Does WSLVT exist?

[LFJ]

It is clearly NOT exactly what Yip Man taught,

And what do you base this on? You follow the lineage of a guy who openly admitted making up his own ideas because YM wouldn't give him details, and he didn't care about fighting skill.

but why is that a bad thing? I just don't see why that is something to be so offended by. I even like the WSL approach.

It's not offensive at all. Just isn't true. There's a ton of evidence concerning YM that I don't feel like rehashing. But the alternative is a relativist attitude that everyone is right in their own little way, and Appeals to Majority and Wishful Thinking fallacies are all that support that view.

This whole argument is really taking away from useful constructive discussions.

That kind of discussion doesn't gain much traction. The "Deficiencies in WSL teachings" thread is an example. We welcome critique. I make very detailed and constructive posts... and things go silent or get diverted to trivialities like someone's objection to the abbreviations we use.

It seems rather than having constructive discussions with us, people would rather argue about stupid stuff. I can't help that. Whataya want me to do? I already told him to let it go on post #2!

 

[Phobius]

LFJ, people unlike you don't feel it appropriate to bash lineages. Therefore they have to target how people themselves do...

Here you guys are impossible to argue with because you alter the table as the discussion moves forward by adding new set of rules and situations.

This makes people surrender arguments altogether and start arguing about how offensive you are and the fact that you bash every single lineage with a mix of what is sometimes very juvenile responses.

Noone is bashing WSLVT because noone disagrees that much with it. They just disagree with you.

You however disagree with everything. And the arguments on why other lineages don't work are often vague words like incoherent which makes it impossible to even have a discussion on that topic.

Some posts you have done have been very good and in those cases I have stated so to you. With clear arguments. The rest is just you clapping yourself on the back...

 

[LFJ]

Noone is bashing WSLVT because noone disagrees that much with it.

Interesting.

You however disagree with everything. And the arguments on why other lineages don't work are often vague words like incoherent which makes it impossible to even have a discussion on that topic.

I explain exactly what I find problematic whenever talking about a specific lineage.
I use the word "incoherent" when talking about systems in general terms.

I would like to agree with more, honestly, but sadly the current state of Wing Chun is that most of it is riddled with problems, and I can't pretend these problems don't exist.

If I'm wrong about them being problems, it should be very easy to clarify. Yet, as you have witnessed, when I make very detailed posts about things, people either agree with it outright or brush it off with only one-liners and refuse to engage.

 

[Transk53]

Interesting.



I explain exactly what I find problematic whenever talking about a specific lineage.
I use the word "incoherent" when talking about systems in general terms.

I would like to agree with more, honestly, but sadly the current state of Wing Chun is that most of it is riddled with problems, and I can't pretend these problems don't exist.

If I'm wrong about them being problems, it should be very easy to clarify. Yet, as you have witnessed, when I make very detailed posts about things, people either agree with it outright or brush it off with only one-liners and refuse to engage.

Wing Chun is riddled with problems?

 

[Phobius]

Wing Chun is riddled with problems?

I think better question would be what problems.

I think some are very obvious even to me, just look at YouTube, it is flooded with people wanting to show how much they know and yet seem to not comprehend fighting at all.

Others mistake softness for no power, force or no offensive strategy whatsoever and treat wing chun as it is a spa event that will teach you how to fight any and everything.

Thirdly we have a million people who seem to think that first real grade makes them a sifu and that they are gonna be supreme fighters and excellent teachers just by that alone. This I find to be okay but it can spread WC in watered down versions where people try to fill in gaps on their own. Is great until they consider chi-sao to be the tool to validate new additions.

Fourth point is the chi-sao sparring group. Those that think chi-sao resembles fighting and can replace sparring.

Just to name some.

Think all MAs have problems of their own.

 

[Transk53]

I think better question would be what problems.

I think some are very obvious even to me, just look at YouTube, it is flooded with people wanting to show how much they know and yet seem to not comprehend fighting at all.

Others mistake softness for no power, force or no offensive strategy whatsoever and treat wing chun as it is a spa event that will teach you how to fight any and everything.

Thirdly we have a million people who seem to think that first real grade makes them a sifu and that they are gonna be supreme fighters and excellent teachers just by that alone. This I find to be okay but it can spread WC in watered down versions where people try to fill in gaps on their own. Is great until they consider chi-sao to be the tool to validate new additions.

Fourth point is the chi-sao sparring group. Those that think chi-sao resembles fighting and can replace sparring.

Just to name some.

Think all MAs have problems of their own.

Yes.The trumpet brigade as I dub them. Remember back in the day with video tapes, what you saw may have been grainy and badly dubbed, there was quiet confidence that what was being seen, was actually something of substance. Had it not been for the members on here to comment on a thread I started that was a Jake Mace vid, I would not have known that what I was seeing was not 100 percent correct.

You make very good points, the second one though sounds like people that have watched Ip Man too much. Maybe one of the problems in the modern day world is the pace of life. Too many wanting to get somewhere too quickly, and end up omitting things that are deemed superfluous. Think that applies to some MA as well, not for the technical side of things, but as you say with things being watered down. Whatever the motive.

 

[KPM]

What makes you think this is only about you? It's about all three of you, and I'm inclined to agree with your viewpoints and logic on most things as well. But the ONLY reason this is even an issue is because the three of you, not just you, not just Guy, not just LFJ, keep dragging it on in the public sphere.

I don't care who started it and I don't care which one of you is right. At this point it doesn't matter.

Well no. It hasn't been about "all three of us"....at least not lately. Because as I noted above, other people have started to speak out to back me up and call them on their BS. When other people are willing to just sit back and let them say whatever they want about other lineages, then yeah....it looks like its all about the 3 of us. If you are agreeing with my viewpoint and logic on most things, then why aren't you posting to say so? If you did, then it becomes clear to them that the majority disagrees with what they are saying and its NOT just about the "three of us." When most of these things end as a 2 on 1 situation with me as the lone voice of dissent, that's when it turns into a convulated argument.

 

[Transk53]

Well no. It hasn't been about "all three of us"....at least not lately. Because as I noted above, other people have started to speak out to back me up and call them on their BS. When other people are willing to just sit back and let them say whatever they want about other lineages, then yeah....it looks like its all about the 3 of us. If you are agreeing with my viewpoint and logic on most things, then why aren't you posting to say so? If you did, then it becomes clear to them that the majority disagrees with what they are saying and its NOT just about the "three of us." When most of these things end as a 2 on 1 situation with me as the lone voice of dissent, that's when it turns into a convulated argument.

That is the problem though. No doubt the gruesome twosome will retort. Gets to a point where nothing can be written without a sarky reply, or whatever other reply. Speaking or replying Objectively ceases to exist because things go beyond the point of no return. Resulting in members disappearing even if they do speak with a loaded bias towards themselves and, or, their cohorts.

 

[LFJ]

@KPM

You've actually done very little to no refutation when I've given specific and detailed critiques of other methods and clearly laid mine out.

Your "calling us on our BS" has been nothing more than complaining about our use of abbreviations, our views on VT history, and other trivialities which you could just ignore; never anything really meaningful or of substance with regards to actual methods.

I know you have different views on VT history. That's fine. I don't care. Everyone is free to believe what they want and let it be known. I'm interested in talking substance but you keep dragging discussions back down with trifles.

 

[KPM]

^^^^^^ The post above just proves my point! I take issue with the dynamic duo now starting to say there is no WSLVT, only "VT" which is what Ip Man taught. Its not about abbreviations at all. Its about now taking the attitude that they are going to use "VT" as their own way of referring to what they think is the only true way of doing Wing Chun....the way WSL does it. Its not about any specific abbreviation at all! Most of you get that, right? But not LFJ.

Their view of history is that Ip Man taught very few people the "real" Wing Chun, and very few people were smart enough to "get it." Apparently only WSL (and possibly a few unnamed other people thrown in so the idea doesn't look quite as bad) were smart enough and spent time enough and were the "chosen" to get the "real thing" from Ip Man. Tell me I'm not the only one that has a problem with that "different view on VT history"!

LFJ says he is interested in "talking substance"....but just said in the other thread that there were "purposeful omissions"....omissions that were very likely the reason we weren't following his argument.

But if you guys want me to simply ignore the dynamic duo and let them go on with such drivel, I will.

 

[LFJ]

but just said in the other thread that there were "purposeful omissions"....omissions that were very likely the reason we weren't following his argument.

You weren't following the argument because you weren't following the argument. You were leading with questions to get me to concede that your clever techniques are good and I'd probably use them too.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

And what do you base this on? You follow the lineage of a guy who openly admitted making up his own ideas because YM wouldn't give him details, and he didn't care about fighting skill.

LOL! You come across as being offended and therefore deciding to attack my lineage. What is wrong with WSL taking his wing chun in a certain direction that differes from YM? Why do you lack faith in WSL to come up with his own conclusions and way of doing things? He was an intelligent guy. Give him more credit.

 

[guy b.]

Its not about abbreviations at all. Its about now taking the attitude that they are going to use "VT" as their own way of referring to what they think is the only true way of doing Wing Chun....the way WSL does it. Its not about any specific abbreviation at all!

Their view of history is that Ip Man taught very few people the "real" Wing Chun, and very few people were smart enough to "get it." Apparently only WSL (and possibly a few unnamed other people thrown in so the idea doesn't look quite as bad) were smart enough

So you are confirming that all you are complaining about is our use of abbreviations, our views on VT history, and other trivialities. I think that you should just ignore such unimportant things and try talking substance and detail instead.

if you guys want me to simply ignore the dynamic duo and let them go on, I will.

Please do. Your constant trolling about abbreviations, historical disagreement, and trivialities is really making the forum a less attractive place

 

[guy b.]

LOL! You come across as being offended and therefore deciding to attack my lineage. What is wrong with WSL taking his wing chun in a certain direction that differes from YM? Why do you lack faith in WSL to come up with his own conclusions and way of doing things? He was an intelligent guy. Give him more credit.

I don't think LFJ comes across as offended. He replies in great detail mostly and is remarkably even tempered.

The argument (which has been made before) is a probabilistic one; it is extremely unlikely that WSL made a coherent and non contradictory system like VT out of a mess of incoherent conceptual and strategic thinking with many inherent contradictions. Much more likely that he simply taught what he learned from YM, something which evolved and became so perfect over a long period of time as a product of many brains.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

Well the two of you have avoided the question that many have asked you. Which is how do you know what YM taught? You were not there. You don't actually know.

 

[guy b.]

1. Probabilistic argument as above. This is an evidence based argument, not a faith based argument.
2. WSL said it. I see no good reason to assume he lied.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

1. Probabilistic argument as above. This is an evidence based argument, not a faith based argument.
2. WSL said it. I see no good reason to assume he lied.

1. What evidence? It is very faith based IMO.
2. This was said by many YM students and can not be relied upon for a variety of reasons. Just saying because someone said that is hardly evidence. And even if he did believe that, it is still his interpretation of what YM taught.

 

[SaulGoodman]

1. What evidence? It is very faith based IMO.
2. This was said by many YM students and can not be relied upon for a variety of reasons. Just saying because someone said that is hardly evidence. And even if he did believe that, it is still his interpretation of what YM taught.

You're just feeding the trolls now bud...

 

[guy b.]

1. What evidence? It is very faith based IMO.

How can a probabilistic argument be faith based? It is the opposite. Please address the argument.

This was said by many YM students

Was it? Please provide quotes.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

Think I will go with Saul on this matter....