WSLVT

[LFJ]

Since all of the different interpretations of YM wing chun that I have seen are different, it is disingenuous to make out that they are all similar while only WSL VT is different. In reality they are all very divergent, pointing to a widespead lack of understanding.

Yes, and the divergence begins most strikingly at Biu-ji level and the weapons, demonstrating that most never got that far into the system and had to make up a bunch of nonsense while not understanding the whole picture of VT.

 

[wckf92]

Question, did wsl ever mention his thoughts on who taught ym this VT fighting method? Wouldn't the choices be either chan wah shun or this Leung bik person?

 

[KPM]

In another thread either you or Guy had stated that simultaneous attack and defense, if properly executed, is done so with one arm in WSLVT. As you also put a premium on punching (which is difficult to do without a hand), well I think the connection is rather obvious.

Actually, PB pads his residual limb. He has a wrist disarticulation, which leaves a strong impact resist surface behind. So he can still actually punch pretty well with his "stump." But he obviously can't grab anything, and so any Kum Na is out!

 

[KPM]

WSL had two hands

Indeed! Which leads one to wonder how much of PB's VT is actually tailored to PB....including the strategic and conceptual approach of focusing almost exclusively on the punch! This would explain differences between PB and DP.

 

[LFJ]

And we return to fiat statements based in dogma.

Actually it's based on experience of the two "versions" of the system and an objective technical analysis of their contents.

I have already detailed some of it in an earlier post, which you have ignored completely, otherwise I could add more to further illustrate the truth of how much DP doesn't know about VT.

Sorry it's actually about time you and LFJ address all of the historical links I have posted. You both made historical claims without supporting evidence.

None of your links have said anything different than what I have said.

DP visited HK once per year for a few years, for one or two months at a time, max, and had WSL to Australia for seminars a few times as well.

You have only assumed what DP must have learned given a period of time you think is sufficient to learn something you have no experience of.

Since you don't actually know what you're talking about, you've had to ignore the technical analysis, and continue to do so because it shows that despite what you consider sufficient time, without even knowing what for, and despite a friendship developing over the years, DP still only had a phrasebook level understanding of VT.

This is objectively verifiable through technical analysis of what he teaches, regardless of what further timeline you want to point to.

 

[KPM]

Here's what I don't get:

Let's start by assuming (for argument's sake) their stance that PB's WSLVT is the best. I can't judge one way or the other, so let's accept it for this post. Why would this not be a testament of the abilities of both WSL and PB to refine and improve the art? What is so awful about them both, perhaps, being extraordinary instructors and practitioners? If this is the best line, why is it not because these two are the best at what they do? Why would it have to be because others weren't told the whole story?

There is another long-standing custom and tradition in Chinese martial arts. The sales slogan in the west for decades has been to refer to something as "new and improved!" in order to increasing its value. But the custom in the east has been the opposite. In CMA circles the sales slogan has always been "original and traditional!" It was seen as disrepectful to assume that you could improve upon what your teacher taught you or what your lineage contains. Therefore any changes were always attributed to one's sifu or an ancestor in the system. That is why there are so many stories of "hidden" methods being revealed. People in CMA circles would value something much more if they thought they were learning the "hidden" method of some long lost ancestor than if they were learning the "new and improved" version from their own teacher! So there is carry over of this tradition in Wing Chun as well. If asked, WSL is very likely to tell someone that he is teaching them just what Ip Man taught him than he is to say, "well, I improved and adjusted and changed this part"......because that would have been seen as being disrepectful to Ip Man!

 

[LFJ]

So he can still actually punch pretty well with his "stump." But he obviously can't grab anything, and so any Kum Na is out!

Would agree, except that there was never any in, so it isn't out either.

Indeed! Which leads one to wonder how much of PB's VT is actually tailored to PB....including the strategic and conceptual approach of focusing almost exclusively on the punch! This would explain differences between PB and DP.

No. Because, again, PB's seniors were training the same way before he got there, and the longer people spent with WSL the more they match this understanding of VT.

It's not a handicapped version, and that's offensive.

Luckily, VT works great despite PB's condition. It would not work so great if it were all hand and wrist focused, like the LTWT he started in and had to be turned away from, saying they couldn't help him.

 

[Juany118]

Actually, PB pads his residual limb. He has a wrist disarticulation, which leaves a strong impact resist surface behind. So he can still actually punch pretty well with his "stump." But he obviously can't grab anything, and so any Kum Na is out!

Oh I know that, which is why I think the premium is on punching. In my lineage we punch of course but palm strikes and bil sau/jee are more preferable once you have learned how to punch with proper structure.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Why do you think losing a hand would be important?

Why would you think it wouldn't?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's not a handicapped version, and that's offensive.

KPM never called it a "handicapped version".

 

[Juany118]

I have already detailed some of it in an earlier post, which you have ignored completely,

There is a difference between you simply making a statement and also posting an independent link that serves as verifiable evidence of said statement. Thus far you have failed to do this. What's sad is if you did this, and I could not find similar evidence to contradict it, my opinion on the issue covered may actually be swayed.

None of your links have said anything different than what I have said.

Ummm wrong. I posted that DP lived in Hong Kong and trained there with WSL, though I also admitted that it was not for as long as PB. I then also noted that during breaks in the school year he would return to Hong Kong for as long as 2 months at a time to train with WSL until WSL's death. You claimed these to be false. I posted the link to the interview this came from. So a link I posted did indeed contradict your accusation of falsehood. I still await a rebuttal backed by an independent link so I can verify the source.

I don't know if you forgot this, didn't read the link or are simply saying whatever you feel must be said in order to defend your position but regardless I think it clear reason debate backed by verifiable facts is hopeless with you.

DP visited HK once per year for a few years, for one or two months at a time, max, and had WSL to Australia for seminars a few times as well.

So you contradict yourself. You claimed this to be simply false before. Even when contradicting yourself you have to again try to minimize the significance of this as you were clearly ignorant of it previously (hence the claim of falsehood.). Simply further proof of what I said above. To remind you where you simply said "false"... WSLVT

You have only assumed what DP must have learned given a period of time you think is sufficient to learn something you have no experience of.

Well first I already said I once studied WSLVT. That aside, you actually don't post any evidence that explains why WSL would personally appoint DP as a teacher of WSLVT if his knowledge was so lacking. Your insistence on this beggars logic.

Since you don't actually know what you're talking about,

Translation, I have yet to post anything resembling verification of my fiat statements so I will resort to attacking the source. See above.

 

[Juany118]

KPM never called it a "handicapped version".

No one did, all anyone did was say that the disability will natural inform how he fights. This isn't to demean it in the least. The hyperbole is strong in this argument.

 

[guy b]

In another thread either you or Guy had stated that simultaneous attack and defense, if properly executed, is done so with one arm in WSLVT. As you also put a premium on punching (which is difficult to do without a hand), well I think the connection is rather obvious.

The problem is really that you don't understand. I guess it would help if you tried to listen

 

[guy b]

The implication isn't the he just cut bits off something, but that he improved upon it. Why is that so objectionable to you?

Extremely improbable looking at the VT of WSL vs the mess that he supposedly improved upon. More likely that the mess represents degeneration of the understanding in WSL VT.

 

[guy b]

Here's what I don't get:

Let's start by assuming (for argument's sake) their stance that PB's WSLVT is the best. I can't judge one way or the other, so let's accept it for this post. Why would this not be a testament of the abilities of both WSL and PB to refine and improve the art? What is so awful about them both, perhaps, being extraordinary instructors and practitioners? If this is the best line, why is it not because these two are the best at what they do? Why would it have to be because others weren't told the whole story?

It isn't awful. I would be perfectly happy if the WSL VT I preactice was a product of YM, WSL or PB. It doesn't really matter to me who created it. It is just extremely improbable that this is the case, given the content and organisation of the system vs that which it is supposed to have evolved from by those who do not understand it.

 

[guy b]

First that comment is regarding WSL and his VT. Every other YM lineage has some degree of Chin Na. According to PB WSLVT has no "grappling or bone breaking.". So it is more likely WSL streamlined WSLVT even further. This would not be unheard of since YM streamlined his WC.

DP doesn't mean that WSL streamlined VT is that quote. It is just a misinterpretation by KPM

Such evidence has been presented to the contrary, which you ignore or dismiss in order to continue on this unsupported track.

You didn't present any evidence

First the very definition of having a specific or precise approach to something is to be narrow.

It isn't narrow to approach the broad sweep of combat situations with a certain strategy. It is systematisation. Non systematisation (i.e. lack of depth) is narrow, which is the problem with non-WSL VT

No it's because some arts are focused around a more holistic view of combat. There are times when having Chin Na is a preferred option, such as when dealing with a person armed with a weapon as the principles of Chin Na can be used to control the limb and even disarm the subject.

Unarmed vs armed is low % fantasy land. WSL VT is a pragmatic system.

It is not disingenuous to say that WSLVT is the different one IF the basis of the comment is the specific point that the other lineages have some form of Chin Na but WSLVT doesnt.

It is disingenuous because while some might contain grappling, they are still wildly divergent from each other, and therefore do not represent some common system of which WSL VT is a refinement or specialisation.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Extremely improbable looking at the VT of WSL vs the mess that he supposedly improved upon. More likely that the mess represents degeneration of the understanding in WSL VT.

Perhaps both occurred? Is it possible that YM had a coherent system that WSL made superior, while some others took it in a direction that wasn't as good as the original? From what I've heard, WSL seems an extraordinary martial artist and effective instructor - it seems unlikely he wouldn't have a positive impact on the overall structure and functionality of an art.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It isn't narrow to approach the broad sweep of combat situations with a certain strategy. It is systematisation. Non systematisation (i.e. lack of depth) is narrow, which is the problem with non-WSL VT

I think the difference is in the use of "narrow". One can have a narrow approach that fits a broad range of situations. As someone commented in a different thread, just punching well works in a wide range of circumstances. So, perhaps the difference on this point is semantics - you're just using the term "narrow approach" to mean different things.

 

[Juany118]

The problem is really that you don't understand. I guess it would help if you tried to listen

Or, since I am using the very words used in this case, that more often than not the responses given by LFJ and yourself are so vague that you can give such a response regardless of what you are actually responding to.

 

[Juany118]

DP doesn't mean that WSL streamlined VT is that quote. It is just a misinterpretation by KPM



You didn't present any evidence



It isn't narrow to approach the broad sweep of combat situations with a certain strategy. It is systematisation. Non systematisation (i.e. lack of depth) is narrow, which is the problem with non-WSL VT



Unarmed vs armed is low % fantasy land. WSL VT is a pragmatic system.



It is disingenuous because while some might contain grappling, they are still wildly divergent from each other, and therefore do not represent some common system of which WSL VT is a refinement or specialisation.

I have presented links to articles, referred you to the videos you are already aware of as well as links to biographies and interviews. These are called evidence. You may disagree with it but it is then incumbent upon you to produce similar evidence to support a counter argument, vs unsupported statements which is all we have received to date.

Unarmed vs armed is not small % fantasy land. Check out the FBI crime statistics. Almost 20% of all Robberies, and over 50% of all Aggravated assaults, in the US are committed with knive/cutting instruments or other dangerous weapons (firearms and unarmed are seperate categories). This also doesn't count weapon use in simple assaults or sexual assaults. So if one is learning a Martial arts system to defend yourself in one of these scenarios in real life training to address an armed subject is very pragmatic.

Violent Crime

On the last bit, again, it is not disingenuous if you are simply asking "how many WC Lineages have Chin Na vs those that don't."