Most of which are incoherent and contradictory. Draw your own conclusions
Does WSLVT exist?
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
Most of which are incoherent and contradictory. Draw your own conclusions
Then lets talk concepts
No ****.
To each lineage others are just as incoherent.
I find your stuff to be focused on a single area, simplified thus making your abstract drills somewhat impractical for its purposes. Too many abstract drills for a simplified Ving Tsun with much more narrow focus.
With simplified I do not mean worse. Look at boxing, very simple and yet incredibly effective. And tough to learn well.
Edit: I can't say your drills are impractical, just it feels that way. I don't know enough to state facts.
Last edited:
SaulGoodman
Green Belt
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2016
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 68
@guy b, so if you aren't a PB student who did you learn WSL method from? You seem VERY guarded about your Wc background. As you are a Brit I'm presuming its likely that it's someone like Clive Potter/Nino Bernado/Jim Halliwell? The basement back in the day had some good practioners, were you one of them?
- Thread Starter
- #186
By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality.
---Again, that is NOT what I said. You don't read very closely.
If WSL didn't change anything drastically, then why is WSL's VT so utterly different to other wing chun?
---Its only "utterly different" in your own mind. People have tried to point that out.
Either WSL made it up himself (unlikely in terms of basic probability), or he is teaching a system optimised over a period of time that he received from YM (likely).
----Are you saying that WSL would not have continued that optimization in his own way? That WSL would not have taken what Ip Man gave him and continued to develop it along similar lines? That WSL would not have "optimized" it further based on his own fighting experience? That is what I'm saying he did. That is just common sense. But that is exactly what you guys have been denying.
The importance given to the conceptual basics in WSL VT is unique amonst the other YM lines that I have experienced,
---Maybe because WSL was a pretty sharp guy and chose to give it this emphasis on "conceptual basics"???? And then aligned the way he taught the system to reinforce and follow these "conceptual basics" as closely as possible????
I think that WSL's VT is the VT system, and that most other wing chun is not.
---WSL's VT is WSL's VT. Leung TIng's WT is Leung Ting's WT. CST's WC is CST's WC. Why is that so difficult to admit? Ip Man's Wing Chun died with Ip Man. You are going to get along far better with other people when you admit that.
---Again, that is NOT what I said. You don't read very closely.
If WSL didn't change anything drastically, then why is WSL's VT so utterly different to other wing chun?
---Its only "utterly different" in your own mind. People have tried to point that out.
Either WSL made it up himself (unlikely in terms of basic probability), or he is teaching a system optimised over a period of time that he received from YM (likely).
----Are you saying that WSL would not have continued that optimization in his own way? That WSL would not have taken what Ip Man gave him and continued to develop it along similar lines? That WSL would not have "optimized" it further based on his own fighting experience? That is what I'm saying he did. That is just common sense. But that is exactly what you guys have been denying.
The importance given to the conceptual basics in WSL VT is unique amonst the other YM lines that I have experienced,
---Maybe because WSL was a pretty sharp guy and chose to give it this emphasis on "conceptual basics"???? And then aligned the way he taught the system to reinforce and follow these "conceptual basics" as closely as possible????
I think that WSL's VT is the VT system, and that most other wing chun is not.
---WSL's VT is WSL's VT. Leung TIng's WT is Leung Ting's WT. CST's WC is CST's WC. Why is that so difficult to admit? Ip Man's Wing Chun died with Ip Man. You are going to get along far better with other people when you admit that.
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
You are the one who said the following:
"I've seen VT passed down through 5 generations intact. That's 4 active generations down from WSL that share the same complete understanding of the system. Each generation can say they teach what their teachers taught them and we can observe the truth of it. This traces right back to WSL who said the same thing, that he taught just what YM taught him."
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
Well you said it a few posts ago Guy,
By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality.
Exactly! Who cares where it came from if you find so much depth, logic and fulfilment in it. I feel the same way about what I do. As do the other posters on this forum. A big part of what you appreciate about it, is WSL's own focus and direction. David Petterson was so in awe of WSL's approach and knowledge that he has written books about him. But what I have heard from Darren Elvie directly and David Petterson in written works is that WSL streamlined his wing chun and improved on it. There is no sense that WSL faithfully and robotically copied YM's wing chun.
I think you are confusing me with LFJ
What is your point?
The question of the likely origin of VT and whether I like it and derive emotional fulfillment from it are not related in any way.
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
I'm not sure anymore. LFJ said that he has seen 5 generations of VT stay in tact. Then I pointed out that if a teacher like PB is still alive and teaching, then it is not hard to have great grand students wing chun look very similar to their great grand teacher. Then you or LFJ said something to the effect of "WSL had other students beside PB". And I am saying different students under WSL is not counted as generations.
Even if you mean generations under these other students of WSL, then the it's the same thing. Teachers like Gary Lam, Cliff Au Yeung are still alive and well and teaching. They are still living, breathing examples of their wing chun that their students and grand students can refer to. The fact that their wing chun will look the same is to be expected.
Also to the extent that WSL's own students look similar in application or practice, is the extent to which WSL had a more specific and direct teaching approach as compared to YM.
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
You are the one who said; "By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality."
Happiness is a type of emotional fulfilment.
I don't mind it is what I mean. It makes no difference to me. The argument about where it came from is not an emotional argument; it us a probabilistic one
Look guy's, while I empathize, yes that is bias, but still, this thread has turned into Mothercare as usual. You want to nappies, you're prerogative. However, this deconstructive art trolling is getting really boring!!
I think he probably means generations under different students of wsl, not PB, look the same as generations under PB, etc
Go away then
Now that could be a major slip. You not trolling then lol. Anyway and whatever, go and bait someone else
