WSL book

[wckf92]

Anyone read this yet? Any thoughts on it?

Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute (Softcover) by Eric Lilleør | Blurb Books

At a whopping 360 pages, Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute is a fascinating and intimate window into the life and legacy of one of Wing Chun’s most legendary teachers, Sifu Wong Shun Leung. Over the last decade, the public has become more aware of his contribution to Wing Chun and his vital connection to...

www.blurb.com

 

[geezer]

Anyone read this yet? Any thoughts on it?

View attachment 28398

Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute (Softcover) by Eric Lilleør | Blurb Books

At a whopping 360 pages, Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute is a fascinating and intimate window into the life and legacy of one of Wing Chun’s most legendary teachers, Sifu Wong Shun Leung. Over the last decade, the public has become more aware of his contribution to Wing Chun and his vital connection to...

www.blurb.com

This is the first I've heard of it.

Thoughts? None ...except I'd like to get ahold of a copy.

 

[Callen]

Anyone read this yet? Any thoughts on it?

I thought it was a nice tribute. It includes 25 interviews from first generation WSLVT practitioners, which in my opinion adds to the book's relevance. It's also a bit of a rally cry for many within the WSLVT community. The first hand stories, insights and experiences about WSL add to the level of excitement and inspiration to those who train his method.

 

[wckf92]

rally cry

What do you mean? To bring all the WSL family together or...? To dispel any "bragging rights" by his direct students? etc?

 

[Callen]

What do you mean? To bring all the WSL family together or...?

Yeah, an inspiration and sense of shared pride. It has mostly been received as a positive contribution to the WSLVT community. Political disagreements aside.

 

[Oily Dragon]

This man earned a whopping 9 pages in Judkins, et al.

Who doesn't remember this?

Always reminded me of the Anthrax album cover.

 

[J.Smith]

Good morning all,

I'm after a copy of the following book below,
If you have a copy, and don't mind parting with it, please email me.

Kind regards,

J.Smith

 

[Steve]

This man earned a whopping 9 pages in Judkins, et al.

Who doesn't remember this?

View attachment 28399

This will probably be my only post in this thread, and then I'll go back to lurking. But I sincerely thought this was a satirical image, given the amount of infighting I've read over the year between the different branches of WC/WT on this forum. I thought it was tongue and cheek. And your reference to Judkins, given the kerfuffle that recently created, just added to my confusion.

All that to say, thanks for the chuckle. I'll fade back into the shadows again, now.

 

[wckf92]

Good morning all,

I'm after a copy of the following book below,
If you have a copy, and don't mind parting with it, please email me.

Kind regards,

J.Smith
View attachment 28424

Ian Protheroe – Wing Chun Weapons - Wing Chun United

Wing Chun Weapons: Butterfly Swords and Dragon Pole by Sifu Ian Protheroe

wingchununited.com

 

[J.Smith]

Ian Protheroe – Wing Chun Weapons - Wing Chun United

Wing Chun Weapons: Butterfly Swords and Dragon Pole by Sifu Ian Protheroe

wingchununited.com

Thank you for your quick reply, unfortunately they are "out of stock" and are not restocking that item.


But if anyone has a copy happy to pay for it

 

[Oily Dragon]

This will probably be my only post in this thread, and then I'll go back to lurking. But I sincerely thought this was a satirical image, given the amount of infighting I've read over the year between the different branches of WC/WT on this forum. I thought it was tongue and cheek. And your reference to Judkins, given the kerfuffle that recently created, just added to my confusion.

All that to say, thanks for the chuckle. I'll fade back into the shadows again, now.

It's basic Crane technique, right there on the cover. And I personally thought the stopwatch motif was, shall we say, precise for someone claiming "science" in a Wing Chun context.

Judkins' work is the most advanced scholarly research on Wing Chun published to date. It was excerpted in the Journal of Sports History. And Judkins co-wrote it with a very legit Wing Chun instructor. It's going to draw out people making easily falsifiable claims, like "he based it mostly on this dude/bood".

That's how you spot the lineage warriors. The first thing they did was question my reading comprehension, remember? Ha. I read their book, too.

This is a pee on my head and tell me it's snowing situation. I could do a whole thread on the lies that get spread around on Wing Chun, especially recently, but as long as I stick to historical science...I don't have to.

 

[Eric_H]

That's how you spot the lineage warriors. The first thing they did was question my reading comprehension, remember? Ha. I read their book, too.

This is a pee on my head and tell me it's snowing situation. I could do a whole thread on the lies that get spread around on Wing Chun, especially recently, but as long as I stick to historical science...I don't have to.

C'mon man, you are not a victim. There is no crazed group of lineage warriors after you. People disagreed with you, and you didn't react to all of it very well. Some of your critics got more personal than was necessary too.

I thought we had a pretty respectful back and forth in the locked thread, though we walked away still disagreeing with each other.

Though I have issues with it, Judkins work is worth a read, his effort is to be commended. It is only as good as its sources, and for some people some of the sources aren't considered very good. YMMV.

 

[Oily Dragon]

C'mon man, you are not a victim. There is no crazed group of lineage warriors after you. People disagreed with you, and you didn't react to all of it very well. Some of your critics got more personal than was necessary too.

I thought we had a pretty respectful back and forth in the locked thread, though we walked away still disagreeing with each other.

Though I have issues with it, Judkins work is worth a read, his effort is to be commended. It is only as good as its sources, and for some people some of the sources aren't considered very good. YMMV.

That's debatable.

I think I reacted to it the same way I'd react to any flash mob of kung fools who show up online to spread lies about scholarly literature. Those "people" are wrong, and a lot of them are for sure Wing Chun student trolls. One of them basically said "I only log in once a month to troll you". Uh huh, I see you bud. Some other dude in a different thread pretended to know me, and used the same "Greasy Dragon" reference. Play on, playa.

The book's bibliography contains over 150 sources. A know a couple of those people, but I'm especially aware of the beef between Wing Chun schools. It's also over an inch thick. When I compare it to the next nearest best work on Wing Chun, that old one doesn't come close.

The "critics" here said first it was all based on Leung Ting. That was easily falsified by anyone holding the book in hand.

Then it was all from one book about Foshan. That was a lie, but I don't even believe all those accounts are different people. Either one person, or several people who know each other and also, don't read (you can tell these trolls right away, he challenged my own reading comprehension. Bad move, I read the book, it's right here in my pile).

The truth is the people commenting about Judkins in such a hyperbolic and fact-deficient way, don't like the fact that it exposes a lot of their strongly held "truths" about Wing Chun. And it was co-written by someone whose Wing Chun credentials are impeccable.

Cornell history scholar+Wing Chun master = your argument is invalid.

I'm well attuned to being a hated messenger, but I love the job man. Sincerely.

 

[Eric_H]

One of them basically said "I only log in once a month to troll you".

I mean, at least you have fans? (kidding)

The book's bibliography contains over 150 sources. A know a couple of those people, but I'm especially aware of the beef between Wing Chun schools. It's also over an inch thick. When I compare it to the next nearest best work on Wing Chun, that old one doesn't come close.

The "critics" here said first it was all based on Leung Ting. That was easily falsified by anyone holding the book in hand.

Then it was all from one book about Foshan. That was a lie, but I don't even believe all those accounts are different people. Either one person, or several people who know each other and also, don't read (you can tell these trolls right away, he challenged my own reading comprehension. Bad move, I read the book, it's right here in my pile).

The truth is the people commenting about Judkins in such a hyperbolic and fact-deficient way, don't like the fact that it exposes a lot of their strongly held "truths" about Wing Chun. And it was co-written by someone whose Wing Chun credentials are impeccable.

Yeah, I can see why you hold the work in high esteem. As I said, I recommend people to read it and form their own opinion. Thoguh admittedly I'm not through it yet, it is something of a dry read.

Cornell history scholar+Wing Chun master = your argument is invalid.

That's not true, depending on which argument you are directing this at of course. You yourself have said that all WC masters lack any credibility when it comes to history.

I'm well attuned to being a hated messenger, but I love the job man. Sincerely.

I hope you do, but it does feel as though you are quite put out by it the way that you write.

 

[jlq]

That's debatable.

I think I reacted to it the same way I'd react to any flash mob of kung fools who show up online to spread lies about scholarly literature. Those "people" are wrong, and a lot of them are for sure Wing Chun student trolls. One of them basically said "I only log in once a month to troll you". Uh huh, I see you bud. Some other dude in a different thread pretended to know me, and used the same "Greasy Dragon" reference. Play on, playa.

The book's bibliography contains over 150 sources. A know a couple of those people, but I'm especially aware of the beef between Wing Chun schools. It's also over an inch thick. When I compare it to the next nearest best work on Wing Chun, that old one doesn't come close.

The "critics" here said first it was all based on Leung Ting. That was easily falsified by anyone holding the book in hand.

Then it was all from one book about Foshan. That was a lie, but I don't even believe all those accounts are different people. Either one person, or several people who know each other and also, don't read (you can tell these trolls right away, he challenged my own reading comprehension. Bad move, I read the book, it's right here in my pile).

The truth is the people commenting about Judkins in such a hyperbolic and fact-deficient way, don't like the fact that it exposes a lot of their strongly held "truths" about Wing Chun. And it was co-written by someone whose Wing Chun credentials are impeccable.

Cornell history scholar+Wing Chun master = your argument is invalid.

I'm well attuned to being a hated messenger, but I love the job man. Sincerely.

Playing the victim, huh?



One more time:

1. Judkin's book does not in any way challenge any beliefs I have about Wing Chun - to me it states absolutely nothing new or particularly insightful. I just pointed out that it is limited by its sources - like it or not, but even though the bibliography appears impressive, the sources it draws on to provide information about Wing Chun, its masters, its development in Mainland China is actually very, very limited.

2. The fact, which is easy for anyone who bothers to open the book and actually read the bibliography to verify is that the bulk of that information is drawn primarily from "Fatsaan Martial Culture" and secondarily from Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun". I even counted the number of references for you and gave you the pages on which they can be found - in both the printed and ebook editions. But did you even bother to check this? Apparently not, since you kept insisting that a) I haven't read the book and b) I don't even own a copy.
If memory serves me right, I even offered that we set up a video call so I can show you on live video that I own a hardcopy of the book, if giving you specific pages and numbers still would not convince you that I own and have read the book.
But you just ignored that and kept insisting that I hadn't read the book, you didn't even bother to check the pages I listed and check the numbers I provided - instead you simply continue telling yourself that I am telling lies about the book - which I surely do not, as can very easily be found out by looking up the relevant pages.
You shouldn't be insisting that people are lying, when you don't even bother to disprove or argue any evidence to the contrary.
Reading your comment above, one cannot but think that there is a problem somewhere, be it in terms of willingness to actually read what is being posted, or indeed with reading comprehension.

3. Speaking of reading comprehension... Unfortunately, your above post really corroborates the point I made. You took offense that I wrote somethin to the effect of "that book is of no better quality that a high school paper" because you somehow read this as if I was referring to Mr. Judkin's book, but it should be pretty clear to anyone reading carefully what I wrote that I was referring to the book "Fatsaan Martial Culture", he draws so heavily on. I even pointed out the misunderstanding EXPLICITLY in a seperate post, but you STILL didn't concede that you had misread something and got it in your head that I questioned Mr. Judkin's scholarly method.
And now, based on the post above, you seem to think that I questioned your ability to read Mr. Judkin's book! Where do you get that from? I never did such a thing, and even explained your misunderstanding to you...
If the problem is not your reading comprehension, no offense, what is it?

4. You seem to be imagining quite a bit, there is no one after you or Mr. Judkin's book because of "lineage beef" - once again, I just pointed out its limitations to you. It has nothing to do with lineage or "beliefs", as you seem to interpret the criticism.
You seem to be quite imaginative, thinking that people - say me - trolll you under different profiles. I can tell you for sure that this is my only profile on this forum, and that I am not "hunschuld". For example, based on what he wrote in past threads, he is in the US, while I am in China. I offered you before to clear this matter up on a video call, in real time, face to face. Would a troll with multiple trolling accounts do that? Just send me a PM and we are on.

5. Are you sure that Mr. Judkins is a "historian"? He has a Ph.D. in Political Science but not in history... And the co-writer being a "Wing Chun Master"? By whose standards? How is mastery defined - and how is having mastery of a physical skill in any way relevant to being knowledgable on certain things such as the evolution of Wing Chun? Anyway, whatever knowledge people have, whether they are indeed the finest martial arts historian or the greatest, most accomplished Gung Fu master around, depends on the number and quality of the sources they have access to.

6. You ignored the questions I asked multiple times:
- how long have you practiced Wing Chun and with whom?
- how long have you practiced Hung Ga Kuen in the Lam Sai Wing lineage and with whom?

To round this off, please allow me to quote what Eric H wrote:

Though I have issues with it, Judkins work is worth a read, his effort is to be commended. It is only as good as its sources, and for some people some of the sources aren't considered very good. YMMV.

This is exactly how I feel about the book - and, as I already stated in the thread referred to, it is definitely the best book of its kind and should be on every Wing Chun enthusiast's bookshelf. Just don't take it as the ultimate, or authoritative say on things. Critical thinking is a must at all times.

Sincerely.

 

[Oily Dragon]

That'ss not true, depending on which argument you are directing this at of course. You yourself have said that all WC masters lack any credibility when it comes to history.

It's going to be true for almost every argument I can think of, and I've thought long and hard about Wing Chun.

I'm mostly directing it at the lies being told about the book on MT. That seems to be the root problem (of a handful of people showing up MT to cause trouble with respect to scholarly Wing Chun research. Note that in today's age, trolls do the same thing with COVID information.

I mean, at least you have fans? (kidding)

It's no coincidence that I reference the leading scholarly work on Wing Chun, and suddenly several trolls show up questioning my reading ability, lineage, all while dropping false accusations about a book.

It's one thing to read a book and be a critic, it's another to start claiming things about a book that just don't add up.

I hope you do, but it does feel as though you are quite put out by it the way that you write.

When it comes to Wing Chun, only deal with honest students. The dishonest students are going to have a long, hard time.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Playing the victim, huh?

Speak of the Devil, the Wing Chun Mafia has returned right on schedule.

If I find time to read your entire post this weekend, I'll do by best not to bring up your past lies about the book but it's hard, because you tried too hard to conceal your deception. Maybe next time, assume you're responding to someone who's read the book.

If you continue to claim the book is a "high school" level project, or largely based on one or two sources that happen to be fringe and controversial, everyone here will know the real deal, and I won't be bothered.

For everyone's record (again) this book is the most well researched scholarly attempt on Wing Chun in history, and its been published in part in peer reviewed sports journals. The co-author has trained with over a dozen well-known Wing Chun instructors.

Gong Sau Wong, the topic is this thread, is about as marginally relevant to Judkins as Leung Ting is, based on the number of dedicated pages (<30 total pages devoted to both combined).

 

[Oily Dragon]

1. Judkin's book does not in any way challenge any beliefs I have about Wing Chun - to me it states absolutely nothing new or particularly insightful. I just pointed out that it is limited by its sources - like it or not, but even though the bibliography appears impressive, the sources it draws on to provide information about Wing Chun, its masters, its development in Mainland China is actually very, very limited.

2. The fact, which is easy for anyone who bothers to open the book and actually read the bibliography to verify is that the bulk of that information is drawn primarily from "Fatsaan Martial Culture" and secondarily from Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun".

2 more lies, repeated.

Now, you're trying to nail your previous false claims about the "bulk of the information" to the 2 sources you showed up to complain about in the first place.

You're attempting the old double bind man. Praise the scholar, make up stuff about his work. That way, you can't keep seen as attacking the researcher. But you are.

Do you think the audience reading your posts is generally dumb? You seem to write your posts that way.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners, and its development in Mainland China, he mainly draws on two sources, one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". The greater part of this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat

But let's take a deep breath, internal Dragon styled, and step back to examine the broader context behind your actual prior claims about Judkins.

"Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners, and its development in Mainland China, he mainly draws on two sources, one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". The greater part of this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat (Mr. Judkin's brings quite a bit of information about that style into his book), a lesser part is actually about Wing Chun. This book is not actually a serious scholarly work, in fact it looks and reads like a high school project, or one of those obligatory papers certain research or study faculties/organizations have to produce on a regular bases, and since it is more about just getting them done than producing actual quality content, not too much work and effort is put into it. Most of the information about Wing Chun in that book was from"

Oops. Pretty sure that's a bold faced lie because you just tried to claim you weren't talking about Judkins, but you were. What you're really attempting to is to discredit the work by trying to tie to it other less credible sources.

That's because you're trying to poison the discussion, and I believe it's on purpose. It's not like you've shown up for any previous, detailed Wing Chun discussions.

 

[Flying Crane]

Anyone read this yet? Any thoughts on it?

View attachment 28398

Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute (Softcover) by Eric Lilleør | Blurb Books

At a whopping 360 pages, Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute is a fascinating and intimate window into the life and legacy of one of Wing Chun’s most legendary teachers, Sifu Wong Shun Leung. Over the last decade, the public has become more aware of his contribution to Wing Chun and his vital connection to...

www.blurb.com

My only thought is that it looks like those butterfly knives are made from single-piece cast aluminum. Which disappoints me.