Deficiencies in WSL teachings

[WTchap]

I guess a 'deficiency', one could argue, is the lack of soft/internal work? But in my opinion, that is true of most WCK coming from the Yip Man line. On another forum, Sergio Iadarola wrote about a seminar he'd given and some guys from the WSL lineage were present (mostly from PB). One of those guys, Niels Pivato, wrote the following:

---------------------

If the way is free go forward
If there is contact keep sticking!
If your opponent is stronger, yield
If the opponent retreats, follow!

Like this many teachers explain the Wing Chun system, add the 4 fighting principles and that's the internal martial art. Wing Chun requieres to unleash the force in a soft way.

After 30 years of experience in the martial arts (Judo in the first Bundesliga Thaiboxing, WT/VT/WC) I know what it means to use or not to use force in a self-defense situation, in sparring or in a tournament
I started my journey in the biggest Wing Tsun association in Europe. After that my way lead me to some of the best represantatives of this martial art. Special thanks go to Martin Dragos and Philipp Bayer.
But I couldn´t find the real "internal" Wing Tsun. Everybody worked with muscular force. It didn´t matter how fast or dynamic the styles where, force was always a crucial criteria for the functionality.

Sifu Sergio Iadarola caught my attention through videos in the internet talking about the real internal Wing Chun it made me curious so I contacted Sifu Sergio to see if it was real. We fixed a date and I flew to Hong Kong.

What I experiecend there convinced me totally! His Wing Chun works without effort and without any force exertion. You can see clearly that his years of research paid off. Sifu Sergio makes it possible to transform old knowledge about this internal martial art into a functioning Wing Chun.

I'm happy and proud to be able to learn from him as a private student.

Sifu Niels Pivato

---------------------

 

[Juany118]

I guess a 'deficiency', one could argue, is the lack of soft/internal work? But in my opinion, that is true of most WCK coming from the Yip Man line. On another forum, Sergio Iadarola wrote about a seminar he'd given and some guys from the WSL lineage were present (mostly from PB). One of those guys, Niels Pivato, wrote the following:

---------------------

If the way is free go forward
If there is contact keep sticking!
If your opponent is stronger, yield
If the opponent retreats, follow!

Like this many teachers explain the Wing Chun system, add the 4 fighting principles and that's the internal martial art. Wing Chun requieres to unleash the force in a soft way.

After 30 years of experience in the martial arts (Judo in the first Bundesliga Thaiboxing, WT/VT/WC) I know what it means to use or not to use force in a self-defense situation, in sparring or in a tournament
I started my journey in the biggest Wing Tsun association in Europe. After that my way lead me to some of the best represantatives of this martial art. Special thanks go to Martin Dragos and Philipp Bayer.
But I couldn´t find the real "internal" Wing Tsun. Everybody worked with muscular force. It didn´t matter how fast or dynamic the styles where, force was always a crucial criteria for the functionality.

Sifu Sergio Iadarola caught my attention through videos in the internet talking about the real internal Wing Chun it made me curious so I contacted Sifu Sergio to see if it was real. We fixed a date and I flew to Hong Kong.

What I experiecend there convinced me totally! His Wing Chun works without effort and without any force exertion. You can see clearly that his years of research paid off. Sifu Sergio makes it possible to transform old knowledge about this internal martial art into a functioning Wing Chun.

I'm happy and proud to be able to learn from him as a private student.

Sifu Niels Pivato

---------------------

I think saying anything about a specific Ip Man derived line is to much of a generalization though. As an example I train Ip Man line via GM William Cheung. It is very much about being "loose", having a flow. My Sifu as I started was constantly on my case about trying to meet force with force. We actually train under three precepts, one of which is "never meet force with force." He will even use as Tai Chi Chuan an analogy (though clearly a very loose analogy) as to how we should move vs say boxing. So it is taught, in a way, as a hybrid between internal and external arts.

 

[WTchap]

Well, it's my opinion as someone now studying Xingyi and working through specific internal training methods. Being loose and having flow is a requirement, but there's so much more to internal work. So IMO, most lines from YM don't have it - unless they've added it in from elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that, by the way. If it works, it works.

But the point of my post was more that someone who trained in the WSL method (in this case, via Phillip Bayer) met with someone outside of that group, and he was left wanting (enough so that he would become a private student of the person he visited).

So for him, there are 'deficiencies' in the WSL method.

Which, again, is no problem, really. There's no perfect method in any MA.

 

[Vajramusti]

Well, it's my opinion as someone now studying Xingyi and working through specific internal training methods. Being loose and having flow is a requirement, but there's so much more to internal work. So IMO, most lines from YM don't have it - unless they've added it in from elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that, by the way. If it works, it works.

But the point of my post was more that someone who trained in the WSL method (in this case, via Phillip Bayer) met with someone outside of that group, and he was left wanting (enough so that he would become a private student of the person he visited).

So for him, there are 'deficiencies' in the WSL method.

Which, again, is no problem, really. There's no perfect method in any MA.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal and external are both important in good wing chun. True that imho much wing chun that I have seen
has much internal work that is missing, resulting in dependence on set techniques.

 

[geezer]

But the point of my post was more that someone who trained in the WSL method (in this case, via Phillip Bayer) met with someone outside of that group, and he was left wanting (enough so that he would become a private student of the person he visited).

So for him, there are 'deficiencies' in the WSL method.

Which, again, is no problem, really. There's no perfect method in any MA.

Impossible! I've read what Guy B. and LFJ have said and this can't be! Hundreds, maybe thousands of people have left the other flawed branches of WC/VT to see the light and train WSL-PB-VT. Nobody ever leaves.... alive. Bwa-haa-ha-ha-ha-haaa

 

[WTchap]

Impossible! I've read what Guy B. and LFJ have said and this can't be! Hundreds, maybe thousands of people have left the other flawed branches of WC/VT to see the light and train WSL-PB-VT. Nobody ever leaves.... alive. Bwa-haa-ha-ha-ha-haaa

Don't believe the hype from PB students. But seriously, it always looked to me like PB is very good at what he does. In most cases, someone doing a hard system of WCK well, will beat someone doing a softer system of WCK not so well. I guess this PB student met, in Sergio, someone who could negate that hard system.

Most people won't get to meet someone with very good internal skills, so for those people they're happy with what they have (be it hard VT from PB, or whatever other lineage). It works for them, and that's good enough. Of course, it works until it... doesn't.

But most people get by with what they have, so it's all good.

 

[Juany118]

Well, it's my opinion as someone now studying Xingyi and working through specific internal training methods. Being loose and having flow is a requirement, but there's so much more to internal work. So IMO, most lines from YM don't have it - unless they've added it in from elsewhere. I don't have a problem with that, by the way. If it works, it works.

But the point of my post was more that someone who trained in the WSL method (in this case, via Phillip Bayer) met with someone outside of that group, and he was left wanting (enough so that he would become a private student of the person he visited).

So for him, there are 'deficiencies' in the WSL method.

Which, again, is no problem, really. There's no perfect method in any MA.

But the thing is, what is internal? To me internal arts are about having good structure, not using raw muscle strength. It's not magic, it is about using physics. It starts with good structure and then being able to focus, from that foundation the energy of your entire body to the point of defense or offense, via those concepts of flow, being loose and flexible. You are never meeting force with force, because that becomes a muscle game but using the above principles to deflect, redirect and attack. That is GM William Cheung's WC, and he comes from the Yip Man lineage.

When I said my Sifu uses Tai Chi Chuan as a "loose" analogy is because Tai Chi movements are different in many ways, but many of the over arching principles are the same. I think the only real difference is that, in WC (at least what I study) the language used leans more towards sounding Scientific vs metaphysical. You may disagree with how I see it but when I studied Aikido I listened to my Sensei and said "he is talking about Chi and inner strength but really he is simply teaching me to use the laws of physics. It's not mystical, it's science."

Now that is not to say the WC I study does not also use some clearly external principles as well, it is indeed a hybrid BUT I have a friend who lives in Australia now and he studies "Internal Wing Chun" but when he comes back home to visit his parents and we talk, the Principles really seem to be the same, they are simply taught in a different way. Example, in terms of using a Tan Sao I am thinking about the degree of the angle (science) and visualize my arm movement as spreading peanut butter (no exaggeration that's the way it works in my head) all from the foundation of my structure, the idea that my arm is not stopping a blow. The angle and movement of the arm is deflecting the blow and what energy is not diverted by these things gets channeled via my structure into the ground rather than stopping at my shoulder or hips. He applies it in the exact same way, he only describes it differently. /Shrug.

 

[WTchap]

Juany118, well, it's okay to disagree. I've met lots of WCK people who have felt the way you do - and maybe you're all correct, and I'm wrong.

All I know is that the training is very different, IMO - the method, I mean. And, for me too, there's nothing mystical in it. You're just training your body in a different way, and that allows it to function in a particular way.

In my experience, most WCK for example, doesn't have a focus on 'using' the middle and lower dantien, and corresponding use of mingmen (so, to remove the Chinese and to think about it more practically - most WCK is not linking various lines to the deep muscles of the abdomen and the lumbar fascia); does not look to create the same connections in the body; not opening and closing, pairing, spiralling, etc., in quite the same way; not training facia throughout the body in the same way, etc., etc.

Plus, I found that some use of the body in WCK prevents certain things from happening or working well, from an internal arts perspective.

It seems to me that there's a trend developing in WCK today, a movement! People are adjusting their traditional WCK frame, modifying certain aspects of the training, injecting tech from other arts, and coming up with something new (though sometimes they repackage it as something old, and now rediscovered).

But like I said in an earlier post - if it works, it works. So it's all good from a practical point of view.

 

[Juany118]

Juany118, well, it's okay to disagree. I've met lots of WCK people who have felt the way you do - and maybe you're all correct, and I'm wrong.

All I know is that the training is very different, IMO - the method, I mean. And, for me too, there's nothing mystical in it. You're just training your body in a different way, and that allows it to function in a particular way.

In my experience, most WCK for example, doesn't have a focus on 'using' the middle and lower dantien, and corresponding use of mingmen (so, to remove the Chinese and to think about it more practically - most WCK is not linking various lines to the deep muscles of the abdomen and the lumbar fascia); does not look to create the same connections in the body; not opening and closing, pairing, spiralling, etc., in quite the same way; not training facia throughout the body in the same way, etc., etc.

Plus, I found that some use of the body in WCK prevents certain things from happening or working well, from an internal arts perspective.

It seems to me that there's a trend developing in WCK today, a movement! People are adjusting their traditional WCK frame, modifying certain aspects of the training, injecting tech from other arts, and coming up with something new (though sometimes they repackage it as something old, and now rediscovered).

But like I said in an earlier post - if it works, it works. So it's all good from a practical point of view.

Oh I would agree, there is no spiraling etc. The art is, for the most part, linear. That is why I said it was hybrid. Example, I see the defensive principle of deflecting and channeling the attackers remaining energy through my body into the ground vs meeting force with force in a block, to be using internal principles.

Here is a question this is how I picture doing a basic punch (in my perfect dream). I am punching directly, but I am not using my arm from the shoulder (read muscle alone). I am again using my structure so that the punch basically starts at my feet, my elbow is essentially my focal point (for lack of a better term) moving the hand forward, my entire body focused through there, attacking from my center as I step in. While in appearance it looks purely external, when you follow it to the foundation of the strike, isn't the underlying principle similar to what some internal arts achieve via a more circular action by snapping/spiraling from the waist? Essentially two different ways, one spiralling one more direct but both using the same principle as the foundation?

 

[WTchap]

I think that the problem/difficulty comes if we look at things only as a chain or sequence. For sure, in internal arts there are chains of movements and motions, but this is true of all martial arts.

For example, you said, “channeling the attackers remaining energy through my body into the ground” and this sounds like an internal principle (and confusingly, in a way it is ), but I would argue that a good Judoka does this too, as does a wrestler.

Or in your example of a punch, you said, “I am again using my structure so that the punch basically starts at my feet,” and this sounds right too as an internal idea, in a way, as most people/laymen assume a punch is just a closed fisted strike using the arm. But most Western boxers would tell you they also do what you’re describing, as would someone showing you a punch from, say, Shotokan Karate. You could also argue that a basketball player shoots a ball in the same way (go Golden State Warriors!).

IMO, it’s better to think about the ‘how and why' behind the movements. To give a simple example, most MAs have pushing and pulling motions, and when we do this, we always have a connection to the ground. In the internal work I do, if we just look at this in relation to the waist, without thinking about the other many connections, how we train intent, use of fasia, etc., if I use a pushing motion, the mingmen point opens, the dantien point closes and the centre rotates over and forwards. If I use a pulling motion, the dantien point opens, mingmen point closes, and so on and so forth. So while I’m connected to the floor, my movement really starts in the waist. Of course, the waist is only one part of the body used…

So 'why' do this? Well, in Xingyi, for example, the use of dantien and mingmen, can create powerful forward (and downward) movements if you have the development, control and mobility of this area of the body.

But ‘how’ do we train the waist (as an example)? We have a variety of practices, LOL, but they are working on ‘pairing’, as my teacher calls it. Classically, it is like Yin Yang theory, or in an art like Aikido, it’s what Ueshiba referred to as ‘Heaven and Earth’ and the ‘floating bridge.’ Separation of the body into two complimentary sides, oppositely paired in their function. This Yin Yang pairing will apply to many things with the body. There’s this awesome quote from Ueshiba. “The working of the attraction point, between yin and yang, is the birthplace of all techniques.” The same idea’s found in Taiji, Xingyi, Bagua, etc.

What I’m saying, in a really long, drawn out and boring way, is that there’s a variety of things you train in internal arts (exercises, partner work, ways of testing, various mind training, etc.), but the goal is to make changes “in” the body. Then, whatever you’re doing, is internal because everything your doing is making use of the body developments (pairings, alignments, use of connective tissues, open and closing methods, etc.), it’s there in your punch, your push, your slap, when you stand, when you step, and so on.

But, it takes time to make these changes. So the arts, IMO, function well on a basic/practical level (Xingyi with only its gross movements, strategies, etc., is a practical art) but the art “within” the art, takes time to develop in the body.

But enough of this internal malarky, we're supposed to discussing the deficiencies in the WSLVT method.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

I think saying anything about a specific Ip Man derived line is to much of a generalization though. As an example I train Ip Man line via GM William Cheung. It is very much about being "loose", having a flow. My Sifu as I started was constantly on my case about trying to meet force with force. We actually train under three precepts, one of which is "never meet force with force." He will even use as Tai Chi Chuan an analogy (though clearly a very loose analogy) as to how we should move vs say boxing. So it is taught, in a way, as a hybrid between internal and external arts.

No offence to William Cheung's style of wing chun, but I wouldn't call it internal in the least. Just not meeting force with force doesn't mean it's internal. Nor just being loose and flowing.

To me internal martial arts is about being able to receive and issue unusual high force effortlessly.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

In my experience, most WCK for example, doesn't have a focus on 'using' the middle and lower dantien, and corresponding use of mingmen (so, to remove the Chinese and to think about it more practically - most WCK is not linking various lines to the deep muscles of the abdomen and the lumbar fascia); does not look to create the same connections in the body; not opening and closing, pairing, spiralling, etc., in quite the same way; not training facia throughout the body in the same way, etc., etc.

In CST we require these things. A very deep level of relaxation is required and as well as a very precise allignment. We focus heavily on circles and understanding exactly how limbs move.

There is another Yip Man student called Derek Fung. He was a second generation student. He is based in Sydney. He is very powerful and has similar understandings and approach to CST. I.e. understanding join rotation, circles, force vectors etc. I talked to a student of his recently and he said that Derek Fung learned this stuff from YM.

Then we have the likes of Hawkings Cheung who said that in chi sao, YM could gently control your balance and take you in any direction he wanted. Hawkings recalls a time when he was thrown out a door.

CST was fascinated in YM's power before he started learning wing chun when he saw YM throw a much bigger and stronger Leung Sheng across the room.

To me there is plenty of evidence that Yip Man had high level internal skills. I believe many of his students only got the outer shell of wing chun.

 

[Juany118]

No offence to William Cheung's style of wing chun, but I wouldn't call it internal in the least. Just not meeting force with force doesn't mean it's internal. Nor just being loose and flowing.

To me internal martial arts is about being able to receive and issue unusual high force effortlessly.

I don't, it's why I explained the specific theory of the use of structure, precise angles and force vectors in defense, which is very much internal in practice based on my Aikido experience. Some of the attacks also follow the same principle. Do all of the defenses and attacks use these principles? Nope, but many do.

If you thought I was saying Grand Master Cheung's WC is a "pure" internal version of WC, I apologize, because it isn't. That is why I describe it as a hybrid, by which I mean having some techniques that use internal principles, others using external principles.

 

[WTchap]

I don’t know enough about the CST method to really pass judgment on it. From what I’ve seen, it always looks like really solid use of alignment and leverage, for sure. But the test for anything internal, IMO, is in ‘feeling’ it. As soon as you make contact with someone good, you know. Unfortunately, I’ve never met anyone really good from this line (never met an instructor, for example).

I know it was said that CST had training in other arts, but there was some dispute over when, and how much, etc. It could be relevant, I suppose. I don’t think I’ve heard of Derek Fung before, I’ll have to look him up.

I’m certainly not saying that you’re wrong – but Wing Chun from Yip Man (whether it be WC/VT/WT) does have a serious problem… everyone says that what they do, is what they were taught from Yip Man.

I think there’s a ton of evidence (anecdotal in the sense that it’s stories told, and sadly very little footage) that Yip Man had great skills. I wouldn’t say, personally, there’s any evidence that he had “high level internal skills.” Certainly, I’m not aware of anything he said (interviews), or wrote that referenced it, and with the exception of CST, until you mentioned Derek Fung, I’ve not heard anyone else who learned from YM use the usual ‘language’ you normally hear in connection to internal work.

But who knows; WCK from Yip Man is an art dogged by hearsay and rumors, and conflicts and debates, and lineage wars and ‘sifu sez’ cultism. Everyone thinks they got something special from the man. Maybe some did. Certainly, today everyone studying the art thinks that their lineage did.

I think WC/WT/VT is a great system, in most of its variants, but I see it as a great external system. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. Some of the best fighters I ever met were Thai boxers in Thailand, and there was nothing 'internal' about what they did. Deadly guys.

 

[Juany118]

I don’t know enough about the CST method to really pass judgment on it. From what I’ve seen, it always looks like really solid use of alignment and leverage, for sure. But the test for anything internal, IMO, is in ‘feeling’ it. As soon as you make contact with someone good, you know. Unfortunately, I’ve never met anyone really good from this line (never met an instructor, for example).

I know it was said that CST had training in other arts, but there was some dispute over when, and how much, etc. It could be relevant, I suppose. I don’t think I’ve heard of Derek Fung before, I’ll have to look him up.

I’m certainly not saying that you’re wrong – but Wing Chun from Yip Man (whether it be WC/VT/WT) does have a serious problem… everyone says that what they do, is what they were taught from Yip Man.

I think there’s a ton of evidence (anecdotal in the sense that it’s stories told, and sadly very little footage) that Yip Man had great skills. I wouldn’t say, personally, there’s any evidence that he had “high level internal skills.” Certainly, I’m not aware of anything he said (interviews), or wrote that referenced it, and with the exception of CST, until you mentioned Derek Fung, I’ve not heard anyone else who learned from YM use the usual ‘language’ you normally hear in connection to internal work.

But who knows; WCK from Yip Man is an art dogged by hearsay and rumors, and conflicts and debates, and lineage wars and ‘sifu sez’ cultism. Everyone thinks they got something special from the man. Maybe some did. Certainly, today everyone studying the art thinks that their lineage did.

I think WC/WT/VT is a great system, in most of its variants, but I see it as a great external system. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. Some of the best fighters I ever met were Thai boxers in Thailand, and there was nothing 'internal' about what they did. Deadly guys.

I think you are right and tbh I have always thought the idea of "Yip Man Lineage" was a bit of a mistake. From what I have read those students who learned extensively from YM himself were taught very much in the idea of WC as a concept as he would teach to each individual's strengths and weaknesses. I say extensively because by the late 50's early 60's the senior students did the bulk of the teaching from what I can tell via interviews etc.

This is what has led, imo, to the debate over who is teaching "real" Yip Man WC. Imo none of them are, they are teaching the WC that started with what YM tailored to them which has then been modified by decades of experience there after. Of course many of the principles are going to be the same, but not enough, imo, for anyone to say "this is the true Yip Man WC." That is simply marketing speak.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

I know it was said that CST had training in other arts, but there was some dispute over when, and how much, etc. It could be relevant, I suppose. I don’t think I’ve heard of Derek Fung before, I’ll have to look him up.

Yes, this is something that I often hear from people outside our line. CST learned Tai Chi for a couple of years as a youngster. His dad made him learn because he was rather sickly. All his bios show he was largely uninterested in it and didn't stick at it. Tai Chi would have no bearing on his wing chun. CST was highly taken by YM's skills (particularly his power) and was passionate about wing chun at its scientific principles.

Yes, I hadn't heard of Derek Fung either until a couple of years ago when a guy joined our class from his line. The quite famous (on youtune anyway....) Nord Wing Chun is a student of his.

Having a general interest in internal martial arts, I have seen some of the mechanics behind them. There is nothing quite like CST's approach. It's not anything like Tai Chi. It's pure wing chun.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

This is what has led, imo, to the debate over who is teaching "real" Yip Man WC. Imo none of them are, they are teaching the WC that started with what YM tailored to them which has then been modified by decades of experience there after. Of course many of the principles are going to be the same, but not enough, imo, for anyone to say "this is the true Yip Man WC." That is simply marketing speak.

Yeah, that is very much the impression I also have. Every account I have heard seems to point to this. I remember in an article someone talked about how two of his high level students were debating the use of a movement, and he would say they were both right. Also heard several YM students suggest that he liked people to work things out for themselves. But at the same time he spent more time with people who were dedicated. That makes sense to me.

All these weird assertions that people make about YM which make him look like an A-hole. Would you really teach one person a secret superior version of wing chun and not teach others who have spent longer with you? Would you teach someone more because they happened to be more talented over someone who is more dedicated and practices more? Would you teach someone more just because they fought more? No.

As a teacher you give your time and attention to the people who show the most dedication. Nothing secret or mysterious in that.

 

[Juany118]

Would you teach someone more just because they fought more? No.

I agree with everything you say except this bit. My ex, and luckily still best friend (my wife is cool with this how awesome is THAT!!!!) was born in Hong Kong. Her Grandfather was CRAZY into Martial Arts. Apparently in his younger days he studied Kung Fu (forget which flavor) in Hong Kong and till his death in the US practiced Yang Style Tai Chi every day. He told me that while the principle of many Martial Arts is to avoid fighting whenever possible that, sadly, in Hong Kong, during the 40's and 50's (YM's hey day) that wasn't possible.

The schools of Hong Kong lived or died on attracting new students. New students at the time came to the schools with the greatest reputations for winning street fights. The way he described it tbh I had a hard time not looking at the Martial Arts schools as sanctioned street gangs. In that kind of Darwinistic environment it would actually benefit the Sifu to teach someone more because they fought, and won, because that student was the advertising for your school. Mr. Fung said that it really wasn't until the early to mid 60's when the cops really started clamping down on the issue because until then they were so busy dealing with the chaos that was being born by people fleeing the Chinese Civil war and then when the Communists won the people that could trying to get the heck out of Dodge. Between her Grand Father and Father (he served in the British Navy with the Hong Kong Fleet in the late 60's and early 70's) the stories I heard about life there from WWII up to the mid 1970's were damn fascinating.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

I agree with everything you say except this bit. My ex, and luckily still best friend (my wife is cool with this how awesome is THAT!!!!) was born in Hong Kong.

LOL! She's a keeper mate!

Yeah I could see how that might be possible. Depends to what extent though. Say, some random new guy who comes along and fights a lot and doesn't come to class often probably won't be that valued.

Also there is an article written by WSL about Bruce Lee and how he picked a fight with a kung fu school whose teacher was freinds with WSL. WSL was highly embarrassed by Bruce's behaviour and had to apologize on Bruce's behalf.

 

[Juany118]

LOL! She's a keeper mate!

Yeah I could see how that might be possible. Depends to what extent though. Say, some random new guy who comes along and fights a lot and doesn't come to class often probably won't be that valued.

Also there is an article written by WSL about Bruce Lee and how he picked a fight with a kung fu school whose teacher was freinds with WSL. WSL was highly embarrassed by Bruce's behaviour and had to apologize on Bruce's behalf.

Oh I know and she never stops reminding me lol

Oh there are definitely qualifiers, no doubt about that. Do you show dedication to the school? Do you show respect for your Master and your school while doing so? I was just trying to add contemporary context. Today, especially in the West, students getting into fights outside the school would be frowned on. HK in the tumultuous 40's and 50's though was in many ways a very different place. Ancient Chinese traditional meeting 20th century chaos made for "interesting" times.