Does WSLVT exist?

[SaulGoodman]

Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.

"We seem to have a hypocrite in our midst..."

 

[Transk53]

Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.

Then it is quite simple, have the balls to quote me, then just go away Guy B. You are
a troll, and you are barking up the tree, you ain't no PitBull

 

[Transk53]

Trolling is what you are doing. If you don't like the discussion then don't post here, simple.

Oh dear lovely lord (Yes I included the profanity for effect) You called me out once, I declined because you are somewhat lost. Wing Chun is WC. My advice to you would ask what is fighting actually is. Anyway, next time quote me!!

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

I don't mind it is what I mean. It makes no difference to me. The argument about where it came from is not an emotional argument; it us a probabilistic one

There is nothing "probabilistic" about what you are saying. The points I get from the two of you are basically:
1. WSL said so, so it must be true. (hearsay)
2. WSL VT is too perfect and well designed for it to be have been developed or changed by YM (opinion)
3. YM couldn't have taught people differently because that would be weird (again, opinion)
4. VT is perfect and therefore proper transmission of it will result in no change of it (opinion)

It is emotional to you because you are in the WSL line. You see everything through a WSL lense. You are invested in it. You have an extremely high bias. As we all do.

The only way for an unbiased appraisal of what YM taught is if someone who was not connected to any YM lineage went around and did his own research and practiced these different lineages and did his own investigation.

 

[geezer]

There is nothing "probabilistic" about what you are saying. The points I get from the two of you are basically:
1. WSL said so, so it must be true. (hearsay)
2. WSL VT is too perfect and well designed for it to be have been developed or changed by YM (opinion)
3. YM couldn't have taught people differently because that would be weird (again, opinion)
4. VT is perfect and therefore proper transmission of it will result in no change of it (opinion)

It is emotional to you because you are in the WSL line. You see everything through a WSL lense. You are invested in it. You have an extremely high bias. As we all do.

The only way for an unbiased appraisal of what YM taught is if someone who was not connected to any YM lineage went around and did his own research and practiced these different lineages and did his own investigation.

I was having "deja vu all over again" reading this earlier. Now I remember where I heard it before. It was a religious fundamentalist I met as a kid back in school. He was justifying "biblical inerrancy" regarding the creation myth in Genesis. His argument for God literally creating Adam and Eve some 6,000 years ago like little clay puppets went like this:

1. God said so, so it must be true (We know this because the Bible is the word of God, and we know that because it says so in the Bible!)
2. Man and woman, and creation in general, is too perfect and well designed to for it to have evolved through natural selection so it must be the work of a Divine Creator.
3. There is only one way to understand God's teaching, as revealed through his Word, the Holy Bible.....
4. My church is the one and only church that accurately and fully understands and teaches God's revealed word.....

No wonder reading Guy's and LFJ's posts seemed so familiar all this time!!!!!!

Sorry folks I'm just an incorrigible VT sinner. I'm bound to die and get warm in Heck ...VT Heck, that is!

 

[Nobody Important]

Make a copy of an image on a copy machine. Take that copy and reproduce it by making another copy, repeat. Overtime as more copies of copies are produced, detail is lost. Whisper a phrase in the ear of the person next to you. Have them repeat these words in the ear of the person next to them, continue through 100 people. Chances are good the original phrase will be altered. All things are susceptible to influence and change over time. This is especially true when exceptional people are given the choice to interpret and analyze something they find interesting. Innovation is unavoidable, people will interpret according to their understanding and modify what they don't to comply. This is evidenced throughout history from philosophy, religion, law, politics etc. Why would martial arts be any different?

 

[LFJ]

Make a copy of an image on a copy machine. Take that copy and reproduce it by making another copy, repeat. Overtime as more copies of copies are produced, detail is lost. Whisper a phrase in the ear of the person next to you. Have them repeat these words in the ear of the person next to them, continue through 100 people. Chances are good the original phrase will be altered. All things are susceptible to influence and change over time. This is especially true when exceptional people are given the choice to interpret and analyze something they find interesting. Innovation is unavoidable, people will interpret according to their understanding and modify what they don't to comply. This is evidenced throughout history from philosophy, religion, law, politics etc. Why would martial arts be any different?

Faulty analogies. Mathematics has been taught for centuries and the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 has not changed by interpretation or error. If someone says 1 + 1 = 3, it does not become true under their interpretation. They may believe so, and maybe their teacher told them so, but they are just wrong. They simply don't understand the abstract science of numbers, quantity, and space.

VT is a scientific approach to combat not based on opinion or interpretations. So long as the concepts and principles are clearly defined and understood, it will be passed on intact unless someone decides to change it, at which point it becomes something other than VT.

If the concepts and principles are left open to interpretation, that means they have not been clearly defined and so change is bound to happen, but we are again no longer talking about VT which is a specific conceptual approach to fighting and fight training.

 

[LFJ]

There is nothing "probabilistic" about what you are saying. The points I get from the two of you are basically:
1. WSL said so, so it must be true. (hearsay)
2. WSL VT is too perfect and well designed for it to be have been developed or changed by YM (opinion)
3. YM couldn't have taught people differently because that would be weird (again, opinion)
4. VT is perfect and therefore proper transmission of it will result in no change of it (opinion)

1. Never said that.
2. Observable, probable.
3. Never said that.
4. Never said that.

It is emotional to you because you are in the WSL line. You see everything through a WSL lense. You are invested in it. You have an extremely high bias. As we all do.

I have changed my views to match the evidence on several occasions. If I were biased or invested (emotionally, financially, professionally), I would be unwilling to do so.

The only way for an unbiased appraisal of what YM taught is if someone who was not connected to any YM lineage went around and did his own research and practiced these different lineages and did his own investigation.

That's exactly what I did before I got into VT. My own research and practice has brought me to where I am today. The system coherence and functionality of what WSL taught compared to that of others makes for no going back.

Again, difficult to have this conversation with people who have 0 experience with VT as taught by WSL.

 

[Phobius]

1. Never said that.
2. Observable, probable.
3. Never said that.
4. Never said that.



I have changed my views to match the evidence on several occasions. If I were biased or invested (emotionally, financially, professionally), I would be unwilling to do so.



That's exactly what I did before I got into VT. My own research and practice has brought me to where I am today. The system coherence and functionality of what WSL taught compared to that of others makes for no going back.

Again, difficult to have this conversation with people who have 0 experience with VT as taught by WSL.

I think people are not asking you to have this conversation. People are asking you to leave that kind of talk out of the forum to keep an inviting environment for normal discussions.

A little example:
"What do you think about taan-sau?"

A good answer might be "We dont believe taan-sau is a technique but rather an abstract move to teach....."

A Bad answer might be "Taan-sau is not a technique but abstract training, it is too incoherent to be a technique part of the true VT as taught by YM. We have understood this but then again we are training the only coherent system as taught directly by YM. All other lineages are interpreting things wrong, problems maybe caused by not following the concepts correctly. Or doing the drills wrong.

Many has seen this, thousands have already moved over to WSLVT from other lineages because they have seen we teach the only coherent VT system."

Ramblings like these you can get anywhere on the street, believers of all kinds have a similar way of phrasing themselves to push their opinion onto others. Preachings are similar in nature.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

Again, difficult to have this conversation with people who have 0 experience with VT as taught by WSL.

Yep, but by saying this you are implying one of my four points above. If I practice WSL wing chun (which I did by the way for 3-4 years while training with my regular school), I am going to see how perfect it is and then I will see how it is an exact science (as much as 1+1 = 2) and how it must indeed be Wing Chun as passed down by YM.

You are making a huge leap of faith in that assumption. Why couldn't it have just been WSL who came up with the way you obviously like to practice it.

 

[LFJ]

I think people are not asking you to have this conversation. People are asking you to leave that kind of talk out of the forum to keep an inviting environment for normal discussions.

A little example:
"What do you think about taan-sau?"

A good answer might be "We dont believe taan-sau is a technique but rather an abstract move to teach....."

A Bad answer might be "Taan-sau is not a technique but abstract training, it is too incoherent to be a technique part of the true VT as taught by YM. We have understood this but then again we are training the only coherent system as taught directly by YM. All other lineages are interpreting things wrong, problems maybe caused by not following the concepts correctly. Or doing the drills wrong.

Many has seen this, thousands have already moved over to WSLVT from other lineages because they have seen we teach the only coherent VT system."

Ramblings like these you can get anywhere on the street, believers of all kinds have a similar way of phrasing themselves to push their opinion onto others. Preachings are similar in nature.

I don't just say that. This is all you come away with if you have an emotional response. I give very detailed explanations for what I think about specific concepts or techniques, which usually results in crickets, because no one talks substance.

 

[LFJ]

Yep, but by saying this you are implying one of my four points above. If I practice WSL wing chun (which I did by the way for 3-4 years while training with my regular school), I am going to see how perfect it is and then I will see how it is an exact science (as much as 1+1 = 2) and how it must indeed be Wing Chun as passed down by YM.

As far as I know from what you've shared here, you haven't studied VT from anyone who spent any extended period of time with WSL.

You are making a huge leap of faith in that assumption. Why couldn't it have just been WSL who came up with the way you obviously like to practice it.

This has been answered a billion times.

 

[Nobody Important]

Faulty analogies. Mathematics has been taught for centuries and the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 has not changed by interpretation or error. If someone says 1 + 1 = 3, it does not become true under their interpretation. They may believe so, and maybe their teacher told them so, but they are just wrong. They simply don't understand the abstract science of numbers, quantity, and space.

VT is a scientific approach to combat not based on opinion or interpretations. So long as the concepts and principles are clearly defined and understood, it will be passed on intact unless someone decides to change it, at which point it becomes something other than VT.

If the concepts and principles are left open to interpretation, that means they have not been clearly defined and so change is bound to happen, but we are again no longer talking about VT which is a specific conceptual approach to fighting and fight training.

True, 1+1=2, I'm not refuting that. However there are other ways to achieve that based upon the information available, and consequently it will be approached differently depending on the equation used. Mathematics have evolved from addition & subtraction to multiplication & division to geometry, algebra & calculus etc. because of part of the information being unavailable. They did not exist at the same time.

Innovations of thought, processes & application of various things are continuously occurring. That is progress . That is a driving force of evolution. Life is not stagnant. Change is a universal concept. All things are susceptible to the ravages of time, both positively and negatively. But we must remember what is negative for one may be positive for another. There is no universal acceptance of what one individual believes should be the standard and accepted as truth.

There must be allowance for variation if change is to be occur. This is true in physics and as such applies to human thoughts and ideas. Wing Chun is not a science. Science can be applied to it, but the same can be said of any physical movement. It is not restricted to martial arts. It is nothing more than the thoughts and ideas of those who created it and steered it's course of development. It was not handed down from God as one of the commandments to never be broken or reevaluated. It was created by mankind and will be modified by mankind as he/she see befitting for the times and situation.

You say it is a specific conceptual approach to fighting & fight training. This may be true, but only to an extent. That approach is going to be different for each individual. Some things will overlap some will vary greatly. A 4' 8" 115 b. individual will not approach a fist fight with a 6' 5" 320 b. individual the same as a 6' 2" 350 lb. individual would. This simple truth affects many factors, including the concepts , let alone when we start factoring in disposition, intelligence, athletic ability, psycological factors etc.

I sincerely doubt that when Wing Chun was developed all these factors and more were considered to create a universal method of unarmed combat. Wing Chun is an idea of the individual(s) who founded it, not a universal truth. You may believe otherwise and you are free to your opinion. Thank you for the discussion sir.

 

[Phobius]

I don't just say that. This is all you come away with if you have an emotional response. I give very detailed explanations for what I think about specific concepts or techniques, which usually results in crickets, because no one talks substance.

(EDIT: Added quote, it got missing)

Crickets occur sometimes because people don't disagree in those cases.

People often tend to be more talkative when offended, agreeing people have a tendency to just read and move on.

Same goes with people that consider it different to what they do. Sometimes they do not care enough to state their own ways.

If you offend people you get them to talk by saying how wrong you are. Problem is, they do not talk about the techniques or concepts in that case. They talk about the words you used to offend them. So your threads become off-topic talks.

Now this last behavior is what is called trolling. You offend people to get them to write when they would otherwise not. As such the threads will derail and the troll can keep insulting people. Given that the troll knows what he/she knows what they are doing, they themselves do not get offended.

 

[LFJ]

So when I talk substance, topics go silent because people are either agreeing with me or they don't care to state their own ways?

Then why join a MA discussion forum if all they want to do is cry when people undermine their beliefs?

If they can't even handle logical criticism of what they do and defend their methods, it's hard to believe I'm talking to a group of fighters.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

As far as I know from what you've shared here, you haven't studied VT from anyone who spent any extended period of time with WSL..

By your own admission, WSL VT shouldn't lose anything its transmission, so then whether I trained with anyone who was a direct student of WSL becomes irrelevant.

This has been answered a billion times.

I'm sure it has, because people cant comprehend it. You are not giving us anything concrete to base your claims on besides the 4 points I listed above which you deny. Your claims are just as wild as those of William Cheung's and countless others. Easy to make them because they are hard to prove.

Even if I were to fly over to Europe and train under PB, and I thought "Wow this is totally awesome! This makes total sense! This is the best wing chun I have ever seen. It's totally logical in its approach and learning progression!", it is still a massive leap to think that this must be what YM taught exactly.

 

[Phobius]

So when I talk substance, topics go silent because people are either agreeing with me or they don't care to state their own ways?

Then why join a MA discussion forum if all they want to do is cry when people undermine their beliefs?

If they can't even handle logical criticism of what they do and defend their methods, it's hard to believe I'm talking to a group of fighters.

You are not talking to a group of fighters, you are writing on a forum that is sometimes read by fighters.

Difference is that this is the internet. People may not have the time or care to write but rather just take the knowledge that is here and move on. Others post to their hearts content. Others simply want to use the forum to show how incredibly awesome they are, boosting their egos. Others want to prove to themselves that their art is the best badass art in the world, some of those may not even care to read anything that states otherwise.

World of a forum is not so straight forward.

We are martial artists when we train, fight and study. On forums we neither train nor fight, sometimes we study but often we are not doing that either. For me this is just a place to find information on what I should look up more. Some of those things I investigate by trying out myself, others I see if I need to find a teacher in order to feel or grasp properly.

So we are martial artists but being here automatically removes some of our martial artsness in us.

Forums are nothing more than what they are.

 

[LFJ]

By your own admission, WSL VT shouldn't lose anything its transmission, so then whether I trained with anyone who was a direct student of WSL becomes irrelevant.

... If fully understood, is what I said.

If whoever was the first generation under WSL in the line you studied spent very little time with him and didn't receive the full picture, neither did you.

I'm sure it has, because people cant comprehend it. You are not giving us anything concrete to base your claims on besides the 4 points I listed above which you deny. Your claims are just as wild as those of William Cheung's and countless others. Easy to make them because they are hard to prove.

Even if I were to fly over to Europe and train under PB, and I thought "Wow this is totally awesome! This makes total sense! This is the best wing chun I have ever seen. It's totally logical in its approach and learning progression!", it is still a massive leap to think that this must be what YM taught exactly.

That has never been my argument, only a part. There is much, much more and all evidence based.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

... If fully understood, is what I said.

If whoever was the first generation under WSL in the line you studied spent very little time with him and didn't receive the full picture, neither did you.

If you get a chance to train with Darren Elvey I would be interesting in hearing your assessment. He is pretty active in attending international WSL conventions and exchanges positively with those that attend.

That has never been my argument, only a part. There is much, much more and all evidence based.

I have a hard time seeing what this "evidence" could be. Either way, you are not going to share it so I assume we have to take your word for it.

 

[LFJ]

If you get a chance to train with Darren Elvey I would be interesting in hearing your assessment. He is pretty active in attending international WSL conventions and exchanges positively with those that attend.

I see he teaches to walk straight into retarded round punches from out of range with a direct application from one of the forms. This is a stupid idea that will get people knocked out and is a technique-based approach to what they claim is a concept/principle-based system.

I know the people who organize those gatherings. A small group of them are all close buddies who share the same ridiculous ideas about VT each having spent very little time with WSL. I am not a fan.

I have a hard time seeing what this "evidence" could be. Either way, you are not going to share it so I assume we have to take your word for it.

It has been shared countless times on this forum. I don't feel like rehashing it all again because it gets people's panties all in a twist.