Chi-Sau from lineage to lineage....

[Eric_H]

I just Googled the term "Kiu Shou" and came up many clips. That one was one of those. Could you put up a clip that may look like "Kiu Shou" for you? I don't speak Cantonese Chinese so I don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry, I can't find any Wing Chun ones. AFAIK, we're the only line that does it (though I keep looking!) and we're not putting out any clips anytime soon.

Found a few examples from other arts though.
CLF:

Chi Sim (Hoffman's version):

Hung Gar:

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Thanks for the clips and I do like this moving step clip. So you are talking about "捆手(Kun Shou)". That's a new term to me. IMO, it's like "grip fight" and "partner drills" if I can understand your point. We do something similar.

- One tries to develop skill A while another tries to develop the counter for skill A.
- Both try to develop skill A and it's counter.
- One tries to develop skill A while another tries to develop skill B.
- ...

It's a good training between Chi Shou and free sparring.

 

[guy b.]

I do not admire the way some PB followers (you, Guy, Kevin G., et al.) are convinced beyond all reason that they have the one and only true VT.

This is your reading things into what I wrote that are not there. I have never denied that others beyond WSL received the system from YM.

 

[wckf92]

This is your reading things into what I wrote that are not there. I have never denied that others beyond WSL received the system from YM.

Guy, whether or not you see it or believe it...you (and LFJ's) posts come across in a certain way...as in elitist, arrogant, baiting, and condescending to others. Yes, just like two other PBWSL dudes from that other forum. In fact, whether you realize it or not, you guys are sounding kind of like HS and his bubble-like "reality". Just saying dude.

It's great if you two think or know for certain that you guys have the one true glass of Kool-Aid. So do lots of people...it's just they probably don't come on to internet forums like the PB folks do...proclaiming their exalted righteousness to the rest of the WC/WT/VT community (directly like KG and GH did...or indirectly/implied like you and LFJ do).

Time to go refill my beer glass...

 

[guy b.]

There are more than a single "lineage" of BJJ. Same goes for Ving Tsun. Hsing Yi/Yiquan I do not know much about in terms of lineages and history so will not express any knowledge there. So saying any of them is "true" means either you accept all parts and lineages of them to be true... or it is an incomplete sentence.

There is only one BJJ- concepts and principles do not differ between teachers. When they are changed then you have something else. This happens quite often, bjj remains intact.

There is only one Yiquan. It is a reformulation of the drills and teaching sequence of hsing yi to make it more obvious. Concepts and principles are unchanged.

It does not cause offence except when you say WSLVT is the perfect system in terms of fighting according to YM's concepts and any change would make it worse. This is identical to saying your system is the only true system.

Nobody is saying that VT is the perfect system of fighting. On the contrary other systems exist and are very useful. What I am interested in is discussion of the VT system, how it works, why it is a coherent system, why contradictions in the system cause problems, etc.

And finally I think the important point, you stated: I don't think I have said that VT is the only coherent system. I don't mind if someone points out a glaring problem with VT, I would just shift my training in another direction. This has happened to me more than once in my life training MA.

None of those quotes you supplied contradicts what I said. Again you are reading too much into what I write based on what appears to be emotion

 

[guy b.]

proclaiming their exalted righteousness to the rest of the WC/WT/VT community (directly like KG and GH did...or indirectly/implied like you and LFJ do).

The thing is though that I am not doing this. I do not deny that others may have received VT from YM, or that other wing chun systems function in a different coherent and non-contradictory way despite changes or non YM lineage. People seem to take the desire to look at system coherence as an attack on their particular system, or to see questioning as rude. Everything seems to be made personal when there is no intent for it to be this way.

Every time someone highlights a particular quote from me or LFJ that they have problems with, the problem is based upon reading things into the statement that are not there, or misunderstanding it. That is a fact. Nobody admits this when it is pointed out, they just get more angry. Strange.

 

[guy b.]

you (and LFJ's) posts come across in a certain way...as in elitist, arrogant, baiting, and condescending to others

I can recommend 3 bits of advice that might help:

1. Be more logical, less emotional. Address points not feelings.
2. Tone is subjective, ignore whatever your emotion is telling you about it.
3. Address each post as if history didn't exist

 

[KPM]

The thing is though that I am not doing this. I do not deny that others may have received VT from YM, or that other wing chun systems function in a different coherent and non-contradictory way despite changes or non YM lineage..

If you truly believe this is true, then you lack personal insight and you really should take a step back and examine how you post in this forum.

 

[KPM]

I can recommend 3 bits of advice that might help:

1. Be more logical, less emotional. Address points not feelings.
2. Tone is subjective, ignore whatever your emotion is telling you about it.
3. Address each post as if history didn't exist

I will recommend just one bit of advice for you. Go back to my previous question and give it some serious consideration. Why do you think that the only threads here that degenerate to a "slugfest" of some sort are the ones that you and LFJ participate in? Given the number of members here, it suggests to me that it isn't because EVERYONE is simply misunderstanding you and misinterpreting you. The logical conclusion is that you come across in a certain way. You obviously lack personal insight into this. You really should take a step back and seriously consider this question.

 

[wckf92]

I can recommend 3 bits of advice that might help:

1. Be more logical, less emotional. Address points not feelings.
2. Tone is subjective, ignore whatever your emotion is telling you about it.
3. Address each post as if history didn't exist

Actually, it is simpler, easier, more direct, more efficient, and more coherent, and less abstract... to just do my best to take what you post with a very small grain of salt...
To me, you and HS are lumped into the same category...too cool for school.
Peace bro.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm on vacation right now, and pretty mellow from the sun and the SCUBA diving. But you guys are harshing my mellow.
Please. Put an end to the personal shots and insults. Now. Before the moderation team is forced to do it for you.
Yes, this is written fairly casual. Nonetheless, it is a warning that you really really want to take seriously.,

 

[dudewingchun]

Thanks for this, it is a useful insight into the CSL approach.

If this is representative of Hawkins Cheung's approach then I have learned something new. Is HS a practitioner of HC system as well, or something different?

Im not too sure what % of material is Hawkins,Robert Chu , Hendrik and other lineages like Yuen Kay San in CSL. I just know its a system rather then a style and it works good for me in combat so I am happy.

 

[LFJ]

And finally I think the important point, you stated: I don't think I have said that VT is the only coherent system. I don't mind if someone points out a glaring problem with VT, I would just shift my training in another direction. This has happened to me more than once in my life training MA.

My answer:

Not a single one of the posts you quoted were saying VT is the only coherent system. As Guy said, you are reading things into them that are not there.

What we have said is basically two points.

First, that WSLVT is a coherent system. We've explained in detail all over this forum exactly how and why. It has not been refuted, but you are welcome to give us your thoughts on the "Deficiencies in WSL teachings" thread.

Second, that most mainstream WC systems we've seen are riddled with problems. Again, we don't just make that claim because they differ from what we do. We've explained in detail all over this forum exactly how and why. In most cases, rather than logical refutations, we just get emotional responses.

I understand that emotions run high when discussing a system that you love. I've been put in the same position and my knee jerk reaction was to defend what I trained. But at a certain point, you have to really consider the problems that are raised and adjust your thinking if warranted.

Both Guy and I have done that before. Yet we are mocked as "true believers". Ironically we would never see any of you post a thread called "Deficiencies in [your lineage] teachings" because you just don't want to hear it...

 

[LFJ]

In fact, whether you realize it or not, you guys are sounding kind of like HS and his bubble-like "reality". Just saying dude.

Well, here's a huge difference for instance...

HS thinks no one else understands action and reaction forces, and when people say they know it and that it's basic day-one stuff, he says "always the 'I have it too' line". But he says this with no proof that others don't indeed have it too. That is arrogance and condescension.

I've said many don't understand the very abstract nature of the VT system. Some say they do understand it, yet they prove they don't in their following sentences.

For example, KPM will post this picture below of WSL and say it shows taan-da, a sort of forward-lateral deflection with simultaneous punch. That's literal, application thinking. If I ask the majority of mainstream WC people what they see, I will get the same response.

None of them see the abstract because they don't know what they're looking at. They imagine being stood between an opponent's arms and doing a shifting taan-da drill or application, a block and punch, or maybe outside gate taan-da, but always a direct application idea against an opponent.

That is proof that they haven't learned the abstract and are dealing in literal application of shapes.

 

[KPM]

For example, KPM will post this picture below of WSL and say it shows taan-da, a sort of forward-lateral deflection with simultaneous punch. That's literal, application thinking. If I ask the majority of mainstream WC people what they see, I will get the same response.

----And yet....you have said in the past that Tan Da is not applied directly as in other lineages. If I remember correctly, I believe you stated that there is no Tan Da in WSLVT! But I posted photos of both WSL and Barry Lee applying Tan Da....directly! You and Guy have made many assertions that just don't hold up. And then you turn around and claim to be using logic and making points that no one can refute. But that is only because you choose to follow your own logic and not acknowledge anyone else's. You say you have pointed out deficiencies in everyone else's Wing Chun that people want to ignore and instead give you emotional responses. But most of the time this is because the people involved disagree with your belief that it is a "deficiency" simply because it doesn't match what you do. Things get emotional when you start making assertions and completely ignore counterpoints and arguments that other people make. I think that, like Guy, you lack personal insight to a significant degree. You seem to want to blame the problems we've been having here on the idea that you and Guy are simply pointing out how terrible everyone else's Wing Chun is, and its not your fault if everyone gets offended over the fact. But its not a fact. It is simply your opinion, and to assert it as fact and effectively ignore what anyone else has to say is offensive and incites people as we have seen over and over in these threads. Unfortunately, it seems that the moderator is not paying attention to content. He simply scans for keywords and doesn't say anything until someone posts a "bad word." The content of the thread that actually incited the "bad word" seems to be irrelevant. But it is what it is.

 

[LFJ]

----And yet....you have said in the past that Tan Da is not applied directly as in other lineages. If I remember correctly, I believe you stated that there is no Tan Da in WSLVT! But I posted photos of both WSL and Barry Lee applying Tan Da....directly!

Correct. What is in that picture is not a taan-da application.

And of the two other photos you posted of WSL, one was a magazine cover, not a tutorial, and the other was not taan-sau at all.

I have no knowledge of what BL's VT is like, so can't say.

You say you have pointed out deficiencies in everyone else's Wing Chun that people want to ignore and instead give you emotional responses. But most of the time this is because the people involved disagree with your belief that it is a "deficiency" simply because it doesn't match what you do.

That has never been my argument. That's the out you guys give yourselves.

Any time I've called something a deficiency or similar noun, I've given detailed explanation of how and why. And it has not once been just because it doesn't match what I do, but because it contradicts established principles or is simply impractical.

 

[wckf92]

I also keep in mind that Guy and LFJ have apparently escaped from a previous version of WC/VT/WT to their current ___WSLVT...and are happy and content. That is a good thing.

I think there are four scenario's of chunners:
1) people who train in only one lineage, ever.
2) people who trained in one lineage and discovered a "better" interpretation.
3) people who train in a lineage, experienced a "better" one, but stayed in their current lineage.
4) people who wander the WC/VT/WT landscape, learning what they can, regardless of lineage loyalty or whatever.

I have only trained in one lineage, but have done my best over the years to seek out and experience how other lineages and schools train...and have yet to experience one that would "make me want to change".

I think a majority of the tension on forums like these always stems from semantics and definitions.

Wouldn't it be interesting if there was a private internet forum where ALL members must "converse" via video clips to enhance conversation and understanding. NO, not the HS 20min stuff...just quick <5min vids. Hmmmm...... (of course, then we'd run into the issue of 'my stuff is not for public consumption etc). Ya just can't win!

 

[LFJ]

I think a majority of the tension on forums like these always stems from semantics and definitions.

Ha! Like "bridge" for example?

People have defined "bridge" as both landing a punch and having a punch blocked!

Utter opposites! How convenient...

 

[wckf92]

Ha! Like "bridge" for example?

People have defined "bridge" as both landing a punch and having a punch blocked!

Utter opposites! How convenient...

Perhaps.
But, what if they meant it more "abstractly"...simply meaning "contact"?

 

[LFJ]

Perhaps.
But, what if they meant it more "abstractly"...simply meaning "contact"?

Then them getting punched by me is a bridge too, and they're asking for it by "seeking the bridge".