Improbability of the "Refinement" Theory

[LFJ]

.........start a thread that talks about the technical differences between WSLVT and everyone else's Wing Chun in the Ip Man lineage and why they think those differences could not be due to WSL's own refinements or innovations of the system based on his own talent and experience.

Unfortunately, you don't see the improbability of your theory, or the complexity of your request.

I don't know if others can relate, but I would liken it to a translator trying to "refine" a mangled result from Google Translate.

Despite my sufficient experience and bit of talent in translation, what is generated by GT often barely resembles a coherent language, and trying to turn that into a clear and accurate rendering of the source text would be a nightmare.

It would take at least double the time, be frustrating as heck, and would require more complete rewritings than "refinements". Better quality translation would come from just working straight with the source text.

Without a complete and comprehensible source text available, refining a GT result would be impossible or result in something almost entirely new.

But, WSL was coming to YM to learn how to fight, not to repair YM's martial art or create a new one out of something that didn't work for him.

If what YM taught him was as confused and contradictory as much of what's out there now, I'm sure WSL would have wasted no time in moving right along to another style.

Now, I sense someone might want to stay with the translation analogy and say different translators may come up with different wordings that are all still accurate and acceptable as merely differences in stylistic preference (though some could also be inaccurate due to misunderstanding the source text, or missing chunks, which could also lead to misinterpretation of the bits the translators do have).

The analogy doesn't quite carry over here, though, because making changes to the VT system (YMVT) would be akin to making changes in the source text, not just the translation.

If changes are made to the system, it could very well result in a break, especially if one does not fully understand the complete system to begin with.

A concrete example of this we have discussed in the past is adding footwork to daan-chi-sau.

There is a reason seung-ma / teui-ma stepping drills are trained from pun-sau with both arms in contact.

Teach stepping and turning with one hand in DCS to a beginner who hasn't learned pun-sau yet and there is bound to be all sorts of problems; errors in distance, facing, angles, and footwork that will be difficult to correct and easy for an opponent to exploit, like over-turning.

Stepping in DCS is a system defect. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Other examples of "cart before the horse" appear in fighting strategy, such as using secondary actions (e.g. paak; jat) as primary actions. Doing this when the primary action is available is superfluous and violates all three of the core VT principles; Simplicity, Directness, Efficiency.

It is not just the understanding of the complete content of YMVT that is important, it is also sequence- and timing-dependent. Break the sequence and timing, break the system, break the functionality.

It is so incredibly unlikely that WSL's logical, consistent, and orderly version of the VT system would have been created by him from the illogical, inconsistent, and disorderly mess that has become mainstream.

It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand.

Many things can be argued in words but undeniable and irrefutable in practice.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Unfortunately, you don't see the improbability of your theory, or the complexity of your request.

I don't know if others can relate, but I would liken it to a translator trying to "refine" a mangled result from Google Translate.

Despite my sufficient experience and bit of talent in translation, what is generated by GT often barely resembles a coherent language, and trying to turn that into a clear and accurate rendering of the source text would be a nightmare.

It would take at least double the time, be frustrating as heck, and would require more complete rewritings than "refinements". Better quality translation would come from just working straight with the source text.

Without a complete and comprehensible source text available, refining a GT result would be impossible or result in something almost entirely new.

But, WSL was coming to YM to learn how to fight, not to repair YM's martial art or create a new one out of something that didn't work for him.

If what YM taught him was as confused and contradictory as much of what's out there now, I'm sure WSL would have wasted no time in moving right along to another style.

Now, I sense someone might want to stay with the translation analogy and say different translators may come up with different wordings that are all still accurate and acceptable as merely differences in stylistic preference (though some could also be inaccurate due to misunderstanding the source text, or missing chunks, which could also lead to misinterpretation of the bits the translators do have).

The analogy doesn't quite carry over here, though, because making changes to the VT system (YMVT) would be akin to making changes in the source text, not just the translation.

If changes are made to the system, it could very well result in a break, especially if one does not fully understand the complete system to begin with.

A concrete example of this we have discussed in the past is adding footwork to daan-chi-sau.

There is a reason seung-ma / teui-ma stepping drills are trained from pun-sau with both arms in contact.

Teach stepping and turning with one hand in DCS to a beginner who hasn't learned pun-sau yet and there is bound to be all sorts of problems; errors in distance, facing, angles, and footwork that will be difficult to correct and easy for an opponent to exploit, like over-turning.

Stepping in DCS is a system defect. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Other examples of "cart before the horse" appear in fighting strategy, such as using secondary actions (e.g. paak; jat) as primary actions. Doing this when the primary action is available is superfluous and violates all three of the core VT principles; Simplicity, Directness, Efficiency.

It is not just the understanding of the complete content of YMVT that is important, it is also sequence- and timing-dependent. Break the sequence and timing, break the system, break the functionality.

It is so incredibly unlikely that WSL's logical, consistent, and orderly version of the VT system would have been created by him from the illogical, inconsistent, and disorderly mess that has become mainstream.

It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand.

Many things can be argued in words but undeniable and irrefutable in practice.

Actually, since every person must interpret every single communication through his or her own filters, process them through his or her own memories, then feed them to subsequent students back through their filter and (flawed) memories, it would be practical to assume that WSL's transmission of the system is not entirely YM's. Given that, we then have to decide if WSL changed things only as a transmission error, or whether he saw parts he thought could be improved upon (which should be the case in every re-transmission of an art).

So, rather than simply contrasting one version with all other versions (a false dichotomy, from what I can tell), why not enter the discussion that was posited, looking at what is different in each and why those differences might exist? You're looking at what you consider all the downsides to those choices you consider erroneous. Might there also be upsides to them?

 

[guy b]

Actually, since every person must interpret every single communication through his or her own filters, process them through his or her own memories, then feed them to subsequent students back through their filter and (flawed) memories, it would be practical to assume that WSL's transmission of the system is not entirely YM's. Given that, we then have to decide if WSL changed things only as a transmission error, or whether he saw parts he thought could be improved upon (which should be the case in every re-transmission of an art).

So, rather than simply contrasting one version with all other versions (a false dichotomy, from what I can tell), why not enter the discussion that was posited, looking at what is different in each and why those differences might exist? You're looking at what you consider all the downsides to those choices you consider erroneous. Might there also be upsides to them?

I believe you don't do wing chun, or have only a very basic understanding of the system?

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I believe you don't do wing chun, or have only a very basic understanding of the system?

That is correct (the former - the latter would overstate my understanding). I'm speaking not out of any expertise in WC, but as someone who understands how information is transmitted - which is never 100% accurate, even with documentation and repetition.

 

[guy b]

That is correct (the former - the latter would overstate my understanding). I'm speaking not out of any expertise in WC, but as someone who understands how information is transmitted - which is never 100% accurate, even with documentation and repetition.

What makes you think that WSL VT lacks measures to make sure information is transmitted correctly, or that the people currently involved with the system lack an appreciation and understanding of information dynamics?

I guess that if you don't know WSL VT is designed as an error correcting system which builds attributes and understanding via mutually beneficial partner and equipment based exercises, then you might think that simply memorising all of that detail would be difficult, and transmission problematic? As it stands I think that the system has this covered. This can be seen in the similarity between good practitioners.

Problems arise when learning is incomplete, but this is not a system problem as far as I can tell.

 

[LFJ]

This can be seen in the similarity between good practitioners.

This is a good point. In fact, I've researched a TCMA in central China that split from a common ancestor into two villages 500+ years ago that remained isolated from each other. Yet, while they have evolved seperately, they are still remarkably similar.

Their forms still follow the same sequence of postures and they still have the same functions. The only major difference is in footwork where one has just made the movements cover more space with leaping steps.

This is evidence that when understood fully, systems can remain intact for centuries.

These were farming villages where kung fu is their passtime, and had been used in the past to protect against invasions. So, villagers had nothing but time to put into training properly and passing it on through the centuries.

If this is possible, simple filters and faulty memories cannot account for so much contradiction between WC lineages from the same teacher in just one generation.

Obviouly not everyone spent the time and learned completely, as much as some people don't want to imagine it.

 

[LFJ]

You're looking at what you consider all the downsides to those choices you consider erroneous. Might there also be upsides to them?

Well, since they damage the functionality of the system, contradict its core principles, and create fighting errors we try to prevent or work to correct, I can't think of any upsides.

VT fight training is all about ingraining desirable behaviors and correcting undesirable habits, which we all have enough of. Things happen too fast for thinking about doing the right things at the right time.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Well, since they damage the functionality of the system, contradict its core principles, and create fighting errors we try to prevent or work to correct, I can't think of any upsides.

VT fight training is all about ingraining desirable behaviors and correcting undesirable habits, which we all have enough of. Things happen too fast for thinking about doing the right things at the right time.

Your first sentence sounds like you're being absolutist about those differences. I've rarely seen a difference between similar styles where all the advantages were on one side, though I have seen differences where both sides claimed all the advantages were theirs. I suspect that those things you refer to contradict the core principles as you understand them, and not as the people in those other lines see them. A difference in the approach to some significant principles is not uncommon between styles of the same art - that's what differentiates them.

 

[LFJ]

I suspect that those things you refer to contradict the core principles as you understand them, and not as the people in those other lines see them. A difference in the approach to some significant principles is not uncommon between styles of the same art - that's what differentiates them.

VT aims for the highest level of simplicity, directness, and efficiency. If anything can be made more so, we do it. This is what makes VT.

Using two arms and/or multiple steps to achieve what one arm could do in one step, for example, is objectively violating these core principles.

And keeping to these principles is not dogmatic, but a matter of percentages in fighting. The further away from these principles we move, the lower percentages become.

 

[guy b]

Your first sentence sounds like you're being absolutist about those differences. I've rarely seen a difference between similar styles where all the advantages were on one side, though I have seen differences where both sides claimed all the advantages were theirs. I suspect that those things you refer to contradict the core principles as you understand them, and not as the people in those other lines see them. A difference in the approach to some significant principles is not uncommon between styles of the same art - that's what differentiates them.

This simply doesn't happen though in a single generation where the system is learned correctly

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This simply doesn't happen though in a single generation where the system is learned correctly

Sure it does. I can point to instructors within NGA - at a similar level to me - who have a different approach. Theirs isn't wrong compared to mine, and some of them actually spend time dissecting differences looking to borrow and learn from each other (including me). This is among students of the same primary instructor, who is alive and still teaching. Differences can absolutely develop between instructors in a single generation, and without anyone having to be wrong.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

VT aims for the highest level of simplicity, directness, and efficiency. If anything can be made more so, we do it. This is what makes VT.

Using two arms and/or multiple steps to achieve what one arm could do in one step, for example, is objectively violating these core principles.

And keeping to these principles is not dogmatic, but a matter of percentages in fighting. The further away from these principles we move, the lower percentages become.

If adding a second arm makes a technique less fallible, then the complexity (second arm) has a payoff (more likely the techniques succeeds). One could interpret that as increased efficiency trumping simplicity. Or, one could interpret the single arm as simplicity trumping efficiency. Or there could be a third, fourth, and fifth viewpoint on that one example. Claiming to be the arbiter of "rightness" doesn't automatically negate others' considered opinions.

 

[drop bear]

VT aims for the highest level of simplicity, directness, and efficiency. If anything can be made more so, we do it. This is what makes VT.

Using two arms and/or multiple steps to achieve what one arm could do in one step, for example, is objectively violating these core principles.

And keeping to these principles is not dogmatic, but a matter of percentages in fighting. The further away from these principles we move, the lower percentages become.

No. because the source isnt the scripture. It is in the application. you are focused on the finger. Not the moon. As the saying goes.

Wing chun wasn't built correctly. If it was it would be obvious in its application. Where has that assumption come from?

 

[geezer]

If adding a second arm makes a technique less fallible, then the complexity (second arm) has a payoff (more likely the techniques succeeds). One could interpret that as increased efficiency trumping simplicity. Or, one could interpret the single arm as simplicity trumping efficiency. Or there could be a third, fourth, and fifth viewpoint on that one example. Claiming to be the arbiter of "rightness" doesn't automatically negate others' considered opinions.

You are absolutely right here. The various WC/VT/WT branches all emphasize simplicity, directness, and efficiency. However, in fighting, you also have to take into account reliability under adverse conditions. The most finely tuned and efficient machine may not be the most reliable. Similarly, I've found that some very efficient WC techniques are not always high percentage movements.

And more importantly, no fighting system is perfect. And even if there were one nearly perfect system, it wouldn't fit all people equally well. So variation is inevitable. Honestly, there is no way to resolve this argument. It reminds me of trying to discuss the factual reality of evolution with a good friend who is a creationist. Our worldviews are just too different to make conversing on the topic worthwhile.

 

[KPM]

I don't know if others can relate, but I would liken it to a translator trying to "refine" a mangled result from Google Translate.

---Actually. I don't think that is a good analogy. I have done some work as a medical and scientific editor. I think a better analogy would be taking technical writing that isn't as clear and concise as it could be and refining it so that the meaning is clearer to the reader. That isn't nearly as tough as what you described. Because WSL would not have started with something that "barely resembles a coherent language." He would have started with Ip Man's Wing Chun, which was already good!


But, WSL was coming to YM to learn how to fight, not to repair YM's martial art or create a new one out of something that didn't work for him.

---Again, you seem to be assuming that what WSL started with from Ip Man was in terrible shape. That is not at all what I was suggesting.


If what YM taught him was as confused and contradictory as much of what's out there now, I'm sure WSL would have wasted no time in moving right along to another style.

----I'm sure that's true! And I'm sure there is a lot out there that is "confused and contradictory". I never said there wasn't! What I have objected to was your theory that what EVERYONE else learned was "confused and contradictory" except for what WSL learned. I have stated that I believe that where WSL differs from the other senior students of Ip Man was likely due to WSL's own refinements, experience, and understanding. And I don't think the Wing Chun of men like Ho Kam Ming, Tsiu Tsun Ting, Lok Yiu, etc is as "confused and contradictory" as you make them out to be.



If changes are made to the system, it could very well result in a break, especially if one does not fully understand the complete system to begin with.

----One could start from a system that was bit broader in scope and "refine" it to concentrate on the delivery of the punch and then rework the conceptual and strategic approach to focus on that. Hence any standing grappling would be dropped. The idea of broader "applications" of techniques that didn't contribute to delivering the punch would be dropped, etc. Why would that be so difficult?



Stepping in DCS is a system defect. This is putting the cart before the horse.

---Good explanation. Easy to see how over generations that explanation would get skipped and people would think that adding the step from the beginning was a good thing. But when I learned Ip Man Wing Chun, that step wasn't added to Dan Chi Sau until well after it had been learned in Seung Chi Sau.


Other examples of "cart before the horse" appear in fighting strategy, such as using secondary actions (e.g. paak; jat) as primary actions. Doing this when the primary action is available is superfluous and violates all three of the core VT principles; Simplicity, Directness, Efficiency.

---But only if your conceptual and strategic approach is focused on delivering the punch. There are plenty of times when you may not want to use a maximum response and punch the other person out. And things never go as planned in a real situation. So you may not be able to deliver that punch directly. And if you are facing multiple opponents it my be more efficient to use a Kum Na technique to throw one opponent into the path of an approaching opponent to provide you with time to get the heck out of there! So again, in a system with a bit broader scope than just the punch, things like that would not be seen as "broken."



It is so incredibly unlikely that WSL's logical, consistent, and orderly version of the VT system would have been created by him from the illogical, inconsistent, and disorderly mess that has become mainstream.

---But again, no one said he would have started from the "illogical, inconsistent, and disorderly mess that has become mainstream." The "mess" largely exists in people that are now several generations removed from Ip Man and likely have "filled gaps." But that description does not apply to everyone as you seem to suggest! Why don't you assume that WSL was starting with a system very similar to what Ho Kam Ming teaches? Then I don't think that the idea is as "incredibly unlikely" as you make it out to be!


It is also overly complex to explain in writing all that is broken from a WSLVT p.o.v., including the hows and whys, and would not likely be fully appreciated without readers experiencing the alternatives firsthand.

---Maybe so. But then we are still left with the support for your theory essentially being "because I said so!"

 

[guy b]

Sure it does. I can point to instructors within NGA - at a similar level to me - who have a different approach. Theirs isn't wrong compared to mine, and some of them actually spend time dissecting differences looking to borrow and learn from each other (including me). This is among students of the same primary instructor, who is alive and still teaching. Differences can absolutely develop between instructors in a single generation, and without anyone having to be wrong.

Ok great. Maybe try VT, I guess it is a bit different to your system

 

[guy b]

f adding a second arm makes a technique less fallible, then the complexity (second arm) has a payoff (more likely the techniques succeeds). One could interpret that as increased efficiency trumping simplicity.

WSL VT depends upon having two arms working seperately on one level, with both containing independent attack and defence functionality, while working together in terms of an overarching strategic approach. Using two arms to accomplish what one arm can do ruins the built in defensive strategy of the system, and being hit is inefficient. It also ruins the automatic attacking strategy and puts the fighter into a trading punches situation where attack % goes down.

 

[guy b]

Because WSL would not have started with something that "barely resembles a coherent language." He would have started with Ip Man's Wing Chun, which was already good!

If Yip Man's VT was the same as some of the wing chun descended from him today, then it must indeed have barely resembled a coherent language compared to WSL VT.

Which VT do you think is a good representation of YM's system if WSL VT represents an evolution? We can then compare directly.

What I have objected to was your theory that what EVERYONE else learned was "confused and contradictory" except for what WSL learned.

This has never been a theory of mine, or as far as I am aware of LFJ's. I would really like it if you would stop repeating this line in every single discussion. Thanks

One could start from a system that was bit broader in scope and "refine" it to concentrate on the delivery of the punch and then rework the conceptual and strategic approach to focus on that

In other YM wing chun that I have seen, the whole strategic approach has been missing, and the conceptual understanding is totally buggered, for want of a better word. It isn't something that you could "refine" to come up with WSL VT

Why don't you assume that WSL was starting with a system very similar to what Ho Kam Ming teaches? Then I don't think that the idea is as "incredibly unlikely" as you make it out to be!

It would be great if someone would discuss the VT of HKM. It is not one I have ever seen

 

[KPM]

Which VT do you think is a good representation of YM's system if WSL VT represents an evolution? We can then compare directly.

----Ho Kam Ming's Wing Chun for one. Tsui Tsun Ting's Wing Chun for another.


This has never been a theory of mine, or as far as I am aware of LFJ's. I would really like it if you would stop repeating this line in every single discussion. Thanks


---Well the problem is that you have stated something along the lines of "but there may be other systems of Wing Chun out there that are good other than WSLVT".....but then you cannot give an example and name any other Ip Man lineages that you approve of. So even though you protest what I said above, you still essentially believe that it is true.



In other YM wing chun that I have seen, the whole strategic approach has been missing, and the conceptual understanding is totally buggered, for want of a better word. It isn't something that you could "refine" to come up with WSL VT

---See. You do essentially believe what I said above. So your protest is a bit hollow.



It would be great if someone would discuss the VT of HKM. It is not one I have ever seen.

---Yes. It would be good if Joy would actually engage and provide detail. Its been too long since I studied in that lineage for me to make good and accurate comments. But maybe Danny will talk about his lineage for comparison.

 

[guy b]

Ho Kam Ming's Wing Chun for one. Tsui Tsun Ting's Wing Chun for another

Do you mean Chu Shong Ting?

Are these two approaches to the system very similar, or are they different?

I have no experience of HKM VT

Well the problem is that you have stated something along the lines of "but there may be other systems of Wing Chun out there that are good other than WSLVT".....but then you cannot give an example and name any other Ip Man lineages that you approve of. So even though you protest what I said above, you still essentially believe that it is true.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have not seen one of the two that you single out as good representations of YM's system so I am at a disadvantage in being able to write it off at this point. I must remain agnostic on the question of HKM VT

See. You do essentially believe what I said above. So your protest is a bit hollow.

That isn't true, because I have not seen all of the wing chun derived from Yip Man. I can't judge what I haven't seen.

Yes. It would be good if Joy would actually engage and provide detail. Its been too long since I studied in that lineage for me to make good and accurate comments. But maybe Danny will talk about his lineage for comparison

It would indeed be very helpful if Joy would discuss, but I fear it is unlikely to happen. If it did then I would just listen because information is so thin on the ground