Can you summarize what that strategy is? I'm trying to wrap my head around this statement. You've made it at least twice, and it seems like it should mean more to me than it does - I'm missing a key piece of information to process this.
Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory
- Thread starter LFJ
- Start date
This is where I get confused again.
You said that the way WSL VT is taught makes it impossible for it to not be transmitted completely. Yet here you point out that of course every instructor teaches a bit differently because of his different personality.
Help un-confuse me, please. I've either missed or misunderstood something in your posts.
Could you put that in English terms for the non-CMA folks in the audience?
The VT strategy is all about the application of pressure (loi lau hoi sung, lat sau jik chun)- space pressure, time pressure, distance pressure. We intercept and cut into the attack, disrupting the opponent. We apply forward pressure, cutting the way and eating up space. We force mistakes from the opponent in this way, i.e. they show us how to hit them (kiu loi kiu seung) which we do using the whole body as one, and if not then we create openings by other means (mor kiu ji jou kiu). At all times we pressure the centre rather than chase hands. By linking neutraliation and striking (lin siu dai da) we defend automatically as we attack, which increases the time and space pressure on the opponent, making us appear faster than we really are.
Lobo66
Yellow Belt
Very good summary of the VT strategy, guy b.
The idea of attacking into the attack or intercepting the opponent's attack with our own (counter) attack, cutting off and canalizing their possibilities while simultaneously disrupting their balance is key to VT and is the strategic thread that unites the entire system from poon sau through to sparring.
VT is a "counter assault" style and provides a way/concept and training methodology that provides one with a means to a) develop the (counter-intuitive) reflexes to combine attack and defense, b) recover a superior position and c) recycle and continue with our counter attacks (pressure), using our weapons "against our opponent's greatest vulnerability at his time of maximum imbalance."
The idea of attacking into the attack or intercepting the opponent's attack with our own (counter) attack, cutting off and canalizing their possibilities while simultaneously disrupting their balance is key to VT and is the strategic thread that unites the entire system from poon sau through to sparring.
VT is a "counter assault" style and provides a way/concept and training methodology that provides one with a means to a) develop the (counter-intuitive) reflexes to combine attack and defense, b) recover a superior position and c) recycle and continue with our counter attacks (pressure), using our weapons "against our opponent's greatest vulnerability at his time of maximum imbalance."
That's a good summary. Thanks!
How does that deal with someone who gets you, metaphorically speaking "on your heels" (a boxing term for someone temporarily overwhelming you)? What's the recovery when their pressure is better/more effective than your own?
WSL said this:
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
Guy said this:
What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited
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.
So, as with the rest of the argument across several threads.....is this going to come down to "well, you have to actually have studied WSLVT in depth to understand what he has said".....??????
If this is his believe of what WSL REALLY had said, then what effect does this have on his interpretation of WSL/PB VT? Since he had no way of knowing EXACTLY what are the meaning behind what WSL saying, is he "filling in the gap" to suit his understanding?
Juany118
Senior Master
You have actually completely changed your argument lol. I said that WSL changed the structure of instruction. LFJ denied it. You denied it and demanded the quote. I produce the quote and now you make a completely different argument.
Word of advice. That might work in a verbal conversation there is no record of but here all people have to do is go back a couple pages and see how you essentially just say whatever is necessary in order to try a preserve your claims even if the statements end up contradicting each other.
Juany118
Senior Master
Sadly though this is one of many explanations over various threads as to what makes WSLVT different in actual practice. Everytime someone makes a solid argument against his last claim, the words get spun around to try and make them fit the new counter argument so that he is still right.
I think @Lobo66 summary is better because it doesn't keep trying to say that we impose our will on the opponent. To impose your will on another, at least to my old teacher, is an impossibility because you can't control another human. You can flow with them, it's the idea that Guy stated earlier if "imposing your will" on the opponent that is the problem. He may have been taught to picture it that way but if you read Lobo's explanation it really is about flowing with your opponent.
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
Not in my opinion no. I Actually think we will never know what the true form of YM WC was at this point. Almost everyone of YM's students confirmed a quote that I posted earlier about how YM taught in a traditional Chinese way. WSL stated it so he could compare/contrast his teaching method. Others added to WSL's quote that YM taught to the strengths and weaknesses of his students as well and this would be consistent with traditional Chinese teaching
YM's teaching method means that every student could easily have something different to put on the table and that they could honestly call it "true YM WC." We also have no way of knowing what personal refinement may have done later. The only person capable of confirming any of itt, if they wanted to, has been dead for many decades now, namely YM.
neither. Lol I'm Jow Ga all the way. In my sparring videos all of my punches are slow so I get lectured a lot.By chance that's from doing WC or VT Chi Sao?
Juany118
Senior Master
Just to the teaching bit and it's impact for those arriving late... the quote I keep referencing from WSL
Now here is a quote from YM's own son Yip Ching
The problem arises when things become dogmatic. If someone says "I teach what YM taught me" and we read that quote outside of the context laid out by the two quotes above, quotes by two of the people who knew YM best no less, "I teach what YM taught me" can be heard as "I am the only one to teach true YM WC."
Now here is a quote from YM's own son Yip Ching
The problem arises when things become dogmatic. If someone says "I teach what YM taught me" and we read that quote outside of the context laid out by the two quotes above, quotes by two of the people who knew YM best no less, "I teach what YM taught me" can be heard as "I am the only one to teach true YM WC."
Juany118
Senior Master
Yes. I think part of the problem is, that as a striking art, when put into practice people think they are imposing something on the other person and you aren't. In short, with no Chinese terminology.
An opponent attacks. You do not meet force with force (meaning block al la a boxer) You counter with what both simultaneously a defense and an attack. In doing so this creates openings for you to "follow through" and press the attack on the opponent. The thing is though you impose nothing, you counter attack and then exploit the loss of structure and openings created, essentially moving around the barriers your opponent would raise and strike where he is vulnerable.
In my current school we have a few rules of engagement and I think the second to the last one sums this up well. "Receive what comes and follow it back to a target."
So now inviting someone to actually state their position and explain clearly is "trolling"??!!!!
The logical, step-by-step progression of the system has always been there. There is no record of WSL ever saying he changed or created it, like Juany claimed, only the contrary.
The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time.
---So, Ip Man then obviously didn't use this "logical step-by-step progression" is what you seem to be saying.
This has resulted in no two students of YM that we know of sharing the same understanding of the system, and many not understanding it at all.
---So, WSL is the ONLY student of Ip Man that learned the "logical" version of his system is what you seem to be saying.
This has resulted in multiple students of WSL sharing the same understanding of the system.
----So WSL was able to impart the system to multiple students, but Ip Man was only able to impart it to one is what you seem to be saying.
That is literally the only difference. The system method has not changed.
----So how can you possibly know that the system method has not changed if Ip Man only managed to teach it to WSL? You have nothing to compare WSLVT to that proves it is what Ip Man taught! You know of no other student of Ip Man that taught the same thing as WSL. So at this point there is no way to know for sure that WSL had not changed anything in what he learned from Ip Man.
The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time.
---So, Ip Man then obviously didn't use this "logical step-by-step progression" is what you seem to be saying.
This has resulted in no two students of YM that we know of sharing the same understanding of the system, and many not understanding it at all.
---So, WSL is the ONLY student of Ip Man that learned the "logical" version of his system is what you seem to be saying.
This has resulted in multiple students of WSL sharing the same understanding of the system.
----So WSL was able to impart the system to multiple students, but Ip Man was only able to impart it to one is what you seem to be saying.
That is literally the only difference. The system method has not changed.
----So how can you possibly know that the system method has not changed if Ip Man only managed to teach it to WSL? You have nothing to compare WSLVT to that proves it is what Ip Man taught! You know of no other student of Ip Man that taught the same thing as WSL. So at this point there is no way to know for sure that WSL had not changed anything in what he learned from Ip Man.
Is that not EXACTLY what you have been doing! It seems very apparent to me and likely anyone that has been reading along that you would rather do that than simply start a technical thread discussing things in a non-offensive way and explaining your understanding of WSLVT and why he couldn't have developed the differences himself.
Well, you can take it from my Post #144 where I state what I believe is probably the most significant thing missing from other YM derived WC, and Post #147 where I state why I believe it is incredibly unlikely to have originated with WSL.
----You really believe you have explained something in those two threads? All you did was restate your belief. Your explanation was only that you believe your explanation to be more likely! What kind of an explanation is that? Not one technical discussion to explain WHY you believe those things to be true.
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?
---And see, this is exactly the problem we have with you guys here! All you have to do is engage in a nice and polite discussion where you would offer YOUR explanation of those points and why WSLVT views them the way it does. But no. Instead your throw things like that out as a challenge....as a "gotcha" kind of proposition so you can jump on the answer when given.
----You really believe you have explained something in those two threads? All you did was restate your belief. Your explanation was only that you believe your explanation to be more likely! What kind of an explanation is that? Not one technical discussion to explain WHY you believe those things to be true.
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?
---And see, this is exactly the problem we have with you guys here! All you have to do is engage in a nice and polite discussion where you would offer YOUR explanation of those points and why WSLVT views them the way it does. But no. Instead your throw things like that out as a challenge....as a "gotcha" kind of proposition so you can jump on the answer when given.
