Anyone recognize this?

[wckf92]

Lol! You're such a nerd.

Haha... guilty

 

[LFJ]

Better to keep your distance, stay non-partisan and just call 'em like you see 'em. KPM is a great guy, but he always takes the bait, hook, line and sinker. LFJ and, especially Guy (remember him?) just loved to yank his chain.

Really?

This thread is still short. There's still time to quickly read back over and see that I was only giving a non-partisan opinion on the training method as I see it, and gave alternatives of what I'd do instead.

Then you can see exactly where KPM brings up WSLVT himself and tries to make this into another lineage war.

I did not bait him. He's just a grudge holder and loves to turn things into arguments.

 

[Nobody Important]

Not aimed at you guys NI! I meant as a "resistance skill" when LJF starts in on his cr@p.

I know, I just couldn't help myself.

 

[Grandmaster Yue men quan]

Very nice midlevel adaptation. You should also include gnoy and noy moon choi, and complex trapping they are also midlevel skills, showing what to do with rear hand parry hand.

 

[anerlich]

Stepping backward while doing the low bong section? Is that standard?

No, stepping to the left while doing a left bong. Phil was stepping to the right IIRC.

even though YOU don't know TWC!

Apparently speaking to William Cheung a few times and watching vids is all that is required.

The same way I know Phil Bayer does lots of training for competition chi sao and very little else by watching his vids.

 

[Juany118]

Apparently speaking to William Cheung a few times and watching vids is all that is required.

The same way I know Phil Bayer does lots of training for competition chi sao and very little else by watching his vids.

And this is what kills me, the hypocrisy of it all. We explain what we see of WSLVT via Philipp Bayer on videos, statements by Bayer and WSL himself and the like, and we are accused of being ignorant, twisting the truth, even lying because we don't study that. However it seems perfectly okay for someone who doesn't study TWC to make claims of TWC using the same information. This I think is called hypocrisy.

 

[Juany118]

You, like most WCers, always like to say your system is concept- rather than technique-based.

---Like every version of Wing Chun other than WSLVT (at least according to you) it is both concept-based and technique-based. Specific techniques are what make the system distinctly Wing Chun. And those techniques are guided by the concepts behind them as well as the concepts of the strategies and tactics of the system. You seem to say that WSLVT is concept-based in its strategies, and then just ignores the concepts behind the techniques used. But I doubt that is really true. Some "JKD Concepts" guys would come the closest to being truly "concept-based" system in that the strategies and tactics of the system guide what they do and the techniques they use are somewhat irrelevant. So sometimes they are using Wing Chun, sometimes FMA, sometimes kickboxing, etc. But the WSLVT I have seen is not like that. It is always Wing Chun!!! Just like every other system of Wing Chun!

Maybe here we have a language barrier issue. When someone says that an art is a "concept based system", in relation to WC, it is not saying "make it up as you go along." It is saying that the art itself has unifying concepts (you can also call them principles), a logical consistency from front to back and back to front, some dictionaries define the word as "a plan or intention; a conception". So does WC have a "plan" absolutely and the techniques, that we train to become skills, are simply the manner in which we execute said plan.

 

[Juany118]

And this is what kills me, the hypocrisy of it all. We explain what we see of WSLVT via Philipp Bayer on videos, statements by Bayer and WSL himself and the like, and we are accused of being ignorant, twisting the truth, even lying because we don't study that. However it seems perfectly okay for someone who doesn't study TWC to make claims of TWC using the same information. This I think is called hypocrisy.

@Vajramusti simply curious to know why what I said it to be disagreed with? I am not claiming any system is right or wrong, I am simply commenting on how arguments are formed. It's more a comment on the process of debating this point, not the conclusions of any particular point of view.

People have indeed used videos and records of interviews with WSL and PB to comment on WSLVT via PB. When conclusions were disagreed with some people dismissed it claiming error without explanation etc. Yet at times they seem to come to conclusions using similar, if not identical, methods regarding other Lineages. Is that not, at least, logically inconsistent?

 

[Marnetmar]

Hey KPM, what brand/model of dummy is that?

 

[Vajramusti]

@Vajramusti simply curious to know why what I said it to be disagreed with? I am not claiming any system is right or wrong, I am simply commenting on how arguments are formed. It's more a comment on the process of debating this point, not the conclusions of any particular point of view.

People have indeed used videos and records of interviews with WSL and PB to comment on WSLVT via PB. When conclusions were disagreed with some people dismissed it claiming error without explanation etc. Yet at times they seem to come to conclusions using similar, if not identical, methods regarding other Lineages. Is that not, at least, logically inconsistent?

----------------------------------------------------------
Opinions on TWC without doing TWC is not necessarily hypocrisy

 

[Juany118]

----------------------------------------------------------
Opinions on TWC without doing TWC is not necessarily hypocrisy

You are correct. What I found hypocritical was that the person in questions has previously said that if one doesnt study a particular lineage of WSLVT, regardless of videos and text reviewed, one can't have an opinion on WSLVT....Yet they used the same method they called unacceptable there, to criticize TWC.

So it isn't an opinion of TWC I found hypocritical, it was HOW they chose to criticize it, given their own statements in defense of their lineage.

 

[Vajramusti]

You are correct. What I found hypocritical was that the person in questions has previously said that if one doesnt study a particular lineage of WSLVT, regardless of videos and text reviewed, one can't have an opinion on WSLVT....Yet they used the same method they called unacceptable there, to criticize TWC.

So it isn't an opinion of TWC I found hypocritical, it was HOW they chose to criticize it, given their own statements in defense of their lineage.

ok-thx

 

[LFJ]

What I found hypocritical was that the person in questions has previously said that if one doesnt study a particular lineage of WSLVT, regardless of videos and text reviewed, one can't have an opinion on WSLVT....Yet they used the same method they called unacceptable there, to criticize TWC.

No one said that. You are entitled to your opinion. You may just be entirely off the mark.

You can say I'm wrong about TWC, too. Better then to enter a discussion as to why, rather than start a pointless lineage war.

 

[geezer]

You can say I'm wrong about TWC, too. Better then to enter a discussion as to why, rather than start a pointless lineage war.

I must have missed the posts where Juany tried to start a lineage war. In fact I don't believe anyone has trashed anyone else's whole lineage ....except maybe that guy that referred to all the other Ip Man branches that he new of other than his own to be "broken".

Forgive me if I can't remember who that was. I'm getting old and muddle-headed, you know.

 

[Juany118]

I must have missed the posts where Juany tried to start a lineage war. In fact I don't believe anyone has trashed anyone else's whole lineage ....except maybe that guy that referred to all the other Ip Man branches that he new of other than his own to be "broken".

Forgive me if I can't remember who that was. I'm getting old and muddle-headed, you know.

Yeah, I don't claim any Lineage is better or worse, at best I say the Lineage I currently study simply "works better" for me.

My only issue is one of process. I just think it is "off" to criticize using methods one has said are not valid when they were defending a stance elsewhere.

 

[LFJ]

I must have missed the posts where Juany tried to start a lineage war.

It was KPM this time around, but certainly whenever either of them feel in a tight spot defending their methods, they bring WSLVT up and try to make arguments to deflect from themselves.

 

[LFJ]

I just think it is "off" to criticize using methods one has said are not valid when they were defending a stance elsewhere.

Different methods fit different systems.

One can usually look at videos of TWC and know what's going on because it's a pretty straightforward, application-based system.

But since WSLVT is not, you can't often just look at videos of it and know what's going on if you aren't familiar with the system.

When someone like Phil R. does a video saying 'this is how you do this movement in the TWC form, and this is how you apply it against this attack', we can take him at his word. There's nothing else to see. Unless he is lying.

When, however, you look at chi-sau videos from WSLVT, without explanations, you can assume nothing. Actually you assume a lot, but you are always entirely off the mark, because WSLVT isn't the application-based system you're familiar with.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Maybe here we have a language barrier issue. When someone says that an art is a "concept based system", in relation to WC, it is not saying "make it up as you go along." It is saying that the art itself has unifying concepts (you can also call them principles), a logical consistency from front to back and back to front, some dictionaries define the word as "a plan or intention; a conception". So does WC have a "plan" absolutely and the techniques, that we train to become skills, are simply the manner in which we execute said plan.

I've assumed this phrase ("concept-based") was meant to distinguish it from arts that focus on specific techniques. I'd place NGA, for instance, with early practitioners in most cases, as a technique-based art. As students progress, if the instructor leads them to it, they move away from specific techniques as solutions, and focus on the principles. If they stay technique-based, they have about 50 options. If practitioners focus on principles, they have fewer options (basic principles, so easier to "pick" one as needed), and more solutions (because they aren't constrained by the techniques). Is that what you're talking about?

 

[Juany118]

I've assumed this phrase ("concept-based") was meant to distinguish it from arts that focus on specific techniques. I'd place NGA, for instance, with early practitioners in most cases, as a technique-based art. As students progress, if the instructor leads them to it, they move away from specific techniques as solutions, and focus on the principles. If they stay technique-based, they have about 50 options. If practitioners focus on principles, they have fewer options (basic principles, so easier to "pick" one as needed), and more solutions (because they aren't constrained by the techniques). Is that what you're talking about?

Largely yes. You learn techniques, and there are more than a few BUT it is the underlying principles, the "concepts" that should guide execution. Example, you should be be thinking "I deal with a round punch with a tan I deliver as I make a relief step" you just deal with the round punch.

 

[Dylan9d]

I've assumed this phrase ("concept-based") was meant to distinguish it from arts that focus on specific techniques. I'd place NGA, for instance, with early practitioners in most cases, as a technique-based art. As students progress, if the instructor leads them to it, they move away from specific techniques as solutions, and focus on the principles. If they stay technique-based, they have about 50 options. If practitioners focus on principles, they have fewer options (basic principles, so easier to "pick" one as needed), and more solutions (because they aren't constrained by the techniques). Is that what you're talking about?

@gpseymour every art is technique based in early stages, Wing Chun can say it isn't, but those 3 forms aren't filled with air, although.......

And even technique based systems teach similar principles as the so called "concept / principle" arts.

It's a matter of wrapping, do you wrap it in a golden or black paper.......