Wing Chun Sparring
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
Incredibly unlikely in probabilistic terms that YM took a load of non functional garbage and made it into a fully coherent and non contradictory fighting system. Incredibly unlikely. Much more likely that what happened was in the opposite direction. Irrelevant when the system break happened; YM obviously avoided it.
Juany118
Senior Master
You need a basic structure/foundation as a basis for mathematical probabilities to be calculated with any validity. In this case this structure has to be founded in practical application in real life. Post after post you have shown to be limited to the dogmatic theories inside your own school with little, if any, experience in real life application. Of course when sparing against someone using the exact same theory your way will seem THE way if you mind is closed to other possibilities, as yours clearly is but this dogmatic approach that you use creates a fatal flaw and this your "mathematical probabilities" end up being improbable in reality.
The best evidence for this is from your posts in response to others pointing out Sifu's in your own Lineage who contradict more than a couple of the ideas you have posted.
Last edited:
You need math to get a mathematical probability.
What you are stating is random text. Random text does not provide much in terms of statistical probability. In that regard we have one person stating one thing and multiple people stating something opposing that thought. In terms of probability it is likely you are wrong.
Why do you guys even waste your breath? Sheesh!
And for the record, I train YM VT too, but not the WSL lineage. Yip Man used the VT spelling. Any lineage coming from YM and recognized by the old Hong Kong Ving Tsun Athletic Assn. may be considered VT. Guy thinks any method other than WSL-PB-VT is flawed. He has said this so many times. OK then. Conversation over.
BTW who trained him again???
And for the record, I train YM VT too, but not the WSL lineage. Yip Man used the VT spelling. Any lineage coming from YM and recognized by the old Hong Kong Ving Tsun Athletic Assn. may be considered VT. Guy thinks any method other than WSL-PB-VT is flawed. He has said this so many times. OK then. Conversation over.
BTW who trained him again???
anerlich
Brown Belt
Assuming you accept the premises, this is in the ballpark of the second law of thermodynamics. Things are way more likely to go from organised to random in a closed system rather than the reverse, Much the same as the probability of an ice cube spontaneously forming in a glass of water at room temperature. Not totally impossible, but extremely improbable. Older readers may remember the Infinite Improbability drive from H2G2.
Assuming you accept the premises, and that this is an argument worth having.
But I have never said that
I have said is that YM VT is an internally consistent and non contradictory system that works. It has a particular strategy for fighting which is readily available to anyone in written form. WSL VT is YM VT
I have also used an argument from probability against the idea that YM VT derived from a non internally consistent and/or incoherent system
There is nothing in what I have said that denies other functional, non-contradictory and internally consistent systems also exist that are not VT. BJJ is an obvious example. There are also examples in Chinese MA. There are recently formulated examples and examples from a long time ago.
What I don't accept is that systems calling themseves wing chun which contain contradictions or inconsistencies are something I need to accept as equally valid and workable. These are broken, and pointing out the way in which they are broken is not wong, arrogant, selfish or anything else. It is just a case of noticing reality instead of ignoring it.
I have never denied that non-broken VT may exist that I am not aware of, from either before or after the time of YM. All of you (apart from KPM) may in fact be practicing such VT.
Mathematical ideas can be expounded verbally, as in this case
Juany118
Senior Master
No you haven't. Expounding upon a mathematical principle occurs after you have proven the validity of the math and you have yet to do this. Hell you have yet to even present faulty math. The premise of every single post you make is founded in a faith based assumption.
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
There is a probabilistic argument is this thread. If you don't recognise it then you probably aren't going to be the best person to talk to about it
Juany118
Senior Master
No there isn't. You attempt to create the illusion of one through fiat statements. I hey aren't the same but you likely don't see the truth due to strict adherence to dogma devoid of independent testing.
moonhill99
Brown Belt
This was something that came up in another thread, so it probably got missed by many people who weren't following that thread. But it seemed like a good topic for its own discussion, so I'm starting a new thread!
My viewpoint: Sparring should not be seen as a thing unto itself. It should be seen as a platform for training, just like Chi Sau is a platform for training. Everyone realizes that good technique goes to sh!t under pressure. Sparring is the opportunity to put a student under pressure and see what goes to sh!t. Then he knows what he needs to go back and work on. If you saw someone bobbing and weaving, breaking center, giving up their structure, etc in Chi Sau....wouldn't you point these things out as something to work on? Something that needs improvement? Why is it any different when it comes to sparring? Why does everyone get all offended if someone points out how they are losing their Wing Chun structure and technique when sparring? Are you training Wing Chun? Or are you training to be a good sparrer? Why do we have such a high standard for Wing Chun in our forms and drills and such a low standard for Wing Chun when it comes to sparring? Any good martial art should strive to train the way it fights and fight the way it trains. Sparring is a great environment to bring all those hours of training to the fight. But if you start being content with resorting to sloppy kickboxing, then you are wasting all those hours of training. Now, one might very well find adjustments and modifications to their Wing Chun that are more successful in sparring. That's great and how things progress and evolve! But if you aren't then going back and putting those modifications into your training, again you are wasting time and not training efficiently.
And I will assert that....yes....it should actually look somewhat like Wing Chun in action! I'm NOT saying it has to be "picture perfect" Wing Chun as trained in the forms and drills. But someone with even passing familiarity with Wing Chun should be able to recognize it....just like if they have even a passing familiarity with western boxing, kickboxing, or Muay Thai they would recognize those arts in the ring. I think that if you put a Wing Chun guy in a sparring situation with a kickboxer and neutral observer can't tell who is who...then the Wing Chun probably needs to work on his technique!
So really, the key question to ask is this: Are you training Wing Chun? Or are you training to be good at sparring? (general question for everyone)
So you want more action fighting Wing Chun like this Tampa bay area school?
You want more fighting and fast movements? Not drilling and trapping?
Danny T
Senior Master
Very little fighting. A lot of flash, drilling and trapping.
Demo and marketing videos not sparring or fighting.
I'm not claiming that YM VT is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. Just making an argument based on probabilities
I am wondering why anyone wants to train at a school after seeing those demos. Do they not realize that the guy that is just standing there getting beat up is someone training at the school. So that is what you become?
(Because it is relevant in terms of the argumentative tactics.)
Off topic: A probability that is based on math that is not known to all parties is an opinion. Meaning we should probably not discuss probability in regards to what is and what has to be. The closest we can get until someone can provide facts that, like math, can be made undisputable we are stuck with opinions only.
As long as we make arguments with the knowledge that they are opinion based we are "probably" gonna have a more civil and contributing discussion.
Anyways, this was off topic and not really intended to target anyone but rather the discussion of probability as a whole. We are all way off since it is way too complicated to get some probability out of martial art lineages.
anerlich
Brown Belt
Good for you, bro. I'm just giving my opinion about the second law, no reference to WC.
