Wong Shun Leung & Tan Sau

[LFJ]

The 2 posters that have been dragging down this forum lately arguing against ANY reply regardless how logical, constantly name calling, etc are now on ignore.
Problem solved. Ahhh, peace and quiet lol

Cute, having to announce publicly that he has stuck his fingers in his ears...

JP hasn't added anything to this thread beyond telling me I'm wrong and don't understand things, which is fine, but he doesn't even bother to explain exactly how. That, I would call dragging things down.

Respect and thanks to those who have honestly and non-confrontationally discussed what they do and why, and were confident enough to defend their method against critique.

I think VT is and must be able to be logically explained and withstand scrutiny, as well as be practically demonstrated.

 

[LFJ]

But lately their input has become insulting and destructive IMO

If people are seeing my posts as destructive, I would say their minds are in the wrong place. I would say rather that my posts have been deconstructive of presented methods, but that has not been done with malice. I've honestly expressed my point of view on things, what I believe and why.

Discussing methods in detail is always constructive, even if in the form of deconstruction (logical analysis). If one chooses to view it as destructive and insulting, they may not care much about their system. It's nothing personal. Just defend the methods you use. If you are honest, you won't be called dishonest. If you don't dodge, you won't be called cowardly.

 

[Phobius]

Walk into about any beginner Wing Chun class in the world, and this will be a typical 4-gate drill to see.

Of course you don't fight standing there like this, but it's introducing ideas for dividing space into 4 gates and these are ideas people take into fighting.

Some will hold center and defend what comes. We've been logically dismantling that approach.

Some will try to use "blind side" tactics to reduce chances for the opponent to attack all 4 gates, but then there is a whole host of problems with that approach too!

If this is a "straw man", you're welcome to post your method, in video or text, so I'm not misrepresenting it, and I'll tell you where exactly I don't agree and why. Unless of course you have a sound method. Then I'd love to hear it.

There are 4 gates, 6 gates, 9 gates, 12 gates. And 0 gates. This is just a way to describe different areas opponent may attack in terms of vectors. At least in my view. If the video you posted in any way reflects how you trained I believe I understand why you show such despise to all other lineages in your posts.

The video is terrible, I cant even break apart anything to argue with you. Gates theory should never be about chasing hands. As for the rest I have not really been taught using gate theory, so can not say much about it. One thing I might use it for is to explain how to reduce possible incoming vectors from enemy by movement and positioning.

Are you saying a technique exists that will defend your entire body and head at the same time while standing facing your opponent? Since you are against the possibility of movement to reduce the way your opponent can attack you.

If people are seeing my posts as destructive, I would say their minds are in the wrong place. I would say rather that my posts have been deconstructive of presented methods, but that has not been done with malice. I've honestly expressed my point of view on things, what I believe and why.

Discussing methods in detail is always constructive, even if in the form of deconstruction (logical analysis). If one chooses to view it as destructive and insulting, they may not care much about their system. It's nothing personal. Just defend the methods you use. If you are honest, you won't be called dishonest. If you don't dodge, you won't be called cowardly.

The destructive way is actually there if you do not show your own arguments. They are still too vaguely written and any attempt to argue about it gets a reply similar to "This is only shown that way to outsiders, we keep the rest secret so we dont offend" but clearly you do offend a bunch of people.

Reason I am saying above is due to your point below:

For this reason, to discuss it in much detail, I'd have to explain the entire strategy. That's something I'm not so sure I want to do. Instead I've been logically breaking down other methods, and perhaps what I've explained will put enough doubt in the minds of some readers that they, the serious ones, will go seek it out in person.

Thing is, I don't want to give KPM a full, free tutorial on a public forum. I don't trust the guy. I think he's a dishonest parasite, and as PB once said in an interview when asked his wish for the future of the style, we hope to keep stupid people away from system.

This post states clearly that your intentions are never to share your own vision, this makes all your arguments about when WSL VT does it better void. If you do not wish to show your own strategy then you are not contributing to a discussion. Anyone else can take your job of saying why things do not work, that text means nothing without someone showing what would be the "better percentage". I don't need someone to tell me where there are openings, I use active training to figure that out in person. What I would have wished for is other options to compare against which you seem unwilling to give apparently?

PB once said in an interview that he hopes to keep stupid people away from the system, you are not doing him justice by filling in your understanding of what "stupid" means. If he is your sifu you should adhere to his teaching and not convert it to your own version. (If he meant that KPM was not welcome, and said so in person I do apologize but would say it is kind of rude of him)

Any lineage that is considered so good it renders other lineages into crap in comparison should not be considering other people stupid, that is a very one sided view on life as it takes a lifetime of actually knowing someone before you can call them stupid or not.

 

[Phobius]

Can also add that the school close to me that teaches WSL VT does not teach a behind the door kind of teachings.

But I do say I rather want to go there some point to study their punching technique in detail, there are quite a few aspects of it that I believe could be an improvement to my own. Not that it replaces everything else.

 

[Transk53]

Thing is, I don't want to give KPM a full, free tutorial on a public forum. I don't trust the guy. I think he's a dishonest parasite, and as PB once said in an interview when asked his wish for the future of the style, we hope to keep stupid people away from system.

Sorry stupid question time. Are you not actually contradicting yourself by stating "future of the style" but keeping to a fanatical viewpoint that WSL is this, WSL is that kind of thing?

 

[LFJ]

Are you saying a technique exists that will defend your entire body and head at the same time while standing facing your opponent? Since you are against the possibility of movement to reduce the way your opponent can attack you.

I'm against what??

How do you stay relatively dry in a water fight without movement? Mobility is of great importance, but a lot of Wing Chun footwork kills fluid mobility.

The destructive way is actually there if you do not show your own arguments.

You may choose to see it that way. Some times you must first deconstruct, before you are able to reconstruct. Empty one's cup sort of thing. Some individuals aren't willing to do that, and they are beyond help on a forum. If one can't acknowledge flaws in what they do through logical analysis, it will take hands-on training.

People who are serious enough will seek it out in person. I mean, literally thousands have changed from other mainstream lineages, never to go back, and they share similar stories. That would pique my interest.

 

[LFJ]

Sorry stupid question time. Are you not actually contradicting yourself by stating "future of the style" but keeping to a fanatical viewpoint that WSL is this, WSL is that kind of thing?

Point is, the future of the system relies on keeping stupid people and ideas from ruining it.

 

[Phobius]

I'm against what??

How do you stay relatively dry in a water fight without movement? Mobility is of great importance, but a lot of Wing Chun footwork kills fluid mobility.

Might have misunderstood you. You are saying that situations where you are facing your opponent are just silly. However when you add mobility as an important part of defending yourself/fighting then you are facing an opponent that will do the same. As such you can not prevent the fact that when you move he will move right along with you. As such how do you face such a situation if you neglect to train anything related to facing directly towards your opponent?

In my view you first learn the little idea, then as you go along you master everything so much that in the end noone can hit you thus none of this is needed. Such a point of view does not render anything taught useless. It just requires you to make an error or end up in bad situation. (Do not get me started on my thought on WC starting beginners to train just standing still for ages, mobility is key part of WC. Teach it)

What you are saying then is that you have a way to move that can never be nullified by an opponent having better movement than you?

You may choose to see it that way. Some times you must first deconstruct, before you are able to reconstruct. Empty one's cup sort of thing. Some individuals aren't willing to do that, and they are beyond help on a forum. If one can't acknowledge flaws in what they do through logical analysis, it will take hands-on training.

It is destructive to a forum, you get to hear all points of views. Then you decide alone, not the participants as a whole, what is good and what is bad. Not only for you but for them all. All anger, confusion or whatnot people feel could simply be avoided if you learned to write the truth, truth being that in your point of view it does not seem effective. Stay away from words stating that things are a certain way and instead tell people how you look at it.

Such a discussion would change attitude where people would get a choice to participate because a wish to see if they can convince you otherwise. When you are stating how things are then people expect you to stand up for your ideas and actually show them as such add some value to the posts. If your intention was just to hear a bunch of stuff and pass judgement then I misunderstood you once more. Such a post would serve me no interest personally, I have no interest in educating you but rather to see if there is anything of value to me.

Give and take in a discussion, you want value. I want value. To me my time is worth a heck of a lot more to me than you.

 

[Transk53]

Point is, the future of the system relies on keeping stupid people and ideas from ruining it.

Systems rarely survive without the need for revision. Of course that does not mean that any revision is needed, perhaps a tweek here and there. So what is more stupid, blindly sticking to a system that clearly a need was felt for revision, or just to a system that incorporates nothing more than tradition? Tradition is fine and I don't have a problem with that, but by you're estimation everybody that wants to experiment is stupid?

 

[LFJ]

As such how do you face such a situation if you neglect to train anything related to facing directly towards your opponent?
...

What you are saying then is that you have a way to move that can never be nullified by an opponent having better movement than you?

Of course not. I was previously talking about the strategy of occupying center with man/wu and purposefully moving straight into a head-on collision aiming to wedge things out with a punch or whatever.

All anger, confusion or whatnot people feel could simply be avoided if you learned to write the truth, truth being that in your point of view it does not seem effective. Stay away from words stating that things are a certain way and instead tell people how you look at it.

(I'm not responsible for anyone else's emotional responses and I'm not gonna hold anyone's hand while they interact with people on a forum. You can't claim to be a fighter and act like a man-child on the internet.)

I never once said the word "ineffective", just indirect and inefficient, and therefore not VT thinking.

However, I do doubt many things, don't believe many things that have been proven ineffective, but as WSL used to say at public seminars when showing that mainstream stuff, "maybe YOU can do it". So it's all good if that's what people want for themselves.

Also, clearly, something like the "whipping punch" has been proven, knocking out professional fighters in the cage. It's effective. But that it's indirect is objective reality. It's a simple fact. That means it's working on something other than VT principles, which may be fine for some. I value directness and efficiency though, so I use a different strategy and set of tactics. To each their own.

 

[LFJ]

Systems rarely survive without the need for revision. Of course that does not mean that any revision is needed, perhaps a tweek here and there. So what is more stupid, blindly sticking to a system that clearly a need was felt for revision, or just to a system that incorporates nothing more than tradition?

I agree, but I do neither of these. Personally, as it is, I don't believe the system I train needs any revision, but if a more efficient method came along, I'd be adopting it. I'm openminded, just a skeptic too.

Tradition is fine and I don't have a problem with that, but by you're estimation everybody that wants to experiment is stupid?

I would be the stupid one to believe such a thing.

There are just some stubborn people who don't care about practicality and hold very stupid ideas. Both these people and there ideas are what I'd like to keep away from the system.

 

[KPM]

Deleted because unconstructive.

 

[KPM]

Thing is, I don't want to give KPM a full, free tutorial on a public forum. I don't trust the guy. I think he's a dishonest parasite, and as PB once said in an interview when asked his wish for the future of the style, we hope to keep stupid people away from system.

So now you are calling me a parasite and stupid as well as a liar and a coward??? Your shoes are squishing just like Guy's!!! I still think you don't know as much as you think you know. That's why you are hesitant to explain any further.

 

[KPM]

(I'm not responsible for anyone else's emotional responses and I'm not gonna hold anyone's hand while they interact with people on a forum. You can't claim to be a fighter and act like a man-child on the internet.)

.

Which is just double-speak for "I can act like an a55 if I want to." That's a bogus excuse. This is a community where we all interact as equals. You are expected to behave yourself and interact politely. Not doing so and having the attitude you have displayed on multiple occasions was the death of that "other" forum. Play nice or don't play at all.

 

[Transk53]

There are just some stubborn people who don't care about practicality and hold very stupid ideas. Both these people and there ideas are what I'd like to keep away from the system.

Poppycock. What is not practicle with Wing Chun. I have asked twice already, but you seem to like being evasive. Could you at least elabrote on their very stupid ideas. Or is just another case where "I am right, everybody else is wrong" type thing?

 

[LFJ]

Poppycock. What is not practicle with Wing Chun. I have asked twice already, but you seem to like being evasive. Could you at least elabrote on their very stupid ideas. Or is just another case where "I am right, everybody else is wrong" type thing?

Sorry, I must have missed your question...? Where did you ask?

What do you want, an example? Okay. Walking into a round punch with a taan-sau is a stupid idea.

Why? Because it doesn't work and will get you knocked out against anyone with half a clue what they're doing.

Many can attest to its failure in free sparring or fighting. Some on this forum and others already have. Experiments have been done with a line up of ten guys (wearing headgear) trying it against serious punchers and it had a 100% failure rate.

Those who get it to "work" are just practicing it in class against people throwing retarded punches.

 

[Transk53]

Sorry, I must have missed your question...? Where did you ask?

What do you want, an example? Okay. Walking into a round punch with a taan-sau is a stupid idea.

Why? Because it doesn't work and will get you knocked out against anyone with half a clue what they're doing.

Many can attest to its failure in free sparring or fighting. Some on this forum and others already have. Experiments have been done with a line up of ten guys (wearing headgear) trying it against serious punchers and it had a 100% failure rate.

Those who get it to "work" are just practicing it in class against people throwing retarded punches.

Yes that would be a little silly, like allowing any kind of punch with a flawed move. Never agreed with practising a round or defending against. Against the average street thug if you will, they may do that.

 

[Phobius]

What do you want, an example? Okay. Walking into a round punch with a taan-sau is a stupid idea.

Not sure where this statement came from, who has said anything of this sort? Is it even relevant to the discussion?
EDIT: I am actually asking in honesty where this was written because I did not see such comment, or at least remember.

If noone said it then chain punching a police office is also stupid. Pretty sure someone has done it though, sadly.

 

[Transk53]

Not sure where this statement came from, who has said anything of this sort? Is it even relevant to the discussion?
EDIT: I am actually asking in honesty where this was written because I did not see such comment, or at least remember.

If noone said it then chain punching a police office is also stupid. Pretty sure someone has done it though, sadly.

It would not have been Phobius. I was just curious about what is deemed a stupid idea in LFJ's world.

 

[LFJ]

Not sure where this statement came from, who has said anything of this sort? Is it even relevant to the discussion?

This topic is about WSL and taan-sau. There are some in the lineage who teach this idea, unfortunately. Relevant, I think.

In this thread, the idea of having an outstretched arm for "an extra little bit of insurance and protection" as you enter on a round punch was suggested as being a good idea.

The following was said, by you know who.

This is very much the "Choy Lit Fut vs. Wing Chun" scenario that was classic in the HK during Ip Man's heyday.

So...the Tan Sau hand is up as a cover as he goes in for the punch. If it engages the opponent's attack...that's good. If it doesn't...that's Ok as well. But the Wing Chun guy has given himself an extra little bit of insurance and protection from getting hit.