Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[Juany118]

Please provide the quote

I probably should say that says you have failed to do this whenever requested that I should fail to do it as well however here is where WSL States how teaches differently than Yip Man did.

Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have got the wrong meaning which they now pass on. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude. This is not a criticism of Yip Man but rather it reflects the attitude of the time which was very much traditional. Wherever and whomever I have been teaching, it has been my preference to convey the information to all people in attendance. I try to treat everyone equally during my lessons and seminars. If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job.

Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat

There is another interview, which I will search for where he specifically used the term systematic but he acknowledges the differences between both their training methods quite clearly here regardless of that word not being present.

weren't you the one that said I needed to learn the history of WSL VT? Because I seem to be quoting WSL himself far more than either you or LFJ.

 

[Juany118]

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.

First I would suggest you read the quote by WSL that I posted previously which defines his strategy in his own words. He specifically states that you cannot impose your will upon an opponent in a fight. You are correct that TWC does not seek to impose Ones Will on the opponent because as WSL himself clearly states that is an impossibility. Unless of course you know I want to see the WSL misspoke because he was rather clear with no vagueness open to interpretation in the quote that I posted.

As I said before I did previously study WSLVT. The quote previously posted is the strategy I learned. It is also the strategy of TWC.

 

[JowGaWolf]

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.

I know I don't do WIng Chun but this as just one of the many strategies that other martial arts have as well. This is why I was saying that I wouldn't base the authenticity of a martial on strategy.

Jow Ga has this same strategy but it's not Wing Chun, so it would make sense that it is possible for different Wing Chun lineages to have the same strategy as it is not something that's unique to one style of Martial Arts.

One of the things that bridging allows a person to do is to Interrupt and ruin the opponents actions and not strategy. To actually interrupt a strategy would actually be difficult to do, being that if you interrupt it, it will either reset to the same strategy, change to a different strategy, or change into a counter, (counters take into consideration that an interruption will occur and then plan an attack based on that interruption.) These things are not unique to WC, Martial Arts, or Fighting.

 

[Juany118]

I know I don't do WIng Chun but this as just one of the many strategies that other martial arts have as well. This is why I was saying that I wouldn't base the authenticity of a martial on strategy.

Jow Ga has this same strategy but it's not Wing Chun, so it would make sense that it is possible for different Wing Chun lineages to have the same strategy as it is not something that's unique to one style of Martial Arts.

One of the things that bridging allows a person to do is to Interrupt and ruin the opponents actions and not strategy. To actually interrupt a strategy would actually be difficult to do, being that if you interrupt it, it will either reset to the same strategy, change to a different strategy, or change into a counter, (counters take into consideration that an interruption will occur and then plan an attack based on that interruption.) These things are not unique to WC, Martial Arts, or Fighting.

The problem is that isn't the strategy considered I. The WSLVT I studied. Here are the words of WSL himself on that matter...

" When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him.”

This is very different than imposing your will on the other even if it is through some form of trickery. The easiest way to summarize it is "go with the flow."

 

[guy b]

First I would suggest you read the quote by WSL that I posted previously which defines his strategy in his own words. He specifically states that you cannot impose your will upon an opponent in a fight.

He doesn't say that at all. What he says is this:

When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him

He doesn't mean that you must dance to your opponents tune. What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited

You are correct that TWC does not seek to impose Ones Will on the opponent because as WSL himself clearly states that is an impossibility. Unless of course you know I want to see the WSL misspoke because he was rather clear with no vagueness open to interpretation in the quote that I posted.

You proclaim that WSL was "rather clear with no vagueness", and then proceed to get the understanding completely back to front. It would be slightly amusing if I didn't know you will just blunder on regardless. Anyway, a shame for you and apparently for TWC.

As I said before I did previously study WSLVT. The quote previously posted is the strategy I learned

Oh yes, who did you learn with?

 

[Juany118]

He doesn't say that at all. What he says is this:



He doesn't mean that you must dance to your opponents tune. What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited



You proclaim that WSL was "rather clear with no vagueness", and then proceed to get the understanding completely back to front. It would be slightly amusing if I didn't know you will just blunder on regardless. Anyway, a shame for you and apparently for TWC.



Oh yes, who did you learn with?

Lol... The logical contortions necessary to come to your conclusion here are ridiculous tbh. It is incredibly clear and I was not even vaguely saying that you dance to the other person's tune. You flow and use your awareness to sense where your opponent has made himself vulnerable and then strike. That is quite explict in what he says. There is simply no way to read that quote and see in that quote that you are imposing your will on the opponent, unless you are trying to force it to confirm to the definition.

But if you wish please continue. People who read the words of WSL and have critical thinking and reading skills can see the truth and ultimately that is all that matters.

Interesting that you completely avoid the fact that I produced the quote where WSL details the difference between how he teaches vs YM btw.

 

[guy b]

You flow and use your awareness to sense where your opponent has made himself vulnerable and then strike. That is quite explict in what he says.

WSL doesn't say anything like that. The strategy of WSL VT is about pressuring and shutting down options in order to force mistakes. Wouldn't you know this if you had studied WSL VT?

There is simply no way to read that quote and see in that quote that you are imposing your will on the opponent

Where have I said that the aim is to impose ones will upon the opponent? WSL is saying that the opponent is in charge of their choices. Be ahead of them and limit their choices to force them into error, then capitalise.

But if you wish please continue. People who read the words of WSL and have critical thinking and reading skills can see the truth and ultimately that is all that matters

A good example of where having google can be a strong detriment to learning

Interesting that you completely avoid the fact that I produced the quote where WSL details the difference between how he teaches vs YM btw.

There is nothing problematic in the quote you provided, which is why I didn't reply. What do you want me to say about it?

 

[JowGaWolf]

The problem is that isn't the strategy considered I. The WSLVT I studied. Here are the words of WSL himself on that matter...

" When fighting, your opponent will be free to move how he likes, he will not think as you do. Hence your movements will be determined by his actions. If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him.”

This is very different than imposing your will on the other even if it is through some form of trickery. The easiest way to summarize it is "go with the flow."

But this is only one strategy out of the many that a person may have to use during a fight. So what you are saying is that Wing Chun only has one strategy?

I could be wrong but I don't think the Wing Chun Sifus wanted people to define the system by one strategy and then use that one strategy to invalidate other strategies that can be used with the system.

 

[Juany118]

But this is only one strategy out of the many that a person may have to use during a fight. So what you are saying is that Wing Chun only has one strategy?

I could be wrong but I don't think the Wing Chun Sifus wanted people to define the system by one strategy and then use that one strategy to invalidate other strategies that can be used with the system.

I am looking at it, and was taught, that in this context fighting consists of two different things, strategy and tactics. Strategy is the "overall" plan, philosophy etc. That is essentially a universal tennant.

Then you have tactical execution which is different from encounter to encounter and is informed by your immediate goal, the opponent and the circumstances of each individual encounter. As an example, you can potentially impose your will if your opponent is overly cautious, hesitant etc. BUT the raison d'être isn't to impose your will, that was simply what the circumstances of that particular fight dictates to occur.

Does that make sense?

 

[Transk53]

I am looking at it, and was taught, that in this context fighting consists of two different things, strategy and tactics. Strategy is the "overall" plan, philosophy etc. That is essentially a universal tennant.

Then you have tactical execution which is different from encounter to encounter and is informed by your immediate goal, the opponent and the circumstances of each individual encounter. As an example, you can potentially impose your will if your opponent is overly cautious, hesitant etc. BUT the raison d'être isn't to impose your will, that was simply what the circumstances of that particular fight dictates to occur.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does make sense. That is really good answer there, well I think so anyway

 

[Juany118]

WSL doesn't say anything like that. The strategy of WSL VT is about pressuring and shutting down options in order to force mistakes. Wouldn't you know this if you had studied WSL VT?



Where have I said that the aim is to impose ones will upon the opponent? WSL is saying that the opponent is in charge of their choices. Be ahead of them and limit their choices to force them into error, then capitalise.



A good example of where having google can be a strong detriment to learning



There is nothing problematic in the quote you provided, which is why I didn't reply. What do you want me to say about it?

So translation...

I am going to dismiss what you say via unsupported fiat statements as I have throughout these discussions, even when my fiat statements are contradicted by the explict words of the person who my system is named after.

Gotcha

It's funny really. You make unsupported claims and when contradicted demand quotes and references. Then when provided you turn around and Pooh Pooh on the quotes and references.

 

[guy b]

It is quite clear what WSL means in the quote provided but if you don't wish to understand there isn't a lot I can do to help.

 

[Juany118]

It is quite clear what WSL means in the quote provided but if you don't wish to understand there isn't a lot I can do to help.

Indeed it is clear, you simply didn't expect the quote to be produced. Perhaps were even ignorant of it. So the rest of us understand it's meaning and you are now let struggling to fit a contradictory statement to it.

This is what happens when you demand evidence from others and produce none yourself btw.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[guy b]

Indeed it is clear, you simply didn't expect the quote to be produced.

So essentially the strategy is "let the circumstances of the fight dictate your strategy."

You flow and use your awareness to sense where your opponent has made himself vulnerable and then strike. That is quite explict in what he says.

WSL isn't talking about varying strategy with each opponent. He is talking about tactical variations being employed depending on circumstances. The VT strategy is the VT strategy. I am sorry that you don't like what it means, but it is what it is.

So the rest of us understand it's meaning

Again, you can't rely on google and your imagination to teach you VT

This is what happens when you demand evidence from others and produce none yourself

I have no idea what you mean. You have usually posted about 50 furious messages every time I log in to the site so it can get a bit confusing following what you are on about sometimes. What evidence did I fail to provide you with and what evidence did I demand from others?

 

[Juany118]

WSL isn't talking about varying strategy with each opponent. He is talking about tactical variations being employed depending on circumstances. The VT strategy is the VT strategy. I am sorry that you don't like what it means, but it is what it is.



Again, you can't rely on google and your imagination to teach you VT



I have no idea what you mean. You have usually posted about 50 furious messages every time I log in to the site so it can get a bit confusing following what you are on about sometimes. What evidence did I fail to provide you with and what evidence did I demand from others?

You do realize that all you did here again was fiat statements. So, yes again. You demanded quotes/evidence, if suddenly you want to say otherwise everyone else knows. You told people to study the words and history of WSL as well.

Twas done...twas posted and you respond with fiat statements.

As for tactical variations vs strategy, you basically rephrased EXACTLY what I said in my response to Jow. That is flattering for me and embarrassing for you, especially since until after I did, you never made a distinction between tactics and strategy.

By the way still waiting for you to respond to LFJ's explicit and your implicit denial of my claims that WSL changed the teaching method of his lineage from that of YM. You demanded the quote, I produced it and I have silence. Any other response from me to you will simply be this because it is a clear example of what I have been saying, until you actually respond to that point, then we can move on.

You and LFJ claim that WSLVT is the true extension of YM WC. When I pointed out they taught differently you had to deny it and infer I was making it up because if this is different what else may be different? You demanded a quote. I produced it. Response? Silence. That is telling.

 

[KPM]

WSL said this:
If your intentions are to hit your opponent above all else, then you may over commit yourself or allow your opponent to attack you easily. It is far better to allow your opponent to guide you during the fight, to show you how to hit him

Guy said this:
What he means is to impose the strategy of VT upon the opponent, which will force errors, "showing you how you should hit him" (i.e. creating opportunities), which can be exploited


Now I truly am trying to be open-minded here and read things as neutrally as possible. But there is just no way I can see that those two statements above are the same thing. WSL's quote to me in no way implies "forcing" anything. In fact, he seems to warn against such a thing when says one shouldn't try to "hit your opponent above all else." And it also seems to me that one can certainly "create openings to be exploited" while flowing with the opponent and not "imposing" or "forcing" anything.

So, as with the rest of the argument across several threads.....is this going to come down to "well, you have to actually have studied WSLVT in depth to understand what he has said".....??????

 

[KPM]

You do realize that all you did here again was fiat statements. So, yes again. You demanded quotes/evidence, if suddenly you want to say otherwise everyone else knows. You told people to study the words and history of WSL as well.

Twas done...twas posted and you respond with fiat statements.

As for tactical variations vs strategy, you basically rephrased EXACTLY what I said in my response to Jow. That is flattering for me and embarrassing for you, especially since until after I did, you never made a distinction between tactics and strategy.

I haven't posted 50 furious messages btw. I only posted messages with quotes from WSL that contradict your fiat statements and then called you and LFJ on trying to dismiss said quotes... Or as with the GM teaching method quote you demanded, avoiding it.

When it comes to being furious I believe you are projecting. Please feel free to simply make more fiat statements. As I said before those with critical reading and thinking skils know the truth and that's all that matters really.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

All of this is exactly what I have been seeing across several threads here recently as well. Guy did demand quotes/evidence and when he got them he didn't like them. Guy did just restate what Juany wrote previously as if it was his own ideas. Guy is the one that has made multiple posts on several threads now but doesn't what to take the time to do what I have asked him to do at least 3 times. So I think this vein of discussion has pretty much run its course.

 

[Juany118]

.

So, as with the rest of the argument across several threads.....is this going to come down to "well, you have to actually have studied WSLVT in depth to understand what he has said".....??????

Thing is this. Unless Guy or LFJ studied under WSL directly they can't say even that. I have two WC Teachers. Both are students of GM Cheung's Closed door student, one is also a "Master" vs just a Sifu personally authorized by GM Cheung. GM Cheung will be coming to visit next year and I will be attending. Only then will I know how close their WC is to theirs because as humans we always add a bit of ourselves to such skills.

Why? Because I refuse to take what my Sifu says as the Gospel words of GM Cheung. We can see the issue from the debate on DP vs PB. So I know what my Sifu and the visiting Master works but until next year I won't say it is the "Gospel" of GM Cheung. That is how logic works.

 

[guy b]

You do realize that all you did here again was fiat statements. So, yes again. You demanded quotes/evidence, if suddenly you want to say otherwise everyone else knows

In terms of VT, without being able to show you what is meant, all anyone can provide is what they know to be true from experience. You say that WSL is saying one thing based on your lack of experience of WSL VT. I know that he isn't. There isn't a lot of proving that can be done one way or the other without experiencing what is meant.

As for tactical variations vs strategy, you basically rephrased EXACTLY what I said in my response to Jow

You said the opposite, as quoted above, i.e. that VT strategy varies with circumstances. This is a gross misunderstanding of the difference between tactic and strategy, and of the WSL VT system. If you vary your strategy with each opponent then you are thinking consciously rather than operating automatically according to the system. The reason I mainly talk of strategy is that it is a major point of difference compared to other VT, as evidenced by your understanding of TWC strategy and misinterpretation of WSL VT strategy.

By the way still waiting for you to respond to LFJ's explicit and your implicit denial of my claims that WSL changed the teaching method of his lineage from that of YM. You demanded the quote, I produced it and I have silence.

There isn't anything indicating that WSL changed the teaching of VT in such a way that would alter the system information being conveyed compared to YM in the quote you provided. He had a different attitude to his students compared to YM and was a great teacher, but taught the same system. The quote explains very well the differences and misunderstandings seen in the various branches of YM wing chun that are not via WSL and that exist today, a reality generally denied by most people on this forum:

Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation. Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners.

You continue:

You and LFJ claim that WSLVT is the true extension of YM WC. When I pointed out they taught differently you had to deny it and infer I was making it up because if this is different what else may be different? You demanded a quote. I produced it.

This quote and others show that WSL was teaching the same system as YM, but doing it more effectively. It is therefore irrelevant as an attack against the idea that WSL VT is the VT of YM. You seem to be arguing that if WSL was a more effective teacher than YM then... what else might be different!? It just reeks of...desperation more than anything. I can't really see a point here?

 

[guy b]

All of this is exactly what I have been seeing across several threads here recently as well. Guy did demand quotes/evidence and when he got them he didn't like them.

There isn't anything to react to in these quotes from WSL. I agree with everything he says

Guy is the one that has made multiple posts on several threads now but doesn't what to take the time to do what I have asked him to do at least 3 times. So I think this vein of discussion has pretty much run its course.

I am sorry for not running to put everything aside in order to serve your needs KPM. The thing is I don't believe you are interested and feel it might be a waste of my time. Wouldn't you agree?