Another generalist and sweeping statement. Think you will find that KPM's knowledge base is very broad. But you still persist that WSL VT is that much different?
Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory
- Thread starter LFJ
- Start date
Another generalist and sweeping statement. Think you will find that KPM's knowledge base is very broad. But you still persist that WSL VT is that much different?
- Thread Starter
- #262
It is confirmed by numerous YM student testimonies (WSL, CST, HKM, DL, HC, etc...), that is how the man taught. Pretty common knowledge.
Post it here then so that we can all benefit
What does it have to do with KPM?
Refinement is explicitly not invention
- Thread Starter
- #266
Read the discussion if you're gonna bother posting.
YM taught the full system to very few people, and each went their own way and has their own contradictory understanding. There was never a big group collaboration to improve VT.
So, false premise and the rest is pointless.
Generalist and sweeping? He was talking about Juany who has claimed to train WSLVT before, but doesn't even understand a very clear and simple quote from WSL on strategy.
"The difference is YM had students simply go through the movements < in the logical, step-by-step progression of the system > without often giving them much detail, or investing much effort into students whom he felt not worth his time."
---Interesting that you have to edit this to make it say what you want it to say.
I haven't found the same logical thread connecting each piece of the system from start to finish in other versions so far. Been looking.
---Then you cannot say that WSL did NOT make these logical connections throughout the whole system himself.
I didn't say he only managed to teach it to WSL, for the 10 trillionth time.
---But that is certainly your underlying thesis and the way you come across on the forum....that only WSLVT is the "real" VT.
My position is not of absolute certainty, but one of evidence-based confidence, from a technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC, numerous student testimonials, the probability argument, and so on.
---You haven't made that technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC in detail, all in one place, for us to analyze. Other YM students will testify that they learned YM's Wing Chun fully.....like HKM or CST. Other people see the probabilities much differently than you do. So maybe it is time you accept that and stop being so dogmatic about things.
---Interesting that you have to edit this to make it say what you want it to say.
I haven't found the same logical thread connecting each piece of the system from start to finish in other versions so far. Been looking.
---Then you cannot say that WSL did NOT make these logical connections throughout the whole system himself.
I didn't say he only managed to teach it to WSL, for the 10 trillionth time.
---But that is certainly your underlying thesis and the way you come across on the forum....that only WSLVT is the "real" VT.
My position is not of absolute certainty, but one of evidence-based confidence, from a technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC, numerous student testimonials, the probability argument, and so on.
---You haven't made that technical comparison of WSLVT to other YM derived WC in detail, all in one place, for us to analyze. Other YM students will testify that they learned YM's Wing Chun fully.....like HKM or CST. Other people see the probabilities much differently than you do. So maybe it is time you accept that and stop being so dogmatic about things.
The "why" is that conceptual and strategic thread that is apparently missing in all other YM lineages I've seen.
---That is not an answer. That is another case of "because I said so." As Juany has pointed out, both you and Guy are very good at making fiat statements that you just expect everyone to take as true without actually explaining the technical aspects of it to show why you think it is true.
wckf92 wasn't "afraid" to share his understanding. I haven't commented on it yet because I'm waiting for your response, since you requested the discussion, and I don't want to influence anything further.
---I'm not taking your bait and falling for your "gotcha" trap. I've already pointed out.....if you posted in a "friendly" way....offered your own answer to your question and request other people to comment and explain their own understanding...you would get much better results. Throwing something out as a challenge is not likely to get much of a response from people.
---That is not an answer. That is another case of "because I said so." As Juany has pointed out, both you and Guy are very good at making fiat statements that you just expect everyone to take as true without actually explaining the technical aspects of it to show why you think it is true.
wckf92 wasn't "afraid" to share his understanding. I haven't commented on it yet because I'm waiting for your response, since you requested the discussion, and I don't want to influence anything further.
---I'm not taking your bait and falling for your "gotcha" trap. I've already pointed out.....if you posted in a "friendly" way....offered your own answer to your question and request other people to comment and explain their own understanding...you would get much better results. Throwing something out as a challenge is not likely to get much of a response from people.
I have simply suggested a way for both you and LFJ to make your position more clear and perhaps more convincing. But instead you have chosen to spread out little comments here and there over multiple threads and several days. So what do you think you have accomplished? Is anyone any more convinced than they were before? No, instead of taking good advice both of you have done the "same ole thing" you always do and have not changed anything. Too bad really. I had hopes that you had changed your attitude somewhat. But it has become apparent over the last several days that I was wrong. So yeah, I need to do as my wise friend Geezer has done and simply try to ignore you both.
- Thread Starter
- #275
They were my own words! I had to connect the pieces of what I already said for you because you're too slow to follow two sentences.
Because everyone else's system is illogical? Good logic.
Not saying it is, but what if that were the cold, hard truth? You'd still deny it because it's not hippie enough for you. You want everyone to be right even if facts don't allow it.
You refuse to enter that discussion.
CST said YM wouldn't give him details and he had to make up stuff on his own. At least he was honest about it.
You could enter the discussion and we'd sort it out, but you are afraid of getting "got", which is just your insecurity showing.
If you were confident that other lineages you know share the same thread, then you could just say what it is and there'd be nothing to "getcha" on.
So, I have to carry on a conversation with myself and let you comment where you like?
Do you not understand how discussion works?
Here we go, another thread soon to be locked.
Thanks!
Okay, so if I'm getting the basic gist of this, the strategy is to overwhelm (usually to centerline, if I recall correctly from some other discussions, though that might be a generic WC principle I'm remembering) with attacks that (when necessary) also provide protection/defense. And you have footwork (that word took me 4 tries to type correctly for some reason) that allows you to remain at your preferred distance (pretty damned close) to recover from someone whose strategy is similar, or who has at least a similar result to what you were looking for.
Am I getting the basics?
That's interesting to me, because part of the core is directly opposite - at least in how it's conceived - to our approach. We make the defense include the offense, rather than the reverse. When a punch comes in, we might redirect it as a defense, and that redirection is done in a way that off-balances them to allow us access to throws and locks. Quite the opposite approach.
For the WSL VT folks and the other WC folks - how different is the WSL VT strategy (again, assuming I have it paraphrased reasonably) from other lines of WC?
