David Peterson's new book on Wong Shun Leung

[guy b.]

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?

It is also possible to tell by looking at the coherence and consistency of the system. Contradiction often indicates gap filling.

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.

I don't think LFJ is saying that WSL is the only person who understood the footwork as taught by YM. There is no need to be emotional about it- if you are happy with your footwork and the thinking behind it then is that not good enough for you? If you would like to discuss details of footwork then please go ahead.

How do you know what the sytem was meant for? How do you know if a system will short circuit?

VT is for fighting. The teaching of strategy is in the system. Short circuits are due to lack of systematic coherence. If you change something in terms of strategy then contradiction and incoherence usually results.

 

[guy b.]

I just don't think its good form to run around telling everyone else that their wing chun is *****

Nobody is doing this, and yet everyone seems to read criticism into what is written on the page. Strange.

If your VT functions and you are happy about the thinking behind what you do, then what is there to be offended about? Why shy away from discussion of details?

 

[guy b.]

Im done with this conversation

I hope you will continue. I am keen to hear what you think WSL VT lacks that other branches contain. If it will help my understanding then I am all for it.

 

[Phobius]

Nobody is doing this, and yet everyone seems to read criticism into what is written on the page. Strange.

If your VT functions and you are happy about the thinking behind what you do, then what is there to be offended about? Why shy away from discussion of details?

Discussions on details are what we are doing, you guys (you and LFJ) are turning those detail discussions into a "my art is better than yours" mess.

It is abundantly clear that you want to avoid breaking the rules while at the same time claiming to be the only true lineage of WC.

Your claims are the following:
1. WSLPBVT is the one and only true lineage of WC dating back to YM teachings.
2. All teachers that fight differently to PB and WSL have not learnt or understand the full picture of WC.
3. If you do not learn the system as a whole it will short circuit and break.
4. All systems not like WSLPBVT are doing gap filling, because they have errors they do not correct by following their own system but instead integrate or innovate new solutions.
5. If you train something else you are not becoming as good in fighting as if you trained WSLPBVT.

Now you are wondering why people get offended, you are ruining a perfectly interesting discussion on details by adding ignorant nonsense. Oh and yes you are doing it in such a clever way that you do not break any rules. Problem is not your opinion, we all believe that our art is the best there is. If we don't we should train something else.

But we do not all believe our art is perfect, that is in my view kind of an ignorant point of view. A perfect art would be unbeatable and lets face it, it does not exist. Life would be so boring being a martial artist if we could become unbeatable.

 

[Phobius]

I hope you will continue. I am keen to hear what you think WSL VT lacks that other branches contain. If it will help my understanding then I am all for it.

We already know you are not interested in hearing anything. Arguing with you is like trying to have a discussion on the diversity of religion to a fanatic. Before the first word is said we already know there is nothing of value that will be added.

 

[guy b.]

Your claims are the following:
1. WSLPBVT is the one and only true lineage of WC dating back to YM teachings.
2. All teachers that fight differently to PB and WSL have not learnt or understand the full picture of WC.
3. If you do not learn the system as a whole it will short circuit and break.
4. All systems not like WSLPBVT are doing gap filling, because they have errors they do not correct by following their own system but instead integrate or innovate new solutions.
5. If you train something else you are not becoming as good in fighting as if you trained WSLPBVT.

I can't agree with all of these. Please provide quotes and I will address.

 

[LFJ]

Discussions on details are what we are doing, you guys (you and LFJ) are turning those detail discussions into a "my art is better than yours" mess.

Not so. I just said changing the system to fix errors, rather than allowing the system to do its job and fix them, over time will result in something other than VT.

If the updated version works better for you than VT, that's great. But it shouldn't be called VT anymore.

And there's no guarantee that it would be better than VT, if you've never given the system a chance to do what it's supposed to do.

A perfect art would be unbeatable and lets face it, it does not exist.

Not so. Because humans are not perfect. That's the great thing about VT. If the theory is perfect, we can keep using the self-correction tools to constantly improve and move toward perfection, even if it's always unattainable. It's the direction that's important and moving there.

Go about changing things that don't need changing though, especially for lack of understanding, and the direction is quite possibly lost.

 

[guy b.]

We already know you are not interested in hearing anything. Arguing with you is like trying to have a discussion on the diversity of religion to a fanatic. Before the first word is said we already know there is nothing of value that will be added.

On the contrary I am very keen to discuss details. I think the main problem is that some people seem to have an unwritten rule that discussion participants must accept everything as universally valid and equal. I am not a relativist and so I find this impossible to do. That doesn't mean that I am denigrating your position, which you have presumably justified to yourself in some way. We need to discuss the justifications, i.e. the details, in order to get anywhere, but people generally get offended before this happens.

Examples of things I would be interested to hear details about from recent threads include:

1. Deficiencies in WSL teachings, mentioned by WC Auckland on this thread. Things that WSL didn't get from YM. Problems with WSL VT.
2. CST power generation and structure is often mentioned but never in detail. I would be interested to hear about how it works and why it is different.
3. Any details about HKM VT. Most interested in differences with WSL VT
4. Tang Yik pole details. I hear it is great, but no details available.
5. CSL force flow. What is it? Nothing is available from HS that makes any sense to me.

I would be happy to discuss any of these topics in great detail.

 

[guy b.]

Not so. I just said changing the system to fix errors, rather than allowing the system to do its job and fix them, over time will result in something other than VT.

If the updated version works better for you than VT, that's great. But it shouldn't be called VT anymore.

And there's no guarantee that it would be better than VT, if you've never given the system a chance to do what it's supposed to do.



Not so. Because humans are not perfect. That's the great thing about VT. If the theory is perfect, we can keep using the self-correction tools to constantly improve and move toward perfection, even if it's always unattainable. It's the direction that's important and moving there.

Go about changing things that don't need changing though, especially for lack of understanding, and the direction is quite possibly lost.

This is a general point that could apply to many traditional Chinese MA systems. I don't see what there is to be offended about?

I assume many people are already using the system in the way it was designed to be used. No offence should be taken by those people. Those who feel differently about the purpose and methods of the system generally feel that evolving the system through time is the best approach. Again I don't see why those people would be offended by those who feel that taking a more conventional approach to the system is the right way to go.

What is the problem?

 

[Phobius]

On the contrary I am very keen to discuss details. I think the main problem is that some people seem to have an unwritten rule that discussion participants must accept everything as universally valid and equal. I am not a relativist and so I find this impossible to do. That doesn't mean that I am denigrating your position, which you have presumably justified to yourself in some way. We need to discuss the justifications, i.e. the details, in order to get anywhere, but people generally get offended before this happens.

Examples of things I would be interested to hear details about from recent threads include:

1. Deficiencies in WSL teachings, mentioned by WC Auckland on this thread. Things that WSL didn't get from YM. Problems with WSL VT.
2. CST power generation and structure is often mentioned but never in detail. I would be interested to hear about how it works and why it is different.
3. Any details about HKM VT. Most interested in differences with WSL VT
4. Tang Yik pole details. I hear it is great, but no details available.
5. CSL force flow. What is it? Nothing is available from HS that makes any sense to me.

I would be happy to discuss any of these topics in great detail.

Then please stop making every single thread a forum for you to explain that your art is flawless and true and at same time saying that there can be no other flawless or true WC/WT/WC unless it is identical to yours.

Now for discussion.

Out of those topics you are interested in, only bullet 1 was discussed in this thread and that was only after you started stating that any and all differences compared to your art are gap filling or errors.

I am not arguing or saying this because you are hurting my feelings, I could care less what you believe about your art. I am just annoyed that you destroy any discussion that is ongoing between other people that are not you.

 

[KPM]

LSJ wrote:
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?

---You live and work in China, don't you? How do you not understand the Traditional CMA mindset? This mindset prefers to say something is "traditional" rather than "new and improved." This mindset sees attributing innovation and changes in a system to an ancestor, rather than taking credit for it yourself, as a way of showing respect. This mindset would think that telling people that you had changed what your Sifu taught you was a sign of disrespect to that teacher.

---Wing Chun is see as being conceptually based and not technique based, is it not? So would not different people express a concept or principle differently than others? WSL is often quoted as saying something like.....Wing Chun is a skill, not an art. Be its master, not its slave. To me, that allows some variance in how it is understood and used.

---We've reached the same contentious conclusion here as we have in other threads. As much as they try to dance around the point, LFJ and Guy still end up concluding that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught. So if no one else does things like WSL, then that has to mean that everyone else either didn't learn it well, or were too stupid to get what Ip Man was really teaching. Therefore WSL was clearly the only one that got the "real" thing from Ip Man! To the assertion that Wing Chun is a conceptually based system and that Ip Man may have taught different things to different people based on their body type or understanding, and that people chose to emphasize or interpret things as worked for them best.....LFJ and Guy respond: You really think YM taught dozens of radically different methods of VT?? That's highly illogical. Without even realizing that their own conclusion is even more illogical! You regulars that have been around for awhile should be having a sense of "deju vu" by now!

 

[guy b.]

Then please stop making every single thread a forum for you to explain that your art is flawless and true and at same time saying that there can be no other flawless or true WC/WT/WC unless it is identical to yours.

I am not saying this. You seem to be reading what you want into what I wrote.

Out of those topics you are interested in, only bullet 1 was discussed in this thread

I wasn't expecting to discuss all of those topics in this particular thread. I was showing that there are many different topics which have been raised here and which I am interested in learning more about. That these have not been pursued often seems down to people getting offended by direct questions.

that was only after you started stating that any and all differences compared to your art are gap filling or errors

But I didn't say this?

I am not arguing or saying this because you are hurting my feelings, I could care less what you believe about your art. I am just annoyed that you destroy any discussion

If you are feeling annoyed then isn't it true that you are having an emotional response to something I wrote?

 

[guy b.]

LFJ and Guy still end up concluding that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught

I do think this.

So if no one else does things like WSL, then that has to mean that everyone else either didn't learn it well, or were too stupid to get what Ip Man was really teaching. Therefore WSL was clearly the only one that got the "real" thing from Ip Man!

This is one explanation. You are free not to believe it. What we both believe doesn't hurt the other, and I see no reason for it to be something that constantly annoys anyone.

 

[LFJ]

---You live and work in China, don't you?

Not in the Qing Dynasty. Your concept of China is a little outdated.

---Wing Chun is see as being conceptually based and not technique based, is it not? So would not different people express a concept or principle differently than others?

Major differences in strategy and tactics would come from concepts and principles not being clearly defined or understood. I don't believe they are just open to interpretation, and that every interpretation is equally valid.

WSL is often quoted as saying something like.....Wing Chun is a skill, not an art. Be its master, not its slave. To me, that allows some variance in how it is understood and used.

That's because you're quoting him without context and don't know specifically what he was referring to.

 

[KPM]

Not in the Qing Dynasty. Your concept of China is a little outdated.

---If you think those things only apply to the Qing Dynasty, then I would have to question your experience with and exposure to Traditional CMAs despite your past claim to be such an avid researcher.



Major differences in strategy and tactics would come from concepts and principles not being clearly defined or understood. I don't believe they are just open to interpretation, and that every interpretation is equally valid.

---Then you need to look up the definition of "concept." Something not open to interpretation or variety in application would be more of a "law" than a "concept."

 

[KPM]

This is one explanation. You are free not to believe it. What we both believe doesn't hurt the other, and I see no reason for it to be something that constantly annoys anyone.

So you really don't see why constantly telling people that don't do WSLVT that they are doing things wrong or have understood wrong or have "gap filled"....would be annoying?

 

[guy b.]

So you really don't see why constantly telling people that don't do WSLVT that they are doing things wrong or have understood wrong or have "gap filled"....would be annoying?

I don't think that I am constantly doing this. On this thread LFJ talked about gap filling vs the normal YM VT process of using pressure to expose errors, then using the system to correct those. I wasn't aware that he accused any particular person of doing this and thought he was just speaking in general terms?

 

[Phobius]

Just ignore guy b. And LFJ and let's continue with future discussions. This one died.

 

[LFJ]

I agree.

And I was speaking in general terms of how to approach the system and deal with errors in fighting.

And I didn't say the alternative to my approach will necessarily lead to a worse outcome, but that with time it will certainly develop something fundamentally different from VT.

 

[Phobius]

I agree.

And I was speaking in general terms of how to approach the system and deal with errors in fighting.

And I didn't say the alternative to my approach will necessarily lead to a worse outcome, but that with time it will certainly develop something fundamentally different from VT.

And I said my opinion of that is that it is expected as standard training practice in most if not all martial arts. Not arguing against you.

It wasn't until later it went off topic like crazy.

No lineage is more pure, true or better than any other. Reason is not because they can't be but because it is impossible to prove.

With WSLPBVT it seems rather influenced by PB's physical advantage. And yes I believe he or WSL made an interpretation for him that turns what most see as a disadvantage into a weapon that most should never want to fight.

I admire it greatly but also hold unproven and not yet debated concerns that his interpretation is not as advantageous, but in no way bad, for others.