^^^^T-Ray is a good guy. I wouldn't lump him in with LFJ and Guy.
Noted. My apologies.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
^^^^T-Ray is a good guy. I wouldn't lump him in with LFJ and Guy.
You've missed a lot! Let me see if I can summarize it. Let's just take the Tan Sau all by itself to simply things.
The basic question that you haven't really addressed is why would Ip Man teach only Wong Shun Leung the idea that the Tan Sau is only for training the elbow and is not to be used as a defensive movement?...
...But how do you explain the fact that Ip Man didn't teach this idea of Tan Sau to the men that were closest to him and spent the most time with him. How do you explain that Ip Man didn't teach the correct idea of Tan Sau to the very people that he knew were going to establish schools and represent his name and the good name of Wing Chun? How do you explain the fact that this idea of Tan Sau was not taught to close senior students of Ip Man like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, Wang Kiu, ....or his own sons Ip Ching and Ip Chun?
You've pointed to other people saying Ip Man was a bad teacher. Maybe so, but I just don't buy that as a reason for not teaching something so basic to anyone but Wong Shun Leung.
You've pointed to Wong Shun Leung reportedly telling someone else that he learned this from Ip Man and can't say why others didn't. But you weren't there to hear him say that and neither was I. Both of these points are based upon heresy and "sifu sez."
You talked about common sense and Occam's Razor. I still say that the simplest explanation and the most common sense explanation for why Wong Shun Leung taught this interpretation of Tan Sau and no one else does....is simply because Wong Shun Leung came up with that interpretation himself! It seems pretty straight-forward to me. But you haven't adequately answered why this wouldn't be the case.
---Nope. The characters for "Wing" or "beautiful" and "Weng" or "everlasting" have pretty much been used interchangeably through the years. More than one account says that "Weng" was the original version and it was changed later by Leung Jan. At some point, Chan Wah Shun or his son even changed it back to "Weng" for their particular branch.
---Nope. Like I said. Its a gestalt. You have to take the sum total into account. Show me a single northern style that shares ALL of those common elements with Wing Chun.
---Nope. I stated that the stories were likely fiction. But the fact the that such similar stories were used for both White Crane and Wing Chun suggests a connection of some sort is possible.
----Haven't you been paying attention? Guy has repeated over and over that since that power generation methods are different that they couldn't possibly be related. #4 points out why that is not necessarily true.
---I didn't say any of this was proof of anything. I pointed out that my list simply suggested connections between White Crane and Wing Chun. You can choose to believe that these suggested connections are enough to posit that Wing Chun developed from a "proto-White Crane" or not. But you cannot discount the fact that these suggested connections exist.
Honestly, it's beginning to look like the three main WSL posters on this forum (you, LFJ and T-Ray) are hostile to everybody else.
^^^^T-Ray is a good guy. I wouldn't lump him in with LFJ and Guy.
C'mon Guy, can't you disagree without making it personal, using terms like dishonest and cowardice? You may feel KPM is mistaken, even stubborn in his supposed misconceptions, but let's keep it polite.
Honestly, it's beginning to look like the three main WSL posters on this forum (you, LFJ and T-Ray) are hostile to everybody else. That's a shame, and I hope you prove me wrong in the future.
---"Irrefutable points"??? Now that's rich!
---#1 Maybe because there are different levels of understanding? And the basic level is to actually use the technique for what it was designed for....based on its shape....reflected in its name.....and as other systems with almost the same technique use it? That's not "curious", that's simply common sense!
--- #2 As I said, very likely true for the "mainstream" students in public classes. But likely not true for his closest students who were going to carry on the system and teach in his name. Wouldn't you ensure that someone that was going to represent you was going to do it well? You really believe that Ip Man would not have corrected men like Ho Kam Ming, Tsui Tsun Ting, Leung Sheung, Ip Chun, Ip Ching, etc. if he saw that they had such a basic misunderstanding of Tan Sau? Oh but wait, you always skirt around that point by saying you weren't there and don't know what Ip Man did. So let me rephrase......There are a good number of students that were Ip Man's friends, that spent many years with him, that trained privately with him, and that went on to establish schools representing Ip Man's name and Ip Man's Wing Chun. It should be obvious that Ip Man would notice and correct such a basic misunderstanding of the use of one of the core 3 techniques in Wing Chun (Bong, Tan, Fook) and would not want them teaching a misunderstanding to their own students in Ip Man's name.
I honestly don't think YM cared as much as you think he did. His teaching in HK was mainly to cover his financial difficulties there. Duncan Leung said YM used tuition money to support his opium addiction! It's really not likely he gave two sh!ts what some non-fighters learned or went out and taught
I said apparently, given the fact that you've been avoiding them. An attempt to get you to finally address them, because I'm getting to know how you work.
You are doing better than me. KPM is done with me (again)
Oddly it came at a point in the conversation where KPM's claims about Taiping rebels, wing chun and white crane were shown to be full of holes
Sometimes two seemingly contradictory points of view can both be right.That is to say that an apparent paradox can resolved when you see the bigger picture. Or perhaps I'm just manifesting symptoms of GHS (Gullible Hippie Syndrome) again!
One last response to you and LFJ......you haven't shown anything. You are just as bad about not answering questions or addressing points as me or anyone else. So get off of your high horse and actually try to have polite and honest discussions. That's all I've got to say.
One last response to you and LFJ......you haven't shown anything. You are just as bad about not answering questions or addressing points as me or anyone else. So get off of your high horse and actually try to have polite and honest discussions. That's all I've got to say.
I respect WSL style but they would get handled by an amateur mma fighter like most wing chun guys ( only mentioned cause alot seem to think they the only lineage who can fight).
in Siu nim tao there are 3 tan saos each done differently.. so in WSL they are all just for elbow positioning ? Seems a bit silly. Meanwhile Duncan Leung who is an actual private disciple of Ip man has the first one for elbow power ( can someone from D.L lineage correct any of my mistakes ! ) a whipping tan sao and dont remember the idea for the 3rd one.
So I guess Ip man taught his actual private disciple who paid more then anyone to learn from him in private the wrong way ? Highly doubt it.
I read that WSL even changed the dummy so your arms dont stick to it from his fighting experience.. wouldnt it be likely to be the same with tan sao ?
Who are "they"? There is a ton of useless mess within "WSLVT", just like YMVT. Quality WSLVT is mostly rooted in Northern Europe; Germany/Netherlands. I wouldn't recommend much outside of there, unless from the same stream.
I think his 3rd is the whipping one, done after bong-sau by flopping his hand over like a downward backslap used against round punches.
Here we keep the hand up and recover the elbow to punching position after being up and out. Not thinking in terms of applications. Just elbow recovery and alignment. Can't think about applications to deal with an opponent's actions before one has even basic control of their own actions!
Well, all I can do, like with others, is examine the facts and look at what they teach. It would make sense that he'd be missing the taan elbow idea, because he also seems to be missing the counterpart, jam elbow. They are a double edged sword, inside and outside forearm.
Saw a video of him teaching DCS and his jam-sau pulled the incoming palm strike toward himself. He actually said "pull" their arm, then strike. So his response to an opening action is to pull it into himself, then strike; a two-step response to a single action, if he doesn't end up just pulling another punching into his face, that is.
Inefficient, not VT thinking. We just strike with built-in defense capabilities. Taan elbow vs jam elbow, strike vs strike.
So, it sounds like his tuition money went more toward YM's opium addiction than it did his learning.
Why would you stick to the dummy arms? Sensitivity? Control? The thing is a stationary lump of wood. There's no need for him to have made that change. It's a silly idea from someone who doesn't know what the thing is used for.
It seems simple enough to say he changed the idea of taan-sau, but that's if you haven't been through the system to see the detail and how it all fits together. It would be much easier to reduce it to an obvious application any layman could come up with, than it would be to turn it into an abstract training method, counterpart of jam, and integrate it into each stage of training where it is slowly developed step by step. He would have to gut the entire system and rebuild it. All other guys had to do is just say, when someone throws a punch, turn your palm up and block/deflect it.