So you think every Wing Chun lineage other than WSLVT is 95% broken concepts and chi sau games? And you wonder why you can't carry on a civil discussion with anyone else?
Chi-Sau from lineage to lineage....
- Thread starter PiedmontChun
- Start date
So you think every Wing Chun lineage other than WSLVT is 95% broken concepts and chi sau games? And you wonder why you can't carry on a civil discussion with anyone else?
The core of CSLWCK comes from Hawkins Cheung.
The discussion become whether:
- WC needs evolution vs. WC doesn't need evolution.
- You train WC for yourself vs. you train WC for your WC teacher.
- YM taught his class the same way through all his teaching life vs. YM taught his class differently at his different age.
- All YM's students were just "copy machine" vs. some of YM's students made contribution into the WC system.
- You can move from Chi Shou -> sparring vs. you will need Chi Shou -> ??? -> sparring.
- Chi Shou is only fix step vs. Chi Shou can be moving step.
- Chi Shou should continuously remain arm contact vs. Chi Shou should remain contact -> break contact -> obtain contact again.
- ...
If it's not in your Chi Shou training, where do you train your
- remain contact -> break contact,
- break contact -> obtain contact again?
- WC needs evolution vs. WC doesn't need evolution.
- You train WC for yourself vs. you train WC for your WC teacher.
- YM taught his class the same way through all his teaching life vs. YM taught his class differently at his different age.
- All YM's students were just "copy machine" vs. some of YM's students made contribution into the WC system.
- You can move from Chi Shou -> sparring vs. you will need Chi Shou -> ??? -> sparring.
- Chi Shou is only fix step vs. Chi Shou can be moving step.
- Chi Shou should continuously remain arm contact vs. Chi Shou should remain contact -> break contact -> obtain contact again.
- ...
If it's not in your Chi Shou training, where do you train your
- remain contact -> break contact,
- break contact -> obtain contact again?
Last edited:
Eric_H
Black Belt
Well, though I am formerly of it, I won't speak for YM WC on this one, seems that horse is already dead on this thread.
For Hung Fa Yi, the training platforms are very different in focus and intent than what I did in YM WC. Our training progression is typically, Kiu Sao (single and double) -> Chi Kiu (single and Double) -> Reference Point Chi Sao (one handed) and Tahn Bong Fuk Chi Sao.
These terms however, are large groupings, each layer has a number of modules under it (ie. Kiu Sao containing 5 elbow/4 corner training, Fau Kiu Kiu Sao, Deui Ying Kiu Sao, etc etc), and that one does not necessarily need to learn all the training modules under one before moving to a module in the next.
One of the biggest differences is that our Chi Sao (general term including all platforms above) and free hand techniques are viewed as two halves of the same coin - you can't really have one without the other. Chi sao is viewed as analogous to a freeway, you can get off on exits to gate theory attack, free sparring, stay on the freeway cause it's not a good time to exit etc etc. Being able to flip between sparring and chi sao is the one of the desired outputs of the platform.
As common sense teaches us, nobody is going to want to stick with you, it's up to you to be able to hold them hostage there.
For Hung Fa Yi, the training platforms are very different in focus and intent than what I did in YM WC. Our training progression is typically, Kiu Sao (single and double) -> Chi Kiu (single and Double) -> Reference Point Chi Sao (one handed) and Tahn Bong Fuk Chi Sao.
These terms however, are large groupings, each layer has a number of modules under it (ie. Kiu Sao containing 5 elbow/4 corner training, Fau Kiu Kiu Sao, Deui Ying Kiu Sao, etc etc), and that one does not necessarily need to learn all the training modules under one before moving to a module in the next.
One of the biggest differences is that our Chi Sao (general term including all platforms above) and free hand techniques are viewed as two halves of the same coin - you can't really have one without the other. Chi sao is viewed as analogous to a freeway, you can get off on exits to gate theory attack, free sparring, stay on the freeway cause it's not a good time to exit etc etc. Being able to flip between sparring and chi sao is the one of the desired outputs of the platform.
As common sense teaches us, nobody is going to want to stick with you, it's up to you to be able to hold them hostage there.
Eric_H
Black Belt
For us that's part of Kiu Sao typically.
There is only one VT. WSL VT is VT, not some particular subset of it which does things a bit differently.
Please show me where I said this.
I mean the VT system
I don't think there is a generic usage of the term VT. VT is the VT system. CSL on the other hand (if it is what HS is talking about on the other forum), appears to be a re-imagining of some extinct system using old texts and elements from a variety of currently existing systems. It is a modern synthesis of lots of different things- a new system. It is quite obviously not VT, just as the system(s) you practice are not VT.
Neither of these things.
@Marnetmar: for all his personal failings, Leung Ting did receive direct instruction from Yip Man. Whether or not he had a formal to-dai to sifu relationship with GM Yip is another question entirely, since it is well known that his first actual sifu was Leung Sheung.
Unfortunately LT's personality, ambition, and a number of exaggerated claims resulted in a backlash campaign to discredit his actual connection with GM Yip. I know many of the facts involved, and they don't make any of the players in that old drama look good. Best to let it go and be forgotten.
@ Guy B: do you have basically stated in you previous posts on this thread that open discussion is productive, but only so long as it confirms your a-priori conviction that only PB WSL VT is correct. After all we've exchanged, you still see the world with the narrow blinders of a cult-fanatic. Your arrogant, trolling posts serve only one useful function that I can see and that's to elicit irritated, but occasionally worthwhile comments from others. Beyond that, your words have just become so much static to my ears.
Like Joy and a lot of other forum members, I don't expect to be answering many of your posts in the future. Perhaps KPM enjoys the aggravation, but I have other things to do.
Unfortunately LT's personality, ambition, and a number of exaggerated claims resulted in a backlash campaign to discredit his actual connection with GM Yip. I know many of the facts involved, and they don't make any of the players in that old drama look good. Best to let it go and be forgotten.
@ Guy B: do you have basically stated in you previous posts on this thread that open discussion is productive, but only so long as it confirms your a-priori conviction that only PB WSL VT is correct. After all we've exchanged, you still see the world with the narrow blinders of a cult-fanatic. Your arrogant, trolling posts serve only one useful function that I can see and that's to elicit irritated, but occasionally worthwhile comments from others. Beyond that, your words have just become so much static to my ears.
Like Joy and a lot of other forum members, I don't expect to be answering many of your posts in the future. Perhaps KPM enjoys the aggravation, but I have other things to do.
Typically it seems to be that people dislike contradictions in their thinking being pointed out. I don't think anyone currently on the forum besides LFJ really does this, and that is probably why arguments break out when he is involved.
You know, when someone pointed out the contradictions in the system I used to practice I investigated further, then changed direction and started training differently. It was a good decision. Holding on to wrong ideas only makes for frustration and anger.
I don't believe I have stated that. You seem to be reading extra things into what I wrote.
All I have said is that not many people got the system from YM. WSL was one of those. I do not know if the particular system that anyone here practices is VT, apart from obviously different ones like KPM or the CSL group- but then they openly state their difference.
I am very open to discussion and to having my mind changed. Maybe you didn't have a convincing argument? Your arguments are always welcome and I will always consider them honestly.
This just seems needlessly offensive
I'm really not
I like those drills. IMO that will fit nicely between WC Chi Shou and free sparring.
Chi Shou -> Kiu Shou -> free sparring
Eric_H
Black Belt
I don't know what that drill is, but it doesn't look like Kiu Sao I've seen in HFY, Chi Sim or Hung Kuen
There is only one VT. WSL VT is VT, not some particular subset of it which does things a bit differently.
---Yep! There it is! The "true believer" dogma has even advanced over time. You used to come across with the idea that WSLVT is the most accurate and best version of Ip Man Wing Chun. Now you have progressed to saying that WSLVT is the ONLY version of Ip Man Wing Chun and everything else must not be Wing Chun at all!
Please show me where I said this.
---I am not going to go hunt it down. I can't help it if you can't keep up with your various assertions. But you most certainly at one point were called on using the "VT" designation and then responded that when you do that you are talking about "WSLVT" because you can't speak to what other people do in their Wing Chun.
I don't think there is a generic usage of the term VT. VT is the VT system.
---There is Ip Man Wing Chun, Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, Sum Nung Wing Chun, etc. So Wing Chun most certainly is a general term. It doesn't matter whether you spell those words Wing Chun or Ving Tsun. If Ip Man preferred that spelling, wouldn't he have spelled it that way if he was commenting on Sum Nung Ving Tsun?
CSL on the other hand (if it is what HS is talking about on the other forum), appears to be a re-imagining of some extinct system using old texts and elements from a variety of currently existing systems. It is a modern synthesis of lots of different things- a new system. It is quite obviously not VT, just as the system(s) you practice are not VT.
---You are thinking of Yik Kam Wing Chun. Yik Kam Wing Chun and Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun are not the same thing.
I am very open to discussion and to having my mind changed. Maybe you didn't have a convincing argument? Your arguments are always welcome and I will always consider them honestly.
---That's the biggest load of non-sense (which is putting it nicely) that I have read in a LONG time! No argument is ever good enough for a "true believer."
---Yep! There it is! The "true believer" dogma has even advanced over time. You used to come across with the idea that WSLVT is the most accurate and best version of Ip Man Wing Chun. Now you have progressed to saying that WSLVT is the ONLY version of Ip Man Wing Chun and everything else must not be Wing Chun at all!
Please show me where I said this.
---I am not going to go hunt it down. I can't help it if you can't keep up with your various assertions. But you most certainly at one point were called on using the "VT" designation and then responded that when you do that you are talking about "WSLVT" because you can't speak to what other people do in their Wing Chun.
I don't think there is a generic usage of the term VT. VT is the VT system.
---There is Ip Man Wing Chun, Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, Sum Nung Wing Chun, etc. So Wing Chun most certainly is a general term. It doesn't matter whether you spell those words Wing Chun or Ving Tsun. If Ip Man preferred that spelling, wouldn't he have spelled it that way if he was commenting on Sum Nung Ving Tsun?
CSL on the other hand (if it is what HS is talking about on the other forum), appears to be a re-imagining of some extinct system using old texts and elements from a variety of currently existing systems. It is a modern synthesis of lots of different things- a new system. It is quite obviously not VT, just as the system(s) you practice are not VT.
---You are thinking of Yik Kam Wing Chun. Yik Kam Wing Chun and Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun are not the same thing.
I am very open to discussion and to having my mind changed. Maybe you didn't have a convincing argument? Your arguments are always welcome and I will always consider them honestly.
---That's the biggest load of non-sense (which is putting it nicely) that I have read in a LONG time!
No argument is ever good enough for a "true believer."Cant have a discussion without discussing things. You are not discussing but asking to be convinced when your mind is already set.
Saying things like "my system is the only coherent system" is not an open discussion, it is a statement that you will not allow to be questioned. Quite frankly the reason is if you allow yourself to discuss such a statement openly the outcome would be that you had to admit training an inferior system.
Problem is that this is not how we others view the world, in our view if we discuss techniques or theories then we may use other people's views to gather another insight in how people think and react to force or situations.... how other people may fight. Since you are so caught up in what is the one true system you fail to see that it is never the system but the fighter it is about. Even in your system everyone will come out differently with a different set of skills. Some because it was not the right system for them, others because they did not dedicate enough time to it.
Problem is that even you or some other student of your sifu will pass on this system and when they do, some parts of training will have changed. The way the system is interpreted will be changed over time. Memories fade, ideas shift. Understanding differs. Body changes. Your limbs grow weaker or you become more stiff with time. Eventually your system is not what it was because what it was will no longer suite you.
So you see, your point of view is not the same as mine and many others. Because you want to be convinced something is better or not, you are already there missing the full picture. Truth is that nothing is better or worse, just different.
Nothing is true or false, just a mix of both. Nothing is the true WC/VT, just an evolution over time and people/sifus as well as generations.
(And yes there are systems that are pure fantasies, we all know at least some. But they are not part of discussion regarding WC lineages)
Last edited:
I am not saying this. How can I help your interpretation of what I wrote?
The question is where did I start "using VT generically for all wing chun"? This is what you were complaining about. You haven't answered.
These are different systems. VT is the system of YM.
Ok
I can't remember you making a good argument. I have read some good arguments from others here which have given me pause for thought. Maybe try to make better arguments?
But it isn't. My thinking about VT has been changed several times in my life due to discussion and training with different people. I would honestly be happy if someone could show me a better way.
I was interested in finding out about the system that HS talks about on the other forum. I believed this to be CSL, but KPM has informed me that it is Yik Kam. Unfortunately I simply can't make sense of what HS is saying. I have tried.
I don't think I have said that VT is the only coherent system. I don't mind if someone points out a glaring problem with VT, I would just shift my training in another direction. This has happened to me more than once in my life training MA.
There are many "true systems" in martial arts. Examples include BJJ, SPM, Hsing Yi/Yiquan, Ving Tsun. I am not arguing about who is the best fighter; I am interested in the system of VT- how it works.
Systematisation prevents this from happening, and makes it identifiable when it does. It is quite possible to adapt to changing physical condition within a system. Again you seem to be focused on the personal, which might explain why you get offended sometimes.
Some things are objectively better for the purpose to which they were designed than others. Not all MA systems are equivalent. I can't understand why discrimination in such things causes offence.
You contradicted yourself.
I just Googled the term "Kiu Shou" and came up many clips. That one was one of those. Could you put up a clip that may look like "Kiu Shou" for you? I don't speak Cantonese Chinese so I don't know what you are talking about.
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2014
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 87
This will help understand the CSL idea of Chi sao better. Yes it is quite different from the WSLVT way. Im not entirely sure how much of Hendriks stuff is in CSL. Hawkins Cheung seems to be Robert Chu's main man though.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
Why do people think grappling arts always beat striking arts?- Latest: Kung Fu Wang
-
-
-
-