Wing Chun vs MMA
- Thread starter abe_tz
- Start date
You ignored all my points addressing these questions back on post #87 and #108.
Respond to those points.
I never said he only taught it to WSL. That's just what you're trying to force me into claiming. I wasn't there watching YM teach everyone, and there were many students that didn't go on to become famous sifus. There may well have been others.
But it is not exactly "something so basic". It would take careful guiding throughout the system at each stage to properly develop. We know from various accounts that YM was not attentive to all students. So it is entirely likely that many didn't receive such careful training.
The point to be taken from this is that you'll have to examine the facts yourself. You've ignored most of the facts. Again, please respond to my previous posts I just linked to.
It seems so simple to you because you are ignoring the details.
Posts #87 and #108. Respond.
Unless you can verifiably trace the original and the change, what we have are different characters.
There's a style in Henan from the mid-1600's based on Rooster fighting that was a precursor to Xinyi Liuhequan and shares all those hand techniques and uses narrow stances and footwork. It too functions quite differently from Wing Chun in major ways, but all those superficial similarities can be pointed to just the same as with White Crane.
Again, it just means it was created by another human being moving his arms and legs in a similar way. There is obviously no historical connection there though.
Do you believe Jesus, Krishna, and Horus all pointed to the same historical figure or that their stories suggest a connection between the religions? Each "born to a virgin" and blah blah blah. Or is it just likely that humans tend to have similar imaginations and want to disassociate the "impure" act of sex with the birth of their god?
Even if the creation legends were borrowed, it doesn't point to a technical connection between the styles.
So, the possibility that they might have had similar power generation methods 150 years ago, though there is no trace of it left today, is evidence of a connection??
You introduced each point as "evidence" for your theory, and I just discounted them all. Unless you can more solidly support them, they point to nothing.
Eh? So, I'm hostile and a bad guy because KPM and others get upset and frustrated when I make apparently irrefutable points?
I think I've been pretty calm and patient with my postings here. Don't take an attack on what you believe as hostility. Just address the points if possible, especially if I'm wrong.
KPM ignores what he doesn't want to answer which makes it pretty difficult to have a coherent argument with him. But you are correct that I don't know the reason for this. Perhaps he has poor vision, too many things happening in his very busy life, or a memory impairment? I just don't know and I retract any assumptions I have made about the character of KPM. Making such assumptions was a mistake and I apologise.
I think it is a bit unfair to say this. Any people feeling this way should be aware that what I write is not meant as a personal attack (apart from the above much regretted comment on the good character of KPM) and I hope that we can discuss in a more dispassionate way in future.
Eh? So, I'm hostile and a bad guy because KPM and others get upset and frustrated when I make apparently irrefutable points?
---"Irrefutable points"??? Now that's rich!
----Ok. I'll take one more pass at it since you've demanded it twice now. Although I did address your points. But like Guy, you don't seem to read very closely.
Their interpretation of taan-sau (like chi-sau) is the same any layman would make just seeing the shape and hearing the name. I find that curious...
---#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!
A lot more visual learning and sharing / copying of each other among classmates went on at that time than did YM spending the time and effort to develop a deeper idea in each one of them.
--- #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.
It's natural for people to always think in terms of applications, and taan-sau as a block is a simple idea to be tossed around and it satisfies quickly.
---See #1 response above.
It would be more suspect if all those guys had a more abstract interpretation of taan-sau as a developmental tool and only WSL didn't share that understanding but taught it as any layman would assume it to be, a "spreading" block.
---That would just imply that ONE person missed out on a deeper level of learning, which is quite different that implying that everyone BUT one person missed out on a deeper level of learning!
It is entirely possible that they simply went through the motions of the forms and chi-sau drills in class without receiving much information on what they were doing, and so their interpretations were unseen and uncorrected.
---See #2 response above
Unlike WSL who was testing his skills in fights and discussing his experience with his teacher, it's entirely possible that these guys never had to give much thought to the "applications" until such time that they decided to become teachers.
---See #2 response above
And as I said, I find it curious that their interpretations are no different than what any layman would assume to be the application of things after only seeing the shapes and hearing the names. Whether that be blocking with taan-sau, breaking a wrist grab at the end of SNT, or sticking to arms in chi-sau.
---See #1 response above.
They would never reach a more abstract understanding without careful instruction. That suggests that what took place was mostly visual learning, sharing and copying ideas among one another, and gap filling on their own. And that such things were the norm in YM's school due to his temperament and teaching style is something his students have said.
---See #2 response above.
---Like I said already. Your essential argument is really only that people have said that Ip Man was a poor and inattentive teacher. While that may be true, that is not "irrefutable evidence" that he would have neglected to teach such an essential idea to all of his closest students other than Wong Shun Leung! And I know....you will respond that you don't know who may have learned this and there may very well be unknown Ip Man students out there that got it! For that, I can only refer you to #2 response above. When you have a group of students that are known to have been close to Ip Man, to have spent many years with him, and to have trained privately with him and not just in public classes....I think that kind of negates the "unknown" student argument.
---But that's it. I'm done. You haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you. No need to go any further with this topic.
---"Irrefutable points"??? Now that's rich!
----Ok. I'll take one more pass at it since you've demanded it twice now. Although I did address your points. But like Guy, you don't seem to read very closely.
Their interpretation of taan-sau (like chi-sau) is the same any layman would make just seeing the shape and hearing the name. I find that curious...
---#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!
A lot more visual learning and sharing / copying of each other among classmates went on at that time than did YM spending the time and effort to develop a deeper idea in each one of them.
--- #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.
It's natural for people to always think in terms of applications, and taan-sau as a block is a simple idea to be tossed around and it satisfies quickly.
---See #1 response above.
It would be more suspect if all those guys had a more abstract interpretation of taan-sau as a developmental tool and only WSL didn't share that understanding but taught it as any layman would assume it to be, a "spreading" block.
---That would just imply that ONE person missed out on a deeper level of learning, which is quite different that implying that everyone BUT one person missed out on a deeper level of learning!
It is entirely possible that they simply went through the motions of the forms and chi-sau drills in class without receiving much information on what they were doing, and so their interpretations were unseen and uncorrected.
---See #2 response above
Unlike WSL who was testing his skills in fights and discussing his experience with his teacher, it's entirely possible that these guys never had to give much thought to the "applications" until such time that they decided to become teachers.
---See #2 response above
And as I said, I find it curious that their interpretations are no different than what any layman would assume to be the application of things after only seeing the shapes and hearing the names. Whether that be blocking with taan-sau, breaking a wrist grab at the end of SNT, or sticking to arms in chi-sau.
---See #1 response above.
They would never reach a more abstract understanding without careful instruction. That suggests that what took place was mostly visual learning, sharing and copying ideas among one another, and gap filling on their own. And that such things were the norm in YM's school due to his temperament and teaching style is something his students have said.
---See #2 response above.
---Like I said already. Your essential argument is really only that people have said that Ip Man was a poor and inattentive teacher. While that may be true, that is not "irrefutable evidence" that he would have neglected to teach such an essential idea to all of his closest students other than Wong Shun Leung! And I know....you will respond that you don't know who may have learned this and there may very well be unknown Ip Man students out there that got it! For that, I can only refer you to #2 response above. When you have a group of students that are known to have been close to Ip Man, to have spent many years with him, and to have trained privately with him and not just in public classes....I think that kind of negates the "unknown" student argument.
---But that's it. I'm done. You haven't convinced me and I haven't convinced you. No need to go any further with this topic.
There's a style in Henan from the mid-1600's based on Rooster fighting that was a precursor to Xinyi Liuhequan and shares all those hand techniques and uses narrow stances and footwork. It too functions quite differently from Wing Chun in major ways, but all those superficial similarities can be pointed to just the same as with White Crane.
---I said "show me" not "tell me". I provided videos of White Crane so that anyone could watch and decide if it looked similar to Wing Chun for themselves. Where are the videos of this "Rooster fighting" so that people can do the same?
---I said "show me" not "tell me". I provided videos of White Crane so that anyone could watch and decide if it looked similar to Wing Chun for themselves. Where are the videos of this "Rooster fighting" so that people can do the same?
---"Irrefutable points"??? Now that's rich!
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.
So you're admitting they never passed a basic level of understanding.
You make a lot of assumptions about what YM would want or how he'd treat certain students based only on your own opinions and preferences, not on any facts like what his students said about his temperament, teaching style, and how he didn't waste energy on those not worth it (like non-fighters).
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.
In the case of WSL, he was a fighter by all accounts. He regularly went out and tested his skills and discussed his experience with YM, unlike most of his contemporaries. This is undisputed. It's no wonder he came out with a clearer understanding of the system.
Now, that may not sit well with you, but it's not based on what feels good to believe.
wckf92
Master of Arts
I'd heard that too. DL said (in his book maybe?) that due to him paying YM lots of money, he got YM's undivided attention. He also was told by YM to go out and get into fights so he could understand what YM was teaching him. YM apparently did not care too much about the majority since they were only paying miniscule amounts of tuition. Heck, who knows if any of this is true or not, but it is interesting to ponder. Even DL's wing chun has many different aspects to it from the rest of the WC world. Not saying its good or bad but DL (and WSL) are departures from the 'norm' apparently.
Danny T
Senior Master
I find every single person I have done wc training with has something different.
I run into the same thing in Kali, in Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling, Karate, Silat and I'm betting it is the same in every aspect of life. Everyone has a different perspective and does things just a bit different. Get the fundamentals afterward there is no right or wrong just the consequence.
It take two or more to argue.
I run into the same thing in Kali, in Muay Thai, Boxing, Wrestling, Karate, Silat and I'm betting it is the same in every aspect of life. Everyone has a different perspective and does things just a bit different. Get the fundamentals afterward there is no right or wrong just the consequence.
It take two or more to argue.
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.
Can we get someone in here to put an end to this derailed topic?
In the beginning it felt informative but now this has become nothing more than a propaganda thread for LFJ and guy b. to bash on KPM. Problem is not that any discussion here is won with proof but because two against one usually is better odds. Sorry KPM but you are losing the fight which is ironic as LFJ has not provided any proof to below statement.
What was best for WSL is not best for all, so WSLVT is what was best for WSL. If you are not him, there is no proof it is what is best for you. Any such statement would be claiming that WSLVT is the best martial art in the world. (If that is the case we can invite the UFC/MMA fanatics here again to argue once more)
In the beginning it felt informative but now this has become nothing more than a propaganda thread for LFJ and guy b. to bash on KPM. Problem is not that any discussion here is won with proof but because two against one usually is better odds. Sorry KPM but you are losing the fight which is ironic as LFJ has not provided any proof to below statement.
What was best for WSL is not best for all, so WSLVT is what was best for WSL. If you are not him, there is no proof it is what is best for you. Any such statement would be claiming that WSLVT is the best martial art in the world. (If that is the case we can invite the UFC/MMA fanatics here again to argue once more)
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!
How about sharing a little of that smoke,
maybe we all could finally see the big picture instead of arguing of what we do see from our little corners ... like ... far out ... peace, man ... hit me again
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
I went from Ip ching/Lo man kam for a while. Met up with a wsl guy who wasted me. Went along to there class and appreciated how good it was. Went an met a chu shong tin guy who could produce alot more force and structure then any of the WSL guys ( he always has good structure in every movement , wsl guys just blitz in and overwhelm you but get hit alot still) then met Alan orr who blew me away with his skill. So now I do CST and CSL . WSL was good just there way of fighting isnt for me.
Chu shong tin lineage has way better force and structure then most Ip man lineages including WSL. 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). Duncan leung has even said " WSL was wild and just threw a kick then chain punched" in all of his fights and also said he would hit them but also get hit and was never a clear cut winner, infact i think it was Duncan watching WSL fight some other kung fu guy, he was so disapointed that his senior was **** so he told Ip man he was quitting to which Ip replied " practice a few years and you will be good" D.L replied " All my seniors have practiced a few years and they cant fight" Ip" do you have money to learn" DL " yes" and there we go. WSL also entered a tournament and got Ko'd by a kick.. but his students still call him undefeated.
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 ? im not coming up with any conclusions just stating some things I have read about.
Chu shong tin lineage has way better force and structure then most Ip man lineages including WSL. 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). Duncan leung has even said " WSL was wild and just threw a kick then chain punched" in all of his fights and also said he would hit them but also get hit and was never a clear cut winner, infact i think it was Duncan watching WSL fight some other kung fu guy, he was so disapointed that his senior was **** so he told Ip man he was quitting to which Ip replied " practice a few years and you will be good" D.L replied " All my seniors have practiced a few years and they cant fight" Ip" do you have money to learn" DL " yes" and there we go. WSL also entered a tournament and got Ko'd by a kick.. but his students still call him undefeated.
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 ? im not coming up with any conclusions just stating some things I have read about.
^^^^Watch out Sean! You are using common sense. That doesn't seem to work when discussing with some people!
This is a perfect example of what I was saying above:
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.
This is a perfect example of what I was saying above:
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.
You're dodging and saying I'm the one doing it again??
You gave response #1 and #2 to all my points.
I addressed them both honestly and I have not been impolite to you.
If you think I'm wrong based on anything more than opinion or preference for what is true, as I've been forming my views on available evidence, you could explain your reasons.
If you dodge each time, I'm led to believe you only have opinion and preference and are having a hard time refuting what has been said.
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.
dudewingchun
Blue Belt
David Peterson lineage through Darren Elvey. I guess you have trained everywhere at every school so you know right....
I dont agree at all with your thoughts on Duncan Leungs wing chun. ALL of his students were paying for opium money.. including WSL and mate if I was an opium addict id actually value students who paid a fuckton more then someone who paid pittens.. You appreciate people who can get you drugs. Duncan paid alot which = more drugs which= Happy Ip man which= good tuition if thats the logic we are going on. You really seriously think WSL is the only person who got taught right ? If he was so efficient why would Duncan go to quit wing chun after watching him fight in real life. (one of the "beimos" WSL guys like to talk about but never mention he got ko'd in an actual tournament by one kick ) Why would he say " he just kicks and punches" " hits but get hit" .
Maybe someone who actually does Duncan Leung lineage can comment about the Dan Chi sao.
The thing about the dummy is something that came out of wsl mouth on an article he did. Maybe it is wrong Idk. You guys strike and get hit alot too ( or I guess I havent seen the real WSL wing chun right ? )
I respect Duncan Leung alot because from what iv seen and heard from him he is a no ********, straight to the point. His stuff iv learnt a bit of works quite well when I spar ( I actually test my wing chun every week and you learn what works fast) First time I tried what I learnt at WSL i ran into a hook.. aswell as every other time.. When I try Duncan Leungs stuff I dont get hit.. Wonder why !
Saying all that I still think WSL is one of the better lineages and seems to produce more consistently good chunners. Most wing chun guys cant fight unfortunately.
Sorry for the scattered reply.
