WSLVT

[KPM]

This was the video that got me interested and involved in Wing Chun many many years ago. I've always thought it was a great video. And as I've learned more and more about Wing Chun through the years, this still looks to me like pretty standard Ip Man lineage Wing Chun. By "standard" I mean not departing to any great measure from what other Ip Man people do. But WSL himself looks better than average on this video!

But some have said that WSL purposefully altered things in this video and it is not really representative of the "real" WSLVT. So would someone from WSLVT lineage be willing to point out to the rest of us what is "wrong" in this video and what is different from what WSL "really" taught?

Thanks!

 

[wingchun100]

I don't understand why someone would put out a video to showcase their lineage, but then not teach what was in that video...so I am curious for an answer myself.

 

[Juany118]

I don't understand why someone would put out a video to showcase their lineage, but then not teach what was in that video...so I am curious for an answer myself.

Here is the thing. There is a trend among some of the more traditional TCMA Masters to "edit" what they do in demonstrations. Often it's omitting somethings, sometimes it's inserting an error. So sometimes people might just reflexively fall back on this when they believe they were taught something different than the evidence seems to indicate.

The problem is that this excuse ignores Occam's Razor. The problem with addressing the excuse though is that it creates an unassailable wall. When one side doesn't need proof, only a fiat statement, all the evidence in the world won't sway them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[guy b]

Here is the thing. There is a trend among some of the more traditional TCMA Masters to "edit" what they do in demonstrations. Often it's omitting somethings, sometimes it's inserting an error. So sometimes people might just reflexively fall back on this when they believe they were taught something different than the evidence seems to indicate.

The problem is that this excuse ignores Occam's Razor. The problem with addressing the excuse though is that it creates an unassailable wall. When one side doesn't need proof, only a fiat statement, all the evidence in the world won't sway them.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Lol Occam's razor.

This is easily countered simply by experiencing the system- it isn't a secret. WSL VT is not what is shown in that clip. Instead it is a fairly cheesy promotional video, designed not to offend anyone, and containing a low signal to noise ratio.

 

[Juany118]

Lol Occam's razor.

This is easily countered simply by experiencing the system- it isn't a secret. WSL VT is not what is shown in that clip. Instead it is a fairly cheesy promotional video, designed not to offend anyone, and containing a low signal to noise ratio.

The problem is there is actually, in my experience, more than one WSLVT and the two camps I am familiar with argue all the time. I have two friends from College who still study it. One in Europe (started in Germany) and was a student of Sifu Phillip Bayer for a time, the other in Australia who studied under Sifu David Peterson. They both will debate the finer points not just about "what is WC/VT/WT but "what is WSLVT."

If two WSLVT students can't agree I fall back to Occam's Razor and also the scientific method. If I have verifiable evidence that says X and someone says "no it's Y" then I needverifiable evidence that the evidence stating Y is the truth. Simply saying "no it's Y, that video(s) is intentionally flawed" without providing such evidence is a fiat statement.

 

[guy b]

The problem is there is actually, in my experience, more than one WSLVT and the two camps I am familiar with argue all the time. I have two friends from College who still study it. One in Europe (started in Germany) and was a student of Sifu Phillip Bayer for a time, the other in Australia who studied under Sifu David Peterson. They both will debate the finer points not just about "what is WC/VT/WT but "what is WSLVT."

If two WSLVT students can't agree I fall back to Occam's Razor and also the scientific method. If I have verifiable evidence that says X and someone says "no it's Y" then I needverifiable evidence that the evidence stating Y is the truth. Simply saying "no it's Y, that video(s) is intentionally flawed" without providing such evidence is a fiat statement.

David Peterson doesn't have a full understanding of the system (by far). The video is not the system. Please feel free to take it or leave it.

What does Occam's razor tell you here?

 

[Juany118]

David Peterson doesn't have a full understanding of the system (by far). The video is not the system. Please feel free to take it or leave it.

What does Occam's razor tell you here?

Well the thing is Occam's razor shows me that on the official list, sanctioned by WSL himself, I see David Peterson along side Phillip Bayer. I then also see Peterson along side many a seminar and video with Peterson being WSL's voice/translator. So Occam's razor tells me "what is the verifiable proof that Peterson lacks a complete understanding and that this is not simply a case of we all bring a part of ourselves into our Art(s)."

Barring such evidence there is no way, other than through faith (which requires no evidence), to say who has a full understanding of the art or whether we just have two students with their own opinion as to what WSL meant/taught.

 

[LFJ]

the official list, sanctioned by WSL himself,

The what now?

Barring such evidence there is no way, other than through faith (which requires no evidence), to say who has a full understanding of the art or whether we just have two students with their own opinion as to what WSL meant/taught.

Go learn what they teach, then take a look at their history and time spent with WSL. Things will be very clear at that point.

 

[Juany118]

The what now?



Go learn what they teach, then take a look at their history and time spent with WSL. Things will be very clear at that point.

I did study WSLVT, I simply moved on. I also know many WSLVT practitioners and depending on the WSL student who they "descend" from they debate almost as much as the different Yip Man Lineages.

As for the first part; WSL and other more modern teachers actually started producing lists of people authorized to teach their system in an effort to prevent controversies such as what we saw with the passing of YM himself. Among the places such a list can be found is http://www.wslstudents.org/? , Among others.

Anything about "who studied with whom longer" is looking at subjective data and that is all but impossible to verify and since I make decisions based on verifiable objective data it means little. If we didn't have a plethora of videos showing Peterson and Leung together, not only training but at seminars through out SE Asia and Oceania to also support things maybe I would go along with you. However yet again you say "learn/study X" without producing any actual evidence, well when we have studied the art and the history and have a different conclusion, Occam's Razor applies, the simplest answer based on verifiable objective facts.

I am a data driven guy. If you post something that contradicts my data I am open to changing my mind. It's an occupational hazard that I follow the evidence vs simply what someone says.

 

[geezer]

Here is the thing. There is a trend among some of the more traditional TCMA Masters to "edit" what they do in demonstrations. Often it's omitting somethings, sometimes it's inserting an error.

Yes, my old sifu did this in his videos and books. He called it being "clever". You show enough to get people interested, but you never give away too much. That would be what he called, "breaking your rice-bowl".

I understood the idea of not giving out certain information to people that weren't your students, by the idea of inserting deliberate errors into his videos and books seemed dishonest to me. But apparently it was a widely accepted practice among traditional Chinese sifus of the older generation.

 

[geezer]

Who are the better known students of WSL? I am aware of David Peterson, Philip Bayer and Gary Lam. I'm sure there are others....

Anyway, one question comes to mind when Guy and LFJ talk about the Bayer lineage and say that if you try it, it will be obvious that it is the most coherent and therefore obviously authentic system. But if that is so, wouldn't that be equally obvious to David Peterson and Gary Lam? ...Apparently not.

 

[Juany118]

Yes, my old sifu did this in his videos and books. He called it being "clever". You show enough to get people interested, but you never give away too much. That would be what he called, "breaking your rice-bowl".

I understood the idea of not giving out certain information to people that weren't your students, by the idea of inserting deliberate errors into his videos and books seemed dishonest to me. But apparently it was a widely accepted practice among traditional Chinese sifus of the older generation.

Indeed, my only issue is that in a circumstance like we have here you need to prove it is the case. Simply saying it is a tradition, with no evidence to show this tradition is in action here is, at least imo, an attempt to simply dismiss an argument rather than addressing and then disproving it.

 

[guy b]

As for the first part; WSL and other more modern teachers actually started producing lists of people authorized to teach their system in an effort to prevent controversies such as what we saw with the passing of YM himself. Among the places such a list can be found is http://www.wslstudents.org/? , Among others.

There is zero QC done with that list

Anything about "who studied with whom longer" is looking at subjective data and that is all but impossible to verify and since I make decisions based on verifiable objective data it means little. If we didn't have a plethora of videos showing Peterson and Leung together, not only training but at seminars through out SE Asia and Oceania to also support things maybe I would go along with you. However yet again you say "learn/study X" without producing any actual evidence, well when we have studied the art and the history and have a different conclusion, Occam's Razor applies, the simplest answer based on verifiable objective facts.

What's the simplest explanation for the fact that different people are teaching different things?

 

[guy b]

Anyway, one question comes to mind when Guy and LFJ talk about the Bayer lineage and say that if you try it, it will be obvious that it is the most coherent and therefore obviously authentic system. But if that is so, wouldn't that be equally obvious to David Peterson and Gary Lam? ...Apparently not.

Do you mean that it will be obvious to DP that PB is teaching material and understanding that DP is not, and to a much higher level? I would say yes it will be obvious to DP.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The what now?



Go learn what they teach, then take a look at their history and time spent with WSL. Things will be very clear at that point.

So, "it's complicated, you wouldn't understand"?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There is zero QC done with that list



What's the simplest explanation for the fact that different people are teaching different things?

That they have different interpretations of the art.

 

[KPM]

Applying Occam's Razor.....David Petersen calls WSL "Sifu" and claims to be teaching WSL's system. Same is true of Phillip Bayer. Both Bayer and Petersen traveled to HK to study and were not residents. David Petersen speaks fluent Chinese. Does Bayer? I don't know. David Petersen traveled often with WSL when he went abroad teaching seminars and acted as his translator. David Petersen was also chosen to give the eulogy at WSL's funeral. So applying Occam's Razor we have no reason to believe that Petersen learned a substandard version of WSLVT.

But really, no one cares to try and explain some of the things wrong in the WSL video?

 

[guy b]

That they have different interpretations of the art.

That is a very complex explanation. It requires a lot more work for lots of different people came up with such very different interpretations, compared to the simpler explanation of just not many people learning it correctly, which only requires a lack of work or care by Yip Man

 

[guy b]

we have no reason to believe that Petersen learned a substandard version of WSLVT

There is indeed an excellent reason to believe this- his VT and his understanding of the system

really, no one cares to try and explain some of the things wrong in the WSL video?

That video is so far removed from the actual practice of WSL VT, even in branches without the full picture, that it is difficult to know where to start. It portrays a very faded image but covers none of the important detail. Anyone can see that it contains no important strategic information, and that the fighting method shown is cartoonish to say the least.

 

[Juany118]

There is indeed an excellent reason to believe this- his VT and his understanding of the system



That video is so far removed from the actual practice of WSL VT, even in branches without the full picture, that it is difficult to know where to start. It portrays a very faded image but covers none of the important detail. Anyone can see that it contains no important strategic information, and that the fighting method shown is cartoonish to say the least.

So what you are saying is that the person who traveled with WSL, who was chosen to give his eulogy would not be close, not know his art fully? What's?!?!?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk