Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[guy b]

So, Ip Man then obviously didn't use this "logical step-by-step progression" is what you seem to be saying.

He didn't bother with those who were not worth the effort.

So, WSL is the ONLY student of Ip Man that learned the "logical" version of his system is what you seem to be saying.

I have not experienced all of the various approaches to YM VT, and I don;t think LFJ would claim to have seen them all either,

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.

LFJ is saying probably few vs many, not none vs many. It is only possible to work with the info you have.

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!

The method itself contains evidence. WSL provided evidence.

You know of no other student of Ip Man that taught the same thing as WSL.

Correct

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.

Incorrect

 

[guy b]

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?

Recovery methods are contained in the system

 

[guy b]

So now inviting someone to actually state their position and explain clearly is "trolling"??!!!!

There is plenty of technical information on this thread if you wish to take it forward in a positive way

 

[guy b]

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.

It needs to be a two way street KPM.

If you want something for nothing then don't behave in a spiteful and bitter way while grubbing around for crumbs of info. Instead be pleasant and open so that people don't feel like you are taking the piss.

If you want to debate as equals then get debating and don't shy away from difficult questions. Answer what is asked then ask your own.

 

[KPM]

It needs to be a two way street KPM.

If you want something for nothing then don't behave in a spiteful and bitter way while grubbing around for crumbs of info. Instead be pleasant and open so that people don't feel like you are taking the piss.

If you want to debate as equals then get debating and don't shy away from difficult questions. Answer what is asked then ask your own.

That has to be one of the most hypocritical things I have read an a long time! I actually got a good laugh out of that one!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Recovery methods are contained in the system

That's not really an answer to the question. "How" isn't answered by "in the system". I'm wondering what those recovery methods are.

 

[drop bear]

Ok. so curious. If you have a hundred people collaborating on a project. It should become better than the source.

So yip man invented a system. and people took that system and put time and resources into refining it.

So less about google translate and mabye more about the wright brothers plane compared to a modern plane.

Nobody would be really able to remake thw wright brother plane as well as they could. But most people may not want to either.

 

[LFJ]

I said that WSL changed the structure of instruction. LFJ denied it.

He didn't change the system into a more "logical, step-by-step method", as you claimed. All he did was tell students what they were actually doing.

So, what even is your point? That YM wasn't careful to pass on the full information to everyone, and so not many ending up learning fully? Whereas WSL was careful to do so and has more students with the full info?

That's exactly what we've been saying. So, again, what's your point?

 

[LFJ]

---So, Ip Man then obviously didn't use this "logical step-by-step progression" is what you seem to be saying.

How do you get that from what I said?! Let me edit the sentence for you then, since it seems difficult for you to follow:

"The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements < in the logical, step-by-step progression of the system > without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time."

---So, WSL is the ONLY student of Ip Man that learned the "logical" version of his system is what you seem to be saying.

I haven't found the same logical thread connecting each piece of the system from start to finish in other versions so far. Been looking.

----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.

Not "able". YM only cared to teach one good student vs ten lousy ones.

----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.

I didn't say he only managed to teach it to WSL, for the 10 trillionth time.

My position is not of absolute certainty, but one of evidence-based confidence, from a technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC, numerous student testimonials, the probability argument, and so on.

I don't care about absolute certainty, which is impossible, but I think to the extent we can know what YM's VT was probably like, the most likely candidate by far is WSL's system. I think we have enough to say with confidence that WSL accurately taught YM's VT system.

 

[LFJ]

----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.

The "why" is that conceptual and strategic thread that is apparently missing in all other YM lineages I've seen.

---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.

Why do you find it challenging?

If you have the "same thread" as Juany claimed, you should be able to just say what it is and that's that.

wckf92 wasn't "afraid" to share his understanding. I haven't commented on it yet because I'm waiting for your response, since you requested the discussion, and I don't want to influence anything further.

You wanted a technical discussion. So, discuss!

 

[LFJ]

That's not really an answer to the question. "How" isn't answered by "in the system". I'm wondering what those recovery methods are.

Depends on the circumstance, of course, but in general terms, if our attack fails we have evasive footwork at still close proximity allowing us to return to baseline and find new opportunities.

 

[LFJ]

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.

As I told KPM, you can misinterpret the quote from whatever perspective you like, or prefer another wording you misinterpret to more accurately describe your misinterpretation of the quote, but you are still wrong about the VT strategy.

Lobo66's wording was;

"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".

This is imposing VT strategy onto the opponent.

"Attacking into the attack" = imposing.

"Cutting off and canalizing their possibilities" = imposing.

Again, you're welcome to misinterpret things all you want, and "flow" with your opponents, but you don't know WSLVT and are just wrong. So I don't know why you insist on telling WSLVT practitioners about their system strategy.

 

[LFJ]

If you have a hundred people collaborating on a project. It should become better than the source.

False premise. That's not what happened within YMVT.

So yip man invented a system.

No, he didn't.

 

[Transk53]

Maybe Guy B and LFJ could expand on the above answers. Perhaps cite a credible source on the VT thing. Just seems like paraphrasing from Wiki, or whatever.

 

[guy b]

That has to be one of the most hypocritical things I have read an a long time! I actually got a good laugh out of that one!

The difference is that I have zero interest in your mainland style.

You seem to feel that you are on a mission to expose some problem with my/LFJ's understanding of WSL VT, but also (bizarrely) that we owe you as much detailed information as you require. This attitude makes me feel not all that keen to be charitable.

So if you want a robust technical discussion in order to expose issues with WSL VT then get going. We have started it, and to get what you want you will need to participate as well.

If you don't want such a discussion then please start being less of an assho1e about everything. You are acting like the world owes you an apology.

If you aren't interested then please just stop posting on WSL VT threads as your pal Geezer (mostly) manages to do

Thank you

 

[guy b]

Maybe Guy B and LFJ could expand on the above answers. Perhaps cite a credible source on the VT thing. Just seems like paraphrasing from Wiki, or whatever.

Do you have any question?

 

[guy b]

Ok. so curious. If you have a hundred people collaborating on a project. It should become better than the source.

So yip man invented a system. and people took that system and put time and resources into refining it.

So less about google translate and mabye more about the wright brothers plane compared to a modern plane.

Nobody would be really able to remake thw wright brother plane as well as they could. But most people may not want to either.

The fact that VT is already highly optimised for the purposes to which it is designed would suggest that Yip Man did not invent it. It is possible but unlikely, as then what you see today would be the result of only two people's work: YM and WSL. More likely that a greater number of people were involved and that it is older than Yip Man. How much older I don't know. The earliest verifiable real person associated with the system is Leung Jan.

Since Yip Man, many people have been involved in degrading rather than further improving the system due to lack of understanding/never really learning it properly. It takes a long time to learn WSL VT, and so improvement if possible is likely to be slow.

 

[guy b]

So I don't know why you insist on telling WSLVT practitioners about their system strategy.

I think he claims knowledge of WSL VT. Which should make the technical discussion interesting

 

[Transk53]

Do you have any question?

Just seems that the first paragraph from your running buddy, (post 249) seems straight out of a Wiki

 

[Transk53]

False premise. That's not what happened within YMVT.



No, he didn't.

So what did happen exactly then with in YMVT. Would make a good historical post that. BTW, refinement in its self, is a source of invention. How else could you describe a linage, if in its self it is not invention.