SaulGoodman
Green Belt
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2016
- Messages
- 198
- Reaction score
- 68
Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.
Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.
Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.
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
There is nothing "probabilistic" about what you are saying. The points I get from the two of you are basically:
1. WSL said so, so it must be true. (hearsay)
2. WSL VT is too perfect and well designed for it to be have been developed or changed by YM (opinion)
3. YM couldn't have taught people differently because that would be weird (again, opinion)
4. VT is perfect and therefore proper transmission of it will result in no change of it (opinion)
It is emotional to you because you are in the WSL line. You see everything through a WSL lense. You are invested in it. You have an extremely high bias. As we all do.
The only way for an unbiased appraisal of what YM taught is if someone who was not connected to any YM lineage went around and did his own research and practiced these different lineages and did his own investigation.
Make a copy of an image on a copy machine. Take that copy and reproduce it by making another copy, repeat. Overtime as more copies of copies are produced, detail is lost. Whisper a phrase in the ear of the person next to you. Have them repeat these words in the ear of the person next to them, continue through 100 people. Chances are good the original phrase will be altered. All things are susceptible to influence and change over time. This is especially true when exceptional people are given the choice to interpret and analyze something they find interesting. Innovation is unavoidable, people will interpret according to their understanding and modify what they don't to comply. This is evidenced throughout history from philosophy, religion, law, politics etc. Why would martial arts be any different?
There is nothing "probabilistic" about what you are saying. The points I get from the two of you are basically:
1. WSL said so, so it must be true. (hearsay)
2. WSL VT is too perfect and well designed for it to be have been developed or changed by YM (opinion)
3. YM couldn't have taught people differently because that would be weird (again, opinion)
4. VT is perfect and therefore proper transmission of it will result in no change of it (opinion)
It is emotional to you because you are in the WSL line. You see everything through a WSL lense. You are invested in it. You have an extremely high bias. As we all do.
The only way for an unbiased appraisal of what YM taught is if someone who was not connected to any YM lineage went around and did his own research and practiced these different lineages and did his own investigation.
1. Never said that.
2. Observable, probable.
3. Never said that.
4. Never said that.
I have changed my views to match the evidence on several occasions. If I were biased or invested (emotionally, financially, professionally), I would be unwilling to do so.
That's exactly what I did before I got into VT. My own research and practice has brought me to where I am today. The system coherence and functionality of what WSL taught compared to that of others makes for no going back.
Again, difficult to have this conversation with people who have 0 experience with VT as taught by WSL.
Again, difficult to have this conversation with people who have 0 experience with VT as taught by WSL.
I think people are not asking you to have this conversation. People are asking you to leave that kind of talk out of the forum to keep an inviting environment for normal discussions.
A little example:
"What do you think about taan-sau?"
A good answer might be "We dont believe taan-sau is a technique but rather an abstract move to teach....."
A Bad answer might be "Taan-sau is not a technique but abstract training, it is too incoherent to be a technique part of the true VT as taught by YM. We have understood this but then again we are training the only coherent system as taught directly by YM. All other lineages are interpreting things wrong, problems maybe caused by not following the concepts correctly. Or doing the drills wrong.
Many has seen this, thousands have already moved over to WSLVT from other lineages because they have seen we teach the only coherent VT system."
Ramblings like these you can get anywhere on the street, believers of all kinds have a similar way of phrasing themselves to push their opinion onto others. Preachings are similar in nature.
Yep, but by saying this you are implying one of my four points above. If I practice WSL wing chun (which I did by the way for 3-4 years while training with my regular school), I am going to see how perfect it is and then I will see how it is an exact science (as much as 1+1 = 2) and how it must indeed be Wing Chun as passed down by YM.
You are making a huge leap of faith in that assumption. Why couldn't it have just been WSL who came up with the way you obviously like to practice it.
True, 1+1=2, I'm not refuting that. However there are other ways to achieve that based upon the information available, and consequently it will be approached differently depending on the equation used. Mathematics have evolved from addition & subtraction to multiplication & division to geometry, algebra & calculus etc. because of part of the information being unavailable. They did not exist at the same time.Faulty analogies. Mathematics has been taught for centuries and the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 has not changed by interpretation or error. If someone says 1 + 1 = 3, it does not become true under their interpretation. They may believe so, and maybe their teacher told them so, but they are just wrong. They simply don't understand the abstract science of numbers, quantity, and space.
VT is a scientific approach to combat not based on opinion or interpretations. So long as the concepts and principles are clearly defined and understood, it will be passed on intact unless someone decides to change it, at which point it becomes something other than VT.
If the concepts and principles are left open to interpretation, that means they have not been clearly defined and so change is bound to happen, but we are again no longer talking about VT which is a specific conceptual approach to fighting and fight training.
I don't just say that. This is all you come away with if you have an emotional response. I give very detailed explanations for what I think about specific concepts or techniques, which usually results in crickets, because no one talks substance.
As far as I know from what you've shared here, you haven't studied VT from anyone who spent any extended period of time with WSL..
I'm sure it has, because people cant comprehend it. You are not giving us anything concrete to base your claims on besides the 4 points I listed above which you deny. Your claims are just as wild as those of William Cheung's and countless others. Easy to make them because they are hard to prove.This has been answered a billion times.
So when I talk substance, topics go silent because people are either agreeing with me or they don't care to state their own ways?
Then why join a MA discussion forum if all they want to do is cry when people undermine their beliefs?
If they can't even handle logical criticism of what they do and defend their methods, it's hard to believe I'm talking to a group of fighters.
By your own admission, WSL VT shouldn't lose anything its transmission, so then whether I trained with anyone who was a direct student of WSL becomes irrelevant.
I'm sure it has, because people cant comprehend it. You are not giving us anything concrete to base your claims on besides the 4 points I listed above which you deny. Your claims are just as wild as those of William Cheung's and countless others. Easy to make them because they are hard to prove.
Even if I were to fly over to Europe and train under PB, and I thought "Wow this is totally awesome! This makes total sense! This is the best wing chun I have ever seen. It's totally logical in its approach and learning progression!", it is still a massive leap to think that this must be what YM taught exactly.
... If fully understood, is what I said.
If whoever was the first generation under WSL in the line you studied spent very little time with him and didn't receive the full picture, neither did you.
That has never been my argument, only a part. There is much, much more and all evidence based.
If you get a chance to train with Darren Elvey I would be interesting in hearing your assessment. He is pretty active in attending international WSL conventions and exchanges positively with those that attend.
I have a hard time seeing what this "evidence" could be. Either way, you are not going to share it so I assume we have to take your word for it.