What are you not sure about? The rabbit can dig up lots carrots without getting its paws dirty.
Get your mind out of the gutter already.
Siu Lim Tau Comparison
- Thread starter Nobody Important
- Start date
What are you not sure about? The rabbit can dig up lots carrots without getting its paws dirty.
Get your mind out of the gutter already.Then please provide info. I know nothing about Pin Sun and can only use what you provide. The difference is that we have provided lots of information about YM/WSL VT, but not much comes back in the other direction.
If Pin Sun works in a completely different way to WSL VT then fine by me, have fun with it. Often though it seems you want to use the same ideas, but then seem to have inconsistencies in the detail. Probably more explanation would help if there is something you feel is being missed or interpreted incorrectly?
It is indirect in that your arm is 'following' that of the opponent off line. It is unlikely to work (as described so far in terms of catching a punch) for reasons already discussed. So far it sounds no different to the karate block and punch back with other hand picture as posted by cephalopod. It isn't taking back position or initiative from the opponent, and they can simply punch you with their other hand as you intend to do to them, i.e. it is a 50:50 situation, a gamble. It is an example of exactly what WSL VT tries to avoid by taking and keeping the initiative- you are playing the opponents game by reacting to punches he throws at you.
A good puncher will see you do this once, fake it again, and then catch you with something else. It is just not practical as described so far.
I think a better option would be to avoid the situation where you are in the process of being punched by acting earlier with bong as soon as you need to recover position. If not possible then moving would be a better option that a reactive block. At worst just covering up and waiting for the barrage of punches to stop would still be better. At least when covered you are less likely to be KO'd than when blocking karate style away from your head.
Well Gary can always ask for more detail if he is genuinely interested. He seems more keen on disagreeing and asserting his seemingly fundamental belief that everything is relative than actually listening to anything though. Some people's minds are a bit too open to filter information effectively, and Gary looks like he might be that kind of guy.
The VT system consists of its concepts, strategy, and methods. The system is these rather than a catalogue of technique based applications. VT also consists of a uniquely effective learning method which is also a path to lifelong improvement. As a fully functional TCMA system, VT of course contains ideas for using open hand strikes, leg techniques, weapons and so on. But these are not the meat of the system.
You guys are so set on your own beliefs that you can't even follow what someone else is saying. You seem to go out of your way to try and NOT understand what is being said. You two are so frustrating to try and have ANY kind of discussion with that I am just about done here.
A Hok Bong also "displaces what is there", and it opens the line of attack for the punch that is following just a split second behind. It takes back the initiative because the opponent is being.....punched! You are punching him AS he is throwing his punch, so it makes it a bit harder for him to follow on with a punch from the other hand. And when we do the Hok Bong motion we train at least 2 in a row...very quickly..."bong does not remain." Deflect and hit upward and immediately convert that punch into a Hok Bong on the other side as you punch again. This covers a punch that may be coming from that side if you didn't manage to land your first punch solidly enough.
And neither of you yet have explained how you are deflecting inward with a Bong and punch simultaneously.
Then please provide info. I know nothing about Pin Sun and can only use what you provide. The difference is that we have provided lots of information about YM/WSL VT, but not much comes back in the other direction.
----Total BS. What little you provide about WSLVT typically has to be dragged out of you. You often pose a rhetorical question and want others to answer before you will offer any information yourself. You could have described how WSLVT would deal with the situation currently in question right from the start. But you didn't. Instead you have simply criticized what others have had to say.
If Pin Sun works in a completely different way to WSL VT then fine by me, have fun with it. Often though it seems you want to use the same ideas, but then seem to have inconsistencies in the detail. Probably more explanation would help if there is something you feel is being missed or interpreted incorrectly?
----Why do you care? You've already stated in the past that all you are concerned about is VT and have little interest in anyone else's Wing Chun. I have been explaining something from my version of Wing Chun and you clearly haven't been trying to see it from our perspective at all. All you can do is be critical. We've seen that over and over in this forum. If anything is different from the way WSLVT does it, then it is automatically wrong or "broken" in your opinion. You have no ability to be flexible in your thinking at all. You truly are a WSLVT "true believer". And I'm happy for you that you have found something that makes your life fulfilled. But please go and hang out at the "church of Wong" with the other true believers, because it is really getting a bit old here!
I'm done wasting my time on you two. I'm joining Geezer in the wings.
Well Gary can always ask for more detail if he is genuinely interested. He seems more keen on disagreeing and asserting his seemingly fundamental belief that everything is relative than actually listening to anything though. Some people's minds are a bit too open to filter information effectively, and Gary looks like he might be that kind of guy.
----Oh now that's rich! Do you really lack insight that much??? Amazing!!!
----Total BS. What little you provide about WSLVT typically has to be dragged out of you. You often pose a rhetorical question and want others to answer before you will offer any information yourself. You could have described how WSLVT would deal with the situation currently in question right from the start. But you didn't. Instead you have simply criticized what others have had to say.
If Pin Sun works in a completely different way to WSL VT then fine by me, have fun with it. Often though it seems you want to use the same ideas, but then seem to have inconsistencies in the detail. Probably more explanation would help if there is something you feel is being missed or interpreted incorrectly?
----Why do you care? You've already stated in the past that all you are concerned about is VT and have little interest in anyone else's Wing Chun. I have been explaining something from my version of Wing Chun and you clearly haven't been trying to see it from our perspective at all. All you can do is be critical. We've seen that over and over in this forum. If anything is different from the way WSLVT does it, then it is automatically wrong or "broken" in your opinion. You have no ability to be flexible in your thinking at all. You truly are a WSLVT "true believer". And I'm happy for you that you have found something that makes your life fulfilled. But please go and hang out at the "church of Wong" with the other true believers, because it is really getting a bit old here!
I'm done wasting my time on you two. I'm joining Geezer in the wings. Well Gary can always ask for more detail if he is genuinely interested. He seems more keen on disagreeing and asserting his seemingly fundamental belief that everything is relative than actually listening to anything though. Some people's minds are a bit too open to filter information effectively, and Gary looks like he might be that kind of guy.
----Oh now that's rich! Do you really lack insight that much??? Amazing!!!
Yes, you did:
This is grabbing a punch out of the air and throwing the guy right along, movie style... unless the punch is posed for you, which is even more unrealistic.
---If an opponent's punch is already traveling on an upward trajectory it seems pretty direct to me to let it continue on that trajectory while taking it off the target and while punching him at the exact same time. It's one count. He punches, you deflect as you return a punch. How someone can say that isn't "direct" is beyond me.
Many things are beyond you. Following the opponent's arm off line over your head is about as far from direct as you can get.
Man and wu are lead and rear, right? They therefore launch simultaneously from different ranges, and to different points – bong to open the line, and punch to the face. So there is no interruption or reaching over the top.
I wasn't on the internet when you were demanding answers about what to do in terrible situation x y z. I actually have to go to work, live my life, and so on. When I saw your question I immediately provided an answer.
Mostly it is because you want to have it both ways: Pin Sun different and special but also has all of that mundane stuff that's in regular YM VT. WSL VT is of a broader and richer system. This is why looking at what you actually do is interesting, and generally your system ends up looking like something completely different, not actually like YM VT at all.
What again? Ok.
Yeah sorry. I have this really annoying habit on a personal level of misconstruing things that I could probably reread severel times, and not get the point. Of course though, you seem to have a penchant for misclarifying when it suits you, or would that be when you get caught out. But of course, don't mind me, I read things wrong often. Hey i usually look like an idiot, but something I am sure of, something ain't quite right with you!
What are you not sure about? The rabbit can dig up lots carrots without getting its paws dirty.
That would be the Essex boy in me. We would give Sweden a decent contest :d
Juany118
Senior Master
Can't speak to that. I haven't seen or felt how that bong is actually used. The verbal description did not sound like arm chasing to me, but words can be misleading. Perhaps I am willing to give other's the benefit of the doubt, whereas you often doubt the benefit of what they do.
In the VT I train, the bong would rise if it is pushed up by the opponent's punch, but the energy and intent is forward. Our objective is to strike on center, not to follow our opponent's arms off center. I hope that clears things up a bit.
Okay, back from a weekend at the LA Ren Fest and then the week in NOLA (god I loved that town), so time to post again
. In TWC and even, if used properly (there is a "right bong" and "wrong bong"), the WSL-VT taught by Sifu Gary Lam, you can use a bong "out of the gate" so to speak. Sifu Jerry Devone sometimes refers to it as the "jamming" bong. There is actually a video of Sifu Jerry using it in a fight called MUSU, in New York, a few years back on YouTube and it sets up a KO. You aren't hand chasing, as I understand it though.In essence you enter with force, but knowing that your opponent would try to counter your strikes you enter with a bong (sometimes with a wu combination, the wu being the opposite hand) using forwarding energy. This essentially acts as a wedge which opens the way to either simply transition into a strike or to trap then strike. Either way you aren't focusing on the opponents limbs, you are using forwarding energy straight to the core of your opponent, the structure of your arms however is such that it naturally opens a path for striking. It doesn't matter if he was already trying to punch you, if he was still in his "ready" stance, etc. you have opened the way.
This sounds like it might be similar to the hok bong that @KPM speaks to, but I may be wrong. He may also remember the video I am speaking of. I linked it in the thread he started about when does WC stop being WC and he said that Sifu Jerry was keeping WC structure etc in the fight, vs other videos that he linked himself.
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
Well WSL himself stated that YM taught students differently (confirmed by Yip Ching among others). As such, by definition, WSL saying "I teach what YM taught me" only means just that, that WSL taught what YM taught HIM, as YM taught to the student's individual strengths and weaknesses. As such it could well be that any divergence is due to YM teaching different things to the two students.
So you think YM taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?
Provide the quote where WSL says this, if you didn't just make it up.
I think you'll find that WSL actually accounts for differences by uneven distribution of information and misunderstanding.
Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
"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."
Juany118
Senior Master
First I find it funny you use the quote you initially denied existed until I posted it. Remember you said initially "all WSL said about YM's teaching was..." And then I produced this.So you think YM taught several versions of the same system that directly contradict each other in major ways?
Provide the quote where WSL says this, if you didn't just make it up.
I think you'll find that WSL actually accounts for differences by uneven distribution of information and misunderstanding.
Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
"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."
That said (and that is likely enough) I also quoted YM's own sons. You didn't highlight "traditional manner" and part of that is teaching to the strengths of the student...Yip Ching addressed that in the quote of his I also noted elsewhere. Those who are interested in this topic are obvious and they remember the statements I quoted . They illustrate the issue with dogmatic adherence vs logical/practical adherence. There is obviously more than one YM student who started a different lineage. WSL, WC, Y Ching, Y Chun and more. WSL, after stating what he did about YM's teaching methods, NEVER said he taught the "true" YM VT. All he said is that he taught what YM taught him. Since they all admit that YM taught in the traditional manner, with an art as flexible as WC, there will be variations.
Or we can ignore the words of the first generation students of YM and stick to the dogma you were taught by someone else. I prefer original sources vs the dogma of those who come after.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Last edited:
You really think in all these years I'd never seen that interview until you came along a couple months ago?
Here I am quoting the exact lines from the same interview back in Dec. 2015. You weren't even a member here. And I can probably find earlier ones too.
wing chun history is not important
You don't just get to reinterpret someone's words to your liking. That is not at all what he said.
This is why I'm so thankful WSL gave this interview. We can always point back to it whenever you guys want to make up your own dishonest version of history and put words into WSL's mouth.
This is probably the 20th time talking about this interview this year alone, since you guys just keep carrying on with your own false narrative.
People who maintain this "taught to the strengths of the student" theory are the ones with the most confused or obviously made up WC.
That YM would have taught one system in such a way that it could have several directly contradictory yet equally valid versions is asinine.
As opposed to what WSL said, which was that YM just didn't evenly distribute information and lots of misunderstanding has led to the current mess we see in mainstream WC.
Last edited:
You really think in all these years I'd never seen that interview until you came along a couple months ago?
Here I am quoting the exact lines from the same interview back in Dec. 2015. You weren't even a member here. And I can probably find earlier ones too.
wing chun history is not important
@Juany118 lol
Here's another one from Nov. 2014, two years ago, and a full year and a half before you even showed up.
Regarding diverse approaches to WC...
And I even bolded the same lines I did in my post just above!
I've been consistently saying the same thing for years, and you guys still come on here and misquote WSL.
It's frustrating as hell how dishonest you guys can be to push your false narratives.
If you won't open your eyes, fine, but I will keep correcting you every time you lie, for the benefit of all who may read these posts.
Last edited:
Juany118
Senior Master
My eyes are open. First let me note that I find it humorous that originally, when I didn't produce that quote you actually called me a liar and produced another quote claiming that it was the only quote WSL ever stated on the matter.
That out of the way here is the thing, I use logic. All WSL ever said is that he teaches what he learned from YM. He never says that he didn't further refine things, perhaps removing things that he saw as superfluous. So in having a pure striking art, so long as that is part of what YM stated, the comment would be perfectly valid. You then look at what all of the other first generation students of YM have taught. All of them teach a WC/VT/WT that has chin na. These same students also add something else that is part of "traditional" Chinese martial arts teaching. If you were not learning in the military or in a religious order Martial Arts training was for the wealthy. These teachers would teach to the strengths and weaknesses of their students (I have produced quotes to that effect as well from other students.)
So logic dictates only one thing.
1. If all other YM lineages have Chin Na, and only one lacks it, then it is illogical to say that only the one first generation student teaching without Chin Na is teaching YM VT. Especially in light of the fact that this person never claimed that he had secret teachings from YM. By extension we have any number of possibilities as to why there is a divergence.
------A. The one (WSL) further refined YM VT to his preference/strengths. He went there with a back ground in boxing and was already known as a competitive fighter. So striking was "in his blood" so to speak. We see his ability to refine a martial art in that he helped PB adapt VT to his amputation when other teachers basically laughed at him and told him to give up.
------B. As other students noted the fact that YM would also teach to his student's strengths, with WSL he may well have focused on the striking aspect with him because of the obvious strength in striking he had when he walked in the door.
------C. combination of A and B
Now if you could produce some statement by WSL where he actually says that he is the only one teaching true YM VT, you would have a leg to stand on. Some might say it is hyperbole, but without such a statement the only thing that you can use to justify such a claim is dogma and as Master Keith Mazza said today at his seminar, "don't get trapped in dogma. There are many ways to get to the end game." Sadly I forgot to show him the video in too much of a hurry to try and get ahead of the post Eagles game traffic that was between me and home), but the next time I see him I will show it and get the question regarding the oddities in the TWC SLT video.
That out of the way here is the thing, I use logic. All WSL ever said is that he teaches what he learned from YM. He never says that he didn't further refine things, perhaps removing things that he saw as superfluous. So in having a pure striking art, so long as that is part of what YM stated, the comment would be perfectly valid. You then look at what all of the other first generation students of YM have taught. All of them teach a WC/VT/WT that has chin na. These same students also add something else that is part of "traditional" Chinese martial arts teaching. If you were not learning in the military or in a religious order Martial Arts training was for the wealthy. These teachers would teach to the strengths and weaknesses of their students (I have produced quotes to that effect as well from other students.)
So logic dictates only one thing.
1. If all other YM lineages have Chin Na, and only one lacks it, then it is illogical to say that only the one first generation student teaching without Chin Na is teaching YM VT. Especially in light of the fact that this person never claimed that he had secret teachings from YM. By extension we have any number of possibilities as to why there is a divergence.
------A. The one (WSL) further refined YM VT to his preference/strengths. He went there with a back ground in boxing and was already known as a competitive fighter. So striking was "in his blood" so to speak. We see his ability to refine a martial art in that he helped PB adapt VT to his amputation when other teachers basically laughed at him and told him to give up.
------B. As other students noted the fact that YM would also teach to his student's strengths, with WSL he may well have focused on the striking aspect with him because of the obvious strength in striking he had when he walked in the door.
------C. combination of A and B
Now if you could produce some statement by WSL where he actually says that he is the only one teaching true YM VT, you would have a leg to stand on. Some might say it is hyperbole, but without such a statement the only thing that you can use to justify such a claim is dogma and as Master Keith Mazza said today at his seminar, "don't get trapped in dogma. There are many ways to get to the end game." Sadly I forgot to show him the video in too much of a hurry to try and get ahead of the post Eagles game traffic that was between me and home), but the next time I see him I will show it and get the question regarding the oddities in the TWC SLT video.
That's because of your reading comprehension disability.
I was replying to this post in which you said;
"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."
This is saying WSL altered the system, which is false, and he never said that, which means you lied.
This is why I responded in this post with the quote of WSL saying;
Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
"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."
You then said you were only talking about teaching methods differing, and not the system, which obviously contradicts what you said about the system being made more logical/step by step.
I then addressed this in this post saying;
"Their personalities and teaching styles differed which impacted learning and resulted in not many receiving the full system from YM, while more received it from WSL.
This has been our argument the whole time,... ...You are apparently agreeing with it then."
This is where you stopped responding.
And now you're back starting the whole thing over with your original lie once again.
There you go lying again to rewrite your version of history!
What part of "the only way by which I differ" do you not understand?
I know you have your theory and think it is logical, but that does not make it true.
The truth is as WSL stated;
"Hence, he [Yip Man] 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."
Wong Shun Leung interview 1994 Combat
"Someone who is looking at Wing Chun and hasn't trained the full system, or hasn't really gone for enough time with a teacher, probably won't know enough footwork. They won't understand the mobility involved in Wing Chun – the angles of attack, the advance and retreat. They won't understand the full use of kicks in all situations. Therefore they will want to add something else that they think is better, for the sake of not knowing. "
Wong Shun Leung en Barry Lee - VingTsunRotterdam
The truth is not many people received the full system in detail from YM. Lots of misunderstanding and gap-filling from other TCMAs has led to the various contradictory systems taught as mainstream WC from YM today.
Look at the taan-sau shape without explanation, and you'll likely think it's a "spreading" block.
Look at chi-sau practice and call it "sticking hands" without explanation, and you'll think it's for sticking to and controlling an opponent's arms.
Look at the turning with folded arms in Cham-kiu without explanation, and you may think there's a lock and throw in there somewhere.
People come up with all kinds of applications and gap-fills from other styles, including kam-na, for not knowing...
Those people who made things up had to use the "taught to students' strengths" cover which validates anything they do.
He wouldn't have to! He let his hands do the talking. Gong-sau Wong! And his system compared to alternatives speaks for itself too.
Only people like your lineage head William Cheung have to say only they got a secret "traditional" version behind closed doors.
