Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[LFJ]

Why are you avoiding starting an actual technical thread about the differences between WSLVT and all other versions of VT you have seen and explain why you think WSL could not be the source for many of these differences?

Has this question not been answered many times now?

That kind of thread always gets locked, because it's difficult for people to not get worked up emotionally when they perceive that type of discussion as their systems being "attacked", particularly yourself... So it's ironic that you of all people would be requesting it.

And as I said in the OP of this thread;

"It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand."

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Has this question not been answered many times now?

That kind of thread always gets locked, because it's difficult for people to not get worked up emotionally when they perceive that type of discussion as their systems being "attacked", particularly yourself... So it's ironic that you of all people would be requesting it.

And as I said in the OP of this thread;

"It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand."

I think the idea is simply to post technical differences, rather than pointing out deficiencies. It would look more like this:

"In WSL VT, we do ____ this way."
"In Bob's Random WC, we do it a different way. It looks like the WSL VT way might make X more available - how do you avoid the vulnerability that exists on the left side when you do that?"
"Good question. In WSL VT, we tend to ____ when doing that, so the left side is difficult to get to. On top of that, we also ____ a lot, so we're used to responding to the attacks that opening invites."

See? Nobody saying "That's just crap. If you do it that way, they'll eat your spleen!" People are less likely to get defensive (and offensive) if questions are asked with a genuine desire to learn.

 

[KPM]

Has this question not been answered many times now?

---No it has not. Neither of you have detailed the differences you see in one concise thread. And certainly neither of you have explained why any of the differences you see could not possibly have come from WSL's own talent and experience, other than a vague comment about chaos and order. Since you do not know of any other Ip Man lineage that does things exactly as WSLVT does, this would help support your position and your theory.


That kind of thread always gets locked, because it's difficult for people to not get worked up emotionally when they perceive that type of discussion as their systems being "attacked", particularly yourself... So it's ironic that you of all people would be requesting it.


---No, these kinds of threads get locked because it's difficult for either you or Guy to post in a tactful way that is not condescending or insulting to others. People react to that. But Guy has been doing much better lately.


"It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand.

---And so, again, we will just be left with your opinion and an "because I said so" justification for it. But I guess it is becoming apparent that that will be as good as it gets!

 

[LFJ]

In WSLVT, there is an unbroken conceptual thread that connects each part of the system, in logical sequence of development, from the opening movements of SNT to gwo-sau practice.

This thread is not present in other lineages I've observed so far, and its cohesiveness is too strong for it to have been a coincidence that the system could be interpreted this way if it were not this way originally, or after generations of work.

It's simply easier and far more likely for various people to have looked at actions in the forms and come up with random, disjointed applications for them, and to have taken "sticking hands" literally, than for one man to have created this unbroken conceptual thread in disjointed material that already exists without changing the material.

KPM will remain unconvinced, and say it is "because I said so", but this is because he hasn't gone to examine the evidence. That is what one would do if they were genuinely interested in finding out. The evidence is not in words, but in the system, and the system is there for anyone to go experience.

Maybe my explanations have not been very intriguing, but if he and others, for whatever reason, are not really interested enough to go find out for themselves, then they should make peace with that and not worry about it anymore.

 

[guy b]

I think the idea is simply to post technical differences, rather than pointing out deficiencies. It would look more like this:

"In WSL VT, we do ____ this way."
"In Bob's Random WC, we do it a different way. It looks like the WSL VT way might make X more available - how do you avoid the vulnerability that exists on the left side when you do that?"
"Good question. In WSL VT, we tend to ____ when doing that, so the left side is difficult to get to. On top of that, we also ____ a lot, so we're used to responding to the attacks that opening invites."

See? Nobody saying "That's just crap. If you do it that way, they'll eat your spleen!" People are less likely to get defensive (and offensive) if questions are asked with a genuine desire to learn.

Have a look back over some old threads and see what tends to happen. There is one on dan chi sau that might be useful. There are some on elbow usage. I think a lot of the problem is that differences are large, and difficult to explain. When concepts are used to justify then people tend to become angry.

It is worth making the effort if someone is interested to learn, less so when people just like arguing and/or taking offence.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

In WSLVT, there is an unbroken conceptual thread that connects each part of the system, in logical sequence of development, from the opening movements of SNT to gwo-sau practice.

This thread is not present in other lineages I've observed so far, and its cohesiveness is too strong for it to have been a coincidence that the system could be interpreted this way if it were not this way originally, or after generations of work.

It's simply easier and far more likely for various people to have looked at actions in the forms and come up with random, disjointed applications for them, and to have taken "sticking hands" literally, than for one man to have created this unbroken conceptual thread in disjointed material that already exists without changing the material.

KPM will remain unconvinced, and say it is "because I said so", but this is because he hasn't gone to examine the evidence. That is what one would do if they were genuinely interested in finding out. The evidence is not in words, but in the system, and the system is there for anyone to go experience.

Maybe my explanations have not been very intriguing, but if he and others, for whatever reason, are not really interested enough to go find out for themselves, then they should make peace with that and not worry about it anymore.

I have seen two styles where - from what I have seen of them - it appears the cohesiveness and tight integration of the parts is largely or entirely due to a single person who came one or more generations after the founder (one directly trained by the founder). Such tight cohesion and integration seems more likely the work of a single person, since they can draw that single line (thread) through the whole system all at once. It's more difficult for multiple people in multiple generations to create such tight integration, though it is entirely possible. You could be right in the case of VT - I'm not able to dig through the pieces to see the nature of the integration vs. lack thereof that you see. I'm just pointing out that a single individual with an organized mind and deep understanding can likely more easily create such a tightly integrated system as you speak of.

 

[LFJ]

The thing is, most YM lineages share superficial similarities in the actions of the forms and basic drills. It is mainly the understanding of the content that differs.

Without rearranging, removing, and adding parts, it's incredibly unlikely, I would say in fact impossible, for this thread to just happen to be able to be interpreted into the existing material throughout the system if it were not already there.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The thing is, most YM lineages share superficial similarities in the actions of the forms and basic drills. It is mainly the understanding of the content that differs.

Without rearranging, removing, and adding parts, it's incredibly unlikely, I would say in fact impossible, for this thread to just happen to be able to be interpreted into the existing material throughout the system if it were not already there.

Okay, so that's obviously part of why you think something was lost in those lineages that don't have that thread running through them. That's an interesting derivation - I wish I understood a bit more about the art so I could dig deeper with you on that. I can think of some counter-points, but I'm not sure if any would apply (again, not enough knowledge of the art).

 

[Juany118]

You have this a bit confused, if I may say so...

That is the VT strategy, to allow the opponent to show you how to hit them. It doesn't change. That quote came directly from YM.

What is dictated by the opponent is not our own strategy, but the specific tactics we use in response to the rapid changes during the fight.

If you allow the opponent to dictate your strategy, you become their puppet. The VT approach is to impose our strategy onto the opponent, closing options and forcing them into errors that show us how to hit them.

A relevant quote from PB recently; "So I have to go into his future, destroy it... and come back."

Here is the problem. I know it is YM strategy, it is also TWC's strategy. The problem is this. In other words the WSL quote is indeed the strategy but the tactical execution will change based on your opponent's actions. When the topic of tactics has been raised Guy has responded in such a way that he sees strategy and tactics as synonymous, that the strategy is Unique to WSLVT and that, when we have given a specific example of tactical execution consistent with WSLs words, we were wrong.

That is why I am confused. Heck to be honest with you, that quote by WSL is shared by virtually every Martial art I know of.

 

[Juany118]

I don't think that "strategy" is a vague generalised term. The strategy of WSL VT has also been discussed in detail over several threads and someone like KPM has read all about the strategic approach of WSL VT. Strangely though it doesn't appear to make a lot of difference in these never ending arguments.

No it wasn't discussed. I just say this because the others would discuss strategy and the possible tactical executions that would be born of it. You would say "wrong" and then use vague generalities as to why it was wrong and seemingly using strategy and tactics as synonyms. This is even more odd in hind sight since what everyone was saying was absolutely consistent with the WSL quote I have posted.

If it was discussed then you would have contributed something of substance when you said "wrong" but I see why this may have not been the case, because they weren't wrong.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Juany118]

In WSLVT, there is an unbroken conceptual thread that connects each part of the system, in logical sequence of development, from the opening movements of SNT to gwo-sau practice.

This thread is not present in other lineages I've observed so far, and its cohesiveness is too strong for it to have been a coincidence that the system could be interpreted this way if it were not this way originally, or after generations of work.

It's simply easier and far more likely for various people to have looked at actions in the forms and come up with random, disjointed applications for them, and to have taken "sticking hands" literally, than for one man to have created this unbroken conceptual thread in disjointed material that already exists without changing the material.

KPM will remain unconvinced, and say it is "because I said so", but this is because he hasn't gone to examine the evidence. That is what one would do if they were genuinely interested in finding out. The evidence is not in words, but in the system, and the system is there for anyone to go experience.

Maybe my explanations have not been very intriguing, but if he and others, for whatever reason, are not really interested enough to go find out for themselves, then they should make peace with that and not worry about it anymore.

See my experience is kinda different. First I will grant you the logical sequence of development of WSL is indeed different BUT WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method. That is a BIG difference and I think may be part of the issue. How things are taught can be pretty important.

I am also not saying that the conceptual thread doesn't go through WSL mind you but rather that TWC, and the Lineages of YM's sons also have the same thread. The only difference I see is that in these other Lineages they see that the core concept can be applicable in more varied ways. From all of my readings of WSL (never having met the man) I see someone who was trying to create a logical science of fighting vs an art of fighting. This could easily lead to him narrowing his focus. To use an example, Guy has routinely talked bout "poor VT Chin Na". The think is not all lineages have poor Chin Na and when it is explained in training it is explained as adhereing to the same conceptual thread that begins in SLT.

Sometimes that happens. One person will say "this makes perfect sense" another will say "no it doesn't, in that instance you are forcing it." In the end these are little more that philosophical differences. What matters then is, does it work in practice.

 

[guy b]

No it wasn't discussed. I just say this because the others would discuss strategy and the possible tactical executions that would be born of it. You would say "wrong" and then use vague generalities as to why it was wrong and seemingly using strategy and tactics as synonyms. This is even more odd in hind sight since what everyone was saying was absolutely consistent with the WSL quote I have posted.

If it was discussed then you would have contributed something of substance when you said "wrong" but I see why this may have not been the case, because they weren't wrong.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I don't really even know what you are talking about any more to be honest. If you want me to elaborate on something specific then please quote me and whoever else was involved so that I can see what you mean.

If you want to look for old posts about WSL VT strategy I am sure you will find some here.

I am busy with work today and don't have a lot of time for interminable argument.

 

[LFJ]

WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method. That is a BIG difference and I think may be part of the issue. How things are taught can be pretty important.

No, he's not. This is what he actually said:

"Ever since I have been teaching, I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man. The only way by which I differ is that after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee."

This changes nothing of the actual content or sequence of the rest of the system, most importantly from the beginning.

I am also not saying that the conceptual thread doesn't go through WSL mind you but rather that TWC, and the Lineages of YM's sons also have the same thread.

And what thread is that?

For example, how does the crossing arm action at the opening of the forms inform these lineages of the overall fighting strategy or relate to say, daan-chi-sau? How about the three "shaving" hand actions before the punches at the end of SNT?

In these lineages, and others, these actions are given various possible applications, rather than containing information on general strategy and tactics. If they have the same thread, you should be able to explain what this information is that ties them all together in sequence.

 

[LFJ]

No it wasn't discussed.

I'm pretty sure when guy said the strategy of VT has been discussed over several threads, he was referring to some that took place prior to you arriving here a few months ago. You might look back in the archives.

 

[Juany118]

No, he's not. This is what he actually said:

"Ever since I have been teaching, I have followed almost the same sequence of teaching as Yip Man. The only way by which I differ is that after Chum Kiu I teach about one third of the dummy form. Following this I will teach the student Biu Jee and then the remaining dummy form. Grandmaster Yip Man asked me why I taught this way. I felt that the movements of the first third of the dummy closely resembled the first and second forms. However the last two thirds of the dummy form had theories and movements which resembled the third form Biu Jee."

Sequence alone is not a manner of teaching. YM was very much a "traditional" Chinese teacher of the Confucian school. This is very similar to what we call in the West the Socratic method. You would demonstrate something and give a very brief explanation. The idea being that your students engage you in a dialogue and encourage critical thinking. If you didnt ask questions you could find yourself lacking understanding. There really was no curriculum beyond the progression through the forms, it was very much a free flowing dialogue.

WSLVT doesn't teach via techniques BUT there is a curriculum of sorts between the forms. In terms of teaching method it would be more familiar to a modern Western student unfamiliar with Confucian or Socratic method.

This changes nothing of the actual content or sequence of the rest of the system, most importantly from the beginning.

I wasn't saying the sequence or content was changed at all. The way something is taught however can create false perceptions.

And what thread is that?

Now I am going to pull a line from the play book of you and Guy but I will be more honest. Where here you would start talking in circular reasoning and vague generalities. Time and again we have asked you to explain the grand difference on this issue to no avail, I am not going to empower your hypocrisy any further by answering a question you have refused to for as long as I can remember.

 

[Juany118]

I'm pretty sure when guy said the strategy of VT has been discussed over several threads, he was referring to some that took place prior to you arriving here a few months ago. You might look back in the archives.

Yes he did, that doesn't mean it was discussed, as I detailed after the cherry picked quote.

 

[geezer]

How about you stop cropping up on threads regarding WSL VT and making disapproving comments then? You sound a bit like Joy at this point.

If you knew Joy, you'd realize that being compared to him is not an insult! And as far as WSL VT goes.... we've had some very fruitful exchanges with some of the other WSL VT people. With you and LFJ.... not so much.

 

[guy b]

WSL actually is on the record stating that while he teaches what YM taught him he changed HOW it is tught into a more logical/step by step method.

Please provide the quote

 

[guy b]

If you knew Joy, you'd realize that being compared to him is not an insult! And as far as WSL VT goes.... we've had some very fruitful exchanges with some of the other WSL VT people. With you and LFJ.... not so much.

Like Joy, you keep posting on these threads that you find unproductive and pointless. Maybe the best thing would be to stop?

 

[guy b]

I know it is YM strategy, it is also TWC's strategy.

WSL VT uses a strategy which ruins the opponents strategy and imposes itself upon them, forcing mistakes. To make the strategy work entails a certain tactical approach.

Looking at TWC it doesn't appear to contain the same strategic understanding.