Chi-Sau from lineage to lineage....

[KPM]

Good stuff.........Another way of looking at it: If we assume that WSL's system is the best, I think using that as evidence that it's the closest to what Yip Man taught is shakier ground than it is to say that Yip Man's teachings changed over time......more good stuff. ".

I agree with your post completely. Recall that I have made the exact same points and arguments in the past. But it made no difference. You have used logic, reason, and evidence....but this makes no difference to a "true believer." A "true believer" can take the same evidence that we see and interpret it in a different way, and deny that their way of interpretation is not as reasonable as ours. And its all based on one simple thing...."Sifu sez....." ie.....Wong Shun Leung said that he taught only what Ip Man taught him. As far as the "true believers" are concerned, that's the end of the discussion!

 

[LFJ]

Plus, let's say that WSL's system is the most coherent and non-contradictory one out there out of all Yip Man systems. What's wrong with crediting WSL's own genius and talent for it?

That's something a "true believer" or hero-worshipper might do.

But if it's not true, and there's no evidence to suggest it is, and much to the contrary, not crediting the VT system to WSL is just the honest position to take.

After all, he's one of Yip Man's students that actually went out and fought with Wing Chun. That sounds like a good way to find out what works and what doesn't and adjust your system accordingly.

That's not how the system works, and WSL knew better, as we discussed in this thread.

The point of testing one's skill in fighting is to find errors and allow the system to correct them. This way we are continually improving our fighting skill, not adjusting the system to fill gaps.

A good example of this is the Tan Sau-Gan Sau-Tan Sau in section 6 of the form where it used to be Tan Sau-Jum Sau-Tan Sau. It's well known that WSL is the guy that pioneered that change not just in his own WC but in Yip Man WC as a whole after he brought the subject up with Yip Man. Why not say WSL was a smart guy and credit him for it?

Obviously because he didn't create the gaang-sau...

He encountered a situation in fighting where jam-sau failed for him, and YM told him to use gaang-sau. Problem was he hadn't learned it yet because he hadn't gotten to the part of the system where it is first taught.

So together, it was decided that gaang-sau should be taught earlier and so it was brought into the SNT set.

Importantly though, gaang-sau did not replace jam-sau. Others replaced the "old technique" and as a result their systems ceased to function properly, as now jat-sau had to be used in DCS and students didn't learn about the double-edged sword that is taan and jam, an important pair throughout the entire system.

 

[LFJ]

I train Dan Chi Sau with steps. Yeah, that's right, advancing and retreating steps with varied pressure. And I like it!!!

Yep. It's very useful for linking our bong and tan to turning. When one party steps in with a more forceful palm or punch, the other party responds by borrowing the force and turning, and so dissolving the incoming energy without crashing force.

Bong opens the line of attack and taan attacks. They shouldn't be linked to turning anything but the opponent. Turn yourself and the opponent will thank you.

A few lineages like this don't seem concerned with over-turning and even seek to turn themselves while receiving force. There's a reason seung-ma / teui-ma stepping drills are trained from pun-sau with both arms in contact.

Teach stepping and turning with one hand in DCS to a beginner who hasn't learned pun-sau yet and there is bound to be all sorts of problems. Errors in distance, facing, angles, and footwork that will be difficult to correct.

Stepping in DCS is a system defect. This is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Phobius]

The point of testing one's skill in fighting is to find errors and allow the system to correct them. This way we are continually improving our fighting skill, not adjusting the system to fill gaps.

This is done by most by sparring. Of course given that the student has knowledge of why he is sparring.

Obviously because he didn't create the gaang-sau...

He encountered a situation in fighting where jam-sau failed for him, and YM told him to use gaang-sau. Problem was he hadn't learned it yet because he hadn't gotten to the part of the system where it is first taught.

So together, it was decided that gaang-sau should be taught earlier and so it was brought into the SNT set.

Importantly though, gaang-sau did not replace jam-sau. Others replaced the "old technique" and as a result their systems ceased to function properly, as now jat-sau had to be used in DCS and students didn't learn about the double-edged sword that is taan and jam, an important pair throughout the entire system.

This means WSL did not teach VT. The forms were not what he was taught himself, any change to a form is a different system altogether.

Say what you want but you have stated this a million times over. You can't change the forms or other parts of the system and call it VT. Instead those errors they saw during fighting should have been corrected from looking at the forms and drills.

 

[Phobius]

Teach stepping and turning with one hand in DCS to a beginner who hasn't learned pun-sau yet and there is bound to be all sorts of problems. Errors in distance, facing, angles, and footwork that will be difficult to correct.

Stepping in DCS is a system defect. This is putting the cart before the horse.

You are gonna see errors of same kind if doing stationary DCS between a tall and a short guy/girl. The person without doing stepping will be forced to handle incoming "attack" with weird angles just to do the drill.

Stepping can teach you bad habits, but that is why you have your sifu because he teaches you how to do it and why you do it. Not rocket science, easily spotted. Besides you do know people are not limited to a single drill in order to learn.

 

[guy b.]

CSL chi sao is more about controlling/disrupting the other persons balance.

Well then it is a system not closely related to VT. No problem.

 

[guy b.]

What constitutes as a "contradiction" though?

Things that work in opposition to each other and/or to the conceptual base of VT. For example in relation to stepping with DCS as summarised by LFJ above. It is fine to place value in these other ideas, but it isn't VT.

How do you know that there's not a misunderstanding at play on your part of what other people are doing instead of on the part of others for their own system?

A good way of finding out whether this is the case is to exchange ideas, for example on this forum. The usual result is anger, general defensiveness, and unwillingness to engage in further discussion once contradictions are pointed out.

in another thread I brought WSL's heel-pivoting mechanic into question, and from the discussion that resulted it turned out that, as an outsider, I was simply looking at it the wrong way.

This is a good example of discussion clarifying understanding.

Who's to say that a VT guy can't make the same kind of error?

Because when discussions are started answers are not provided and contradictions are discovered. I would be happy to discover contradiction in VT and I always look to test it in this way. So far I have failed.

Plus, let's say that WSL's system is the most coherent and non-contradictory one out there out of all Yip Man systems. What's wrong with crediting WSL's own genius and talent for it?

Because then you would be crediting WSL with the invention of the whole of the fully functioning and non-contradictory VT system, from a starting point in a broken and average kung fu passed from YM. Which is extremely unlikely. More likely WSL was just one of the few who got it.

If we assume that WSL's system is the best, I think using that as evidence that it's the closest to what Yip Man taught is shakier ground than it is to say that Yip Man's teachings changed over time.

This is because (I assume) you are looking at the problem from the standpoint of a non functional system. When you see how it works, and how everything fits perfectly together in a coherent way, then the improbability of YM simply tacking bits on and removing other bits over the years becomes obvious. More likely that YM simply didn't teach many people the system, for whatever reason. VT is a remarkable thing to be treasured and passed carefully on. It is ridiculous to compare it favourably with glaring misunderstanding or poor facsimile.

From WSL onward -- with the exception of Leung Ting who many aren't sure actually learned from YM in the first place -- we see systems that are basically the same as each other in terms of mechanics

You think?

 

[guy b.]

This is the main point.

Have any of you ever learned WC directly from YM? I have never met YM in person myself. So if you have never learned WC directly from YM, your opinion will have the same value as my opinion.

YM -> A -> X
YM -> B -> Y

For X and Y to argue about who is right and who is wrong just make no sense IMO.

There are many ways to determine the likelihood of a particular story.

 

[guy b.]

The dragon has 9 sons. They all look different.

To extend your metaphor, when 8 of the 9 sons don't share any of the characteristics of a dragon, we can start to draw some conclusions about the father.

 

[guy b.]

I have made the exact same points and arguments in the past. But it made no difference. You have used logic, reason, and evidence....but this makes no difference to a "true believer."

Yes, you have always been incredibly balanced and honest in previous discussions, never becoming angry or defensive when contradictions are pointed out, and never being one to bear a grudge. Most importantly you never seek to make an argument a popularity contest and always just stick to well formulated points which you disregard in a non-emotional way when they are shown to be wrong. Congratulations.

 

[Phobius]

To extend your metaphor, when 8 of the 9 sons don't share any of the characteristics of a dragon, we can start to draw some conclusions about the father.

Yes that 8 of 9 have the same father. Or you think YM shares no trait with anyone other than WSLVT?

 

[LFJ]

This means WSL did not teach VT. The forms were not what he was taught himself, any change to a form is a different system altogether.

Say what you want but you have stated this a million times over. You can't change the forms or other parts of the system and call it VT. Instead those errors they saw during fighting should have been corrected from looking at the forms and drills.

Nice try, but no...

Putting gaang-sau in SNT doesn't alter the concept of VT or the way it functions in any way. It's just introducing a "letter" sooner than it used to be.

WSL just hadn't learned the whole system at that time, or he'd have known the answer like YM did. The error was still corrected by something already part of the VT system. No fundamental change was made to VT.

 

[guy b.]

Yes that 8 of 9 have the same father. Or you think YM shares no trait with anyone other than WSLVT?

Your further metaphor extension makes no sense in terms of the metaphorical situation with the Dragon's children, in terms of how it relates to the situation in VT, or in terms of basic biology.

I have never said that WSL was the only person to learn YM's VT system, just that the number of people who got the system from YM was small.

 

[Phobius]

Because then you would be crediting WSL with the invention of the whole of the fully functioning and non-contradictory VT system, from a starting point in a broken and average kung fu passed from YM. Which is extremely unlikely. More likely WSL was just one of the few who got it.

Or he was one of the few that had already a prior knowledge of fighting and was unable to grasp all and instead the system worked better for him with his prior knowledge by doing it another way.

Or he just interpreted it differently.

The possibilities are endless. You just refuse to see logic in world not being black and white.

 

[guy b.]

Or he was one of the few that had already a prior knowledge of fighting and was unable to grasp all and instead the system worked better for him with his prior knowledge by doing it another way.

Very unlikely that the 95% of broken concepts and chi sau games that is modern wing chun is what WSL received, and that he then made the fully functional and conceptually perfect VT system out of that. It is easy to see the direction of travel from working system to broken system. Hard to see how a load of non-functional and contradictory ideas could all be miraculously fixed and, by sheer chance, make a coherent whole that appears as if it was designed to work together in a particular way from the start. It is about as likely as pile of bombed rubble in a war zone re-assembling itself into a working factory producing useful things. Much more likely that the process goes in the opposite direction.

Or he just interpreted it differently.

It isn't a matter of equally valid alternative interpretations. This is easily revealed by looking at specifics and the contradictions inherent in some interpretations. This is probably why people are usually not keen to discuss specifics.

The possibilities are endless. You just refuse to see logic in world not being black and white.

You have come up with 2 very unlikely interpretations of reality. This doesn't look like endless possibilities to me.

 

[KPM]

Well then it is a system not closely related to VT. No problem.

The height of snobbery!

 

[LFJ]

You are gonna see errors of same kind if doing stationary DCS between a tall and a short guy/girl. The person without doing stepping will be forced to handle incoming "attack" with weird angles just to do the drill.

Maybe you are focussing on the other person's arm when training with various people. Of course then you will be wrong.

Stepping can teach you bad habits, but that is why you have your sifu because he teaches you how to do it and why you do it.

No, stepping in DCS is the problem. It defeats the purpose of the drill by using letters that don't fit together.

 

[guy b.]

The height of snobbery!

Why is is snobbery to acknowledge difference? Doesn't CSL wing chun trace itself back to mainland systems anyway? Why would anyone find it offensive to mention that it doesn't appear closely related to YM VT?

 

[KPM]

But wait Guy. It occurred to me.....are you being inconsistent with your terms again? You once said that when you write "VT" you actually mean "WSLVT." But then you turned around and started using "VT" generically for all Wing Chun shortly after that. So which are you doing now? I agree that CSLWCK is not WSLVT. No one would it expect it to be! But to say that CSLWCK is not "VT" in the generic sense is the height of snobbery and arrogance. So are you just being vague and inconsistent, or are you being an a&&hole again?

 

[KPM]

A good way of finding out whether this is the case is to exchange ideas, for example on this forum. The usual result is anger, general defensiveness, and unwillingness to engage in further discussion once contradictions are pointed out.

That only happens when one of the participants is a "true believer" that insists that their way is the only "true" or "right" way and that anyone that does anything differently from what they are doing....anyone doing something that contradicts what they have been taught or practice themselves....must be wrong! That only happens when one of the participants comes across in a very arrogant and non-tactful manner that does not respect the people he is discussing with. Ask yourself why the only discussions here that have ended up as "slugfests" have been the ones in which you and LFJ have been involved!