Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[Gerry Seymour]

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?

And you don't see how this is saying, "Every example I've ever seen is kinda crap"? You're claiming there's no redeeming value in a single variation you've ever seen, and then trying to say you're not impugning all variations - that you're confident somewhere out there, there might be one that is not as crappy as everything you've ever seen. That's a very weak "but", which doesn't at all alter the fact that you're saying everything you've ever been able to find is crap.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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!?

Show me where I ever disagreed with how the system functions.

 

[LFJ]

 

[geezer]

Wing chun that I have seen (other than WSL-PB-VT) 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"

--portion in parentheses added for disambiguation.

Yep. Just like sayin' "I've never seen a flyin' purple unicorn, now bein' open minded, I'll admit they may exist, but in all mah years, I ain't never seen one".

In short you just trashed every other VT/WC branch you have ever seen. Then you add a caveat that somewhere, somebody may practice a WC system that is functional, but that you have never seen it. Sorry, that doesn't change the gist of what you are saying. You are bashing other people's martial arts, and that's not allowed here.

...So don't get your knickers in a twist when KPM calls you on it.

 

[guy b]

Yep. Just like sayin' "I've never seen a flyin' purple unicorn, now bein' open minded, I'll admit they may exist, but in all mah years, I ain't never seen one".

Do you think that functional wing chun coming from YM is as unlikely as a purple unicorn? I don't think so. There seems to be a distinct dislike for remaining undecided here. I am not saying something I don't know about is good, therefore I must consider it bad. How horrible of me.

In short you just trashed every other VT/WC branch you have ever seen. Then you add a caveat that somewhere, somebody may practice a WC system that is functional, but that you have never seen it. Sorry, that doesn't change the gist of what you are saying. You are bashing other people's martial arts, and that's not allowed here.

...So don't get your knickers in a twist when KPM calls you on it.

I can't help it if you dislike agnosticism. I feel you are being a bit obsessive about trying to force me onto one side or the other. My experience is not good. My perfectly normal position is that I am not impressed by what I did experience and I don't know about things I did not experience. If you ask me a specific question I will give you a specific answer. Since I have not been talking specifics I don't see how I could possibly be accused of "bashing" other people's martial arts, especially since the one specific example I did give was of a teacher from WSL VT.

What do you want me to do, lie about it to make you feel more comfortable?

 

[guy b]

Show me where I ever disagreed with how the system functions.

Sure it does...Differences can absolutely develop between instructors in a single generation, and without anyone having to be wrong.

 

[guy b]

you're confident somewhere out there, there might be one that is not as crappy as everything you've ever seen.

It's certainly possible. I don't know one way or the other, so impossible to express an opinion.

 

[wtxs]

Do you think that functional wing chun coming from YM is as unlikely as a purple unicorn? I don't think so. There seems to be a distinct dislike for remaining undecided here. I am not saying something I don't know about is good, therefore I must consider it bad. How horrible of me.



I can't help it if you dislike agnosticism. I feel you are being a bit obsessive about trying to force me onto one side or the other. My experience is not good. My perfectly normal position is that I am not impressed by what I did experience and I don't know about things I did not experience. If you ask me a specific question I will give you a specific answer. Since I have not been talking specifics I don't see how I could possibly be accused of "bashing" other people's martial arts, especially since the one specific example I did give was of a teacher from WSL VT.

What do you want me to do, lie about it to make you feel more comfortable?

Regardless you are not impressed by what WC you had experienced, since you stated you don't know about other things you had not experience (assuming you are referring to other WC lineages you had not exposed to), labeling non WSL VT as "broken" system qualifies as "bashing" IMHO.

 

[guy b]

Regardless you are not impressed by what WC you had experienced, since you stated you don't know about other things you had not experience (assuming you are referring to other WC lineages you had not exposed to), labeling non WSL VT as "broken" system qualifies as "bashing" IMHO.

I haven't labelled non WSL VT as broken. I have labelled some other wing chun that I have seen as broken, which means non-functional in conceptual and strategic terms, which is true based upon what I experienced. If mentioning facts without naming names is "bashing", then it is probably time to close down the forum.

 

[Marnetmar]

This idea that literally everyone besides WSL changed the system requires far more assumptions than the idea that WSL took what he learned from Yip Man and made something more functional out of it, especially when we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to literally demonstrate that. "Not everyone, just everyone I've seen" is a cop out.

Using the Google Translate analogy to say that other styles are really, really, really, really, really, really bad so any and all evidence that contradicts your conclusions doesn't matter does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that your point of view is correct.

In addition, the fact that you brought up people doing footwork in dan chi sau makes me think that you're purposely looking for bad examples to further your point, since as someone from a non WSL lineage, when I watch videos of Clive Potter or David Petersen doing their thing, there's really never very much that I disagree with.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

How is that disagreeing with how the system of VT works? That's disagreeing about the assertion that a system cannot have significant differences between instructors within a single generation. No point made.

 

[LFJ]

This idea that literally everyone besides WSL changed the system requires far more assumptions than the idea that WSL took what he learned from Yip Man and made something more functional out of it,

None of the YM lineages are the same. So, they did get changed.

And it's a bigger (ridiculous) assumption that YM would have had multiple contradictory versions of his MA, than that he just didn't teach everyone fully.

as someone from a non WSL lineage, when I watch videos of Clive Potter or David Petersen doing their thing, there's really never very much that I disagree with.

Sorry, to hear that. As someone from the WSL lineage, I agree with almost nothing they say or do.

 

[geezer]

None of the YM lineages are the same. So, they did get changed.

And it's a bigger (ridiculous) assumption that YM would have had multiple contradictory versions of his MA, than that he just didn't teach everyone fully.

A better way to understand the divergent transmission of the lineage would be to consider the well known story of the blid men and the elephant:
Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

Back to Yip Man Ving Tsun. As it got passed down, sure stuff got changed. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each branch of the lineage picked up and emphasized different aspects of GM Yip's Ving Tsun. In addition, probably many did not receive the complete system, so some parts were learned second hand or fabricated. Others may have added elements from other styles. Still other students may teach based on information entirely received from Yip Man but interpreted through the eyes and abilities of that particular student. And some may have actually narrowed the focus of the style to make it even more coherent, but also more limited in scope.

I'm not asking anyone to give up their devotion to their sifu or lineage, or even saying that all WC/VT is equally functional. It isn't. I'm just suggesting that we show a little humility and respect for others. If someone can't do that, this forum really isn't the place for them to be posting.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A better way to understand the divergent transmission of the lineage would be to consider the well known story of the blid men and the elephant:
Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

Back to Yip Man Ving Tsun. As it got passed down, sure stuff got changed. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each branch of the lineage picked up and emphasized different aspects of GM Yip's Ving Tsun. In addition, probably many did not receive the complete system, so some parts were learned second hand or fabricated. Others may have added elements from other styles. Still others may have been entirely received from Yip Man but interpreted through the eyes and abilities of the student. And some may have actually narrowed the focus of the style to make it even more coherent, but also more limited in scope.

I'm not asking anyone to give up their devotion to their sifu or lineage. I'm just suggesting that we show a little humility and respect for others. If someone can't do that, this forum really isn't the place for them to be posting.

This is a reasonable assumption. I know, for instance, that the man who brought NGA to the US (Richard Bowe) produced two very significant lines of NGA. One was led by Steven Weber Jr., and the other by Robert McEwen. Their approaches are not the same, and some who studied directly with Mr. Bowe in the early years assert that he was occasionally teaching differently to different students. Note that this was within a single school, so it's entirely plausible that YM taught quite differently to students who weren't training at the same time.

We can see the same assertions in discussions of Ueshiba's Aikido. Discussions about the differences in pre-war vs. post-war Aikido abound.

 

[Nobody Important]

Just food for thought. If you are someone who has come from a "broken" system to a "functional" system, yet have not trained in other related systems. How do you know that you haven't simply gone from a poorly represented art to a mediocre one? Simply because your preferences & beliefs align with a certain methodology doesn't mean that another methodology is incorrect. This linear approach can only reliably be applied to the accepted methodology of a certain sect. It's like arguing over the validity of different factions of Christianity. They all argue who has the right approach, but all believe in the same outcome. So what difference does it make?

 

[Nobody Important]

This is a reasonable assumption. I know, for instance, that the man who brought NGA to the US (Richard Bowe) produced two very significant lines of NGA. One was led by Steven Weber Jr., and the other by Robert McEwen. Their approaches are not the same, and some who studied directly with Mr. Bowe in the early years assert that he was occasionally teaching differently to different students. Note that this was within a single school, so it's entirely plausible that YM taught quite differently to students who weren't training at the same time.

We can see the same assertions in discussions of Ueshiba's Aikido. Discussions about the differences in pre-war vs. post-war Aikido abound.

I have a Sifu who still teaches in this manner. His reasoning is that very few will go on to learn the entire art in his lifetime. So, he teaches to their interests in the hopes that the "family" will continue to share with & support one another to grow the art after he is gone. If not, then the individual at least got something they feel is useful to them.

 

[guy b]

as someone from a non WSL lineage, when I watch videos of Clive Potter or David Petersen doing their thing, there's really never very much that I disagree with.

Why do you think that might be?

 

[guy b]

How is that disagreeing with how the system of VT works? That's disagreeing about the assertion that a system cannot have significant differences between instructors within a single generation. No point made.

Because your disagreement is based on misunderstanding about how the system works, is learned, is propagated

 

[guy b]

A better way to understand the divergent transmission of the lineage would be to consider the well known story of the blid men and the elephant:
Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

Back to Yip Man Ving Tsun. As it got passed down, sure stuff got changed. Like the story of the blind men and the elephant, each branch of the lineage picked up and emphasized different aspects of GM Yip's Ving Tsun

Do you think it likely that Yip Man would not pass the whole system to anyone? The WSL VT system isn't an optional grab bag where you use what you like and drop what you don't. It is much to interdependent to do that.

I'm not asking anyone to give up their devotion to their sifu or lineage, or even saying that all WC/VT is equally functional. It isn't. I'm just suggesting that we show a little humility and respect for others. If someone can't do that, this forum really isn't the place for them to be posting.

What do you mean by humility and respect? I don't see avoidance of truth as being either modest or respectful. It is dishonest more than anything, and does nothing to help anyone.

 

[guy b]

Just food for thought. If you are someone who has come from a "broken" system to a "functional" system, yet have not trained in other related systems. How do you know that you haven't simply gone from a poorly represented art to a mediocre one?

This is why it is important to look around and to ry different things.