WSL...guarding the method

[Juany118]

There's nothing insulting about noting that an arm missing a hand is slightly shorter and has less mass at the extremity. That's just a clear, objective observation. Nobody here has insulted any of the subjects of the discussion. It's possible PB was able to adapt the style to his strengths (yep, there are some technical advantages to that limb, as well) and around his weaknesses. We all do a bit of that (or should, anyway). It's also possible WSL did some of that adaptation, teaching an approach that better fit those strengths and weaknesses. And this is where I get frustrated about you calling all of that insulting, because I would be in no way surprised if the process they went through to make that happen produced some understanding and adaptation that turned out to be useful, regardless of how many hands you have. So, it may be that other students of WSL from that point on learned a better version (or at least from a better version of their instructor) because of the work WSL did with PB.

I really don't see why the above is an issue. It also fits in with Occam's Razor. Here are facts we know.
1. There are differences between what various first gen WSL students teach, this includes PB.
2. PB has stated in his interviews that his VT completely lacks some of what other WSL students include.
3. PB in his biography on the website of one of his own organizations states that WSL

After visits with various teachers, he found, in January 1983, Wong Shun Leung. Sifu Wong accepted the ambitious German than students in the traditional sense. He sat down seriously dealing with the problem of a missing hand and put the training in terms of it.

The last fact can easily explain the differences and is something supported by some level of proof and is the simplest answer to boot.

On the other hand the idea that WSL was intentionally deceptive and that PB was one of the few he revealed the "truths" to is only supported by what amounts to legend steeped in dogma. It almost requires suspension of disbelief to accept this answer.

The sad thing is the simpler answer doesn't take away from WSL or PB, it actually adds to them. You have a master who was tenacious enough to accept a student others had turned away and was skilled enough to make work what the others feared they would fail at and you have a student who was strong enough that he did not allow being turned away time an again to stop him. Instead of giving up and staying in Germany he traveled halfway around the world to succeed and has done so admirably for over 30 years now. Some people however saddly want to be able to say their method is inherently superior and others are incoherent and/or broken and the above truly inspiring history is cast aside for a story of superiority founded in dogma.

 

[Flying Crane]

Seriously guys, this is all spiraling down the same porcelain porthole where all the other discussions end up.

Might be best if some people just don't engage with each other.

 

[Callen]

All good points! There seem to be several different ideas being discussed. Here are my thoughts...

First, the quote I posted where it says that WSL adjusted the training for PB comes from the biography of PB on the web page of one of PB's own school so it is what it is imo. As for adaptation vs modification I think that is really a matter of semantics.

Indeed that info is posted on his site. As a WSLVT practitioner I'm just doing my part to help inform others that may not be as familiar with the lineage and it's proponents. I'm in no way challenging you as an individual, I'm just clarifying that the quote you mentioned does not mean that WSL changed his VT for Philipp Bayer. The takeaway is that WSL helped Bayer to adapt and adjusted the way he trained.

As far as semantics, sometimes the words we use to explain a situation are important. In this case, the difference of the definition between adapt and modify are paramount to the understanding of how WSL did not in fact change the system for Bayer. No part of the WSLVT core was modified. WSL adjusted the training for Bayer, and in-turn Bayer adapted because of his missing hand.

As for doing the same drills, sure they did but if you are missing a hand there is obviously going to be some differences say with a lap sau or pak sau drill.

Yes! Very true. If WSL changed the system (as in core principals of VT) for Bayer, then he wouldn't be able to train and drill effectively with his WSLVT brothers.

An example is how Sifu Gary Lam teaches Chin Na, ambient only standing grappling as part of closing to hold and restrain the opponent so one can more efficiently strike. This however is only practical if you have two functional hands. So on the GL side you have grappling and then on the PB side when interviewed he says his WSLVT has no grappling.

Fair assessment. It's also important to note that Gary Lam, like other first generation WSL students, has created his own method of teaching. He incorporates additional concepts that reinforce the WSLVT core. While Sifu Lam likes to incorporate wrist locks into his own Wing Chun, there officially isn't any Chin Na in his curriculum.

 

[Juany118]

You need to quit telling lies!

You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

The problem with looking at your "genuine possibilities" is that you have no clue what WSLVT is or what history and understanding various students of WSL have/had with it.

How do you think it is that WSL would have taught students before PB with all their appendages a version of VT modified for amputees?!

Is that not the stupidest idea ever??

So it's a lie that the PB organization published this...

After visits with various teachers, he found, in January 1983, Wong Shun Leung. Sifu Wong accepted the ambitious German than students in the traditional sense. He sat down seriously dealing with the problem of a missing hand and put the training in terms of it.

Philipp Bayer

It's a lie that the above is consistent with the biological fact that some techniques have to be prioritized over others as some require an actual intact hand (bil sau strikes, palm strikes) or the standing Chin Na grappling other first gen WSL students teach?

You may disagree with my train of thought that begins with the quote above but to call me a liar is simply unsupportable and imo an act of desperation because all you can do at the moment is respond with fiat statements that twist my point into something unrecognizable.

 

[Juany118]

All good points! There seem to be several different ideas being discussed. Here are my thoughts...


Indeed that info is posted on his site. As a WSLVT practitioner I'm just doing my part to help inform others that may not be as familiar with the lineage and it's proponents. I'm in no way challenging you as an individual, I'm just clarifying that the quote you mentioned does not mean that WSL changed his VT for Philipp Bayer. The takeaway is that WSL helped Bayer to adapt and adjusted the way he trained.

As far as semantics, sometimes the words we use to explain a situation are important. In this case, the difference of the definition between adapt and modify are paramount to the understanding of how WSL did not in fact change the system for Bayer. No part of the WSLVT core was modified. WSL adjusted the training for Bayer, and in-turn Bayer adapted because of his missing hand.

First let me simply clarify, I am not saying that WSL changed the core precepts of WSLVT for PB. Note I see precepts/principles as one thing and then method as the way to execute said principles. I only mean that he looked at the methods and said "okay, this will work for him, this not so much, so let's focus on what will really work well." Then you run into the fact that when one later becomes a teacher themselves how and what they teach is informed a great deal by how they were taught themselves.

Fair assessment. It's also important to note that Gary Lam, like other first generation WSL students, has created his own method of teaching. He incorporates additional concepts that reinforce the WSLVT core. While Sifu Lam likes to incorporate wrist locks into his own Wing Chun, there officially isn't any Chin Na in his curriculum.

This prompted me doing some digging. When I studied WSLVT it was under a student of Sifu Gary and I was taught the locks so I assumed it was part of the curriculum. Here is what GARY LAM WING CHUN - AN INTRODUCTION says regarding the 5 main branches of training empty handed combat...

• Crossing hand - Striking techniques
• Closing - Standing grappling
• Footwork - Kicking and leg destruction
• Pushing - One and two handed projections
• Pulling - Outside, inside and turning projections

So at least now, and when I studied, it was officially part of the curriculum. If it always was I can't say with authority. I'll see if I can ask my old Sifu though. As for including his own things, I am sure he did. Some questions that need to be asked though are "where does WSL end and the student's own influence begin" and since most (if not all) of WSL's students have done this is it not a bit off to then turn and say "but PB didn't, that is the pure vision of WSL."?

In order to avoid that discussion it seems some have decided to take "WSL closely guarded the method" and twisted it from a point of interesting intellectual discussion into a cop out

 

[Callen]

First let me simply clarify, I am not saying that WSL substantially changed the core precepts of WSLVT for PB. Only that he looked at it and said "okay, this will work for him, this not so much, so let's focus on what will really work well." Then you run into the fact that when one later becomes a teacher themselves how and what they teach is informed a great deal by how they were taught themselves.

I get what you're saying, and I agree that what teachers show others is influenced by how they were taught. One of the traits of a good Wing Chun teacher/coach is to find out what drills or training methods work best for which students, and to implement those methods to effectively help them grow. The training itself isn't the system, it's only a means to understand the system.

So at least now, and when I studied, it was officially part of the curriculum. If it always was I can't say with authority. I'll see if I can ask my old Sifu though.

All good. You're mostly referring to "Closing". It's within Level One - Crossing Hands. While Chin Na is not specifically listed in the curriculum, you're right in that "Closing" includes concepts similar to Chin Na.

 

[Callen]

In order to avoid that discussion it seems some have decided to take "WSL closely guarded the method" and twisted it from a point of interesting intellectual discussion into a cop out

I can only speak to the fact that in the WSLVT community, it's well known that WSL guarded his knowledge of the system.

 

[Juany118]

I can only speak to the fact that in the WSLVT community, it's well known that WSL guarded his knowledge of the system.

My point is the "place" of such an allegation. Virtually every time something WSL is shown doing is different than what certain people have been taught the "guarded knowledge" trope is virtually a reflex response. Example, chi sau has many purposes but every to lineage I know of has one of those purposes being to acquire touch sensitivity. Some people denied this was part of WSLVT globally, not just via PB. I found a video of WSL where what they spoke of was mentioned but sensitivity was also mentioned... Immediately "that was an intentional error" was mentioned. In short they don't have to actually prove their point, they can simply say "intentional error" everytime something they learned is different than something WSL is shown to have said publically. This is the issue I have

 

[Hazardi172]

One of the traits of a good Wing Chun teacher/coach is to find out what drills or training methods work best for which students, and to implement those methods to effectively help them grow. The training itself isn't the system, it's only a means to understand the system.

Correct. Some students need a different path, but the system is the same.

You're mostly referring to "Closing". It's within Level One - Crossing Hands. While Chin Na is not specifically listed in the curriculum, you're right in that "Closing" includes concepts similar to Chin Na.

Am I correct in assuming that Gary Lam added parts to his curriculum which were in addition to what WSL taught?

 

[Hazardi172]

So it's a lie that the PB organization published this...


Philipp Bayer

It's a lie that the above is consistent with the biological fact that some techniques have to be prioritized over others as some require an actual intact hand (bil sau strikes, palm strikes) or the standing Chin Na grappling other first gen WSL students teach?

You may disagree with my train of thought that begins with the quote above but to call me a liar is simply unsupportable and imo an act of desperation because all you can do at the moment is respond with fiat statements that twist my point into something unrecognizable.

"Puting the training in terms of the missing hand" in this case means adding attachments which allow the holding of poles and knives. There is not anything more to it than this.

 

[JowGaWolf]

I'll call that "cheating".

My teacher won't teach me any counters for his favor technique "leg twisting". At least he would be honest to let me know. He won't teach me any wrong counter that won't work.

It's better to be "honest" IMO. There is nothing wrong for a teacher to honestly tell his students that there are some information that he just won't teach. If you have spent all your life time to develop some "door guarding" skill, you just don't want to teach your students how to counter it.

If you want to teach, you should teach 100%. Otherwise, you can take all your secret into your grave. This "intentional error video" idea is wrong, wrong, and still wrong.

I agree with this. Not telling is one thing, intentionally misleading is something thing different. Some things are purposely not taught because the teacher wants it to be part of the student's learning process that helps them to gain a better understanding of the system.

 

[Juany118]

"Puting the training in terms of the missing hand" in this case means adding attachments which allow the holding of poles and knives. There is not anything more to it than this.

It also meant according to other interviews, addressing what I noted above, a deemphasis on specific methods that require the use of an open hand as you are supposed to be able to use the left and right with equal ability. It would also even require minor alterations to the use of the swords and pole as well as the lack of the hand means that the wrist action isn't quite what it would be.

As Callen stated by good teacher will teach a student, within the overall principles of the topic, to their strengths and weaknesses. He also point Ed out how virtually all of WSLs students made VT there own to an extent. It beggars logic when we know everything we do about PB to not say PB made certain things his own, in all cases adhering to the core principles of VT.

I really don't understand why this is so bloody controversial and find something else a little suspicious but will withhold that for another time.

 

[Hazardi172]

It also meant according to other interviews, addressing what I noted above, a deemphasis on specific methods that require the use of an open hand as you are supposed to be able to use the left and right with equal ability.

Do you have links to these other interviews? I would be interested to read them, as this understanding contradicts that which I have encountered before

It would also even require minor alterations to the use of the swords and pole as well as the lack of the hand means that the wrist action isn't quite what it would be

It is quite possible to make the pole actions without a hand. Better even, since it eliminates distration. Why do you think that wrist action on the swords would be beyond the wit of man to overcome?

As Callen stated by good teacher will teach a student, within the overall principles of the topic, to their strengths and weaknesses.

Please show me where Callen said this, I cannot see it above.

I do see a part where Callen says this:

Indeed that info is posted on his site. As a WSLVT practitioner I'm just doing my part to help inform others that may not be as familiar with the lineage and it's proponents. I'm in no way challenging you as an individual, I'm just clarifying that the quote you mentioned does not mean that WSL changed his VT for Philipp Bayer. The takeaway is that WSL helped Bayer to adapt and adjusted the way he trained.

As far as semantics, sometimes the words we use to explain a situation are important. In this case, the difference of the definition between adapt and modify are paramount to the understanding of how WSL did not in fact change the system for Bayer. No part of the WSLVT core was modified. WSL adjusted the training for Bayer, and in-turn Bayer adapted because of his missing hand.

You then attempt to frame this statement in terms of teaching to strengths and weaknesses. But I don't think Callen said it anywhere? In fact it appears to be a direct conradiction of what you claim above. Please correct me if I am wrong.

He also point Ed out how virtually all of WSLs students made VT there own to an extent. It beggars logic when we know everything we do about PB to not say PB made certain things his own, in all cases adhering to the core principles of VT.

Again I don't think Callen says this (although not sure why Callen is your go-to authority on all things WSL, when you refuse to acknowledge what others from that lineage have told you). What Callen actually says is this:

It's also important to note that Gary Lam, like other first generation WSL students, has created his own method of teaching. He incorporates additional concepts that reinforce the WSLVT core. While Sifu Lam likes to incorporate wrist locks into his own Wing Chun, there officially isn't any Chin Na in his curriculum

It is true that some other 1st gen students of WSL have created their own teaching methodology. WKL would be another good example in addition to GL. But not all of them have done this and many (probably more) follow exactly the methodology of WSL. There is nothing wrong in what GL and WKL have done. And there is nothing wrong in following WSL's methodology (as PB has done).

 

[Hazardi172]

I agree with this. Not telling is one thing, intentionally misleading is something thing different. Some things are purposely not taught because the teacher wants it to be part of the student's learning process that helps them to gain a better understanding of the system.

A video is not teaching, it is promotion

 

[Hazardi172]

What does spelling have to do with anything? Many branches of Yip Man Ving Tsun use the VT spelling since it was the spelling used by GM Yip. Others use WC, WT, and other variations. In other words, "VT" isn't a trademark of the WSL branch. Just to be clear.

It signifies his changing of the teaching method

 

[LFJ]

I really don't see why the above is an issue. It also fits in with Occam's Razor. Here are facts we know...
...The last fact can easily explain the differences and is something supported by some level of proof and is the simplest answer to boot.

The issue is that you're making an uneducated guess!

So it's a lie that the PB organization published this...

It's a lie to keep reading into it whatever you want after it has been explained to you!

To continue to say PB couldn't learn unmodified VT is insulting.

The first time you made the assumption maybe not, but after it has been explained to you that VT can accommodate his condition without modification, to continue to say he couldn't have learned unmodified VT is a lie and an insult.

I only mean that he looked at the methods and said "okay, this will work for him, this not so much, so let's focus on what will really work well." Then you run into the fact that when one later becomes a teacher themselves how and what they teach is informed a great deal by how they were taught themselves.

You are guessing and are wrong! Others started years before him and learned and teach the same thing.

This prompted me doing some digging.

Some questions that need to be asked though are "where does WSL end and the student's own influence begin"

Why don't you get off Google, stop trying to answer questions with "Occam's Razor", and waddle yourself into some of these schools, actually learn what they teach so you know what you're comparing, and ASK THEM this question personally!

It also meant according to other interviews, addressing what I noted above, a deemphasis on specific methods that require the use of an open hand as you are supposed to be able to use the left and right with equal ability. It would also even require minor alterations to the use of the swords and pole as well as the lack of the hand means that the wrist action isn't quite what it would be.

Whatever the interview, I'm sure it will be another case of you reading whatever you want into it, without evening knowing what WSLVT is in the first place!

There are no alterations to the knife and pole work. His attachments work just fine. You don't know the first thing about the weapons to even comment!

 

[JowGaWolf]

A video is not teaching, it is promotion

I was only referring to a teacher not teaching everything because I know my Sifu didn't teach me everything. Some of the things I learned on my because I really explored the technique. I had successes and failures but I learned from them and became more aware of the body mechanics involved. When I went back to my teacher and verified, he was happy that I was finally able to decode and translates the multiple applications that a technique had. As for a video I'm not sure about it not being teaching. It's not live teaching but it is an educational resource that is usually directed to someone who wants to learn (a student).

But to your comment
If I make a Jow Ga Video showing how to do a basic wheel punch and I was detailed about how to do it, the risks, the weaknesses, the opportunities, etc. If you are my online student and you send me a video of you doing the wheel punch then I can analyze it and point out corrections that need to be made, and I can refer to the original video that I made to explain why what you did was wrong? Would that be teaching? If I do almost everything that I would do in person (demonstrate, correct, review, interacted, assist) then would that be teaching?

A video by itself wouldn't be teaching. It would just be a reference from which people can learn, similar to books.

 

[dudewingchun]

It always seemed like you guys are only PB.. but who are the other WSL guys you respect? Just curious.

Wouldn't be surprised about guarding the method, seemed like a common thing that happened, just usually its Ip man who's the one who did it in stories.

So there is" who did Ip teach the real stuff".. then "who did WSL teach the real stuff".. and now I guess its "who did PB teach the real stuff too?"

This is the reason why I like Alan. He just teaches you without holding back information. No bs. Just train hard to master what you have learned. My first Sifu seemed to pick up or just copy that whole " only private students get the good stuff" mentality.. and all his students had completely different levels of skill because the information wasn't distributed properly, then you get other students holding back on each other so they stay better than the rest because they happened to get better tuition one day.

Guy b and LFJ do talk alot of **** but I do think WSLVT prob has one of the highest standards in Ip Man WC.

But we are supposed to be martial artists who go out and test our skills, but no one will ever meet up to settle this in person. A martial talk wing chun fight tournament is what will solve all these problems

 

[lansao]

I'd like to offer the following:

Regardless of which branch we come from, we're not very far from the core collective of great masters that inspired the development of what we practice. We're all family here. Maybe not biologically, but in the literal sense of what the word Sifu means. Particularly in the context of fatherhood (師父/师父).

With that, I want to recommend using Sifu ahead of the names of those who train others as a reminder of the fatherly (or motherly e.g. Simo) role they play.

Sifu Leung seemed like a very charismatic teacher from videos of him that I've seen. That said, I never met him or benefited from studying with him.

Sifu Bayer seems like a very charismatic and energetic teacher from videos of him that I've seen. Again, never having met him in person or studied with him I will assume that the level of insight I can glean into his understanding of the art is about the same others have gleaned into my Sifu's via public online videos (e.g. not much).

I haven't seen Sifu Lam videos but regardless of that fact I respect him as I would a family member.

I would love to see us acknowledge each other's Sifus as we would each other's fathers. That said, I imagine every few threads someone posts a similar appeal and comes across as a "more holy than thou" jerk face. Key takeaway, sh**-talking directed at Sifus likely draws a similar response to that of sh**-talking directed at fathers.

@Juany118, I respect your thoughts and think you mean well here. That said, I think you're walking a fine line when referencing an important part of @LFJ's family. I think it's fair to stand down and redirect focus. What do you think are the benefits, in the age of the internet, of any Sifu of any lineage "guarding the method?"

@LFJ, I know absolutely nothing about Sifu Bayer, nothing about Sifu Leung's legacy, and won't pretend to here. That said, you take defense of them both regularly here, and in doing so (and respecting that words suck), become representative of them and the culture they encourage in the court of perception. With that, your comments can sometimes come across as elitist. It's not explicit, but implied in the way you phrase certain things. If you don't mean to come across this way, moving forward, I'll apply a "that must be a typo" filter to the stuff you write and just focus on the core analytical message. @Juany118, I'd recommend the same for you. So, in a similar redirection, do you think there is any value in concealing methods/understanding in the age of the internet?

~ Alan

 

[lansao]

It always seemed like you guys are only PB.. but who are the other WSL guys you respect? Just curious.

Wouldn't be surprised about guarding the method, seemed like a common thing that happened, just usually its Ip man who's the one who did it in stories.

So there is" who did Ip teach the real stuff".. then "who did WSL teach the real stuff".. and now I guess its "who did PB teach the real stuff too?"

This is the reason why I like Alan. He just teaches you without holding back information. No bs. Just train hard to master what you have learned. My first Sifu seemed to pick up or just copy that whole " only private students get the good stuff" mentality.. and all his students had completely different levels of skill because the information wasn't distributed properly, then you get other students holding back on each other so they stay better than the rest because they happened to get better tuition one day.

Guy b and LFJ do talk alot of **** but I do think WSLVT prob has one of the highest standards in Ip Man WC.

But we are supposed to be martial artists who go out and test our skills, but no one will ever meet up to settle this in person. A martial talk wing chun fight tournament is what will solve all these problems

You know, that's a great approach. Mathematicians benefit greatly from studying under great mathematicians, but the materials are all openly accessible. In that way, mathematics has grown. Musicians benefit greatly from studying under great musicians, but the materials are all openly accessible. In that way, music and musicianship has grown. Having access to a fully transparent index of knowledge alone does not make you a great practitioner. You need to practice, and preferably under the instruction of someone who's been on the road before you.

I really love this article on the "Hidden Secrets of Wing Chun." I feel like he really hits the nail on the head although I imagine there may be more reasons for concealing the art than what he mentions.

Hidden Secrets of Wing Chun | Hypnotherapy & Certification, Holistic Psychiatry, Medical at Masters-Center BodySmart Wellness

As for the Martial Talk Wing Chun fight tournament, not sure it would help anyone get to work in one piece. That said, a sponsored convention might be interesting. Maybe even a video conference to help us demonstrate versus type.

~ Alan