wing chun history is not important

[KPM]

All the more reason to believe that WSL would have made any changes and "updates" and "innovations" to what he learned from Ip Man to make his Wing Chun work better for him!

 

[Phobius]

@KPM

I never said anything about YM teaching a "true" style to WSL and a "false" style to others. That would be stupid and a waste of time. I don't think he cared to dumb things down for people or give special treatment.

Simply that his teaching style allowed for students to fight, think, and ask questions. Most didn't fight, think, or ask questions. Most weren't around for very long. It's obvious YM didn't spend much time on these folks. He taught movements with very little or no explanation, and if you didn't catch it or ask, you didn't get it.

WSL fought, thought, and asked questions. So, his experience and learning differed from those who were left to their own imagination with no fighting experience or direction from a teacher but wanted to then go on and teach.

From WSL himself:

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."​

Can you provide source of this interview? Just curious and source should always be present when quoting people that no longer live.

Edit: Nevermind, found the source to be Paul Whitrod, Wing Chun: A Master Talks (The Wong Shun Leung Interview), Combat Magazine vol. 20 no. 1, pp. 29 (Jan 1994)

 

[KPM]

What LFJ has said so far in this thread:

Why would WSL lie about drastically improving the system? If he made such a drastic change, for the better

But it is a fact that most of the big names under YM never completed the system and had very little if any practical fighting experience.

It is very clear that most of them filled in the blanks themselves when you look at how similar they are until BJ, when things go haywire. Plus, their systems severely lack coherence and are missing the main idea.

And yet others differ greatly in their concepts and principles, and their systems are a complete mess, while WSL's is a very coherent systematic development of a simple concept all the way through. Others don't even contain the first idea!

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system


On the one hand LFJ is saying that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught him. But on the other hand he has made all of these comments when comparing WSLVT to other Ip Man lineages. On the one hand LFJ denies that he thinks WSL learned the "true" or "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man, yet on the other hand he believes that there are major if not "drastic" differences between WSLVT and everyone else.....for the better! On the one hand he believes that WSLVT is a "far more practical and coherent system" than "mainstream" Wing Chun, yet one the other hand he believes that Ip Man taught the same system to everyone. I point all of this out simply to show that I believe Occam's Razor applies here. There is a rather simple explanation for why we see all of these conflicting ideas.

 

[LFJ]

It's not "on the one hand" and then "on the other". All of that is on the same hand!

I point all of this out simply to show that I believe Occam's Razor applies here. There is a rather simple explanation for why we see all of these conflicting ideas.

And I think WSL explained it clearly enough. Couldn't be more obvious.

 

[Xue Sheng]

And I think WSL explained it clearly enough. Couldn't be more obvious.

WSL experience is not all that different then my Taijiquan shifu had in the same area, in a completely different style, with a completely different teacher.

His teacher (my sigung) did not talk much/say much, or go into great detailed explanations either, so what he is saying makes a lot of sense to me, thank you for posting the interview

 

[guy b.]

What LFJ has said so far in this thread:

Why would WSL lie about drastically improving the system? If he made such a drastic change, for the better

But it is a fact that most of the big names under YM never completed the system and had very little if any practical fighting experience.

It is very clear that most of them filled in the blanks themselves when you look at how similar they are until BJ, when things go haywire. Plus, their systems severely lack coherence and are missing the main idea.

And yet others differ greatly in their concepts and principles, and their systems are a complete mess, while WSL's is a very coherent systematic development of a simple concept all the way through. Others don't even contain the first idea!

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system


On the one hand LFJ is saying that WSL taught exactly what Ip Man taught him. But on the other hand he has made all of these comments when comparing WSLVT to other Ip Man lineages. On the one hand LFJ denies that he thinks WSL learned the "true" or "real" Wing Chun from Ip Man, yet on the other hand he believes that there are major if not "drastic" differences between WSLVT and everyone else.....for the better! On the one hand he believes that WSLVT is a "far more practical and coherent system" than "mainstream" Wing Chun, yet one the other hand he believes that Ip Man taught the same system to everyone. I point all of this out simply to show that I believe Occam's Razor applies here. There is a rather simple explanation for why we see all of these conflicting ideas.

It is much less likely that WSL reinvented the whole of wing chun from the ground up and much more likely that most of his contemporaries were simply not very good learners and YM not a very interested or attentive teacher. WSL changing wing chun would have required many steps- not a simple process and probably not enough time in the life of WSL to make it so.

Different lineages have elements of what YM taught but tend to fall to bits due to incoherence and made up elements. WSL VT is simply the full picture. Obvious when you have learned a version that is just bits and pieces the moved to WSL VT.

 

[guy b.]

If you're assuming "mainstream" Wing Chun is what WSL was working with from YM and he went about overhauling it by himself, changing almost everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that's not a simple explanation at all! That would be like generations of innovations performed by one guy. Hence, I said it's incredibly unlikely if not impossible. You may not see it that way, but you've not experienced WSL's system to see it from that angle.

The simplest explanation that I can see is just that YM wasn't very concerned with cranking out numerous high-level students, didn't have the patience or interest in teaching those less serious or talented, and indeed taught very few people the system. May cause butthurt, but that's the truly simplest explanation.

This is the simplest and most probable explanation for what we see

 

[guy b.]

Joy, you do realize this puts you in agreement with Guy's opinion that Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about anyone other than Wong Shun Leung? That Ip Man "didn't give a sh!t" about Ho Kam Ming specifically, because I brought him up as one of Ip Man's primary senior students along with some other names and Guy included them in his assessment. Joy, you do realize that this puts you in agreement with LFJ's and Guy's contention that Wong Shun Leung was the ONLY one to learn the "true" Wing Chun from Ip Man? Because all of that is exactly what you just agreed to by your #4 above, whether you realize it or not!

You are presenting a false choice. It is possible to disagre with me and to disagree with you at the same time.

I don't believe I have said anything about any specific YM student including Ho Kam Ming. You presented a list of people including WSL and HKM and I suggested you use your eyes to see.

 

[guy b.]

If you´re assuming WSL was working with "mainstream" Wing Chun and all other lineages Went about overhauling it by themselves, changing almost Everything about it save some superficial similarities into a far more practical and coherent system, that´s not a a simple explanation at all!

I don't think certain other WC are a product of overhauling WC, more a matter of never getting WC. The main marker of this fact in the present is that they are contradictory and they do not work as fighting systems.

Nobody is claiming that WSL VT is the only wing chun that works, but it is one. Personally I have not seen another, but one may exist

 

[KPM]

It is much less likely that WSL reinvented the whole of wing chun from the ground up and much more likely that most of his contemporaries were simply not very good learners and YM not a very interested or attentive teacher.

---Ok. Both you and LFJ have used the term "most" several times, implying not "all." So who do you guys see as having "good" Wing Chun from Ip Man other than Wong Shun Leung? Who else was a "good learner" that Ip Man was attentive to other than Wong Shun Leung?


WSL changing wing chun would have required many steps- not a simple process and probably not enough time in the life of WSL to make it so.

---I think you underestimate Wong Shun Leung!!!

Different lineages have elements of what YM taught but tend to fall to bits due to incoherence and made up elements. WSL VT is simply the full picture. Obvious when you have learned a version that is just bits and pieces the moved to WSL VT.

---Sounds like "True Believer Syndrome" emerging to me. ;-)

 

[Vajramusti]

It's becoming another silly thread. I respect WSL. But I am from anothrt very good line

Some gossipy thread.

 

[geezer]

---Sounds like "True Believer Syndrome" emerging to me. ;-)

Yeah. I pick up the same vibe from LFJ and Guy B. as well who just stated, "Nobody is claiming that WSL VT is the only wing chun that works, but it is one. Personally I have not seen another, but one may exist." ie. none of the other well known sifu's WC, examples of which he has most certainly seen, works." He didn't say "it doesn't work as well, in my experience" etc. He just says they don't work.

I don't know what gives with a lot of WSL guys. On that other forum, some of the Phil Bayer followers took it to the extreme, knocking everyone else, including other WSL branches, such as David Peterson. Then one of the loudest voices on the forum got his butt kicked doing chi-sau with Shaun Obasi and afterwards totally disappeared from the forum.

Sadly, it does seem like the same "true believer" syndrome I've encountered in so many other WC groups including some I've belonged to.

 

[guy b.]

I--Ok. Both you and LFJ have used the term "most" several times, implying not "all." So who do you guys see as having "good" Wing Chun from Ip Man other than Wong Shun Leung? Who else was a "good learner" that Ip Man was attentive to other than Wong Shun Leung?

I have no idea. Maybe you guys have a better idea since you practice different lines of wing chun and appear happy with them? Vajramusti suggests his wing chun which I believe is via Ho Kam Ming/Augustine Fong. I have no experience of this wing chun so obviously can't comment.

I would love to see some wider discussion of wing chun beyond my posting up ideas and people attacking them.

Maybe post up something about HKM wing chun (or whatever wing chun you do) and we can discuss?

I think you underestimate Wong Shun Leung!!!

I think you underestimate wing chun. I am not offended if you want to think that WSL invented the wing chun of WSL though, it is nothing personal to me.

Sounds like "True Believer Syndrome" emerging to me. ;-)

Not sure what that is. I am quite a cynical person and all of the the other MA that I am currently involved with is sport based and tested via physical contest. Of the traditional systems that I have lexperienced, only WSL VT can stand with this approach.

All I can suggest is that you try WSL VT from someone who is good at it

A fw years back when there was a lot of fuss about Alan Orr (Robert Chu) wing chun I went and tried it. I was not that impressed compared to the WSL approach, but I think it has some elements that are better than other wing chun I have seen. Overall I would call it a gap-filled wing chun but one that is aimed at modern sporting comps so ends up better than most for this reason, i.e. the training approach includes contact and real time.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have had 2 different teachers in various branches of Wing Chun from all from Ip Man, however I never got past Siu Lim Tao. All I can tell you is that the basic principles are the same but Siu Lim tao is a little different with a few things added/removed or repeated.

One sifu from Ip Ching and the other sifu was in 2 different lines to Ip Man one from Leung Sheng (the one that gave him permission to teach) and the other from Ho Kam Ming (Where he started in Wing Chun).

 

[guy b.]

Yeah. I pick up the same vibe from LFJ and Guy B. as well who just stated, "Nobody is claiming that WSL VT is the only wing chun that works, but it is one. Personally I have not seen another, but one may exist." ie. none of the other well known sifu's WC, examples of which he has most certainly seen, works." He didn't say "it doesn't work as well, in my experience" etc. He just says they don't work.

I have not experienced the wing chun of all of the people listed by KPM.

I don't know what gives with a lot of WSL guys. On that other forum, some of the Phil Bayer followers took it to the extreme, knocking everyone else, including other WSL branches, such as David Peterson. Then one of the loudest voices on the forum got his butt kicked doing chi-sau with Shaun Obasi and afterwards totally disappeared from the forum.

There is some variation in WSL VT as LFJ said. Some teachers are better, some worse. Some spent more time with WSL, some not so much, some none.

I don't know about Kevin G., never met him. As far as I know he is a Philipp Bayer seminar student. I wouldn't call what I saw on youtube either a butt kicking or chii-sau

Sadly, it does seem like the same "true believer" syndrome I've encountered in so many other WC groups including some I've belonged to.

Again, try it

 

[geezer]

Again, try it

Should the opportunity arise, I definitely will. Precisely because I'm not a "true believer" ...and because I do like a lot of what I've seen with regard to WSL VT.

 

[guy b.]

Should the opportunity arise, I definitely will. Precisely because I'm not a "true believer" ...and because I do like a lot of what I've seen with regard to WSL VT.

I've no idea what you mean by "true believer". What do you mean?

 

[geezer]

I've no idea what you mean by "true believer". What do you mean?

It's that kind of "culty" thing that some people get into where they think that only their sifu, system, and lineage is any good.

I was actually a little bit like that for a while when I first started training. But fortunately, my own skeptical and curious nature pulled me out of it before I had to have my eyes opened via a major butt-kicking!

 

[KPM]

I have not experienced the wing chun of all of the people listed by KPM.

Then maybe you shouldn't make such sweeping statements.

 

[KPM]

I've no idea what you mean by "true believer". What do you mean?

Ah! The "true believer syndrome" is one in which someone has become utterly convinced that their lineage is the one and only very best lineage of Wing Chun in the entire universe!....despite knowing very little about the other lineages and versions of Wing Chun. One in the grips of this affliction very often makes generalized sweeping statements delivered as fact when referring to things outside of their own lineage that they actually know little about. One in the grips of this affliction often think the conclusions reached within their lineage must apply to all lineages, because after all their lineage is the very best and therefore the reference for all the rest! One in the grips of this affliction very often will not listen to reason or acknowledge logical arguments that point out failings or conclusions that they have reached based upon what is taught in their lineage, because, again, their lineage is the VERY BEST, and could not possibly produce inerrant conclusions! One in the grips of this affliction very often just ignore what anyone else has to say that may contradict their predetermined beliefs. Did I miss anything Steve?