believe this was because he was heavily focussed on application and fighting. I am not going to expand on this and start a lineage war because this argument is already tiresome. The fact is WSL had a focus and got good at that. Nuff said. Every wing chun teacher under YM has a slightly different take and focus and are good and took their wing chun in that direction. 

Phaebus is right in pointing out that YM changed things himself. His wing chun looks quite different from fhe stuff that his kung fu brothers and sisters learned. Also it is different from the stuff he taught before moving to HK. I mean, there is even some evidence that he added the knife form a Weng Chun guy in HK. Who knows?


----------



## Phobius (Apr 26, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> WSL footwork is something that I have not seen in other wing chun lineages. I don't believe YM taught it. I think he came up with it himself and it works bloody well.



Now this got me curious. Something I would definitively love to learn/read/hear more about.

Do you have any good source of information on this? Mean it could be a book, dvd, youtube or maybe nothing exists other than practising it firsthand from a WSL teacher (I believe the later to be priority but also way more difficult since it is harder to find locally)


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 26, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> WSL footwork is something that I have not seen in other wing chun lineages. I don't believe YM taught it. I think he came up with it himself and it works bloody well.



Interesting. Care to explain this a bit more?


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 26, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I mean, there is even some evidence that he added the knife form a Weng Chun guy in HK. Who knows?



Hadn't heard of this before...any further info or links where one can research further? Thx.


----------



## KPM (Apr 26, 2016)

wckf92 said:


> Hadn't heard of this before...any further info or links where one can research further? Thx.




The story has likely gotten distorted a bit....like a game of "telephone."  ;-)   Weng Chun does not have the knives.  The story is actually that Ip Man knew the Weng Chun guys that trained at the Dai Duk Lan, probably saw Tang Yik doing the pole form on more than one occasion and may have picked up some pole moves that way. 

Realize that Andreas Hoffman has the knives in his "Chi Sim Weng Chun" system.  But this is a modern-day conglomeration system.  His knives actually come from Pan Nam Wing Chun!


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 26, 2016)

KPM .... I stand corrected. Think I got that from Sergeo! 
But the point remains the same. YM in his wisdom decided to add it in even though he wasn't taught it from his orignal teacher. 

The footwork I have seen from lineage to lineage differs a lot. With WSL footwork, the hand structure is supported by the footwork. Just as a basic example, if I tan or jut a strike, the WSL approach would be to step off the line and the same leg steps back as the side that does the tan or jut. What this means is that if someone presses that arm structure, the force goes into the back leg and can be held by the stance. What I see with a lot of other lineages is the other leg being used. So if their arm structure gets pressured their stance and footing cant hold it because their is no support. Their pros and cons for both approaches ... I have since discovered. However, the WSL approach is the one that is stronger structurally.


----------



## wckf92 (Apr 26, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> KPM .... I stand corrected. Think I got that from Sergeo!
> But the point remains the same. YM in his wisdom decided to add it in even though *he wasn't taught it from his orignal teacher*.
> 
> The footwork I have seen from lineage to lineage differs a lot. With WSL footwork, the *hand structure is supported by the footwork*. Just as a basic example, if I tan or jut a strike, the WSL approach would be to *step off the line and the same leg steps back as the side that does the tan or jut. What this means is that if someone presses that arm structure, the force goes into the back leg and can be held by the stance. What I see with a lot of other lineages is the other leg being used*. So if their arm structure gets pressured their stance and footing cant hold it because their is no support. Their pros and cons for both approaches ... I have since discovered. However, the WSL approach is the one that is stronger structurally.




Is it known that YM was not taught the knives from his original teacher(?)

As for the footwork example, it is difficult to picture what you are saying but "hand structure is supported by the footwork" is, I thought, common in WC.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 26, 2016)

I don't think so from my understanding, but I am not a historian. I read an article with Lun Gai (YM's student in Foshan). He said they were no knives seen or taught. People researching this say that YM definitely picked it up later in life.



wckf92 said:


> As for the footwork example, it is difficult to picture what you are saying but "hand structure is supported by the footwork" is, I thought, common in WC.



Yeah this is where you get some huge variance in ideas.
So in the same way that you would get a more powerful punch from a right cross supported by the right foot back, you get more power and support from the ground by punching/paking/taning with the same side foot back. If I, say, jabbed a Wonger with my left arm, he might, say, pak that with his right hand while stepping off the line and stepping back with his right. If while I am punching, I read this a little and decide to change the angle of force of my punch to disrupt or his pak hand and open him, I am going to have a hard time because the force and direction of his pak will be line up with his back leg. Their Pak will hold. 

Now with other WC approaches to this, another leg is often used. What this means is that if I press that same pak they will be off-balanced and be forced to step (maybe change their arm structure). However, there are advantages in other ways to do things. 

And there other approaches also.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> WSL was known as an innovator. There are plenty of stories of him making adjustments and improving his system according to his focus and needs.



What stories? The only one I hear is having _gaang-sau_ added to SNT. You can call that an adjustment and improvement to the system, allowing that action to be taught sooner, but it's not actually changing anything about VT.



> WSL footwork is something that I have not seen in other wing chun lineages. I don't believe YM taught it. I think he came up with it himself and it works bloody well.



That's a bloody uninformed opinion. WSL footwork is contained in the forms, like the dummy and knives. YM obviously taught this footwork. There are videos of him on the dummy.

Most other lineages also have (kinda) this footwork in forms, but don't appear to understand the tactical ideas of it applied to free fighting.



> I believe WSL's approach was to make Wing CHun your own and continue to evolve and refine it.



And what do you base this belief on? Certainly not any quote from him. When asked if he made any changes to VT, WSL said he taught what YM taught, only perhaps more systematically.

He said that the theory of VT is perfect for what it's meant to accomplish and it doesn't need any changes, only that the BJ form (outside the core strategy of VT) may be open-ended. Only humans are not perfect, so we need to train harder, not go about making changes to things that don't need changing.

Your belief seems to be based on the desire for all different approaches to be justified under the "evolution" rationale.



> Now gap-filling is a somewhat dismissive term that implies someone didn't learn something as well as they should have. This is pure and unadulterated snobbery and a pile of steaming BS. There is infinite room for differences in expression, interpretation, focus etc. It is also quite well known that YM taught his students differently.



Or... it's just an uncomfortable truth.

You really think YM taught dozens of radically different methods of VT?? That's highly illogical.



> And the fact is guys, WSL did miss some things that you can find in other lineages. I believe this was because he was heavily focussed on application and fighting.



If your position is for evolution in other lineages, then WSL didn't miss things. Other lineages invented them. But since he was more focussed on fighting, he didn't mess around with _chi-sau_ tricks and blind theories.

You even admitted that your lineage cares less about applicability than it does playing around with structure and forces. So you shouldn't take offense to that. Just a different focus.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

Phobius said:


> This is not true. WSL made changes to your system from what was taught by YM. Not saying it was bad, just different.



What did WSL change?


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2016)

Phobius said:


> LFJ said:
> 
> 
> > But again, as I said, how many people are actually using free fighting experience like that? I think most changes to the system come from people playing around with what works and doesn't work in _chi-sau_.
> ...



It's not though...
_
Chi-sau_ as a "laboratory" is something I've heard other lineages say. I didn't make it up.

Here is an example of how one lineage uses _chi-sau_ as a laboratory to suss out techniques and theories through energy riddles. He's thinking hard and asking "_how do I move your structure_", "_how come I can't use your force_", etc..






This is taking "techniques" from the forms and experimenting with them in _chi-sau_. This makes the system a one-way street, from forms to _chi-sau_ to fighting.

If things don't work quite right in fighting they'll continue experimenting with the techniques and theories in _chi-sau_. Over time, the entire system changes and we have dozens of lineages doing things radically different from one another.

This is only one example. You can find many lineages playing around with energy riddles like this. That's how things change. They say "_oh, when you press on my taan-sau I can do this_". The problem is, that is only relevant in a _chi-sau_ exchange with a likeminded partner. None of this is going to happen in a fight.

_Chi-sau_ is to fix free fighting errors and condition attributes, not experiment and create theories in a format far removed from reality.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I am pretty certain WSL's wing chun looked a lot different from what YM taught. I think PB's probably looks different from WSL's.



Why do you think this?



> WSL was known as an innovator. There are plenty of stories of him making adjustments and improving his system according to his focus and needs. WSL footwork is something that I have not seen in other wing chun lineages. I don't believe YM taught it. I think he came up with it himself and it works bloody well.



Why do you think YM didn't teach the footwork of the system?



> I believe WSL's approach was to make Wing CHun your own and continue to evolve and refine it.



WSL himself said that he taught YM's system. What makes you believe differently?



> But WSL wing chun is just one expression of wing chun based on a particular focus and mindset. Yes, WSL had a certain mindset and approach that was his own and to some extent has been passed down to his students.



VT is an internally coherent and consistent fighting system. Changing parts of the system does not result in equally valid expressions of that system. It just results in breaks and disconnects.



> Now gap-filling is a somewhat dismissive term that implies someone didn't learn something as well as they should have.



What would you prefer to call it when the error correcting method of the system is not used, and errors in knowledge and technique are instead plugged with other ideas? I think you are reading emotion into the term where none exists, possibly because you study a type of VT where this has happened. If you think that it is better to gap fill than to use the error correcting methods of the system then feel free to call it whatever you like. How about "VT system failure and discovery"? Many people do this kind of thing.



> This is pure and unadulterated snobbery and a pile of steaming BS. There is infinite room for differences in expression, interpretation, focus etc. It is also quite well known that YM taught his students differently.



Why is it BS to argue that the system contains what it needs already? I think it is well known that YM was a guy who didn't care too much about outcomes for the vast majority of his students. I don't think we know that YM intentionally taught completely different understandings of the things in the system. We can piece together what happened usually by looking at consistency and coherence of ideas.



> And the fact is guys, WSL did miss some things that you can find in other lineages. I believe this was because he was heavily focussed on application and fighting. I am not going to expand on this and start a lineage war because this argument is already tiresome



What did WSL miss out on? I would like to know so that I can seek it out.



> Every wing chun teacher under YM has a slightly different take and focus



There are plausible reasons for this state of affairs



> Phaebus is right in pointing out that YM changed things himself. His wing chun looks quite different from fhe stuff that his kung fu brothers and sisters learned. Also it is different from the stuff he taught before moving to HK. I mean, there is even some evidence that he added the knife form a Weng Chun guy in HK. Who knows?



VT is what was taught by YM. I don't have much interest in other mainland systems


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 27, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That's a bloody uninformed opinion. WSL footwork is contained in the forms, like the dummy and knives. YM obviously taught this footwork. There are videos of him on the dummy.
> 
> Most other lineages also have (kinda) this footwork in forms, but don't appear to understand the tactical ideas of it applied to free fighting.



That's why I said "I think" and not pretend to talk from an absolute position of authority like you seem to like to do. Of course I don't know exactly what YM taught. But neither do you. There's footwork in the forms (which doesn't differ too much from lineage to lineage), and then there is the footwork in application to a strike or in fighting. This is what I am referring to. I can only assume WSL made it up because I haven't seen it used in other lineages and it seems to suit the general WSL approach, mindset and focus. I think Sifu Darren said this is WSL footwork, but whatever. 



LFJ said:


> Most other lineages also have (kinda) this footwork in forms, but don't appear to understand the tactical ideas of it applied to free fighting.



Your whole attitude seems to be that everyone else has got it wrong. If you love WSL so much, what's wrong with any notion that he developed something like the footwork. WC wasn't a gift from the heavens nor was it necessarily made by enlightened beings. It was made by people. WSL is a person. At a certain point his expertise could have reached a level where he could have made his own judgement to make improvements or adjustments wherever he saw fit ..... and rightly so. 



LFJ said:


> You really think YM taught dozens of radically different methods of VT?? That's highly illogical.



Never the less, we often heard about how YM taught students differently based on certain characteristics of the student. That certainly explains the variance. Or perhaps he just provided a series of theories and concepts leaving students to work things out themselves. Many students under Yip Man have said this also. 
Then there is the LFJ theory, which states that YM taught in a very specific way and WSL was the only one paying attention. 



LFJ said:


> Your belief seems to be based on the desire for all different approaches to be justified under the "evolution" rationale.



My belief is not so much evolution based, but one of specialisation. Different students gave different levels of importance and focus to the things that YM taught them and specialised in that. 



LFJ said:


> If your position is for evolution in other lineages, then WSL didn't miss things. Other lineages invented them. But since he was more focussed on fighting, he didn't mess around with _chi-sau_ tricks and blind theories.



You don't know exactly what YM taught. Only his direct students know that. You have no way of knowing either way if other students added things or learned them directly from YM. 

Your hero worship of WSL is so strong that you have a really limited perspective. It seems your reverence for him is so unbending, that you don't see him as anything less than a perfect representation of wing chun. There is no possibility that while he might have been great at some things, he might not have been great at others (like all of us! He is human after all). 

Seems strange that you even bother on a forum where we try to communicate our passion for wing chun across lineages. It is also sad that you further isolate yourself from WSL lineage teachers that are not PB derived. 



LFJ said:


> You even admitted that your lineage cares less about applicability than it does playing around with structure and forces. So you shouldn't take offense to that. Just a different focus.


Yep, and these skills were things YM could also do.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> There's footwork in the forms (which doesn't differ too much from lineage to lineage), and then there is the footwork in application to a strike or in fighting. This is what I am referring to. I can only assume WSL made it up because I haven't seen it used in other lineages and it seems to suit the general WSL approach, mindset and focus.



As I said, there is a disconnect in some lineages that share similar footwork in forms, but don't appear to understand the tactical application of it in free fighting.

Rather than assume WSL made it up, just look at fighting experience. Those with less or no fighting experience have worse footwork.



> If you love WSL so much, what's wrong with any notion that he developed something like the footwork. WC wasn't a gift from the heavens nor was it necessarily made by enlightened beings. It was made by people. WSL is a person. At a certain point his expertise could have reached a level where he could have made his own judgement to make improvements or adjustments wherever he saw fit ..... and rightly so.



Because I don't just make blind assumptions. WSL was directly asked if he made any changes to the system. He said the system didn't need any changes. He would be stupid to make changes if he believed that then, wouldn't he? How much clearer could that be?



> My belief is not so much evolution based, but one of specialisation. Different students gave different levels of importance and focus to the things that YM taught them and specialised in that.



Okay, I think that is a bad idea, because the system is meant for all parts to work as a whole. If you focus on certain things to the extent that the fighting strategy and tactics are changed, it will cause short circuits in the functioning of the system.



> Your hero worship of WSL is so strong that you have a really limited perspective. It seems your reverence for him is so unbending, that you don't see him as anything less than a perfect representation of wing chun. There is no possibility that while he might have been great at some things, he might not have been great at others (like all of us! He is human after all).



WSL was just the teacher. It's the system that is theoretically "perfect". Of course, we humans are not. I've never said WSL was perfect. But he clearly understood the system in its entirety.


----------



## Wing Chun Auckland (Apr 27, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Because I don't just make blind assumptions. WSL was directly asked if he made any changes to the system. He said the system didn't need any changes. He would be stupid to make changes if he believed that then, wouldn't he? How much clearer could that be?



Right. So you are basing your whole theory that WSL has the most complete and cloeset version to Yip Man on this thing that WSL said? 



LFJ said:


> As I said, there is a disconnect in some lineages that share similar footwork in forms, but don't appear to understand the tactical application of it in free fighting.
> Rather than assume WSL made it up, just look at fighting experience. Those with less or no fighting experience have worse footwork.



Yep so deficit thinking again. My sifu knows best. WSL is right and everyone else is wrong. Others didn't fight as much so missed the point. 



LFJ said:


> Okay, I think that is a bad idea, because the system is meant for all parts to work as a whole. If you focus on certain things to the extent that the fighting strategy and tactics are changed, it will cause short circuits in the functioning of the system.



How do you know what the sytem was meant for? How do you know if a system will short circuit? 

Im glad you like PB/wsl man I really am, good for you. I have my own reverence for my wing chun line. I just don't think its good form to run around telling everyone else that their wing chun is ***** and that we have the holy grail of wing chun. It gets tiresome and we are not kids anymore. This whole my daddy is better than you daddy BS is getting old. 
Im done with this conversation.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Right. So you are basing your whole theory that WSL has the most complete and cloeset version to Yip Man on this thing that WSL said?



It is also possible to tell by looking at the coherence and consistency of the system. Contradiction often indicates gap filling.



Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Yep so deficit thinking again. My sifu knows best. WSL is right and everyone else is wrong. Others didn't fight as much so missed the point.



I don't think LFJ is saying that WSL is the only person who understood the footwork as taught by YM. There is no need to be emotional about it- if you are happy with your footwork and the thinking behind it then is that not good enough for you? If you would like to discuss details of footwork then please go ahead.



Wing Chun Auckland said:


> How do you know what the sytem was meant for? How do you know if a system will short circuit?



VT is for fighting. The teaching of strategy is in the system. Short circuits are due to lack of systematic coherence. If you change something in terms of strategy then contradiction and incoherence usually results.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> I just don't think its good form to run around telling everyone else that their wing chun is *****



Nobody is doing this, and yet everyone seems to read criticism into what is written on the page. Strange.

If your VT functions and you are happy about the thinking behind what you do, then what is there to be offended about? Why shy away from discussion of details?


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

Wing Chun Auckland said:


> Im done with this conversation



I hope you will continue. I am keen to hear what you think WSL VT lacks that other branches contain. If it will help my understanding then I am all for it.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> Nobody is doing this, and yet everyone seems to read criticism into what is written on the page. Strange.
> 
> If your VT functions and you are happy about the thinking behind what you do, then what is there to be offended about? Why shy away from discussion of details?



Discussions on details are what we are doing, you guys (you and LFJ) are turning those detail discussions into a "my art is better than yours" mess.

It is abundantly clear that you want to avoid breaking the rules while at the same time claiming to be the only true lineage of WC.

Your claims are the following:
1. WSLPBVT is the one and only true lineage of WC dating back to YM teachings.
2. All teachers that fight differently to PB and WSL have not learnt or understand the full picture of WC.
3. If you do not learn the system as a whole it will short circuit and break.
4. All systems not like WSLPBVT are doing gap filling, because they have errors they do not correct by following their own system but instead integrate or innovate new solutions.
5. If you train something else you are not becoming as good in fighting as if you trained WSLPBVT.

Now you are wondering why people get offended, you are ruining a perfectly interesting discussion on details by adding ignorant nonsense. Oh and yes you are doing it in such a clever way that you do not break any rules. Problem is not your opinion, we all believe that our art is the best there is. If we don't we should train something else.

But we do not all believe our art is perfect, that is in my view kind of an ignorant point of view. A perfect art would be unbeatable and lets face it, it does not exist. Life would be so boring being a martial artist if we could become unbeatable.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> I hope you will continue. I am keen to hear what you think WSL VT lacks that other branches contain. If it will help my understanding then I am all for it.



We already know you are not interested in hearing anything. Arguing with you is like trying to have a discussion on the diversity of religion to a fanatic. Before the first word is said we already know there is nothing of value that will be added.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Your claims are the following:
> 1. WSLPBVT is the one and only true lineage of WC dating back to YM teachings.
> 2. All teachers that fight differently to PB and WSL have not learnt or understand the full picture of WC.
> 3. If you do not learn the system as a whole it will short circuit and break.
> ...



I can't agree with all of these. Please provide quotes and I will address.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Discussions on details are what we are doing, you guys (you and LFJ) are turning those detail discussions into a "my art is better than yours" mess.



Not so. I just said changing the system to fix errors, rather than allowing the system to do its job and fix them, over time will result in something other than VT.

If the updated version works better for you than VT, that's great. But it shouldn't be called VT anymore.

And there's no guarantee that it would be better than VT, if you've never given the system a chance to do what it's supposed to do.



> A perfect art would be unbeatable and lets face it, it does not exist.



Not so. Because humans are not perfect. That's the great thing about VT. If the theory is perfect, we can keep using the self-correction tools to constantly improve and move toward perfection, even if it's always unattainable. It's the direction that's important and moving there.

Go about changing things that don't need changing though, especially for lack of understanding, and the direction is quite possibly lost.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

Phobius said:


> We already know you are not interested in hearing anything. Arguing with you is like trying to have a discussion on the diversity of religion to a fanatic. Before the first word is said we already know there is nothing of value that will be added.



On the contrary I am very keen to discuss details. I think the main problem is that some people seem to have an unwritten rule that discussion participants must accept everything as universally valid and equal. I am not a relativist and so I find this impossible to do. That doesn't mean that I am denigrating your position, which you have presumably justified to yourself in some way. We need to discuss the justifications, i.e. the details, in order to get anywhere, but people generally get offended before this happens.

Examples of things I would be interested to hear details about from recent threads include:

1. Deficiencies in WSL teachings, mentioned by WC Auckland on this thread. Things that WSL didn't get from YM. Problems with WSL VT.
2. CST power generation and structure is often mentioned but never in detail. I would be interested to hear about how it works and why it is different.
3. Any details about HKM VT. Most interested in differences with WSL VT
4. Tang Yik pole details. I hear it is great, but no details available.
5. CSL force flow. What is it? Nothing is available from HS that makes any sense to me.

I would be happy to discuss any of these topics in great detail.


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Not so. I just said changing the system to fix errors, rather than allowing the system to do its job and fix them, over time will result in something other than VT.
> 
> If the updated version works better for you than VT, that's great. But it shouldn't be called VT anymore.
> 
> ...



This is a general point that could apply to many traditional Chinese MA systems. I don't see what there is to be offended about?

I assume many people are already using the system in the way it was designed to be used. No offence should be taken by those people. Those who feel differently about the purpose and methods of the system generally feel that evolving the system through time is the best approach. Again I don't see why those people would be offended by those who feel that taking a more conventional approach to the system is the right way to go.

What is the problem?


----------



## Phobius (Apr 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> On the contrary I am very keen to discuss details. I think the main problem is that some people seem to have an unwritten rule that discussion participants must accept everything as universally valid and equal. I am not a relativist and so I find this impossible to do. That doesn't mean that I am denigrating your position, which you have presumably justified to yourself in some way. We need to discuss the justifications, i.e. the details, in order to get anywhere, but people generally get offended before this happens.
> 
> Examples of things I would be interested to hear details about from recent threads include:
> 
> ...



Then please stop making every single thread a forum for you to explain that your art is flawless and true and at same time saying that there can be no other flawless or true WC/WT/WC unless it is identical to yours.

Now for discussion.

Out of those topics you are interested in, only bullet 1 was discussed in this thread and that was only after you started stating that any and all differences compared to your art are gap filling or errors.

I am not arguing or saying this because you are hurting my feelings, I could care less what you believe about your art. I am just annoyed that you destroy any discussion that is ongoing between other people that are not you.


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2016)

LSJ wrote:
_WSL was directly asked if he made any changes to the system. He said the system didn't need any changes. He would be stupid to make changes if he believed that then, wouldn't he? How much clearer could that be?_

_---_You live and work in China, don't you?   How do you not understand the Traditional CMA mindset?  This mindset prefers to say something is "traditional" rather than "new and improved."  This mindset sees attributing innovation and changes in a system to an ancestor, rather than taking credit for it yourself, as a way of showing respect.  This mindset would think that telling people that you had changed what your Sifu taught you was a sign of disrespect to that teacher. 

---Wing Chun is see as being conceptually based and not technique based, is it not?  So would not different people express a concept or principle differently than others?   WSL is often quoted as saying something like.....Wing Chun is a skill, not an art.  Be its master, not its slave.  To me, that allows some variance in how it is understood and used.

---We've reached the same contentious conclusion here as we have in other threads.   As much as they try to dance around the point, LFJ and Guy still end up concluding that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught.   So if no one else does things like WSL, then that has to mean that everyone else either didn't learn it well, or were too stupid to get what Ip Man was really teaching.  Therefore WSL was clearly the only one that got  the "real" thing from Ip Man!   To the assertion that Wing Chun is a conceptually based system and that Ip Man may have taught different things to different people based on their body type or understanding, and that people chose to emphasize or interpret things as worked for them best.....LFJ and Guy respond:   _You really think YM taught dozens of radically different methods of VT?? That's highly illogical.    _Without even realizing that their own conclusion is even more illogical!   You regulars that have been around for awhile should be having a sense of "deju vu" by now!


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Then please stop making every single thread a forum for you to explain that your art is flawless and true and at same time saying that there can be no other flawless or true WC/WT/WC unless it is identical to yours.



I am not saying this. You seem to be reading what you want into what I wrote.



Phobius said:


> Out of those topics you are interested in, only bullet 1 was discussed in this thread



I wasn't expecting to discuss all of those topics in this particular thread. I was showing that there are many different topics which have been raised here and which I am interested in learning more about. That these have not been pursued often seems down to people getting offended by direct questions.



> that was only after you started stating that any and all differences compared to your art are gap filling or errors



But I didn't say this?



Phobius said:


> I am not arguing or saying this because you are hurting my feelings, I could care less what you believe about your art. I am just annoyed that you destroy any discussion



If you are feeling annoyed then isn't it true that you are having an emotional response to something I wrote?


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> LFJ and Guy still end up concluding that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught



I do think this.



KPM said:


> So if no one else does things like WSL, then that has to mean that everyone else either didn't learn it well, or were too stupid to get what Ip Man was really teaching. Therefore WSL was clearly the only one that got the "real" thing from Ip Man!



This is one explanation. You are free not to believe it. What we both believe doesn't hurt the other, and I see no reason for it to be something that constantly annoys anyone.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> _---_You live and work in China, don't you?



Not in the Qing Dynasty. Your concept of China is a little outdated.



> ---Wing Chun is see as being conceptually based and not technique based, is it not?  So would not different people express a concept or principle differently than others?



Major differences in strategy and tactics would come from concepts and principles not being clearly defined or understood. I don't believe they are just open to interpretation, and that every interpretation is equally valid.



> WSL is often quoted as saying something like.....Wing Chun is a skill, not an art.  Be its master, not its slave.  To me, that allows some variance in how it is understood and used.



That's because you're quoting him without context and don't know specifically what he was referring to.


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2016)

_Not in the Qing Dynasty. Your concept of China is a little outdated._

---If you think those things only apply to the Qing Dynasty, then I would have to question your experience with and exposure to Traditional CMAs despite your past claim to be such an avid researcher.



_Major differences in strategy and tactics would come from concepts and principles not being clearly defined or understood. I don't believe they are just open to interpretation, and that every interpretation is equally valid_.

---Then you need to look up the definition of "concept."   Something not open to interpretation or variety in application would be more of a "law" than a "concept."


----------



## KPM (Apr 27, 2016)

guy b. said:


> This is one explanation. You are free not to believe it. What we both believe doesn't hurt the other, and I see no reason for it to be something that constantly annoys anyone.



So you really don't see why constantly telling people that don't do WSLVT that they are doing things wrong or have understood wrong or have "gap filled"....would be annoying?


----------



## guy b. (Apr 27, 2016)

KPM said:


> So you really don't see why constantly telling people that don't do WSLVT that they are doing things wrong or have understood wrong or have "gap filled"....would be annoying?



I don't think that I am constantly doing this. On this thread LFJ talked about gap filling vs the normal YM VT process of using pressure to expose errors, then using the system to correct those. I wasn't aware that he accused any particular person of doing this and thought he was just speaking in general terms?


----------



## Phobius (Apr 27, 2016)

Just ignore guy b. And LFJ and let's continue with future discussions. This one died.


----------



## LFJ (Apr 27, 2016)

I agree.

And I _was_ speaking in general terms of how to approach the system and deal with errors in fighting. 

And I didn't say the alternative to my approach will _necessarily_ lead to a worse outcome, but that with time it will certainly develop something fundamentally different from VT.


----------



## Phobius (Apr 27, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I agree.
> 
> And I _was_ speaking in general terms of how to approach the system and deal with errors in fighting.
> 
> And I didn't say the alternative to my approach will _necessarily_ lead to a worse outcome, but that with time it will certainly develop something fundamentally different from VT.



And I said my opinion of that is that it is expected as standard training practice in most if not all martial arts. Not arguing against you. 

It wasn't until later it went off topic like crazy.

No lineage is more pure,  true or better than any other. Reason is not because they can't be but because it is impossible to prove.

With WSLPBVT it seems rather influenced by PB's physical advantage. And yes I believe he or WSL made an interpretation for him that turns what most see as a disadvantage into a weapon that most should never want to fight.

I admire it greatly but also hold unproven and not yet debated concerns that his interpretation is not as advantageous, but in no way bad, for others.


----------



## Vajramusti (Apr 27, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Just ignore guy b. And LFJ and let's continue with future discussions. This one died.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its been dead for a while imo


----------



## LFJ (Apr 28, 2016)

KPM said:


> _Not in the Qing Dynasty. Your concept of China is a little outdated._
> 
> ---If you think those things only apply to the Qing Dynasty, then I would have to question your experience with and exposure to Traditional CMAs despite your past claim to be such an avid researcher.



lol, That was sarcasm, bud. Means I don't live in the China of 100+ years ago. People aren't crediting their innovations to deities anymore, or falsely claiming an ancestor taught what they made up themselves - except for the deceitful ones.



> _Major differences in strategy and tactics would come from concepts and principles not being clearly defined or understood. I don't believe they are just open to interpretation, and that every interpretation is equally valid._
> 
> ---Then you need to look up the definition of "concept."   Something not open to interpretation or variety in application would be more of a "law" than a "concept."



Not open to variety in application is your addition. Not what I said.

A concept is an abstract idea, but the thinking behind it can still be clearly explained so that people don't run off free to interpret it in whatever way they want.

It could manifest in many ways, but if we come away with contradictory strategies and tactics, then we obviously don't share the same thinking. The concept has not been understood by all.


----------

