Another Wing Chun Forum Thread Locked!!

[Xue Sheng]

Countdown to thread lock

 

[geezer]

...To understand others and how to communicate differing ideas and opinions we must understand how they think, how they communicate, and how they absorb information.

Yeah. And the hard part is to accept that others may communicate in a different way, may be holding very different presuppositions and may have a strong emotional attachment to those presuppositions. And then, of course there is the ego factor.

One thing that has helped me be able to enjoy communicating with others on this forum is that I gave up my "true believer" point of view a long time ago. I still practice an offshoot of WT with a guy who is definitely good. But I also train some other stuff, and I actively question the efficacy of everything I do. I believe what I have trained is a very good system, but it doesn't have all the answers. Believing that makes me a good deal more humble and less preachy than I once was.

When I ask for explanations from you guys, it is because I'm really interested in the solutions others have found. This is not the case for those who already believe that they or their sifu, lineage, etc. already have "the right" answer. If you already have the right answers, then all your posts will be directed at proving others wrong. All your questions will be constructed to elicit information used to support your argument and discredit the other person's position. If this is the way a forum member comes across, others will quickly tire of trying to answer their questions, or give vague and evasive answers so as not to feed what appears to be a very insincere line of questioning. Ultimately each side sees the other as being insincere, deceptive and, as LFJ noted, "not a straight talker".

Without taking sides, this is exactly how team LFJ-GB and team KPM-SG have been treating each other. The crazy thing is that neither side can see it or admit that they have a role in provoking the other group. Now that is not being a "straight talker"!!!

 

[Steve]

Yeah. And the hard part is to accept that others may communicate in a different way, may be holding very different presuppositions and may have a strong emotional attachment to those presuppositions. And then, of course there is the ego factor.

One thing that has helped me be able to enjoy communicating with others on this forum is that I gave up my "true believer" point of view a long time ago. I still practice an offshoot of WT with a guy who is definitely good. But I also train some other stuff, and I actively question the efficacy of everything I do. I believe what I have trained is a very good system, but it doesn't have all the answers. Believing that makes me a good deal more humble and less preachy than I once was.

When I ask for explanations from you guys, it is because I'm really interested in the solutions others have found. This is not the case for those who already believe that they or their sifu, lineage, etc. already have "the right" answer. If you already have the right answers, then all your posts will be directed at proving others wrong. All your questions will be constructed to elicit information used to support your argument and discredit the other person's position. If this is the way a forum member comes across, others will quickly tire of trying to answer their questions, or give vague and evasive answers so as not to feed what appears to be a very insincere line of questioning. Ultimately each side sees the other as being insincere, deceptive and, as LFJ noted, "not a straight talker".

Without taking sides, this is exactly how team LFJ-GB and team KPM-SG have been treating each other. The crazy thing is that neither side can see it or admit that they have a role in provoking the other group. Now that is not being a "straight talker"!!!

I would like this post twice, if I could!

 

[LFJ]

Ultimately each side sees the other as being insincere, deceptive and, as LFJ noted, "not a straight talker".

Hmm, I can name at least half a dozen people here who have said they now feel they have a better understanding of the system I train and can see where I'm coming from, even if they prefer something different. Several publicly and others via PM.

That's including KPM himself from "the other team" on the recent "bridge" topic.

I don't think a deceptive, non-straight talker can get such results.

 

[LFJ]

The crazy thing is that neither side can see it or admit that they have a role in provoking the other group. Now that is not being a "straight talker"!!!

Well, I truly don't see how asking pointed questions can be taken as provocation. I for one welcome challenging questions.

As I said, I don't get upset at it. I just provide more information if I find it misplaced criticism. I imagine one would only get frustrated if they find the questions difficult to answer. In which case, they should ask themselves why.

In various areas of life, such as business, philosophy, or martial arts, I've always tried to find out what those who hold opposing views from mine really think, because I might find my beliefs are not justified as I think. It has happened more than once, in each area, that I've adjusted my beliefs to match the evidence.

I don't understand people who like to sit content and not search outside of their own groups which will be filled with confirmation biases.

Matter o' fact, I've asked people to post videos from my lineage and provide any criticism, such as how it might be at all indirect or sub-optimally efficient, or any other thing they might find disagreeable from their perspective.

So far, only one person has done that (here). And when I provided explanation of what they were watching (here), the questioning ended. So, I don't know what else to think.

The only criticism that might be valid is the "one-dimensional" thing, but I don't find that negative. The efficacy of VT training relies on its simplicity and directness, in both training methodology and fighting strategy. So I'm not actually looking to be so multifaceted with my VT. I don't need a taan-sau with a dozen applications.

A true criticism would be something like a perceived violation of established principles, or something that is just impractical. I would most like such errors to be pointed out to me, if I'm making them. Why others would be agitated by having perceived violations pointed out to them, I will never understand! Again, it's something I welcome.

 

[LFJ]

I've always said that the root of all the issues and perceived tension in a online discussion forum is a difference in how things are defined. If we all have varying ideas on the definition of say...'hand chasing'...(and throw in the fact that we all drink our own particular blend of lineage-flavored Kool Aid).... we'll never get anywhere when discussing WC/VT/WT.

Step 1 to solving this problem might be to start a thread explaining your interpretation and inviting others to do the same. Don't you think?

We had one such thread on directness and efficiency principles.

 

[Phobius]

A true criticism would be something like a perceived violation of established principles, or something that is just impractical. I would most like such errors to be pointed out to me, if I'm making them. Why others would be agitated by having perceived violations pointed out to them, I will never understand! Again, it's something I welcome.

This kind of criticism can't exist without a video demonstrating how you move or do drills. Without knowing how I move, you can not state anything about how I violate concepts or principles. This is a dilemma I have myself due to my wish of remaining fairly anonymous is greater.

Understand that you have similar dilemma.

My concern is that flaws are mostly viewed based on our own experience and the system we have been taught. Not from the view of a fighting context in itself. Reason being that most if not all of us are not clever enough, if anyone is, to figure out implications on advanced level in fighting format.

When someone points out a flaw it usually ends up in a lineage vs lineage debate because rather than adjusting to a pointed out flaw, it first has to be debated if it is a flaw in the first place. If mind goes apart on that, then the outcome should be that there is no flaw but this is sadly not where discussions have ended as of late. Sadly there has been a need constantly to find the ultimate answer in white or black. Truth in my view is more greyish.

 

[wckf92]

So far, only one person has done that (here). And when I provided explanation of what they were watching (here), the questioning ended. So, I don't know what else to think.

The questioning ended because of our differences in how we define things, as I noted earlier in this thread.
I wasn't about to continue the discussion you just quoted because to do so would have been pointless, since it was obvious our definitions are not aligned.
So, to me and my definitions, WSLPBVT violates basic ideas and is an inefficient method. And that is ok by me because I don't train in it.

To be fair, LFJ and Guy both seemed to be quite open and interested in my post on that thread. Especially since it involved them potentially learning of a perceived inefficiency in the VT they practice. So, from a questioning attitude / willingness to have things pointed out to them, they get a thumbs up for that.

 

[LFJ]

This kind of criticism can't exist without a video demonstrating how you move or do drills.

Most lineages have plenty of video available to look at.

The questioning ended because of our differences in how we define things, as I noted earlier in this thread.
I wasn't about to continue the discussion you just quoted because to do so would have been pointless, since it was obvious our definitions are not aligned.
So, to me and my definitions, WSLPBVT violates basic ideas and is an inefficient method. And that is ok by me because I don't train in it.

That's why I said I didn't know exactly what you were saying was inefficient about it and asked you to clarify.

I mean, just saying something is inefficient yet not being willing to clarify what you mean or explain your own definitions, is quite pointless. Why start or join the discussion at all?

Say what you mean. Give your definitions. Make things clear. Straight talk, you know? Then we can have fruitful conversations around here, and at least understand each other.

I don't understand the unwillingness of some to explain exactly what they mean.

 

[wckf92]

Most lineages have plenty of video available to look at.



That's why I said I didn't know exactly what you were saying was inefficient about it and asked you to clarify.

I mean, just saying something is inefficient yet not being willing to clarify what you mean or explain your own definitions, is quite pointless. Why start or join the discussion at all?

Say what you mean. Give your definitions. Make things clear. Straight talk, you know? Then we can have fruitful conversations around here, and at least understand each other.

I don't understand the unwillingness of some to explain exactly what they mean.

My bad, thought I had clarified. In brief, he (PB) "chases hands". He trains his flock to "chase hands". Thus, my viewpoint on his VT stands. Now, not to drag that topic back up; but this is exactly my point... you can counter with XYZ about how he is not chasing hands etc etc etc. And, this is because we have varying definitions and objectives about our individual systems. Hence, my post 38 in this thread.

You brought up a good idea about starting a thread about definitions...but I predict that may also quickly spiral out of control lol.

 

[LFJ]

You brought up a good idea about starting a thread about definitions...but I predict that may also quickly spiral out of control lol.

Well, let's not be pessimists. I'm sure the first few posts people make can be detailed and insightful.

After everyone's definitions have been made clear, who cares what direction the thread goes? It's the nature of conversation to flow and change course.

Guy b. made a good point recently, that if we all stay perfectly on topic, after the initial question has been answered by all, each thread will end within 2 pages.

 

[Phobius]

I think we would have to start by discussing the term "system" in comparison to "style". Which means we have to discuss what "style" means.... so where do we start?

Oh and if you wonder, my version system is the lineage we train. Style is how what been taught is being used and is very individual. This is the reason why I dont think one can assume what is seen on a YouTube video from a person's lineage can be used to provide criticism. Sadly. Life as well as online discussions would be so much simpler had I another view on things.

 

[LFJ]

Well, let's see.

A system has a set of guiding principles. One's behaviors are developed according to these principles through the system's training methodology. Can we not then expect these principles to be part of one's personal style?

So, if we see a disconnect between theory and training, can we not also expect the line between theory and application to be broken?

Or do we just take people at their word that they're applying their theory despite the training not lining up?

 

[guy b.]

In brief, he (PB) "chases hands". He trains his flock to "chase hands". Thus, my viewpoint on his VT stands. Now, not to drag that topic back up; but this is exactly my point... you can counter with XYZ about how he is not chasing hands etc etc etc. And, this is because we have varying definitions and objectives about our individual systems.

Did you define what you mean by hand chasing anywhere?

 

[mograph]

There are 3 primary modes that humans use to process thoughts; visual, auditory, kinesthetic.

Well ... sorry to say:
Learning styles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mograph]

Countdown to thread lock

How "meta."

 

[mograph]

If A puts up a clip online and B says it's a bad clip, should B put up a better clip to prove why he had said that A's clip is bad?

Nope.

In other words, can you say something is bad if you can't prove that you will be able to do better? IMO, if you can't support what you want to say, you should not say it in the first place.

That applies to the person who put up the original video: if he can't support the argument made by the video, he should not have put the video up. The person critiquing the video only needs to support his written argument in a written fashion.

A puts up video.
B says it's bad.
A asks why.
B makes his case by describing why he thinks the video is bad. He makes a claim (e.g. "the red shirt opens himself up to attack, and this is bad"), and cites evidence from the video (e.g. "he opens his left side at 1:35"), possibly citing authoritative sources (e.g. historical texts) if required for authoritative (ethos) appeal (e.g. in 1932, Chen XX wrote "you shouldn't open your left side to attack").
A could legitimately respond with something like, "agreed, but it was a demo, meant to show the form of a specific punch. Normally, red would turn to the right and block," explaining why the move was shown that way.
However, if A were to say, "if you're so smart, why don't you make your own video?" it would be an attempt to deflect criticism from the original video, and would be irrelevant to the point at hand.

Say, if I critique an author's writing, it's not incumbent on me to rewrite the author's work.
Instead, I have to make a clear claim (e.g. "disconnected paragraph structure") then give evidence (e.g. "paragraph 2 ends with a rhetorical question, but the start of paragraph 3 does nothing to suggest an answer, or a direction to an answer to that question").
If, in response, the author wanted to address my criticism, he would have to challenge my claim, challenge my evidence, or challenge the rule on which my claim was based (e.g. "yes, they are disconnected, but the piece was written in a style evocative of X writer, who is well known for writing disconnected paragraphs. It was a parody of that author's work, in other words.")

In a web forum, it is only incumbent on B to make an effective written argument as to why A's video is bad.

 

[LFJ]

Great post describing the forum interaction method of a straight talker!

 

[mograph]

If I wanted to show X concept in a video, but then I watched the video again before posting it, and realized that X concept couldn't be seen in the video ... I would still post the video, but I wouldn't say that it shows X concept in the video description.

(Some of you guys may be talking about a specific video, but I don't know which one you're talking about. I'm speaking generally.)

Now, if someone puts up a video and says something like, "here's what I do, enjoy!" I wouldn't be hard on the poster, because they're making only one claim: "here's what I do." The video's claims could only be challenged if it did not show that person doing what they do. That's its only claim.
Instead, any criticism on that video would best be delivered kindly, to help the original poster, probably as a question: "I see that you kept weight on your left foot. What was your intention there?" Something like that.

.. in my opinion.

 

[mograph]

If I wanted to show X concept in a video, but then I watched the video again before posting it, and realized that X concept couldn't be seen in the video ... I would still post the video, but I wouldn't say that it shows X concept in the video description.

Clarification: if the concept could be seen, but was subtle, I'd probably tell the viewers what they should be looking for, e.g. "at 1:25, I sink and deliver force by spiralling from the ground."

Back to criticism: personal attacks are a bad idea. Those are called ad hominem attacks, and are logical fallacies. Never attack the person.