Wing Chun Sparring

[wckf92]

But what I wrote above is what my Sifu said Tang Yik explained to him.

Speaking of which...did you finish your Tang Yik pole form training yet? Or do you have to do more trips to Asia to conclude it?

 

[Nobody Important]

Speaking of the three forms, etc...isn't it interesting how the first form contains seeds of the other two...perhaps, in essence, giving birth to them?
But, on the other hand, I've always wondered if the original order or methods went like: 3rd form, 2nd form, and finally 1st form. And was it this reason that "they" were able to take aspects (seeds) of BJ and CK and embed them into SLT? Boggles the mind a bit.
I mean, if one looks at life in general...don't we as a species gravitate towards constantly refining stuff until we feel it arrives in its simplest most efficient form?

Systems based on White Crane or influenced by it have a unique theoretical approach to their systems. Looking at Tibetan Crane, Yong Chun Crane, Hung Gar, Goju Ryu, Uechi Ryu and even Wing Chun IMO. These arts all revolve around a foundation set that they view as the beginning and ending of their systems. Its how the foundation set is viewed that sets it apart. Generally in the beginning it is viewed more as a "Body Building" method than anything else with generic Ji Ben exercises and methods assuming the role for basic instruction.This foundation set is then built upon and extrapolated as they progress, which is a standard approach. Much of the generic material used for basic training actually contains simplified advanced elements of training that will be continuously revisited and refined as progression is made. The foundation set is used to reinforce theory whereas the advanced material is used to teach practical application of theory. This is the White Crane method of circular training, where advanced is beginner and beginner is advanced, this is to avoid contradiction later on. It can be confusing if not methodically approached.

 

[anerlich]

Some Wing Chun branches don't have a Biu Jee or Chum Kiu form, opting to instead, integrate the methodology into a version of Siu Lim Tau or something similar. Some branches integrate some of the principles of Biu Jee into Ji Ben training, prior to beginning forms. Seems to me only some of the Yip Man branches have issues with this philosophy.

All the more reason IMO to avoid making huge leaps of logic and wild conjectures about these issues.

 

[Nobody Important]

All the more reason IMO to avoid making huge leaps of logic and wild conjectures about these issues.

Which issues specifically?

 

[Flying Crane]

Systems based on White Crane or influenced by it have a unique theoretical approach to their systems. Looking at Tibetan Crane, Yong Chun Crane, Hung Gar, Goju Ryu, Uechi Ryu and even Wing Chun IMO. These arts all revolve around a foundation set that they view as the beginning and ending of their systems. Its how the foundation set is viewed that sets it apart. Generally in the beginning it is viewed more as a "Body Building" method than anything else with generic Ji Ben exercises and methods assuming the role for basic instruction.This foundation set is then built upon and extrapolated as they progress, which is a standard approach. Much of the generic material used for basic training actually contains simplified advanced elements of training that will be continuously revisited and refined as progression is made. The foundation set is used to reinforce theory whereas the advanced material is used to teach practical application of theory. This is the White Crane method of circular training, where advanced is beginner and beginner is advanced, this is to avoid contradiction later on. It can be confusing if not methodically approached.

Interesting way of putting it. I find that I largely agree with you, but am also curious about what you know about Tibetan White Crane, and which set you understand to be the foundation set. As a Tibetan crane guy myself, I'm curious about your observations on this.

I don't think I ever would have described it in quite this way, but feel your description is largely accurate, when the method is taught properly, which I think it often is not, which is a shame. If it's not taught properly, then people will never understand this. I gave up my involvement with several other systems once I was accepted to study under a teacher who could teach me properly, and the 5 or so years I spent with him were more valuable by far, than the 20+ years of training that I had prior to then. Training with him completely changed my perspective and I no longer saw value in pursuing the other methods that I had been busy with. It streamlined my training and to be honest, was a relief to dump all that other baggage.

 

[KPM]

Speaking of which...did you finish your Tang Yik pole form training yet? Or do you have to do more trips to Asia to conclude it?

No, its a long form and essentially its own system all unto itself. It will take a few more trips to Hong Kong!

 

[Nobody Important]

Interesting way of putting it. I find that I largely agree with you, but am also curious about what you know about Tibetan White Crane, and which set you understand to be the foundation set. As a Tibetan crane guy myself, I'm curious about your observations on this.

I don't think I ever would have described it in quite this way, but feel your description is largely accurate, when the method is taught properly, which I think it often is not, which is a shame. If it's not taught properly, then people will never understand this. I gave up my involvement with several other systems once I was accepted to study under a teacher who could teach me properly, and the 5 or so years I spent with him were more valuable by far, than the 20+ years of training that I had prior to then. Training with him completely changed my perspective and I no longer saw value in pursuing the other methods that I had been busy with. It streamlined my training and to be honest, was a relief to dump all that other baggage.

My answer will not be applicable to all branches of Pak Hok Pai, but I will attempt a generalization.

Tough question actually, as it is going to vary on the branch of Lion's Roar. What the foundation is for Hop Gar (Deng & Ng) will not be the same for Pak Hok Pai or Lama Pai (Lo & Chan). I would surmise that for most branches of Pak Hok Pai that the central foundation set would be Chut Yap Bo, though Luk Lik Kuen is the set that actually sets a foundation for the six strengths used throughout the system. So in a sense Luk Lik Kuen would be the set that introduces concepts that are built upon later. But Chut Yap Bo being composed of two sets (Flying Crane & Shooting Stars), expands upon what is learned in Luk Lik Kuen and is the main form that expresses the concepts and theories of the art, to the point where Fei Hok Kuen (Flying Crane Fist) can even be performed in Cotton Needle fashion.

 

[anerlich]

Which issues specifically?

Bil Jee's origins, whether its techniques are "core" or not, whether it should be taught first, etc.

 

[Nobody Important]

Bil Jee's origins, whether its techniques are "core" or not, whether it should be taught first, etc.

Gotcha, wasn't exactly clear what you were referring to, thanks.

 

[David Langford]

I practice Wing Chun, but I've been training Southern Shaolin longer, my Shaolin teacher taught me that correct form isn't for being pretty, correct form is for having the most technical advantages. So I totally agree with the opening post, I always strive to have correct form and not give in to wild random flailing.

 

[David Langford]

But face punching in any ole way? Are boxers taught to keep good form when fighting? Are they taught to keep a good guard? Are they taught good biomechanics for power generation? Are those things recognizable as "boxing" when in the ring? Is the boxing coach critical of good form in training and then just tells his fighter to do whatever the heck he wants in the ring? Or are boxers expected to adhere to the form and mechanics that their coach has been training them on in the gym? Does that form and those mechanics "look" a certain way that lets an observer know they are doing them as trained? Can you tell when a boxer is being "sloppy" and using poor technique just by watching?????

Yes! Boxing has a specific and correct form for body movement, striking, and footwork. Kung fu also has a specific and correct form for body movement, striking, and footwork. I don't understand why kung fu is not allowed to have its own correct nature.

It's not about looking pretty, the correct outward form simply gives the best technical advantages in a fight if trained properly.

 

[Flying Crane]

My answer will not be applicable to all branches of Pak Hok Pai, but I will attempt a generalization.

Tough question actually, as it is going to vary on the branch of Lion's Roar. What the foundation is for Hop Gar (Deng & Ng) will not be the same for Pak Hok Pai or Lama Pai (Lo & Chan). I would surmise that for most branches of Pak Hok Pai that the central foundation set would be Chut Yap Bo, though Luk Lik Kuen is the set that actually sets a foundation for the six strengths used throughout the system. So in a sense Luk Lik Kuen would be the set that introduces concepts that are built upon later. But Chut Yap Bo being composed of two sets (Flying Crane & Shooting Stars), expands upon what is learned in Luk Lik Kuen and is the main form that expresses the concepts and theories of the art, to the point where Fei Hok Kuen (Flying Crane Fist) can even be performed in Cotton Needle fashion.

Not a bad answer. Where is your information/experience coming from?

I would suggest that Lok lik Kuen is by far the most important set, tho I think a lot of people would disagree because it is so "simple", being "only" a series of six different punches done in a row and return. But that simplicity establishes the foundational rotation driven by the legs that the entire system is built upon. Of course the fundamentals are established in the basic practice of the Chay San rotation practice and manifests in practice of basic punches, but that set then takes those fundamentals and tweeks them into something directly functional and less theoretical. By the way, Sifu feels most people misunderstand the Six Power to be in reference to the six punching techniques practiced in that set. He feels the real meaning is that the set gives you awareness of the six directions from which an enemy can attack and you must defend: Front, Back, Left, Right, Up, and Down.

The other sets, starting with chuit yap bo apply those fundamentals in a wider variety of ways, giving examples of how to use them in any situation, including smaller movements. Incidentally, we do CYB as one long form, but if broken into two shorter sets we simply refer to them as CYB and the second half is Dae Saat (not sure if I'm spelling that correctly) which i believe means something like Ground Spirit/Demon.

As for the Shooting Star Fist, Sifu uses that term to describe the beginner level curriculum, which is Lok lik Kuen (basic level), CYB, Tit Lin Kuen, and Pak Hok Kuen. This is where the student learns speed in his techniques and that is what Shooting Star refers to.

The Flying Crane Fist he uses in reference to the intermediate curriculum, which is Siu Kum Kong Kuen, Siu Lohan Kuen, and Siu Ng Hing Kuen. This is means the long fist techniques, solidifying full body connection through big movements.

We don't have sets that are actually named Flying Crane, nor Shooting Star. I wonder if there may have been an older curriculum that used those names, and that was morphed into the current series. If so, my guess is that would have been done by Ng Siu-Chung, who established the Bak Hok lineage as separate from Hop Gar. Either way, I don't remember sifu ever saying such a thing and he makes no mention of it in his books, to my recollection.

Cotton Needle is the last set. People think it's White Crane's taiji, but it isn't. Instead it takes the principles of the system, the rooted power and the rotation, and puts them into a compact form done slowly and deliberately and methodically. It is practicing the same thing, the same principles, but refined and without the big movement. Of course smaller movement is in the system well before cotton needle, but from what I've seen, that's cotton needle. Sifu never talks about it in terms of taiji, or qi development and such. I believe he has said straight out, it's not taiji. I've not learned the set, but I've seen my sihing practice it many times with Sifu's guidance and the connected discussions, and I've seen Sifu do it many times as well, so I've definitely got some familiarity with it.

 

[guy b]

You state that the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun. That those who believe that “larger” movements can be refined to “smaller” movements are mistaken. Yet you go on to state that Biu Jee is a method used to regain core mechanics and movement. I agree that it is, but how can it be a recovery method that leads back to what is considered “proper” without correction, redirection and refinement?

This appears to be a non sequitur.

Before a student begins the study of Wing Chun, they do not have Wing Chun movement, mechanics and structure. It is through the study of Wing Chun that they gain these things. My point all along has been, that while learning the movement of Wing Chun, a student will consistently violate the “core” by breaking structure and mechanics, lose power and balance in the course of their learning, etc. How do they recover to proper form? If Biu Jee is a method of recovering to regain proper “core mechanics”, why is this methodology not being taught from the onset? If it’s not being used, then what is being used to teach them to do this? Are people using another method, or are they outright ignoring the methodology presented in Biu Jee? Everything is about the “core”, focusing on maintaining this core is a priority, but during the process of learning failure to maintain it will occur, what method is used (that adheres to the methodology of the system) if it is not the methodology of Biu Jee?

VT is a system that works by building upon a foundation, not by chipping away at an unformed rock. Functioning VT has everything working within the VT system parameters. Methods of recovery found in BJ step outside of the normal parameters of VT. During training recovery is possible within those parameters, and BJ not required (and in fact confusing). The point of VT training is to build the VT parameter set within the mind and body of the practitioner. Once that is functional, then the practitioner looks outside of it. Not before.

If the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun (as you state), how then, can Biu Jee be said to be a method of recovery?

I don't see the logic here. BJ contains recovery methods not within the parameters of normal VT

no one enters into Wing Chun already “knowing” how to perform its techniques, utilize its theory or apply its structure, they are outside the core mechanics. Through practice they refine their “big” movement to proper “small” movement, incorrect to correct. And will need constant redirection and reinforcement of collapsed, compromised and poor structure to regain proper core mechanics as they stray. Is that not the purpose of Biu Jee?

No that is not the purpose of BJ. VT is a step by step process of building with progress and time dependent stages which need to be trained in the right order, at the right time, and in the correct way in order to work.

BJ is not a long fist form that can be boiled down to yield the refined VT system, and VT is not a system that is erroneously trained in reverse. This idea comes from other systems, like those described in posts above. BJ trained before the core is made will break the core system.

There has to be a method to follow in order to correct, if Biu Jee isn’t this method of redirecting to right our course from the beginning, then what method is?

You are confusing the training method of VT which contains its own error correcting methods in terms of building a functional core, with a form which is about stepping outside of the VT core to see what can go wrong, and how mistakes can be recovered.

 

[guy b]

Some Wing Chun branches don't have a Biu Jee or Chum Kiu form, opting to instead, integrate the methodology into a version of Siu Lim Tau or something similar. Some branches integrate some of the principles of Biu Jee into Ji Ben training, prior to beginning forms. Seems to me only some of the Yip Man branches have issues with this philosophy.

Different systems do different things. YM VT doesn't do this.

 

[wingchun100]

Might be worth remembering that Bil Jee was originally a jealously guarded secret. You had to be training for many years before you got exposed to it. I've met a number of people I regarded as having pretty good fighting skills, including wing Chun skills, that were never taught it.

People used to tell my first Sifu that he ought to make people engage in some kind of old school "tea ceremony" or something to that effect before he taught people BJ. Oh, and he should also ask them for a LOT of money up front too.

 

[wingchun100]

Different systems do different things. YM VT doesn't do this.

And different systems also teach different moves in the forms. For example, I have seen videos of William Cheung doing kicks and stepping during his BJ.

By the way, I know that is one name around here that seems to inspire anger. I do not mean to do that, nor do I intend to say anything about his teaching, claims that only he knows the true WC, or anything of that nature. I am merely invoking his name to illustrate a point related to the topic at hand.

Why did I follow up with all of that? Because I have been jumped on for bringing up his name before.

 

[Nobody Important]

This appears to be a non sequitur.



VT is a system that works by building upon a foundation, not by chipping away at an unformed rock. Functioning VT has everything working within the VT system parameters. Methods of recovery found in BJ step outside of the normal parameters of VT. During training recovery is possible within those parameters, and BJ not required (and in fact confusing). The point of VT training is to build the VT parameter set within the mind and body of the practitioner. Once that is functional, then the practitioner looks outside of it. Not before.



I don't see the logic here. BJ contains recovery methods not within the parameters of normal VT



No that is not the purpose of BJ. VT is a step by step process of building with progress and time dependent stages which need to be trained in the right order, at the right time, and in the correct way in order to work.

BJ is not a long fist form that can be boiled down to yield the refined VT system, and VT is not a system that is erroneously trained in reverse. This idea comes from other systems, like those described in posts above. BJ trained before the core is made will break the core system.



You are confusing the training method of VT which contains its own error correcting methods in terms of building a functional core, with a form which is about stepping outside of the VT core to see what can go wrong, and how mistakes can be recovered.

NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

You state that the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun. That those who believe that “larger” movements can be refined to “smaller” movements are mistaken. Yet you go on to state that Biu Jee is a method used to regain core mechanics and movement. I agree that it is, but how can it be a recovery method that leads back to what is considered “proper” without correction, redirection and refinement?

This appears to be a non sequitur.


This only holds true if you are looking at the premise from a myopic perspective. An unwillingness to approach the premise with a perspective outside of your belief doesn’t make the conclusion invalid. The context of the argument I laid forth is valid, and from this perspective the conclusion is logical.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

Before a student begins the study of Wing Chun, they do not have Wing Chun movement, mechanics and structure. It is through the study of Wing Chun that they gain these things. My point all along has been, that while learning the movement of Wing Chun, a student will consistently violate the “core” by breaking structure and mechanics, lose power and balance in the course of their learning, etc. How do they recover to proper form? If Biu Jee is a method of recovering to regain proper “core mechanics”, why is this methodology not being taught from the onset? If it’s not being used, then what is being used to teach them to do this? Are people using another method, or are they outright ignoring the methodology presented in Biu Jee? Everything is about the “core”, focusing on maintaining this core is a priority, but during the process of learning failure to maintain it will occur, what method is used (that adheres to the methodology of the system) if it is not the methodology of Biu Jee?

VT is a system that works by building upon a foundation, not by chipping away at an unformed rock.


In order to lay the foundation for the student you have to mold them first. Semantics, when building a house, you start with the foundation and create by adding to, when sculpting a rock, you create by chipping away. Add or remove will vary depending on which process you prefer, both can be used to build.


Functioning VT has everything working within the VT system parameters. Methods of recovery found in BJ step outside of the normal parameters of VT.


How can using a method to correct course be outside the parameters of instruction? Again, if Biu Jee is about regaining what is lost, the recovery method has to be able to conform to the “normal” parameters of the system. Otherwise it’ll never conform or fit, hence, correction to “proper” form will never occur.


During training recovery is possible within those parameters, and BJ not required (and in fact confusing).


So what you’re saying is you use a different method of recovery. That’s fine, then no need for Biu Jee.


The point of VT training is to build the VT parameter set within the mind and body of the practitioner. Once that is functional, then the practitioner looks outside of it. Not before.


Those new to Wing Chun are already looking at it from the outside. Why study Wing Chun, learn its “Rules” only to later violate them by learning an add on that’s outside of its parameters? Here is my disagreement, I don’t believe Biu Jee to lie outside of “normal” Wing Chun parameters. I view it as unrefined Wing Chun parameters. Otherwise, what purpose does it serve to learn two sets of rules? One that contradicts the other. Shouldn’t instruction be progressive, cohesive, logical and functional? The goal isn’t to find something functional to disregard it, it is to maintain it. It appears that our disagreement is centered around my belief that Biu Jee is a method of refining & correcting to maintain “functional” parameters when lost, while you believe it to be a separate methodology.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

If the movements in Biu Jee do not boil down to core movements in Wing Chun (as you state), how then, can Biu Jee be said to be a method of recovery?

I don't see the logic here. BJ contains recovery methods not within the parameters of normal VT


Have you ever considered that maybe perhaps Ving Tsun cannot be held as the standard for all Wing Chun methods? When you look at something with a myopic view, nothing else can be seen as “correct” because of your prejudice and bias. Just because you do not believe that Biu Jee does not contain recovery methods found within the normal parameters of Wing Chun, doesn’t make it true.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

no one enters into Wing Chun already “knowing” how to perform its techniques, utilize its theory or apply its structure, they are outside the core mechanics. Through practice they refine their “big” movement to proper “small” movement, incorrect to correct. And will need constant redirection and reinforcement of collapsed, compromised and poor structure to regain proper core mechanics as they stray. Is that not the purpose of Biu Jee?

No that is not the purpose of BJ. VT is a step by step process of building with progress and time dependent stages which need to be trained in the right order, at the right time, and in the correct way in order to work.


Says who, you? Instead of dismissing my view as incorrect usage, how about explaining why it isn’t. I too, believe that progression is built through calculated stages. Your argument is based upon the premise that my view of Biu Jee is incorrect, by simply dismissing it, not by addressing it. I have presented a logical approach that works within the context I laid out. Its premise is based upon the methodology of Biu Jee as being within the functional parameters of Wing Chun. If you cannot accept that it is so, state why and back it up without the rhetoric.

BJ is not a long fist form that can be boiled down to yield the refined VT system, and VT is not a system that is erroneously trained in reverse. This idea comes from other systems, like those described in posts above. BJ trained before the core is made will break the core system.


I never said it was a long fist form. Here is my post in response to Geezer, it should clarify my position.


I'm not suggesting teaching the forms in reverse order per say, as much as I'm suggesting that the methodology of what lies in those forms. My rant about San Chin & SLT being the beginning & end of their perspective systems still holds true. I just believe in introducing some of the key concepts of Biu Jee early on. Things like moving, bobbing & weaving, elbows etc. These are things the student will return too, just as they will build upon the techniques learned in SNT.

No need to go outside the system, when these "bigger" body movements are already in the system. I simply feel it important for beginners to WC to have practical applicable movement from the start. Even if clumsy & awkward, it can be refined through SNT.

Not all branches of WC have dedicated Ji Ben exercises that teach them simple "boxing like" skills from the start. Exercises like bending waist (simple uprooting exercise based on emergency waist bend & iron half bridge), 12 San Sik (based on theory of position, bridge, control, hit, return), 8 San Sik ( based on common movements in SNT & BJ), gates drills (based on EWBIHB, Pak Sau, bong sau & gate punching). All these exercises use a lot of movement and are partner drills, & based mostly off of the methodology found in BJ, yet contain techniques from SNT. All learned before starting SNT in my lineage. We use SNT to refine, not teach, if that makes sense.


NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

There has to be a method to follow in order to correct, if Biu Jee isn’t this method of redirecting to right our course from the beginning, then what method is?

You are confusing the training method of VT which contains its own error correcting methods in terms of building a functional core, with a form which is about stepping outside of the VT core to see what can go wrong, and how mistakes can be recovered.

You’re talking in circles. No one willingly violates their structure “just to see what happens”, it just happens, mistakes occur. To have two recovery methods to regain and correct isn’t necessary. If you are using a separate method for regaining the parameters taught in SLT & CK, what use is Biu Jee?

Even if you are flailing around like you’re having a seizure, only one methodology is necessary to regain functional parameters. Do you use Biu Jee to change to a different set of parameters? If so, why? Shouldn’t you seek to regain functional parameters instead of something that would be considered to violate functional parameters?

Or do you believe that sometimes Wing Chun mechanics fail and that Biu Jee is a separate art that can help you overcome? If so what use is Wing Chun, when you could use something else that doesn’t rely on abandoning the functional core of its methodology?

Any recovery should seek to regain a functional core. Biu Jee is that methodology and is found throughout the system. Seems to me your looking at technique, not principal, and trying to justify a lack of understanding of what Biu Jee is. Biu Jee is not something separate in my Wing chun, it is a part of the art in every sense and its methodology of recovery is taught from the beginning. It is the only method used to teach one how to recover when operating outside “functional parameters”.

 

[Nobody Important]

Different systems do different things. YM VT doesn't do this.

Which makes your view myopic and biased.

 

[anerlich]

And different systems also teach different moves in the forms. For example, I have seen videos of William Cheung doing kicks and stepping during his BJ.

By the way, I know that is one name around here that seems to inspire anger. I do not mean to do that, nor do I intend to say anything about his teaching, claims that only he knows the true WC, or anything of that nature. I am merely invoking his name to illustrate a point related to the topic at hand.

Why did I follow up with all of that? Because I have been jumped on for bringing up his name before.

The TWC Bil Jee form does include kicks and stepping, yes. I've been training in TWC since 1989, and trained with a Cheung student who parted company with him in the late 1970s.

He's an outspoken character, more in the centre of a couple of storms 20-30 years ago. If that (still) makes someone angry, they need a hobby or a pet or a girlfriend or something.

 

[guy b]

This only holds true if you are looking at the premise from a myopic perspective. An unwillingness to approach the premise with a perspective outside of your belief doesn’t make the conclusion invalid. The context of the argument I laid forth is valid, and from this perspective the conclusion is logical

Nothing to do with perspective, more to do with logic. Conclusion doesn't follow premise in a logical sense.

In order to lay the foundation for the student you have to mold them first. Semantics, when building a house, you start with the foundation and create by adding to, when sculpting a rock, you create by chipping away. Add or remove will vary depending on which process you prefer, both can be used to build.

VT only works in one way. It isn't a grab bag from which you choose what you prefer

How can using a method to correct course be outside the parameters of instruction? Again, if Biu Jee is about regaining what is lost, the recovery method has to be able to conform to the “normal” parameters of the system. Otherwise it’ll never conform or fit, hence, correction to “proper” form will never occur.

VT functions according to certain parameters or rules. BJ goes outside of these parameters and breaks these rules. To regain normal parameters once outside does not require one to function within normal parameters. This is again simply a failure of logic.

So what you’re saying is you use a different method of recovery. That’s fine, then no need for Biu Jee.

Recovery within the VT system; BJ not required. Outside required.

Those new to Wing Chun are already looking at it from the outside.

Disingenuous.

Why study Wing Chun, learn its “Rules” only to later violate them by learning an add on that’s outside of its parameters?

Because that is how the system is designed to work. It is better never to step outside of the core system. BJ asks "what if". This is a good thing, but not a thing for beginners because it confuses and breaks the system.

I don’t believe Biu Jee to lie outside of “normal” Wing Chun parameters.

Then you don't know VT. There are lots of systems a bit like VT that are not VT. I assume you do one of these instead.

I view it as unrefined Wing Chun parameters

Couldn't be more wrong. You appear to have been influenced by other systems and to have assumed VT is the same. It is different.

Otherwise, what purpose does it serve to learn two sets of rules? One that contradicts the other.

See above. No contradiction. Why do MMA fighers learn to fight standing and on the ground? Two diferent sets, different rules and parameters

Shouldn’t instruction be progressive, cohesive, logical and functional? The goal isn’t to find something functional to disregard it, it is to maintain it.

VT is all about maintaining the fight within the VT parameters

It appears that our disagreement is centered around my belief that Biu Jee is a method of refining & correcting to maintain “functional” parameters when lost, while you believe it to be a separate methodology.

The VT system is an error correcting method. This is all it is. Structured, progressive, buliding on foundations. It is a gross misunderstanding to believe that BJ is THE error correcting method of the system. BJ is a particular perspective on the system, one that is not suitable for the beginner with no internalised system at all.

Have you ever considered that maybe perhaps Ving Tsun cannot be held as the standard for all Wing Chun methods?

I am interested in YM VT, not the various other systems calling themselves wing chun.

Just because you do not believe that Biu Jee does not contain recovery methods found within the normal parameters of Wing Chun, doesn’t make it true.

Looking at BJ makes it true. Not a matter of belief.

I have presented a logical approach that works within the context I laid out. Its premise is based upon the methodology of Biu Jee as being within the functional parameters of Wing Chun.

I don't believe you have done this. You say it is true, but you don't provide any detail.

Things like moving, bobbing & weaving, elbows etc. These are things the student will return too, just as they will build upon the techniques learned in SNT.

Not part of core VT. Encouraging a student to internalise this kind of thing only damages their learning

No one willingly violates their structure “just to see what happens”

The VT system is all about forcing and correcting mistakes. It is an error correcting system. That you don't know this is, frankly, very odd.

To have two recovery methods to regain and correct isn’t necessary. If you are using a separate method for regaining the parameters taught in SLT & CK, what use is Biu Jee?

VT is an error correction method for fighting within the VT system parameters. BJ is error correction methods for situations outside the VT system

do you believe that sometimes Wing Chun mechanics fail and that Biu Jee is a separate art that can help you overcome? If so what use is Wing Chun, when you could use something else that doesn’t rely on abandoning the functional core of its methodology?

BJ useless on its own. Only useful as a way to get back to VT

Seems to me your looking at technique, not principal

The opposite I would say. You don't appear to know what the system is, or the underlying principles. BJ not in accord with these

Biu Jee is not something separate in my Wing chun, it is a part of the art in every sense and its methodology of recovery is taught from the beginning. It is the only method used to teach one how to recover when operating outside “functional parameters”.

Sounds like a different system. One that is unlikely to work.