Wing Chun & Jeet Kune Do

[geezer]

Juany: Most, if not all of the "current" WSLVT practitioners who post around here study at one of the schools under the PB umbrella and something related to that...

LFJ: I was not aware of this. Which such posters do we have?

You know, I was under pretty much the same impression as Juany. Now there have been hundreds of posts on the subject, and I have only read a limited portion, and don't remember them, so I would appreciate clarification from you and the other WSL-VT practitioners posting here. But from reading posts here and exploring the internet, I got the impression that some of the best known instructors publicly promoting the WSL-VT lineage include Philip Bayer, David Peterson, Gary Lam, Wang Zhi Peng and a few others.

Now LFJ, the most vocal posters on this forum who practice WSL-VT have been you and Guy B (who has recently left us). Also we have had less frequent input from Callen and T-Ray, and more recently some good discussions with Hazardi. Sorry if I missed anyone. As Juany noted, of the people named most have said that they practice something in line with the Philip Bayer version of WSL-VT. I do not remember anybody posting who trains under David Peterson, Gary Lam or Wang Zhi Peng. So that leaves us with posters who strongly adhere to the WSL-VT system as presented by Sifu Bayer.

Indeed, I believe you and Guy have repeatedly insisted that this version of WSL-VT (as practiced by Bayer and some other, less publicly known WSL students) is the correct system and that other interpretations such as Mr. Peterson's, are the result of incomplete, seminar-style training, or like Mr. Lam's VT, are openly modified.

Based on what I've stated above, Juany's comment's quoted above seem fairly accurate. Now, I do not train WSL-VT and to my knowledge there is none available in my area, so I welcome clarification if I've misunderstood.

 

[geezer]

BTW, I see that T-Ray has been following along. Any input would be great.

 

[T_Ray]

Pm sent.

 

[Hazardi172]

I haven't seen Hazardi post on the complete train of logic that follows but it still drives me nuts on occassion as the following train of logic has been expounded up repeatedly with no independent supporting evidence. Said train of logic starting from the present.

1. Only PB WSLVT is actually true WSLVT. His personal issues did not require any alternation or changes in training. All other WSL students either teach something modified or were declared Sifu's by WSL and his organization when they should not have been.

2. WSLVT is the true translation of YMVT/WC. All other Lineages claiming YM descent are incoherent and broken systems.

I haven't been on the forum very long so I don't follow most of your long post. But this bit again has me confused and a bit disturbed (sorry can't think of a better word)

You seem to be saying that I have half said points 1 and 2 above "I haven't seen Hazardi post on the complete train of logic that follows"

1. I don't know how you could have gathered this from my post. I will explicitly say that there are other WSL teachers, who are not Philipp Bayer, who are teaching WSL VT. I will also explicitly say that Gary Lam's and WKL's wing chun has some things added, but that this is not a criticism, it just is a fact. They and their students would not see this as a derogatory thing to say.

2. I only have experience with WSL VT, so I don't know anything about any other wing chun. I have NEVER said any system that I don't understand is incoherent and broken!

Please tell me how you reached the point of making the post above? I am very confused how you could read what I wrote this way. Please tell me you are not going on the attack to avoid having to say that you maybe exaggerated about your studies with Gary Lam? You don't forget that there is kicking in CK (or call it by the wrong initials). The more I think about it the stranger this seems

 

[Callen]

I will also explicitly say that Gary Lam's and WKL's wing chun has some things added, but that this is not a criticism, it just is a fact. They and their students would not see this as a derogatory thing to say.

Agreed.

so I would appreciate clarification from you and the other WSL-VT practitioners posting here

I personally do not train under Philipp Bayer or any of his affiliations.

 

[Callen]

but his main teachers were two very prominent Wing Chun Masters.....William Cheung and Wong Shun Leung

It might also be worth noting that William Cheung was Bruce's training partner for only a very short period of time, just before William Cheung left for Australia. They were both teens, and Bruce had not yet even become a serious Martial Artist.

Wong Shun Leung actually continued training Bruce after Cheung's departure for Australia. Wong Shun Leung taught Bruce Lee privately for over one-and-a-half years before Bruce’s departure to US & also watched him train under Yip Man. WSL also trained Bruce Lee at his own home.

 

[Juany118]

I haven't been on the forum very long so I don't follow most of your long post. But this bit again has me confused and a bit disturbed (sorry can't think of a better word)

You seem to be saying that I have half said points 1 and 2 above "I haven't seen Hazardi post on the complete train of logic that follows"

1. I don't know how you could have gathered this from my post. I will explicitly say that there are other WSL teachers, who are not Philipp Bayer, who are teaching WSL VT. I will also explicitly say that Gary Lam's and WKL's wing chun has some things added, but that this is not a criticism, it just is a fact. They and their students would not see this as a derogatory thing to say.

2. I only have experience with WSL VT, so I don't know anything about any other wing chun. I have NEVER said any system that I don't understand is incoherent and broken!

Please tell me how you reached the point of making the post above? I am very confused how you could read what I wrote this way. Please tell me you are not going on the attack to avoid having to say that you maybe exaggerated about your studies with Gary Lam? You don't forget that there is kicking in CK (or call it by the wrong initials). The more I think about it the stranger this seems

No since you haven't been here long I was just trying to give you the background. If you read elsewhere you will see KPM and Geezer at least share the same experience, that we have been confronted by the train of logic I noted. Please do not take that as me saying YOU share that train of the logic.

Next it is simply me saying that I see proof as > fiat statements. As an example, there is proof DP traveled extensively to Honk Kong (though not as much as PB) to study under WSL. DP was also appointed a Sifu by WSL himself. As such if DP lacks a full understanding of WSLVT and PB has full understanding I wish to know on what independent basis this judgement is made. If Gary Lam does this thing different than PB and want to know, again with an independent basis, how that MUST be a modification by GL and not PB.

I am never saying one is right or the other wrong in any categorical sense. What I am saying is if someone is going to say something is wrong, proof must be offered beyond "because my Sifu says." (not saying this is you but others have gone down that road.)

As for GL, I know he added stuff, he admits it, but this is how my brain works...perhaps overly analytical so I will try to bullet point it for clarity.
1. What did he change/add? That isn't on any list. Now his "closing" that includes trapping/standing grappling, is part of just about every YM WC/VT out there in one form or another. I am told this is different from PB. So my logical side says, this is unlikely to be an addition to WSLVT. BUT most PB students will say it is because it isn't part of "their VT."
2. I then look for reasons for undefined differences. We all bring ourselves to our martial art. We even often train with our difference in mind. Case in point I study with a fellow student who suffers from a form of cerebral palsy that effects one of his legs rather severely. Clearly his WC isn't mine. However I know from sparring with him my advantage is my mobility because he punches like a dang truck since he makes up for that weakness where he is strong.

I could go on but that I think is enough to make the following point. What does all of the above tell me? Not who is "right" or "wrong" only that unless the "horses mouth", in this case WSL, can speak, we simply can't know. The best we can do is trust that our Sifu is teaching us an art that will serve us well, no more and no less.

On the other hand we have had people around here, not you, who have said YM taught only WSL his true WC/VT, PB is the ONLY student passing on true WSLVT and all the others are either flawed, incoherent or downright broken. Now I have no issue with such a claim IF it isn't simply a claim. That means presenting verifiable evidence of some sort. I even accept circumstantial evidence if the weight meets the demand required for such. Maybe its a fool's errand in the TMA community but it's how my brain is wired.

 

[Juany118]

It might also be worth noting that William Cheung was Bruce's training partner for only a very short period of time, just before William Cheung left for Australia. They were both teens, and Bruce had not yet even become a serious Martial Artist.

Wong Shun Leung actually continued training Bruce after Cheung's departure for Australia. Wong Shun Leung taught Bruce Lee privately for over one-and-a-half years before Bruce’s departure to US & also watched him train under Yip Man. WSL also trained Bruce Lee at his own home.

I will never deny that Wong Shun Leung taught Bruce Lee longer. BUT I think a video with Guro Dan Inosanto has some weight here. His knowledge of Bruce Lee's life came from Bruce himself. In more than one video Guro Dan calls both Bruce's teachers. My father was a full time teacher now and adjunct. I studied to be one but chose the uniform instead. One thing I know though, is the impact someone can have on your life. If the impact you have is such that you declare someone a teacher of yours to friends, you were a teacher. That isn't a title to be taken lightly. Since WSL was only 5 years older it's not like we are talking different generations here. WSL was there big brother but brother, no doubt.

 

[KPM]

It might also be worth noting that William Cheung was Bruce's training partner for only a very short period of time, just before William Cheung left for Australia. They were both teens, and Bruce had not yet even become a serious Martial Artist.

Wong Shun Leung actually continued training Bruce after Cheung's departure for Australia. Wong Shun Leung taught Bruce Lee privately for over one-and-a-half years before Bruce’s departure to US & also watched him train under Yip Man. WSL also trained Bruce Lee at his own home.

Very true! William Cheung and Bruce Lee were pretty close to the same age. Both were young teenagers at the time. They were much more like "buddies" that did some training together than they were like a student/teacher relationship.

 

[LFJ]

As Juany noted, of the people named most have said that they practice something in line with the Philip Bayer version of WSL-VT...
...So that leaves us with posters who strongly adhere to the WSL-VT system as presented by Sifu Bayer.

Something in line with PB's VT doesn't necessarily have to be from PB.

Plus, those connected to PB who have posted here don't just "study at one of the schools", but are instructors themselves. All the more reason to take their word, rather than tell them what's what in their system when you didn't even get past SNT in a separate and modified version (Juany, obviously, not you).

In fact, the only reason PB's name even comes up on this forum or his VT is discussed, is because you guys always single him out for some reason. Otherwise, we're all speaking on our own behalves, as far as I'm aware. Certainly I have made that clear many times.

 

[LFJ]

train of logic I noted.

That train of logic is a strawman that you have been corrected on numerous times.

It is very dishonest for you to continue to attack this strawman. You should stop.

As an example, there is proof DP traveled extensively to Honk Kong (though not as much as PB) to study under WSL. DP was also appointed a Sifu by WSL himself. As such if DP lacks a full understanding of WSLVT and PB has full understanding I wish to know on what independent basis this judgement is made.

Experience!

That's what you lack entirely and the reason you disappear every time it comes to technical analysis. Timelines and paper mean nothing. WSL didn't "appoint" sifus.

Since you have no experience of what either of them teach, or what WSL taught, I'm not sure how you think you can compare anything here.

If Gary Lam does this thing different than PB and want to know, again with an independent basis, how that MUST be a modification by GL and not PB...

...As for GL, I know he added stuff, he admits it,

You just answered your own question! He admits it!

The rest of your nonsense post is useless because you have no experience with either of their systems. You don't even know what you're comparing, for crying out loud!

If you're actually interested in finding out, go to them directly, ask them, learn. There are also many others who trained with WSL and can confirm what he taught.

If you are unable to make the trip, and don't want to take the word of anyone more experienced than yourself, then it would be great if you would just not talk about WSLVT anymore.

 

[wingchun100]

I wish I could find the interview where Jesse Glover talked about this, but he said how Bruce thought forms were useless, so he would look to people who were more experienced in fighting, like...drum roll please...William Cheung.

 

[Dylan9d]

That train of logic is a strawman that you have been corrected on numerous times.

It is very dishonest for you to continue to attack this strawman. You should stop.



Experience!

That's what you lack entirely and the reason you disappear every time it comes to technical analysis. Timelines and paper mean nothing. WSL didn't "appoint" sifus.

Since you have no experience of what either of them teach, or what WSL taught, I'm not sure how you think you can compare anything here.



You just answered your own question! He admits it!

The rest of your nonsense post is useless because you have no experience with either of their systems. You don't even know what you're comparing, for crying out loud!

If you're actually interested in finding out, go to them directly, ask them, learn. There are also many others who trained with WSL and can confirm what he taught.

If you are unable to make the trip, and don't want to take the word of anyone more experienced than yourself, then it would be great if you would just not talk about WSLVT anymore.

Or maybe he shouldn't stop, this is forum were people can state their opinions. So let him state his opinion.

Dude, don't know if you noticed but you don't own the style/system or whatever so people can say what they want about it.

If you Wing Chun or Ving Tsun or whatever you call it guys would work together and learn from eachother that system would be so much more evolved than what it is at this time.

You guys are actually holding eachother back with two words, the words of Wing Chun/Ving Tsun, "authentic" and "lineage".... words I heard so many times from WC/VT guys.......stop being jerks to eachother and work together.........it's not hard at all......

To keep on topic, the JKD community does the same

 

[LFJ]

you don't own the style/system or whatever so people can say what they want about it.

The problem is Juany has 0 experience in the system he wishes to speak authoritatively on and tells instructors in that system what's what because he googled it. It's incredibly arrogant and insulting.

 

[Callen]

As for GL, I know he added stuff, he admits it, but this is how my brain works...perhaps overly analytical so I will try to bullet point it for clarity.
1. What did he change/add? That isn't on any list. Now his "closing" that includes trapping/standing grappling, is part of just about every YM WC/VT out there in one form or another. I am told this is different from PB. So my logical side says, this is unlikely to be an addition to WSLVT.

There are many doors that can lead to the same place. Gary Lam has kept the core WSLVT principals in his teaching, just like Philipp Bayer. There's a massive difference between adding something to the way you teach, and modifying the subject that you teach.

BUT most PB students will say it is because it isn't part of "their VT."

I would caution you in pitting the mindset of Philipp Bayer students against other WSLVT students. While Philipp Bayer does not teach "closing", I don't think most of his students would have anything to say about it. What is learned from "closing" is still part of the core WSLVT principals. It's the end result and understanding of the system that matters most, not the label of a certain part of any curriculum.

 

[LFJ]

While Philipp Bayer does not teach "closing", I don't think most of his students would have anything to say about it.

Wonder how Juany has anything to say about it if he didn't even get past SNT... DVDs?

 

[Dylan9d]

Wonder how Juany has anything to say about it if he didn't even get past SNT... DVDs?

Maybe stop bitching.....

 

[Hazardi172]

No since you haven't been here long I was just trying to give you the background. If you read elsewhere you will see KPM and Geezer at least share the same experience, that we have been confronted by the train of logic I noted. Please do not take that as me saying YOU share that train of the logic.

I don't have any interest in past arguments. I have nothing to do with it and don't want to have anything to do with it

Next it is simply me saying that I see proof as > fiat statements.

What is a fiat statement? If by proof you mean things that are available on the internet then I think personal experience is worth much more than that. There isn't much info on WSL VT available on the internet . If you tell me something about your wing chun then I am not going to argue it with you.

As an example, there is proof DP traveled extensively to Honk Kong (though not as much as PB) to study under WSL. DP was also appointed a Sifu by WSL himself. As such if DP lacks a full understanding of WSLVT and PB has full understanding I wish to know on what independent basis this judgement is made. If Gary Lam does this thing different than PB and want to know, again with an independent basis, how that MUST be a modification by GL and not PB.

If you mean David Peterson then he himself will tell you that he doesn't have as much experience in VT as Philipp Bayer does. We don't need to check his old flight tickets to HK to see this- just listen to what he says and look at what he does. Again it isn't insulting to David Peterson to say that he isn't the very most experienced and best, top, most gifted of WSL's students, it is just a fact, plainly observable if you have eyes. Nobody is "appointed a sifu" of WSL VT! DP does bring a lot to the table though, for example he has some excellent articles and even I think a book about WSL VT.

I don't understand why you are telling me about this stuff, please stop. Nobody here is saying the things you are complaining about. I don't even think there is a student of Philipp Bayer here?

As for GL, I know he added stuff, he admits it, but this is how my brain works...perhaps overly analytical so I will try to bullet point it for clarity.
1. What did he change/add? That isn't on any list. Now his "closing" that includes trapping/standing grappling, is part of just about every YM WC/VT out there in one form or another. I am told this is different from PB. So my logical side says, this is unlikely to be an addition to WSLVT. BUT most PB students will say it is because it isn't part of "their VT."

Gary Lam has his teaching curriculum on his website I think? You can compare it with a standard WSL VT teaching progression if you really want to. Or you could even ask Gary Lam. I don't think he keeps it as any kind of secret.

On the other hand we have had people around here, not you, who have said YM taught only WSL his true WC/VT, PB is the ONLY student passing on true WSLVT and all the others are either flawed, incoherent or downright broken. Now I have no issue with such a claim IF it isn't simply a claim. That means presenting verifiable evidence of some sort. I even accept circumstantial evidence if the weight meets the demand required for such. Maybe its a fool's errand in the TMA community but it's how my brain is wired.

Nobody here is saying this thing?!? I am confused

 

[KPM]

Most, if not all of the "current" WSLVT practitioners who post around here study at one of the schools under the PB umbrella

---To be fair, I don't think all of the WSL guys here have claimed to be in PB lineage students. But the vocal ones have certainly endorsed PB as the best example of WSLVT.


1. Only PB WSLVT is actually true WSLVT. His personal issues did not require any alternation or changes in training.

---See above about the "only" part. But this has most certainly been said here multiple times if you leave out "only". And this is definitely NOT a "strawman"!


All other WSL students either teach something modified or were declared Sifu's by WSL and his organization when they should not have been.

---I don't think we can go that far. LFJ has stated that other WSL instructors do things very similarly to PB and are considered "legitimate." Just not David Petersen evidently! Or Gary Lam! Or Wang Zhan Ping! Etc. ;-)


2. WSLVT is the true translation of YMVT/WC. All other Lineages claiming YM descent are incoherent and broken systems.

---No, only all lineages that LFJ and Guy B. are aware of! They have said that there MIGHT be other Ip Man lineages out there that are not "broken", they just haven't encountered them yet! And THAT has been stated here more than once! Again, no "strawman" here either!

---So I don't think Juany's post was too far off, and is fairly accurate in its summary of how WSLVT has been portrayed in this forum by Guy B. and LFJ. Other WSL people here like Callen and Lobo/Sean have been much more reasonable in their discussions.

 

[DanT]

I'm in a pretty unique situation because I study wing chun under a Sifu who studied under Wong shun Leung, chu shon ting, and moy yat, plus my Sifu is a white crane Grandmaster and studied Northern shaolin under two different Sifus, so we get some variety in our training especially our sparring. That being said in terms of kicks we practice:

-front kick
-side kick
-round kick
-hook kick
-turning back kick
-wheel kick
-sweep
There's a couple more but those are the main ones we do, and although in class we kick high for flexibility and power training, in application we kick low typically. Generally students will know all these kicks after a couple months.