Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[KPM]

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.


.

So is the same true of WSL? Because Dave Petersen differs from Phillip Bayer who differs from Gary Lam who differs greatly from Wan Kam Leung. So in your opinion was WSL as poor a teacher as Ip Man and didn't teach everyone fully?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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

No, it's based upon an understanding of how humans learn and transmit information. The psychology of human learning and memory doesn't magically change within one system. People do not ever learn exactly. They do not ever remember exactly. They do not ever transmit exactly. Given those truths, an exact transmission of any system to any person is not improbable, it is impossible. Every person learning from a teacher will bring something different to the art, because they learn it at least slightly differently. A very good teacher will actually teach significantly differently at times, best fitting each student's needs, abilities, and level of understanding.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

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.

Given the limitations of human learning and memory, it is actually impossible for any instructor to pass along the entirety of what he knows of his system. Likewise, it is actually impossible for any student to only know about a system that which he was taught by his instructor, and impossible for him to know everything his instructor ever taught him.

 

[KPM]

Here is the bottom line for me. Both Guy and LFJ protest that their criticism of non-WSLVT doesn't necessarily apply to everyone. They say that what WSL taught is exactly what Ip Man taught and that everyone doing something different from WSLVT is doing a "broken" version. The people doing this broken version had to be taught incompletely or incorrectly by Ip Man and then "filled the gaps" in their knowledge on their own. When others point out that that this is very elitist and it is unlikely that Ip Man would have taught ONLY WSL the "real deal", they protest and say...."we never said that!" They say that Ip Man may have taught others the same thing he taught WSL....... they just haven't found those "others" yet!

So that is the key point of their theory. I might be willing to go along with them of they could point out another senior student of Ip Man that spent several years with him and that then taught the same things as WSLVT.....someone that Guy and LFJ recognize as "good and complete VT."

Until then, the theory that Ip Man taught different students to their own strengths and weaknesses, and that WSL used his own talent and experience to refine and improve his understanding of VT.....seems much more probable to me than the theory that Ip Man was such a poor and inattentive teacher that WSL was the only student that learned the "real thing" from him. When I see another lineage from Ip Man completely independant of WSL but teaching the same VT as WSL (and I should probably say....the same VT as WSL/PBVT, because that is the one that Guy and LFJ seem to think is the "true" WSLVT).....then and only then will the theory of Guy and LFJ take on more merit. This is just common sense and application of "Occam's Razor."

 

[LFJ]

So is the same true of WSL? Because Dave Petersen differs from Phillip Bayer who differs from Gary Lam who differs greatly from Wan Kam Leung. So in your opinion was WSL as poor a teacher as Ip Man and didn't teach everyone fully?

YM was an excellent teacher, as was WSL.

Not every student learned fully from either of them, just like in any MA school.

GL and WKL differ because they openly altered the system.

DP differs due to lack of experience.

Others who spent the most time with WSL and didn't change the system, e.g., CKM, share PB's understanding of VT.

It's all so easy to see.

 

[wckf92]

YM was an excellent teacher, as was WSL.

Not every student learned fully from either of them, just like in any MA school.

GL and WKL differ because they openly altered the system.

DP differs due to lack of experience.

Others who spent the most time with WSL and didn't change the system, e.g., CKM, share PB's understanding of VT.

It's all so easy to see.

CKM?

 

[guy b]

CKM?

Chan Kim Man

 

[wckf92]

Chan Kim Man

Ok cool. Thanks.

 

[guy b]

When others point out that that this is very elitist

Why is it elitist to acknowledge the truth?

it is unlikely that Ip Man would have taught ONLY WSL the "real deal"

So that is the key point of their theory. I might be willing to go along with them of they could point out another senior student of Ip Man that spent several years with him and that then taught the same things as WSLVT.....someone that Guy and LFJ recognize as "good and complete VT."

I think very unlikely that many people learned the system completely given that it takes a lot of time and effort and is difficult. That some people didn't learn correctly is no fault of YM. I have not experienced the VT of HKM who seems to be your most likley candidate for having learned the system, and so cannot comment on his understanding of it compared to that of WSL. You seem to want me to compliment certain people from a position of zero experience. It isn't really possible for me to do this. Nor is it possible for me to criticise their VT. I simply don't have the information.

Until then, the theory that Ip Man taught different students to their own strengths and weaknesses, and that WSL used his own talent and experience to refine and improve his understanding of VT.....seems much more probable to me than the theory that Ip Man was such a poor and inattentive teacher that WSL was the only student that learned the "real thing" from him.

This is because you have no understanding of the system that WSL taught compared to that of others. When you understand the system, you see how unlikely it is that WSL originated that by himself from something like the average of other YM derived wing chun.

 

[guy b]

No, it's based upon an understanding of how humans learn and transmit information. The psychology of human learning and memory doesn't magically change within one system.

You said this:

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

In WSL VT differences can't develop between instructors in a single generation without anyone having to be wrong. This is due to the way the system works and is propagated. An understanding of how humans learn and transmit information doesn't magically change that fact just because you wish it to be so (apparently for the purposes of interminable argument which you seem to enjoy)

A very good teacher will actually teach significantly differently at times, best fitting each student's needs, abilities, and level of understanding.

Try the system, then comment. Thanks

 

[guy b]

Given the limitations of human learning and memory, it is actually impossible for any instructor to pass along the entirety of what he knows of his system. Likewise, it is actually impossible for any student to only know about a system that which he was taught by his instructor, and impossible for him to know everything his instructor ever taught him.

In VT learning is not done in the way you are familiar with. Try before comment.

 

[guy b]

So is the same true of WSL? Because Dave Petersen differs from Phillip Bayer who differs from Gary Lam who differs greatly from Wan Kam Leung. So in your opinion was WSL as poor a teacher as Ip Man and didn't teach everyone fully?

Correct, many people did not learn the full system from WSL. Many people are not learning the full system today from x, y and z.

This is not due to poor teaching; WSL was one of the best. Yip Man was one of the best.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In WSL VT differences can't develop between instructors in a single generation without anyone having to be wrong.

You have made absolutely no statement to explain precisely how WSL VT can defy the evidence of psychology and produce exact replication, when absolutely nothing else in human endeavor can do so from one human to another.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In VT learning is not done in the way you are familiar with. Try before comment.

What I'm familiar with is how the human brain works - how it processes, retains, and recalls information. And yes, that works exactly the same way in VT, unless you are claiming there are no humans involved.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Try the system, then comment. Thanks

Study the psychology of learning and memory, then comment. Thanks.

 

[JowGaWolf]

In WSL VT differences can't develop between instructors in a single generation without anyone having to be wrong.

What if the differences are not errors but preferences that are based on the students strengths? A student who is really good with kicking will have a different approach to Wing chun than a student who is good with punching. In a situation like that the person will shape Wing Chun in a way that allows them to fight within their strength.

The reason I say this is because the way I use Jow Ga is not the same as the way the other instructor in my school uses Jow Ga. We are so different that in the approach that we literally tell students how we differ and encourage them to fall within one of these 2 approaches as needed. But it's all Jow Ga.

As a person from the outside, it all looks the same to me with slight differences.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What if the differences are not errors but preferences that are based on the students strengths? A student who is really good with kicking will have a different approach to Wing chun than a student who is good with punching. In a situation like that the person will shape Wing Chun in a way that allows them to fight within their strength.

The reason I say this is because the way I use Jow Ga is not the same as the way the other instructor in my school uses Jow Ga. We are so different that in the approach that we literally tell students how we differ and encourage them to fall within one of these 2 approaches as needed. But it's all Jow Ga.

As a person from the outside, it all looks the same to me with slight differences.

His argument appears to be that nobody can have personal variations within WSL VT without being in error. Given the full range of arts I've studied, tinkered with, sparred against, and watched, I find it an extraordinary claim, since that cannot be said of any other style I can think of.

 

[wckf92]

question for LFJ and Guy: you guys named CKM as someone who shares PB's understanding of VT. I'd never heard of him so looked him up once Guy provided his name. I found a couple videos and wondered if this is the person?

If so, watch at around the :31 mark...the dude on the left seems to use what you would call a secondary or ancillary(?) action as a primary action to the guys attacking punch. Now, I could be misreading the situation of course, and/or, as we've learned from you two, this could be an intentional mistake due to the public recording/viewing it? Overall, the VT folks in this video seem to me at least to differ a little from PB.

Anyway, appreciate any feedback you two may have on this. Thx.

 

[KPM]

Not every student learned fully from either of them, just like in any MA school.

.

Ok. Once again, name one student other than WSL that "learned fully" from Ip Man.

 

[KPM]

This is not due to poor teaching; WSL was one of the best. Yip Man was one of the best.

And yet you cannot name a single Ip Man student other than WSL that "learned the system fully"!! ???