Does WSLVT exist?

[Wing Chun Auckland]

Wait!

I can fix this all with a simple letter that if we all agree on, will help us to move on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear KPM and Guy B,

We thank you for your vigilant efforts to educate us regarding the true history of Yip Man wing chun and its most direct transmission via WSL and subsequently PB.
While we may not always be able to follow your logic, we do not doubt your conviction. This lack of understanding may very well be our lack of intellect or ignorance.

We promise to visit PB VT association in the future when we find circumstances favourable. In the mean time, we must practice our own versions of wing chun given that we are geographically disadvantaged.
As a condition of us promising to visit PBVT at a future time (and discovering first hand what we have been missing out on), we would only request that all comments regarding WSL superiority and wing chun purity be put on hold until this time when we can discover these truths for ourselves by visiting and practicing PBVT directly. To the best of our current knowledge and understanding we are practicing the best version of wing chun that we possibly can given our individual personalities, needs and geographic circumstances. The best way forward for us is to carry on with our respective paths until such time that we can be further enlightened by a superior version. Until then, we would like to move the discussions towards constructive discussions that may enhance our practice or knowledge.

 

[guy b.]

I am all for constructive discussion. It seems to be a thing that people dislike.

 

[SaulGoodman]

I would like to see PB do some instructional DVDs showing his method. Always interested in seeing other lineages interpretations of our art.

 

[KPM]

Wait!

I can fix this all with a simple letter that if we all agree on, will help us to move on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear KPM and Guy B,

We thank you for your vigilant efforts to educate us regarding the true history of Yip Man wing chun and its most direct transmission via WSL and subsequently PB.
While we may not always be able to follow your logic, we do not doubt your conviction. This lack of understanding may very well be our lack of intellect or ignorance.

We promise to visit PB VT association in the future when we find circumstances favourable. In the mean time, we must practice our own versions of wing chun given that we are geographically disadvantaged.
As a condition of us promising to visit PBVT at a future time (and discovering first hand what we have been missing out on), we would only request that all comments regarding WSL superiority and wing chun purity be put on hold until this time when we can discover these truths for ourselves by visiting and practicing PBVT directly. To the best of our current knowledge and understanding we are practicing the best version of wing chun that we possibly can given our individual personalities, needs and geographic circumstances. The best way forward for us is to carry on with our respective paths until such time that we can be further enlightened by a superior version. Until then, we would like to move the discussions towards constructive discussions that may enhance our practice or knowledge.

Interesting that you included me, but not LFJ. I am not the one advocating for the "true history" or the "true version" of Ip Man Wing Chun. As I noted before, if you guys want me to keep quite and not call the WSL religionists here on their BS, then so be it. I will let them go on stating whatever they want and demeaning anyone they want. I'll sit back and just wait and see how long "constructive" discussions with these two will last when you discover that they think they are the only ones that really know how Wing Chun should work. Because we've seen this before. Guy can straighten up and sound reasonable for awhile when he wants to. But pretty soon he's right back to making definitive statements about how all Wing Chun should function based on how WSLVT does things. Just wait and see.

 

[SaulGoodman]

I am all for constructive discussion. It seems to be a thing that people dislike.

But Guy you're not. You will say "I'm very interested in xyz lineage approach and would like to understand more"
= PASSIVE.

Then whenever someone puts in the time and effort to explain something about their WC you never fail to jump on them and mock/denigrate what they have said with statements like "this is not correct VT" or "call it what you want but it's not VT"
= AGGRESSIVE

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

Interesting that you included me, but not LFJ. I am not the one advocating for the "true history" or the "true version" of Ip Man Wing Chun. As I noted before, if you guys want me to keep quite and not call the WSL religionists here on their BS, then so be it. I will let them go on stating whatever they want and demeaning anyone they want. I'll sit back and just wait and see how long "constructive" discussions with these two will last when you discover that they think they are the only ones that really know how Wing Chun should work. Because we've seen this before. Guy can straighten up and sound reasonable for awhile when he wants to. But pretty soon he's right back to making definitive statements about how all Wing Chun should function based on how WSLVT does things. Just wait and see.

Oh ****, meant LFJ ,,,, not you!!

 

[Wing Chun Auckland]

...it's the three letter thing....

 

[guy b.]

whenever someone puts in the time and effort to explain something about their WC you never fail to jump on them and mock/denigrate what they have said with statements like "this is not correct VT" or "call it what you want but it's not VT"
= AGGRESSIVE

I haven't mocked or denigrated anyone (except perhaps KPM because he seems to have made it his life's mission to stalk me on this forum, which is difficult not to smile about sometimes). For anyone else, besides obvious troll IDs, I am genuinely delighted to have the opportunity to talk VT and would much prefer to be doing so than engaging in silly arguments.

I refrain from telling people that they do not practice YM's VT because that is for them to decide, not me. I don't know who received the system from YM, apart from WSL. What I have done is explored what people do and pointed out contradiction of incoherence when I see it. I don't mean this in any personal way because I don't know any of you. It is just a discussion about VT on a forum. Unfortunately some people take honest discussion and a lack of emotion as being aggressive personal attack, when it is not. If I point out that something you do contradicts the conceptual base of the system, or leads to incoherence when considered alongside other parts of the system, then you should use that as an opportunity to look at your system and think about how it works. It is an opportunity, not an attack. Personally I would be happy if someone would help me in this way, which is why I started the thread about deficiencies in WSL's teaching.

I think that most of the drama here comes from people who are a bit too sensitive, and perhaps unsure of what they do, meaning that they prefer false agreement to honest disagreement and debate. I don't feel that offence taken in that way is anything to do with me, and I hope that we can return to more normal discussions soon. If you agree then please join me in open honest discussion, and please remember that it is not personal.

 

[LFJ]

I put up a pretty massive post and I was waiting for some more shall we say feedback LFJ.

Was on a cell phone with bad internet, hence the short response and double post. I gave up.

What I mean is a good principle based system can accommodate all shapes and sizes because it's not about applying techniques. What we develop in training is our own structures and fighting behaviors.

Someone said they are tall and that if they do DCS with someone shorter, they'll have to change how they do it or end up doing it wrong. This sounds to me like they've taken their training partner as the "opponent" and they have to stop them from getting in on them. So, of course they'll be wrong. They're trying to do something to control the partner's arm.

For me, it's just about learning very basic elbow control. That is, control of our own elbow in reference to our own structure. We just use a partner's arm to train the correct alignment and behaviors, like a live dummy that can move with us.

When it comes to fighting, people will of course fight from their own natural strengths, but the system gives them the skills to do so without need for change in what the system teaches or how it's structured.

Changes people have made have fully castrated VT into something else, but more often than not, just a useless collection of techniques and vaguely defined principles. But I think I'll stop here.

 

[LFJ]

Until then, we would like to move the discussions towards constructive discussions that may enhance our practice or knowledge.

When I make constructive posts all we hear is crickets from the main antagonists until I use "the wrong abbreviation".

If you people actually stuck to talking substance we would never have these kinds of whiny threads, but then we'd have no threads at all.

 

[Phobius]

Someone said they are tall and that if they do DCS with someone shorter, they'll have to change how they do it or end up doing it wrong. This sounds to me like they've taken their training partner as the "opponent" and they have to stop them from getting in on them. So, of course they'll be wrong. They're trying to do something to control the partner's arm.

Being a tall guy I wanted to add something here. DCS does not need to be trained as if there is an opponent in order to be needing change for tall people.

If you are taller the angles are off on the moves from your partner. The moves despite being same have completely different angle on you, at least for forward punching motion. This problem is mostly just mitigated by changing to a less small partner.

Having to change the drill has nothing to do with trying to control an opponents arm or partners arm. That is an assumption without foundation but when doing a drill where you sense you want to do something else and your partner resist that change or drops hands the reflexes can get you to quickly attack your partner by accident.

This is what has happened to me many times. So I think you made some false assumptions when there is a huge difference in height.

 

[LFJ]

If you are taller the angles are off on the moves from your partner. The moves despite being same have completely different angle on you, at least for forward punching motion. This problem is mostly just mitigated by changing to a less small partner.

Having to change the drill has nothing to do with trying to control an opponents arm or partners arm. That is an assumption without foundation but when doing a drill where you sense you want to do something else and your partner resist that change or drops hands the reflexes can get you to quickly attack your partner by accident.

This is what has happened to me many times. So I think you made some false assumptions when there is a huge difference in height.

I'm 6'2" and don't have this problem. This is because you're not training angles with your own structure as reference. You're treating it as a reflex drill and trying to "attack" your partner.

At DCS stage, beginners haven't learned basic control of their own elbow yet. It's no place for training attack reflexes so early.

You can't look at every VT drill as combative or you will create all sorts of problems like this and need to change the drill, and thereby lose its meaning.

 

[Phobius]

I'm 6'2" and don't have this problem. This is because you're not training angles with your own structure as reference. You're treating it as a reflex drill and trying to "attack" your partner.

You are so very wrong here. What I do you should read and not assume once again. No offense. I am 6'5''.

The angles are not just my own as base. My opponent has an angle on me that is sometimes on partners not near my height completely off. This causes me to not do the drill as expected but react differently to force.

If it is very off then my body wants that side to attack differently altogether in ways that are counter productive.

Everyone knows it is not a combat drill, you know there is one side doing nothing. Not that I do DCS often.

At DCS stage, beginners haven't learned basic control of their own elbow yet. It's no place for training attack reflexes so early.

Reflexes once trained exist in all drills as well, just because beginners don't have it does not mean you put yours on pause.

Or you don't train with beginners? Maybe you should, they act differently and do not follow drills. It is good for practice.

You can't look at every VT drill as combative or you will create all sorts of problems like this and need to change the drill, and thereby lose its meaning.

Please elaborate, you and your partner has an angle to each other. You are supposed to do techniques C, D, E or F when your partner does B. Then return to A. Angles are off and you want to do movement P, your partner does B, you do movement U. He attempts to get back to A and you are doing M. Nothing else feels right and the loop is broken. Uneven drill.

Not saying it can't be done but forcing myself against partner is wrong, of course all drills can be reset but in doing DCS as above is not optimal.

It happeneds on smaller partners only but just adding that nothing can be assumed to work for all.

 

[guy b.]

You are so very wrong here. What I do you should read and not assume once again. No offense. I am 6'5''.

The angles are not just my own as base. My opponent has an angle on me that is sometimes on partners not near my height completely off. This causes me to not do the drill as expected but react differently to force.

The palm and the punch in DCS can both be angled to deal with height differences. The DCS drill is abstract and is intended to begin to train your elbow after SNT. It is not about learning attacks and combat reactions and as long as your partner can reach your elbow it should work. I am pretty sure that even at 6ft 5 you can find a person who can reach your elbow, unless you are training with young children?

 

[LFJ]

You are so very wrong here. What I do you should read and not assume once again. No offense. I am 6'5''.

The angles are not just my own as base. My opponent has an angle on me that is sometimes on partners not near my height completely off. This causes me to not do the drill as expected but react differently to force.

If it is very off then my body wants that side to attack differently altogether in ways that are counter productive.

Everyone knows it is not a combat drill, you know there is one side doing nothing. Not that I do DCS often.



Reflexes once trained exist in all drills as well, just because beginners don't have it does not mean you put yours on pause.

Or you don't train with beginners? Maybe you should, they act differently and do not follow drills. It is good for practice.




Please elaborate, you and your partner has an angle to each other. You are supposed to do techniques C, D, E or F when your partner does B. Then return to A. Angles are off and you want to do movement P, your partner does B, you do movement U. He attempts to get back to A and you are doing M. Nothing else feels right and the loop is broken. Uneven drill.

Not saying it can't be done but forcing myself against partner is wrong, of course all drills can be reset but in doing DCS as above is not optimal.

It happeneds on smaller partners only but just adding that nothing can be assumed to work for all.

You seem to be taking an adversarial, technique based approach to DCS. That, as I said, is what's making things go wrong. You're trying to counter your partner's action with a certain technique to keep them out. When you feel your angle is off, you want to change techniques that will accomplish your task. It's a adversarial mindset and inserting all sorts of elements where they don't belong. Of course things will not work and you'll have to change it.

In my DCS, we don't look at the partner as an opponent and we aren't trying to thwart their "attacks" then hit them back. We are just learning beginning elbow ideas; the contraction and expansion of the elbow to and from the line with taan and jam, correct elbow rotation in bong, and recycling to neutral position. None of this relies on pre-contact, feeling, sticking, or rolling. We are just using each other's opposing actions to train our own basic elbow control. It's abstract, conceptual.

That's why I said a good "principle-based" system can accommodate all shapes and sizes without requiring change. Approaching it in a technique-based fashion as you describe will of course not work.

At this stage, beginners are just learning the idea. Taking an adversarial mindset in the drill with force exchange and attack reflexes is all too early. Doing this will interrupt proper learning. If beginners can't control their own elbows yet, they can't be expected to go all free flow in a "versus" exercise without basic VT quickly going out the window.

But I'm not gonna tell you you're doing it wrong. You have found out yourself that the most basic partner drill doesn't work for you and you've had to change it. I would be asking myself why. Is it just because I'm tall, or because I'm misusing the drill?

We have giants in our lineage too, and they don't need to change the system to develop skills because it's not technique based. They learn to control their own actions and can drill with or fight any sized person. Besides, training with a shorter person is good for low elbow training. We also like to keep our dummies a bit lower for the same purpose. It's about alignment with our own structures as reference, not an imaginary opponent. Any sized person can train this way and develop skills to fight any sized person.

 

[Phobius]

You seem to be taking an adversarial, technique based approach to DCS. That, as I said, is what's making things go wrong. You're trying to counter your partner's action with a certain technique to keep them out. When you feel your angle is off, you want to change techniques that will accomplish your task. It's a adversarial mindset and inserting all sorts of elements where they don't belong. Of course things will not work and you'll have to change it.

We consider an approach coming at certain angle and to get proper feeling in elbow to meet that force. But you are talking about a no force movement? With force I call it an attack not because it is a fight, or that there is an enemy/opponent but because it is a force going into my personal space.

Inserting elements that should not be part of drill is because partner if short enough does stuff from close range to reach and angles give me other patterns than those part of drills. Why sink my elbow if the opponent is practically inside them.

Note that I am not saying DCS can't be done. Just that sometimes if your partner is too short it is not a working drill for me.

In my DCS, we don't look at the partner as an opponent and we aren't trying to thwart their "attacks" then hit them back. We are just learning beginning elbow ideas; the contraction and expansion of the elbow to and from the line with taan and jam, correct elbow rotation in bong, and recycling to neutral position. None of this relies on pre-contact, feeling, sticking, or rolling. We are just using each other's opposing actions to train our own basic elbow control. It's abstract, conceptual.

I guess this is the difference. Why we don't do DCS much. We deal with the forces. Not just our own elbow. Forms are a good place besides beginner application drills to learn about your own elbow

That's why I said a good "principle-based" system can accommodate all shapes and sizes without requiring change. Approaching it in a technique-based fashion as you describe will of course not work.

There are no techniques, and yet it is all techniques. You focusing on your own elbow is also a technique. The system however does not change because the drill does. We all do drills none of our masters did before us. Drills not even being mentioned. It does not change the system unless the principles themselves are changed. I guess you won't agree so let's agree to disagree.

At this stage, beginners are just learning the idea. Taking an adversarial mindset in the drill with force exchange and attack reflexes is all too early. Doing this will interrupt proper learning. If beginners can't control their own elbows yet, they can't be expected to go all free flow in a "versus" exercise without basic VT quickly going out the window.

So you never let any non beginner do this drill? We teach about elbow before DCS, not during.

But I'm not gonna tell you you're doing it wrong. You have found out yourself that the most basic partner drill doesn't work for you and you've had to change it. I would be asking myself why. Is it just because I'm tall, or because I'm misusing the drill?

The drill is still there, but I do not need to use the expected movements if my opponent is too short. So drill gets to be something other than it should be. I don't change the drill, it gets changed.

We have giants in our lineage too, and they don't need to change the system to develop skills because it's not technique based. They learn to control their own actions and can drill with or fight any sized person. Besides, training with a shorter person is good for low elbow training. We also like to keep our dummies a bit lower for the same purpose. It's about alignment with our own structures as reference, not an imaginary opponent. Any sized person can train this way and develop skills to fight any sized person.

Two interesting things here, if I need to sink my elbows further we shift to different movements to rather deflect than having to compromise my back and structure. Yes we have a few people that are That short.

Not saying I face those people all the time but I was simply saying it CAN occur for tall people. Not that it always does.

How much lower do you keep your dummies? We always keep them at proper level.

 

[LFJ]

We consider an approach coming at certain angle and to get proper feeling in elbow to meet that force. But you are talking about a no force movement? With force I call it an attack not because it is a fight, or that there is an enemy/opponent but because it is a force going into my personal space.

No force exchange. Just basic mechanics. Each action to displace the other, teaches elbow control and physical effect. It's not time to "deal with forces" yet.

We deal with the forces. Not just our own elbow. Forms are a good place besides beginner application drills to learn about your own elbow

Forms are done in the air where no effect can be seen.

Application drills before basic coordination and elbow control is bound to lead to bad habits. Better to not rush the training.

You focusing on your own elbow is also a technique.

What is a technique to you? That makes no sense. The punching action is broken into two movements in the drill to train elbow control. It won't be used like that. Not a technique.

The system however does not change because the drill does. We all do drills none of our masters did before us. Drills not even being mentioned. It does not change the system unless the principles themselves are changed. I guess you won't agree so let's agree to disagree.

Yes. What you have done to the drill changes the principle entirely as far as I'm concerned. So, I must disagree.

So you never let any non beginner do this drill? We teach about elbow before DCS, not during.

Elbow training runs through the entire system in stages of development that can't be skipped or have orders swapped.

If a non-beginner practices DCS with a beginner and tries to hit them, they've learned it incorrectly to begin with. There is no force exchange, no attacking each other. Way too early for that.

Two interesting things here, if I need to sink my elbows further we shift to different movements to rather deflect than having to compromise my back and structure.

Are you training with children to cause such a compromise?

What is your usual movement and what do you change it to?

How much lower do you keep your dummies? We always keep them at proper level.

We keep them at "proper level" too.

 

[guy b.]

Inserting elements that should not be part of drill is because partner if short enough does stuff from close range to reach and angles give me other patterns than those part of drills. Why sink my elbow if the opponent is practically inside them.

I can't understand what you are describing. Can your partner reach your elbow or not?

Why would you sink your elbow in DCS?

We deal with the forces. Not just our own elbow.

What is dealing with the forces teaching you?

 

[Phobius]

No force exchange. Just basic mechanics. Each action to displace the other, teaches elbow control and physical effect. It's not time to "deal with forces" yet.

You end this topic like that makes it impossible to discuss further. Not all are beginners.

Forms are done in the air where no effect can be seen.

Application drills before basic coordination and elbow control is bound to lead to bad habits. Better to not rush the training.

Your opinion only. No point continuing discussion since discussing opinions will lead nowhere.

What is a technique to you? That makes no sense. The punching action is broken into two movements in the drill to train elbow control. It won't be used like that. Not a technique.

Technique is whatever you do within a set of rules. A single action. A technique can also be a set of techniques done in sequence.

A movement can contain multiple techniques as time and need changes.

If you are a programmer I see technique same as they do a function. A function can call other functions. A movement is like a thread calling different functions based on events or other reasons.

Techniques can be for drill only purposes or fighting applicable as well. It can be as simple as having 135 degree angle and hands up. Not needing to be defined by rules all the way to smallest piece.

A punch can be a technique with sets of techniques but during application in real time it is a movement that would be called punching but is not the same because that punch may change on input. A technique is nothing you do but rather something that defines something so it can be taught and trained.

Yes. What you have done to the drill changes the principle entirely as far as I'm concerned. So, I must disagree.

As I said, agree to disagree. The rest is just fluff you added now to make a point that you want final word anyway.

Elbow training runs through the entire system in stages of development that can't be skipped or have orders swapped.

Then by god if you ever become sick and can't practice for a week or two you Ving Tsun will always be inferior because you changed order of how it was taught.

If a non-beginner practices DCS with a beginner and tries to hit them, they've learned it incorrectly to begin with. There is no force exchange, no attacking each other. Way too early for that.

So the drill contains no force, meaning it is near static drill for you. Understand why your students do it very early. Attacking each other is what I call a motion that puts them with force into you personal space. It is not a punch.

Edit : with force I mean there is a forward intent. Not brute force.

And in case you missed something. I don't try to hit anyone. But I do not move against my muscle reflex.

Are you training with children to cause such a compromise?

What? You have something against shorter people? Or women perhaps? This sounds rather offensive claiming they have to be kids because they are short.

What is your usual movement and what do you change it to?

If you know anything about VT you would not ask me to define a movement. It depends is the best answer I can give.

We keep them at "proper level" too.

So your arms out from center are right between the upper arms? Then why say you keep it lower?

 

[kakkattekoi]

Not sure if I understand the original post correctly but here goes my reply : WSLVT, YMWC, CTCWC... Etc
Everyone absorb the "system" differently and adding their own experience to better suit their fighting style or body build . Like yang style tai chi, one of the 八卦master learned it and turned into his own style of tai chi. So it is still tai chi? The same goes for WC/ VT. In my opinion, as long as it follows the principle of the system (form n centre line, etc) then it's worth learning from and it is consider as WC/ VT
By the way, it's hard to just use YM video as guideline since I read somewhere that he even taught his own students differently (1st generation comparing to 2nd generation)