Who do you claim changed a system to correct their errors?
David Peterson's new book on Wong Shun Leung
- Thread starter Vajramusti
- Start date
Who do you claim changed a system to correct their errors?
I believe you are not understanding LFJ's point. He is saying that VT is a self correction system. When you discover an error through sparring or fighting, VT provides a self contained error correction process allowing you to fix your error before going back to a pressure situation, where more errors will arise. In this way we get better.
If instead of looking within the system to fix your error, you instead graft something on, change something, re-invent something then you are filling the gap in your current knowledge and skill set with something not VT. This is gap filling.
Apparently most of the people who learned something from YM did this, resulting in current systemic differences
Everyone does this, it is called basic training.
That can then be argued towards you, me and all. Because WC was changed by YM.
Not everyone does this. Some people gap fill, resulting in changes to the system.
VT is what was taught by YM. Changes since that time by various people as a result of gap filling have produced the various things calling themselves VT that exist today.
This is not true. WSL made changes to your system from what was taught by YM. Not saying it was bad, just different.
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
I am pretty certain WSL's wing chun looked a lot different from what YM taught. I think PB's probably looks different from WSL's.
WSL was known as an innovator. There are plenty of stories of him making adjustments and improving his system according to his focus and needs. WSL footwork is something that I have not seen in other wing chun lineages. I don't believe YM taught it. I think he came up with it himself and it works bloody well.
I believe WSL's approach was to make Wing CHun your own and continue to evolve and refine it. He had an aggressive competitive mindset and a win the fight at all costs type approach. I believe he was highly influential with YM's school as someone that other students looked up to. It seems YM had a much more peaceful and passive mindset.
But WSL wing chun is just one expression of wing chun based on a particular focus and mindset. Yes, WSL had a certain mindset and approach that was his own and to some extent has been passed down to his students.
Now gap-filling is a somewhat dismissive term that implies someone didn't learn something as well as they should have. This is pure and unadulterated snobbery and a pile of steaming BS. There is infinite room for differences in expression, interpretation, focus etc. It is also quite well known that YM taught his students differently.
And the fact is guys, WSL did miss some things that you can find in other lineages. I believe this was because he was heavily focussed on application and fighting. I am not going to expand on this and start a lineage war because this argument is already tiresome. The fact is WSL had a focus and got good at that. Nuff said. Every wing chun teacher under YM has a slightly different take and focus and are good and took their wing chun in that direction.
Phaebus is right in pointing out that YM changed things himself. His wing chun looks quite different from fhe stuff that his kung fu brothers and sisters learned. Also it is different from the stuff he taught before moving to HK. I mean, there is even some evidence that he added the knife form a Weng Chun guy in HK. Who knows?
WSL was known as an innovator. There are plenty of stories of him making adjustments and improving his system according to his focus and needs. WSL footwork is something that I have not seen in other wing chun lineages. I don't believe YM taught it. I think he came up with it himself and it works bloody well.
I believe WSL's approach was to make Wing CHun your own and continue to evolve and refine it. He had an aggressive competitive mindset and a win the fight at all costs type approach. I believe he was highly influential with YM's school as someone that other students looked up to. It seems YM had a much more peaceful and passive mindset.
But WSL wing chun is just one expression of wing chun based on a particular focus and mindset. Yes, WSL had a certain mindset and approach that was his own and to some extent has been passed down to his students.
Now gap-filling is a somewhat dismissive term that implies someone didn't learn something as well as they should have. This is pure and unadulterated snobbery and a pile of steaming BS. There is infinite room for differences in expression, interpretation, focus etc. It is also quite well known that YM taught his students differently.
And the fact is guys, WSL did miss some things that you can find in other lineages. I believe this was because he was heavily focussed on application and fighting. I am not going to expand on this and start a lineage war because this argument is already tiresome. The fact is WSL had a focus and got good at that. Nuff said. Every wing chun teacher under YM has a slightly different take and focus and are good and took their wing chun in that direction.
Phaebus is right in pointing out that YM changed things himself. His wing chun looks quite different from fhe stuff that his kung fu brothers and sisters learned. Also it is different from the stuff he taught before moving to HK. I mean, there is even some evidence that he added the knife form a Weng Chun guy in HK. Who knows?
Now this got me curious. Something I would definitively love to learn/read/hear more about.
Do you have any good source of information on this? Mean it could be a book, dvd, youtube or maybe nothing exists other than practising it firsthand from a WSL teacher (I believe the later to be priority but also way more difficult since it is harder to find locally)
wckf92
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 556
Interesting. Care to explain this a bit more?
wckf92
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 556
Hadn't heard of this before...any further info or links where one can research further? Thx.
The story has likely gotten distorted a bit....like a game of "telephone." ;-) Weng Chun does not have the knives. The story is actually that Ip Man knew the Weng Chun guys that trained at the Dai Duk Lan, probably saw Tang Yik doing the pole form on more than one occasion and may have picked up some pole moves that way.
Realize that Andreas Hoffman has the knives in his "Chi Sim Weng Chun" system. But this is a modern-day conglomeration system. His knives actually come from Pan Nam Wing Chun!
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
KPM .... I stand corrected. Think I got that from Sergeo!
But the point remains the same. YM in his wisdom decided to add it in even though he wasn't taught it from his orignal teacher.
The footwork I have seen from lineage to lineage differs a lot. With WSL footwork, the hand structure is supported by the footwork. Just as a basic example, if I tan or jut a strike, the WSL approach would be to step off the line and the same leg steps back as the side that does the tan or jut. What this means is that if someone presses that arm structure, the force goes into the back leg and can be held by the stance. What I see with a lot of other lineages is the other leg being used. So if their arm structure gets pressured their stance and footing cant hold it because their is no support. Their pros and cons for both approaches ... I have since discovered. However, the WSL approach is the one that is stronger structurally.
But the point remains the same. YM in his wisdom decided to add it in even though he wasn't taught it from his orignal teacher.
The footwork I have seen from lineage to lineage differs a lot. With WSL footwork, the hand structure is supported by the footwork. Just as a basic example, if I tan or jut a strike, the WSL approach would be to step off the line and the same leg steps back as the side that does the tan or jut. What this means is that if someone presses that arm structure, the force goes into the back leg and can be held by the stance. What I see with a lot of other lineages is the other leg being used. So if their arm structure gets pressured their stance and footing cant hold it because their is no support. Their pros and cons for both approaches ... I have since discovered. However, the WSL approach is the one that is stronger structurally.
wckf92
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2015
- Messages
- 1,575
- Reaction score
- 556
Is it known that YM was not taught the knives from his original teacher(?)
As for the footwork example, it is difficult to picture what you are saying but "hand structure is supported by the footwork" is, I thought, common in WC.
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
I don't think so from my understanding, but I am not a historian. I read an article with Lun Gai (YM's student in Foshan). He said they were no knives seen or taught. People researching this say that YM definitely picked it up later in life.
Yeah this is where you get some huge variance in ideas.
So in the same way that you would get a more powerful punch from a right cross supported by the right foot back, you get more power and support from the ground by punching/paking/taning with the same side foot back. If I, say, jabbed a Wonger with my left arm, he might, say, pak that with his right hand while stepping off the line and stepping back with his right. If while I am punching, I read this a little and decide to change the angle of force of my punch to disrupt or his pak hand and open him, I am going to have a hard time because the force and direction of his pak will be line up with his back leg. Their Pak will hold.
Now with other WC approaches to this, another leg is often used. What this means is that if I press that same pak they will be off-balanced and be forced to step (maybe change their arm structure). However, there are advantages in other ways to do things.
And there other approaches also.
Yeah this is where you get some huge variance in ideas.
So in the same way that you would get a more powerful punch from a right cross supported by the right foot back, you get more power and support from the ground by punching/paking/taning with the same side foot back. If I, say, jabbed a Wonger with my left arm, he might, say, pak that with his right hand while stepping off the line and stepping back with his right. If while I am punching, I read this a little and decide to change the angle of force of my punch to disrupt or his pak hand and open him, I am going to have a hard time because the force and direction of his pak will be line up with his back leg. Their Pak will hold.
Now with other WC approaches to this, another leg is often used. What this means is that if I press that same pak they will be off-balanced and be forced to step (maybe change their arm structure). However, there are advantages in other ways to do things.
And there other approaches also.
What stories? The only one I hear is having gaang-sau added to SNT. You can call that an adjustment and improvement to the system, allowing that action to be taught sooner, but it's not actually changing anything about VT.
That's a bloody uninformed opinion. WSL footwork is contained in the forms, like the dummy and knives. YM obviously taught this footwork. There are videos of him on the dummy.
Most other lineages also have (kinda) this footwork in forms, but don't appear to understand the tactical ideas of it applied to free fighting.
And what do you base this belief on? Certainly not any quote from him. When asked if he made any changes to VT, WSL said he taught what YM taught, only perhaps more systematically.
He said that the theory of VT is perfect for what it's meant to accomplish and it doesn't need any changes, only that the BJ form (outside the core strategy of VT) may be open-ended. Only humans are not perfect, so we need to train harder, not go about making changes to things that don't need changing.
Your belief seems to be based on the desire for all different approaches to be justified under the "evolution" rationale.
Or... it's just an uncomfortable truth.
You really think YM taught dozens of radically different methods of VT?? That's highly illogical.
If your position is for evolution in other lineages, then WSL didn't miss things. Other lineages invented them. But since he was more focussed on fighting, he didn't mess around with chi-sau tricks and blind theories.
You even admitted that your lineage cares less about applicability than it does playing around with structure and forces. So you shouldn't take offense to that. Just a different focus.
What did WSL change?
It's not though...
Chi-sau as a "laboratory" is something I've heard other lineages say. I didn't make it up.
Here is an example of how one lineage uses chi-sau as a laboratory to suss out techniques and theories through energy riddles. He's thinking hard and asking "how do I move your structure", "how come I can't use your force", etc..
This is taking "techniques" from the forms and experimenting with them in chi-sau. This makes the system a one-way street, from forms to chi-sau to fighting.
If things don't work quite right in fighting they'll continue experimenting with the techniques and theories in chi-sau. Over time, the entire system changes and we have dozens of lineages doing things radically different from one another.
This is only one example. You can find many lineages playing around with energy riddles like this. That's how things change. They say "oh, when you press on my taan-sau I can do this". The problem is, that is only relevant in a chi-sau exchange with a likeminded partner. None of this is going to happen in a fight.
Chi-sau is to fix free fighting errors and condition attributes, not experiment and create theories in a format far removed from reality.
Why do you think this?
Why do you think YM didn't teach the footwork of the system?
WSL himself said that he taught YM's system. What makes you believe differently?
VT is an internally coherent and consistent fighting system. Changing parts of the system does not result in equally valid expressions of that system. It just results in breaks and disconnects.
What would you prefer to call it when the error correcting method of the system is not used, and errors in knowledge and technique are instead plugged with other ideas? I think you are reading emotion into the term where none exists, possibly because you study a type of VT where this has happened. If you think that it is better to gap fill than to use the error correcting methods of the system then feel free to call it whatever you like. How about "VT system failure and discovery"? Many people do this kind of thing.
Why is it BS to argue that the system contains what it needs already? I think it is well known that YM was a guy who didn't care too much about outcomes for the vast majority of his students. I don't think we know that YM intentionally taught completely different understandings of the things in the system. We can piece together what happened usually by looking at consistency and coherence of ideas.
What did WSL miss out on? I would like to know so that I can seek it out.
There are plausible reasons for this state of affairs
VT is what was taught by YM. I don't have much interest in other mainland systems
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
That's why I said "I think" and not pretend to talk from an absolute position of authority like you seem to like to do. Of course I don't know exactly what YM taught. But neither do you. There's footwork in the forms (which doesn't differ too much from lineage to lineage), and then there is the footwork in application to a strike or in fighting. This is what I am referring to. I can only assume WSL made it up because I haven't seen it used in other lineages and it seems to suit the general WSL approach, mindset and focus. I think Sifu Darren said this is WSL footwork, but whatever.
Your whole attitude seems to be that everyone else has got it wrong. If you love WSL so much, what's wrong with any notion that he developed something like the footwork. WC wasn't a gift from the heavens nor was it necessarily made by enlightened beings. It was made by people. WSL is a person. At a certain point his expertise could have reached a level where he could have made his own judgement to make improvements or adjustments wherever he saw fit ..... and rightly so.
Never the less, we often heard about how YM taught students differently based on certain characteristics of the student. That certainly explains the variance. Or perhaps he just provided a series of theories and concepts leaving students to work things out themselves. Many students under Yip Man have said this also.
Then there is the LFJ theory, which states that YM taught in a very specific way and WSL was the only one paying attention.
My belief is not so much evolution based, but one of specialisation. Different students gave different levels of importance and focus to the things that YM taught them and specialised in that.
You don't know exactly what YM taught. Only his direct students know that. You have no way of knowing either way if other students added things or learned them directly from YM.
Your hero worship of WSL is so strong that you have a really limited perspective. It seems your reverence for him is so unbending, that you don't see him as anything less than a perfect representation of wing chun. There is no possibility that while he might have been great at some things, he might not have been great at others (like all of us! He is human after all).
Seems strange that you even bother on a forum where we try to communicate our passion for wing chun across lineages. It is also sad that you further isolate yourself from WSL lineage teachers that are not PB derived.
Yep, and these skills were things YM could also do.
As I said, there is a disconnect in some lineages that share similar footwork in forms, but don't appear to understand the tactical application of it in free fighting.
Rather than assume WSL made it up, just look at fighting experience. Those with less or no fighting experience have worse footwork.
Because I don't just make blind assumptions. WSL was directly asked if he made any changes to the system. He said the system didn't need any changes. He would be stupid to make changes if he believed that then, wouldn't he? How much clearer could that be?
Okay, I think that is a bad idea, because the system is meant for all parts to work as a whole. If you focus on certain things to the extent that the fighting strategy and tactics are changed, it will cause short circuits in the functioning of the system.
WSL was just the teacher. It's the system that is theoretically "perfect". Of course, we humans are not. I've never said WSL was perfect. But he clearly understood the system in its entirety.
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
Right. So you are basing your whole theory that WSL has the most complete and cloeset version to Yip Man on this thing that WSL said?
Yep so deficit thinking again. My sifu knows best. WSL is right and everyone else is wrong. Others didn't fight as much so missed the point.
How do you know what the sytem was meant for? How do you know if a system will short circuit?
Im glad you like PB/wsl man I really am, good for you. I have my own reverence for my wing chun line. I just don't think its good form to run around telling everyone else that their wing chun is ***** and that we have the holy grail of wing chun. It gets tiresome and we are not kids anymore. This whole my daddy is better than you daddy BS is getting old.
Im done with this conversation.
