I don't think it can be said of any other style including theirs which is why Wing Chun has these type of heated debates. From the little I know I have yet to see these types debates in other systems.
Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory
- Thread starter LFJ
- Start date
Show me the evidence from psychology that people cannot learn psychomotor skills to within a negligible level of difference depending on the psychomotor learning task in question.
You can learn to drive a car according to the rules of the road and reliably fail to crash into other people or break the rules of the road every day. You can learn to play music and reliably replicate pieces devised hundreds of years ago, even performing them in concert with many other individuals in an orchestra. You can learn to fly a complex modern aeroplane in battle with others, according to different strategic doctrines and varying individual battle plans, against a resisting enemy trying to do the same thing, and reliably win time and time again with eventualities being dealt with despite changing conditions and uncertainty. You can learn to operate on the bodies of other people with a team of others, accessing and utilising a vast standardised background knowledge of medical information, performing tiny and complex physical movements reliably day after day on physically different patients with different problems in an adaptable but precise and reproducible way.
The importance of exact replication depends of the task, with some tasks tolerating wider envelopes of variation (e.g. driving) than others (e.g. brain surgery, fighter piloting). Your objection sounds fairly irrelevant to me in light of what can be achieved in terms of producing the same psychomotor skills in different people (to within negligible levels of difference with respect to the task) which are variable and adaptable depending on different bodies of sometimes changing conceptual, strategic and factual knowledge.
The process of doing VT is incredibly complex, but does not require conscious thought. Pilots learn very complex physical tasks by doing to failure over and over and over again in simulators. One part of the process of physical learning is similar in VT and produces similar results. Uniformity of reaction is produced by the time and sequence dependent development process which is very specifically and carefully structured. The system of VT creates in the student the reactions, structure and movement of VT via mutually beneficial exercises carried out with others who have already developed and internalised these movement habits.
The ideas and strategy behind VT on the other hand are very simple. These ideas, in conjunction with the physical body development of VT, produce the VT system.
Without knowledge of what learning VT entails you would be wasting your time commenting.
Last edited:
The system will be the same provided it was learned correctly, no matter what the individual preferences, because of the WSL VT learning process.
Have you tried WSL VT?
Well, like I already stated.....without being able to point out someone other than WSL who learned what you consider to be the "real" and "correct" version of VT, your theory is just not as plausible as the other theory. And continuing to repeat an argument that is essentially "because I said so!" is not going to change that.
I am sorry that you haven't understood the argument.
It is the content of the system of WSL VT compared to others and the improbability of evolution from broken (unlikely) vs degeneration from the original system (likely) that makes it more likely that WSL VT is the original system, and others I have seen are incomplete or misunderstood versions
That is your opinion and another case of "because I said so." Just because you say it is true does not make it more probable. It is far more probable that one man taught many and they diverged and changed and...yes...some learned incompletely and that one of those men who was taught then refined and improved upon what he learned....resulting in a different approach from others. It is far less probable that one man taught many but only taught one man correctly and everyone else poorly. Until you show that more than one person was taught correctly by Ip Man other than WSL (which would be the evidence for your theory), then your theory remains less probable. Again, that's just common sense and application of "Occam's Razor." No amount of "but you have to know the system"....which is just a version of "because I said so"....is going to change that.
Saying "everyone else is bad and we are good therefore we are doing Ip Man's real system" is not evidence. To state it again.......until you show evidence that someone else learned exactly the same system from Ip Man as what WSL taught.....it remains more probable that WSL's system differs so much as you think from everyone else due to WSL's own input. It is less probable that EVERYONE else learned incorrectly from Ip Man. And until you show someone other than WSL that DID learn correctly....then you are still implying that EVERYONE else learned incorrectly regardless of how much you say that's not what you mean.
Can I state it any clearer than that?
There have been many instances where technical discussion has been attempted. They usually fail because people feel insulted. Systematic differences do make it more probable that WSL VT is the system, but if you don't want to know then not a lot I can do about it. For you, given mindset, I would suggest a trip to Germany.
This is not the argument
It isn't simpler to suppose that YM taught various things to different people, or that people changed a system like VT in many different ways after learning it fully (assuming you understand what it is, which apparently you don't). It is more simple to assume that those who spent most time with YM and who were more interesting to teach, got more of the system, while those who spent less time and were less interesting got less. This is normal in martial arts.
I am not. I am simply saying that I don't know. You don't seem to have the kind of brain that can tolerate ambiguity?
I don't double that. My observations are more of a comparison of what I see from other systems and in Wing Chun discussions. Like from a past discussions in here the "split hair" was in regards to how one pivots on the foot as "being the correct way" (I've my memory is correct. I could be confusing 2 different arguments). In other systems how one pivots on the foot isn't a game breaker for correct and being incorrect. I'll use Jow Ga for an example, we do a lot of pushing with the heel down, but the only reason why we stress that is because heel down is the optimum position for generating power and maintaining stability for the types of punches we do. It's the "Best"way to throw that punch and all of the Sifu's will give the student a hard time for not having the heel down. If another Sifu teaches to do the punch down, then it's not the "correct / best" way to do that punch. That one "flaw" in teaching isn't enough to say that one school is "real Jow Ga" and the other school is "fake Jow Ga"
When I read the Wing Chun debates here, and here it from other schools, it seems that the differences are very slight in comparison to the whole system. This debate is so big that it was even highlighted in the IP 3 movie with tyson, where one sifu was from the "real wing chun school" and IP man was accused of having an "inferior" Wing Chun.
And this is the same them that I hear in Wing Chun debates. Aka "My wing chun is better than your wing chun."
I'm not saying that this is what is going on , but that's what it looks like from an outsider looking in. In Jow Ga, there are 2 different schools, one teaches to move back foot first to punch and the other to move front foot first and the old guys will debate about it, but everyone else just looks at both systems as being Jow Ga. One school teaches like this and another school teaches differently. Both schools are correct. My first school taught to move the back foot first to do certain punches, my new school teaches to move the front foot. I used to think the new school was crazy, but after I saw the techniques that followed, it made sense to move the front foot first.
Again as someone outside looking in, it would appear that much of the debate in Wing Chung falls in such a small category that a person would actually have to take wing chun just to know who the lineage is. I'm not saying that there aren't some Bum Wing Chun schools out there that are just wrong from beginning to end, but from the debates that often include, history, lineage, how some sifu who is probably no longer living used to teach, it just seems like if the method was truly "wrong" that someone could show why it's wrong without invoking the Historical God of Wing Chun.
It just seems like a person could just say, "My school doesn't do that technique like that, here's how we use it, and this why the technique is done this way in our school."
Maybe the Wing Chun war will end one day.
There have been many instances where technical discussion has been attempted. They usually fail because people feel insulted. Systematic differences do make it more probable that WSL VT is the system, but if you don't want to know then not a lot I can do about it. For you, given mindset, I would suggest a trip to Germany.
---You and LFJ were invited to create a technical discussion that explained to us how WSL could not possibly have come up with the differences in his system on his own based upon his own talent and experience. But you chose not to do that. Instead your presentation has been a case of "because I said so" and "you have to go study WSLVT for yourself....and BTW....it takes many years to learn it effectively!"
It isn't simpler to suppose that YM taught various things to different people, or that people changed a system like VT in many different ways after learning it fully (assuming you understand what it is, which apparently you don't). It is more simple to assume that those who spent most time with YM and who were more interesting to teach, got more of the system, while those who spent less time and were less interesting got less. This is normal in martial arts.
---Why are you not following what I wrote? Are you even trying?
I am not. I am simply saying that I don't know. You don't seem to have the kind of brain that can tolerate ambiguity?
----We've spoken of evidence. Showing that someone other than WSL learned what you consider the "correct" Wing Chun would be good evidence for your theory. Do you not understand that? Saying that everyone else's Wing Chun is broken other than WSLVT is not evidence.
---You and LFJ were invited to create a technical discussion that explained to us how WSL could not possibly have come up with the differences in his system on his own based upon his own talent and experience. But you chose not to do that. Instead your presentation has been a case of "because I said so" and "you have to go study WSLVT for yourself....and BTW....it takes many years to learn it effectively!"
It isn't simpler to suppose that YM taught various things to different people, or that people changed a system like VT in many different ways after learning it fully (assuming you understand what it is, which apparently you don't). It is more simple to assume that those who spent most time with YM and who were more interesting to teach, got more of the system, while those who spent less time and were less interesting got less. This is normal in martial arts.
---Why are you not following what I wrote? Are you even trying?
I am not. I am simply saying that I don't know. You don't seem to have the kind of brain that can tolerate ambiguity?
----We've spoken of evidence. Showing that someone other than WSL learned what you consider the "correct" Wing Chun would be good evidence for your theory. Do you not understand that? Saying that everyone else's Wing Chun is broken other than WSLVT is not evidence.
Actually the differences are huge, like the entire strategic approach of the system being missing, rendering it non-functional.
It probably doesn't look that way because you don't understand VT
This is because of the way you are KPM. If you acted in a different way then you would probably be involved in a productive technical discusion. It isn't like we haven't tried before. But you need to want to listen. It is your choice.
I am following it but it isn't making a lot of sense.
I don't think that is true. The theory is based upon differences in system understanding and content, plus the probability of order arising from chaos vs chaos arising from order.
You seem to want me to show someone else who learned the full system but I don't know of anyone, sorry. That doesn't mean they don't exist. HKM would be a possibility but I have no idea about what he teaches so cannot say. Without intervention from Joy we will remain in the dark.
I wouldn't bound a system to a "Strategic Approach" Strategy changes with each practitioner and each situation. There is no one size fits all strategic approach that can define a fighting system. You could not possibly fight against a Jow Ga student and then fight a BJJ student with the same Strategic Approach. Then your approach would be different than a fellow student. As a matter of fact your strategic approach to using Wing Chun is going to be based on your strengths in Wing Chun, which may not be the same strengths for someone else.
What is the strategic approach for the Wing Chun you study? Or was Strategic Approach not the accurate phrase for what you are trying to highlight?
TCMA (never mind VT) is defined by strategic approach and conceptual base.
Great, another armchair strategist.
Classical examples of circular reasoning.
"If you study the TRUE WSL-VT you will understand and agree. However, if like ...possibly David Peterson? ....you do study WSL-VT and still don't agree with exactly what we say and do, then you obviously either didn't study TRUE WSL long enough, or for some other reason just weren't able to comprehend it. Because in any case, we have the TRUTH!!!"
I wen't through the same stuff with YM-LT-WT. Why did the EWTO do what they did? Well (according to the orthodox doctrine), some (Emin, etc.) were very good, but the EWTO wasn't teaching the true Honk-Kong system and added stuff unlike what LT taught us, right? No.Wrong.
I later learned from many other folks, including Rene Latosa, and also Martin Torres of DTE, just how universal the core concepts of combat are, and that nobody has the absolute TRUTH. To believe that is arrogant and ignorant in any field of human endeavor.
"If you study the TRUE WSL-VT you will understand and agree. However, if like ...possibly David Peterson? ....you do study WSL-VT and still don't agree with exactly what we say and do, then you obviously either didn't study TRUE WSL long enough, or for some other reason just weren't able to comprehend it. Because in any case, we have the TRUTH!!!"
I wen't through the same stuff with YM-LT-WT. Why did the EWTO do what they did? Well (according to the orthodox doctrine), some (Emin, etc.) were very good, but the EWTO wasn't teaching the true Honk-Kong system and added stuff unlike what LT taught us, right? No.Wrong.
I later learned from many other folks, including Rene Latosa, and also Martin Torres of DTE, just how universal the core concepts of combat are, and that nobody has the absolute TRUTH. To believe that is arrogant and ignorant in any field of human endeavor.
This is because of the way you are KPM. If you acted in a different way then you would probably be involved in a productive technical discusion.
---Now that's rich!
It isn't like we haven't tried before. But you need to want to listen. It is your choice.
----You don't listen to what we have been saying either. That has been your choice. So I guess this discussion is over.
I am following it but it isn't making a lot of sense.
----No I don't think you are following. Because I have been making sense to everyone other than you and LFJ.
You seem to want me to show someone else who learned the full system but I don't know of anyone, sorry.
---Yes. We are all well aware of that now! So you have very little evidence for your theory other than "because I said so" and "you have to spend years studying WSLT to understand." And you never even attempted to explain what is so revolutionary about it that WSL could not have arrived at it himself from "standard" Wing Chun other then your vague comment about chaos and order. That isn't much of an explanation. So you cannot in honesty say that your theory is more probable than ours in any kind of convincing fashion. That's the final conclusion here.
---Now that's rich!
It isn't like we haven't tried before. But you need to want to listen. It is your choice.
----You don't listen to what we have been saying either. That has been your choice. So I guess this discussion is over.
I am following it but it isn't making a lot of sense.
----No I don't think you are following. Because I have been making sense to everyone other than you and LFJ.
You seem to want me to show someone else who learned the full system but I don't know of anyone, sorry.
---Yes. We are all well aware of that now! So you have very little evidence for your theory other than "because I said so" and "you have to spend years studying WSLT to understand." And you never even attempted to explain what is so revolutionary about it that WSL could not have arrived at it himself from "standard" Wing Chun other then your vague comment about chaos and order. That isn't much of an explanation. So you cannot in honesty say that your theory is more probable than ours in any kind of convincing fashion. That's the final conclusion here.
I
None of your responses even come close to explaining how both motor movements AND strategy AND theory can be replicated without error. That's not how the human mind works. If you really need me to, I'll be happy to go pull a couple of juried journal articles that make it clear. It's boring reading, but I'll be happy to pass it along if you actually don't believe it exists.
I'll just touch on one example, because the reply to each would be the same. You referred to music. Any good musician will tell you that every musician plays a bit differently, even when they are emulating someone. There's always a significant difference unless they replicate the exact playing for an exact piece of music, and then it gets very close...but never exactly the same. In fact, the same musician won't play it exactly the same twice. Surely you're not going to argue that any instructor teaches every single possible sequence of events to near-exact precision. To do so for only a few score variations of responses would require every waking moment of a lifetime.
None of your responses even come close to explaining how both motor movements AND strategy AND theory can be replicated without error. That's not how the human mind works. If you really need me to, I'll be happy to go pull a couple of juried journal articles that make it clear. It's boring reading, but I'll be happy to pass it along if you actually don't believe it exists.
Without knowledge of how human brains work, you're wasting your time commenting about learning.
