# wing chun history is not important



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Wing chun history is not important. It doesn't really matter if hands developed from pole in 1854, if Yip Man stole his pole from Tang Yik, if he lifted the story of Ng Mui from a trashy work of fiction, if someone saw western boxing and tried to copy it but ended up creating wing chun, or if WSL made up VT himself after learning nothing from YM. These things are interesting to discuss, and certain theories make more sense than others, but they mean nothing in the end. 

All that is meaningful to us now is the system we can learn in the present. To judge this against alternatives we can look at its effectiveness in fighting, how sensible and adaptable its central concepts and theories are, how simple and optimised it is for the job it is designed to do, how much baggage it contains, its learning method in terms of time spent vs effectiveness, and its general culture and the kind of people it attracts. 

Falling out about history is stupid. It is not worth making such things personal.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

Funny, coming from the guy that has been so insistent that his theory represents "truth" regardless of what the majority believes, regardless of what has been passed down through lineages as tradition, and regardless of logical arguments presented against it!  I believe the word here is "ironic."  ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

I've never pretended to speak from a perspective other than my own. Truth is not a popularity contest, but at the end of the day historical truth is not really that important in a fighting system. Other things are much more important. 

Some methods of judging such a system are presented above, please discuss.


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I've never pretended to speak from a perspective other than my own. Truth is not a popularity contest, but at the end of the day historical truth is not really that important in a fighting system. Other things are much more important.
> 
> Some methods of judging such a system are presented above, please discuss.



In case you may not have realized it, your theory was about the HISTORICAL origins of Wing Chun empty hands.  Hence the irony. ;-)


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

There's no irony because I have not fallen out with you. I just find these things interesting to discuss. You are the only one that seems upset.


----------



## geezer (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> There's no irony because I have not fallen out with you. I just find these things interesting to discuss. You are the only one that seems upset.



Yeah. I also find these things interesting to discuss and I agree that, from a practical point of view, some of these unresolvable historical arguments are unimportant compared to maintaining good and effective WC in the present. That also means less emphasis on lineage and keeping an open mind about different approaches that prove to be practical.

On the other hand, Keith was right. You _did _make a pretty big deal about the pole coming first. Which it might have I guess. But I just thought you were nuts. And that's exactly how a lot of people feel about me. So I felt a kindred spirit. Nothing like a bit of argument to keep things lively, anyway.  

Imagine my disappointment when LFJ weighed in and I found that you are not a lone nutcase, but rather your point of view was actually a WSL lineage thing. 

Anyway what's more interesting to me than what's "right or wrong" is _why_ you felt the pole is so essential to the nature or WC hands. That could be useful information for the practice of WC in the present, regardless of the history of the art.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

geezer said:


> You _did _make a pretty big deal about the pole coming first. Which it might have I guess. But I just thought you were nuts. And that's exactly how a lot of people feel about me.



That's ok with me, lol. You can think what you like. 



> Imagine my disappointment when LFJ weighed in and I found that you are not a lone nutcase, but rather your point of view was actually a WSL lineage thing.



It is pretty standard WSLVT. The historical part is an extrapolation for fun, but it makes sense in the context of the wing chun I practice.



> Anyway what's more interesting to me than what's "right or wrong" is _why_ you felt the pole is so essential to the nature or WC hands. That could be useful information for the practice of WC in the present, regardless of the history of the art.



I have tried to elaborate on this, and there is some info there in the threads, but KPM's (over) zealous fire fighting job on the issue kind of extinguished the discussion. Feel free to pick it up again if you like.


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 26, 2015)

How the hell does one come to the conclusion that YM got his pole form from Tang Yik? Those two forms are literally nothing alike.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 26, 2015)

Wing Chun, Taijiquan, Karate, The Car, the Computer, the light bulb, gardening, US, Europe, China, World......History is important*.





*


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> How the hell does one come to the conclusion that YM got his pole form from Tang Yik? Those two forms are literally nothing alike.



No idea


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Wing Chun, Taijiquan, Karate, The Car, the Computer, the light bulb, gardening, US, Europe, China, World......History is important.




It is important if you know what happened. If you don't then...
*
*


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> There's no irony because I have not fallen out with you. I just find these things interesting to discuss. You are the only one that seems upset.



Oh, I'm not upset.  I just found it ironic that you are writing a post to say how history is unimportant after spending so much time trying to convince us of the truth of your own theory on Wing Chun's historical origins.  If you don't see the irony in that....well....


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> How the hell does one come to the conclusion that YM got his pole form from Tang Yik? Those two forms are literally nothing alike.



No one here has come to that conclusion!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 26, 2015)

KPM said:


> Oh, I'm not upset.  I just found it ironic that you are writing a post to say how history is unimportant after spending so much time trying to convince us of the truth of your own theory on Wing Chun's historical origins.  If you don't see the irony in that....well....



It's not ironic to find something ultimately unimportant to be interesting, provided you are aware of its unimportance

If you aren't upset then answer Tang Yik questions please


----------



## KPM (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> It's not ironic to find something ultimately unimportant to be interesting, provided you are aware of its unimportance
> 
> If you aren't upset then answer Tang Yik questions please



But wait...didn't you just ask me to stop posting on your threads?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 26, 2015)

guy b. said:


> It is important if you know what happened. If you don't then...



Then you don't, but it does not make it any less important


----------



## guy b. (Dec 27, 2015)

KPM said:


> But wait...didn't you just ask me to stop posting on your threads?



Respond whenever you feel happy and relaxed, otherwise please don't


----------



## mograph (Dec 29, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Then you don't, but it does not make it any less important


It's important to know the difference between recorded history and speculation.


----------



## JPinAZ (Dec 29, 2015)

History is always important to know where we are, where we were and how we got there.
Since WSL lineage has been a subject lately, it is widely known that WSL himself removed/stripped down several aspects of WC system/curriculum from what Ip Man had taught to better fit with how he (WSL) applied WC in his fights. Knowing this can better explain why WSL lineage might now view taan sau as something that only teaches the punch and elbow function, where most other lines coming from Ip Man see it as more than that being a bridging action with straight arm/hand for 'spreading' or dissipating incoming forces on the bridge. Or where that same line may see WC hands coming from the pole. 
And I'm not saying WSL is right or wrong in his views - it's simply how he chose to interpret and define the action of taan sau or maybe how viewed the technology of the relationship between the hands and pole . But if someone from the WSL doesn't even know this common history, then they may have a hard time accepting when others say Taan Sau is much more than just training a punch/elbow. 

WSL aside, sometimes these things are just a simple case of Ip teaching things differently to different people or different points in his teaching career. Or, people passing thru, or not being 'indoor students', or whatever, and maybe not seeing the whole entirety of his curriculum or teaching methods and only having seen one aspect of it. Without knowing the history, we quickly get into right/wrong type arguments on subjects like these.

And some might argue none of it matters and all that matters is how we can apply what we have, and that's fine too! But then how can those same people really have a strong point to stand on in the forums when discussions go beyond just basic application (as often happens)? IMO, history is always important if we want to know more than just the 'how'. Without some deeper understanding of history, as well as philosophy, culture, etc (even if it's lineage specific), it makes it a lot harder to really understand the whys & whens (and to a degree  the 'hows') of what we are doing. If we don't even have an idea of the purpose and intention for the creation of WC system, how can we truly say we understand all of it's goals, principles and concepts?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> it is widely known that WSL himself removed/stripped down several aspects of WC system/curriculum from what Ip Man had taught to better fit with how he (WSL) applied WC in his fights.



It is not known if WSL removed/stripped down, or if he added/built up, or if he recreated, or if he merely received the full teaching. All that we know is that WSL VT is a bit different to some other interpretations. Of course WSL lineage has its reasons for this and of course other lineages have different reasons. Deciping upon the former option is a decision you have taken based upon little evidence and is a really good example of the use of history to frame and control debate. 



> Knowing this can better explain why WSL lineage might now view taan sau as something that only teaches the punch and elbow function, where most other lines coming from Ip Man see it as more than that being a bridging action with straight arm/hand for 'spreading' or dissipating incoming forces on the bridge. Or where that same line may see WC hands coming from the pole



There are simpler explanations for these differences.



> And I'm not saying WSL is right or wrong in his views - it's simply how he chose to interpret and define the action of taan sau or maybe how viewed the technology of the relationship between the hands and pole . But if someone from the WSL doesn't even know this common history, then they may have a hard time accepting when others say Taan Sau is much more than just training a punch/elbow



It is not a historical fact that differences between WSL and others are due to WSL's difference in interpretation.



> And some might argue none of it matters and all that matters is how we can apply what we have, and that's fine too! But then how can those same people really have a strong point to stand on in the forums when discussions go beyond just basic application (as often happens)?



There is a lot more than basic application in what we are presented with today. History is important within groups, not so much between them.



> IMO, history is always important if we want to know more than just the 'how'. Without some deeper understanding of history, as well as philosophy, culture, etc (even if it's lineage specific), it makes it a lot harder to really understand the whys & whens (and to a degree  the 'hows') of what we are doing. If we don't even have an idea of the purpose and intention for the creation of WC system, how can we truly say we understand all of it's goals, principles and concepts?



All lineages have "histories" for these purposes. How many are created after the fact for validation purposes? Impossible to know.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 29, 2015)

guy b. said:


> It is not known if WSL removed/stripped down, or if he added/built up, or if he recreated, or if he merely received the full teaching. All that we know is that WSL VT is a bit different to some other interpretations. Of course WSL lineage has its reasons for this and of course other lineages have different reasons. Deciping upon the former option is a decision you have taken based upon little evidence and is a really good example of the use of history to frame and control debate.



Food for thought; no two people are exactly alike therefore you find differences from generation to generation in all Martial arts. This is where many of the variations come from. Also no two people will think the same bits are important for the very same reason and for reasons of how well they may or may not comprehend what is being taught. Could thing a thing is to easy (and it is for them) and therefore unimportant. Or could think it is too hard and again unimportant



guy b. said:


> It is not a historical fact that differences between WSL and others are due to WSL's difference in interpretation.



Who is WSL?




guy b. said:


> There is a lot more than basic application in what we are presented with today. History is important within groups, not so much between them.



Don't agree with that at all. There is always a shared history between groups within the same style




guy b. said:


> All lineages have "histories" for these purposes. How many are created after the fact for validation purposes? Impossible to know.



Actually in many cases, if you follow the history back, it is not impossible to know within a 100 years or so. Beyond that it does get iffy in some styles

Even Ip Chun says he is not so sure about the whole Wing Chun Origin story. As far as Ip Man Wing Chun, you can go back a few generations with certainty but again, beyond that, it gets iffy.

But the history is important and it is used to weed out the occasional fraud that pops up here and there. I know of two that history outed, but that was in Taijiquan (one Yang and one Chen), where I am much more familiar with the history of the art.

Now was knowing the history (Lineage) of the Wing Chun I trained important to the training I was getting? Well no, it wasn't, as far as training. But it was important to knowing the legitimacy of the teacher. But was knowing the history of Wing Chun and what it is basically supposed to be important to finding a place to train and a sifu to train me? Yes, very important. I know what it is so I know what I am looking for and I roughly know what I should find


----------



## Phobius (Dec 29, 2015)

History is to build up morale and loyalty within a group. Without it there  may be a risk that one group would not join together to defend themselves against another group while in danger.

After all humans are pack animals, meant to live in small groups of people. What we do with history and culture is to strengthen that group dynamic.

Reason for wanting to know the history of Wing Chun, make sure we belong to the same group. Reason we do not get along even if we train the same art so often, may be that we refuse to believe we share the same history and as such not having enough in common to remain a group of people.

No I do not believe the history is important to our art, it is better today in some areas than it has ever been before. Evolution has come to martial arts not because of UFC but rather this forum and other places where thoughts are shared. Through YouTube where the good and the bad come together to show what they do.

The risk now is that we create two groups of people, those who want to train just out of a kick and feel good about themselves. And finally those who train to become better as a goal, and finding the constant strive to be even better day by day simply because they can and should. Kung Fu exists not only in martial arts after all, but can exist within those that take pride in what they do from carpenter to floor cleaner.

^^ Meaning that we get McDojos to live off the people that simply have a need to feel good. Anyone heard of diet pills for instance? Same thing. A crazy belief in a quick and effortless path to success.


----------



## JPinAZ (Dec 29, 2015)

@Guy B - Funny you immediately start arguing validity of historical 'facts' on a thread you started about how unimportant history is... You sure imply to know a lot about something you find so unimportant.

But I'm not here to argue with you. Maybe when you make up your mind if history is important or not, you can try talking directly with the likes of David Peterson & those who were closest to Sifu Wong and it might give better insight. In the end it doesn't matter to me as I'm not here to prove or argue his history. I'm only here to share my view on history's importance, you can take or leave what I presented as it was only an example.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 29, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Food for thought; no two people are exactly alike therefore you find differences from generation to generation in all Martial arts. This is where many of the variations come from. Also no two people will think the same bits are important for the very same reason and for reasons of how well they may or may not comprehend what is being taught. Could thing a thing is to easy (and it is for them) and therefore unimportant. Or could think it is too hard and again unimportant
> 
> 
> 
> ...


--------------------------------
wsl is-was wong shon leung,


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> @Guy B - Funny you immediately start arguing validity of historical 'facts' on a thread you started about how unimportant history is... You sure imply to know a lot about something you find so unimportant.
> 
> But I'm not here to argue with you. Maybe when you make up your mind if history is important or not, you can try talking directly with the likes of David Peterson & those who were closest to Sifu Wong and it might give better insight. In the end it doesn't matter to me as I'm not here to prove or argue his history. I'm only here to share my view on history's importance, you can take or leave what I presented as it was only an example.



History is unimportant for wing chun as a whole because fact is not determinable in so many cases. This is what my reply to you was aimed at showing. You believe WSL did x, y and z. This is belief and lineage storytelling, not history. The best way to judge WSL VT against other wing chun is to test them. History is important within all traditional MA groups, including WSL VT.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Actually in many cases, if you follow the history back, it is not impossible to know within a 100 years or so.



Not so in wing chun. It is even impossible to know who learned what from YM from listening to the various stories. It is very possible to tell if you use your eyes to see and your hands to feel.



> Now was knowing the history (Lineage) of the Wing Chun I trained important to the training I was getting? Well no, it wasn't, as far as training. But it was important to knowing the legitimacy of the teacher. But was knowing the history of Wing Chun and what it is basically supposed to be important to finding a place to train and a sifu to train me? Yes, very important. I know what it is so I know what I am looking for and I roughly know what I should find



The history of wing chun will not help you in this at all. Anyone persisting in any MA creates a story around themselves, based in reality or not.


----------



## JPinAZ (Dec 29, 2015)

guy b. said:


> The best way to judge WSL VT against other wing chun is to test them.



Now you're just showing a need to twist things for the purposes of arguing. The has nothing to do with the discussion or what I've said - No one here said anything about judging any art against anything.



guy b. said:


> Not so in wing chun. It is even impossible to know who learned what from YM from listening to the various stories. It is very possible to tell if you use your eyes to see and your hands to feel.



LOL Now you claim you can somehow validate/invalidate someone's historical background by watching them or touching their hands? Unless you yourself have also seen/touched hands with Ip Man, you have no way in hell to 'tell' anything in relation to Ip Man's teaching.

I have to say it - this whole thread is starting to smell a bit like troll bait and only here for your purpose to argue. I have no interest in discussing anything with you further.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 29, 2015)

JPinAZ said:


> I have no interest in discussing anything with you further.



Then please don't


----------



## KPM (Dec 29, 2015)

guy b. said:


> It is not known if WSL removed/stripped down, or if he added/built up, or if he recreated, or if he merely received the full teaching. All that we know is that WSL VT is a bit different to some other interpretations. Of course WSL lineage has its reasons for this and of course other lineages have different reasons. Deciping upon the former option is a decision you have taken based upon little evidence and is a really good example of the use of history to frame and control debate.
> 
> 
> There are simpler explanations for these differences.
> ...



Well, actually...if we whip out "Occam's Razor"........   The simplest explanation for the fact that it appears only WSLVT teaches this idea about Tan being used only to train the elbow, that only WSLVT empty hands seems to track so very closely to the Pole methods, that only WSLVT seems to make an almost complete separation between Chum Kiu & Biu Gee, that only WSLVT seems to consider the Knives so terribly different from the rest of the system...the simplest explanation upon applying Occam's Razor is that Wong Shun Leung himself made these changes to his Wing Chun.  That these are his own interpretations and innovations. 

The alternative argument is to say that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man, and how many times have we heard that now from different people?  I'm afraid no one is going to take THAT argument seriously anymore!!

And there is nothing wrong with saying these are Wong Shun Leung's own innovations!  He was a great Wing Chun man and had practical fighting experience.  One could argue that what he came up with is better than what Ip Man taught!  And doesn't everyone expect their best students to improve upon what they taught them?


----------



## KPM (Dec 29, 2015)

guy b. said:


> History is unimportant for wing chun as a whole because fact is not determinable in so many cases. This is what my reply to you was aimed at showing. You believe WSL did x, y and z. This is belief and lineage storytelling, not history. The best way to judge WSL VT against other wing chun is to test them. History is important within all traditional MA groups, including WSL VT.



History is important.  Just ask the guy outed for making up his "Black Flag Eng Chun" or Andreas Hoffman who was outed for claiming that his Chi Sim Weng Chun dates back to Chi Sim himself.   Martial arts history is often a puzzle and difficult to piece together, but that doesn't mean it is unimportant.


----------



## geezer (Dec 29, 2015)

KPM said:


> ...And doesn't everyone expect their best students to improve upon what they taught them?



Unfortunately, all too often the answer to this is "no".


----------



## Danny T (Dec 29, 2015)

geezer said:


> Unfortunately, all too often the answer to this is "no".


And when they do they get criticized for doing so.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 30, 2015)

> And there is nothing wrong with saying these are Wong Shun Leung's own innovations!



What's wrong with saying that is that it's _highly_ unlikely, besides he always said he never made any changes.

WSL was very humble, but also very honest. Why would he lie about drastically improving the system? His lineage was never in question, so he didn't have to claim pure transmission for that purpose (as some others clearly have). 

He always said the system is theoretically "perfect" and doesn't need change, except that BJ may be open-ended and perhaps could be added on to if someone encountered a situation that required something else, it's just that humans are imperfect. So why change something that constantly improves your skill and that you have not yet achieved perfection in? That would only be foolish.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 30, 2015)

KPM said:


> The alternative argument is to say that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man, and how many times have we heard that now from different people?  I'm afraid no one is going to take THAT argument seriously anymore!!



The problem with Occam's Razor is that it really has no bearing on the truth. You can come up with the simplest argument and still have it be wrong.

Plus you're applying it incorrectly. You're assuming all factors are otherwise equal among YM students. But it is a fact that most of the big names under YM never completed the system and had very little if any practical fighting experience.

It is very clear that most of them filled in the blanks themselves when you look at how similar they are until BJ, when things go haywire. Plus, their systems severely lack coherence and are missing the main idea.

A similar trend can be seen among WSL's students, of which he had very few, while he had many visitors and seminar attendees.

Some of these non-regular students have marketed themselves to be very prominent within the lineage, so much that outsiders automatically list them when thinking of WSL's top students, when in fact they were just irregular visitors. (Because books, DVD's, and "_my Sifu this, my Sifu that_"...)

These guys only had time to receive some basic ideas from WSL, then returned to their countries to fill in the blanks themselves, with prior Wing Chun experience, or by looking at what other lineages were doing and assuming they should all be similar enough.

As a result, you now have many non-regular WSL students with a more "mainstream" interpretation of Wing Chun. And if you apply Occam's Razor to WSL's students, the true regular students who learned properly over a long period of time spent closely with him are suddenly the ones that get cut out as having made their own innovations because these other guys differ and there are more of them.

It's almost exactly the same situation with YM's students. Occam's Razor just doesn't cut to the truth.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 30, 2015)

LFJ said:


> It is very clear that most of them filled in the blanks themselves when you look at how similar they are until BJ, when things go haywire. Plus, their systems severely lack coherence and are missing the main idea.



This is very obvious. And these people have made efforts to cover this fact. We call what they have left for us "history"



> A similar trend can be seen among WSL's students, of which he had very few, while he had many visitors and seminar attendees.
> 
> Some of these non-regular students have marketed themselves to be very prominent within the lineage, so much that outsiders automatically list them when thinking of WSL's top students, when in fact they were just irregular visitors. (Because books, DVD's, and "_my Sifu this, my Sifu that_"...)
> 
> These guys only had time to receive some basic ideas from WSL, then returned to their countries to fill in the blanks themselves, with prior Wing Chun experience, or by looking at what other lineages were doing and assuming they should all be similar enough.



There are a surprising number of such people. There are some in the UK that I am familiar with. There are some in HK. There are even some people who spent quite a lot of time with WSL but who don't appear very good or who have then altered things themselves for whatever reason. The problem is that it is very difficult to see this until you see the real thing, and then it becomes obvious because, as you say, the main idea is missing and coherence is lacking.


----------



## KPM (Dec 30, 2015)

LFJ said:


> What's wrong with saying that is that it's _highly_ unlikely, besides he always said he never made any changes.
> 
> WSL was very humble, but also very honest. Why would he lie about drastically improving the system? His lineage was never in question, so he didn't have to claim pure transmission for that purpose (as some others clearly have).
> 
> He always said the system is theoretically "perfect" and doesn't need change, except that BJ may be open-ended and perhaps could be added on to if someone encountered a situation that required something else, it's just that humans are imperfect. So why change something that constantly improves your skill and that you have not yet achieved perfection in? That would only be foolish.



There is a strong Chinese martial art tradition that you don't take credit for things.  You always attribute advances to your teacher or some ancestor.  This is seen as part of "Mo Duk" and giving respect.  The marketing slogan in the west has long been "new and improved!", while the marketing slogan in the east in the past was "old and traditional!".  So this goes well with WSL being a humble and traditional person and respecting Ip Man.   And like has already been stated, Wing Chun is a based upon principles and concepts, therefore applications can vary with the person.  WSL didn't change any of the major principles and concepts, so he could honestly say he was teaching what Ip Man taught him. 

Again, the alternative explanation is to assume that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "good" or "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man.  I doubt Wong himself would claim that either!!!!


----------



## guy b. (Dec 30, 2015)

KPM said:


> aga
> in, the alternative explanation is to assume that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "good" or "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man.  I doubt Wong himself would claim that either!!!!



seems highly likely given the contents of wsl compared to others


----------



## LFJ (Dec 30, 2015)

KPM said:


> So this goes well with WSL being a humble and traditional person and respecting Ip Man.



No doubt he respected YM, but he was anything but traditional in his thinking and the way he taught. If he made such a drastic change, for the better, I don't think he'd lie about it. It's incredibly unlikely, if not impossible anyway.



> And like has already been stated, Wing Chun is a based upon principles and concepts, therefore applications can vary with the person.



Applications? If people are coming up with varying applications for _taan-sau_, they haven't understood the system at all.



> WSL didn't change any of the major principles and concepts, so he could honestly say he was teaching what Ip Man taught him.
> 
> Again, the alternative explanation is to assume that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "good" or "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man.  I doubt Wong himself would claim that either!!!!



And yet others differ greatly in their concepts and principles, and their systems are a complete mess, while WSL's is a very coherent systematic development of a simple concept all the way through. Others don't even contain the first idea!

This is stupidly obvious to those who have come to WSL from another lineage, as thousands have, and gained a clear picture of what the VT system is actually developing. Hard to imagine if you haven't seen it perhaps. It's not elitist thinking, just the way things are.


----------



## KPM (Dec 30, 2015)

guy b. said:


> seems highly likely given the contents of wsl compared to others



Well there you go!  Let's just put Wong Shun Leung out there with William Cheung and Leung Ting as another in a line of people that claim the ONLY he learned the REAL Wing Chun!  Is that what you want?

Occam's Razor....the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.  WSL was a talented guy and changed his Wing Chun around to suit himself and improve it for him.  Simplest explanation.   WSL was the only person the learned the true Wing Chun from Ip Man....very unlikely, and therefore not the simplest explanation.


----------



## KPM (Dec 30, 2015)

[No doubt he respected YM, but he was anything but traditional in his thinking and the way he taught. If he made such a drastic change, for the better, I don't think he'd lie about it. It's incredibly unlikely, if not impossible anyway.

---"incredibly unlikely" in your opinion.  Others may not see it that way.

Applications? If people are coming up with varying applications for _taan-sau_, they haven't understood the system at all.

----Well, there you go again!  WSL lineage in the only one that talks so adamantly against the idea of "applications."


----------



## LFJ (Dec 30, 2015)

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that's not a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by one guy. Hence, I said it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible. You may not see it that way, but you've not experienced WSL's system to see it from that angle.

The simplest explanation that I can see is just that YM wasn't very concerned with cranking out numerous high-level students, didn't have the patience or interest in teaching those less serious or talented, and indeed taught very few people the system. May cause butthurt, but that's the truly simplest explanation.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 30, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Not so in wing chun. It is even impossible to know who learned what from YM from listening to the various stories. It is very possible to tell if you use your eyes to see and your hands to feel.



Actually we do not agree here, it is rather easy to verify many who trained with Ip Man, those that cannot be verified may or may not have trained with him but without being able to historically verify one must be skeptical of their claim. It is also fairly simple to follow Wing Chun back to Ip man's sifus and it is also easy to see the difference between the Wing Chun of people he taught in Foshan as compared to Hong Kong. You just need to know how to do the research, of course you have to also have the desire to do the research as well. It is usually possible to tell by touching hands, assuming the one doing the checking is skilled enough to know the difference



guy b. said:


> The history of wing chun will not help you in this at all. Anyone persisting in any MA creates a story around themselves, based in reality or not.



Also we do not agree. Yes there are many in CMA that build stories, but being one who does a lot of research into the styles he trains or trained, Wing Chun being one of those, I can tell you the history can help you a lot at times. But again, you have to have the desire to do the research and know how to do it.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 30, 2015)

KPM said:


> Well, actually...if we whip out "Occam's Razor"........   The simplest explanation for the fact that it appears only WSLVT teaches this idea about Tan being used only to train the elbow, that only WSLVT empty hands seems to track so very closely to the Pole methods, that only WSLVT seems to make an almost complete separation between Chum Kiu & Biu Gee, that only WSLVT seems to consider the Knives so terribly different from the rest of the system...the simplest explanation upon applying Occam's Razor is that Wong Shun Leung himself made these changes to his Wing Chun.  That these are his own interpretations and innovations.
> 
> The alternative argument is to say that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man, and how many times have we heard that now from different people?  I'm afraid no one is going to take THAT argument seriously anymore!!
> 
> And there is nothing wrong with saying these are Wong Shun Leung's own innovations!  He was a great Wing Chun man and had practical fighting experience.  One could argue that what he came up with is better than what Ip Man taught!  And doesn't everyone expect their best students to improve upon what they taught them?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just a discussion list where opinions including mine abound. From what I know from different sources:
1.WSL was a good fighter and helped with the recognition of hia aifu's teachings
2 It is presumptuous to think that WSL "improved" upon Ip Man's understanding of wing chun.
3 WSL's fighting ability was greater than his analysis of wing chun-but it was notinsinificant.
4 The occam's razor analogy is misapplied in KPM's post.


----------



## KPM (Dec 30, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is just a discussion list where opinions including mine abound. From what I know from different sources:
> 1.WSL was a good fighter and helped with the recognition of hia aifu's teachings
> 2 It is presumptuous to think that WSL "improved" upon Ip Man's understanding of wing chun.
> ...



Joy, you do realize this puts you in agreement with Guy's opinion that Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about anyone other than Wong Shun Leung?  That Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about Ho Kam Ming specifically, because I brought him up as one of Ip Man's primary senior students along with some other names and Guy included them in his assessment.  Joy, you do realize that this puts you in agreement with LFJ's and Guy's contention that Wong Shun Leung was the ONLY one to learn the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man?   Because all of that is exactly what you just agreed to by your #4 above, whether you realize it or not!

From the Wikipedia:
_*Occam's razor* (also written as *Ockham's razor* and in __Latin__ lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle attributed to __William of Ockham__ (c. 1287–1347), who was an English __Franciscan__ friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.

The principle can be interpreted as

Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
_
So tell me, just how have I misapplied this in my post?   I am assuming simply that WSL was a talented guy and made some good changes in his Wing Chun.  And he didn't make a big deal out of it or take credit for it because he was a humble guy and respected his Sifu.

The other hypothesis is that Ip Man taught the "true" Wing Chun only to Wong Shun Leung.  It assumes that Ip Man did not really care anything about his other senior students like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, or his own sons...at least not enough to teach them the "good" Wing Chun.  It assumes that WSL was not close enough friends with any of these other senior students of Ip Man to offer to show them these "secrets" that Ip Man showed only to him!  It assumes that this is not just another story to promote the lineage as we have seen with William Cheung's and Leung Ting's lineage.  It assumes that none of the senior students of Ip Man realized this is what happened, that they were taught a somehow "inferior" version of Wing Chun.  Dare I use the word "modified" version?  ;-)

It also assumes that the Pole was the foundation of the empty hand training, which is something we don't see in lineages other than WSL.  It isn't the source of the empty hands in Pin Sun Wing Chun, in Tang Yik Weng Chun, in Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, etc.  It also assumes that Ip Man taught that there truly is no actual application of the Tan Sau outside of training the elbow.  But again, it seems Ip Man taught the use of Tan Sau to plenty of students as a basic!   Should I go on?

I think Occam's Razor actually applies fairly well here.


----------



## KPM (Dec 30, 2015)

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that's not a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by one guy. Hence, I said it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible.

---That's EXACTLY the argument I've heard from William Cheung's people!  Cheung couldn't have possibly have come up with the "Traditional Wing Chun" system on his own because that would take generations of development.  He had to have learned it from Ip Man! 

The simplest explanation that I can see is just that YM wasn't very concerned with cranking out numerous high-level students, didn't have the patience or interest in teaching those less serious or talented, and indeed taught very few people the system. May cause butthurt, but that's the truly simplest explanation.

---No.  What you and Guy are saying is that YM wasn't concerned with producing ANY high-level students other than WSL, and ONLY taught the entire system to him!   That is NOT a simple explanation because it is highly unlikely.  Just start promoting this idea as William Cheung's people have and Leung Ting's people have and see what reaction you get.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 30, 2015)

LFJ said:


> If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that's not a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by one guy. Hence, I said it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible. You may not see it that way, but you've not experienced WSL's system to see it from that angle.
> 
> The simplest explanation that I can see is just that YM wasn't very concerned with cranking out numerous high-level students, didn't have the patience or interest in teaching those less serious or talented, and indeed taught very few people the system. May cause butthurt, but that's the truly simplest explanation.



Actually this statement is funny, lets write it the opposite way.

If you´re assuming WSL was working with "mainstream" Wing Chun and all other lineages Went about overhauling it by themselves, changing almost Everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that´s not a a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by multiple guys with same sifu. Hence, I said it´s incredibly unlikely if not impossible. You may not see it that way, but you´ve not experienced all lineages of WC systems to see it from that angle.

If you truly believe WSL was the only high level student of YM you are wrong, the fact that WSL was one of the high level students is the very explanation why he took it upon himself to improve his WC in a way that suited him better. Dont try to do what WSL did, instead understand what he understood. Take a system and make it your own, and realize that Everything to WSL was true from his point of view. Not necessarily yours or anyone else.

Not many boxers box alike.

Coming from Leung Ting lineage myself, the only story I ever hear is that LT changed the curriculum  (way of teaching) to a more european friendly way. The system is intended to remain the same, then however it is adapting to ever changing landscape. Of course I do not follow the mainstream Wing Tsun in Europé so hard to say what they are preaching.


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 30, 2015)

KPM said:


> Joy, you do realize this puts you in agreement with Guy's opinion that Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about anyone other than Wong Shun Leung?  That Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about Ho Kam Ming specifically, because I brought him up as one of Ip Man's primary senior students along with some other names and Guy included them in his assessment.  Joy, you do realize that this puts you in agreement with LFJ's and Guy's contention that Wong Shun Leung was the ONLY one to learn the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man?   Because all of that is exactly what you just agreed to by your #4 above, whether you realize it or not!
> 
> From the Wikipedia:
> _*Occam's razor* (also written as *Ockham's razor* and in __Latin__ lex parsimoniae, which means 'law of parsimony') is a problem-solving principle attributed to __William of Ockham__ (c. 1287–1347), who was an English __Franciscan__ friar and scholastic philosopher and theologian.
> ...


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
-Incorrect inferences on your part KPM. You are off by more than a mile.
Guy etc are off by much more than miles.
I know William of Occam's razor quite well- I do not depend on Wikipedia. To apply occam's razor- you need first a clear proposition thesis,not sloppy ordinary language.- around which different hypotheses can arise

Ip Man's students did not all spend the same amount of time with him.Not an issue of IpMan "caring". All the people you mention were not consistently in the same "class"WSL opened his own school and episodically came back for lessons. The BJD was the course ending phase in IM's teaching. Besides WSL and HSK, Most just waved their BJDs around and some still do.. Guy is off in most of his statements.H e is likely to rattle on- but that is the nature of the net.
I suggest we say good bye to this thread. Eventually lots of people can feel offended. I dont want to put out more info that will offend more peole,
Lots of  of idle speculation on this thred  I wanot going to comment on this thread but the idle speculations were getting to be a bit much.
Wang Kiu as afreind of WSL help publicize WSL's encounters.


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 30, 2015)

Ugh.


----------



## mograph (Dec 30, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> To apply occam's razor- you need first a clear proposition thesis, not sloppy ordinary language - around which different hypotheses can arise.


Thanks for that. We need to be very precise when applying Occam's Razor.


----------



## KPM (Dec 30, 2015)

Vajramusti said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I know William of Occam's razor quite well- I do not depend on Wikipedia. To apply occam's razor- you need first a clear proposition thesis,not sloppy ordinary language.- around which different hypotheses can arise
> 
> .



The thesis is simply that Wong Shun Leung's Wing Chun is different from everyone else's.   Then the hypotheses are simply why this is so.  Is that not clear?   And Occam's Razor can be applied in many settings and is used in verbal debate. Certainly when "ordinary" language is in play.     So I ask again, why do think it does not apply in this discussion?


----------



## KPM (Dec 30, 2015)

Marnetmar said:


> Ugh.



Ugh is right!  I'm trying to prevent the development of a whole other occurrence  of "true believer" syndrome like we have in the William Cheung and Leung Ting groups.  But, I probably shouldn't even bother and just let them do and believe whatever they want.  When I can't even get Joy to back me up when they have insulted Ho Kam Ming along with every other senior student of Ip Man...... ;-)


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 30, 2015)

KPM said:


> Ugh is right!  I'm trying to prevent the development of a whole other occurrence  of "true believer" syndrome like we have in the William Cheung and Leung Ting groups.  But, I probably shouldn't even bother and just let them do and believe whatever they want.  When I can't even get Joy to back me up when they have insulted Ho Kam Ming along with every other senior student of Ip Man...... ;-)


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

Back you  up?Ho Kam Ming holds his own position- doesnt need backing up in chit chat., from you. me, guy and co.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 30, 2015)

KPM said:


> The thesis is simply that Wong Shun Leung's Wing Chun is different from everyone else's.   Then the hypotheses are simply why this is so.  Is that not clear?   And Occam's Razor can be applied in many settings and is used in verbal debate. Certainly when "ordinary" language is in play.     So I ask again, why do think it does not apply in this discussion?



Occam's Razor is basically among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


----------



## KPM (Dec 30, 2015)

Xue Sheng said:


> Occam's Razor is basically among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.



Exactly!  Which is what I described above!

Here's another line of thought for consideration.  Even if Ip Man "didn't care sh!t" about anyone but Wong Shun Leung, as Guy maintains, I think most would agree that he cared about Wing Chun.  So if he only taught WSL the "true" Wing Chun, why didn't he name him as his successor?  Wouldn't this had made sure that people would know who had the "true" Wing Chun?  Wouldn't this have made sure that there was no doubt which version of  Wing Chun was the "real thing"? But he didn't do that.  Why didn't Wong Chun Leung step up after Ip Man's death and declare that he was the "true" successor of Ip Man's school?  But he didn't do that either.  And if Wong Shun Leung looked around and realized that he was the only one that Ip Man taught the "true" Wing Chun to, why didn't he pick his own #1 student, make sure he knew this "true" Wing Chun very well, and then name him as his successor so that everyone would know who to go to for the "real" thing?  Wouldn't this have cleared up any confusion generated by his students watching other Wing Chun lineages and wondering why there were differences? But he didn't do that either.

So here's another assumption that the theory that Wong Shun Leung learned his version of Wing Chun entirely from Ip Man must maintain....that there was a "true" version of Wing Chun that was taught only to one person, but Ip Man chose not to name that person as his successor, and in turn that person chose not to declare himself the rightful successor.

So.  I propose that the simplest explanation is that WSL, being a talented and smart guy with a passion for Wing Chun, made his own innovations and interpretations to the Wing Chun he learned from Ip Man.  For the thesis....why does Wong Shun Leung's Wing Chun differ so much from the Wing Chun taught to other Ip Man senior students?...I think this is the simplest explanation with the fewest assumptions.  Therefore it is a fair application of Occam's Razor.

That's it.  Everyone is free to believe what they like.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 30, 2015)

Could also be that Wong Shun Leung trained more than Wing Chun (boxing and possibly taiji) and later incorporated that in his Wing Chun.

Also isn't Wong Shun Leung the guy that allegedly trained Bruce Lee


----------



## geezer (Dec 30, 2015)

Phobius said:


> Dont try to do what WSL did, instead understand what he understood.
> 
> ...Take a system and make it your own, and realize that Everything to WSL was true from his point of view. Not necessarily yours or anyone else.
> 
> ...Not many boxers box alike.



This alone would more than explain the differences between Yip Man's top students. Good people don't just imitate, they innovate.

Unfortunately traditional Chinese culture frowned on this kind of innovation, so instructors and especially_ their followers_, devise other explanations such as being taught secret techniques, the_ true_ system, and so on. Of course money also plays a huge role in these kind of claims.

My main teacher was LT, and I have no doubt that he innovated quite a lot. And he made a lot of inflated claims. But I knew him well enough to know that, at least back in the 80s, he really did care about the quality and efficacy of what he taught. He was genuinely upset by people teaching what he believed to be poor WC.

Perhaps the same was true for other well known instructors in Yip Man's lineage. As you say, different boxers box differently ...and coach differently. And maybe that's a good thing.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 30, 2015)

@KPM

I never said anything about YM teaching a "true" style to WSL and a "false" style to others. That would be stupid and a waste of time. I don't think he cared to dumb things down for people or give special treatment.

Simply that his teaching style allowed for students to fight, think, and ask questions. Most didn't fight, think, or ask questions. Most weren't around for very long. It's obvious YM didn't spend much time on these folks. He taught movements with very little or no explanation, and if you didn't catch it or ask, you didn't get it.

WSL fought, thought, and asked questions. So, his experience and learning differed from those who were left to their own imagination with no fighting experience or direction from a teacher but wanted to then go on and teach.

From WSL himself:

*Interviewer*: "How does the teaching of Yip Man differ from the way you teach?"

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


----------



## geezer (Dec 31, 2015)

LFJ said:


> @KPM"....If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job."



This is very well expressed. However, as a person who has spent decades teaching ceramics and sculpture (skill _and _art) to earn my living, I would like to point out that even the most utilitarian skill, when raised to the highest level, is recognized as _art. _Or, to use the Cantonese term for mastery of a skill through years of hard work:_ gung fu. _


----------



## LFJ (Dec 31, 2015)




----------



## KPM (Dec 31, 2015)

WSL fought, thought, and asked questions. So, his experience and learning differed from those who were left to their own imagination with no fighting experience or direction from a teacher but wanted to then go on and teach.

----Is that not also saying that WSL made his own interpretations and innovations on his Wing Chun to make it better for himself?  Is that not what I have been saying?   But you yourself have pointed out how different WSL's Wing Chun is from everyone else's.  So again, either WSL "fought, thought and asked questions" and made use of his own "experience and differing learning" to make his own interpretations and innovations,......or the alternative theory is that ONLY WSL was able to "get" Ip Man's "true" intent behind his Wing Chun.  Which is the same thing as saying that only WSL was taught the "true" Wing Chun.


----------



## KPM (Dec 31, 2015)

LFJ said:


>




All the more reason to believe that WSL would have made any changes and "updates" and "innovations" to what he learned from Ip Man to make his Wing Chun work better for him!


----------



## Phobius (Dec 31, 2015)

LFJ said:


> @KPM
> 
> I never said anything about YM teaching a "true" style to WSL and a "false" style to others. That would be stupid and a waste of time. I don't think he cared to dumb things down for people or give special treatment.
> 
> ...



Can you provide source of this interview? Just curious and source should always be present when quoting people that no longer live.

Edit: Nevermind, found the source to be Paul Whitrod, Wing Chun: A Master Talks (The Wong Shun Leung Interview), _Combat Magazine_ vol. *20* no. *1*, pp. 29 (Jan 1994)


----------



## KPM (Dec 31, 2015)

What LFJ has said so far in this thread:

*Why would WSL lie about drastically improving the system?    If he made such a drastic change, for the better

But it is a fact that most of the big names under YM never completed the system and had very little if any practical fighting experience.

It is very clear that most of them filled in the blanks themselves when you look at how similar they are until BJ, when things go haywire. Plus, their systems severely lack coherence and are missing the main idea.

And yet others differ greatly in their concepts and principles, and their systems are a complete mess, while WSL's is a very coherent systematic development of a simple concept all the way through. Others don't even contain the first idea!

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system*


On the one hand LFJ is saying that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught him.  But on the other hand he has made all of these comments when comparing WSLVT to other Ip Man lineages.  On the one hand LFJ denies that he thinks WSL learned the "true" or "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man, yet on the other hand he believes that there are major if not "drastic" differences between WSLVT and everyone else.....for the better!  On the one hand he believes that  WSLVT is a "far more practical and coherent system" than "mainstream" Wing Chun, yet one the other hand he believes that Ip Man taught the same system to everyone.   I point all of this out simply to show that I believe Occam's Razor applies here.  There is a rather simple explanation for why we see all of these conflicting ideas.


----------



## LFJ (Dec 31, 2015)

It's not "on the one hand" and then "on the other". All of that is on the same hand!



KPM said:


> I point all of this out simply to show that I believe Occam's Razor applies here.  There is a rather simple explanation for why we see all of these conflicting ideas.



And I think WSL explained it clearly enough. Couldn't be more obvious.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 31, 2015)

LFJ said:


> And I think WSL explained it clearly enough. Couldn't be more obvious.



WSL experience is not all that different then my Taijiquan shifu had in the same area, in a completely different style, with a completely different teacher.

His teacher (my sigung) did not talk much/say much, or go into great detailed explanations either, so what he is saying makes a lot of sense to me, thank you for posting the interview


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

KPM said:


> What LFJ has said so far in this thread:
> 
> *Why would WSL lie about drastically improving the system?    If he made such a drastic change, for the better
> 
> ...



It is much less likely that WSL reinvented the whole of wing chun from the ground up and much more likely that most of his contemporaries were simply not very good learners and YM not a very interested or attentive teacher. WSL changing wing chun would have required many steps- not a simple process and probably not enough time in the life of WSL to make it so. 

Different lineages have elements of what YM taught but tend to fall to bits due to incoherence and made up elements. WSL VT is simply the full picture. Obvious when you have learned a version that is just bits and pieces the moved to WSL VT.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

LFJ said:


> If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that's not a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by one guy. Hence, I said it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible. You may not see it that way, but you've not experienced WSL's system to see it from that angle.
> 
> The simplest explanation that I can see is just that YM wasn't very concerned with cranking out numerous high-level students, didn't have the patience or interest in teaching those less serious or talented, and indeed taught very few people the system. May cause butthurt, but that's the truly simplest explanation.



This is the simplest and most probable explanation for what we see


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

KPM said:


> Joy, you do realize this puts you in agreement with Guy's opinion that Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about anyone other than Wong Shun Leung?  That Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about Ho Kam Ming specifically, because I brought him up as one of Ip Man's primary senior students along with some other names and Guy included them in his assessment.  Joy, you do realize that this puts you in agreement with LFJ's and Guy's contention that Wong Shun Leung was the ONLY one to learn the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man?   Because all of that is exactly what you just agreed to by your #4 above, whether you realize it or not!



You are presenting a false choice. It is possible to disagre with me and to disagree with you at the same time. 

I don't believe I have said anything about any specific YM student including Ho Kam Ming. You presented a list of people including WSL and HKM and I suggested you use your eyes to see.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

Phobius said:


> If you´re assuming WSL was working with "mainstream" Wing Chun and all other lineages Went about overhauling it by themselves, changing almost Everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that´s not a a simple explanation at all!



I don't think certain other WC are a product of overhauling WC, more a matter of never getting WC. The main marker of this fact in the present is that they are contradictory and they do not work as fighting systems.

Nobody is claiming that WSL VT is the only wing chun that works, but it is one. Personally I have not seen another, but one may exist


----------



## KPM (Dec 31, 2015)

It is much less likely that WSL reinvented the whole of wing chun from the ground up and much more likely that most of his contemporaries were simply not very good learners and YM not a very interested or attentive teacher.

---Ok.  Both you and LFJ have used the term "most" several times, implying not "all."   So who do you guys see as having "good" Wing Chun from Ip Man other than Wong Shun Leung?  Who else was a "good learner" that Ip Man was attentive to other than Wong Shun Leung?


WSL changing wing chun would have required many steps- not a simple process and probably not enough time in the life of WSL to make it so.

---I think you underestimate Wong Shun Leung!!!

Different lineages have elements of what YM taught but tend to fall to bits due to incoherence and made up elements. WSL VT is simply the full picture. Obvious when you have learned a version that is just bits and pieces the moved to WSL VT.

---Sounds like "True Believer Syndrome" emerging to me.  ;-)


----------



## Vajramusti (Dec 31, 2015)

It's becoming another silly thread. I respect  WSL. But I am from anothrt very good line

Some gossipy thread.


----------



## geezer (Dec 31, 2015)

KPM said:


> ---Sounds like "True Believer Syndrome" emerging to me.  ;-)



Yeah. I pick up the same vibe from LFJ and Guy B. as well who just stated, _"Nobody is claiming that WSL VT is the only wing chun that works, but it is one. Personally I have not seen another, but one may exist."_ ie. _none _of the other well known sifu's WC, examples of which he has most certainly seen, works." He didn't say "it doesn't work as well, in my experience" etc. He just says they don't work. 

I don't  know what gives with a lot of WSL guys. On that _other_ forum, some of the Phil Bayer followers took it to the extreme, knocking everyone else, including other WSL branches, such as David Peterson. Then one of the loudest voices on the forum got his butt kicked doing chi-sau with Shaun Obasi and afterwards totally disappeared from the forum. 

Sadly, it does seem like the same "true believer" syndrome I've encountered in so many other WC groups including some I've belonged to.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

KPM said:


> I--Ok.  Both you and LFJ have used the term "most" several times, implying not "all."   So who do you guys see as having "good" Wing Chun from Ip Man other than Wong Shun Leung?  Who else was a "good learner" that Ip Man was attentive to other than Wong Shun Leung?



I have no idea. Maybe you guys have a better idea since you practice different lines of wing chun and appear happy with them? Vajramusti suggests his wing chun which I believe is via Ho Kam Ming/Augustine Fong. I have no experience of this wing chun so obviously can't comment.

I would love to see some wider discussion of wing chun beyond my posting up ideas and people attacking them.

Maybe post up something about HKM wing chun (or whatever wing chun you do) and we can discuss?




> I think you underestimate Wong Shun Leung!!!



I think you underestimate wing chun. I am not offended if you want to think that WSL invented the wing chun of WSL though, it is nothing personal to me.




> Sounds like "True Believer Syndrome" emerging to me.  ;-)



Not sure what that is. I am quite a cynical person and all of the the other MA that I am currently involved with is sport based and tested via physical contest. Of the traditional systems that I have lexperienced, only WSL VT can stand with this approach.

All I can suggest is that you try WSL VT from someone who is good at it

A fw years back when there was a lot of fuss about Alan Orr (Robert Chu) wing chun I went and tried it. I was not that impressed compared to the WSL approach, but I think it has some elements that are better than other wing chun I have seen. Overall I would call it a gap-filled wing chun but one that is aimed at modern sporting comps so ends up better than most for this reason, i.e. the training approach includes contact and real time.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 31, 2015)

I have had 2 different teachers in various branches of Wing Chun from all from Ip Man, however I never got past Siu Lim Tao. All I can tell you is that the basic principles are the same but Siu Lim tao is a little different with a few things added/removed or repeated.

One sifu from Ip Ching and the other sifu was in 2 different lines to Ip Man one from Leung Sheng (the one that gave him permission to teach) and the other from Ho Kam Ming (Where he started in Wing Chun).


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

geezer said:


> Yeah. I pick up the same vibe from LFJ and Guy B. as well who just stated, _"Nobody is claiming that WSL VT is the only wing chun that works, but it is one. Personally I have not seen another, but one may exist."_ ie. _none _of the other well known sifu's WC, examples of which he has most certainly seen, works." He didn't say "it doesn't work as well, in my experience" etc. He just says they don't work.



I have not experienced the wing chun of all of the people listed by KPM.



> I don't  know what gives with a lot of WSL guys. On that _other_ forum, some of the Phil Bayer followers took it to the extreme, knocking everyone else, including other WSL branches, such as David Peterson. Then one of the loudest voices on the forum got his butt kicked doing chi-sau with Shaun Obasi and afterwards totally disappeared from the forum.



There is some variation in WSL VT as LFJ said. Some teachers are better, some worse. Some spent more time with WSL, some not so much, some none.

I don't know about Kevin G., never met him. As far as I know he is a Philipp Bayer seminar student. I wouldn't call what I saw on youtube either a butt kicking or chii-sau



> Sadly, it does seem like the same "true believer" syndrome I've encountered in so many other WC groups including some I've belonged to.



Again, try it


----------



## geezer (Dec 31, 2015)

guy b. said:


> Again, try it



Should the opportunity arise,_ I definitely will_. Precisely because I'm not a "true believer" ...and because I do like a lot of what I've seen with regard to WSL VT.


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

geezer said:


> Should the opportunity arise,_ I definitely will_. Precisely because I'm not a "true believer" ...and because I do like a lot of what I've seen with regard to WSL VT.



I've no idea what you mean by "true believer". What do you mean?


----------



## geezer (Dec 31, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I've no idea what you mean by "true believer". What do you mean?



It's that kind of "culty" thing that some people get into where they think that _only_ their sifu, system, and lineage is any good. 

I was actually a little bit like that for a while when I first started training. But fortunately, my own skeptical and curious nature pulled me out of it before I had to have my eyes opened via a major butt-kicking!


----------



## KPM (Dec 31, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I have not experienced the wing chun of all of the people listed by KPM.



Then maybe you shouldn't make such sweeping statements.


----------



## KPM (Dec 31, 2015)

guy b. said:


> I've no idea what you mean by "true believer". What do you mean?



Ah!  The "true believer syndrome" is one in which someone has become utterly convinced that their lineage is the one and only very best lineage of Wing Chun in the entire universe!....despite knowing very little about the other lineages and versions of Wing Chun.   One in the grips of this affliction very often makes generalized sweeping statements delivered as fact when referring to things outside of their own lineage that they actually know little about.  One in the grips of this affliction often think the conclusions reached within their lineage must apply to all lineages, because after all their lineage is the very best and therefore the reference for all the rest!  One in the grips of this affliction very often will not listen to reason or acknowledge logical arguments that point out failings or conclusions that they have reached based upon what is taught in their lineage, because, again, their lineage is the VERY BEST, and could not possibly produce inerrant conclusions!  One in the grips of this affliction very often just ignore what anyone else has to say that may contradict their predetermined beliefs.  Did I miss anything Steve?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

KPM said:


> Then maybe you shouldn't make such sweeping statements.



You identified a list of people, the majority of whom YM obviously did not give a sh1t about. I have direct experience of several of these. I advised you to use your eyes and increase your cynicism. Is this a sweeping statement? Seems like common sense to me. I have not singled any particular person out for criticism.

Use your eyes and your hands to see, then you will see. End of story.



KPM said:


> Ah!  The "true believer syndrome" is one in which someone has become utterly convinced that their lineage is the one and only very best lineage of Wing Chun in the entire universe!.



I am completly open to the possibility of other wing chun that works. I have just not encountered it so far in my life. I look forward to the day that I do. Please show or discuss your functional wing chun.



> despite knowing very little about the other lineages and versions of Wing Chun.



I have seen a lot of wing chun. I have only seen a single wing chun that works. What conclusion should I draw beyond what I have outlined above?



> Did I miss anything Steve?



From here it looks like you missed almost everything


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

geezer said:


> It's that kind of "culty" thing that some people get into where they think that _only_ their sifu, system, and lineage is any good.
> 
> I was actually a little bit like that for a while when I first started training. But fortunately, my own skeptical and curious nature pulled me out of it before I had to have my eyes opened via a major butt-kicking!



There is a difference between being agnostic and being a dupe. Holding the possibility of another functional wing chun is all that is required. They appear to be thin on the ground for some reason.


----------



## geezer (Dec 31, 2015)

guy b. said:


> There is a difference between being agnostic and being a dupe. Holding the possibility of another functional wing chun is all that is required...



Are you comparing yourself to an agnostic by admitting that there is always a possibility (however unlikely) of the unobserved existing?

So, in short you feel that_ *the only functional WC is WSL VT*_ ....although you humbly admit that somehow, somewhere, it is conceivably possible that some other WC _could_ also be functional...just that you haven't seen any evidence of it!

Guy, I guess it may surprise you, but there are people all over, from many branches or lineages who have found their WC to be functional. I'm not talking MMA champions, just regular martial artists who make WC work for them. If you haven't met anybody like that, maybe you need to get out more?


----------



## guy b. (Dec 31, 2015)

geezer said:


> Are you comparing yourself to an agnostic by admitting that there is always a possibility (however unlikely) of the unobserved existing?



I am agnostic about the possibility of other functional wing chun



> So, in short you feel that_ *the only functional WC is WSL VT*_




No, I don't think I am in a position to write off the whole of wing chun



> it is conceivably possible that some other WC _could_ also be functional...just that you haven't seen any evidence of it



Of course



> I guess it may surprise you, but there are people all over, from many branches or lineages who have found their WC to be functional



I have seen a lot of people who believed their wing chun to be functional.


----------



## Phobius (Dec 31, 2015)

Guy, where do you position yourself and how your WC is in terms of functionality? You feel you are better than every single other practitioner of any other lineage other than your own?

Or is it your opinion based on looking at their art and stating that in your mind it would not work for you as a functional system?

Question is important to understand if there is anything worth discussing.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> ---Ok.  Both you and LFJ have used the term "most" several times, implying not "all."   So who do you guys see as having "good" Wing Chun from Ip Man other than Wong Shun Leung?  Who else was a "good learner" that Ip Man was attentive to other than Wong Shun Leung?



I say "most" because I haven't seen all of his students, but the "mainstream" ones are not good, imo. By mainstream, I mean those with the farthest reaching and most populated lineages in the world, i.e.; Leung, Cheung, Tsui, Yip1 & Yip2. Among them, there is not a single fighter or anyone I think has good Wing Chun.

I understand there are some fighters within some of these lineages, but I am firmly of the belief that fighters are born, not made. If you have it in  your DNA to be a fighter, you can make almost anything work for you. But there are poor systems that may hamper your potential, while a good system will bring out your best. Having a born fighter or two in a lineage doesn't mean the system is good or works for most people. I've seen fighters come from some of these lineages, start with WSLVT and improve exponentially. That's the result of a fighter's DNA put through a great system.



> Different lineages have elements of what YM taught but tend to fall to bits due to incoherence and made up elements. WSL VT is simply the full picture. Obvious when you have learned a version that is just bits and pieces the moved to WSL VT.
> 
> ---Sounds like "True Believer Syndrome" emerging to me.  ;-)



That's not a fair judgement. It's not just a claim of superiority coming from nothing more than a biased attitude. It's an observation made by literally thousands who have switched lineages and noticed the same thing. Each step and element of WSLVT simply fit together and function better as a coherent development system. That's objective fact in all fairness.



guy b. said:


> A fw years back when there was a lot of fuss about Alan Orr (Robert Chu) wing chun I went and tried it. I was not that impressed compared to the WSL approach, but I think it has some elements that are better than other wing chun I have seen. Overall I would call it a gap-filled wing chun but one that is aimed at modern sporting comps so ends up better than most for this reason, i.e. the training approach includes contact and real time.



I agree with this. Of all the other lineages of Wing Chun, this is really the only one I don't have much of a problem with, although it doesn't really function like YM VT. It is clearly gap-filled Wing Chun, but it is no doubt functional _for its purpose_, which is modern sporting competition. It is not preferable for my purposes though, and I don't look at it as being the same style anymore.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Guy, where do you position yourself and how your WC is in terms of functionality? You feel you are better than every single other practitioner of any other lineage other than your own?
> 
> Or is it your opinion based on looking at their art and stating that in your mind it would not work for you as a functional system?
> 
> Question is important to understand if there is anything worth discussing.



You are asking me an either or question where neither option is agreeable.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You are asking me an either or question where neither option is agreeable.



Those were Yes/No questions, except the first one which was a question that is free text. No "Either/Or" question at all.


----------



## Phobius (Jan 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> That's not a fair judgement. It's not just a claim of superiority coming from nothing more than a biased attitude. It's an observation made by literally thousands who have switched lineages and noticed the same thing. Each step and element of WSLVT simply fit together and function better as a coherent development system. That's objective fact in all fairness.



And here the thread once more dropped down to a "my art is better than your art".

Simple fact for you, nothing is considered proof until it can be proven. Stating that there are 1000 fighters at least that switched system and saw the superiority of WSLVT is a statement all lineages can make. You just decided to stop being part of a discussion.

Stop drinking the kool-aid people, your art... my art... all arts are all without the secret recipe that can rule the world. Is is your teacher/sifu that helps to train a fighter. If he is good or bad only his students know for a fact. WSL was a fighter does not mean he was the best teacher. Someone being a teacher does not mean they are a fighter.

Any discussion as to what is "best" as a fighting art can go join a debate club. Let the rest of us explore our art, train and discuss areas of interest to find new ways to not locate the roots of our art but rather evolve it to something even more beautiful.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Those were Yes/No questions, except the first one which was a question that is free text. No "Either/Or" question at all.



"You feel you are better than every single other practitioner of any other lineage other than your own?

*Or* is it your opinion based on looking at their art and stating that in your mind it would not work for you as a functional system?

-Neither


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

Phobius said:


> And here the thread once more dropped down to a "my art is better than your art".
> 
> Simple fact for you, nothing is considered proof until it can be proven. Stating that there are 1000 fighters at least that switched system and saw the superiority of WSLVT is a statement all lineages can make. You just decided to stop being part of a discussion.
> 
> ...



Specifics have been raised already, particularly by LFJ.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 1, 2016)

Well, I understand it causes butthurt to say so, but those who disagree with it have not gone to hear the full explanation of WSLVT in person and try it out with someone who knows it well, so they have no frame of reference to understand the comparisons made and just want to label it "true believer syndrome", which is a stupid thing to do. Those who have gone, and there have been literally thousands, have not looked back since.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

I find WSL VT compared with other wing chun to be a bit like the situation in the early 2000s with BJJ compared to other grappling arts. There was a lot of confusion at that time about the best approach for full contact fighting competitions which allowed ground grappling. Lots of people did various kinds of sub grappling taught by a multitude of different people. There was a lot of debate about gi vs no-gi. Of course lots of judo, sombo and traditional jiu jitsu people tried to jump on the band wagon by increasing emphasis on ground grappling. There was a big bebate about the efficacy of catch wrestling vs BJJ. And of course many of the early BJJ teachers coming over from Brazil to Europe were not the best.

Over time this early confusion and disagreement has dissolved because in reality, when tested honestly, there is no ground grappling system that comes close to BJJ in terms of coherence, systematization, ideas, organisation, genius of conception, depth of quality people and genuine efficacy in ground grappling situations. If someone came out with an argument that judo or catch wrestling was a better approach today then they would look like a fool.

The problem with wing chun is that there is no honest process like grappling and MMA competition eliminating less workable approaches, and so far wing chun continues to suffer as a result. This may resolve if wing chun manages to make a mark in right fighting competition, or it may not. All I can say is that having seen other wing chun, WSL VT is more than a step change. It actually works!


----------



## Phobius (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. I have no problem with you stating that it is the best art you have seen. It is your right to feel and think as such.

Just felt that LFJ stating that there are some undisputable facts that prove WSLVT superiority is just bad for discussion. Such a statement is just as flawed in the way that it holds no proof as much as it is demeaning to all fighters and lineages out there including WSLVT.

Normally when people profess their superiority over others it is because they are unsure themselves and think more frequently they state it the more true it becomes.

Sad part is that I dont want to hear what should be the truth, I know what I learn works for me, however what I do want to learn is what others do to either see room for improvements or to simply find new ways to test my own knowledge as it exist today. As such it is interesting to understand if you feel your art is the best in the World, and if you feel yourself superior to all other practitioners of other lineages.

EDIT: Sorry btw, missread your answer. Thought you were questioning whether it was a Yes or No question. Think with ´Neither´ your answer is No to both. Please ignore what I wrote here.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 1, 2016)

Phobius said:


> Just felt that LFJ stating that there are some undisputable facts that prove WSLVT superiority is just bad for discussion. Such a statement is just as flawed in the way that it holds no proof as much as it is demeaning to all fighters and lineages out there including WSLVT.



There is proof for what I've said: the observable components of each system and their level of coherence and functionality as a system for skill development. You haven't examined it. Doesn't mean it's not there. Go find out for yourself.


----------



## KPM (Jan 1, 2016)

guy b. said:


> You identified a list of people, the majority of whom YM obviously did not give a sh1t about. I have direct experience of several of these. I advised you to use your eyes and increase your cynicism. Is this a sweeping statement? Seems like common sense to me. I have not singled any particular person out for criticism.
> 
> Use your eyes and your hands to see, then you will see. End of story.



"the majority of whom YM obviously did not give a sh1t about"  THAT is a rather sweeping statement!  How do you know who Ip Man did and did not "give a sh1t about"???   Do you know them all?  Where you there?  Have you actually spoken to them to hear there stories?  "End of story.".....spoken like a "True Believer"!


----------



## KPM (Jan 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> I
> 
> That's not a fair judgement. It's not just a claim of superiority coming from nothing more than a biased attitude. It's an observation made by literally thousands who have switched lineages and noticed the same thing. Each step and element of WSLVT simply fit together and function better as a coherent development system. That's objective fact in all fairness.
> .



And I've seen William Cheung people say the same thing.  I forgot one characteristic of the "True Believer Syndrome"!  Someone in the grips of this affliction very often cannot see it themselves and do not realize that they have been infected!


----------



## KPM (Jan 1, 2016)

Let the record show that both Guy and LFJ have said they are NOT claiming that WSL learned the only "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man.  They have used phrases like "most" and "majority", etc when referring to other Ip Man students, to give the impression that there are others besides WSL.  But when put to the question neither one can name a single student of Ip Man other than WSL that they feel learned Ip Man's art the "right" way.   And that's about as far as this line of discussion is going to go.


----------



## LFJ (Jan 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> And I've seen William Cheung people say the same thing.



I don't believe you are being honest about that.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 1, 2016)

You know, I likely have much less experience in Wing Chun than anyone posting here but I have to say from my little exposure to the Ip Ching and Leung Sheng side of this whole discussion I get the impression that the answer to all of this would be....."that's nice.... now shut up and train"....and to be honest I suspect you might get the same exact statement from WSL.

Take it for what it is worth from a Taijiquan/Xingyiquan guy that dabbles in Wing Chun from time to time


----------



## LFJ (Jan 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> Let the record show that both Guy and LFJ have said they are NOT claiming that WSL learned the only "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man.  They have used phrases like "most" and "majority", etc when referring to other Ip Man students, to give the impression that there are others besides WSL.  But when put to the question neither one can name a single student of Ip Man other than WSL that they feel learned Ip Man's art the "right" way.   And that's about as far as this line of discussion is going to go.



I'll be honest. I've seen a video passed around on Facebook that I believe was HKM lineage, and it didn't look too bad at all! I may be wrong about the lineage, but it wasn't WSL's anyway... I think.

The problem is, YM had students that we haven't seen much of even on video, and perhaps some that didn't go on to teach. How do I know? I can't judge them and say "all", so I must say "most", referring to the current big names that everyone is familiar with and who I named "mainstream".

Looking at 2nd generation students of YM may not be fair either, because there are even some terrible guys under WSL (who clearly spent very little time with him). So, again, I can't say because 2nd gen. students are bad, therefore some guy I've never seen was also bad. I must give the benefit of the doubt some times. I personally am not impressed with Augustine Fong, but I have not seen much of anything from HKM. Maybe he was great.

But what if, _what if..._ it was the literal truth what WSL said about YM believing it better to teach 1 good student than 10 bad ones, and he actually did that? Not saying that's the case, but even if that were the stone cold truth, no two-ways about it, you would still be mocking us as "true believers", when in fact we'd be the "truth believers". But you are just being childish about. You will not even go find out about WSLVT yourself.

Let the record show ! that KPM is just an argumentative little guy who loves nothing more than controversy and sh!t stirring and will try to lead everyone down the road to saying something they aren't, and will even go as far as putting words into people's mouths just to create hostility and arguments, and then point and laugh at how absurd everyone else is being.

That's his MO as he takes it upon himself to wrap up every thread with a final judgement and a line like "_And that's about as far as this line of discussion is going to go._"


----------



## KPM (Jan 1, 2016)

Let the record show ! that KPM is just an argumentative little guy who loves nothing more than controversy and sh!t stirring and will try to lead everyone down the road to saying something they aren't, and will even go as far as putting words into people's mouths just to create hostility and arguments, and then point and laugh at how absurd everyone else is being.

---I believe in calling "foul" when I see it.  And I obviously wasn't the only one that saw it.  You know nothing about me.  You just can't handle it when things start to hit a bit too close to home.  If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!   If you are going to make sweeping derogatory statements about everyone else's Wing Chun...yeah, I'm going to call you on it!  You can consider that "argumentative" if you want to.   And I didn't put words in anyone's mouth.

That's his MO as he takes it upon himself to wrap up every thread with a final judgement and a line like "_And that's about as far as this line of discussion is going to go."
_
---What I said was certainly true of this discussion!


----------



## LFJ (Jan 1, 2016)

I think you'll find I spoke quite nicely about CSL WC, as did Guy.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> There is proof for what I've said: the observable components of each system and their level of coherence and functionality as a system for skill development. You haven't examined it. Doesn't mean it's not there. Go find out for yourself.



Some of these details have even been discussed here already.

I have to say I don't really understand the mindset which takes a strong opposition to hearing how some other wing chun system works. Personally I would jump at the chance to hear more about (for example) HKM wing chun, or HFY wing chun, or some other version with which I am unfamiliar.


----------



## geezer (Jan 1, 2016)

LFJ said:


> Let the record show ! that KPM is just an argumentative little guy who loves nothing more than controversy and sh!t stirring...
> 
> ...That's his MO as he takes it upon himself to wrap up every thread with a final judgement and a line like "_And that's about as far as this line of discussion is going to go._"



Gentlemen, unlike that other forum,_ direct personal attacks are not acceptable_ here at MT. People must be able to agree to disagree without making it personal.

At this point I'm afraid I have to agree that there is no point in continuing this discussion, and I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread getting locked.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> "the majority of whom YM obviously did not give a sh1t about"  THAT is a rather sweeping statement!  How do you know who Ip Man did and did not "give a sh1t about"???   Do you know them all?  Where you there?  Have you actually spoken to them to hear there stories?  "End of story.".....spoken like a "True Believer"!



I can tell that YM did not teach some people with much care and attention (or that they did not care to listen) because their wing chun is incoherent and non-functional. There are parts of several of these systems which have obviously been made up or imitated badly from cursory observation. I don't need to be there because the evidence is here right now in the present and I have experienced it. I can make allowances for some individual variation in quality, but when a whole lineage is rubbish then it is time to face up to that fact. It isn't polite to pretend that all is ok.


----------



## guy b. (Jan 1, 2016)

KPM said:


> Let the record show that both Guy and LFJ have said they are NOT claiming that WSL learned the only "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man.  They have used phrases like "most" and "majority", etc when referring to other Ip Man students, to give the impression that there are others besides WSL.  But when put to the question neither one can name a single student of Ip Man other than WSL that they feel learned Ip Man's art the "right" way.   And that's about as far as this line of discussion is going to go.



This is a misrepresentation of the argument. I don't know if there is better wing chun than WSL VT because I have seen none. This doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I think you are making the kinds of mental leap that you would do in my position, but I am not prepared to do that. I would love for there to be other wing chun that I haven't seen which happens to be great.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 1, 2016)

*Thread locked pending staff review.*

*Senior Moderator*
*(seasoned)*


----------

