Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[Juany118]

In terms of VT, without being able to show you what is meant, all anyone can provide is what they know to be true from experience. You say that WSL is saying one thing based on your lack of experience of WSL VT. I know that he isn't. There isn't a lot of proving that can be done one way or the other without experiencing what is meant.



You said the opposite, as quoted above, i.e. that VT strategy varies with circumstances. This is a gross misunderstanding of the difference between tactic and strategy, and of the WSL VT system. If you vary your strategy with each opponent then you are thinking consciously rather than operating automatically according to the system. The reason I mainly talk of strategy is that it is a major point of difference compared to other VT, as evidenced by your understanding of TWC strategy and misinterpretation of WSL VT strategy.



There isn't anything indicating that WSL changed the teaching of VT in such a way that would alter the system information being conveyed compared to YM in the quote you provided. He had a different attitude to his students compared to YM and was a great teacher, but taught the same system. The quote explains very well the differences and misunderstandings seen in the various branches of YM wing chun that are not via WSL and that exist today, a reality generally denied by most people on this forum:



You continue:



This quote and others show that WSL was teaching the same system as YM, but doing it more effectively. It is therefore irrelevant as an attack against the idea that WSL VT is the VT of YM. You seem to be arguing that if WSL was a more effective teacher than YM then... what else might be different!? It just reeks of...desperation more than anything. I can't really see a point here?

ROFL, you just completely dodged the point. The original accusation was that I was, in essence, making up that they taught differently. LFJ produced one quote claiming it was the only one. You demanded I posted the quote I was referring to. Then I did and now, miraculously, it's not " WSL didnt chang E the teaching of WC" now it's "WSL improved it.". It one response you have proved how disingenuous you are in such a way I don't even have to prove it. The posts of you both in this one thread prove it sir. Thank you for making my point for me.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[guy b]

Now I truly am trying to be open-minded here and read things as neutrally as possible. But there is just no way I can see that those two statements above are the same thing. WSL's quote to me in no way implies "forcing" anything. In fact, he seems to warn against such a thing when says one shouldn't try to "hit your opponent above all else." And it also seems to me that one can certainly "create openings to be exploited" while flowing with the opponent and not "imposing" or "forcing" anything.

It's a system of chasing, closing down, forcing errors, capitalising. Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung is the main part of the VT strategy. This isn't controversial.

 

[guy b]

The original accusation was that I was, in essence, making up that they taught differently. LFJ produced one quote claiming it was the only one. You demanded I posted the quote I was referring to. Then I did and now, miraculously, it's not " WSL didnt chang E the teaching of WC" now it's "WSL improved it.

There has never been any disagreement that WSL was a great teacher. YM was also a great teacher. They had different teaching styles. Since the system they taught was the same then individual teaching styles are not relevant to the point you are trying to make.

 

[guy b]

I refuse to take what my Sifu says as the Gospel words of GM Cheung

You would probably be wise not to take what William Cheung says as gospel either.

 

[Juany118]

It's a system of chasing, closing down, forcing errors, capitalising. Loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chung is the main part of the VT strategy. This isn't controversial.

You do realized that you didn't address a blessed thing he said. Instead you spoke in the WC equivalent of psychobabble, aka jargon with no substance, to avoid the salient points put forth. I understand why though. Until now, and I have been watching, you have been used to dismissing all challenges by saying "You don't know the teachings of WSL" because no one had the experience or bothered to spend the time to produce evidence to the contrary. Well I have some experience and the time (and stubbornness) to not only dispute, but produce statements that anyone can verify, to support my dispute. So you are uncertain as how to respond because, to date, fiat statements have been sufficient.

For goodness sake you essentially plagiarized my response to @JowGaWolf in a way that ignored I had ever said it. That is the only thing you have done that actually evoked anything resembling an emotional response from me and that is a feat because I am your stereotypical "cold fish" when it comes to displays of emotion.

 

[Juany118]

You would probably be wise not to take what William Cheung says as gospel either.

lol, lets dodge the point and engage in veiled ad hominem. Classy sir lol, but I understand, since you can't produce the same level of proof you demanded, this is what you are reduced to.

 

[guy b]

you spoke in the WC equivalent of psychobabble, aka jargon with no substance

You find the strategy of VT to be jargon? That's a new one.

I have explained in great detail how you have misinterpreted what WSL said, feel free to read over it again if still confused.

 

[guy b]

lol, lets dodge the point and engage in veiled ad hominem. Classy sir lol, but I understand, since you can't produce the same level of proof you demanded, this is what you are reduced to.

I agree with what WSL says. There is nothing there that I don't agree with. I can't help your misinterpretation of it, that is up to you

 

[Juany118]

I agree with what WSL says. There is nothing there that I don't agree with. I can't help your misinterpretation of it, that is up to you

No you say "WSL says this" then I post his words, and how they are used. You then say I am wrong but then plagiarized my words to support you contention. That is called being disingenuous, pure and simple sir.

 

[LFJ]

@Juany118

In response to the following quote from WSL on YM's teaching style:

Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have got the wrong meaning which they now pass on. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude. This is not a criticism of Yip Man but rather it reflects the attitude of the time which was very much traditional. Wherever and whomever I have been teaching, it has been my preference to convey the information to all people in attendance. I try to treat everyone equally during my lessons and seminars. If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job.

This only shows different personalities and teaching styles. It does not at all change the information that was conveyed, only the extent to which students received it.

YM was not careful to ensure all students received the information. Particularly clear is this part;

"Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners."

This is exactly what we've been saying. He didn't care to ensure many students received the information fully, and it shows. No two students of YM share the same understanding of VT, as far as I've seen.

Conversely, WSL was careful to ensure the information was passed on fully to more students, and it shows too. There are multiple students of WSL that share the same understanding of VT.

This quote just helps to confirm our suspicions, like many other student testimonies.

So again, all that changes between these different teaching styles, is the extent to which students receive the information. The information has always remained the same. So you have no point here.

 

[LFJ]

@Juany118

In response to the following quote from WSL on VT strategy:

"If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him."

"Above all else" means attacking without strategy. Obviously this may lead to overcommitment and being countered easily.

But, "to allow your opponent to guide you" doesn't mean to let them have you by the puppet strings either! This is referring to the strategy of VT, which as we explained is to close options and force errors, so that you are always one step ahead of the opponent where they show you how to hit them. You don't let them put you in the past and guide from the future. That's a losing strategy.

 

[LFJ]

Now I am going to pull a line from the play book of you and Guy but I will be more honest. Where here you would start talking in circular reasoning and vague generalities. Time and again we have asked you to explain the grand difference on this issue to no avail, I am not going to empower your hypocrisy any further by answering a question you have refused to for as long as I can remember.

I don't remember you asking any specific questions. So of course you got general answers.

I'll be glad to discuss specifics if you do as well. But I sense you are avoiding this specific question because you know it cannot be answered. These are disjointed applications devoid of strategic information in the lineages you mentioned (TWC, Yip1, Yip2).

For example, how does the crossing arm action at the opening of the forms inform these lineages of the overall fighting strategy or relate to say, daan-chi-sau? How about the three "shaving" hand actions before the punches at the end of SNT?

In these lineages, and others, these actions are given various possible applications, rather than containing information on general strategy and tactics. If they have the same thread, you should be able to explain what this information is that ties them all together in sequence.

 

[Juany118]

@Juany118

In response to the following quote from WSL on VT strategy:

"If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him."

"Above all else" means attacking without strategy. Obviously this may lead to overcommitment and being countered easily.

But, "to allow your opponent to guide you" doesn't mean to let them have you by the puppet strings either! This is referring to the strategy of VT, which as we explained is to close options and force errors, so that you are always one step ahead of the opponent where they show you how to hit them. You don't let them put you in the past and guide from the future. That's a losing strategy.

Please see my previous response I never said what you, or in different words but same point Guy said. I answered this already.

I am actually reminded of an objection Lawyers make in US Courts here...

"Asked and answered."

The fact you couldn't raise a new point...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[LFJ]

You have posted several pages since I last logged in. Would you mind directing me to a post # so that I may address it?

 

[LFJ]

The fact you couldn't raise a new point...

There is only one point to raise; the point of the quote.

Your misinterpretation of it has now been explained to you by people who understand the system WSL taught.

You disagree without knowing better and want a new point? Doesn't work like that.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I am looking at it, and was taught, that in this context fighting consists of two different things, strategy and tactics. Strategy is the "overall" plan, philosophy etc. That is essentially a universal tennant.

Then you have tactical execution which is different from encounter to encounter and is informed by your immediate goal, the opponent and the circumstances of each individual encounter. As an example, you can potentially impose your will if your opponent is overly cautious, hesitant etc. BUT the raison d'être isn't to impose your will, that was simply what the circumstances of that particular fight dictates to occur.

Does that make sense?

I understand what you are saying but I don't think I understand the in fighting. Thanks for taking the time to share what you know. My head is about to explode with why it's such a big deal for some people. I did some reading about the differences between the 2 styles of Wing Chun and that was enough to end my curiosity. So this is something that will probably never be resolved or even slightly resolved. I understand that there are people out there who don't fight the battle or get into the "who is fake and who isn't" arguments.

I'm just more than happy that I don't have to go through this with my system.

 

[Juany118]

I understand what you are saying but I don't think I understand the in fighting. Thanks for taking the time to share what you know. My head is about to explode with why it's such a big deal for some people. I did some reading about the differences between the 2 styles of Wing Chun and that was enough to end my curiosity. So this is something that will probably never be resolved or even slightly resolved. I understand that there are people out there who don't fight the battle or get into the "who is fake and who isn't" arguments.

I'm just more than happy that I don't have to go through this with my system.

I don't understand it either tbh. I have studied both. I am on the "other side" only because my current Sifu is former LE so we speak the same language and he knows first hand what I need because of it. I do not see the difference in strategy (there are differences in application I can elaborate on private side to avoid further turmoil). I will stop there because anything else may seem an ad hominem but it does boggle my mind because I go to an annual tournament in Maryland (Kuo Shu) where all of CMA show up, face to face, and only here, and because of two people, have I seen this pissing match. Every where else it's "yeah, Cheung said this.. Leung said that.. can you fight? Cool let's get a beer."

The problem is in knowing both I know how narrow the differences are and when people try to make it seem like there is some black and white, right and wrong, difference between lineages my Don Quixote complex kicks in and I tilt at windmills. Lol

 

[Juany118]

You have posted several pages since I last logged in. Would you mind directing me to a post # so that I may address it?

Lol... You and Guy have told me, and others, to produce evidence to defend my point (which I did, including statements from WSL himself) and you can't be bothered to simply look at a single thread to try and defend your point? That is telling and I am done playing Don Quixote to your windmill.

 

[LFJ]

I've addressed both of the quotes. You are ignoring them because your arguments have reached a dead end, just like on the Peterson discussion when it came down to technical analysis.

 

[Juany118]

I've addressed both of the quotes. You are ignoring them because your arguments have reached a dead end, just like on the Peterson discussion when it came down to technical analysis.

No you haven't and here is the problem. All I said, when it comes to teaching is that they had different teaching methods and that teaching methods impact learning, that's it. This was patently denied by both you and Guy. You went so far as to produce a quote saying... you spin in another direction saying

No, he's not. This is what he actually said:

"Ever since I have been teaching, I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man. The only way by which I differ is that after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee.

And then when I produce the rest of his statements, in the same interview (I at least had the honesty to link the interview ), you try to spin it.. I will link it again. Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat

So You and Guy call BS, I produce the words of WSL himself and then you still call BS. tis telling and I am done. respond if you wish but, thanks to this forum's setting I will not see it.