Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[Gerry Seymour]

Ok great. Maybe try VT, I guess it is a bit different to your system

Why would I try VT? I have a perfectly functional system to work with, with other instructors who have opinions and leave an imprint on the art, allowing it to evolve and match the needs of a changing world. You put forth VT as ever-unchanging, which to me sounds like something well on its way to being antiquated.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

WSL VT depends upon having two arms working seperately on one level, with both containing independent attack and defence functionality, while working together in terms of an overarching strategic approach. Using two arms to accomplish what one arm can do ruins the built in defensive strategy of the system, and being hit is inefficient. It also ruins the automatic attacking strategy and puts the fighter into a trading punches situation where attack % goes down.

It's only inefficient if the one-arm approach is equally reliable and effective. If the one-arm approach sacrifices effectiveness, it would lead to a second technique which is, by definition, less efficient.

 

[geezer]

Guy, you quoted KPM as saying, What I have objected to was your theory that what EVERYONE else learned was"confused and contradictory" except for what WSL learned. To which your responded:

This has never been a theory of mine, or as far as I am aware of LFJ's. I would really like it if you would stop repeating this line in every single discussion. Thanks

Then immediately below you stated:

In other YM wing chun that I have seen, the whole strategic approach has been missing, and the conceptual understanding is totally buggered, for want of a better word...

Talk about confused and contradictory! Is it any wonder that Joy and others don't waste their time answering you?

 

[LFJ]

Did the "that I have seen" part not compute for you guys?

Neither guy nor I have seen all YM lineage WC, but what we have seen has been problematic.

 

[LFJ]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

...I have not seen all of the wing chun derived from Yip Man. I can't judge what I haven't seen.

Don't know how much clearer you can be!

Agnosticism is apparently not allowed because then they can't strawman you, and making you out to be an elitist is one of their main lines of attack, since they don't know much about the systems being compared.

 

[LFJ]

If adding a second arm makes a technique less fallible, then the complexity (second arm) has a payoff (more likely the techniques succeeds). One could interpret that as increased efficiency trumping simplicity. Or, one could interpret the single arm as simplicity trumping efficiency.

A single arm performing the functions of two arms essentially creates a four-arm strategy. It is both simpler and more efficient than using two arms to do the work of one which is superfluous and creates more steps between attacks.

The percentage of success with the VT method also relies on this dual-capability in both arms because it enables sustained attack with automatic defense.

Dividing the work between two arms when unnecessary creates a more defensive approach, which gives the opponent more opportunity to counter, rather than cutting off their options with a sustained flow of direct attacks.

 

[drop bear]

A single arm performing the functions of two arms essentially creates a four-arm strategy. It is both simpler and more efficient than using two arms to do the work of one which is superfluous and creates more steps between attacks.

The percentage of success with the VT method also relies on this dual-capability in both arms because it enables sustained attack with automatic defense.

Dividing the work between two arms when unnecessary creates a more defensive approach, which gives the opponent more opportunity to counter, rather than cutting off their options with a sustained flow of direct attacks.

Provided it does the job. Having two two legged horses is not as good as having 1 four legged horse.

 

[KPM]

Did the "that I have seen" part not compute for you guys?

Neither guy nor I have seen all YM lineage WC, but what we have seen has been problematic.

Then you both should stop from making "blanket" and "generalized" comments about "broken" Wing Chun.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Did the "that I have seen" part not compute for you guys?

Neither guy nor I have seen all YM lineage WC, but what we have seen has been problematic.

His reply clearly says he considers all the other WC he has seen to be screwy. To try to get out of it by saying "that I've seen" doesn't include everyone is like me saying, "I don't think all other people are fools. I've just never met one who wasn't." Nobody would take that to mean I think there are a bunch of non-fools I've simply not met yet.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A single arm performing the functions of two arms essentially creates a four-arm strategy. It is both simpler and more efficient than using two arms to do the work of one which is superfluous and creates more steps between attacks.

The percentage of success with the VT method also relies on this dual-capability in both arms because it enables sustained attack with automatic defense.

Dividing the work between two arms when unnecessary creates a more defensive approach, which gives the opponent more opportunity to counter, rather than cutting off their options with a sustained flow of direct attacks.

That's a cogent reply. This is the first time I've had either you or guy reply with something that attempts to explain beyond some vagueness. This seems like a good stand on principles - an explanation that makes sense, and something folks with different WC experience could debate.

 

[LFJ]

His reply clearly says he considers all the other WC he has seen to be screwy. To try to get out of it by saying "that I've seen" doesn't include everyone is like me saying, "I don't think all other people are fools. I've just never met one who wasn't." Nobody would take that to mean I think there are a bunch of non-fools I've simply not met yet.

Well, we can't falsely state what has been our experience thus far just to please everyone.

If "that I've seen" refers only to a few lineages, how can it mean every lineage?

Guy has even named a few he is agnostic about since he lacks the experience to judge them, and has expressed interest in learning about them.

But then we still hear "see! you do believe everyone else is wrong!"

Just seems like an attempt to make us appear like irrational zealots in order to automatically discredit anything we say. Also why it's repeated on every thread.

 

[LFJ]

Double

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, we can't falsely state what has been our experience thus far just to please everyone.

If "that I've seen" refers only to a few lineages, how can it mean every lineage?

Guy has even named a few he is agnostic about since he lacks the experience to judge them, and has expressed interest in learning about them.

But then we still hear "see! you do believe everyone else is wrong!"

Just seems like an attempt to make us appear like irrational zealots in order to automatically discredit anything we say. Also why it's repeated on every thread.

I'm not suggesting either of you should "falsely state" your experience. My point is that saying everything he's seen outside his lineage is kinda crap means he's seen nothing else you would consider reasonable. That he hasn't seen it all doesn't change the fact that his assertion is that he's not yet seen anything else that's not kinda crap.

It's the nature of the statement that's causing the problems. I don't think I've seen those posts you mention where he was agnostic about some (not surprising, since I don't read much of the WC posts, so I'm not saying they don't exist). If he actually has that experience, then it would be clearer NOT to say that everything he has seen thus far is incoherent or inconsistent. It would be clearer to refer to specific groups or lineages, rather than to lump all of them together if there are exceptions.

 

[LFJ]

I'm not suggesting either of you should "falsely state" your experience. My point is that saying everything he's seen outside his lineage is kinda crap means he's seen nothing else you would consider reasonable. That he hasn't seen it all doesn't change the fact that his assertion is that he's not yet seen anything else that's not kinda crap.

And at what point is it justified to interpret this as "everything else that exists"?

I don't think I've seen those posts you mention where he was agnostic about some

Try page 1 of this only 2 page thread!

It would be clearer to refer to specific groups or lineages, rather than to lump all of them together if there are exceptions.

Maybe, but tiresome. Easier to qualify a statement with "that I've seen", as long as others wouldn't strawman that into "everything else that exists".

 

[guy b]

Why would I try VT? I have a perfectly functional system to work with, with other instructors who have opinions and leave an imprint on the art, allowing it to evolve and match the needs of a changing world. You put forth VT as ever-unchanging, which to me sounds like something well on its way to being antiquated.

The point is that WSL VT obviously functions differently to your system.

If you are interested in WSL VT, then trying it is better than talking about it. If you do want to talk about it then not disagreeing with everything might also be helpful in terms of furthering understanding.

 

[guy b]

Guy, you quoted KPM as saying, What I have objected to was your theory that what EVERYONE else learned was"confused and contradictory" except for what WSL learned. To which your responded:

This has never been a theory of mine, or as far as I am aware of LFJ's. I would really like it if you would stop repeating this line in every single discussion. Thanks

Then immediately below you stated:

In other YM wing chun that I have seen, the whole strategic approach has been missing, and the conceptual understanding is totally buggered, for want of a better word..

Talk about confused and contradictory! Is it any wonder that Joy and others don't waste their time answering you?

I have no idea what your point is with this post. I don't see any contradiction above, nor any confusion except perhaps in your strange interpretation of what I wrote.

Wing chun that I have seen has not been good. I have not seen all wing chun. I cannot judge what I have not seen.Therefore it is not possible for me to have an opinion about "what EVERYONE else learned"

 

[guy b]

And at what point is it justified to interpret this as "everything else that exists"?



Try page 1 of this only 2 page thread!

This thread is getting a bit strange

 

[guy b]

I'm not suggesting either of you should "falsely state" your experience. My point is that saying everything he's seen outside his lineage is kinda crap means he's seen nothing else you would consider reasonable. That he hasn't seen it all doesn't change the fact that his assertion is that he's not yet seen anything else that's not kinda crap.

It's the nature of the statement that's causing the problems. I don't think I've seen those posts you mention where he was agnostic about some (not surprising, since I don't read much of the WC posts, so I'm not saying they don't exist). If he actually has that experience, then it would be clearer NOT to say that everything he has seen thus far is incoherent or inconsistent. It would be clearer to refer to specific groups or lineages, rather than to lump all of them together if there are exceptions.

There are no exceptions. Everything I have seen so far in wing chun that was not WSL VT was really bad. I also experienced a really bad teacher who claimed to be teaching WSL VT. What these awful examples shared was a broken or missing understanding of the conceptual base, and a broken or missing strategic method. In my experience this is very common, while a coherent and strategically functional system is very uncommon.

I have not seen or experienced all of wing chun though, and obviously I don't have any opinion about wing chun I have not at least seen. This is pretty obvious, yes?

 

[guy b]

Just seems like an attempt to make us appear like irrational zealots in order to automatically discredit anything we say. Also why it's repeated on every thread.

When someone who portrays themselves on the forum like friendy old "geezer" starts down this track, it is hard to come to any other conclusion. Or explaining to the aikido guy how the system functions and he disagrees. WTF!?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The point is that WSL VT obviously functions differently to your system.

If you are interested in WSL VT, then trying it is better than talking about it. If you do want to talk about it then not disagreeing with everything might also be helpful in terms of furthering understanding.

No, trying it is not better than discussion for my purposes. I'm trying to get some understanding of other arts, and I do not have the opportunity to go and practice every art I want to learn about, so I reach out here to learn from those who have practiced it and have some understanding. In the end, I'll hopefully find one or two I can add to my training.

And I challenge you to look at the posts I've made in WC-related threads. I do not "disagree with everything" - I state where I disagree with the approaches to the argument and over-broad statements. I also note where I find information useful, and when arguments raise good questions I'd like to hear answered by folks on the other side.