Actually the argument from probability points in the other direction
Does WSLVT exist?
- Thread starter KPM
- Start date
Actually the argument from probability points in the other direction
But you wouldn't do that, because you would be practicing VT, not something you made up yourself
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
How so?
Forgot to respond to this one...
I've seen VT passed down through 5 generations intact. That's 4 active generations down from WSL that share the same complete understanding of the system. Each generation can say they teach what their teachers taught them and we can observe the truth of it. This traces right back to WSL who said the same thing, that he taught just what YM taught him.
If the system is changing with each generation it either means people have purposely made changes to it, or some understanding is lacking. There's is no other way an abstract training system could be passed down through 5 generations with everything intact, than for the thinking to be clearly understood. That doesn't happen by accident.
No doubt it took some time for the full system to develop from its inception. But that's just the training methods for what is a very simple approach to fighting.
I've seen VT passed down through 5 generations intact. That's 4 active generations down from WSL that share the same complete understanding of the system. Each generation can say they teach what their teachers taught them and we can observe the truth of it. This traces right back to WSL who said the same thing, that he taught just what YM taught him.
If the system is changing with each generation it either means people have purposely made changes to it, or some understanding is lacking. There's is no other way an abstract training system could be passed down through 5 generations with everything intact, than for the thinking to be clearly understood. That doesn't happen by accident.
No doubt it took some time for the full system to develop from its inception. But that's just the training methods for what is a very simple approach to fighting.
- Thread Starter
- #166
^^^^^ But that's the million dollar question, isn't it? Lots of claims have been made here....like "thousands" of people converting to the new religion! Like sparring and fighting being so important to the lineage when no one in the lineage provides very much video evidence of it. Sure, you can have 5 generations of guys....realize that each generation may only have 3 or 4 years of training.....that each have exposure to and pretty strict guidelines from just one or two individuals... so what they do is going to match pretty closely. And in modern times people are fairly mobile and can travel back and forth to study with one teacher even if they live a good distance away. But when you start talking about Ip Man teaching in the 50's and 60's in Hong Kong, you had guys that studied for a time and then went their own way without much further contact with their Sifu and Sihings. So of course they are going to begin to "evolve" and develop things in their own way. You could say that is due to incomplete understanding and teaching. Or you can say that is because they are no longer closely associated with other people that they copy, so they are free to develop things that work for them or to change things a bit based on their own background. It just goes against common sense to say that you have a very "abstract" and "conceptual" system, but that everyone does it physically the exact same way. But, like I said, common sense isn't always that common it seems.
- Thread Starter
- #167
Here's an example of common sense......out of all the direct students of Ip Man, no one else that I am aware of does things exactly as what LFJ and Guy describe other than the WSLVT people (and then not even some of them!). So, was ONLY WSL taught Ip Man's "real" art? Was WSL the ONLY one smart enough and dedicated enough to "get" what Ip Man was really teaching? Was EVERY student other than WSL somehow deficit? Did Ip Man choose to teach the "real" thing to only one person...WSL?
Or......was WSL a particularly bright and talented guy with good fighting experience that took what Ip Man taught him, refined the concepts and ideas in his own mind a bit, and then tailored what he taught to match up with those concepts as closely as possible? He didn't add anything from an outside system. He didn't change anything drastically. So he could honestly say he was teaching what Ip Man taught. He just refined his understanding and the way he taught the system to suit himself and to make it his own. I would argue than PB has done much the same process and made what he teaches even more "specialized" or "one dimensional".
So......I think LFJ and Guy should be arguing that Ip Man was a known fighter and had "updated" and refined his Wing Chun to match his experience and make it more effective.....then Ip Man taught WSL, who was also a sharp guy and known fighter who further refined and "updated" the system based on his own experience.....therefore WSLVT is like WCK version 3.0. Rather than arguing that their "VT" is "old and traditional and exactly what master X taught"....which is the typical thing in traditional CMA circles.....they should be arguing that their "VT" is the best "new and improved" version of WCK and THAT is why it is different than what others do. THAT is an argument that would be much harder to refute!
Because think about it. What if Bruce Lee hadn't made Ip Man famous? What if Ip Man had died BEFORE Bruce Lee left for the USA? Then when Bruce Lee started crediting his former system, WSL would have been the one in the limelight and not Ip Man. WSL would have become THE Wing Chun master to study with rather than Ip Man. Today no one cares whether Ip Man was teaching exactly what his teacher taught him. In fact, everyone assumes what he did was a combination of teaching from at least two Sifus. So if WSL had become the face of Wing Chun rather than Ip Man, no one today would be concerned about whether what he taught was exactly what Ip Man taught. In fact, people would just expect that he had changed the system around to make it more effective.....like we assume now that Ip Man did.
Again....just common sense!
Or......was WSL a particularly bright and talented guy with good fighting experience that took what Ip Man taught him, refined the concepts and ideas in his own mind a bit, and then tailored what he taught to match up with those concepts as closely as possible? He didn't add anything from an outside system. He didn't change anything drastically. So he could honestly say he was teaching what Ip Man taught. He just refined his understanding and the way he taught the system to suit himself and to make it his own. I would argue than PB has done much the same process and made what he teaches even more "specialized" or "one dimensional".
So......I think LFJ and Guy should be arguing that Ip Man was a known fighter and had "updated" and refined his Wing Chun to match his experience and make it more effective.....then Ip Man taught WSL, who was also a sharp guy and known fighter who further refined and "updated" the system based on his own experience.....therefore WSLVT is like WCK version 3.0. Rather than arguing that their "VT" is "old and traditional and exactly what master X taught"....which is the typical thing in traditional CMA circles.....they should be arguing that their "VT" is the best "new and improved" version of WCK and THAT is why it is different than what others do. THAT is an argument that would be much harder to refute!
Because think about it. What if Bruce Lee hadn't made Ip Man famous? What if Ip Man had died BEFORE Bruce Lee left for the USA? Then when Bruce Lee started crediting his former system, WSL would have been the one in the limelight and not Ip Man. WSL would have become THE Wing Chun master to study with rather than Ip Man. Today no one cares whether Ip Man was teaching exactly what his teacher taught him. In fact, everyone assumes what he did was a combination of teaching from at least two Sifus. So if WSL had become the face of Wing Chun rather than Ip Man, no one today would be concerned about whether what he taught was exactly what Ip Man taught. In fact, people would just expect that he had changed the system around to make it more effective.....like we assume now that Ip Man did.
Again....just common sense!
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
5 generations from Wsl. So I assume this starts from PB. The only problem with what you are saying here is that PB is still alive and presumably available to train with. Therefore even PB's great great grand students can still learn from and train with PB as well as their grand teachers and great grand teachers.
The dynamic here is exactly the same as the dynamic found in Leung Tings European association for those that are still a part of it. Grand students and great grand students all pretty much do their wing Chun the exact same way.
This dynamic wasn't the case with yip man.
Plus we know that Wsl had many students. And we can already see differences amongst his students: PB, Gary Lam, Barry Lee, Cliff Au Young, Bruce Lee....etc.
@KPM
Common sense would be to not make assumptions about something with which you have no experience. Like I said on post #2, go learn it from someone who knows it well, then come back and pick up the conversation.
"New and improved" would be the best line to tout effectiveness. "Old and traditional" would be the best to sell authenticity.
But I'm not trying to make a case for either. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I'm simply stating what I believe with strong confidence based on hard evidence. You've not even experienced the same system to form an opinion one way or another.
Common sense would be to not make assumptions about something with which you have no experience. Like I said on post #2, go learn it from someone who knows it well, then come back and pick up the conversation.
"New and improved" would be the best line to tout effectiveness. "Old and traditional" would be the best to sell authenticity.
But I'm not trying to make a case for either. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I'm simply stating what I believe with strong confidence based on hard evidence. You've not even experienced the same system to form an opinion one way or another.
Last edited:
Why do you assume PB? He's not the only one to have received the system from WSL, only perhaps the most prolific.
LT teaches a technique-based system. That's much easier to pass on intact. You just copy the moves. An abstract training system is not one that can just be copied. The thinking must be received and understood.
And we know why some of them differ. In some cases, they've openly changed things for whatever reason, and in others, they didn't learn fully and were never serious fighters. Much the same with YM's students. Not hard to see.
Have you seen all of the direct students of YM? I have not so wouldn't speculate in this way.
When you understand VT, it is easy to see how unlikely it is that it is the product of one mind or one lifetime. The fact that the VT of WSL is completely coherent and non contradictory, while that of others is not, points to the likelihood of WSL's VT being the VT system of YM, and that of some others being a misunderstanding of the system. If you say that what is shown by various YM derived systems is what YM taught at various times in his life, then you are arguing that YM had an incherent and contradictory mess of a system that somehow, one day, he made into something perfect, by accident. Things evolve when they are not optimal. VT is optimised for a particular usage. Changing it breaks it.
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
You said you have seen 5 generations from Wsl and you are from PB so I assumed you were talking about PB's students, grand students etc.
Just saying it's easy to look like or practice the same way as your great grand teacher if he is still alive and actively teaching.
Just saying it's easy to look like or practice the same way as your great grand teacher if he is still alive and actively teaching.
By the way, if WSL did formulate VT by himself and YM was teaching the various systems we see today as wing chun, then I am happy with that reality. I just think it is exceedingly unlikely for reasons detailed above, and that other explanations are more likely.
If WSL didn't change anything drastically, then why is WSL's VT so utterly different to other wing chun? Either WSL made it up himself (unlikely in terms of basic probability), or he is teaching a system optimised over a period of time that he received from YM (likely). The importance given to the conceptual basics in WSL VT is unique amonst the other YM lines that I have experienced, but is similar to the emphasis given in some other "real" TCMA systems that I have experienced. I think that WSL's VT is the VT system, and that most other wing chun is not. This is not to say that there are not other examples of YM's VT around, or that the system you practice is not YM's. I am not making any personal attack.
If WSL didn't change anything drastically, then why is WSL's VT so utterly different to other wing chun? Either WSL made it up himself (unlikely in terms of basic probability), or he is teaching a system optimised over a period of time that he received from YM (likely). The importance given to the conceptual basics in WSL VT is unique amonst the other YM lines that I have experienced, but is similar to the emphasis given in some other "real" TCMA systems that I have experienced. I think that WSL's VT is the VT system, and that most other wing chun is not. This is not to say that there are not other examples of YM's VT around, or that the system you practice is not YM's. I am not making any personal attack.
There are others from WSL
Who told you I am "from PB"?
WSL passed away in '97. When we look back at old footage of his teaching, it's all the same stuff being taught several generations later, and not just through the one line of PB.
- Thread Starter
- #176
When you understand VT, it is easy to see how unlikely it is that it is the product of one mind or one lifetime.
----I didn't say that. Go back and read a little more closely.
The fact that the VT of WSL is completely coherent and non contradictory, while that of others is not, points to the likelihood of WSL's VT being the VT system of YM, and that of some others being a misunderstanding of the system.
---Like I said, it appears that "common sense" isn't so common in some circles.
----I didn't say that. Go back and read a little more closely.
The fact that the VT of WSL is completely coherent and non contradictory, while that of others is not, points to the likelihood of WSL's VT being the VT system of YM, and that of some others being a misunderstanding of the system.
---Like I said, it appears that "common sense" isn't so common in some circles.
Same. I would be more than happy to admit this. The evidence just doesn't support it.
Wing Chun Auckland
Green Belt
So you are not in the PB line?
If you are referring to generations, it usually refers to students, grand students etc. not the different people that Wsl taught.
PB, Gary Lam, Cliff Au Young, Barry Lee etc are not 5 different generations of Studnets. They are all direct students of Wsl.
It is interesting that can't comprehend how YM could have possibly have taught people differently despite many accounts of this. As well as the clear
Evidence found in the wide variety of interpretations. This is something you can't seem to get passed.
The only black and white no nonsense, no heresay facts we have is that YM students all have very different interpretations of the art. We also know he changed his teaching style by the time he got to his second generation students.
You rely a lot on the perfection of your system as evidence for this not being true.
You think the wing Chun you practice is so perfect that there is no way it can't be a direct transmission.
Unfortunately you are not the only one who thinks this. Pretty much every lineage believes their one to be the best and purest interpretation of YM wing Chun. They also believe it to be perfect.
If you are referring to generations, it usually refers to students, grand students etc. not the different people that Wsl taught.
PB, Gary Lam, Cliff Au Young, Barry Lee etc are not 5 different generations of Studnets. They are all direct students of Wsl.
It is interesting that can't comprehend how YM could have possibly have taught people differently despite many accounts of this. As well as the clear
Evidence found in the wide variety of interpretations. This is something you can't seem to get passed.
The only black and white no nonsense, no heresay facts we have is that YM students all have very different interpretations of the art. We also know he changed his teaching style by the time he got to his second generation students.
You rely a lot on the perfection of your system as evidence for this not being true.
You think the wing Chun you practice is so perfect that there is no way it can't be a direct transmission.
Unfortunately you are not the only one who thinks this. Pretty much every lineage believes their one to be the best and purest interpretation of YM wing Chun. They also believe it to be perfect.
