Deficiencies in WSL teachings

[Wing Chun Auckland]

Sorry just adding to the foot turning discussion.
CST turns on the middle of the foot not the heel. Leung Ting style here turns on the middle of the foot.
WSL and Lo Man Kam style here turn on the heels.

 

[guy b.]

Many CMA systems (such as long fist, praying mantis, Zimen, WC, ...) use that argument - power develops slowly over a long time. Many CMA system (such as Baji, Chen Taiji, XYLH, ...) provide simple methods to develop power within short period of time (such as 3 months).

Here is an example of Chen Taiji power generation drills.

Nothing wrong with Chen tai chi, but it isn't VT.

The reason that VT takes a while to develop power is that the body usage is unnatural and training is required to get used to it. Once the positions are familiar, power comes with the drills designed to produce it.

 

[guy b.]

Sometimes the holding can help you work out the path of force and movement to help you when it is more dynamic and clashy.

This is addressed during partner drills in WSL VT. I am most interested in what you think these drills lack, and why more is needed?

 

[KPM]

[The slouch, as he shows it, is a remedy to leaning back as a result of incorrect pelvic tilt. I guess only virgins don't know how to execute a proper pelvic tilt without screwing up their spines.

---I agree. But then just take a look around. You see a lot of Wing Chun people slouching. Even WSL's training partner on that famous video tape he did!

I don't know about HKM lineage, but shifting on the heels in training doesn't mean we're hobbling around with weight over our heels all the time as he suggests, and in fighting, we're not just going to be standing in place and pivoting anyway.

---I didn't say that at all. I said some people can make it work very well. All I said was that from a biomechanical standpoint it is not the optimal way to do things. Now you are the one creating "strawman" arguments.


Before you go about legitimately criticizing something, you gotta understand how it's done, the training purpose, and how it actually relates to fighting...

---If you are trying to imply that I never trained in that method and therefore don't know what I am talking about, you are wrong. I was speaking from the perspective of optimal biomechanics. Not "sifu sez...."

 

[KPM]

The way it looks to me is that WSL style has forgone some of the force generation and stance concepts in favour of a higher focus on fighting and application.

For the purpose of WSL VT there is nothing really deficient. As Darren Elvey described to me in a seminar, WSL streamlined his wing chun to make it more effective in urban combat. The purpose of WSL VT is to shut down and finish a street attack in the shortest time possible. To that extent, it meets its goal effectively IMO.

I agree with this completely! And this is what makes it rather "one dimensional" as I have pointed out in the past. Nothing wrong with that! It is still a great system for what it is intended to do!

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

I don't really think WSL drills lack anything. They are good combat and application drills. One of the things I like about them is that they teach you to move in the right way without thinking.

I would just say WSL has taken a strong combat approach and not gone deep with the force generation and internal side. THe guys here in Auckland are highly focussed on street attacks and varoius scenarios where you could get attacked or a fight could start.

We don't really have such a strong combat focus. We dont really practice scenarios where you will get attack or how to defend against this or that. We focus on force, structure and power.

So CST and WSL were both the senior teachers at YM's school for many years. Many of the third generation students of yip man were either taught by WSL or CST and YM was starting to wind down as a teacher. CST and WSL were great mates. CST was there playing Majong with WSL when he had the heart attack. I am pretty sure they both respected each other. But it is clear WSL took a combat focus and CST focussed on force.

 

[KPM]

^^^^ And I am sure BOTH would say they were teaching what Ip Man taught!

 

[LFJ]

I don't know about HKM lineage, but shifting on the heels in training doesn't mean we're hobbling around with weight over our heels all the time as he suggests, and in fighting, we're not just going to be standing in place and pivoting anyway.

---I didn't say that at all. I said some people can make it work very well. All I said was that from a biomechanical standpoint it is not the optimal way to do things. Now you are the one creating "strawman" arguments.

When you were talking about weight distribution in a neutral stance and why one shouldn't be back on their heels when sending or receiving force, it seemed you were saying heel shifters must be on their heels at all times... Or were you just making a general statement about optimal weight distribution?

Before you go about legitimately criticizing something, you gotta understand how it's done, the training purpose, and how it actually relates to fighting...

---If you are trying to imply that I never trained in that method and therefore don't know what I am talking about, you are wrong. I was speaking from the perspective of optimal biomechanics. Not "sifu sez...."

You trained in a lineage that taught you to lean back to tilt the pelvis, and to keep weight back on your heels in a neutral stance?

Well, in any case, that's not the Wong way.

 

[LFJ]

^^^^ And I am sure BOTH would say they were teaching what Ip Man taught!

Except CST was honest about coming up with his own ideas...

 

[KPM]

Except CST was honest about coming up with his own ideas...

And you are saying that WSL wasn't?

 

[Marnetmar]

 

[guy b.]

And you are saying that WSL wasn't?

He's replying to the quote

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

There's a youtube clip of CST talking about the evolution of his teaching. In his first few decades of teaching, he reckons he taught in exactly the way YM taught him with out adding or subtracting anything. During this time he had students competing and fighting. Then he went through 2 different phases of teaching after that which took a different path.

 

[Marnetmar]

There's a youtube clip of CST talking about the evolution of his teaching. In his first few decades of teaching, he reckons he taught in exactly the way YM taught him with out adding or subtracting anything. During this time he had students competing and fighting. Then he went through 2 different phases of teaching after that which took a different path.

Sounds like a similar story to Kenneth Chung's.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

Sounds like a similar story to Kenneth Chung's.

Can I ask about what happened with Keneth Chung? I quite like what I have heard from him.

 

[guy b.]

There's a youtube clip of CST talking about the evolution of his teaching. In his first few decades of teaching, he reckons he taught in exactly the way YM taught him with out adding or subtracting anything. During this time he had students competing and fighting. Then he went through 2 different phases of teaching after that which took a different path.

Do you have a link to the clip? I would be interested to hear his reasons for changing

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

This is one of them. Can't remember if it is the same. But watch from 12:54 and he explains.

 

[Marnetmar]

Can I ask about what happened with Keneth Chung? I quite like what I have heard from him.

When Ken first learned from Leung Sheung (1963-1968) and came to the U.S he taught a very rugged and aggressive version of Wing Chun, which is what people like Eddie Chong got. Its forms and mechanics were more in line with what you'd see from Ng Wah Sum. Then he went back and learned from Leung Sheung again between 1973 and 1978, and when he came back he taught in a similar way, but with a much softer and more internal approach. Over time he went further and further in this direction, and his WC now is almost Tai Chi-like in its approach.

 

[Vajramusti]

When you were talking about weight distribution in a neutral stance and why one shouldn't be back on their heels when sending or receiving force, it seemed you were saying heel shifters must be on their heels at all times... Or were you just making a general statement about optimal weight distribution?



You trained in a lineage that taught you to lean back to tilt the pelvis, and to keep weight back on your heels in a neutral stance?

Well, in any case, that's not the Wong way.

-----------------
lots of inaccuracies.

 

[guy b.]

-----------------
lots of inaccuracies.

What are they?