Wing Chun Sparring

[Nobody Important]

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



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



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.



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



Disingenuous.



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.



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.



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.



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



VT is all about maintaining the fight within the VT parameters



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.



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



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



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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

NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

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.

Yes it does, you simply are unable to comprehend it.

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

Again, only according to you and the limited understanding you bring.

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.

You’re mincing words, subjecting and taking out of context. I did not say that it has to function within NORMAL parameters you did. I said outside the parameters of instruction and conform to normal parameters. You aren’t comprehending here. If one uses a method to regain normal parameters, it is a method of correction. A method of correction that relies on the precept of knowing how to regain normal parameters. The method of correction has to know what the standard is if it is to correct itself. To do this it will have to at some point enter back into normal parameters. If not how does it know how or when that course is corrected?

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.

Again, I don’t believe Biu Jee to be “outside” the system, technique, theory or principle wise. In my system it is a full partner. In my view anything “outside” the system isn’t Wing Chun.

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

Disingenuous.

It’s a true statement

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.

Again, only if you view Biu Jee as outside and separate to the system. This may be the method of Ving Tsun, but certainly doesn’t apply to all other branches that don’t ascribe to the belief that your method of Wing Chun is the “correct” one.

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 never claimed that I knew Ving Tsun, I practice Wing Chun. Contrary to your belief, you do not possess the “One Ring That Binds Them All” method of “pure” Wing Chun ideology.

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.

Again, a myopic view. I spoke to Wing Chun as an overview in context to the OP. Comments to WHY many WC practitioners look like “Sloppy Kickboxers”. I offered my input and put forth a solution to the question of how to rectify. The fact that you’ve taken what I’ve said personally as an affront to Ving Tsun methodology is interesting, as I was speaking in generalities. Your rose colored glasses cloud your vision. Your method isn’t the best way, only way or even a progressive way. It’s only your way. It’s limited in scope as long as you continue to pledge blind allegiance to a method that doesn’t allow for anything that questions its dogma.

Wing Chun isn't unique as a martial art, it wasn't created in a vacuum and it isn't more scientific or practical than any other method. To keep implying this is to perpetuate a lie.

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

MMA has its own unique methodology that binds its techniques into a cohesive functional unit. Not fractured bits and bobs that may be useful. The parameters are bound by logical transitions created inside the system that allow for defensive and offensive applications and counters.

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

Here we agree.

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.

I thought Wing Chun was a method of fighting. All martial systems teach you correct and optimized mechanics for Posture, Lifting, Locking, Winding and Releasing within the parameters they set forth. They teach them from the beginning, if not you don’t have a good teacher. These aspects will be reinforced and refined as progression is made. This isn’t contradictory for a beginner, it’s how they should be taught. Constant course correction.

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.

Because of this your view will remain myopic.

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.

Aside from the “Life After Death” movement at the end of Biu Jee, how is anything in it so drastically different from Siu Lim Tau or Chum Kiu that it constitutes classification as an “outside” method? It’s techniques aren’t really any different, it’s theory of use is. A theory that can be applied to any Wing Chun form.

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.

I’ve provided more than enough details throughout my posts. You on the other hand haven’t answered one question in any detail, instead opting to address with rhetoric and biased opinion.

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

Why, its either part of the system or not? We have these methods in my system. Again only applicable to your method. You can’t dismiss it simply because you don’t have it.

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

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?


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.

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



I think it odd that you believe Wing Chun to be a system of forcing and correcting mistakes. I see it as a system of fighting, where Biu Jee is the theory of correcting to regain functional use of Wing Chun mechanics. Chum Kiu as the form containing fighting concepts and Siu Lim Tau as an ideal to achieve. A circular method of refinement for both theory and skill.

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 you believe it altogether useless, I’m OK with that, whatever works for you. Not how I view it.

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

Again, only applicable to your system of Ving Tsun and your awkward logic. You can’t use your narrow-minded, biased and limited view of Wing Chun as a litmus to test all others by, your dogma does not apply to all.

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.


Believe what you want. I’m not here to convince you of anything, nor do I care to argue moot points with a ethnocentric narcissist with a closed minded view of anything that contradicts his beliefs.

This conversation is over. Thank you and have a good day.

 

[KPM]

Nice to see that Guy is still his same old charming self!

 

[Juany118]

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.

Yeah it's kinda sad really. But one of the people who recently started responding in this thread has, more than once stopped arguing method and starting attacking GM Cheung and TWC in general. It gets kinda old actually

 

[Juany118]

NOBODY IMPORTANT SAID: ↑

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.

Yes it does, you simply are unable to comprehend it.

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

Again, only according to you and the limited understanding you bring.

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.

You’re mincing words, subjecting and taking out of context. I did not say that it has to function within NORMAL parameters you did. I said outside the parameters of instruction and conform to normal parameters. You aren’t comprehending here. If one uses a method to regain normal parameters, it is a method of correction. A method of correction that relies on the precept of knowing how to regain normal parameters. The method of correction has to know what the standard is if it is to correct itself. To do this it will have to at some point enter back into normal parameters. If not how does it know how or when that course is corrected?

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.

Again, I don’t believe Biu Jee to be “outside” the system, technique, theory or principle wise. In my system it is a full partner. In my view anything “outside” the system isn’t Wing Chun.

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

Disingenuous.

It’s a true statement

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.

Again, only if you view Biu Jee as outside and separate to the system. This may be the method of Ving Tsun, but certainly doesn’t apply to all other branches that don’t ascribe to the belief that your method of Wing Chun is the “correct” one.

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 never claimed that I knew Ving Tsun, I practice Wing Chun. Contrary to your belief, you do not possess the “One Ring That Binds Them All” method of “pure” Wing Chun ideology.

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.

Again, a myopic view. I spoke to Wing Chun as an overview in context to the OP. Comments to WHY many WC practitioners look like “Sloppy Kickboxers”. I offered my input and put forth a solution to the question of how to rectify. The fact that you’ve taken what I’ve said personally as an affront to Ving Tsun methodology is interesting, as I was speaking in generalities. Your rose colored glasses cloud your vision. Your method isn’t the best way, only way or even a progressive way. It’s only your way. It’s limited in scope as long as you continue to pledge blind allegiance to a method that doesn’t allow for anything that questions its dogma.

Wing Chun isn't unique as a martial art, it wasn't created in a vacuum and it isn't more scientific or practical than any other method. To keep implying this is to perpetuate a lie.

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

MMA has its own unique methodology that binds its techniques into a cohesive functional unit. Not fractured bits and bobs that may be useful. The parameters are bound by logical transitions created inside the system that allow for defensive and offensive applications and counters.

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

Here we agree.

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.

I thought Wing Chun was a method of fighting. All martial systems teach you correct and optimized mechanics for Posture, Lifting, Locking, Winding and Releasing within the parameters they set forth. They teach them from the beginning, if not you don’t have a good teacher. These aspects will be reinforced and refined as progression is made. This isn’t contradictory for a beginner, it’s how they should be taught. Constant course correction.

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.

Because of this your view will remain myopic.

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.

Aside from the “Life After Death” movement at the end of Biu Jee, how is anything in it so drastically different from Siu Lim Tau or Chum Kiu that it constitutes classification as an “outside” method? It’s techniques aren’t really any different, it’s theory of use is. A theory that can be applied to any Wing Chun form.

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.

I’ve provided more than enough details throughout my posts. You on the other hand haven’t answered one question in any detail, instead opting to address with rhetoric and biased opinion.

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

Why, its either part of the system or not? We have these methods in my system. Again only applicable to your method. You can’t dismiss it simply because you don’t have it.

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

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?


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.

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



I think it odd that you believe Wing Chun to be a system of forcing and correcting mistakes. I see it as a system of fighting, where Biu Jee is the theory of correcting to regain functional use of Wing Chun mechanics. Chum Kiu as the form containing fighting concepts and Siu Lim Tau as an ideal to achieve. A circular method of refinement for both theory and skill.

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 you believe it altogether useless, I’m OK with that, whatever works for you. Not how I view it.

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

Again, only applicable to your system of Ving Tsun and your awkward logic. You can’t use your narrow-minded, biased and limited view of Wing Chun as a litmus to test all others by, your dogma does not apply to all.

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.


Believe what you want. I’m not here to convince you of anything, nor do I care to argue moot points with a ethnocentric narcissist with a closed minded view of anything that contradicts his beliefs.

This conversation is over. Thank you and have a good day.

You are responding to the same myopic, and stubborn adherence to dogma (I say dogma because the thought process is far from logical) that resulted in how many pages of "there is only one way to through a bong-sau and that is as a remedial action that rolls out of a tan. Weird that not only GM Cheung but also Sifu Lam sees it as something that can be used as stand alone. I would wager they have forgotten more than we know.

 

[Nobody Important]

You are responding to the same myopic, and stubborn adherence to dogma (I say dogma because the thought process is far from logical) that resulted in how many pages of "there is only one way to through a bong-sau and that is as a remedial action that rolls out of a tan. Weird that not only GM Cheung but also Sifu Lam sees it as something that can be used as stand alone. I would wager they have forgotten more than we know.

I responded to clarify my point and defend my position. No one has to accept it, believe it or adhere to it. It was my perspective alone and I did my best to answer any questions put forth to me. Take what I say with a grain of salt. If anyone gleaned something useful from it, great, if not just the same. As for this conversation I've said more than enough and and am done.

Its not much of a discussion board if people are going to be chided for thinking outside the box and presenting ideas that go against conventional thought. Especially when the proponents of conventional thought complain about why things don't work like they think it should. Only to whinge when presented with other ideas because they can't agree to or accept anything outside their own ideologies.

 

[Juany118]

I responded to clarify my point and defend my position. No one has to accept it, believe it or adhere to it. It was my perspective alone and I did my best to answer any questions put forth to me. Take what I say with a grain of salt. If anyone gleaned something useful from it, great, if not just the same. As for this conversation I've said more than enough and and am done.

Its not much of a discussion board if people are going to be chided for thinking outside the box and presenting ideas that go against conventional thought. Especially when the proponents of conventional thought complain about why things don't work like they think it should. Only to whinge when presented with other ideas because they can't agree to or accept anything outside their own ideologies.

Oh no I completely agree with you and would be chiming in if I wasn't simply going to sound redundant after your well thought out responses.

 

[guy b]

If one uses a method to regain normal parameters, it is a method of correction. A method of correction that relies on the precept of knowing how to regain normal parameters. The method of correction has to know what the standard is if it is to correct itself. To do this it will have to at some point enter back into normal parameters.

Once within normal system parameters then the normal system applies. BJ is about looking at how the system can fail, and what to do about it. Learning this before learning how to operate within normal system parameters is both ineffecive and damaging to the learning process.

VT is a very plainly laid out system which contains various error correcting methods appropriate to different stages of development. Error correction is the heart of the learning process. BJ is not appropriate to the beginner because it relies on knowing the core system.

We have these methods in my system. Again only applicable to your method. You can’t dismiss it simply because you don’t have it.

Then it is either a different system or a broken version of VT. I am not interested in different systems because generally they don't work. Broken VT is obviously not appealing when a working version is available.

I think it odd that you believe Wing Chun to be a system of forcing and correcting mistakes

I find it odd that you would prefer to speculate about something rather than actually learn it. I don't see the appeal. The whole of the VT system involves using other people and equipment to internalise a fighting system which utilises a particular strategy. To this end it contains many attribute building and error correction methods.

The dummy builds attributes and corrects errors. Chi sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Dan chi sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Seung ma tui ma builds attributes and corrects errors. Bong lap and the other drills build attributes and correct errors. Gwoh Sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Poon sau builds attributes and corrects errors.

Doing these at the wrong time or in the wrong order is pointless, because the system is progressive and time dependant.

Biu Jee and parts of the dummy form step outside of the shell of the functional system and look at particular problems and weaknesses, providing solutions to these should they occur.

 

[Nobody Important]

Once within normal system parameters then the normal system applies. BJ is about looking at how the system can fail, and what to do about it. Learning this before learning how to operate within normal system parameters is both ineffecive and damaging to the learning process.

We've already discussed this. Biu Jee is a method of achieving normal parameters, once lost or as a method to refine. You don't have to believe it.

VT is a very plainly laid out system which contains various error correcting methods appropriate to different stages of development. Error correction is the heart of the learning process. BJ is not appropriate to the beginner because it relies on knowing the core system.

Again already discussed, in my system it is part of the core. Doesn't mean you have to agree, understand or accept.

Then it is either a different system or a broken version of VT. I am not interested in different systems because generally they don't work. Broken VT is obviously not appealing when a working version is available.

What do you care? Believe what you want, I'm not trying to persuade or convert you. I have my belief you have yours. I could care less what you think is correct, true or real.

I find it odd that you would prefer to speculate about something rather than actually learn it. I don't see the appeal. The whole of the VT system involves using other people and equipment to internalise a fighting system which utilises a particular strategy. To this end it contains many attribute building and error correction methods.

There has been no speculation on my part, only yours. You are simply to arrogant to recognize that.

The dummy builds attributes and corrects errors. Chi sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Dan chi sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Seung ma tui ma builds attributes and corrects errors. Bong lap and the other drills build attributes and correct errors. Gwoh Sau builds attributes and corrects errors. Poon sau builds attributes and corrects errors.

"Error Correction" as you call it is contextual. There is a dependency on how one performs and reacts as well as how the opponent performs and reacts. If both parties are performing Wing Chun of the same or similar branch, results should be somewhat predictable and correction method identifiable. If one of the participants is using something vastly different for which the above said drills cannot or system cannot account for the "Error Correction" method that is would normally be used is no longer relevant. In your case you head to (in your own words) a separate method (Biu Jee) to correct.

My system doesn't see the need for a confusing two system "Correction" method. Biu Jee is our correction and refinement method. I don't care whether you think it appropriate or not, I don't see the logic in your two method way, so were even.

Doing these at the wrong time or in the wrong order is pointless, because the system is progressive and time dependant.

It is your speculation, based upon a lack of understanding in my system, that you think that the progression is wrong or that it isn't progressive.

Biu Jee and parts of the dummy form step outside of the shell of the functional system and look at particular problems and weaknesses, providing solutions to these should they occur.

If that is how you view and understand it, who am I to tell you otherwise? It is not that generically defined in my system nor is it specifically used for that purpose. Continue to do things as you like, I don't care.

You inquired about my system only to state, without any knowledge of it, how it is incorrect based on your limited, narrow, myopic, ethnocentric and narcissistic minded views of Wing Chun. I've seen the art of VT you practice, and if I am to be honest, I feel that it is a sloppy, disorganized and limited method. But that's just my opinion, don't let my remarks keep you and your ilk from believing that its the "Holy Grail" of Wing Chun.

Please don't bother replying, I truly have no desire to further this discussion with you.

 

[guy b]

your limited, narrow, myopic, ethnocentric and narcissistic minded views of Wing Chun. I've seen the art of VT you practice, and if I am to be honest, I feel that it is a sloppy, disorganized and limited method

There isn't a thing called Wing Chun that is a very variable (yet equally valid) grab bag of whatever you fancy putting in there.

There is YM VT, which is what I practice. It is a functional, coherent and non contradictory system that works in a particular way. There are broken versions of YM VT which are not functional and coherent. And there are other systems, some of which may work and some of which definately don't.

Since you obviously don't practice YM VT, and have a garbled understanding from that perspective, you are practicing one of the other two options. If it is a different system then expecting it to contain common points of reference is a waste of time and we may as well be speaking a foreign language. Discussion is futile in all but the most general terms. If it is a broken version of VT then arguing to defend said non functional thing is a bit pointless, but up to you.

 

[guy b]

your limited, narrow, myopic, ethnocentric and narcissistic minded views of Wing Chun. I've seen the art of VT you practice, and if I am to be honest, I feel that it is a sloppy, disorganized and limited method

Lol at ethnocentric and narcissistic by the way

So far YKS wing chun sounds like it might be a version of VT that was broken a very long time ago? All of these similar terms but garbled understanding.

 

[Juany118]

There isn't a thing called Wing Chun that is a very variable (yet equally valid) grab bag of whatever you fancy putting in there.

There is YM VT, which is what I practice. It is a functional, coherent and non contradictory system that works in a particular way. There are broken versions of YM VT which are not functional and coherent. And there are other systems, some of which may work and some of which definately don't.

Since you obviously don't practice YM VT, and have a garbled understanding from that perspective, you are practicing one of the other two options. If it is a different system then expecting it to contain common points of reference is a waste of time and we may as well be speaking a foreign language. Discussion is futile in all but the most general terms. If it is a broken version of VT then arguing to defend said non functional thing is a bit pointless, but up to you.

So you admit to being closed minded and dogmatic. Thank you. What you wrote above is similar to what a Religious fanatic would say about an opposing sect (Say Catholic vs Baptist or Shi'ite vs Sunni and vice versa)


It's only broken if it doesn't work and my YM WC works is real fights. Can you say you have the same experience? Note I am NOT saying that your YM WC doesn't work, all I am asking is if you can say it works, outside your school and irl street encounters, from personal experience? Because remember YM Wing Chun itself isn't even "real" WC. He changed it, simplified it by most accounts. Thus it is ridiculous on it's face to hold up anything considered YM Lineage as some unalterable holy grail since he himself changed it more than a bit.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Jake104]

If the Wing Chun 'community' would actually free spar. They would see pretty quick that most of it doesn't work in the way they train it. Not all, but a majority never do..

I remember hearing a story of WSL fighting and he got hit from some sorta low strike. So what did he do? He adapted. I think he added the low Gaun Sao back in the SLT? I think I read IP Man took that out? Point is, fighting or sparring shows you these things. Not internet arguing..

If you have the mentality that "my system is complete" go out and see for yourself.. It's probably not. Or at least not yet. Sparring and adaption might get you there? It's definitely a step in the right direction.

GuyB.
What if someone takes you out of that particular way of how your system works, then what? If you can't adapt and are some sorta slave to it, you are going to get hurt.. It's this type of thinking and lack of engagement that really hurts WC and its credibility.

 

[guy b]

GuyB.
What if someone takes you out of that particular way of how your system works, then what? If you can't adapt and are some sorta slave to it, you are going to get hurt.. It's this type of thinking and lack of engagement that really hurts WC and its credibility.

Biu Jee contains various recovery methods. But if you end up grappling with someone then VT is not the place to look for answers. The best thing to do is to learn other non contradictory systems (BJJ is an obvious choice), which cover areas outwith the bubble of VT

 

[guy b]

• 
  Disagree x 1
• List

There isn't another interpretation which is logical. Either you have a different system, or you have a broken VT

 

[KPM]

There isn't another interpretation which is logical. Either you have a different system, or you have a broken VT

Or maybe there are plenty of versions of Wing Chun that aren't quite so narrow in their view. Logic is good. But when logic defines a very narrow path and allows for no deviations from that path it can be a bit limiting. I still maintain that WSLVT is indeed a very logical system. But it got this way by Ip Man starting it down that path, Wong Shun Leung escorting it very far along that path, and guys like Phillip Bayer really putting sign posts on that path to point it out. Now it seems WSLVT lineage people think that it is the only path and have forgotten that there are multiple routes to the same destination.

 

[guy b]

Or maybe there are plenty of versions of Wing Chun that aren't quite so narrow in their view. Logic is good. But when logic defines a very narrow path and allows for no deviations from that path it can be a bit limiting. I still maintain that WSLVT is indeed a very logical system. But it got this way by Ip Man starting it down that path, Wong Shun Leung escorting it very far along that path, and guys like Phillip Bayer really putting sign posts on that path to point it out. Now it seems WSLVT lineage people think that it is the only path and have forgotten that there are multiple routes to the same destination.

WSLPB(Insert initials)VT is YM VT. There isn't another version.

The probability of forming a coherent and internally consistent system from a confused jumble is close to zero. The probability of going in the other direction is very high. It's a numbers game. Think entropy- bombs go off and create rubble. Rubble doesn't spontaneously rebuild itself into useful architecture with an obvious purpose.

For example if a person happens to think that a thing they call the Lap Sau drill, which looks superficially similar to a similarly named drill in YM VT, is actually a beginners application drill then we have a problem. It is very unlikely that YM moved from this general understanding, to the current position of that drill within the VT system, given the understanding it represents and the things it entrains, it's relations to other drills in the system, and the time and development dependent stage where it is introduced in the system. Impossible in fact.

So someone with an application driven understanding of a drill callled Lap Sau that looks like VT Lap sau has either (by some freak chance) developed said drill independently, or they have a broken understanding of what the drill is for and how to use it. Simple really.

It doesn't matter when or where the break happened, and training systems older than YM VT doesn't guarantee coherence.

 

[Juany118]

WSLPB(Insert initials)VT is YM VT. There isn't another version....

And again with the dogma. It actually makes more sense to explain things the way KPM is because more than one of YM's students started teaching on their own and each of them has their own methodology YET each of them also says (or said if they have passed om) "I teach what YM taught me."

You also completely ignore an important point. YM changed WC. He was not teaching the WC he was taught. Over the course of his life he changed things. We have absolutely no real proof of what YM taught, other than what his students say and his students say different things.

So as much as you try to use pseudo-intellectual verbiage to mask that your arguments actually have no supporting evidence, they are actually simply a dogmatic view of WC supported only by fiat statements. Heck more than once in other threads it has been pointed out that Sifus in your lineage actually contradict things you say and you resort to attacking them in a way that would be familiar to a religious fanatic attacking what they see as heretical thought.

 

[Jake104]

Biu Jee contains various recovery methods. But if you end up grappling with someone then VT is not the place to look for answers. The best thing to do is to learn other non contradictory systems (BJJ is an obvious choice), which cover areas outwith the bubble of VT

There is nothing wrong with your answer. Cross training is good.. But let's look at Martial Arts like language.. let's say I have a friend who is hearing impaired. That persons language is still English? Would I learn to speak a different language to communicate? No I would learn to sign in English. So really I would ADAPT to communicate, right? Yes I'm learning something different but I would still be adapting what I already understand to be English..I wouldn't be changing the English language... I would just be expanding my learning. This is how I look at the MArtial Arts..

 

[guy b]

supporting evidence,

Mathematical probability

 

[KPM]

So someone with an application driven understanding of a drill callled Lap Sau that looks like VT Lap sau has either (by some freak chance) developed said drill independently, or they have a broken understanding of what the drill is for and how to use it. Simple really.
.

Simple only in your own very simple and narrow mind. The Lap Sau drill existed before Ip Man. The Lap Sau drill is found in Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun, Sum Nun/Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun, and even in Tang Yik Weng Chun! And that certainly isn't by any "freak chance". So there is a very strong possibility that Ip Man or Wong Shun Leung adapted or adjusted how this drill is understood and performed. Maybe for the better, maybe not. But to say that what others do is "broken" is just plain pompous and narrow-minded.