Does WSLVT exist?

[SaulGoodman]

Pointing out a perceived flaw can only be helpful for everyone involved. I can see no reason for anyone to be insulted.



It does seem that this is what some people prefer. I can't understand why. Makes no sense.

No ones asking for their backs to be patted. It's strange how guyb/lfj think we need their approval to confirm what WE already know to be true from our training and testing of our respective lineages. How arrogant.

 

[SaulGoodman]

I think you are confusing me with LFJ

How am I confusing you with LFJ? Just curious who you learnt WSL method from. As I understand it LFJ is in the US and you are in the UK which is why I mentioned UK WSL guys.

 

[Vajramusti]

How am I confusing you with LFJ? Just curious who you learnt WSL method from. As I understand it LFJ is in the US and you are in the UK which is why I mentioned UK WSL guys.

---------------------------------------------------
I believe that LFJ said that he was in mainland China.

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

I always respected WSL as well as my own line (CST) for not being one of those people to claim the WC throne by making outlandish claims about how they inherited the whole system or how they are the only ones that have the complete system. It is clear to me that these people didn't make these claims because YM didn't have an inheritor or one person that he shared all his secrets with. If you look at all YM's most dedicated students, be it WSL,CST, LS, LY, HKM etc, none of them make any claims of superiority over the others. None of them say that they are the inheritor of the art etc.

 

[guy b.]

It's strange how guyb/lfj think we need their approval to confirm what WE already know to be true from our training and testing of our respective lineages.

I think that some people prefer having their backs patted, even insincerely, to having a perceived problem brought to their attention. Pointing out problems seems to be a problem for some.

I think that it is virtually impossible to read this as LFJ or me claiming that people need our approval.

 

[Vajramusti]

I always respected WSL as well as my own line (CST) for not being one of those people to claim the WC throne by making outlandish claims about how they inherited the whole system or how they are the only ones that have the complete system. It is clear to me that these people didn't make these claims because YM didn't have an inheritor or one person that he shared all his secrets with. If you look at all YM's most dedicated students, be it WSL,CST, LS, LY, HKM etc, none of them make any claims of superiority over the others. None of them say that they are the inheritor of the art etc.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HKM Ming had good relationship with the others.

 

[Juany118]

To me it is super clear that WSL has taken wing chun in a certain direction and was an innovator. He had his own style and fighting philosophy. It is clearly NOT exactly what Yip Man taught, but why is that a bad thing? I just don't see why that is something to be so offended by. I even like the WSL approach.

This whole argument is really taking away from useful constructive discussions. I am really surprised moderators are not picking this up.

Late but wanted to qft this. People have to remember when YM learned WC he learned one of the many lineages that existed. He didn't quibble over Lineage, he simply learned and then taught WC. His teaching of the Lineage didn't match his fellow students and those other Lineages he didn't study also continue.

Today while multiple people say they teach YM Lineage I notice differences there as well even in simply how they perform Siu Lim Tao from how they open the stance to how they perform a Wu Sau (chest or head oriented) during the execution of the form. This is explained easily by the fact that YM taught in the old school Chinese way. 1. he taught to the student's strength, 2. He taught in a short form way that invited the student to question, not just regurgitate what he was told. So when we speak of WC, they all share the same foundation but the details are going to be different depending on the teacher.

Why? There is a central idea in Ch'an Buddhist Philosophy that can be paraphrased as "unless to try to do something beyond what you have already mastered you will never grow." So unless the various people we see as the heads of our respective "schools", regardless of lineage, go beyond what they were taught, blending other concepts, adapting existing concepts to other circumstances etc., they will stagnate and along with that what they teach stagnates.

I'll give you a blunt example from the other art I study, FMA (specifically Inosanto Kali.) First, there is the concept of angles of attack, different Lineages will have them in a different order, the below is just an example of what stagnation can do.

Now if you watch most teachers on YouTube they say "angle 1 is a slash to the upper body, angle 6 a thrust to the head or neck, angle 9 a slash to the lower body." Maybe this is the traditional way but in Inosanto Kali there are no specific targets, they are simply angles of attack that you launch from any position and which strike in direct relation from this to the enemies position, it is not trapping you in a specific move for a specific target.

 

[Juany118]

To me it is super clear that WSL has taken wing chun in a certain direction and was an innovator. He had his own style and fighting philosophy. It is clearly NOT exactly what Yip Man taught, but why is that a bad thing? I just don't see why that is something to be so offended by. I even like the WSL approach.

This whole argument is really taking away from useful constructive discussions. I am really surprised moderators are not picking this up.

Late but wanted to qft this. People have to remember when YM learned WC he learned one of the many lineages that existed. He didn't quibble over Lineage, he simply learned and then taught WC. His teaching of the Lineage didn't match his fellow students and those other Lineages he didn't study also continue.

Today while multiple people say they teach YM Lineage I notice differences there as well even in simply how they perform Siu Lim Tao from how they open the stance to how they perform a Wu Sau (chest or head oriented) during the execution of the form. This is explained easily by the fact that YM taught in the old school Chinese way. 1. he taught to the student's strength, 2. He taught in a short form way that invited the student to question, not just regurgitate what he was told. So when we speak of WC, they all share the same foundation but the details are going to be different depending on the teacher. To quote YM's nephew ...

"The way of Yip Man’s instruction depended on every student’s degree of knowledge, natural ability, personal habits, and interests. Yip Man’s great innovation was to personalize instruction by making each student’s progress dependent on his own habits and will to succeed."

Next we have why one of YMs former students may alter WC even more. There is a central idea in Ch'an Buddhist Philosophy that can be paraphrased as "unless to try to do something beyond what you have already mastered you will never grow." So unless the various people we see as the heads of our respective "schools", regardless of lineage, go beyond what they were taught, blending other concepts, adapting existing concepts to other circumstances etc., they will stagnate and along with that what they teach stagnates.

 

[guy b.]

There is a central idea in Ch'an Buddhist Philosophy that can be paraphrased as "unless to try to do something beyond what you have already mastered you will never grow." So unless the various people we see as the heads of our respective "schools", regardless of lineage, go beyond what they were taught, blending other concepts, adapting existing concepts to other circumstances etc., they will stagnate and along with that what they teach stagnates.

Are you a Buddhist?

The way of Yip Man’s instruction depended on every student’s degree of knowledge, natural ability, personal habits, and interests. Yip Man’s great innovation was to personalize instruction by making each student’s progress dependent on his own habits and will to succeed.

That sounds like a polite way of saying that if you were not natrally gifted, were lazy, or were stupid then YM was happy for you to misunderstand VT and wouldn't bother helping you out of your misconceptions

Now if you watch most teachers on YouTube they say "angle 1 is a slash to the upper body, angle 6 a thrust to the head or neck, angle 9 a slash to the lower body." Maybe this is the traditional way but in Inosanto Kali there are no specific targets, they are simply angles of attack that you launch from any position and which strike in direct relation from this to the enemies position, it is not trapping you in a specific move for a specific target.

VT is not a technique based approach. However without a conceptual base any system will fall apart. If you ignore basic concepts in an effort not to get trapped into particular approaches then you are left with no conceptual base, or bits missing from your conceptual base. You then no longer have a coherent system. Maybe you can fix it, maybe not.

 

[Juany118]

Are you a Buddhist?

I do practice Buddhism. I was raised Catholic but when I saw the 8 fold path and how it is affirming, "right..." vs accusatory "thou shalt not..." I investigated and found this fit me better. I have been practicing for almost 2 decades now.

That sounds like a polite way of saying that if you were not natrally gifted, were lazy, or were stupid then YM was happy for you to misunderstand VT and wouldn't bother helping you out of your misconceptions

Read it in context, it's not only about will to succeed but looking at the strengths of a student and helping them to maximize those strengths. I think you are looking only at it purely from a negative stand point. Now did this mean that if you did not engage in critical enquiry you may miss things? Yes but this is actually a traditional Chinese form of teaching. It is in some ways similar to the Socratic Method. The idea is to force the students to actually ask questions. This shows the students are thinking and understanding not just the how but the why, that they are engaging in critical thinking, which is necessary for full understanding.

VT is not a technique based approach. However without a conceptual base any system will fall apart. If you ignore basic concepts in an effort not to get trapped into particular approaches then you are left with no conceptual base, or bits missing from your conceptual base. You then no longer have a coherent system. Maybe you can fix it, maybe not.

No one is saying ignore basic concepts. Of course if you move away from the foundation then it becomes something else, but simply because the core concepts remain does not mean one much adhere dogmatically to everything.

 

[Juany118]

PS, the main meaning of that quote, which is why I said it was roughly translated, is an acknowledgement that we must never say "I have mastered..." one must always strive to go beyond where you are today, look for the weaknesses in the self and try to improve them. My Aikido Sensei many years ago (a practicing Zen Buddhist who also had a degree in eastern studies and Japanese) had in Kanji on a scroll at the school many year ago.

For some reason the idea is often attributed to Emerson the last few years but you can never actually find the source or a citation.

 

[LFJ]

look for the weaknesses in the self and try to improve them.

The self is but an illusion and so too the weakness.............................................

 

[guy b.]

I don't know if I agree that change is necessary in order to keep improving. VT is difficult. Changing concepts, blending concepts as you suggest only makes it not VT any more.

 

[Juany118]

I don't know if I agree that change is necessary in order to keep improving. VT is difficult. Changing concepts, blending concepts as you suggest only makes it not VT any more.

Well the thing is changes are inevitable, even if they are minor, because every Instructor, while they of course teach the core concepts and forms, will have prejudices, even if the are subconscious. It can be influenced by body type, a larger more leggy person may put more emphasis on kicks than a person who is more compact and powerful in the upperbody. I have seen some WC instructors say that WC from the beginning is in response to the opponent, others say you act first, always with an attack THEN you feed off of what your opponent does. Do these philosophical difference mean one is WC and the other is not?

Look at all of the potential Lineages... WingChunPedia - The One and Only Wing Chun Encylopedia! | WCP / Lineages browse

They all have differences... which is proper? In the end I think the only idea that is logical and does not create a circular argument is to first, look at the art and not the marketing of it. In looking at the art look at it like a house, do they share the same foundation? Do they share the same basic premise (types and number of rooms?). If the answer is yes to these, is it vital that one is designed with more of a focus on a particular room or rooms? That furniture is arranged slightly different?

There is a difference between evolution and revolution. The former is simply natural in any human system the later I would agree fits with your concern.

 

[Juany118]

Personally I think all of these issues start with what amounts to a school yard pissing match. There are so many Lineages of WC but the main known in the West is what we call the "YM" Lineage, but he was but one in a Line that already existed. He had many students, one of whom is arguably the most famous Martial Artist in the West, Bruce Lee, which brought YM great fame.

Now many of YM's other students went on to move to the west along with Sifus of other Lineages but these students have something to "sell" their Flavor of WC, the YM name. With so many former students, now Sifus themselves, looking to get students, how do they compete? They claim to be somehow "special" in their relationship with YM or question the claim of another and here we are, student s of their's, perhaps as far as 3 times removed.

If we chose to join that battle we point to idiosyncratic differences between the various schools, often comparing them to the video of a weak, almost 90 year old man painfully dying of cancer as an "ah ha" moment that one school is wrong or we point to a unverifiable anecdotal account that contradicts a statement of a particular school we don't like.

For a logical debate to occur we need to first take things in context. The context here is that YM is but a well known name in one of many existing Lineages. Second we need independently verifiable facts, which we don't really have. /Shrug.

 

[guy b.]

Well the thing is changes are inevitable, even if they are minor, because every Instructor, while they of course teach the core concepts and forms, will have prejudices, even if the are subconscious.

I don't think that is true for VT, provided everything is understood correctly and gaps are not filled with other ideas. VT is an error correcting system used to perfe ct a particular approach to fighting. It is conceptually coherent and resitant to change because change breaks it.

It can be influenced by body type, a larger more leggy person may put more emphasis on kicks than a person who is more compact and powerful in the upperbody.

VT isn't taught on a technique basis and can accomodate personal expression without becoming changed.

I have seen some WC instructors say that WC from the beginning is in response to the opponent, others say you act first, always with an attack THEN you feed off of what your opponent does. Do these philosophical difference mean one is WC and the other is not?

VT is quite specific about strategy and there isn't a lot of room to change it without changing the system.

 

[Phobius]

I don't think that is true for VT, provided everything is understood correctly and gaps are not filled with other ideas. VT is an error correcting system used to perfe ct a particular approach to fighting. It is conceptually coherent and resitant to change because change breaks it.

Not true, did not even take a single generation from WSLVT before it was broken in that case. Not meant to be offensive, just saying this because the reasoning is flawed. It can not be resistant to change if long term students of it have changed it already by your standards.

VT isn't taught on a technique basis and can accomodate personal expression without becoming changed.

This is the part that I have been trying to get information from you on and also why I sometimes ask questions, to figure out how you guys interpretate the concepts.

VT is quite specific about strategy and there isn't a lot of room to change it without changing the system.

I think no comment, this is a VT view only so impossible for anyone to comment unless well taught within your lineage.

Personally I would say any system that need to depend on you attacking first or your opponent attacking first is a bit flawed. This is one thing that, call it strategy or not, can not be controlled. You can never know if you will be able to attack first or not. You can not even be sure you will be faster , stronger or more well versed than your opponent. No system should have to call surrender at that point.

 

[guy b.]

Not true, did not even take a single generation from WSLVT before it was broken in that case. Not meant to be offensive, just saying this because the reasoning is flawed. It can not be resistant to change if long term students of it have changed it already by your standards.

They haven't. Some have added to it for personal reasons.

Some with incomplete understanding have indeed changed it, but in that case it is not functioning properly anyway, and gaps need filled.

It isn't impervious to change and people can do what they like with it. But it is resistant if fully understood.

 

[Phobius]

They haven't. Some have added to it for personal reasons.

Some with incomplete understanding have indeed changed it, but in that case it is not functioning properly anyway, and gaps need filled.

It isn't impervious to change and people can do what they like with it. But it is resistant if fully understood.

Did you not say earlier that guys like DP did not train the same type of VT you do?

 

[guy b.]

Did you not say earlier that guys like DP did not train the same type of VT you do?

Yes, refer above