wing chun history is not important

[Xue Sheng]

It is not known if WSL removed/stripped down, or if he added/built up, or if he recreated, or if he merely received the full teaching. All that we know is that WSL VT is a bit different to some other interpretations. Of course WSL lineage has its reasons for this and of course other lineages have different reasons. Deciping upon the former option is a decision you have taken based upon little evidence and is a really good example of the use of history to frame and control debate.

Food for thought; no two people are exactly alike therefore you find differences from generation to generation in all Martial arts. This is where many of the variations come from. Also no two people will think the same bits are important for the very same reason and for reasons of how well they may or may not comprehend what is being taught. Could thing a thing is to easy (and it is for them) and therefore unimportant. Or could think it is too hard and again unimportant

It is not a historical fact that differences between WSL and others are due to WSL's difference in interpretation.

Who is WSL?

There is a lot more than basic application in what we are presented with today. History is important within groups, not so much between them.

Don't agree with that at all. There is always a shared history between groups within the same style

All lineages have "histories" for these purposes. How many are created after the fact for validation purposes? Impossible to know.

Actually in many cases, if you follow the history back, it is not impossible to know within a 100 years or so. Beyond that it does get iffy in some styles

Even Ip Chun says he is not so sure about the whole Wing Chun Origin story. As far as Ip Man Wing Chun, you can go back a few generations with certainty but again, beyond that, it gets iffy.

But the history is important and it is used to weed out the occasional fraud that pops up here and there. I know of two that history outed, but that was in Taijiquan (one Yang and one Chen), where I am much more familiar with the history of the art.

Now was knowing the history (Lineage) of the Wing Chun I trained important to the training I was getting? Well no, it wasn't, as far as training. But it was important to knowing the legitimacy of the teacher. But was knowing the history of Wing Chun and what it is basically supposed to be important to finding a place to train and a sifu to train me? Yes, very important. I know what it is so I know what I am looking for and I roughly know what I should find

 

[Phobius]

History is to build up morale and loyalty within a group. Without it there may be a risk that one group would not join together to defend themselves against another group while in danger.

After all humans are pack animals, meant to live in small groups of people. What we do with history and culture is to strengthen that group dynamic.

Reason for wanting to know the history of Wing Chun, make sure we belong to the same group. Reason we do not get along even if we train the same art so often, may be that we refuse to believe we share the same history and as such not having enough in common to remain a group of people.

No I do not believe the history is important to our art, it is better today in some areas than it has ever been before. Evolution has come to martial arts not because of UFC but rather this forum and other places where thoughts are shared. Through YouTube where the good and the bad come together to show what they do.

The risk now is that we create two groups of people, those who want to train just out of a kick and feel good about themselves. And finally those who train to become better as a goal, and finding the constant strive to be even better day by day simply because they can and should. Kung Fu exists not only in martial arts after all, but can exist within those that take pride in what they do from carpenter to floor cleaner.

^^ Meaning that we get McDojos to live off the people that simply have a need to feel good. Anyone heard of diet pills for instance? Same thing. A crazy belief in a quick and effortless path to success.

 

[JPinAZ]

@Guy B - Funny you immediately start arguing validity of historical 'facts' on a thread you started about how unimportant history is... You sure imply to know a lot about something you find so unimportant.

But I'm not here to argue with you. Maybe when you make up your mind if history is important or not, you can try talking directly with the likes of David Peterson & those who were closest to Sifu Wong and it might give better insight. In the end it doesn't matter to me as I'm not here to prove or argue his history. I'm only here to share my view on history's importance, you can take or leave what I presented as it was only an example.

 

[Vajramusti]

Food for thought; no two people are exactly alike therefore you find differences from generation to generation in all Martial arts. This is where many of the variations come from. Also no two people will think the same bits are important for the very same reason and for reasons of how well they may or may not comprehend what is being taught. Could thing a thing is to easy (and it is for them) and therefore unimportant. Or could think it is too hard and again unimportant



Who is WSL?




Don't agree with that at all. There is always a shared history between groups within the same style




Actually in many cases, if you follow the history back, it is not impossible to know within a 100 years or so. Beyond that it does get iffy in some styles

Even Ip Chun says he is not so sure about the whole Wing Chun Origin story. As far as Ip Man Wing Chun, you can go back a few generations with certainty but again, beyond that, it gets iffy.

But the history is important and it is used to weed out the occasional fraud that pops up here and there. I know of two that history outed, but that was in Taijiquan (one Yang and one Chen), where I am much more familiar with the history of the art.

Now was knowing the history (Lineage) of the Wing Chun I trained important to the training I was getting? Well no, it wasn't, as far as training. But it was important to knowing the legitimacy of the teacher. But was knowing the history of Wing Chun and what it is basically supposed to be important to finding a place to train and a sifu to train me? Yes, very important. I know what it is so I know what I am looking for and I roughly know what I should find

--------------------------------
wsl is-was wong shon leung,

 

[guy b.]

@Guy B - Funny you immediately start arguing validity of historical 'facts' on a thread you started about how unimportant history is... You sure imply to know a lot about something you find so unimportant.

But I'm not here to argue with you. Maybe when you make up your mind if history is important or not, you can try talking directly with the likes of David Peterson & those who were closest to Sifu Wong and it might give better insight. In the end it doesn't matter to me as I'm not here to prove or argue his history. I'm only here to share my view on history's importance, you can take or leave what I presented as it was only an example.

History is unimportant for wing chun as a whole because fact is not determinable in so many cases. This is what my reply to you was aimed at showing. You believe WSL did x, y and z. This is belief and lineage storytelling, not history. The best way to judge WSL VT against other wing chun is to test them. History is important within all traditional MA groups, including WSL VT.

 

[guy b.]

Actually in many cases, if you follow the history back, it is not impossible to know within a 100 years or so.

Not so in wing chun. It is even impossible to know who learned what from YM from listening to the various stories. It is very possible to tell if you use your eyes to see and your hands to feel.

Now was knowing the history (Lineage) of the Wing Chun I trained important to the training I was getting? Well no, it wasn't, as far as training. But it was important to knowing the legitimacy of the teacher. But was knowing the history of Wing Chun and what it is basically supposed to be important to finding a place to train and a sifu to train me? Yes, very important. I know what it is so I know what I am looking for and I roughly know what I should find

The history of wing chun will not help you in this at all. Anyone persisting in any MA creates a story around themselves, based in reality or not.

 

[JPinAZ]

The best way to judge WSL VT against other wing chun is to test them.

Now you're just showing a need to twist things for the purposes of arguing. The has nothing to do with the discussion or what I've said - No one here said anything about judging any art against anything.

Not so in wing chun. It is even impossible to know who learned what from YM from listening to the various stories. It is very possible to tell if you use your eyes to see and your hands to feel.

LOL Now you claim you can somehow validate/invalidate someone's historical background by watching them or touching their hands? Unless you yourself have also seen/touched hands with Ip Man, you have no way in hell to 'tell' anything in relation to Ip Man's teaching.

I have to say it - this whole thread is starting to smell a bit like troll bait and only here for your purpose to argue. I have no interest in discussing anything with you further.

 

[guy b.]

I have no interest in discussing anything with you further.

Then please don't

 

[KPM]

It is not known if WSL removed/stripped down, or if he added/built up, or if he recreated, or if he merely received the full teaching. All that we know is that WSL VT is a bit different to some other interpretations. Of course WSL lineage has its reasons for this and of course other lineages have different reasons. Deciping upon the former option is a decision you have taken based upon little evidence and is a really good example of the use of history to frame and control debate.


There are simpler explanations for these differences.

It is not a historical fact that differences between WSL and others are due to WSL's difference in interpretation.

.

Well, actually...if we whip out "Occam's Razor"........ The simplest explanation for the fact that it appears only WSLVT teaches this idea about Tan being used only to train the elbow, that only WSLVT empty hands seems to track so very closely to the Pole methods, that only WSLVT seems to make an almost complete separation between Chum Kiu & Biu Gee, that only WSLVT seems to consider the Knives so terribly different from the rest of the system...the simplest explanation upon applying Occam's Razor is that Wong Shun Leung himself made these changes to his Wing Chun. That these are his own interpretations and innovations.

The alternative argument is to say that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man, and how many times have we heard that now from different people? I'm afraid no one is going to take THAT argument seriously anymore!!

And there is nothing wrong with saying these are Wong Shun Leung's own innovations! He was a great Wing Chun man and had practical fighting experience. One could argue that what he came up with is better than what Ip Man taught! And doesn't everyone expect their best students to improve upon what they taught them?

 

[KPM]

History is unimportant for wing chun as a whole because fact is not determinable in so many cases. This is what my reply to you was aimed at showing. You believe WSL did x, y and z. This is belief and lineage storytelling, not history. The best way to judge WSL VT against other wing chun is to test them. History is important within all traditional MA groups, including WSL VT.

History is important. Just ask the guy outed for making up his "Black Flag Eng Chun" or Andreas Hoffman who was outed for claiming that his Chi Sim Weng Chun dates back to Chi Sim himself. Martial arts history is often a puzzle and difficult to piece together, but that doesn't mean it is unimportant.

 

[geezer]

...And doesn't everyone expect their best students to improve upon what they taught them?

Unfortunately, all too often the answer to this is "no".

 

[Danny T]

Unfortunately, all too often the answer to this is "no".

And when they do they get criticized for doing so.

 

[LFJ]

And there is nothing wrong with saying these are Wong Shun Leung's own innovations!

What's wrong with saying that is that it's highly unlikely, besides he always said he never made any changes.

WSL was very humble, but also very honest. Why would he lie about drastically improving the system? His lineage was never in question, so he didn't have to claim pure transmission for that purpose (as some others clearly have).

He always said the system is theoretically "perfect" and doesn't need change, except that BJ may be open-ended and perhaps could be added on to if someone encountered a situation that required something else, it's just that humans are imperfect. So why change something that constantly improves your skill and that you have not yet achieved perfection in? That would only be foolish.

 

[LFJ]

The alternative argument is to say that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man, and how many times have we heard that now from different people? I'm afraid no one is going to take THAT argument seriously anymore!!

The problem with Occam's Razor is that it really has no bearing on the truth. You can come up with the simplest argument and still have it be wrong.

Plus you're applying it incorrectly. You're assuming all factors are otherwise equal among YM students. But it is a fact that most of the big names under YM never completed the system and had very little if any practical fighting experience.

It is very clear that most of them filled in the blanks themselves when you look at how similar they are until BJ, when things go haywire. Plus, their systems severely lack coherence and are missing the main idea.

A similar trend can be seen among WSL's students, of which he had very few, while he had many visitors and seminar attendees.

Some of these non-regular students have marketed themselves to be very prominent within the lineage, so much that outsiders automatically list them when thinking of WSL's top students, when in fact they were just irregular visitors. (Because books, DVD's, and "my Sifu this, my Sifu that"...)

These guys only had time to receive some basic ideas from WSL, then returned to their countries to fill in the blanks themselves, with prior Wing Chun experience, or by looking at what other lineages were doing and assuming they should all be similar enough.

As a result, you now have many non-regular WSL students with a more "mainstream" interpretation of Wing Chun. And if you apply Occam's Razor to WSL's students, the true regular students who learned properly over a long period of time spent closely with him are suddenly the ones that get cut out as having made their own innovations because these other guys differ and there are more of them.

It's almost exactly the same situation with YM's students. Occam's Razor just doesn't cut to the truth.

 

[guy b.]

It is very clear that most of them filled in the blanks themselves when you look at how similar they are until BJ, when things go haywire. Plus, their systems severely lack coherence and are missing the main idea.

This is very obvious. And these people have made efforts to cover this fact. We call what they have left for us "history"

A similar trend can be seen among WSL's students, of which he had very few, while he had many visitors and seminar attendees.

Some of these non-regular students have marketed themselves to be very prominent within the lineage, so much that outsiders automatically list them when thinking of WSL's top students, when in fact they were just irregular visitors. (Because books, DVD's, and "my Sifu this, my Sifu that"...)

These guys only had time to receive some basic ideas from WSL, then returned to their countries to fill in the blanks themselves, with prior Wing Chun experience, or by looking at what other lineages were doing and assuming they should all be similar enough.

There are a surprising number of such people. There are some in the UK that I am familiar with. There are some in HK. There are even some people who spent quite a lot of time with WSL but who don't appear very good or who have then altered things themselves for whatever reason. The problem is that it is very difficult to see this until you see the real thing, and then it becomes obvious because, as you say, the main idea is missing and coherence is lacking.

 

[KPM]

What's wrong with saying that is that it's highly unlikely, besides he always said he never made any changes.

WSL was very humble, but also very honest. Why would he lie about drastically improving the system? His lineage was never in question, so he didn't have to claim pure transmission for that purpose (as some others clearly have).

He always said the system is theoretically "perfect" and doesn't need change, except that BJ may be open-ended and perhaps could be added on to if someone encountered a situation that required something else, it's just that humans are imperfect. So why change something that constantly improves your skill and that you have not yet achieved perfection in? That would only be foolish.

There is a strong Chinese martial art tradition that you don't take credit for things. You always attribute advances to your teacher or some ancestor. This is seen as part of "Mo Duk" and giving respect. The marketing slogan in the west has long been "new and improved!", while the marketing slogan in the east in the past was "old and traditional!". So this goes well with WSL being a humble and traditional person and respecting Ip Man. And like has already been stated, Wing Chun is a based upon principles and concepts, therefore applications can vary with the person. WSL didn't change any of the major principles and concepts, so he could honestly say he was teaching what Ip Man taught him.

Again, the alternative explanation is to assume that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "good" or "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man. I doubt Wong himself would claim that either!!!!

 

[guy b.]

aga
in, the alternative explanation is to assume that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "good" or "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man. I doubt Wong himself would claim that either!!!!

seems highly likely given the contents of wsl compared to others

 

[LFJ]

So this goes well with WSL being a humble and traditional person and respecting Ip Man.

No doubt he respected YM, but he was anything but traditional in his thinking and the way he taught. If he made such a drastic change, for the better, I don't think he'd lie about it. It's incredibly unlikely, if not impossible anyway.

And like has already been stated, Wing Chun is a based upon principles and concepts, therefore applications can vary with the person.

Applications? If people are coming up with varying applications for taan-sau, they haven't understood the system at all.

WSL didn't change any of the major principles and concepts, so he could honestly say he was teaching what Ip Man taught him.

Again, the alternative explanation is to assume that ONLY Wong Shun Leung learned the "good" or "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man. I doubt Wong himself would claim that either!!!!

And yet others differ greatly in their concepts and principles, and their systems are a complete mess, while WSL's is a very coherent systematic development of a simple concept all the way through. Others don't even contain the first idea!

This is stupidly obvious to those who have come to WSL from another lineage, as thousands have, and gained a clear picture of what the VT system is actually developing. Hard to imagine if you haven't seen it perhaps. It's not elitist thinking, just the way things are.

 

[KPM]

seems highly likely given the contents of wsl compared to others

Well there you go! Let's just put Wong Shun Leung out there with William Cheung and Leung Ting as another in a line of people that claim the ONLY he learned the REAL Wing Chun! Is that what you want?

Occam's Razor....the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation. WSL was a talented guy and changed his Wing Chun around to suit himself and improve it for him. Simplest explanation. WSL was the only person the learned the true Wing Chun from Ip Man....very unlikely, and therefore not the simplest explanation.

 

[KPM]

[No doubt he respected YM, but he was anything but traditional in his thinking and the way he taught. If he made such a drastic change, for the better, I don't think he'd lie about it. It's incredibly unlikely, if not impossible anyway.

---"incredibly unlikely" in your opinion. Others may not see it that way.

Applications? If people are coming up with varying applications for taan-sau, they haven't understood the system at all.

----Well, there you go again! WSL lineage in the only one that talks so adamantly against the idea of "applications."