WSLVT

[KangTsai]

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!

I turned on the captions on that video...

"Good fight"
"Yeah"
"Yeah"
"Yeah"
"Yeah"
"Oh God"
"Yeah"
"Yeah"

 

[KPM]

It's detailed in the link I posted earlier but I understand if you didn't read it. PB lost his left hand in 1980. Losing a hand can have a rather interesting impact on WC/VT/WT.

Yes. One of the key things being that any kind of grabbing or Kum Na applications are not very viable. So your method would focus on punching and clearing the way for punching and any thing Kum Na related methods would be dropped.

 

[KPM]

The system as passed via WSL to some others is not streamlined in that it contains many things lacking from the other wing chun I have seen. The fight strategy would be one of these. The full conceptual base and the full understanding of it would be another. It is blatantly obvious that WSL did not just cut bits off a wing chun that was the average of the other YM wing chun systems I have seen.

Like LFJ, you don't seem to be reading very closely. I've never said anything about "cut bits off a wing chun." I've said "refining/improving/updating and words such as that. All you are saying above is that WSL appears to have been as inattentive a teacher as you guys make Ip Man out to be if he passed on an incomplete version of his system to some.

And WSLVT does have a narrower focus. You've pointed that out yourself in the past! It was you that pointed out that WSLVT does not include any kind of Kum Na element because it contradicts the conceptual and strategic approach. In the past you've talked about how WSLVT is "all about the punch." Other Wing Chun versions from Ip Man do include some Kum Na, even if rudimentary, and do things like angle and control the opponent when necessary instead of always going for the punch.

 

[KPM]

DP's understanding of VT is limited, as I've briefly detailed, so I don't think he can accurately describe much, but in this case I think "it" doesn't mean other WC that WSL "refined".

Rather "it" refers to fighting and fight training, and this is just the simple, no-nonsense VT approach to punching people directly in the face.

It wasn't WSL's invention and he didn't have to streamline anything himself. That's just VT.

So why do you think WSL would not have put out the effort to ensure the DP had this bit? He was certainly with DP enough! Even if DP wasn't a "live in" student for 18 months he certainly spent a considerable amount of time with WSL. PB himself said that the approach of the system could be taught in an afternoon! If it is all so "simple and no-nonsense VT approach", then why didn't WSL teach it to DP? DP is obviously a smart guy.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What "one-handed work" are you guys on about? Both arms are used together. PB didn't lose a whole freaking arm!

Thing is, the VT method is not about the hands. It's the "way of the elbow". So to say PB couldn't learn the standard method shows you know nothing about how VT works.

Other students who spent significant time with WSL share PB's understanding of VT.

Do you think he taught them all "disabled" VT?

The more time people spent with WSL, the more their VT matches PB's. The less time, the less so. Predictably.

As I said earlier, go through the system as taught by PB, or someone with simular time spent with WSL, and it clears away every doubt, inconsistency, and impracticality in what DP teaches.

That was why I used the term "one-handed". If you think not having the weight and 5-6 inches of length where the hand would be (to say nothing of the dexterity of that extension) doesn't change how someone uses the arm, you're kidding yourself.

I was positing that WSL may have learned some new depths to his own teaching when teaching PB, because of those limitations. Many times an instructor will discover a better way while working around a student's current limitation (be it flexibility, speed, bad knees, or whatnot), and it's reasonable that WSL experienced that in this case. Perhaps this led to better efficiency. Once he discovered how well what he taught to PB worked, perhaps he worked some of those changes into improving what he taught to everyone.

I'm curious - what was the timeline for DP and PB training with WSL? When did DP start? I remember from the article that PB started around 1981.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

The system as passed via WSL to some others is not streamlined in that it contains many things lacking from the other wing chun I have seen. The fight strategy would be one of these. The full conceptual base and the full understanding of it would be another. It is blatantly obvious that WSL did not just cut bits off a wing chun that was the average of the other YM wing chun systems I have seen.

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

WSL VT is not streamlined and does not have a narrow focus. It contains a strategic approach and conceptual understanding that is lacking from other YM derived wing chun that I have seen and which is the key to making it both understandable and functional. Without this it is reduced to application based thinking.

Again, that's not contrary to my post. Why is it so unlikely that WSL brought a better focus and strategic view than others, and improved upon what he learned?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

DP's understanding of VT is limited, as I've briefly detailed, so I don't think he can accurately describe much, but in this case I think "it" doesn't mean other WC that WSL "refined".

Rather "it" refers to fighting and fight training, and this is just the simple, no-nonsense VT approach to punching people directly in the face.

It wasn't WSL's invention and he didn't have to streamline anything himself. That's just VT.

Is this one of the concepts that appears to be lacking in other areas of WC?

 

[Juany118]

What "one-handed work" are you guys on about? Both arms are used together. PB didn't lose a whole freaking arm!

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.

No one is saying that he taught a disabled form of anything but if you have ever taught anything you would know how and what you are personally taught does inform your teaching to a degree.

As I said earlier, go through the system as taught by PB, or someone with simular time spent with WSL, and it clears away every doubt, inconsistency, and impracticality in what DP teaches.

And we return to fiat statements based in dogma.

 

[Juany118]

Again, that's not contrary to my post. Why is it so unlikely that WSL brought a better focus and strategic view than others, and improved upon what he learned?

Because to say this means they can't say it is the true VT of WSL and connection of that sort to WSL is the corner stone as to why PB's > than the other students even ones like GL.

 

[Juany118]

Post a clip of David Peterson doing his VT. Beside it post a clip of Philipp Bayer.

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. I posted actual links noting the history and the relationships. Now you just say "ignore that, do this." Sorry I am done playing your game with moving goal posts. You can answer to the fact your fiat statements have no supporting evidence or really I suggest bowing out because it only undermines your point at this juncture.

It's never good to ask questions or lay down challenges and then when answered simply move on to another question or challenge because the response proves inconvenient.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Because to say this means they can't say it is the true VT of WSL and connection of that sort to WSL is the corner stone as to why PB's > than the other students even ones like GL.

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?

 

[Juany118]

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?

Because some people, for some reason, need to say "my Sifu..." or Sifu's Sifu, "...was the student of X and he teaches to true version of what X taught." Some teachers do admittedly empower this dynamic but in the end I agree with you and see your view as not only more healthy but simply more logical because unless we get everyone, including the dead, in the same room the question can never be definitively answered causing some to resort to dogma rather than facts.

 

[guy b]

Losing a hand can have a rather interesting impact on WC/VT/WT.

Why do you think losing a hand would be important?

 

[guy b]

Yes. One of the key things being that any kind of grabbing or Kum Na applications are not very viable. So your method would focus on punching and clearing the way for punching and any thing Kum Na related methods would be dropped.

WSL had two hands

 

[Juany118]

Why do you think losing a hand would be important?

As was pointed out, it appears the lack of grappling in WSLVT is rare when one looks at other Lineages. If WSLVT had grappling it would be problematic with one hand.

Additionally not being able to lap, palm strike, biu (etc.) with both limbs will force changes in tactics. It doesn't necessarily make the person a less effective fighter but it will certainly influence how the practitioner fights. I actually can't believe you even asked such an obvious question.

 

[guy b]

Like LFJ, you don't seem to be reading very closely. I've never said anything about "cut bits off a wing chun." I've said "refining/improving/updating and words such as that

If you are agreeing that "steamline and simplify it", whith the misunderstanding that "it" is VT, then you have the wrong end of the stick:

DP said "His approach is to streamline, simplify it, and what is the shortest distance between my fist and the other guys noise." Which is in line with my assertion that WSL's VT differs from everyone else's because of WSL's own refinements/improvements/interpretations. THAT was my point!

You continue:

All you are saying above is that WSL appears to have been as inattentive a teacher as you guys make Ip Man out to be if he passed on an incomplete version of his system to some.

I don't see why it is WSL's fault that various partly trained people have tried to make themselves out to be more important and knowlegeable than they really are, after his death. I don't see why you feel that it was WSL's responsibility to manage the learning outcomes of people that didn't train with him very much.

And WSLVT does have a narrower focus. You've pointed that out yourself in the past! It was you that pointed out that WSLVT does not include any kind of Kum Na element because it contradicts the conceptual and strategic approach.

Not having grappling is not a narrower approach. WSL VT approaches the whole fight in a specific way. It doesn't approach part of the fight. It is a full system. Other YM derived wing chun that I have seen approaches situations or badly conceived conceptual formulations with technique based solutions. It lacks the systematic understanding of WSL VT, and the conceptual base. Gaps are filled with strange ideas which contradict basic concepts and solutions are derived from the imaginings of people who never understood the systematic approach to combat that is WSL VT.

[/QUOTE]In the past you've talked about how WSLVT is "all about the punch." Other Wing Chun versions from Ip Man do include some Kum Na, even if rudimentary, and do things like angle and control the opponent when necessary instead of always going for the punch.[/QUOTE]

The punch is the primary weapon of WSL VT. Including grappling is a gap filling approach which is required due to incomplete understanding of the system. 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.

WSL VT is the only one I have seen that takes a fully systematic approach, has the strategic approach to fighting, and has the full, non-contradictory conceptual base.

 

[Juany118]

If you are agreeing that "steamline and simplify it", whith the misunderstanding that "it" is VT, then you have the wrong end of the stick:

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.

I don't see why it is WSL's fault that various partly trained people have tried to make themselves out to be more important and knowlegeable than they really are, after his death. I don't see why you feel that it was WSL's responsibility to manage the learning outcomes of people that didn't train with him very much.

A fiat statement not supported by any verifiable evidence. Such evidence has been presented to the contrary, which you ignore or dismiss in order to continue on this unsupported track.

Not having grappling is not a narrower approach. WSL VT approaches the whole fight in a specific way. It doesn't approach part of the fight. It is a full system. Other YM derived wing chun that I have seen approaches situations or badly conceived conceptual formulations with technique based solutions. It lacks the systematic understanding of WSL VT, and the conceptual base. Gaps are filled with strange ideas which contradict basic concepts and solutions are derived from the imaginings of people who never understood the systematic approach to combat that is WSL VT...

First the very definition of having a specific or precise approach to something is to be narrow. This state is not by definition bad or inferior.

The punch is the primary weapon of WSL VT. Including grappling is a gap filling approach which is required due to incomplete understanding of the system.

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. If you are unarmed and your opponent has a weapon, unless you completely out class them in terms of skill, you will get cut or bludgeoned if you simply go to punch them down regardless of the art you study. This is a hard earned fact of life.

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.

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.

WSL VT is the only one I have seen that takes a fully systematic approach, has the strategic approach to fighting, and has the full, non-contradictory conceptual base.

Then you need to study a bit more.

 

[LFJ]

So why do you think WSL would not have put out the effort to ensure the DP had this bit? He was certainly with DP enough!

No, he wasn't. If PB, who spent 18 months straight training daily with WSL in HK, said he spent so much time on seung-ma/teui-ma drilling to the point he thought it was the only drill in VT, how on Earth do you expect someone to drop in for a month or two once per year and learn VT to great depths? He lacked close observance and guidance for the other 10 or 11 months in the year!

PB himself said that the approach of the system could be taught in an afternoon!

Yes, the VT strategy is simple and easy to explain and understand. But VT can't be learned in one day or two months!

The actual system is very technical and takes close guidance over time in order for the student to receive it. It's easy to screw up when a student is on their own and left to their imagination or looking elsewhere without knowing better.

 

[LFJ]

Once he discovered how well what he taught to PB worked, perhaps he worked some of those changes into improving what he taught to everyone.

PB's seniors were training the same system before he got there, and they weren't handicapped. The system hasn't changed.