Siu Lim Tau Comparison

[KPM]

More appropriate highlights as follows:

"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."

 

[guy b]

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.

Good post spelling it out

 

[LFJ]

More appropriate highlights as follows:

"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."

Yes, sequence of teaching. Nothing was changed to become more "step by step", and WSL never said he made such a change, as was falsely claimed.

You can't say WSL learned the system sequence from YM, then "refined things, perhaps removing things that he saw as superfluous", but still taught the same sequence.

That would mean {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...} and {3,5,6,7,9...} are the same sequence. They are not, and now the latter is broken.

The only difference in their teaching, according to WSL, is that YM often didn't give much detailed information, and WSL did. That, and introducing the BJ form before finishing the dummy sections containing BJ ideas, which is inconsequential since it's basically the same elements.

The material and sequence in which it is introduced, from YM to WSL, and from WSL to many others, is fully intact and unchanged.

 

[Mattattack]

I have been training Wing Chun for almost two years now, and conversations like these seem rampant. I find it distressing. It is such a compact system (small number of techniques around shared core principles), but there is so much more vitriol over who is right and wrong.

This convo started with a comparative demonstration and has gotten mired in the weeds, and I think it is emblematic of what happens in many WC discussions, on- and off-line. I want to address this issue in general rather than attacking or critiquing any one person's post in particular.

The only point I really want to make here is that I fear that we deny YM his humanity when we buy into the idea that he taught a perfect system perfectly and that deviating from that is extreme heresy. Why is it such a problem to believe that he taught different people according to their strengths? Isn't it possible that WSL, or YM, or even Leung Jan said and did contradictory things now and then?

The idea that any system is perfect and was taught perfectly from master to disciple in a perfect line running back to its perfect immaculate conception story (Bodhidharma at Shaolin or Ng Mui or whoever watching animals fight) doesn't jive with humanity.

Yip Man wasn't perfect (there I said it, come after me internet!). I think he's much more interesting if we think of him as an imperfect man balancing his body of knowledge against how best to get it across to a variety of students with a variety of temperaments and strengths. That's the struggle and the wonder of teaching (which I say as a college professor and as a martial arts instructor).

Me, my teachers, and my teachers teachers are just people
We are all liars, whether we know it or not.
We are all telling truth, whether we follow it or not
Too much dogmatism breeds division
It gets in the way of personal growth and a centered life

I do sincerely apologize for this post. The statements above have been welling up inside of me for a while, and that is not just from this forum. So much talk out there on YM WC is more divisive than inclusive, and I like I said it distresses me.

That's my spiel, take it or decimate it (I'm anticipating the latter). It's prolly the last time I'm going to post on a WC thread.

 

[Transk53]

I have been training Wing Chun for almost two years now, and conversations like these seem rampant. I find it distressing. It is such a compact system (small number of techniques around shared core principles), but there is so much more vitriol over who is right and wrong.

This convo started with a comparative demonstration and has gotten mired in the weeds, and I think it is emblematic of what happens in many WC discussions, on- and off-line. I want to address this issue in general rather than attacking or critiquing any one person's post in particular.

The only point I really want to make here is that I fear that we deny YM his humanity when we buy into the idea that he taught a perfect system perfectly and that deviating from that is extreme heresy. Why is it such a problem to believe that he taught different people according to their strengths? Isn't it possible that WSL, or YM, or even Leung Jan said and did contradictory things now and then?

The idea that any system is perfect and was taught perfectly from master to disciple in a perfect line running back to its perfect immaculate conception story (Bodhidharma at Shaolin or Ng Mui or whoever watching animals fight) doesn't jive with humanity.

Yip Man wasn't perfect (there I said it, come after me internet!). I think he's much more interesting if we think of him as an imperfect man balancing his body of knowledge against how best to get it across to a variety of students with a variety of temperaments and strengths. That's the struggle and the wonder of teaching (which I say as a college professor and as a martial arts instructor).

Me, my teachers, and my teachers teachers are just people
We are all liars, whether we know it or not.
We are all telling truth, whether we follow it or not
Too much dogmatism breeds division
It gets in the way of personal growth and a centered life

I do sincerely apologize for this post. The statements above have been welling up inside of me for a while, and that is not just from this forum. So much talk out there on YM WC is more divisive than inclusive, and I like I said it distresses me.

That's my spiel, take it or decimate it (I'm anticipating the latter). It's prolly the last time I'm going to post on a WC thread.

To me it is just two members who can't eccept that Wing Chun is not Wing Chun, unless it is WSLVT, and all other branches are broken. Nothing to apologise for IMHO

 

[Mattattack]

Yeah, it just seems like one example in a bigger phenomenon. . WC is not WC unless it is ______ WC. I'm sure there's an interesting algebraic equation for that. I just don't want anyone to think I'm attacking his or her WC

 

[Transk53]

Yeah, it just seems like one example in a bigger phenomenon. . WC is not WC unless it is ______ WC. I'm sure there's an interesting algebraic equation for that. I just don't want anyone to think I'm attacking his or her WC

Nor would you be. Fanatism is what it is.

 

[Juany118]

Nor would you be. Fanatism is what it is.

Yeah. Yesterday during certain parts of the seminar I attended Master Keith kept talking about Dogma. He said (in short) don't fall into dogma but also don't replace what you already know with "theory". If you come up with an idea tell him. It actually happened a couple times during the seminar. He basically either said "oh yeah that works too" because he knows it does, it just isn't his preference. No one came up with ideas that were just "theory" but he made it clear he was open to people coming forward and demonstrating something so that it could be determined if it was only theory but practical. This video I think explains it well. The Josh is a world champion chess player and a practicing martial artist. Go to 25:00 for the relevant bit.

 

[Eric_H]

Man, with threads like this, no wonder MMA has eaten WC's lunch.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: discussions like this make me so glad I'm no longer in the YM branch of WC. From the outside, it looks like a bunch of people fighting over something that in the grand scheme of fighting arts is rather mediocre.

This discussion also reminds me of something I told a younger friend of mine once. He's a hothead who likes to get into fights and arguments with people for no reason. Once when we were walking down market street he was about to get into it with a homeless dude who was screaming crazy stuff at pretty much everything and nothing. I managed to pull him out of it and imparted this advice - "Don't fight a crazy dude who has sh*t his pants. Best case, you win, he's still crazy and you've got his sh*t on you." In the last few years, I've found discussing WC with people online to be much the same proposition.

 

[Juany118]

Man, with threads like this, no wonder MMA has eaten WC's lunch.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: discussions like this make me so glad I'm no longer in the YM branch of WC. From the outside, it looks like a bunch of people fighting over something that in the grand scheme of fighting arts is rather mediocre.

This discussion also reminds me of something I told a younger friend of mine once. He's a hothead who likes to get into fights and arguments with people for no reason. Once when we were walking down market street he was about to get into it with a homeless dude who was screaming crazy stuff at pretty much everything and nothing. I managed to pull him out of it and imparted this advice - "Don't fight a crazy dude who has sh*t his pants. Best case, you win, he's still crazy and you've got his sh*t on you." In the last few years, I've found discussing WC with people online to be much the same proposition.

Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people. The rest of us actually like discussing ideas and learning from each other. That is what promotes evolution, which is a key component to maintaining relevancy.

 

[guy b]

Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people

I would be incredibly happy if you stopped talking about WSL VT. I could then ignore whatever you were talking about.

 

[KPM]

Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people. The rest of us actually like discussing ideas and learning from each other. That is what promotes evolution, which is a key component to maintaining relevancy.

What's the old expression?......"one bad apple can spoil the whole bushel"?? Ok, maybe it takes more than one. But it was certainly a group of only 4 or so people that lead to the more or less "death" of that "other" Wing Chun forum.

 

[KPM]

I would be incredibly happy if you stopped talking about WSL VT. I could then ignore whatever you were talking about.

If your intent is to ignore anything that doesn't have to do with WSLVT, then why are you in a general Wing Chun forum and not a WSLVT-specific forum?

 

[guy b]

If your intent is to ignore anything that doesn't have to do with WSLVT, then why are you in a general Wing Chun forum and not a WSLVT-specific forum?

I think it is important to give a true representation of WSL VT whenever it is mentioned. It is useful to anyone interested in the system to provide info.

 

[Juany118]

I think it is important to give a true representation of WSL VT whenever it is mentioned. It is useful to anyone interested in the system to provide info.

But the problem is the rest of us discuss the differences and similarities of our lineages. The only time you and another jump in to discuss WSL-VT is to say "this is right, what you guys are studying true wing chun." It would only be about clarification IF other people had started speaking with authority on WSL-VT in the particular conversation. You interject it regardless of the context of the conversation... Replace the word "scottish" in the following video and it's pretty much how you come across...

 

[Cephalopod]

Whats depressing is the argument only exists because of 2 people.

But that's not precisely true, is it?

We all know it takes two parties to have an argument. Sure, there are those who post some rather obstinate sounding statements...but there are also those who play along, baiting and being baited by such posters.

Here are some principles that are central to wing chun as I know it.

When faced with an unstoppable force, move your center and let the force go by.

If you succeed in bypassing said force, don't go chasing after it, keep your center facing the source.

Think about it people! If you want to maximize the benefit of these ideas, they should not only apply when fists are flying but also in how you deal with others.

To me, the 'source' in the case of a forum is the original post. Unstoppable forces are arguments that cannot be "won".

So what do you think, good people? Maybe when we post we could keep one eye on the thread topic and show our respect to the efforts of the OP by trying to stay on topic.

And doing so, we'll be practicing good posting WC/VT/WT

 

[Nobody Important]

I would like to see the post get back on track. Are there any other non- Yip Man lineages besides myself & KPM? I would like to see how other lesser known branches approach Wing Chun. Especially comparisons of form and what the differences mean to them.

Hung Fa Yi, Pao Fa Lien, Chi Sim, Cho Gar etc? Feel free to weigh in with what you believe sets you apart.

 

[Juany118]

But that's not precisely true, is it?

We all know it takes two parties to have an argument. Sure, there are those who post some rather obstinate sounding statements...but there are also those who play along, baiting and being baited by such posters.

Here are some principles that are central to wing chun as I know it.

When faced with an unstoppable force, move your center and let the force go by.

If you succeed in bypassing said force, don't go chasing after it, keep your center facing the source.

Think about it people! If you want to maximize the benefit of these ideas, they should not only apply when fists are flying but also in how you deal with others.

To me, the 'source' in the case of a forum is the original post. Unstoppable forces are arguments that cannot be "won".

So what do you think, good people? Maybe when we post we could keep one eye on the thread topic and show our respect to the efforts of the OP by trying to stay on topic.

And doing so, we'll be practicing good posting WC/VT/WT

Call me crazy but I see a difference. The type of argument you are referring to would be, as an example, if I was to say "no GM William Cheung says he teaches true YM WC, WSL doesn't." That isn't what is happening here though. Two people repeatedly jump into threads where WSL-VT hasn't even been mentioned. They then go on to talk about how superior it is to all other Lineages and how it is the only true and coherent successor to YM. The rest of us just call them on them on the inflammatory and unsupported nature of such a claim.

If they were to simply say "well we do this bit differently" or "I tried other forms and WSL VT was more streamlined in this manner compared to the other lineage I studied and so it fit me better" there would likely be no argument at all, simply an exchange of ideas.

Think of it like a town hall meeting. People are exchanging ideas and then the fanatic stands up and starts telling everyone how they are all wrong and how they are innately superior to anyone who believes differently. It takes a community engaged in constructive discourse and turns everything sideways.

 

[Cephalopod]

Here's a starting point

It looks like the circles in the HFY are a lot bigger

I noticed this as well in the HFY form. Notably, the elbows travel quite far from the centerline of the body.

In most WC/VT/WT that I'm familiar with, SLT is used to ingrain a very disciplined tracking of the elbow, keeping it inside of a certain imaginary framework in front of the body. This is done to protect the center of the body as well as for power development.

What is the thinking of protecting the center in HFY?

 

[Cephalopod]

Call me crazy but I see a difference. The type of argument you are referring to would be, as an example, if I was to say "no GM William Cheung says he teaches true YM WC, WSL doesn't." That isn't what is happening here though. Two people repeatedly jump into threads where WSL-VT hasn't even been mentioned. They then go on to talk about how superior it is to all other Lineages and how it is the only true and coherent successor to YM. The rest of us just call them on them on the inflammatory and unsupported nature of such a claim.

If they were to simply say "well we do this bit differently" or "I tried other forms and WSL VT was more streamlined in this manner compared to the other lineage I studied and so it fit me better" there would likely be no argument at all, simply an exchange of ideas.

Think of it like a town hall meeting. People are exchanging ideas and then the fanatic stands up and starts telling everyone how they are all wrong and how they are innately superior to anyone who believes differently. It takes a community engaged in constructive discourse and turns everything sideways.

I hear what you are saying and I echo your frustration with certain behaviors. And I did not mean to imply that all parties are equally to blame for disrupting the conversation. I'm PC but I'm not that PC.

But the confrontational approach has not been bearing any fruit. So I'm suggesting a different path:
Rather than getting caught up in a pointless back and forth, ignore the offending posts and populate the thread with productive, on topic discourse instead.