Does WSLVT exist?

[dudewingchun]

WSL and Duncan Leung have both said they teach just what Ip Man taught them but there way of wing chun is completely different... just saying.

Guy b and LFJ which lineage do you guys think resembles WSL the most out of the Ip man students? Just curious.

 

[LFJ]

LOL! You come across as being offended and therefore deciding to attack my lineage.

Maybe you feel offended and see it as an attack. All apologies.

I'm just saying the guy whose lineage you follow openly admitted making up his own ideas because YM didn't give him any details.

So, I'm just confused how you think you would know what YM taught and how "obviously" different WSL's teachings were to that.

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.

As Guy said. I wouldn't mind if WSL came up with things on his own. I just find it very hard to believe he did for reasons mentioned by Guy, and he also said he didn't and wasn't an obvious liar like some lineage heads I need not name for you to know.

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.

In addition to the probabilistic argument, we have quite a bit of testimony regarding YM's teaching style and temperament which shows that he'd rather teach one good student than ten lousy ones, and in fact didn't teach details to many people at all. That's including testimony from your own lineage head who said he wasn't given details and had to come up with his own ideas.

Other testimony shows that YM only opened public classes to support himself financially in Hong Kong (mostly his opium addiction) and only cared about passing VT on to serious fighters.

So, we can look at people who didn't spend much time with him, or were never fighters, and see that what they teach is not at all functional. It then becomes quite obvious (speaking from evidence-based confidence) that this was not YM's fighting method.

Whereas, what the most prolific fighting student of YM taught is an incredibly logical, systematic approach to developing nothing more or less than practical fighting skill.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

.... so .....hard....not.... to ...get ....drawn in......
Cant do it.



What makes you think YM didn't give CST any details?

Watch the above interview. CST never said he wasn't taught details. He questioned the meaning of SNT. He was encouraged to believe and train. He was relentless in his training.

CST lived with YM for 5 years and was one of the four first generation students that reached a high level. Most of the YM photos and antiques at the wing chun athletic association were donated by CST.

CST frequently attended Beimo fights together with WSL and Lok Yu. They would go together. CST recalls many times he went with WSL to fight. All of them would. He tells a good story of one time when they all went to fight. WSL won his fight easily and Lok Yu got beaten badly on this occasion. CST won his fight against a much bigger opponent. WSL was just way more active in fighting than others.

CST later years he changed his teaching approach. This is to be expected when one reaches a high level. All YM sifus will have taken there own direction. YM included. This can't be avoided. It is naive to think so.

Only two people were teaching YM's third generation students; CST and WSL. THere is no need to compare these two great masters who were great friends right up until the moment WSL died. They toured in Europe together. And one of CST most well known students who opened a huge chain of schools in Australia (Jim Fung) had WSL visit his schools several times for seminars.

YM used CST to demonstrate force concepts on other students and encouraged them to follow his example. YM was also quoted in a chinese newspaper as saying that CST had surpassed his skill. He said the same thing of HKM. I don't put much stock in things like this. I have heard of YM saying this about at least one other person. So it is apparent to me that YM was quite humble and openly praised his students in this way.

Regarding WSL's temperament. We can make some assumptions about what kind of person he was. He came in fighting from the get go and was active in Beimo throughout his training. To me this paints a certain picture of quite an aggressive and confident person. He would have been very outspoken and it is clear that he had huge influence in YM's school. He would have taken that aggressive approach to his wing chun and chi sao and his wing chun would have gone in that direction. This sort of personality profile doesn't strike me as someone who would be a cookie cutter follower of anyone. There is the famous story of him fighting a another kung fu stylist where he kneed the guy in the head. The other guy questioned whether this was real kungfu and he responded by saying his knee was close to his head and was the best thing to use. WSL would have taken that attitude with wing chun, discarding what he deemed useless.

While WSL had a really good take on fighting and application. He is missing some of the force generation concepts found in other YM teachers. CST had amazing force and power. He didn't make it up. He was taught this by YM. There have been a lot of people who got to meet WSL who were students of other YM sifus who found some of this power and force stuff missing from his chi sao. Nothing wrong with this. WSL had at least some force and structure. He probably figured that only a certain amount was required for actual fighting. That might be a fair assertion .... who knows.

 

[LFJ]

What makes you think YM didn't give CST any details?

Watch the above interview. CST never said he wasn't taught details. He questioned the meaning of SNT. He was encouraged to believe and train. He was relentless in his training.

You just answered your own question. All he was ever told was "believe and train". That's not being given details.

He trained hard and came up with his own ideas, which he openly admitted, and thought the meaning of SNT is the interpretation anyone gives it.

There are no secrets or just "believe and train" and make up whatever you want in what WSL learned and taught. Everything has a clear meaning and purpose. It answers all the stuff that makes no sense in other lineages.

While WSL had a really good take on fighting and application. He is missing some of the force generation concepts found in other YM teachers.

And most others are missing everything that matters, like fighting strategy and tactics, and how abstract drills relate.

I met a LS lineage guy a couple weeks ago. He had some weird force generation stuff that I don't have. I wouldn't say I'm "missing" it though, because it's entirely useless.

YM taught a specific approach to fighting. This stuff has nothing to do with fighting.

CST had amazing force and power. He didn't make it up. He was taught this by YM.

If you consider "just believe and train" teaching.

 

[KPM]

^^^^ Auckland your version of history doesn't match their version of history. So expect it to be discounted immediately! But thanks for the info. That was very interesting.

Edit: It happened even as I was typing to predict it! Go figure!

 

[Transk53]

.... so .....hard....not.... to ...get ....drawn in......
Cant do it.



What makes you think YM didn't give CST any details?


Watch the above interview. CST never said he wasn't taught details. He questioned the meaning of SNT. He was encouraged to believe and train. He was relentless in his training.

CST lived with YM for 5 years and was one of the four first generation students that reached a high level. Most of the YM photos and antiques at the wing chun athletic association were donated by CST.

CST frequently attended Beimo fights together with WSL and Lok Yu. They would go together. CST recalls many times he went with WSL to fight. All of them would. He tells a good story of one time when they all went to fight. WSL won his fight easily and Lok Yu got beaten badly on this occasion. CST won his fight against a much bigger opponent. WSL was just way more active in fighting than others.

CST later years he changed his teaching approach. This is to be expected when one reaches a high level. All YM sifus will have taken there own direction. YM included. This can't be avoided. It is naive to think so.

Only two people were teaching YM's third generation students; CST and WSL. THere is no need to compare these two great masters who were great friends right up until the moment WSL died. They toured in Europe together. And one of CST most well known students who opened a huge chain of schools in Australia (Jim Fung) had WSL visit his schools several times for seminars.

YM used CST to demonstrate force concepts on other students and encouraged them to follow his example. YM was also quoted in a chinese newspaper as saying that CST had surpassed his skill. He said the same thing of HKM. I don't put much stock in things like this. I have heard of YM saying this about at least one other person. So it is apparent to me that YM was quite humble and openly praised his students in this way.

Regarding WSL's temperament. We can make some assumptions about what kind of person he was. He came in fighting from the get go and was active in Beimo throughout his training. To me this paints a certain picture of quite an aggressive and confident person. He would have been very outspoken and it is clear that he had huge influence in YM's school. He would have taken that aggressive approach to his wing chun and chi sao and his wing chun would have gone in that direction. This sort of personality profile doesn't strike me as someone who would be a cookie cutter follower of anyone. There is the famous story of him fighting a another kung fu stylist where he kneed the guy in the head. The other guy questioned whether this was real kungfu and he responded by saying his knee was close to his head and was the best thing to use. WSL would have taken that attitude with wing chun, discarding what he deemed useless.

While WSL had a really good take on fighting and application. He is missing some of the force generation concepts found in other YM teachers. CST had amazing force and power. He didn't make it up. He was taught this by YM. There have been a lot of people who got to meet WSL who were students of other YM sifus who found some of this power and force stuff missing from his chi sao. Nothing wrong with this. WSL had at least some force and structure. He probably figured that only a certain amount was required for actual fighting. That might be a fair assertion .... who knows.

Very interesting. I would say that makes a lot of sense.

 

[WcForMe]

Ok I've read most of this thread and I'm only hearing the same old stuff being spouted. Before I say anymore more let it be clear I have nothing but respect for the Yip family and wing chun and the way the family brought wc to the mainstream. Without him or BL I would have probably never heard of it.

That said these arguements of who was taught the correct wc and who teaches wc as originally taught by Yip man is ridiculous. How does anybody expect a theory of fighting from 1800s ish not to be changed by the year 2016.

Times change, people change. In China at that time around 1800s how many people where over 6ft weighing in at the weights people weight today? My bet is none. Chinese are usually a lot less weighty and smaller in height and build than us westerners. That's just one small example of how times and people change there are many to consider.

As much as Yip man is undoubtedly the biggest public name in wc ever, has anybody you personally know or have you ever seen him fight? I havnt. I'm gunna annoy pretty much most practioniers now. How do I personally know his wc was amongst the best the world has seen? Chinese love a story. From my understanding rightly or wrongly they like to elloborate stories. I have no doubt that he was one of the best due to the quality of students he had. Which brings me to my next part.

Hands up with hand on heart what sifus teach EXACTLY what you where taught. I teach a very small amount and I'm certainly no Sifu. I try to teach unbiasedly and to the standard I'm taught at. However subconsciously I teach and remember things that work for me personally. I'm short ish, my legs are not that flexible compared to my Sifu with flexible legs over 6ft tall. We are never going to do combat the same way. What he can do and what I can do is worlds apart. So if I teach people that are much taller than me I have to think very hard about what I'm teaching to help the student adapt the theory to fit his or her needs not just my own.

All anybody in this world should be concerned about is 1. Does this theory work for me when it actually comes to a violent situation 2. Do you understand what you are learning completely. As some of you guys have posted this is a fighting art. If you can't make it work in a fight then why bother. What do I care if you don't like my Sifu or you think I'm doing it wrong. If I can apply what I've learnt and it works for me who is anybody else to tell me different. If some of you prefer wsl more for you, for the ones that don't well done to you. Just train and enjoy. Lineage is a political battle that will never end. People always want to feel they have the best wc, train with the best Sifu they can and that includes me. But if somebody from pan nam for an example shows me something that works I'm all for it.

I'm not the best wc source or fighter ever but il stand up and bang. If I lose I learn some valuable lessons if I win I analyse to see where I could do something better, quicker, what opportunities I missed and could capitalise on etc etc. All of that improves my wc and me as a person not what lineage I'm from.

 

[LFJ]

I try to teach unbiasedly and to the standard I'm taught at. However subconsciously I teach and remember things that work for me personally. I'm short ish, my legs are not that flexible compared to my Sifu with flexible legs over 6ft tall. We are never going to do combat the same way. What he can do and what I can do is worlds apart. So if I teach people that are much taller than me I have to think very hard about what I'm teaching to help the student adapt the theory to fit his or her needs not just my own.

A good principle based system can accommodate all shapes and sizes without requiring change.

 

[LFJ]

Edit: Double Post

 

[WcForMe]

A good principle based system can accommodate all shapes and sizes without requiring change.

Please clarify your point as I may be reading it wrong. Core principles like say centreline won't change I agree with that. However from what I've read and seen even wsl agreed with me on this point. If you think every single person should fight the same I would totally disagree. But thats my opinion from the limited combat I have done. I put up a pretty massive post and I was waiting for some more shall we say feedback LFJ.

 

[Transk53]

Please clarify your point as I may be reading it wrong. Core principles like say centreline won't change I agree with that. However from what I've read and seen even wsl agreed with me on this point. If you think every single person should fight the same I would totally disagree. But thats my opinion from the limited combat I have done. I put up a pretty massive post and I was waiting for some more shall we say feedback LFJ.

What you originally posted makes sense. Most of the time in reality from my POV is that most of the time it is slapsies. Even then, every live situation is different.

Hands up with hand on heart what sifus teach EXACTLY what you where taught. I teach a very small amount and I'm certainly no Sifu. I try to teach unbiasedly and to the standard I'm taught at. However subconsciously I teach and remember things "that work for me" personally. I'm short ish, my legs are not that flexible compared to my Sifu with flexible legs over 6ft tall. We are never going to do combat the same way. What he can do and what I can do is worlds apart. So if I teach people that are much taller than me I have to think very hard about what I'm teaching to help the student adapt the theory to fit his or her needs not just my own.

Concur. The emboldened I think is aspect that many overlook. I guess on a general level while training, the areas being trained are very similar in execution. The crux of it would be what person would do in any situation that could escalate into a full blown fight. I am not ignorant to suggest that martial arts have no impact on the mindset, but that fighting mindset I think it different. At least on a non scientific view that I hold. And I have had to adapt many times while training and trying new things in different arts.

 

[SaulGoodman]

My wing chun is different in many ways to my Sifu's, is that wrong? As long as I am not abandoning the core principles I don't think so. What a depressing thought, busting my hump trying to be a carbon copy of my teacher! Once again I quote (again paraphrasing) the great WSL (yes I like WSL a lot, almost was my choice of lineage at one point!). "Don't be a slave to Wing Chun, make it your own".

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

My wing chun is different in many ways to my Sifu's, is that wrong? As long as I am not abandoning the core principles I don't think so. What a depressing thought, busting my hump trying to be a carbon copy of my teacher! Once again I quote (again paraphrasing) the great WSL (yes I like WSL a lot, almost was my choice of lineage at one point!). "Don't be a slave to Wing Chun, make it your own".

Absolutely. And my approach is different from my Sifu's. You can't get away from it. FWI CST said exactly the same thing. He said "Don't let Wing Chun own you. You own wing chun". He was referring to people's obsession with exact arm positions.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

You just answered your own question. All he was ever told was "believe and train". That's not being given details.

He trained hard and came up with his own ideas, which he openly admitted, and thought the meaning of SNT is the interpretation anyone gives it.

Lol! Is that what you took from that? Then it is not surprising how you reached many of your other conclusions.

 

[dudewingchun]

In my brief experience with WSL and CST here in NZ. CST produce alot more power and have better structure. Cant compare the effectiveness in fighting though, the focus of training between the two are completely different.

Guy B and LFJ have you guys touched hands with a good CST student at all? Also my other question, what do you guys think is the most similar VT to WSL?

 

[SaulGoodman]

CST was an exceptional talent imo. He comes across as very humble and knowledgeable.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

CST was an exceptional talent imo. He comes across as very humble and knowledgeable.

Yeah, he was pretty humble. And just a good natured person in general. Great article about this by Mark Spence who has amazing skill. See link:

Training with Sigung Chu Shong Tin | Chi Sau Club Wing Chun Kung Fu Surry Hills Sydney

In regards to level, many of his students regarded him as a freak.

 

[SaulGoodman]

Thanks for the link bud, very interesting

 

[Transk53]

Nice to see some constructive answers here

 

[KPM]

My wing chun is different in many ways to my Sifu's, is that wrong? As long as I am not abandoning the core principles I don't think so. What a depressing thought, busting my hump trying to be a carbon copy of my teacher! Once again I quote (again paraphrasing) the great WSL (yes I like WSL a lot, almost was my choice of lineage at one point!). "Don't be a slave to Wing Chun, make it your own".

But that is taken out of context Saul! We can take WSL at his word and with a literal understanding when he said he taught just what Ip Man taught. But we don't take him as literally meaning what you quote above. You have to have just the right context for that one!