member of our WC forum posted to the effect that when they watched how another particular WC lineage approached certain key techniques, they didn't even "recognize" it as WC.
I don't recall it being said, or meant, like that. I said I don't recognize them as the same system; a statement with which you agreed, right? You can call almost anything WC if it shares outward similarities in form, shapes, and terminology, but if the underlying concepts are vastly different, and ultimately a different type of fighter is developed, they are hardly the same system to me.
Regarding boxing, while it can be used effectively as a self-defense method, it's still very much a game in the ring. A game can be played with different styles and still fit within the boundaries of the game. Not a problem.
The VT I do is a cohesive system of training methods designed to develop certain specific behaviors for fighting. It's not an art, only a skill, as WSL used to say. Another thing he used to say which is often misinterpreted is for one to be the master of VT and not its slave. He was referring to the strict elbow training we go through in development and to not think about it in fighting, but to fight mindlessly making the elbows work for us. Otherwise we are a slave to the system. People often take this out of context and use it as a license to do whatever they want and still call it WC, for lack of understanding the system.
As far as the "interpretation" argument for why everyone under YM seems to have a different system, all from one man... I don't for a second buy that YM taught various different systems to different students, or taught a special version to secret closed-door students, or that what he taught was so open to interpretation that the entire system could be so vastly different.
Some got it, some didn't, and they all developed according to their own understanding, or lack thereof. I think the fact that many lineages are roughly similar at the beginning of the system, but diverge greatly later in the system, especially with ideas of the BJ form, is a sign that not everyone completed the system and a lot of it has been made up to fill in the gaps.
I think YM taught one system (although simplified over the years), and we should all be more similar in the underlying strategy and tactics, but not everyone got it. WSL discussed this in an interview:
Interviewer: "How does the teaching of Yip Man differ from the way you teach?"
WSL: "Yip Man taught in a traditional manner. This meant that Yip Man would give some information only once in a while. If you were not alert and missed the point, then hard lines. He would expect the students to grasp the whole meaning from, maybe, one or two words of explanation. Of course, he welcomed questions and discussions which showed that a student was thinking for himself. Hence the information was not evenly distributed. Some students might get little bits of loose information, whilst others received more information. You had to be able to read between the lines to arrive at an answer. There was no systematic manner of explanation.
"Grandmaster Yip Man also had a different attitude to that which I have. He used to believe that teaching one good student would be better than teaching ten bad ones. Hence, he would not spend too much time with a student whom he thought not worthy of his time. This is why some teachers of Ving Tsun teach in different manners. From Yip Man's one word of explanation they may have got the wrong meaning which they now pass on. Their grasp of the ideas which Yip Man gave depended very much on their intelligence, attendance to class and on their training attitude.
"This is not a criticism of Yip Man but rather it reflects the attitude of the time which was very much traditional. Wherever and whomever I have been teaching, it has been my preference to convey the information to all people in attendance. I try to treat everyone equally during my lessons and seminars. If therefore, students are allowed such free interpretation as that which Yip Man allowed then the students may take Ving Tsun as an art. In fact it is a skill. We are not performing for an audience but rather doing a job."
