WSL on LSJC [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

LFJ

08-13-2013, 12:59 AM

As I explained in a previous thread, LSJC literally refers to the opponent's arm leaving yours in the name and what sort of automatic behavior should result, i.e. 'thrust forward upon loss of contact'.

This has as much to do with a springing energy effect as a result of constant forward intent as it does with moving the entire body structure forward as a unit, as it is an effect of that. Yet the springing energy is for some reason denied by PB students here. For example:

LSJC has been roughly translated to "loss of contact, thrust forward without hesitation". People wrongly assume that the "loss of contact" bit means that we already have arm contact and when it is released we should thrust forward using some kind of springy energy. That is a common misconception in Wing Chun.

You may need to go back and have a deeper discussion with PB, or admit that this is an element apparently missing in your understanding of WSL VT. Unless you think WSL was a victim of that same "misconception". When I suggested PB may have misinterpreted the meaning of LSJC, based on your words as his student, I got a response of OMFG! :eek::eek::eek:

Well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOSpET3SJu4

In this video @8:10-10:40, WSL explains why the first section of SNT must be done slowly, saying that it requires "li shou zhi chong" (Mandarin for lat sau jik chung). "What is LSJC" he explains in three parts;

(My rough translation.)
"When our arms are connected and his arm suddenly leaves to attack me this way, a lot of people do this (block the arm). This is the normal reaction. Afraid to get hit they'll use some action to protect themselves. If I don't protect myself when he attacks me I thrust into him. This sort of action violates that normal response.

"Also if his power is pressing on my arm, when released my arm will shoot up. So the elbow must be placed on the center line. (9:40) If he presses on my arm and then leaves, my arm will have a slight tendency to thrust forward. If not, with my elbow here (off center), when he leaves my arm it will go upward.

"So training slowly is to focus one's intent on forwarding toward the enemy. In VT this is 'chiu-ying'. That is at any time you are aiming at the enemy, not off to the side, or even further away, but always aimed at them. So when facing you must launch from your center line and attack the opponent's center. This is the most important requirement in VT."

-The first part explains constant forward force, as not the natural tendency.
-The second part explains the springing energy effect it has upon loss of contact with proper elbow position.
-The third part explains how to develop it in form and apply it in fighting.

To other non-WSLVT practitioners, this is training to develop an automatic mindless response, a result of constant forward force, not to be confused with sensing and responding to the opponent's energy, or even looking to contact in the first place.

If the PB guys are applying proper forward force they'll get this springing effect. If this effect is not happening for them, something is wrong with forwarding energy. Just offering forth the suggestion, from WSL, for possible advancement. Do with it what you will.

Graham H

08-13-2013, 01:23 AM

Jesus! Get over it dude.

LSJC used in this context is a development drill for beginners in chi sau to learn not to retract the hand before punching and start the process of not chasing or fighting the arms. During chi sau practice we are in contact and the idea of taking the arm away so that your training partner can train the correct punching behaviour is vital. Contact is removed and the punch is trained. It's a drill but the behaviour of the punch is improved through this drill.

Later on down the line this idea of LSJC progresses and like the rest of the system things are added so that the end result is a fully functioning Ving Tsun fighting system. The pivot, step and strategy are all added and all need LSJC inside.
One of the great things about LSJC is that is does teach you to navigate through all the mess whilst driving forward but its not only about impeding arms.

There are many drills and training methods within the system that improve and correct actions. they are not fighting methods. They are tools. If your Sifu has not seen the complete picture or missed certain things the tools become interpreted as something else. This is always the problem.

We learn later that LSJC is about the whole body behaviour but of course in the beginning when we are learning we have to get the arms correct. The structures built through hours of training allows us to use them correctly.

What you see in WSL videos is him explaining a very small part of LSJC. A few more months/years down the line you will see the rest.

In SLT we start to develop LSJC but where is the contact then? There is none so is not LSJC??

I don't need to have a "deeper" conversation with PB mate. I know what I'm on about and have seen the full process. It seems you have not.

When PB first asked me what I thought LSJC was I said it was loss of contact with the arms thrust forward using springy energy. He then proceeded to teach me a new idea. One that made perfect sense and things that I had never experienced before. Before then how could I know any different??????

Maybe you should spend less time writing and invest your time into going to see what PB does first hand before making assumptions based on video footage. :rolleyes:

I shouldn't be saying this to you. You are in the WSLVT lineage. You should not be so blind! There is more information out there that you have not been exposed to!

Graham H

08-13-2013, 01:38 AM

Btw before you start writing a long drawn out post about how you may disagree with me can I just say that regardless of who is wrong or who is right (if at all) I prefer PB's WSLVT for his fighting and his thinking. IMO its second to none so differences in opinion really don't mean much to me.

When I read your post it was like what I would have wrote 5 years ago ;)

LFJ

08-13-2013, 01:41 AM

What you see in WSL videos is him explaining a very small part of LSJC. A few more months/years down the line you will see the rest.

I agree. It seems what happened with you though was when PB explained it further to you, you took it as a replacement rather than expansion.

In SLT we start to develop LSJC but where is the contact then? There is none so is not LSJC??

In form it is training proper elbow position and focusing intent so that in chi-sau and ultimately fighting the effect will be able to function.

Graham H

08-13-2013, 01:57 AM

I agree. It seems what happened with you though was when PB explained it further to you, you took it as a replacement rather than expansion.

How can you know this when you haven't seen it first hand? I didn't replace it. It was definatley and expansion and it made me realize that this whole thing about different people having different levels of knowledge based on their contact with WSL plus their physical and mental abilities was definately true.

In form it is training proper elbow position and focusing intent so that in chi-sau and ultimately fighting the effect will be able to function.

Yes correct and we also learn not to hesitate and be affected by incoming strikes. In this context our natural responses are changed and improved for the fight. Our normal response is to cower away and "defend". we must learn to intercept an attack with our own and that means attack it (Loi Lau)

This is also what blind fold training improves for the student that has no courage.

Let me ask you this.....if you were told that that "loss of contact thrust forward with out hesitation" was a rough translation of a Cantonese kung fu maxim then you saw a few guys in the corner doing poon sau what would you think it related to and/or you weren't taught anything past a basic chi sau drill? It's easy to see how things can break down

There is a bigger picture mate. A bigger picture that PB had been exposed to and some others had not.

LFJ

08-13-2013, 02:23 AM

How can you know this when you haven't seen it first hand? I didn't replace it. It was definatley and expansion and it made me realize that this whole thing about different people having different levels of knowledge based on their contact with WSL plus their physical and mental abilities was definately true.

I was basing it on your previous statement;

"People wrongly assume that the "loss of contact" bit means that we already have arm contact and when it is released we should thrust forward using some kind of springy energy. That is a common misconception in Wing Chun."

If you didn't replace it then you should still have this concept and not mean it is a misconception. That certainly is what it means, both literally and in function. It is a misconception to 'only' understand this much without understanding the driving force which causes this effect, which is LLHS or constant forward force. That is the main ingredient.

Let me ask you this.....if you were told that that "loss of contact thrust forward with out hesitation" was a rough translation of a Cantonese kung fu maxim then you saw a few guys in the corner doing poon sau what would you think it related to and/or you weren't taught anything past a basic chi sau drill? It's easy to see how things can break down

I would understand it to mean exactly what it says, quite clearly. I'd be looking for forward energy and lots of striking taking place instead of following arms around, which is definitely what I see in PB's videos.

Graham H

08-13-2013, 02:39 AM

I was basing it on your previous statement;

People wrongly assume that the "loss of contact" bit means that we already have arm contact and when it is released we should thrust forward using some kind of springy energy. That is a common misconception in Wing Chun."

You just don't get it do you? Ok no problem. I prefer PB's ideas. End of.

If you didn't replace it then you should still have this concept and not mean it is a misconception. That certainly is what it means, both literally and in function. It is a misconception to 'only' understand this much without understanding the driving force which causes this effect, which is LLHS or constant forward force. That is the main ingredient.

I don't expect you to all of a sudden admit you may not be right. You know what I did when I didn't believe PB's students to be correct? I found there ideas not to be the same as David Petersons..................... I went and found out for myself and then I became a student again rather than a Teacher. I had to tell al my students that I was doing it wrong and I needed to start from scratch. Many of them left. You do the maths!

I would understand it to mean exactly what it says, quite clearly. I'd be looking for forward energy and lots of striking taking place instead of following arms around, which is definitely what I see in PB's videos.

This is your problem. You have made an incomplete interpretation based on what you have been exposed to and nothing else.

LFJ

08-13-2013, 02:50 AM

I don't expect you to all of a sudden admit you may not be right.

Likewise. I just find it odd you can make completely contradictory statements yet stick to them both at the same time.

If it were anyone else standing there teaching the same thing, and not WSL, no doubt you'd say they were wrong. Now to work his teaching back into your philosophy you contradict your previous statement that it is a misconception.

It must not be easy being you. :)

Graham H

08-13-2013, 02:56 AM

I don't contradict myself you muppett. You are starting to sound like BPWT! :rolleyes:

All I'm saying is that unless you have been exposed to many months/years of tuition and from either WSL or PB then how can you know anything. All you have is second hand information and video footage to trawl and unfortunately for you that is not enough.

Shawn Obassi said it right in his video. Unless you are there you will not know. Please take that advice and stop dragging this out. It has been done to death.

It's boring.

When you have met PB (if you ever do) or talked to him about what WSL taught and why then you will be able to have a proper discussion. Until then no point BPWT.....I mean LFJ :)

LFJ

08-13-2013, 03:14 AM

I don't contradict myself

Well then, is it a misconception to you or isn't it?

All I'm saying is that unless you have been exposed to many months/years of tuition and from either WSL or PB then how can you know anything.

I don't think PB is the sole inheritor of correct WSLVT. He wouldn't have recommended another teacher to me.

Shawn Obassi said it right in his video. Unless you are there you will not know.

Seal the Deal was talking about feeling power or stiffness from someone which can't be seen on video.

WSL was talking to the camera as if we were standing there watching and listening. He clearly explained and demonstrated something you previously said was a common misconception. Do you retract that statement?

Graham H

08-13-2013, 03:20 AM

Well then, is it a misconception to you or isn't it?

I'm not denying what WSL is teaching. I'm saying that he is teaching something that is for developing beginners. A time frame you seem to be stuck in.

I don't think PB is the sole inheritor of correct WSLVT. He wouldn't have recommended another teacher to me.

I didn't say he was the sole inheritor. I'm saying that what he teaches is head and shoulders above what a lot of other WSL teachers are teaching and also his level of skill I have yet to see something better. :confused:

WSL was talking to the camera as if we were standing there watching and listening. He clearly explained and demonstrated something you previously said was a common misconception. Do you retract that statement?

No I f***ing do not! You are starting to annoy me.

Who is your Sifu!? I have asked you this before and you haven't replied. What lineage are you?

LFJ

08-13-2013, 03:35 AM

I'm not denying what WSL is teaching. I'm saying that he is teaching something that is for developing beginners. A time frame you seem to be stuck in.

You denied the hell out of it all over the place on these forums, until you saw WSL teaching it. Then a misconception became something to develop beginners.

Similar to how blindfolded chi-sau was absolute bullsh!t to you until you saw WSL doing it and went to ask PB. Then bullsh!t became a useful training tool for certain cases.

Who is your Sifu!? I have asked you this before and you haven't replied. What lineage are you?

As I said, I've studied with several WSLVT people in HK. One in particular was recommended to me by PB as being closest to his thinking. You can guess who. ;)

Paul T England

08-13-2013, 03:38 AM

Hi Guys,

I am not WSL lineage but have experineced several teahcers from that family. This does not do much to help wing chun or the WSL lineage.

Each teacher will put their own mind into wing chun, I think PB is a great example but I also think that WSL students are very skillful and teach the core WSL stuff so as long as you have a legitimate teacher its up to you to develop.

Paul
www.moifa.co.uk

Graham H

08-13-2013, 03:50 AM

You denied the hell out of it all over the place on these forums, until you saw WSL teaching it. Then a misconception became something to develop beginners.

I'd already saw WSL teaching it! I also have the liberty of asking somebody who was taught by him what the thinking is behind it.

Similar to how blindfolded chi-sau was absolute bullsh!t to you until you saw WSL doing it and went to ask PB. Then bullsh!t became a useful training tool for certain cases.

Eh? What's wrong with that? I never have needed the blindfold and up until I asked PB I wasn't sure about the reasons why WSL was using it. It was for marketing (which is something I don't agree with) but it can also help students train away a certain problem. What I was rubbishing was people thinking it is used to become more sensitive to "arm energies"

As I said, I've studied with several WSLVT people in HK. One in particular was recommended to me by PB as being closest to his thinking. You can guess who. ;)

I would guess Tommy Yuen (RIP) or maybe Tai Hap. Why is it such a struggle for you to say? :confused::confused:

Graham H

08-13-2013, 03:51 AM

This does not do much to help wing chun or the WSL lineage.

Ha! Does anything on this forum help any lineage?

LFJ

08-13-2013, 04:03 AM

Why is it such a struggle for you to say? :confused::confused:

I just choose to represent myself and my own understanding of the system. VT is about the individual and what they can do with it, after all. The sifu PB recommended to me is the second man in the video above.

Graham H

08-13-2013, 04:18 AM

I just choose to represent myself and my own understanding of the system. VT is about the individual and what they can do with it, after all. The sifu PB recommended to me is the second man in the video above.

That's not a bad thing but you should share the thinking of your Teacher else subtle ideas may be lost and WSLVT will end up like LTWT.

Chen Kin Man would be who I would choose if I was based in HK. I have met him several times and trained in his school. He was the guy that told me PB was the best and I had made the right choice to become his student. I didn't need any convincing though. The proof is in the pudding.

I hope that is the conversation over and I'm still not sure why you had to start it as if you were trying to disprove my POV. Like I said the video is correct but only one piece of the jigsaw. If people think that LSJC is purely to make arm contact and when it is removed thrust forward I will disagree to the cows come home. LSJC is not about making arm contact. Its about using the whole body correctly as a driving force. Of course of arm contact is made during striking then we have the tools in order to deal with it and continue. No time for sensing energy.

GlennR

08-13-2013, 04:21 AM

I hope that is the conversation over and I'm still not sure why you had to start it as if you were trying to disprove my POV. Like I said the video is correct but only one piece of the jigsaw. If people think that LSJC is purely to make arm contact and when it is removed thrust forward I will disagree to the cows come home. LSJC is not about making arm contact. Its about using the whole body correctly as a driving force. Of course of arm contact is made during striking then we have the tools in order to deal with it and continue. No time for sensing energy.[

Ahhhhhh, so you do deal with those pesky arms G??? ;)

LFJ

08-13-2013, 04:25 AM

I hope that is the conversation over and I'm still not sure why you had to start it as if you were trying to disprove my POV. Like I said the video is correct but only one piece of the jigsaw. If people think that LSJC is purely to make arm contact and when it is removed thrust forward I will disagree to the cows come home. LSJC is not about making arm contact. Its about using the whole body correctly as a driving force. Of course of arm contact is made during striking then we have the tools in order to deal with it and continue. No time for sensing energy.

Well, I agree with that completely. Just your previous statement seemed to deny the whole springing energy effect altogether. It is certainly not the highest end of training or anything, but it is an integral part of WSLVT as I've been learning it, in various schools.

Graham H

08-13-2013, 04:28 AM

Ahhhhhh, so you do deal with those pesky arms G??? ;)

Of course! Its a bi-product of fighting but unlike most systems of WC I don't over indulge in them pesky arms and protest that WC is about making contact with arm bridges, sensing energy and using that energy in order to defeat the opponent somehow. Nor do I think the system teaches you to have a feel around and take advantage of holes and gaps. This is where WC has gone wrong due to the fact that in the beginning we use arm contact drill training to improve ones structure, balance, force etc etc etc............................................... ..... ;)

Graham H

08-13-2013, 04:30 AM

Well, I agree with that completely. Just your previous statement seemed to deny the whole springing energy effect altogether. It is certainly not the highest end of training or anything, but it is an integral part of WSLVT as I've been learning it, in various schools.

Yes I do because when I first met PB he said "no springy energy, only force from the whole body!" and I didn't understand what he was on about considering that's what I had been taught before. After months of hard work it started to sink in.

GlennR

08-13-2013, 04:31 AM

Of course! Its a bi-product of fighting but unlike most systems of WC I don't over indulge in them pesky arms and protest that WC is about making contact with arm bridges, sensing energy and using that energy in order to defeat the opponent somehow. Nor do I think the system teaches you to have a feel around and take advantage of holes and gaps. This is where WC has gone wrong due to the fact that in the beginning we use arm contact drill training to improve ones structure, balance, force etc etc etc............................................... ..... ;)

Well why didnt you just say so in the 1st place! ;)

BPWT

08-13-2013, 04:41 AM

I don't contradict myself you muppett. You are starting to sound like BPWT! :rolleyes:

You rang?

Nor do I think the system teaches you to have a feel around and take advantage of holes and gaps.

But that would be your misconception. The feeling is not about 'feeling around', it is responding to force - responding automatically. Not feeling around to try and ascertain what should come next.

I don't contradict myself you muppett. You are starting to sound like BPWT!

You contradict yourself all the time. Not just from thread to thread, and not only within single threads, you actually sometimes contradict yourself in a single post.

You say blindfolded Chi Sau is bullsh*t, then you say it has some value.

You say you don't judge from watching videos, but then judge a video.

You say of LSJC that some believe "...when it is released we should thrust forward using some kind of springy energy. That is a common misconception", then say WSL was right in saying the same thing, but that he was only saying this "for beginners".

You say you don't hold value in the meaning of words in Wing Chun, then you say someone else's definition of a word is wrong.

The list goes on...

Graham H

08-13-2013, 04:48 AM

Oh dear................

Ok I'm out of here!

BPWT

08-13-2013, 04:53 AM

Oh dear................ Ok I'm out of here!

There's no shame in running :D But you don't have to tell us you're going.

Graham H

08-13-2013, 05:24 AM

There's no shame in running :D But you don't have to tell us you're going.

Listen dude, if LFJ can't understand my thinking then you have no chance with your problem filled funny Wing Tsun. It's a shame I can't show him in action then there would be no arguments. It may come across as contradictory but it is not. It's simple and easy to understand. You just have to be in the same room and open to questions and exchanges. That can never happen on here.

If you all of a sudden started to agree with any of it and claimed that you understand I know there would be a problem! :D

BPWT

08-13-2013, 06:04 AM

If you all of a sudden started to agree with any of it and claimed that you understand I know there would be a problem! :D

:D Yes, bubbles would burst. I think there is far more in common with some of the things WSL said and with what I learn, than many would believe.

Mostly because a) most people don't understand what the LTWT system is, b) people freely interpret the words of WSL to mean vastly different things, c) people are still living in the my-WT/VT/WC-is-the-best-ever- world and just aren't open-minded enough to see the commonalities and the opportunities that come with them.

Hey-ho! The Wing Chun world is what it is.

LFJ

08-13-2013, 06:17 AM

LGBT is not a fighting system...

BPWT

08-13-2013, 06:19 AM

LGBT has nothing to do with fighting...

Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Transexual? Care to share, LFJ?

But indeed, they has nothing to do with fighting. Persian rugs. They also have nothing to do with fighting. :rolleyes:

Graham H

08-13-2013, 07:02 AM

Persian rugs. They also have nothing to do with fighting. :rolleyes:

I was in a Persian Rug factory in Turkey a few weeks ago. There was more Wing Chun going on in there than there is on this forum sometimes! :)

k gledhill

08-14-2013, 09:34 AM

Abstract combat ideas are not easy to convey.

Shads

08-14-2013, 02:06 PM

Abstract combat ideas are not easy to convey.

:eek: There is nothing abstract in Wing Chun everything should be able to be explained through physics and biomechanics and then demonstrated through application. Abstract concepts belong in the same box as deadly dim mak and no touch knockouts. Calling things abstract concepts is the **** poor instructor's way of covering for the fact that they don't know what they're talking about or simply building up layers of bull.

tc101

08-14-2013, 02:11 PM

:eek: There is nothing abstract in Wing Chun everything should be able to be explained through physics and biomechanics and then demonstrated through application. Abstract concepts belong in the same box as deadly dim mak and no touch knockouts. Calling things abstract concepts is the **** poor instructor's way of covering for the fact that they don't know what they're talking about or simply building up layers of bull.

I agree and do not think things even need to be explained in terms of physics and biomechanics which generally are wrong anyway. They seem to do alright in boxing and muay thai and wrestling and judo and on and on and on without bringing in that sort of thing. It is a simple this is what you do and this is how you do it. When people need to bring in abstract concepts and physics to explain simple things there is a problem.

guy b.

08-14-2013, 02:52 PM

I agree and do not think things even need to be explained in terms of physics and biomechanics which generally are wrong anyway. They seem to do alright in boxing and muay thai and wrestling and judo and on and on and on without bringing in that sort of thing. It is a simple this is what you do and this is how you do it. When people need to bring in abstract concepts and physics to explain simple things there is a problem.

How could we forget the way that the infamous 'conceptless wing chun' has blazed a trail of glory through the world of martial arts? Oh wait..

guy b.

08-14-2013, 03:02 PM

Lol at the idea of the anonymous tc101, a person unable even to identify a youtube clip of wing chun that he finds acceptable, banging it out in the gym weekly with boxers and mma exponents, dropping all the bull$hit principles, and making his wing chun function against top fighter after top fighter, simply by doing. All he wants is to help us mortals wake up and smell the freedom that comes from dropping all of that oriental cr@p and turning our wing chun into western boxing with the hands turned through 90 degrees.

Despite the fact that he doesn't seem to know much about wing chun, he is really a wing chun messiah and we should welcome his totally anonymous and frankly unlikely sounding solution to all of our problems. Who knew?

k gledhill

08-14-2013, 04:41 PM

Graham H

08-15-2013, 12:22 AM

Paddington

08-15-2013, 12:56 AM

LFJ

08-15-2013, 01:04 AM

Thanks for the interesting read LFJ. Would you be up for translating the entire video and other videos of WSL that require translation? I know WSL was never keen on videos but having decent translations available to us English speakers, may help clear up these confusions.

This is the only video I know where he speaks Mandarin, so I can understand everything. Explanations throughout are pretty brief though. Other videos are in Cantonese and I don't understand what he says completely.

Paddington

08-15-2013, 01:07 AM

[...]
There is a bigger picture mate. A bigger picture that PB had been exposed to and some others had not.

I think it is about time that these ideas were articulated to the public by PB, BL and others rather than remaining behind a 'pay' or 'clique wall'. Granted,nothing beats face to face instruction but that does not stand in opposition to laying bare these concepts.

I am really interested in hearing about this bigger picture Graham. Would you share it with us in a more thorough manner?

LFJ

08-15-2013, 01:25 AM

Abstract combat ideas are not easy to convey.

I don't think it's that abstract that it can't be easily conveyed. It's just when people aren't exposed to those ideas in their training, their blinders prevent them from following because their minds go another way.

My Cantonese isn't as good as my Mandarin, but I think in Mandarin the phrase makes more sense. Different characters are used. In Mandarin it is "li shou zhi chong". Li is a different character than Lat in Cantonese.

It can mean 'to depart from', in which case "thrust forward upon loss of contact" is a fair translation. This is the meaning WSL used in the video describing the springing energy effect caused by the forward intent and correct elbow position trained in SNT. This is a response we develop in beginning chi-sau stages. So to say it is for beginners is correct.

But this Li can also mean 'to be away from', in which case the implied meaning would be not only to thrust forward upon 'loss of contact' using that springing energy effect, but to pressure forward 'whenever the line is free', or in other words drive forward as you clear the line. Such an understanding would be more relevant to advanced chi-sau and gwo-sau stages.

My only confusion with Graham is that in his words that beginning stage, the springing energy effect, seemed to be replaced and considered wrong. In my experience it has been an integral part of the WSLVT system in every school, and is an effect that is never really lost. It just becomes a small part of something larger. It is after all an effect and not the main idea of the driving force. Outside of chi-sau it is less relevant but may still apply to fighting in certain instances.

LFJ

08-15-2013, 01:27 AM

I think it is about time that these ideas were articulated to the public

I think you'll find that 'the public' is considered the enemy. Members only. ;)

Graham H

08-15-2013, 01:31 AM

I think it is about time that these ideas were articulated to the public by PB, BL and others rather than remaining behind a 'pay' or 'clique wall'. Granted,nothing beats face to face instruction but that does not stand in opposition to laying bare these concepts.

I am really interested in hearing about this bigger picture Graham. Would you share it with us in a more thorough manner?

They are but you have to go and learn and train with them in person. Too much stuff gets lost in translation and you can't feel any skill and power from internet writings and video footage.

You also have to remember that all of the video footage of WSL conducting seminars are a brief overview of his thinking on Ving Tsun. A quick run through the forms and a few ideas is all they are. Added to that is that most of them were shot in his latter years when his health wasn't so good.

This is the problem. People that hang on every word and try and copy things from video. It's not good.

Graham H

08-15-2013, 01:37 AM

My only confusion with Graham is that in his words that beginning stage, the springing energy effect, seemed to be replaced and considered wrong. In my experience it has been an integral part of the WSLVT system in every school, and is an effect that is never really lost. It just becomes a small part of something larger. It is after all an effect and not the main idea of the driving force. Outside of chi-sau it is less relevant but may still apply to fighting in certain instances.

The only person that is confused is you because its not just my thinking is it? It's Philipp Bayers and all of his students from all over the world. many of them were taught personally by WSL via many hours training in the school and sat around the dinner table. I think I would rather believe all those guys than somebody that has little contact with anybody involved.

Would you not agree?

Paddington

08-15-2013, 01:47 AM

They are but you have to go and learn and train with them in person. Too much stuff gets lost in translation and you can't feel any skill and power from internet writings and video footage.

You also have to remember that all of the video footage of WSL conducting seminars are a brief overview of his thinking on Ving Tsun. A quick run through the forms and a few ideas is all they are. Added to that is that most of them were shot in his latter years when his health wasn't so good.

This is the problem. People that hang on every word and try and copy things from video. It's not good.

I do not have the money or time to travel to train with those people. The only option available to me is to ask for written or even spoken and demonstrated videos to articulate the bigger picture that you speak of.

Graham H

08-15-2013, 01:48 AM

I do not have the money or time to travel to train with those people.

Well then you will never understand it. No point in continuing.

LFJ

08-15-2013, 01:52 AM

Graham H

08-15-2013, 02:12 AM

You're just difficult to understand, Graham, because in one post you'll say it's wrong, and in the next post you'll say it's for beginners; you'll say it was not replaced but expanded upon, then you'll say it's wrong again. So I'm not sure what your stance on it is.

Does PB not teach this idea WSL is showing in the video at all? Not even to beginners? Does it have a place in PB's VT curriculum at all?

...because WSL obviously taught it.

If PB evolved his system and doesn't include this stage that's fine too. You prefer his method to WSL's, as do all those students who learned from them both.

It would be clear in person just like it is with everybody I show and explain it to away from this forum. Ask T_Ray. I went to his school for a weekend. He doesn't have any trouble understanding it all. In fact everything is clear. If you want to blame the way I write it up to you me old china! :)

Graham H

08-15-2013, 02:15 AM

............................and he's met PB

Graham H

08-15-2013, 02:15 AM

..................and he left his old lineage

LFJ

08-15-2013, 02:19 AM

Well, it's a simple question to answer really if you learned with PB from scratch. Does PB ever teach the idea shown by WSL in the video, at beginning stages, or does he not?

Graham H

08-15-2013, 02:26 AM

Well, it's a simple question to answer really if you learned with PB from scratch. Does PB ever teach the idea shown by WSL in the video, at beginning stages, or does he not?

I didn't learn from PB from scratch. Like most people who become his students I had a lot of sh1t to change and the realization that my Ving Tsun was incorrect and I had wasted 8 years on it was a bitter pill to swallow.

He also explains the contents of WSL's videos and why things are the way they are.

If we are talking about videos I have seen footage of WSL teaching in the school. Correcting students and giving advice. All the same stuff as PB. In fact when I was in Spain a while ago one of PB's long serving students said the stuff we do is the same as when WSL was alive and well.

I have no questions :)

LFJ

08-15-2013, 02:37 AM

Graham H

08-15-2013, 02:44 AM

So is that a roundabout way of saying 'yes', or you're not sure because you didn't learn the beginning stages of PBVT?

Sounds like a yes; PB also teaches the springing energy effect of LSJC to beginners, as WSL did.

So the only misconception about it is that that's all there is to LSJC, as some understand it.

No he doesn't teach the springy effect of LSJC. Springy force BS is born from prolonged arm contact which in fighting there is none. If you want to call the force created when you take your arm away during a chi sau drill, springy force, that's up to you.

I don't explain it that way. That makes me happy :D

Frost

08-15-2013, 02:47 AM

Anyone remember the situation with the Algerian extremists in the 90’s, they banded together to attack all those who did not share there feeling and beliefs even other muslims who were not following the true word...... when they had done with attacking outsiders they had nothing left to do other than turn in on themselves and start attacking those within their own extremis community who had slightly differing views and who weren’t as strict in their believes as they should have been……..does that remind anyone of any group on this forum :) :) :)

Graham H

08-15-2013, 02:56 AM

Wayfaring

08-15-2013, 02:58 AM

LFJ

08-15-2013, 03:00 AM

No he doesn't teach the springy effect of LSJC. Springy force BS is born from prolonged arm contact which in fighting there is none. If you want to call the force created when you take your arm away during a chi sau drill, springy force, that's up to you.

I don't explain it that way. That makes me happy :D

Okay. Then his teaching method differs from WSL who did explain it that way.

In WSLVT, it's a teaching technique trained in beginning stage chi-sau drills to ensure proper application of forward intent and correct elbow position for fighting. If the effect is not happening it is an indication of an error in one of those things. So it should help to train away those errors.

It is less relevant in later gwo-sau stages and in fighting where there is less arm contact. We are not looking for it but it may still happen because it doesn't require prolonged chi-sau style contact. With proper forward intent and elbow position even a millisecond flick of contact on the arm will cause a slight forward springing effect like the pluck of a guitar string. You may not notice this happening because fighting is fast and you're focused forward already. But if it doesn't actually happen it may be the result of hesitation or bad position.

Graham H

08-15-2013, 03:02 AM

Not so much as it reminds me of the entire WCK community in general.

Not only WC. Most martial art communities. In fact any area where debate is created. All different people with all different ideas and opinions. The human factor as always.....................

Graham H

08-15-2013, 03:05 AM

Okay. Then his teaching method differs from WSL who did explain it that way.

Yes because unlike most PB wasn't only present just for seminars.

In WSLVT, it's a teaching technique trained in beginning stage chi-sau drills to ensure proper application of forward intent and correct elbow position for fighting. If the effect is not happening it is an indication of an error in one of those things. So it should help to train away those errors.

What do you mean correct elbow position? The elbow is not fixed. Only for training. Explain what you mean s'il vous plait

It is less relevant in later gwo-sau stages and in fighting where there is less arm contact. We are not looking for it but it may still happen because it doesn't require prolonged chi-sau style contact. With proper forward intent and elbow position even a millisecond flick of contact on the arm will cause a slight forward springing effect like the pluck of a guitar string. You may not notice this happening because fighting is fast and you're focused forward already. But if it doesn't actually happen it may be the result of hesitation or bad position.

Plucking guitar strings in a fight? :D

LFJ

08-15-2013, 03:28 AM

Yes because unlike most PB wasn't only present just for seminars.

So he changed the teaching methodology of WSL's to not include this stage of training. Doesn't make it wrong.

What do you mean correct elbow position? The elbow is not fixed. Only for training. Explain what you mean s'il vous plait

Behind and under the fist, perpendicular to the body and 'chiu-ying'.

Plucking guitar strings in a fight? :D

Or whatever. :rolleyes:

Graham H

08-15-2013, 03:53 AM

So he changed the teaching methodology of WSL's to not include this stage of training. Doesn't make it wrong.

Dude PB told me he teaches exactly what he was taught by WSL. That is confirmed by others that were also taught by WSL. He also says that WSL always said he teaches exactly what he was taught by Yip Man. I wasn't there so I don't know but I do accept that as the truth. Why would they both lie? They don't strike as being those sorts of people.

The reason I believe that PB's method differs from a lot of others is that WSL had the time to spend on him. He was WSL's assistant for a very long time and spent the first 18 months of Ving Tsun training everyday in his school. If two people share the same thinking and the hard work is put in the end results will be very different from what may be seen in other camps where that didn't take place.

LFJ

08-15-2013, 04:21 AM

Dude PB told me he teaches exactly what he was taught by WSL.

Are you not listening to yourself in this thread? :confused:

You said PB doesn't teach what WSL was teaching in the video. Then you want to also say PB teaches exactly the way WSL taught.

You can't have it both ways. What's the problem if PB changed teaching methodology? You prefer his method and it works.

Graham H

08-15-2013, 05:40 AM

Are you not listening to yourself in this thread? :confused:

You said PB doesn't teach what WSL was teaching in the video. Then you want to also say PB teaches exactly the way WSL taught.

You can't have it both ways. What's the problem if PB changed teaching methodology? You prefer his method and it works.

What? You just don't get it do you?

All we have been doing, regarding PB, is going around and around in circles for months. It's simple, you do not understand his way of thinking. You will never understand his way of thinking. If you did you would understand about the content of those videos, why WSL taught that stuff in seminars and why your idea of LSJC is not like mine.

There have been countless posts written by me, T_Ray, Kevin, and even Sean regarding PB and the rest of you are still none the wiser.

Just accept that until you meet the guy, have had an exchange with him verbally and physically and discussed his years being taught by WSL the best you have is guess work. If I was you I would give up. Let's agree to disagree and be done with it. :rolleyes:

LFJ

08-15-2013, 05:52 AM

Graham H

08-15-2013, 06:12 AM

I'm not trying to understand PB's thinking, just whether his teaching methodology/curriculum differs from WSL's as a cause for your disagreement with WSL's teaching, calling it a misconception. This thread has clearly answered the question. PB doesn't teach what WSL taught in that video and to numerous other students he had. That's fine though. Purity is not a virtue in fighting and PB's method obviously floats your boat.

Yes and there is a reason for it but you have to understand his and WSL's thinking to understand why? I asked the same question myself and I when I heard the answer it was clear. Are you going to keep on with this?

LFJ

08-15-2013, 06:13 AM

No. Question answered.

k gledhill

08-15-2013, 09:13 AM

Sean66

08-15-2013, 09:28 AM

Well said Kevin. Having a knowledgable partner is essential.

And, yes, you summed it up quite well there Graham.

But like you said, it's best to experience and have it explained "first hand".

Where are you located LFJ? Maybe there is one of Philipp's students dans le coin.

Paddington

08-15-2013, 02:10 PM

k gledhill

08-15-2013, 02:23 PM

I really don't buy into the assertion that these more developed ideas around the idea of LSJC, cannot not be explained well in written English. However, I am not naive and the continued avoidance to explain seems more, to me at least, a maintenance of livelihoods. I do agree that deeper understandings can be gained face to face but that is not contrary to a call for written explanations; it is like Waiting for Godot.

I made several attempts but its confusing. Punching concepts also need to be used and shown in relation to other common errors the lsjc aims to rid us of.
There are simple llsjc drills present throughout the stages to prove and check each others accuracy during advanced training.

sihing

08-15-2013, 02:32 PM

Now this is what this forum should be like all the time, good relevant info, and some history too, I didn't know PB was WSL assistant, and the LSJC explanations were great, and no name calling,, Wow..

James

KPM

08-15-2013, 05:33 PM

LFJ

08-15-2013, 07:53 PM

Where are you located LFJ? Maybe there is one of Philipp's students dans le coin.

Shanghai, but there are none in the whole of China, to my knowledge. I go to HK for good VT. The closest bet is Chan Kim Man, who is recommended by PB, being his old training partner.

Graham H

08-15-2013, 11:49 PM

I agree on all accounts! :) I also didn't know that PB had been WSL's assistant.

There are lots of things people don't know about PB on this forum. The problem is that they make assumptions based on video footage which is 99% incorrect. As has been proven even the written word can come across as confusing and contradictory. A result of an abstract methodology to combat.

Unexperienced people may think they know what they are seeing but they do not. All they can do is base it on their own experience and from what they have been exposed to. I made the same mistake myself for quite a long time.

Now everything is clear. The hard part is getting the body to follow :)

Shads

08-16-2013, 12:03 AM

I really don't buy into the assertion that these more developed ideas around the idea of LSJC, cannot not be explained well in written English. However, I am not naive and the continued avoidance to explain seems more, to me at least, a maintenance of livelihoods. I do agree that deeper understandings can be gained face to face but that is not contrary to a call for written explanations; it is like Waiting for Godot.

Dont hold your breath, its easier to hide behind claims that everything is abstract and video clips are misleading or not understood, or that its got a snake engine or force vector

Shads

08-16-2013, 12:07 AM

Dude PB told me he teaches exactly what he was taught by WSL. That is confirmed by others that were also taught by WSL. He also says that WSL always said he teaches exactly what he was taught by Yip Man. I wasn't there so I don't know but I do accept that as the truth. Why would they both lie? They don't strike as being those sorts of people.

This is the same WSL that is on record multiple times saying that what he practiced and taught was changed / evolved from what Ip Man taught him based on his own experiences?

LFJ

08-16-2013, 12:10 AM

As has been proven even the written word can come across as confusing and contradictory. A result of an abstract methodology to combat.

The following contradictory statements are a result of abstract methodology to combat? :D Not just you wanting to have it both ways?

No he doesn't teach the springy effect of LSJC. Springy force BS is born from prolonged arm contact which in fighting there is none.

Dude PB told me he teaches exactly what he was taught by WSL.

The only way this is not contradictory is if PB didn't learn this which WSL taught to every other student he had. But that doesn't sound good because PB's supposed to be the true disciple. If that's so, then it begs the question why WSL taught this "BS" to his other students.

LFJ

08-16-2013, 12:13 AM

This is the same WSL that is on record multiple times saying that what he practiced and taught was changed / evolved from what Ip Man taught him based on his own experiences?

Purity seems to have a lot of meaning in Graham's imagination.

Personally, if it works for the better, I don't mind admitting that WSL changed things YM taught him, and that PB changed things WSL taught him.

Paddington

08-16-2013, 12:47 AM

I made several attempts but its confusing [...]

I agree. One thing Hendrik did to try to make himself more clear was to collaborate with others, to get something written down. The result of their efforts was a short and very rough and ready document put together by jox.

Although their success in this endeavour is open for debate, I am pretty sure Graham, T-Ray, yourself and others, are more than capable of putting a good document together that surpasses their efforts in terms of brevity and imparting knowledge.

Graham H

08-16-2013, 01:07 AM

This is the same WSL that is on record multiple times saying that what he practiced and taught was changed / evolved from what Ip Man taught him based on his own experiences?

And there was me thinking this thread was finished. :rolleyes:

No you are wrong. WSL said he taught EXACTLY what Yip Man taught him but due to his experiences in a more systematic way. I have it in writing.

Graham H

08-16-2013, 01:10 AM

The following contradictory statements are a result of abstract methodology to combat? :D Not just you wanting to have it both ways?

The only way this is not contradictory is if PB didn't learn this which WSL taught to every other student he had. But that doesn't sound good because PB's supposed to be the true disciple. If that's so, then it begs the question why WSL taught this "BS" to his other students.

I thought we had finished? I'm dizzy and I'm going to be sick lol

LFJ

08-16-2013, 01:12 AM

I thought we had finished? I'm dizzy and I'm going to be sick lol

We had finished by determining that PB doesn't teach everything WSL taught.

Graham H

08-16-2013, 01:15 AM

Purity seems to have a lot of meaning in Graham's imagination.

Personally, if it works for the better, I don't mind admitting that WSL changed things YM taught him, and that PB changed things WSL taught him.

Why would WSL change things? Why try and reinvent the wheel? There are some instances that occurred based on WSL's Beimo but he didn't make up a new Kung Fu system. Nor has PB for that matter.

That logic just doesn't fit.

Graham H

08-16-2013, 01:17 AM

We had finished by determining that PB doesn't teach everything WSL taught.

Ok have it your way. Its Friday and not time for bickering.

Graham H

08-16-2013, 01:19 AM

Although their success in this endeavour is open for debate, I am pretty sure Graham, T-Ray, yourself and others, are more than capable of putting a good document together that surpasses their efforts in terms of brevity and imparting knowledge.

If there was such a document possible don't you think it would have surfaced by now??? :rolleyes:

Paddington

08-16-2013, 01:42 AM

If there was such a document possible don't you think it would have surfaced by now??? :rolleyes:

It is possible. What is required is for you and your cohort to collaborate. The first step would be to have some type of meeting with them and the scope of the document set. I would then have each member write a paragraph or so on one theme to be covred therein. During a second meeting (can be done online) you could compare each others interpretations and after some debate, construct collaboratively, a group version of that paragraph. You could even work out some diagrams together.

The process can be iterated and a more fully formed document eked out.

LFJ

08-16-2013, 01:44 AM

Why would WSL change things? Why try and reinvent the wheel? There are some instances that occurred based on WSL's Beimo but he didn't make up a new Kung Fu system. Nor has PB for that matter.

That's all I'm talking about. Things adapt to the individual. They teach what they understand to be the best method. To imagine PB's VT is exactly the same as YM's was is fantasy. As I said early, purity is not a virtue in fighting.

Graham H

08-16-2013, 01:45 AM

It is possible. What is required is for you and your cohort to collaborate. The first step would be to have some type of meeting with them and the scope of the document set. I would then have each member write a paragraph or so on one theme to be coved therein. During a second meeting (can be done online) you could compare each others interpretations and after some debate, construct collaboratively, a group version of that paragraph.

The process can be iterated and a more fully formed document eked out.

Not possible mate! PB has written a whole book on it and it contains a lot of input from WSL himself. He won't put it to press for the same reasons that cause sandwich throwing on this forum.

Paddington

08-16-2013, 01:48 AM

Not possible mate! PB has written a whole book on it and it contains a lot of input from WSL himself. He won't put it to press for the same reasons that cause sandwich throwing on this forum.

By sandwich throwing do you mean excessive criticisms and pedantic ramblings?

Graham H

08-16-2013, 01:53 AM

By sandwich throwing do you mean excessive criticisms and pedantic ramblings?

Yes and that would be just the tip of the ice berg

Paddington

08-16-2013, 05:42 AM

Yes and that would be just the tip of the ice berg

I understand people's reservations. However I think people should just have the courage to put it out there. Even if the sandwiches are thrown, being hit in the face by an egg mayonnaise one is not as bad as you think it is!

Graham H

08-16-2013, 05:54 AM

There are a few people on here that even if you threw a concrete block between two bits of bread they still wouldn't get it! :D:D

k gledhill

08-16-2013, 09:01 AM

I understand people's reservations. However I think people should just have the courage to put it out there. Even if the sandwiches are thrown, being hit in the face by an egg mayonnaise one is not as bad as you think it is!

I tried a long time ago but had Terence Needlessposts always trying to make chi sao a confused mess. Without getting clear punching concept ideas it becomes confusing.

tc101

08-16-2013, 10:01 AM

And there was me thinking this thread was finished. :rolleyes:

No you are wrong. WSL said he taught EXACTLY what Yip Man taught him but due to his experiences in a more systematic way. I have it in writing.

Oh you have it in writing! Do you know how silly your purity stance is? Even Yip Man's teachings changed over time and from person to person. Did Wong learn nothing for himself? Or after he left Yip Man? Your view is The guy whose motto was do not be a slave to the system was fixated on only teaching EXACTLY what he was taught and so was a slave to the system?

Paddington

08-16-2013, 04:23 PM

T-Ray, Kev and Graham,

I guess a forum and these threads are not a good place to develop a written piece amongst yourselves. Perhaps do it privately through emails, skype etc? I think you would have better luck producing a good document that is useful, particularly to yourselves.

LFJ

08-16-2013, 11:56 PM

So,....you really believe this is true?

I would be comfortable placing that bet. You'd be far more hard pressed to find another student he didn't teach it to than a number of those to whom he did. After all, even the guy PB recommends as the closest to his approach is on the video in the original post doing it along with WSL right there.

guy b.

08-17-2013, 12:06 AM

LFJ

08-17-2013, 12:13 AM

Basing your knowledge of someones teaching on seminar footage does not give a clear picture of their true teaching methods.

No, but the footage backs up the validity of the assertion that it was part of his teaching methodology by numerous students of his... except apparently, PB.

You can't have a whole slew of students saying he taught something, and have him on video actually teaching it, and then still maintain he never did because your teacher doesn't teach it, and he "teaches exactly what WSL taught him"...

LFJ

08-17-2013, 12:17 AM

When you are in a seminar situation, with a mixed group of people you dont know, (their previous knowledge, abilities etc, etc.) you are very limited in what you can actually convey of the system.
You have to assume people attending have little or no understanding of the system, and give a simple taste of the underlying concepts from that standpoint.

I think he's saying that the stuff WSL teaches on available video clips is mostly crap or an extreme (useless) simplification. Demo stuff, not real stuff.

Then that begs the question why WSL would not find a more simple and honest way of conveying the message of what VT is about without making up some silly springing energy "BS". Why would he want to misrepresent his system like that?

But besides, outside of seminars, he taught this to his regular students (except apparently PB). So why was he teaching made up BS to all his other students?

guy b.

08-17-2013, 12:29 AM

guy b.

08-17-2013, 12:31 AM

I would be comfortable placing that bet. You'd be far more hard pressed to find another student he didn't teach it to than a number of those to whom he did. After all, even the guy PB recommends as the closest to his approach is on the video in the original post doing it along with WSL right there.

Clue: he's there doing it at a seminar

guy b.

08-17-2013, 12:35 AM

Then that begs the question why WSL would not find a more simple and honest way of conveying the message of what VT is about without making up some silly springing energy "BS". Why would he want to misrepresent his system like that?

Lol, this is wing chun. Yip man taught either simplified basics or complete $hit to people he didn't know and/or didn't trust. WSL is doing exactly the same as his teacher did. Both of them are probably laughing in their graves at the comedy mess they left behind while happy in the knowledge that they also left the real thing to the right people. Common practice in Chinese MA

But besides, outside of seminars, he taught this to his regular students (except apparently PB). So why was he teaching made up BS to all his other students?

Which regular students did he teach this to? I think you know the explanation for this teaching from Graham et al

LFJ

08-17-2013, 12:38 AM

Clue: he's there doing it at a seminar

Clue: he's a regular student who like numerous others was taught this idea by WSL.

guy b.

08-17-2013, 12:47 AM

even the guy PB recommends as the closest to his approach is on the video in the original post doing it along with WSL right there.

He's doing it at a seminar with WSL, I can only assume for reasons Graham H previously discussed.

LFJ

08-17-2013, 12:58 AM

He's doing it at a seminar with WSL, I can only assume for reasons Graham H previously discussed.

Graham has this obsession with purity which makes him contradict himself like this. He'll say the idea is complete BS all over these forums until there's video of WSL teaching it. Then he'll admit WSL taught it for beginners and that PB never teaches it, but then say PB teaches exactly what WSL taught, which implies WSL never taught it despite every other student who learned it from him and actual video footage to back it up.

The point is WSL taught this idea to his regular students, not as "BS", but as an integral stage in development.

PB obviously has a different teaching methodology.

guy b.

08-17-2013, 01:21 AM

Graham has this obsession with purity which makes him contradict himself like this. He'll say the idea is complete BS all over these forums until there's video of WSL teaching it. Then he'll admit WSL taught it for beginners and that PB never teaches it, but then say PB teaches exactly what WSL taught, which implies WSL never taught it despite every other student who learned it from him and actual video footage to back it up.

This isn't a contradiction if you assume the seminar teaching is mostly simplified cr@p

The point is WSL taught this idea to his regular students, not as "BS", but as an integral stage in development.

Which regular students?

LFJ

08-17-2013, 01:43 AM

This isn't a contradiction if you assume the seminar teaching is mostly simplified cr@p

That wouldn't just be simplified if you took Graham's word on the subject prior to this thread, which was that it's complete BS and a common misconception.

That would mean he's a really terrible teacher. Anyone who understands the system should be able to give a brief overview and simple intro to VT ideas without making up BS like that. But I don't think that's the case.

Which regular students?

Which regular students not? PB's the only one I've heard of. But I've not heard from students who learned with him from scratch. Graham already had this concept when he met PB who then expanded upon LSJC for him.

The PB students on this forum all appear to be "seminar students" of his too. So I'm not sure without asking PB himself. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually does teach it to his beginners.

guy b.

08-17-2013, 01:52 AM

That wouldn't just be simplified if you took Graham's word on the subject prior to this thread, which was that it's complete BS and a common misconception.

Simplified to the point of uselessness and complete BS could be synonymous, depending on how you look at things. I think you could learn the system perfectly well without the springy arm idea. In fact it might be easier and less confusing. Do you?

Which regular students not?

With all respect, this isn't really an answer. It depends who you heard this idea from, what they told you about it, and (if they taught it to you), why they did so and in what context. I doubt you have learned from all WSL students.

LFJ

08-17-2013, 02:47 AM

Simplified to the point of uselessness and complete BS could be synonymous, depending on how you look at things. I think you could learn the system perfectly well without the springy arm idea. In fact it might be easier and less confusing. Do you?

A simplification of something more complicated can't result in a totally foreign concept that was never there to begin with, can it? Why insert some BS that is not relevant to the system for the purpose of simplifying the explanation of it, especially if it is wrong and bad? That doesn't even make sense.

And no, I think it has it's place in beginning stages to correct errors in forwarding intent (beginning ideas of LSJC) and elbow positioning. The same reason WSL explained and numerous personal students of his agree on (which I would say includes everyone in the WSLSA).

With all respect, this isn't really an answer. It depends who you heard this idea from, what they told you about it, and (if they taught it to you), why they did so and in what context. I doubt you have learned from all WSL students.

Not really. If it is complete BS and a common misconception it shouldn't be a part of the system anyway. But as we know, WSL in fact taught it, and I've seen people in PB's lineage training the same drills. It's there and for a reason. His "seminar students" here who didn't train with him from scratch may have missed the boat. It seems to me when they came along with their rudimentary understanding and PB expanded upon it, they made the mistake of taking it as a replacement.

tc101

08-17-2013, 06:22 AM

Philipp teaches what he was taught by WSL.

And so do other WSL students.

End of. He is one of the few people to be credited as having the same thinking on VT as WSL.

According to PB. I am sure the DP and GL and others would also say the same about what they are doing.

I think the rub is when you guys says that only PB has it right.

By the way I think the whole idea that someone shares the same thinking as WSL to be funny. Who cares? What made Wong right about everything anyway? Or Yip Man for that matter?

guy b.

08-17-2013, 06:23 AM

guy b.

08-17-2013, 06:30 AM

According to PB. I am sure the DP and GL and others would also say the same about what they are doing.

I think the rub is when you guys says that only PB has it right.

By the way I think the whole idea that someone shares the same thinking as WSL to be funny. Who cares? What made Wong right about everything anyway? Or Yip Man for that matter?

If you think Yip Man was wrong then you wouldn't care if you shared his thinking. If you thought his system of wing chun was very effective then you might care a lot more.

Yip Man taught some people nonsense- this much is clear. If you are interested in YM's wing chun then it is imperative to avoid this nonsense (which is everywhere)

Did WSL do the same? I don't know. There seem to be some disagreements on what he taught/didn't teach

k gledhill

08-17-2013, 07:05 AM

Why are you so concerned about this anyway?
Personally I think Graham left out one word in the paragraph that seems to have caused the fuss. ... "must"....
Originally Posted by Graham H
LSJC has been roughly translated to "loss of contact, thrust forward without hesitation". People wrongly assume that the "loss of contact" bit means that we [ must ] already have arm contact and when it is released we should thrust forward using some kind of springy energy. That is a common misconception in Wing Chun.

Also I dont believe WSL was teaching "worthless cr@p" at those seminars. Just trying to do his best to give a very fundamental idea of VT concepts to a bunch of guys he didnt know.
As Graham pointed out, we start with the arms (specifically elbows). .... But you know this already.

Philipp teaches what he was taught by WSL. End of. He is one of the few people to be credited as having the same thinking on VT as WSL.
If you have questions about the specifics of what and how he teaches in this regard, no one can answer that except Philipp.

Good point. It is a problem students have due to the contact drills. Using each other for mutual force exchanges on intercepting lines seems like it can only work from contact.
Another glaring hole in understanding the chi sao is Lack of getting the striking ideas of tan / Jum in chi sao. Without these striking ideas chi sao becomes nothing else but arm pressure hit me , block you, clinch confusions. Nobody uses the drills to understand a free hand in an exchange hits first , hits hard and hits fast. Philipp shows the practical side of the fighting. There is no way youre going to press his arm lmfaorotf. ; ) unless he is messing with you to see if you can shift his structure with worthless positions : /

tc101

08-17-2013, 07:57 AM

If you think Yip Man was wrong then you wouldn't care if you shared his thinking. If you thought his system of wing chun was very effective then you might care a lot more.

Yip Man taught some people nonsense- this much is clear. If you are interested in YM's wing chun then it is imperative to avoid this nonsense (which is everywhere)

Did WSL do the same? I don't know. There seem to be some disagreements on what he taught/didn't teach

You are concerned with his thinking I am not. Wing chun or boxing or muay thia or bjj or judo is not about having the right thinking it is about learning the skills and through practice being able to use them effectively. I am concerned with the right practice instead of the right thinking since it is the practice that shows you if what you are doing is working or not.

Yip Man and WSL both taught the wing chun skills but neither can tell you how to use them. You have to learn that for yourself through practice.

Paddington

08-17-2013, 08:43 AM

Why would his students create a document when PB has produced a book?

You miss the point.

tc101

08-17-2013, 09:00 AM

VT is a concept approach to combat. If your thinking is wrong and you therefore misinterpret the concepts.....

You have ideas of how you think wing chun should work. You call these concepts. You think your thinking is right but so does someone else who has completely different thinking yet can beat you silly. So is his idea right and your's wrong? No no you say he can beat me but he is wrong and I am right!

Wing chun is not a concept approach to combat. Wing chun is a martial art and like all martial arts is a set of skills that you can use in fighting. Concepts and principles can help you work out how to make that set of skills work for you that's all.

Fighting is not a comparison of ideas or a way of seeing whose idea is better.

LFJ

08-17-2013, 09:11 AM

Why are you so concerned about this anyway?

.......

Philipp teaches what he was taught by WSL. End of. He is one of the few people to be credited as having the same thinking on VT as WSL.
If you have questions about the specifics of what and how he teaches in this regard, no one can answer that except Philipp.

Yeah, it's not really about PB or his approach, but that Graham repeatedly called a part of WSL's teaching a "misconception" and "BS" all over these forums. Bringing up PB's method is just to figure out why Graham would think like this when it is clearly an undeniable part of WSLVT. Like a true PB fanclub, everything was made to look as if it's about trying to figure out PB's super secret unsurpassed abstract members-only VT method. :p I'm not really that interested because I'm on the other side of the world with no opportunity to experience it. But there is good WSLVT over here too, that PB says is close to his method, but it seems to be at odds with some things said on these forums. Hence the thread to figure out why.

Wayfaring

08-17-2013, 09:14 AM

Yeah, it's not really about PB or his approach, but that Graham repeatedly called a part of WSL's teaching a "misconception" and "BS" all over these forums.

Well, Graham is a ginger. And gingers have no soul. ;):D:D:D

Except for every once in a while when he scares one up.

guy b.

08-17-2013, 09:27 AM

I am concerned with the right practice instead of the right thinking since it is the practice that shows you if what you are doing is working or not.

Right thinking leads to right practice in wing chun. You can't tell whether your wing chun is correct by trial and error in sparring because lots of things work in sparring. Wing chun depends on lots of different things working together. The chances of you re-inventing the wheel based on what it looks like in youtube clips are zero.

guy b.

08-17-2013, 09:29 AM

You miss the point.

What's the point? They have a book from PB explaining the system to them already. You seem to want them to write you a how-to of PB ving tsun. What is in it for them?

guy b.

08-17-2013, 09:38 AM

YWing chun is not a concept approach to combat.

Lol! Good luck learning wing chun

You think your thinking is right but so does someone else who has completely different thinking yet can beat you silly.

The only valid comparison would be a fight with yourself. Correct ideas lead to wing chun that functions in the way it was designed to function. It isn't a matter of using particular shapes and standing in a particular way.

Graham H

08-17-2013, 12:21 PM

Well, Graham is a ginger. And gingers have no soul. ;):D:D:D

Except for every once in a while when he scares one up.

A ginger? Wtf are you on about?

Attn; LFJ you still have no clue. You now have three people telling you. How many more do you require?

Attn; tc102 you are a c**k

The end

LFJ

08-17-2013, 07:27 PM

You now have three people telling you. How many more do you require?

Three people telling me what? The superiority of PBVT? That's not the topic.

Paddington

08-17-2013, 11:28 PM

What's the point? They have a book from PB explaining the system to them already. You seem to want them to write you a how-to of PB ving tsun. What is in it for them?

They don't have a book. It has never been released and none of the contributors to these boards have claimed to have seen it. Again, you miss the point and benefits of what I suggest for the authors and readers.

guy b.

08-18-2013, 01:07 AM

They don't have a book. It has never been released and none of the contributors to these boards have claimed to have seen it. Again, you miss the point and benefits of what I suggest for the authors and readers.

If they don't have a book then what is this comment about? Also, if they have access to PB and they believe him to be the person they say he is, why wouldn't they just ask him if they have a question? Again, their writing a document would seem to benefit other people more than it would benefit them. Why do it? What is in it for them?

PB has written a whole book on it and it contains a lot of input from WSL himself. He won't put it to press for the same reasons that cause sandwich throwing on this forum.

guy b.

08-18-2013, 01:09 AM

Yes, I have trained with Philipp and also some of Philipp's guys, although I don't consider myself an authority on WSLPBVT. Just a student. :)

Are you based in UK or somewhere else?

tc101

08-18-2013, 04:22 AM

Right thinking leads to right practice in wing chun. You can't tell whether your wing chun is correct by trial and error in sparring because lots of things work in sparring. Wing chun depends on lots of different things working together. The chances of you re-inventing the wheel based on what it looks like in youtube clips are zero.

How do you know your thinking or practice is right? Do you see this is a circular argument based on an unproved assumption that our thinking is right?

I have the right idea. My right idea leads to the right practice. Right practice is doing things in accord with the right idea. Lol

Yes indeed lots of things work in sparring and this is because there is more than one right way to do things! Wing chun like every other martial art depends on different things working together. If I put them together differently than you and can beat you what makes you think your way is right or better?

By the way sparring is not or at least should not be blind trial and error that is a misconception. Sparring especially progressive sparring gives you observations, insights, and direction into putting things together or yourself but if you have never gone through that process it is difficult to see.

tc101

08-18-2013, 04:28 AM

:D he clearly isnt.

I had a student here a few days ago who has spent many years in another lineage with different thinking. We exchanged ideas. I explained where I believed his thinking was wrong and showed physically how and why.
We didn't need to fight about it. That would have proved nothing.
So we looked at it like intelligent adult human beings and it was clear that my (WSLPBVT) way of thinking produced more effective Ving Tsun.

Thinking/understanding is everything!

That is arm chair wing chun I have the right idea. I love that expression we exchanged ideas because that is exactly what arm chair guys do exchange ideas. Here let me tell you and demonstrate how things work lol. Lets do lop sau.

Of course you need to fight about it if you are saying this is how things work in fighting.

guy b.

08-18-2013, 04:56 AM

How do you know your thinking or practice is right? Do you see this is a circular argument based on an unproved assumption that our thinking is right?

Right thinking (for wing chun) is internally consistent and is in accord with the principles of wing chun. If your thinking is not right then you are troubled by inconsistencies that you either rationalise away or address, up to you.

Yes indeed lots of things work in sparring and this is because there is more than one right way to do things! Wing chun like every other martial art depends on different things working together. If I put them together differently than you and can beat you what makes you think your way is right or better?

Wing chun is only one thing, internally consistent, not contradictory, and in line with the stated principles of wing chun. Wing chun is not undefeatable. Defeating a wing chun exponent does not mean your "wing chun" is better. It means you fought and defeated a wing chun exponent.

By the way sparring is not or at least should not be blind trial and error that is a misconception. Sparring especially progressive sparring gives you observations, insights, and direction into putting things together or yourself but if you have never gone through that process it is difficult to see.

Ok champ. You will find it impossible to put things together for yourself if your thinking is wrong, sparring or not.

tc101

08-18-2013, 04:58 AM

By "exchange" I dont just mean a conversation. Duh!.... I mean a physical as well as verbal exchange. :rolleyes:
Of course we have to demonstrate how the ideas work in fighting. There was plenty of training and working on the ideas. Youve seen WSLPBVT right? ... Show me the armchair stuff :D
My friends Ving Tsun was improved as a direct result of a better thinking/understanding. :)

Yes yes physical. So you mean not through sparring or you would have said sparring. Look if a boxer came to visit me I'm not going to exchange ideas about boxing we are going to spar that is where the exchange takes place. That is true for my wing chun as well. It is not going to be let me explain and demonstrate what I would do if I ever had to box lol.

Yes I have seen your groups stuff and heard your ideas. Forms, drills and ideas are all well and good. Arm chair is when you talk about what you are not doing. For example talking about fighting or how this prepares you for fighting when you are not fighting or sparring. If someone wants to limit their wing chun to forms drills and ideas this is fine with me and I think that is valid but I also think they should not be talking what is best or right or superior since they cannot know.

Kellen Bassette

08-18-2013, 05:19 AM

Look if a boxer came to visit me I'm not going to exchange ideas about boxing we are going to spar that is where the exchange takes place.

Arm chair is when you talk about what you are not doing. For example talking about fighting or how this prepares you for fighting when you are not fighting or sparring.

What's nice guy like you doing in a dump like this? Pearls before swine bro...can't save those who don't want to be saved. Iron sharpens iron, find some iron while you can still reach your potential....your better than this....:D

tc101

08-18-2013, 05:30 AM

Right thinking (for wing chun) is internally consistent and is in accord with the principles of wing chun. If your thinking is not right then you are troubled by inconsistencies that you either rationalise away or address, up to you.

Again this is circular. Your principles are your right ideas which then lead to right practice lol.

For you who has the better wing chun is who has the more consistent theory. Do you not see the problem? How do you know this theory or concepts or principles is valid? Perhaps you have some vast internally consistent theory which is all a house of cards. If someone else does not have that or looks at things differently but can perform better what makes your ideas better? Oh my ideas are more consistent even if they do not work as well!

You are thinking that if you have the right understanding you can put things together for yourself. Things don't work that way and this is arm chair thinking. Even if you have some idea of how you think things should work by getting in and trying to do it you will find that they don't and you need to change and rethink.

The other problem is most of these ideas are not ideas born of experience but from the arm chair.

Wing chun is only one thing, internally consistent, not contradictory, and in line with the stated principles of wing chun. Wing chun is not undefeatable. Defeating a wing chun exponent does not mean your "wing chun" is better. It means you fought and defeated a wing chun exponent.

How do you then determine who has the better wing chun? By whose idea you most agree with? That you like the way they do lop sau? Performance is the measure of skill is it not? I judge a boxer by their performance in the ring. How do you?

Ok champ. You will find it impossible to put things together for yourself if your thinking is wrong, sparring or not.

Here is the truth it is the sparring which puts your thinking about how to apply or fight with your art on the right track and keeps it there. You cannot have right thinking about how to fight with your art outside of sparring. I know this may be a hard pill to swallow but it is the way it is. It is true for boxing for bjj for wing chun for everything.

guy b.

08-18-2013, 06:08 AM

Again this is circular. Your principles are your right ideas which then lead to right practice lol.

No, correct wing chun is in accord with the principles of wing chun and is internally consistent. This is because wing chun is a designed system based upon a conception of the best way to address combat. Of course it is a tautology. Whether you believe wing chun to be the correct way to address combat or not, there is still only one right (and many wrong) ways to do wing chun. Sparring does not show you the difference.

For you who has the better wing chun is who has the more consistent theory. Do you not see the problem?

No

How do you know this theory or concepts or principles is valid? Perhaps you have some vast internally consistent theory which is all a house of cards.

This is asking a different question, i.e. whether the assumptions of the wing chun system wrt combat are valid.

Even if you have some idea of how you think things should work by getting in and trying to do it you will find that they don't and you need to change and rethink.

Lol. The irony

The other problem is most of these ideas are not ideas born of experience but from the arm chair.

You think that the principles of wing chun are not born of experience. Why then do you train in wing chun (assuming you do, which is probably being generous)?

How do you then determine who has the better wing chun? By whose idea you most agree with?

Already explained

Here is the truth it is the sparring which puts your thinking about how to apply or fight with your art on the right track and keeps it there.

Without the correct thinking you do not have an art to fight with. Sparring is valuable but it isn't fighting. Everyone should spar. Everyone should fight. But first you need the right thinking or your sparring and fighting is not wing chun.

tc101

08-18-2013, 06:54 AM

No, correct wing chun is in accord with the principles of wing chun and is internally consistent. This is because wing chun is a designed system based upon a conception of the best way to address combat. Of course it is a tautology. Whether you believe wing chun to be the correct way to address combat or not, there is still only one right (and many wrong) ways to do wing chun. Sparring does not show you the difference.

All you are doing is repeating the same dogma that is circular and by saying it that makes it true.

Wing chun is a set of skills. The techniques of wing chun are ways of performing those skills. The concepts and principles help you perform the skills successfully. It is by your attempts to use the techniques to perform the skills that you develop greater skill. Your performance and your performance alone tells you whether or not you are on the right track and whether our thinking is valid.

Your view of there is only one right way to do wing chun and that is of course my way is the epitome of arm chair thinking. No one who regularly spars thinks like that because they have that pounded out of them. Hendrik thinks like that. So do all the arm chair guys. That is the main characteristic of the arm chair martial artist.

You think that the principles of wing chun are not born of experience. Why then do you train in wing chun (assuming you do, which is probably being generous)?

You do not get it I mean personal experience actually doing what you are talking about. A concept or principle is not a fully formed written in stone mandatory rule that must absolutely be obeyed. It is general idea that can help you use your tools more effectively. Through doing that you come to your own understanding of how to do things your way which you can only find by trying o do them.

Without the correct thinking you do not have an art to fight with. Sparring is valuable but it isn't fighting. Everyone should spar. Everyone should fight. But first you need the right thinking or your sparring and fighting is not wing chun.

First you need to learn the movement or actions or techniques of wing chun. Then you practice performing them. Then if you want to learn to fight using your wing chun you need to practice doing that. This is what sparring is or should be practice fighting. You only get better at what you practice.

If we spar and I use only wing chun actions and I put the hurt on you in my view I have used my wing chun successfully and who if they did the same would feel differently.

If you see wing chun as a skill and didn't WSL say that? then your performance is the only way to see the skill and the only way to measure the skill and the only way to compare skills. This is why boxers and bjj people spar when they meet rather than exchanging ideas and demonstrating what they would do.

When your wing chun is arm chair wing chun then all you have is ideas and performance is not what matters.

I keep telling you it is not who has the right or best idea it is who performs their ideas better that counts.

guy b.

08-18-2013, 08:42 AM

All you are doing is repeating the same dogma that is circular and by saying it that makes it true.

Wing chun is a self contained internally consistent system (like nearly all TCMA). By this fact you can know it.

Wing chun is a set of skills.

Wing chun is a principle based TCMA system. To have wing chun skills you need wing chun thinking. Any old skills developed at random through sparring are very unlikely to be wing chun skills

The techniques of wing chun are ways of performing those skills.

Techniques? Wing chun isn't optional deployment of techniques. It is a systematic approach to fighting. Not optional.

The concepts and principles help you perform the skills successfully.

The principles of wing chun are wing chun.

It is by your attempts to use the techniques to perform the skills that you develop greater skill. Your performance and your performance alone tells you whether or not you are on the right track and whether our thinking is valid.

You are confusing performance in fighting with knowledge and ability in the wing chun system. Two different things. Without the correct thinking you will never be developing wing chun skill through performance. You will be developing something else, or nothing at all.

Your view of there is only one right way to do wing chun

Of course there is. Wing chun only works one way; the way it was designed to work.

No one who regularly spars thinks like that because they have that pounded out of them. Hendrik thinks like that. So do all the arm chair guys. That is the main characteristic of the arm chair martial artist.

I spar regularly. As far as I know all of the PBVT guys spar regularly. You on the other hand appear to be some words on a screen. Your blatant lack of knowledge of the system doesn't make your story very convincing

You do not get it I mean personal experience actually doing what you are talking about. A concept or principle is not a fully formed written in stone mandatory rule that must absolutely be obeyed. It is general idea that can help you use your tools more effectively. Through doing that you come to your own understanding of how to do things your way which you can only find by trying o do them.

The principles of wing chun are based on someone's idea of a good way to approach combat. The system is designed around these principles. The system only functions consistently according to these principles. There is no "your way" in wing chun. It is what it is, take it or leave it (or f@ck it up spectacularly), up to you.

First you need to learn the movement or actions or techniques of wing chun. Then you practice performing them. Then if you want to learn to fight using your wing chun you need to practice doing that. This is what sparring is or should be practice fighting. You only get better at what you practice.

You don't seem to have the vaguest idea about how the system functions.

If we spar and I use only wing chun actions and I put the hurt on you in my view I have used my wing chun successfully and who if they did the same would feel differently.

What is a "wing chun action"?

If you see wing chun as a skill and didn't WSL say that? then your performance is the only way to see the skill and the only way to measure the skill and the only way to compare skills. This is why boxers and bjj people spar when they meet rather than exchanging ideas and demonstrating what they would do.

Why do you think wing chun people don't spar? Aren't you a wing chun person?

When your wing chun is arm chair wing chun then all you have is ideas and performance is not what matters.

Wing chun is for fighting.

I keep telling you it is not who has the right or best idea it is who performs their ideas better that counts.

Having the right idea is important if you want to learn wing chun. If you don't care then it doesn't matter at all.

tc101

08-18-2013, 10:29 AM

The whole principle based stuff is a load of hog wash used to sell wing chun to arm chair guys. The same line was used to sell FMAs too. Learn the principle and you too can fill in the blank. It just doesn't work like that.

All martial arts are skills. Skills are not principle based but performance based. You perform skills. You learn the skill, practice the skill, get better at the skill.

You say I am confusing performance and knowledge and ability. No I am not. Performance is where you see knowledge and ability expressed. Having ideas is not knowledge. Your concepts and principles are not knowledge. Knowledge comes from experience. Instead of talking knowledge instead talk know how to. KNOW HOW TO. Do you know how to do this or that? The only way is by trying to do it. We earn knowledge the know how to through performance. Performance is the root of everything since we are trying to learn and get better at a skill.

You see wing chun very differently than me. My focus is on using the wing chun tools and skills the best way I can to get the best results I can. I see wing chun as a overall skill that is made up of a subset of skills. It is the same in boxing or bjj or judo or anything else. That subset will vary between individuals since we will naturally be better at some things than others, our bodies are different, our temperaments different, and so on. So the ingredients going into the mix will be individual and that will produce an individual overall skill. We are not robots or copies but unique individuals and this is why all let me repeat all martial artists develop their own boxing or own bjj or own wing chun.

guy b.

08-18-2013, 12:12 PM

Are those skills random or are they based on something... :)

Based on watching youtube clips in the case of tc101 I would guess.

guy b.

08-18-2013, 12:30 PM

The whole principle based stuff is a load of hog wash used to sell wing chun to arm chair guys.

Did this occur to you while sat in your armchair typing a message on this forum?

All martial arts are skills. Skills are not principle based but performance based. You perform skills. You learn the skill, practice the skill, get better at the skill.

Where do these skills come from? Can any skill be a part of wing chun or is the skill set bounded and exclusive? Can contradictory skills be assimilated into wing chun, i.e. could you add bobbing and weaving, Thai round kicks, etc?

You say I am confusing performance and knowledge and ability. No I am not. Performance is where you see knowledge and ability expressed.

Lol, you just confused them again. Performance of wing chun depends on knowledge and experience of the wing chun system. Any and all performance =/= performance of wing chun.

The only way is by trying to do it. We earn knowledge the know how to through performance. Performance is the root of everything since we are trying to learn and get better at a skill.

You have to know what you are doing and why before trying to do wing chun. Wing chun is not the physical form. You can resemble wing chun without doing wing chun.

You see wing chun very differently than me. My focus is on using the wing chun tools and skills the best way I can to get the best results I can.

What is a wing chun tool?

Using wing chun to get the best results you can would be using in in accord with the way it was designed to be used.

We are not robots or copies but unique individuals and this is why all let me repeat all martial artists develop their own boxing or own bjj or own wing chun.

It is impossible to develop "your own" wing chun without understanding the principles and experiencing the whole system first. Unfortunately there is very very little real wing chun in existence. This is not the case with bjj and boxing. Most wing chun is $hit

KPM

08-18-2013, 12:38 PM

TC101 wrote:
The whole principle based stuff is a load of hog wash used to sell wing chun to arm chair guys.

I've been doing some reading and reviewing some of my resources lately. Let me list just some of the authors I have come across that have written about Wing Chun being concept or principle based:

1. Wong Shun Leung
2. David Peterson
3. Robert Chu
4. Duncan Leung
5. Victor Kan
6. Randy Williams
7. Augustine Fong
8. Alan Gibson
9. Stephen Chan
etc.

So tell us again, just who is your Sifu???????

You see wing chun very differently than me. My focus is on using the wing chun tools and skills the best way I can to get the best results I can.

But you had to start with an idea of what those tools and skills were before you ever tried using them in sparring, didn't you? You had to learn the basics of Wing Chun before you tried sparring with it, didn't you? Your instructor showed you how to do a YGKYM and how to punch before you ever gloved up and went at it, didn't you? Did you not learn the basic principles and concepts behind why Wing Chun does things the way it does before you tried to spar with it? Were you not told that the techniques in the forms are not choreographed fighting routines, but rather Wing Chun concepts and principles in a physical format? Again, just who is your Sifu????

guy b.

08-18-2013, 12:48 PM

So tell us again, just who is your Sifu???????

Good luck getting an answer. This is an internet troll

WC1277

08-18-2013, 03:05 PM

TC101,

WC is developmental. The entire system is based on "developing" fighting attributes. It has a very specific set of drills to develop those attributes. When you fight, you just fight however you're going to fight. Period. Fighting doesn't develop skill. It only either justifies it or disqualifies it. Or more realistically, a little bit of both. Show me one example of a boxer, mma, or whomever say that they got better as a result of a fight. No, they only say 'now I know what I need to work on'. And they go back to training with drills, footwork, conditioning, etc.

What we argue about on these forums, 9 times out of 10, is the best way to "train". Training concepts are not "arm chair ideas" and can be translated through descriptions with words. And while there are guys on here who have no fighting or sparring experience, a knowledge of training 'concepts' doesn't necessarily require that if you know what a particular drill develops. It's just a forum. You need to relax a little bit with your rhetoric. It's just a bunch of amateur "coaches" trying to discuss methods. Of course people will think their way is best. And that can be for a myriad of reasons. It can be ego, lack of legitamate understanding, inability to translate to words, loss of context, a whole host of negative reasons. But there are some who do know what they're talking about and do have experience. And by consequence, because it's an online forum, their points on training methods will usually be lost amongst the sea of chaos.

You're fighting a losing battle simply because of the platform. So either participate and try to navigate all the noise or add to it. It's your choice.

LFJ

08-19-2013, 07:42 PM

Uh oh! More "BS" from WSL. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nGwcE5B5A

In this video @13:07 WSL says "there are three different taan-sau in SNT. The first one is for training LSJC", referring obviously to the springing energy effect which Graham calls a "common misconception" and "BS".

He then explains and demonstrates how the second taan-sau can be used to shut down round punches by stepping into it as on the MYJ. This is another idea which Graham has repeatedly dismissed as arm-chasing nonsense that doesn't work in previous threads.

I wonder, if he were present would he have spoken up and told WSL that such ideas are impractical and will get your nose broken by anyone who knows how to punch...

Not to mention, the whole idea of there being three different taan-sau or three different bong-sau is nonsense, because in PBVT they are all just a single "punching concept" or "elbow rotation".

There are a number of other examples of things WSL taught that Graham says are not in his system. Makes you wonder just how much simplification PB made to WSLVT. A lot of things aren't present.

But of course, this was just a brief seminar and WSL always lied to participants, making up impractical nonsense. He only told PB the real meaning of those actions. :)

Graham H

08-19-2013, 11:39 PM

Oh dear! You are developing a bit of a crush on me aren't you. :o

FWIW I stand by what I say and I don't relate to 3 different types of Tan Sau is SLT.

Feel free to keep using WSL seminar videos to try and prove your point.

I wonder, if he were present would he have spoken up and told WSL that such ideas are impractical and will get your nose broken by anyone who knows how to punch...

If I had been taught by WSL away from the seminar environment and understood the kind of thinking he passed on to PB I wouldn't ask him. I would already know.

It must be hard for you to swallow that there are ideas out there that you don't know about or understand. It would be for me. In fact I would contact PB personally and ask if he could spare some time for me to explain and show me....................oh hang on...................I already did that. :rolleyes:

LFJ

08-20-2013, 12:15 AM

If I had been taught by WSL away from the seminar environment....

You do realize this is the same stuff he had been consistently teaching to his regular students in class through the years, away from seminar environment, right?

It must be hard for you to swallow that there are ideas out there that you don't know about or understand.

I would say I both know about and understand PB's approach as you guys explain it on here and as I see him perform. It's quite similar to what I've been learning for the most part. Just that many other parts of WSLVT that I also accept seem to be missing.

It seems hard for you to swallow that PB doesn't teach all that WSL taught. Maybe he didn't agree with some things from his experience, or he had to adapt to his disability. For whatever reason, these many things aren't present, but WSL indeed taught them, as evidenced by the testimony of all his other students that are in agreement including a head coach of his school in HK, and of course undeniable video footage of him actually teaching it...

It's amazing how despite all of this you still convince yourself that it's not WSL's really real teaching. You maintain transmission purity and remain voluntarily ignorant. There's no shame in admitting PB only teaches the parts of WSLVT he finds useful and has discarded many things. His method is effective.

Graham H

08-20-2013, 02:59 AM

Dude listen. I don't care much for your POV. I'm going to say this for the last time and if you wish to keep on then I will not respond.................

UNTIL YOU HAVE MET PB AND DISCUSSED WITH HIM ABOUT HIS AND WSL'S THINKING ON VING TSUN, HAD AN EXCHANGE WITH HIM AND EXPERIENCED FIRST HAND WHAT WAS TAUGHT WITH REGULAR TUITION OVER MANY YEARS YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!:mad:

Jansingsang

08-20-2013, 03:41 AM

Frost

08-20-2013, 03:43 AM

nice to see the true believers are still fighting amongst themselves :)

GlennR

08-20-2013, 03:50 AM

rett

08-20-2013, 04:27 AM

Can anyone help with the acronyms please? Cheers.

ACWC
BPWT
BL
BS
DP
GL
IM
IMO
JPF
FWIW
LFJ
LGBT
LLHS
LOL
LSJC
LTWT
MA
MYJ
PB
PBVT
PFJ
PM
POV
SNT
TCMA
UK
VT
WC
WCK
WSL
WSLPBVT
WSLPBVTK
WSLVT
WTF
YM

:confused:

k gledhill

08-20-2013, 04:33 AM

Can anyone help with the acronyms please? Cheers.

ACWC
BPWT
BL
BS
DP
GL
IM
IMO
JPF
FWIW
LFJ
LGBTh
LLHS
LOL
LSJC
LTWT
MA
MYJ
PB
PBVT
PFJ
PM
POV
SNT
TCMA
UK
VT
WC
WCK
WSL
WSLPBVT
WSLPBVTK
WSLVT
WTF
YM

:confused:

Lmfaorotg !

rett

08-20-2013, 04:39 AM

WSL PB VT USA

Okay, Vermont USA. Got it. Cheers.

k gledhill

08-20-2013, 04:39 AM

Graham H

08-20-2013, 04:54 AM

Well he does raise some good points G................

He raises the kind of points I would have raised prior to meeting PB. I've told him that and it still doesn't seem to sink into his cotton wool head!

LFJ

08-20-2013, 05:08 AM

@ LFJ dude you left out double high tan and double low tan , sideways 45 deg tan and .... ; ) so many tans !

I am with graham all the way. We must be fools and been blinded by PB somehow not to see what everyone sees. How could he !! ; )

It's fine you guys prefer PB's method to WSL's. Y'all're PBVT guys.

Graham being one of the biggest PB fanboys keeps acting like everyone is trying to understand his sifu's VT so he can feel good knowing "da realz" kung fu while the rest of us will never understand.

Actually this thread is just to show what WSL actually taught on certain major points Graham calls ineffective "bullsh!t" all the time while claiming to be a WSLVT practitioner (but of the pure and real WSLVT via PB).

wingchunIan

08-20-2013, 05:15 AM

I'd almost stopped posting on this forum because it was the same boring crap over and over again. Glad I popped back in for this thread though, most entertaining forum thread I've read in ages:D

LFJ

08-20-2013, 05:20 AM

He raises the kind of points I would have raised prior to meeting PB.

Like what?

The points I've raised here have been showing what WSL taught to his regular students.

You're telling me when you met PB he told you that was all bullsh!t and WSL routinely lied to every other student he had? So you believed PB and now have no questions. :)

Frost

08-20-2013, 05:27 AM

I'd almost stopped posting on this forum because it was the same boring crap over and over again. Glad I popped back in for this thread though, most entertaining forum thread I've read in ages:D

LMAO its the way of the world, true believers always turn in on themselves once they have finished attacking outsiders, then it becomes a case of WHO is the real true believer with the REAL message :) :)

k gledhill

08-20-2013, 06:22 AM

Okay, Vermont USA. Got it. Cheers.

Ving tsun but Vermont is in there too : )

Buddha_Fist

08-20-2013, 06:55 AM

:confused:

12 Pages of BS...

Wong Shun Leung went throughout his life through an evolution on how and what to teach. Like any smart person who reflects on the results of his work and improves upon it. I understand from a couple of his students, that it went from a mostly practical approach to a more conceptual POV towards the end of his life (mid 1990's).

Videos are snapshots in time of what he chose to show and of how he chose to work with particular people. Taking them as gospel truth of Wong Shun Leung's POV's, without having met him and without more intimate knowledge of his work throughout time, is nonsense.

guy b.

08-20-2013, 07:00 AM

LFJ

08-20-2013, 07:29 AM

@guy.b

As I said, every member of the WSLSA agrees on what WSL taught. You'll have to show me one that doesn't.

How many plausible reasons do you have for WSL to have lied to all his students except PB?

guy b.

08-20-2013, 07:41 AM

@guy.b

As I said, every member of the WSLSA agrees on what WSL taught.

How would you know that?

You are the one making the claim and you will need to name names if you want it to be plausible. Who has taught you this? PB students are quite open in terms of what they were taught (or not taught in this case)

Graham H

08-20-2013, 07:42 AM

tc101

08-20-2013, 07:59 AM

TC101,

WC is developmental. The entire system is based on "developing" fighting attributes.

No no no its not. Wing chun is about developing a skill set you can use for fighting. Part of what goes into a skill are attributes but you are not developing attributes for attributes sake like trying to get stronger just to be stronger. You are trying to get better at using the wing chun skills and by practicing the skills you also develop the attributes that go along with the skil's performance. You can't develop the attribute of accuracy without shooting at the target!

It has a very specific set of drills to develop those attributes. When you fight, you just fight however you're going to fight. Period. Fighting doesn't develop skill. It only either justifies it or disqualifies it. Or more realistically, a little bit of both.

No no no I am sorry but you are off track again. The wing chun drills are for sharpeing your wing chun tools allowing you to practice the movemenat and actions and get better at physically performing them. It is the same with any martial art. Boxing drills do the same but with boxing techniques and skills.

The drills by themself will never make you be able to use the tools well in sparring or fighting because the dynamic of what is going on is different is sparring or fighting or to put it another way the drills do not represent fighting conditions. So you have to practice using your tools whether in boxing or in wing chun or in bjj in sparring to develop greater skill using them under fighting conditions.

Show me one example of a boxer, mma, or whomever say that they got better as a result of a fight. No, they only say 'now I know what I need to work on'. And they go back to training with drills, footwork, conditioning, etc.

They all get better by sparring, and if you actually talk to real boxers like I have and do all the time or real fighters they will tell you that actual fights or competitions do increase their skills and abilities.

The way training works is you have basically three areas. First is conditioning since your level of performance will be the level of your conditioning. Second is tool and skill sharpening where you work on learning and getting better at the movement or action of your martial art. Third is sparring where you practice fighting or to put it another way you spar. Fighting is more than just being able to perform the actions it takes place on a strategic, tactical and technical level and you need to learn how to deal with these. If you try to come up with them on the fly you will usually fail.

What we argue about on these forums, 9 times out of 10, is the best way to "train". Training concepts are not "arm chair ideas" and can be translated through descriptions with words. And while there are guys on here who have no fighting or sparring experience, a knowledge of training 'concepts' doesn't necessarily require that if you know what a particular drill develops.

The thing is you do not know what it is supposed to develop or if it really does that without seeing the result that is what makes it an arm chair thing. You think you know. Thinking you know is arm chair. Knowing because you are doing it is not arm chair. Your concepts for the most part are the ideas of people in arm chairs.

I can tell you how to train boxers because I can see their development as a fighter from day one and by see I mean with my own eyes through their performance in the ring. That way I know what is working or not working well.

It's just a forum. You need to relax a little bit with your rhetoric. It's just a bunch of amateur "coaches" trying to discuss methods. Of course people will think their way is best. And that can be for a myriad of reasons. It can be ego, lack of legitamate understanding, inability to translate to words, loss of context, a whole host of negative reasons. But there are some who do know what they're talking about and do have experience. And by consequence, because it's an online forum, their points on training methods will usually be lost amongst the sea of chaos.

You're fighting a losing battle simply because of the platform. So either participate and try to navigate all the noise or add to it. It's your choice.

I do not know but I do not have these problems on the boxing forums or the bjj forums. I think the difference is the ratio of arm chair guys to people really doing it. Share what you do, share your experience doing it, share what you learned from that experience. Wayfaring had a great post a while back about his experience trying to make his wing chun work against a boxer. That is a solid post. For every one of those you see many many guys telling us about how they think they know how to deal with boxers by referencing their concpets.

LFJ

08-20-2013, 08:05 AM

How would you know that?

Many of WSL's students have gatherings from time to time. They may all have their personal flavors, but all agree on the core teachings they learned from WSL. Go look up 1st gen. students within the WSLSA. None of them will agree with Graham who never trained with WSL.

Who said anything about lying to people? WTF are you on about?

You say several things he taught students were impractical, wrong, misconceptions, or pure bullsh!t (like each of the 3 taan-sau), while PB got the real stuff from him. That means WSL would have known what works and what doesn't, yet chose to teach other students bullsh!t, telling them that it will work. Is that not lying?

guy b.

08-20-2013, 10:54 AM

Your concepts for the most part are the ideas of people in arm chairs.

Why would you practice wing chun if you think the concepts of wing chun were formulated by people without experience of fighting? This would be a waste of your time and an illogical thing for you to do. Are you mad?

Why do you assume that WC12345 or whatever he is called doesn't fight?

I do not know but I do not have these problems on the boxing forums or the bjj forums. I think the difference is the ratio of arm chair guys to people really doing it.

This is nonsense. MMA, bjj and boxing are sports with fans. A large number of these fans post on forums compared to the number of active fighters posting.

Many fighting sports are also infested with hobbyists who get all of the sprawl shorts, gumshield, shin pads and gloves but train rarely and without intensity, doing it for the reflected glory from their heroes, the fighters. It is a form of man-crush and quite embarrassing to see in a grown man. This is how bjj and mma teams fund the training of their real guys, generally.

Share what you do, share your experience doing it, share what you learned from that experience.

There was a great thread a while back called "experience thread". Surprised you didn't see it. Right up your street I would say.

k gledhill

08-20-2013, 11:02 AM

Why would you practice wing chun if you think the concepts of wing chun were formulated by people without experience of fighting? This would be a waste of your time and an illogical thing for you to do. Are you mad?

Why do you assume that WC12345 or whatever he is called doesn't fight?

This is nonsense. MMA, bjj and boxing are sports with fans. A large number of these fans post on forums compared to the number of active fighters posting.

Many fighting sports are also infested with hobbyists who get all of the sprawl shorts, gumshield, shin pads and gloves but train rarely and without intensity, doing it for the reflected glory from their heroes, the fighters. It is a form of man-crush and quite embarrassing to see in a grown man. This is how bjj and mma teams fund the training of their real guys, generally.

There was a great thread a while back called "experience thread". Surprised you didn't see it. Right up your street I would say.

The " fan crush " ! Laughing out load

KPM

08-20-2013, 04:58 PM

Like what?

The points I've raised here have been showing what WSL taught to his regular students.

You're telling me when you met PB he told you that was all bullsh!t and WSL routinely lied to every other student he had? So you believed PB and now have no questions. :)

I don't know who is right in this little debate. But I have to say that I follow LFJ's logic. You can't say things are crap, then be shown that WSL actually taught these things, then say that it was in a seminar environment and therefore was substandard and doesn't count. That is not doing WSL's teaching ability, reputation, or sense of honesty any justice. I refuse to believe that WSL taught his seminar students a substandard version of Wing Chun compared to what he taught his "regular" students. I am left to conclude that PB has indeed changed things around a bit compared to what WSL taught his students. There's nothing wrong with that. He is showing that he is Wing Chun's "master" and not its "slave." And I think its bit of a "cop out" to say that you can't explain it in writing and one has to just meet and work with PB directly. Either WSL taught these obvious things or he didn't. Either PB also teaches these things or he doesn't. No enlightenment experience needed!

LFJ

08-20-2013, 05:32 PM

A Master Talks: The Wong Shun Leung Interview (http://wingchunkuen.me/2013/01/05/a-master-talks-the-wong-shun-leung-interview-paul-whitrod/)

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.

LFJ

08-20-2013, 05:44 PM

Combine the above quoted fact with the teaching and testimony of numerous students of his and the video footage of him teaching the same things in many places over the years... it paints a pretty clear picture of what WSLVT is about. Hard to believe anyone can deny it.

Jansingsang

08-20-2013, 05:45 PM

I don't know who is right in this little debate. But I have to say that I follow LFJ's logic. You can't say things are crap, then be shown that WSL actually taught these things, then say that it was in a seminar environment and therefore was substandard and doesn't count. That is not doing WSL's teaching ability, reputation, or sense of honesty any justice. I refuse to believe that WSL taught his seminar students a substandard version of Wing Chun compared to what he taught his "regular" students. I am left to conclude that PB has indeed changed things around a bit compared to what WSL taught his students. There's nothing wrong with that. He is showing that he is Wing Chun's "master" and not its "slave." And I think its bit of a "cop out" to say that you can't explain it in writing and one has to just meet and work with PB directly. Either WSL taught these obvious things or he didn't. Either PB also teaches these things or he doesn't. No enlightenment experience needed!

Here here i solely agree also myself stemming from the WSL Lineage LFJ'S logic seems of sound mind and cant be disputed at this moment in time. For whats been said is backed up by evidence Ive been to two of WSL Seminars back in the days and too think now... I was being lied too Shatters the up most respect i have for the man. As he was honest in his explanations in regard to the system which was addressed in straight logical action and context which being very easy to understand there and then Not Nah mate you learn that way down the line BullSh!t The only one whos lied of to date is Clive Potter Grahams former Sifu Maybe his never really recovered :rolleyes: cause something not right here:D

Jansingsang

08-20-2013, 05:47 PM

I don't know who is right in this little debate. But I have to say that I follow LFJ's logic. You can't say things are crap, then be shown that WSL actually taught these things, then say that it was in a seminar environment and therefore was substandard and doesn't count. That is not doing WSL's teaching ability, reputation, or sense of honesty any justice. I refuse to believe that WSL taught his seminar students a substandard version of Wing Chun compared to what he taught his "regular" students. I am left to conclude that PB has indeed changed things around a bit compared to what WSL taught his students. There's nothing wrong with that. He is showing that he is Wing Chun's "master" and not its "slave." And I think its bit of a "cop out" to say that you can't explain it in writing and one has to just meet and work with PB directly. Either WSL taught these obvious things or he didn't. Either PB also teaches these things or he doesn't. No enlightenment experience needed!

Here here i solely agree also myself stemming from the WSL Lineage ....LFJ'S logic seems of sound mind and cant be disputed at this moment in time. For whats been said is backed up by evidence Ive been to two of WSL Seminars back in the days and too think now... I was being lied too would Shatter the up most respect i have for the man. As he was honest in his explanations in regard to the system which was addressed in straight logical action and context which being very easy to understand there and then Not Nah mate you learn that way down the line BullSh!t :mad: The only one whos lied of to date is Clive Potter Grahams former Sifu .....Maybe his never really recovered :rolleyes: cause something not right here:D

Graham H

08-21-2013, 02:09 AM

Here here i solely agree also myself stemming from the WSL Lineage ....LFJ'S logic seems of sound mind and cant be disputed at this moment in time. For whats been said is backed up by evidence Ive been to two of WSL Seminars back in the days and too think now... I was being lied too would Shatter the up most respect i have for the man. As he was honest in his explanations in regard to the system which was addressed in straight logical action and context which being very easy to understand there and then Not Nah mate you learn that way down the line BullSh!t :mad: The only one whos lied of to date is Clive Potter Grahams former Sifu .....Maybe his never really recovered :rolleyes: cause something not right here:D

Ha! Not recovered? Nah mate. CP is a donut but he is still teaching under the WSL banner and is still regarded as an authority here in the UK. You know it wasn't just me that outed CP. It was a whole group of people many who now train under the DP banner and PB banner. Anyway that's in the past but it does have some sort of bearing on this conversation in the fact that CP did attend WSL seminars. He pretty much teaches a very poor version of what LFJ regards as WSL gospel. All the forms full of applications and three different types of Tan Sau. We all know he got it wrong so you can see the problem ;)

Paddington

08-21-2013, 03:33 AM

Ha! Not recovered? Nah mate. CP is a donut but he is still teaching under the WSL banner and is still regarded as an authority here in the UK [...]

That's the problem Graham, it is very hard to find quality WSL instructors in the UK. I am fully aware of CP btw and I share your opinion here.

Previously you were quite dismissive when I mentioned my inability to travel abroad (nothing wrong with being poor) to find quality WSL instructors that are regularly accessible. However, I think we are in agreement that it would be better if there were quality WSL instructors in the UK.

LFJ

08-21-2013, 03:40 AM

He pretty much teaches a very poor version of what LFJ regards as WSL gospel. All the forms full of applications and three different types of Tan Sau. We all know he got it wrong so you can see the problem ;)

Yeah, WSL obviously taught three types of taan-sau and presented possible applications as visual examples of concepts at work to aid in transmission. Kind of no way around that. It's a fighting method. You can't just talk. It's the fault of the student if they concentrated too much on the finger. WSL always expressed there are no set responses in VT.

And I don't believe for a minute that he'd make up nonsense to feed to seminar attendees and regular students some how less privileged than PB. He said he always endeavored to teach everyone equally, no matter where or who, so that they always got the full picture. It was then up to the student to receive it and do with it what they were able.

But as far as I've seen, CP didn't even get the basic shapes down right. His gaang-sau pulled all the way back to scratch his ass. You can't take a guy like that as a representation of anything. But I understand how you'd want to get rid of everything previously learned if he was your teacher, just to be thorough in your cleansing.

It's just irrational to tell yourself a story how WSL cheated select students. So what reason do you tell yourself it was for that WSL made up 3 taan-sau and consistently taught like that over the years if he knew it was impractical nonsense?

GlennR

08-21-2013, 04:14 AM

I don't know who is right in this little debate. But I have to say that I follow LFJ's logic. You can't say things are crap, then be shown that WSL actually taught these things, then say that it was in a seminar environment and therefore was substandard and doesn't count. That is not doing WSL's teaching ability, reputation, or sense of honesty any justice. I refuse to believe that WSL taught his seminar students a substandard version of Wing Chun compared to what he taught his "regular" students. I am left to conclude that PB has indeed changed things around a bit compared to what WSL taught his students. There's nothing wrong with that. He is showing that he is Wing Chun's "master" and not its "slave." And I think its bit of a "cop out" to say that you can't explain it in writing and one has to just meet and work with PB directly. Either WSL taught these obvious things or he didn't. Either PB also teaches these things or he doesn't. No enlightenment experience needed!

I with you Keith.

You cant have your cake (we are WSL devouts) and then argue when it doesnt suit (video foorage of the era contradicts our current mantra)

FWIW, WSK and TST were together in Australia in the 90's (from memory) and when asked said they basically did the same thing

LFJ

08-21-2013, 04:52 AM

Who said WSL lied or cheated students in seminars or anywhere else? :eek:

It's the implication, to say what WSL taught them was impractical nonsense, and then to say he taught the real stuff to PB is to say that he clearly knew the difference and knowingly taught nonsense to the other folks. That would be both lying and cheating.

I don't think that's what he did, by the way. Graham just wants to be a purist, seemingly an effect of having come to a good teacher after leaving a charlatan. But all evidence points to PB having a different approach to VT.

guy b.

08-21-2013, 05:17 AM

LFJ

08-21-2013, 05:24 AM

While I sympathise with your point on this thread I don't think you can say it is PB against all others. You need to name names, as Graham has done. After all, according to him, aren't there some in HK that share PB's interpretation of WSL ving tsun?

Yeah, like Chan Kim Man... the second guy on the video in the original post, doing the springing energy LSJC thing with WSL. Yeah? Pretty much everyone I can think of.

guy b.

08-21-2013, 05:40 AM

Yeah, like Chan Kim Man... the second guy on the video in the original post, doing the springing energy LSJC thing with WSL. Yeah? Pretty much everyone I can think of.

Yes but hasn't he answered this? CKM is teaching at a seminar with WSL and what they are doing is simplified and/or stylized. Not class type teaching for regular students.

If you have been receiving long term class type teaching from CKM and he is still giving you the kind of thing in the clip then either Graham is wrong or he is correct and teaching you that way for a particular reason.

LFJ

08-21-2013, 05:48 AM

Yes but hasn't he answered this? CKM is teaching at a seminar with WSL and what they are doing is simplified and/or stylized. Not class type teaching for regular students.

Yeah, but it is though. He taught these things consistently throughout his career, as evidenced by all his students (except PB), this video footage, and even when he said in that interview I posted on the last page;

"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."

Jansingsang

08-21-2013, 05:51 AM

Ha! Not recovered? Nah mate. CP is a donut but he is still teaching under the WSL banner and is still regarded as an authority here in the UK. You know it wasn't just me that outed CP. It was a whole group of people many who now train under the DP banner and PB banner. Anyway that's in the past but it does have some sort of bearing on this conversation in the fact that CP did attend WSL seminars. He pretty much teaches a very poor version of what LFJ regards as WSL gospel. All the forms full of applications and three different types of Tan Sau. We all know he got it wrong so you can see the problem ;)

Oh so glad too hear that. The reason being i have a one or two Students who on occasion, revert back too there old methodology of what they were taught. For one started talking about his former teacher who in fact caused this fella a shoulder injury due to wrong bong soa execution which resulted in him having a operation..

So when he starts banging on about what happened his whole performance level drops Errors errors So as soon as he starts his moan . I stop him in his tracks cause if you talk about garbage you become it :D

And i have another one who's ingrained incorrect method he learned on occasion rises to the surface, off balance arm clingers etc Ahhhh So if your not careful VT can seriously F%#k you up not just physically but Psychological as well maybe others have similar experiences :)

tc101

08-21-2013, 05:53 AM

It's the implication, to say what WSL taught them was impractical nonsense, and then to say he taught the real stuff to PB is to say that he clearly knew the difference and knowingly taught nonsense to the other folks. That would be both lying and cheating.

I don't think that's what he did, by the way. Graham just wants to be a purist, seemingly an effect of having come to a good teacher after leaving a charlatan. But all evidence points to PB having a different approach to VT.

Suppose you go train with Bayer and are very impressed or blown away both by his skills and by his ideas.

And suppose Bayer tells you that what he does and what he teaches is exactly what WSL taught him and that this is how wing chun is supposed to be with the whole we have the right idea and everyone else is wrong shtick. This is not unique to Bayer but we see this same scenario played out again and again only with different names.

And suppose you are the sort of person who uncritically believes what you are told by people you trust like your instructor and not a cynical, mistrusting, jaded ahole like myself.

Now suppose you are then shown evidence which contradicts what your teacher has been telling you that WSL did not teach only let us call it the Bayer system but things Bayer says is absolutely wrong. How do you reconcile that?

I think there are several possible reactions including yes WSL taught that crap but that was either because those people were not with him long enough to really learn how to do it right so he was just tweaking what they already did (which does not explain why the guys with him for longer than Bayer also do them and have differing ideas) or that he was teaching two distinct versions of wing chun (how many times have we heard that one?) or that he was misrepresenting things (for what purpose? and what does that say about his character?).

Another reaction might be to think that perhaps WSL did teach Bayer individually, building Bayer's wing chun around Bayer's personal strengths and weaknesses much as a boxing trainer does with an individual boxer and developing his personal approach to wing chun. So when WSL told Bayer this is what Yip Man taught me he was not lying because that also seemed to be how Yip Man often taught by tailoring things to the individual. Of course to accept this view means you must give up your whole notion of there being a one right best way.

This is really the problem it is the whole idea of there being a one right best way. Once you swallow that pill you will find yourself facing all kinds of contradictions including why did WSL teach things that were wrong, why do people who are oing it wrong beat the guys doing it right and so on. Until you see that idea is not true and accept that there are other equally valid ways as yours you will be stuck and will have no reasonable explanation because of course there is none.

Perhaps Bayer mistook the tailored training as THE way rather than A way or perhaps that is his selling point like it is with other or perhaps he is very modest and does not want to take credit or whatever. My personal opinion is this my way is the best right way is a huge selling point to arm chair people since that is the only group it will work on. If a boxing trainer tried that he would be rediculed. Boxing and bjj gyms don't advertise we have the right or best way they will say things like produce a long list of champs (results) or have a laid back atmosphere (so prospects won't be intimidated) or similar things. But when you try to sell your wing chun if you are not fighting (so no results to offer) what are your selling points? Lineage, we have the original way, the best or right idea, street deadliness.

LFJ

08-21-2013, 06:45 AM

Another reaction might be to think that perhaps WSL did teach Bayer individually, building Bayer's wing chun around Bayer's personal strengths and weaknesses much as a boxing trainer does with an individual boxer and developing his personal approach to wing chun.

That may be possible. Some things I've seen seem like he's compensating for his disability, but he apparently teaches his students this way too because it is effective.

Of course to accept this view means you must give up your whole notion of there being a one right best way.

I don't have such a notion, just what works vs what doesn't. I think both WSLVT and PBVT are effective methods. My point is that they are apparently not 100% the same, which is fine by me, not by Graham. I'm not a purist like him. I just care whether or not it works.

It's the PB students with this notion, seemingly due to having come from previous clown schools. The difference in effectiveness is so big they are convinced they've found the one true way. Having been in WSLVT from the start, I don't subscribe to that.

Graham H

08-21-2013, 06:59 AM

That may be possible. Some things I've seen seem like he's compensating for his disability, but he apparently teaches his students this way too because it is effective.

Ha! So you think that PB teaches a method specifically with his disability in mind to students who weren't so unfortunate??????????? LMAO

I don't have such a notion, just what works vs what doesn't. I think both WSLVT and PBVT are effective methods. My point is that they are apparently not 100% the same, which is fine by me, not by Graham. I'm not a purist like him. I just care whether or not it works.

WSLVT is PBVT!!!!!!

It's the PB students with this notion, seemingly due to having come from previous clown schools. The difference in effectiveness is so big they are convinced they've found the one true way. Having been in WSLVT from the start, I don't subscribe to that.

I'll await your visit to PB and then see what you say. What makes you so different? Everybody else has had their eyes opened. You would probably be next on the list.

LFJ

08-21-2013, 07:01 AM

I'll await your visit to PB and then see what you say. What makes you so different? Everybody else has had their eyes opened. You would probably be next on the list.

Eyes open to what, that WSLVT is nonsense? I already know PBVT is good.

LFJ

08-21-2013, 07:03 AM

I don't have such a notion, just what works vs what doesn't. I think both WSLVT and PBVT are effective methods. My point is that they are apparently not 100% the same, which is fine by me, not by Graham. I'm not a purist like him. I just care whether or not it works.
WSLVT is PBVT!!!!!!

ROFL! See what I mean?! :D

Graham H

08-21-2013, 07:29 AM

So you are actually convinced that what WSL taught everybody else he didn't teach PB and that PB has one hand Kung Fu and basically has reinvented the system??? You really are a bit of a nob mate.

LFJ

08-21-2013, 07:39 AM

No. I gather that PB's approach is largely a result of discarding certain things from WSLVT he doesn't find useful. I don't think he added to it because it's quite similar to what I've been doing, just minus some things. So if he simplified the method and it is effective, good for him.

guy b.

08-21-2013, 09:58 AM

Yeah, but it is though. He taught these things consistently throughout his career, as evidenced by all his students (except PB)

All? Which WSL students do you have long term learning experience with?

guy b.

08-21-2013, 10:09 AM

Now suppose you are then shown evidence which contradicts what your teacher has been telling you that WSL did not teach only let us call it the Bayer system but things Bayer says is absolutely wrong. How do you reconcile that?

There isn't evidence until there are names. LFJ saying that "all" other WSLVT guys do it differently doesn't amount to evidence because he has't learned from all other WSL students. The PB guys have an explanation for the seminar video differences that is believable. There is also a plausible reason why LFJ might have been taught seminar type stuff.

Alternatively it is perfectly possible that PB did drop some things from the system or focus it in a certain direction and that the PB true believers are confused. But until someone actually talks about specific people teaching specific things it is just a meaningless shouting match.

LFJ

08-21-2013, 08:50 PM

The PB guys have an explanation for the seminar video differences that is believable.

No they don't. I asked what reason there would have been for WSL to consistently teach 3 different taan-sau over the years if there is no such thing and it is all impractical nonsense as they say. Certainly not for simplicity sake. No response.

There is also a plausible reason why LFJ might have been taught seminar type stuff.

No there isn't. Did you not see the quote by WSL where he said he has always given the information to everyone equally, to whomever and wherever he taught, in his classes and seminars? "Seminar type stuff" is Graham's made up excuse.

Frost

08-22-2013, 01:00 AM

No they don't. I asked what reason there would have been for WSL to consistently teach 3 different taan-sau over the years if there is no such thing and it is all impractical nonsense as they say. Certainly not for simplicity sake. No response.

No there isn't. Did you not see the quote by WSL where he said he has always given the information to everyone equally, to whomever and wherever he taught, in his classes and seminars? "Seminar type stuff" is Graham's made up excuse.

out of interest which WSL long term students have you trained with since you keep saying they all teach the same way? Naming them would put to rest guy bs questions
Come to think of it how long was WSLs teraching career? how many senior students did he have, who spent the most time with him? and how does that time compare with the time PB spent with him?

Graham H

08-22-2013, 01:32 AM

out of interest which WSL long term students have you trained with since you keep saying they all teach the same way? Naming them would put to rest guy bs questions
Come to think of it how long was WSLs teraching career? how many senior students did he have, who spent the most time with him? and how does that time compare with the time PB spent with him?

I don't think he has trained with any has he?. He hasn't even said how long he has been training with CKM. I'd be interested to know.

Paddington

08-22-2013, 01:53 AM

I don't think he has trained with any has he?. He hasn't even said how long he has been training with CKM. I'd be interested to know.

Personally, I think to pursue this line of argument is to make it ad hominem (my favorite term for the month). It is clear through reading these threads that there are contradictions in what you and others promoting PB have said of late.

It is concerning that all that video footage of WSL, the interviews and articles where WSL passes onto us his thoughts, can be so easily dismissed as you guys do. I worry that by insisting that such footage is incorrect and that one must travel to meet and pay PB to show them the 'correct, pure and true WSL way', this gives the impression that money rather than the preservation and furthering of Wing Chun, is the goal. I say this with all due respects.

I am not associated with any grouping or lineage right now so I don't have any of that bias and am just trying to judge people on what they have said.

Graham H

08-22-2013, 02:03 AM

Eh? What? You are now saying that I'm am contradicting other PB guys? :confused::confused::eek::eek:

BPWT

08-22-2013, 02:25 AM

Alternatively it is perfectly possible that PB did drop some things from the system or focus it in a certain direction and that the PB true believers are confused.

This seems to be the more logical conclusion, IMO.

If the PB guys say that there are not three Tan Sau's in SNT, and that Tan Sau is purely a training device for a punch and that this is its function in SNT and in Chi Sau (I remember, I think, that they also said Tan is not used outside of CS), all of this clearly is in conflict with the seminar footage of WSL talking about three Tan's and actually illustrating one of them with a possible application (and not within a CS context).

Apart from the fact that WSL's own words support the various uses of Tan Sau and how he himself demo'd it, are there other WSL students (apart from those with PB) who think that Tan is purely for use in SNT and CS?

As others have said, none of this means that PB is bad - it is obvious that he is very good, that his method works and that he has a good way of transmitting that method to his students.

It simply means that he might very well have dropped some of WSL's teachings from what he himself now trains and passes on.

Paddington

08-22-2013, 02:41 AM

Eh? What? You are now saying that I'm am contradicting other PB guys? :confused::confused::eek::eek:

No. What I am saying is that you as well as others promoting PB contradict yourselves by your own terms, contradict with the material WSL left behind and only sometimes contradict each other. This is why I suggested in another thread you all sit down privately and get on the same page.

Graham H

08-22-2013, 02:47 AM

No. What I am saying is that you as well as others promoting PB contradict yourselves by your own terms, contradict with the material WSL left behind and only sometimes contradict each other. This is why I suggested in another thread you all sit down privately and get on the same page.

Mate I can assure you that anybody who has had contact with PB on this forum have exactly the same understanding of WSLVT!

BPWT

08-22-2013, 02:55 AM

Mate I can assure you that anybody who has had contact with PB on this forum have exactly the same understanding of WSLVT!

Do you mean that anyone (from this forum) who had contact with PB has exactly the same understanding of WSLPBVT?

If someone were a David Peterson student, for example, and they used Tan Sau as WSL showed it, would that student not have a different understanding (and confusion) if he met PB and was told that Tan is only for use in SNT and CS, not for use the way WSL showed it and DP teaches it?

Graham H

08-22-2013, 02:55 AM

This seems to be the more logical conclusion, IMO.

If the PB guys say that there are not three Tan Sau's in SNT, and that Tan Sau is purely a training device for a punch and that this is its function in SNT and in Chi Sau (I remember, I think, that they also said Tan is not used outside of CS), all of this clearly is in conflict with the seminar footage of WSL talking about three Tan's and actually illustrating one of them with a possible application (and not within a CS context).

Apart from the fact that WSL's own words support the various uses of Tan Sau and how he himself demo'd it, are there other WSL students (apart from those with PB) who think that Tan is purely for use in SNT and CS?

As others have said, none of this means that PB is bad - it is obvious that he is very good, that his method works and that he has a good way of transmitting that method to his students.

It simply means that he might very well have dropped some of WSL's teachings from what he himself now trains and passes on.

Yes there is only one Tan Sau. It trains the punch. Yes WSL did show various uses of Tan Sau in seminars. Yes PB does not teach what WSL shows in the videos of seminars. There is a reason for it. One you can easily find out in one afternoon at his school. People must think he made this stuff up after WSL sadly passed away :rolleyes:

Here are some ideas in his own words............

Tan sau trains your punch
Bong sau open the way for striking
Fook sau trains your punch
Pak sau open the way for striking
Kwan sau trains your punch
Tok sau (we dont have)
Poon sau (exchange of force)
Fak sau (striking)
Lap sau (open the way for striking)
Yee gee kim yum ma (training stance .. to conditioning the foot
and knee position for supporting the punch)
Jum sau trains your punch

Graham H

08-22-2013, 02:56 AM

Do you mean that anyone (from this forum) who had contact with PB has exactly the same understanding of WSLPBVT?

If someone were a David Peterson student, for example, and they used Tan Sau as WSL showed it, would that student not have a different understanding (and confusion) if he met PB and was told that Tan is only for use in SNT and CS, not for use the way WSL showed it and DP teaches it?

David Peterson and Philipp Bayer have different thinking on Ving Tsun

BPWT

08-22-2013, 03:07 AM

Here are some ideas in his own words............

Tan sau trains your punch
Bong sau open the way for striking
Fook sau trains your punch
Pak sau open the way for striking
Kwan sau trains your punch
Tok sau (we dont have)
Poon sau (exchange of force)
Fak sau (striking)
Lap sau (open the way for striking)
Yee gee kim yum ma (training stance .. to conditioning the foot
and knee position for supporting the punch)
Jum sau trains your punch

Yes, I read that interview with PB, and it's an interesting take on things for sure.

From the list you quote, it makes me think that PB's method really is focused on punching, with only a few of the art's hand/arm movements/motions as support. So primarily: punching, with just pak and lap as main support (with bong used also in the lap sau drill/cycle).

If Fook Sau only trains your punch, why, from the Chinese, is it denoted as a controlling or subdueing action?

The character means "to control" or "to cover", and the character is a pictogram of a man controlling a dog, no?

Or is it a pictogram of a man punching a dog? :)

BPWT

08-22-2013, 03:11 AM

David Peterson and Philipp Bayer have different thinking on Ving Tsun

Okay, but doesn't DP's thinking on things like LSJC (via his recent article in Wing Chun Illustrated) and Tan Sau, etc, fall more in line with what WSL wrote about and can be seen doing and talking about in video footage?

If "WSLVT is PBVT" as you say, then why does PB's VT not have some of the things we see from WSL himself, but that we do see via other students like DP?

I think it makes sense to assume that WSL taught PB as he taught everyone else, but that PB cut out some material based on his own thoughts and experience.

Again, that in itself is not a negative critique of PB in any way.

LFJ

08-22-2013, 03:20 AM

Why should anything come back to my experience? The information and evidence is there for anyone to examine. I'm only presenting it. I'm defending against the claim that WSL didn't teach certain things and that such things are nonsense in his view.

I think at this point my argument has been solidly presented with plenty of supporting evidence to defend it, while on the other side, the side that claims WSL didn't teach these things, which is actually the prosecution here, has really presented nothing but an appeal to the ultimate authority, PB. With all the evidenced stacked to defend what WSL consistently taught to students over the years, the PBVT guys are going to have to come up with something better than that special insider nonsense.

As I said, I can't think of a member of the WSL Student Association that disagrees on LSJC or taan-sau. That's a whole list of 1st gen. students including senior coaches at WSL's HK school. Then of course the video footage and interview quotes from WSL himself, yet to be even logically refuted!

Many 1st generation WSL students have Facebook accounts. They can be contacted anytime. Or catch them all in one place at the next WSLVT Worldwide Fellowship Gathering. Sure they all bring personal flavor to what they do as a result of their different personalities, physiques, unique talents, etc.. But they all agree on the foundational teachings they received from WSL.

Graham H

08-22-2013, 03:42 AM

If Fook Sau only trains your punch, why, from the Chinese, is it denoted as a controlling or subdueing action?

Yes it does mean to control. Its used in SLT to control your punch by training the elbow. Using Fook Sau to control arms is not good thinking.

Graham H

08-22-2013, 03:44 AM

Okay, but doesn't DP's thinking on things like LSJC (via his recent article in Wing Chun Illustrated) and Tan Sau, etc, fall more in line with what WSL wrote about and can be seen doing and talking about in video footage?

If "WSLVT is PBVT" as you say, then why does PB's VT not have some of the things we see from WSL himself, but that we do see via other students like DP?

I think it makes sense to assume that WSL taught PB as he taught everyone else, but that PB cut out some material based on his own thoughts and experience.

Again, that in itself is not a negative critique of PB in any way.

I think if PB and DP had an exchange of words and sparring his idea would be different than it was before hand. My opinion..........................

Graham H

08-22-2013, 03:49 AM

Why should anything come back to my experience? The information and evidence is there for anyone to examine. I'm only presenting it. I'm defending against the claim that WSL didn't teach certain things and that such things are nonsense in his view.

................because you don't sound very experienced.

I think at this point my argument has been solidly presented with plenty of supporting evidence to defend it, while on the other side, the side that claims WSL didn't teach these things, which is actually the prosecution here, has really presented nothing but an appeal to the ultimate authority, PB. With all the evidenced stacked to defend what WSL consistently taught to students over the years, the PBVT guys are going to have to come up with something better than that special insider nonsense.

You can always go and find out for yourself and then write a post on here afterwards. How about that?

As I said, I can't think of a member of the WSL Student Association that disagrees on LSJC or taan-sau. That's a whole list of 1st gen. students including senior coaches at WSL's HK school. Then of course the video footage and interview quotes from WSL himself, yet to be even logically refuted!

Just like Yip Man Ving Tsun has many versions and we already know the reasons why. Why should it be different for WSLVT?

Many 1st generation WSL students have Facebook accounts. They can be contacted anytime. Or catch them all in one place at the next WSLVT Worldwide Fellowship Gathering. Sure they all bring personal flavor to what they do as a result of their different personalities, physiques, unique talents, etc.. But they all agree on the foundational teachings they received from WSL.

I've seen the Facebook accounts. My friends list consists of many people that also have my thinking.

If you look for it you will see that other WSLVT practitioners also disagree with my ideas. I find it amusing because they, like you, have no first hand experience of what I'm talking about.

tc101

08-22-2013, 04:02 AM

Yes it does mean to control. Its used in SLT to control your punch by training the elbow. Using Fook Sau to control arms is not good thinking.

I think the above is perfect example of not good thinking.

Fook sau is not saying control his arms but use your arm to control your opponent. Why would you need a fook sau to learn to control your own elbow? If you want to train to keep your elbow down and in during punching just practice keeping your elbow down and in during punching.

The control I refer to is the centerline which explains why your fook sau is on the centerline. As I learned the SLT is references dominating thus controlling the centerline.

LFJ

08-22-2013, 04:06 AM

You can always go and find out for yourself and then write a post on here afterwards. How about that?

Find out what? I know what you're saying PB told you. But I don't need to meet him to see that it is different from what WSL taught.

Just like Yip Man Ving Tsun has many versions and we already know the reasons why. Why should it be different for WSLVT?

Well, because as WSL stated himself, and to which you have yet to respond:

A Master Talks: The Wong Shun Leung Interview (http://wingchunkuen.me/2013/01/05/a-master-talks-the-wong-shun-leung-interview-paul-whitrod/)

"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."

If you look for it you will see that other WSLVT practitioners also disagree with my ideas. I find it amusing because they, like you, have no first hand experience of what I'm talking about.

No 1st hand experience with PB? We're talking about what WSL taught...

Other 1st generation WSL students disagree with you. I find it amusing because you, unlike them, have no first hand experience with WSL, yet you know better what he taught. :)

BPWT

08-22-2013, 04:08 AM

Yes it does mean to control. Its used in SLT to control your punch by training the elbow.

So in the PB lineage, the names attributed refer to only your own positioning - they don't relate to the relation of, say, a limb to the opponent?

In your way of thinking, doesn't Tan Sau also control your punch by training your elbow? So why do you not call Tan Sau... Tan Fook Sau?

For Fook Sau, how do you describe/interpret its pictogram?

If you apply the same logic, how do you define the word Pak? Does this also relate to your own positioning?

BPWT

08-22-2013, 04:18 AM

You can always go and find out for yourself and then write a post on here afterwards. How about that?

LFJ is correct to refute the point of this. If he (or anyone else) visited PB what would he/we learn that we don't already know?

PB would explain his ideas (we already know them as his students on this forum are writing about them).

PB would, presumably, explain why he is right and other WSL lineage people are wrong (but this would just be PB's take on things, not actual proof that others are doing things wrong - just that he does things differently).

PB would say what he is teaching is what came to him, as is, from WSL (if you say to him other WSL people do it differently, he would simply say they are not doing it correctly).

PB would demonstrate how his ideas work effectively (but we can all see that PB is good and can make things work, even without going to Germany to meet the man).

It really changes nothing. What we can see is that he has a viewpoint that differs from what WSL taught and wrote about.

Visiting him won't change that.

Paddington

08-22-2013, 04:43 AM

I think if PB and DP had an exchange of words and sparring his idea would be different than it was before hand. My opinion..........................

Yeah, I have been told the stories about who has been able to dominate who with respects to DP in chi sau and sparring. I would like to note that one can be a good teacher and coach whilst not being the 'best fighter' out there. Has DP produced some great Wing Chun exponents that can fight? I just don't know. The same is true for me of PB.

Finally, just as I don't view PB as the bastion of all things WSL, likewise nor do I view DP in this regard. I just wish the PB guys would come out from behind this wall of silence and be specific with regards to what it is they think WSL other students, were just not getting.

EDIT: For someone reason I feel like asking Graham to go through the following thought experiment; Imagine PB was to read all of his posts to assess his understanding, attitude and the extent to which he is representing well PB the man and his Wing Chun. What would PB's assessment of Graham be?

Graham H

08-22-2013, 04:51 AM

I think the above is perfect example of not good thinking.

Fook sau is not saying control his arms but use your arm to control your opponent. Why would you need a fook sau to learn to control your own elbow? If you want to train to keep your elbow down and in during punching just practice keeping your elbow down and in during punching.

The control I refer to is the centerline which explains why your fook sau is on the centerline. As I learned the SLT is references dominating thus controlling the centerline.

Not good thinking in your opinion but then that is expected. You did actually just say that "not saying control his arms but use your arm to control your opponent"? LMAO

Graham H

08-22-2013, 04:57 AM

So in the PB lineage, the names attributed refer to only your own positioning - they don't relate to the relation of, say, a limb to the opponent?

Correct

In your way of thinking, doesn't Tan Sau also control your punch by training your elbow? So why do you not call Tan Sau... Tan Fook Sau?

Because Tan Sau uses the outer part of the arm (elbow) to displace any obstacles (should they be there) and Fook Sau (Jum Sau) uses the inner part of the arm (elbow). Fook Sau and Tan Sau both use the elbow to protect the ceter whilst punching but as Tan Sau spreads away from the center (ie punch at the end of chum kiu) and Fook Sau doesn't, Fook Sau needs more attention which is why its practiced three times (or more) in SLT and Tan Sau only once.

For Fook Sau, how do you describe/interpret its pictogram?

I don't

If you apply the same logic, how do you define the word Pak? Does this also relate to your own positioning?

Pak Sau is used to open the way for the punch depending on the situation as does Jut Sau and the positioning of both creates you next punching position so yes it does.

Graham H

08-22-2013, 05:01 AM

LFJ is correct to refute the point of this. If he (or anyone else) visited PB what would he/we learn that we don't already know?

Yes he would

PB would, presumably, explain why he is right and other WSL lineage people are wrong (but this would just be PB's take on things, not actual proof that others are doing things wrong - just that he does things differently).

Yes he would but he doesn't say they are wrong. He says "this is not Sifus thinking"

PB would say what he is teaching is what came to him, as is, from WSL (if you say to him other WSL people do it differently, he would simply say they are not doing it correctly).

In some cases yes as he did with me.

PB would demonstrate how his ideas work effectively (but we can all see that PB is good and can make things work, even without going to Germany to meet the man).

Not possible to get the full picture from video.

It really changes nothing. What we can see is that he has a viewpoint that differs from what WSL taught and wrote about.

I have seen WSL's writing and it says the same as PB. PB also has hand written banners written by WSL himself that say the same things about the forms.

Visiting him won't change that.

Yes it will. You are wrong!

Graham H

08-22-2013, 05:03 AM

Find out what? I know what you're saying PB told you. But I don't need to meet him to see that it is different from what WSL taught.

Well, because as WSL stated himself, and to which you have yet to respond:

A Master Talks: The Wong Shun Leung Interview (http://wingchunkuen.me/2013/01/05/a-master-talks-the-wong-shun-leung-interview-paul-whitrod/)

"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."

No 1st hand experience with PB? We're talking about what WSL taught...

Other 1st generation WSL students disagree with you. I find it amusing because you, unlike them, have no first hand experience with WSL, yet you know better what he taught. :)

Ok I mean it this time. I'm not responding to your posts anymore. Just can't help it sometimes. I think I love you xxxx :p:o

LFJ

08-22-2013, 05:07 AM

Ok I mean it this time. I'm not responding to your posts anymore.

Because you can't refute WSL's own words. Best to stay quiet.

LFJ

08-22-2013, 05:29 AM

The following things were shown to have been taught by WSL in various videos on this thread so far.

1. springing effect of LSJC
2. three different taan-sau in SNT
3. three different bong-sau in CK

To add to the list of things WSL taught that Graham says is impractical nonsense, there is also his dismissal of WSL's teaching on paak-sau as trained on the MYJ. From another previous thread;

The action shown in the dummy form of Pak sau is also not for blocking arms...

...The upper dummy arms are for reference and are not seen as a substitute for human arms in my system.

It is not, in the PBVT system maybe, but WSL taught it this way. See in the following clip starting at about 3:24.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y

Not only does he show how in certain instances the dummy arms represent different arms of an opponent, but he also shows how a correct paak-sau is applied to deflect on the outside of an opponent's arm in such a way that affects their center, and that this is what is being trained on the dummy.

Again, "seminar stuff" is no excuse, because WSL said he always taught the same thing wherever and to whomever, in his regular classes and seminars so they all got the same clear information. And this is proven by his consistent teaching of the same thing in videos over the years on several continents around the world and to his regular HK students.

How you can continue to look at all this presented and still say it is not WSL's thinking, that it is nonsense, and that he knowingly taught impractical things to his students over the years except to PB and had some special VT thinking that only PB got... I just don't know.

Graham H

08-22-2013, 05:38 AM

Because you can't refute WSL's own words. Best to stay quiet.

Oh go on then......

I believe in what WSL taught PB mate. What PB teaches is WSLVT. Ask your Teacher next time you spend a few minutes in his class.

LFJ

08-22-2013, 05:43 AM

A Master Talks: The Wong Shun Leung Interview (http://wingchunkuen.me/2013/01/05/a-master-talks-the-wong-shun-leung-interview-paul-whitrod/)

"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."

It's as if WSL said this in his interview specifically toward people like Graham who years later would try to say they have his real thinking in VT, while all others are incorrect and just got "seminar stuff".

WSL was a straightforward man and was careful to leave a clear picture of what his approach to VT was all about, not leaving any room for one guy to claim knowledge of his true teaching. People can choose to ignore him and believe there is one man with special knowledge, but the evidence is right in front of you.

BPWT

08-22-2013, 05:45 AM

Fook sao and tan sao develop the elbow for correct punching.
In fook sao the elbow needs to cover centre.

Well, I think we covered that, and agreed on that, months and months ago :D This is also one of the attributes for Tan and Fook in the WT I train.

Paddington

08-22-2013, 05:48 AM

[...]
I have seen WSL's writing and it says the same as PB. PB also has hand written banners written by WSL himself that say the same things about the forms.
[...]

Are these available to view online? If not can they be made available? If they can't be made available online, why not?

BPWT

08-22-2013, 05:49 AM

Correct

Okay, thanks for confirming it. My understanding is that the names don't relate purely to the position of your own arms or elbow, but it makes things clearer to understand how you view the names.

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 05:50 AM

Philipp also explains tan the wsl showed in seminars, but he also explains the adaptation wsl made to use tan against a CLF fighter. Iow tan is primarily a striking concept position as mentioned, but when facing a wide arcing punch in a fight WSL moved himself to the arm of the CLF fighter while using tan to move to the arm too ....iow he didn't stand and pivot ( as seen in clip ) he moves AT THE ARM. This is a variation he shares for obvious reasons. For following logic we can't expect to only fight a CLF guy in a fighting stance as mentioned. But we know how to adapt to it.
There are more abstract drills using tan that confuse without coaching, so seminar explanations might not be possible for the varying attendees. Because the tan comes from a retracting punch rechambering to center in drills, it can be confused with bringing an arm it blocks backwards borrowing force ideas. But ,again , from lack of coaching. Bpwt take note ; )

What you need to maintain is the PRIMARY function of tan. The primary function and thinking of bong etc. if you don't have clarity of function you start in a confused state. Iow pb says bong is part of a striking attack but if one saw a wall behind an opponent one could use it to push ! Crazy herecy ; ) BUT you need to know that's NOT how we use it to fight primarily, primarily.
One can make any action into an application but without knowing the root abstraction it's all you have. A fixed approach of u do this I do that, the most commonly shared approach.

The approach pb espouses is wsl wholistic combat thinking using abstract drills to prepare us fraternally against our enemies, not other vt students. When passing on ideas of how to use actions its inevitable that scenarios are made to convey a moment in time an action is used. This approach tends to convey applications and isolating the same bong for eight different things along with tan etc. until you get the abcdefgh.... approach , you get scenario mode. Iow no basic punching concepts because many don't have the ability to utilize it or understand the development process of it. If one makes too much emphasis on sticking the idea of punching concepts is muddled.

BPWT

08-22-2013, 05:54 AM

I believe in what WSL taught PB mate.

For sure, we understand that you believe what PB is telling you. :D

What PB teaches is WSLVT.

This is something many would only partially agree with. Much of what PB teaches comes from WSL, I am sure, but there is also mounting evidence that PB has some different ideas from those expressed by WSL in video and his interviews.

Maybe PB should simply call what he does PBVT. :D;) Drop the WSL at the start... it is not so certain. :D

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 06:06 AM

For sure, we understand that you believe what PB is telling you. :D

This is something many would only partially agree with. Much of what PB teaches comes from WSL, I am sure, but there is also mounting evidence that PB has some different ideas from those expressed by WSL in video and his interviews.

Maybe PB should simply call what he does PBVT. :D;) Drop the WSL at the start... it is not so certain. :D

Wrong thinking bpwt , Philipp knows the redundant aspects of the system. Iow what guys try to use and fail in fighting because they don't know what to go to war with and what was just to prepare them for combat.
Ving Tsun is like an apparently innocent iceberg floating still in the water , its what you don't see that gets you. Equally many try to copy the small part of the iceberg they can see.

LFJ

08-22-2013, 07:28 AM

Philipp also explains tan the wsl showed in seminars, but he also explains the adaptation wsl made to use tan against a CLF fighter. Iow tan is primarily a striking concept position as mentioned, but when facing a wide arcing punch in a fight WSL moved himself to the arm of the CLF fighter while using tan to move to the arm too ....iow he didn't stand and pivot ( as seen in clip ) he moves AT THE ARM.

As seen in what clip?

In the clip I posted he makes a point of not standing and pivoting or whatever, but moving into the opponent's body to shut down the round punch in it's infancy. It's not just turning into the arm (chasing arms), but into the center of mass and power source of the opponent's punch. He also shows how it is moving straight in on the dummy.

Here it is again at about 14:05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nGwcE5B5A

Here is DP showing it in the exact same way, yet this is a video Graham said shows impractical nonsense which will get your nose broken!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSQgTu-v6EE

Anyway, I'm glad you can clarify that PB teaches it too. Apparently, Graham needs more class time, as I suspected! He's really misrepresenting his sifu.

What you need to maintain is the PRIMARY function of tan. The primary function and thinking of bong etc. if you don't have clarity of function you start in a confused state. Iow pb says bong is part of a striking attack but if one saw a wall behind an opponent one could use it to push ! Crazy herecy ; ) BUT you need to know that's NOT how we use it to fight primarily, primarily.

Exactly. We all in WSLVT know that. But it is a part of WSL's teaching and is there for a valid reason. Yet, your friend Graham said it simply doesn't work and will get you a broken nose. He should go tell that to PB and break his nose with a round punch!

Graham H

08-22-2013, 07:48 AM

Exactly. We all in WSLVT know that. But it is a part of WSL's teaching and is there for a valid reason. Yet, your friend Graham said it simply doesn't work and will get you a broken nose. He should go tell that to PB and break his nose with a round punch!

Philipp explains the problem of using Tan Sau to defend against an arcing punch. The problem is that in order for it to stop the punch it has to make contact with the arm in a very specific position and because of the attackers elbow joint there is still a good chance you will be hit. He also says that in a real fight there is no time to guarantee you are going to get it right.
The other problem is the following punches. If you go to the arm and another punch follows quickly then you are in danger. He said that the idea of Tan Da is too 50/50 so the risk of getting a smack in the head is too high. He also shows the problem with Wing Chun lineages that use Tan Da to block two hooks. It means you have to pivot on the spot and there is not LSJC. If the attacker is lunging at you, you will get hit or pushed over.
Another problem is the speed at which a good puncher can throw a hook. There is no time to have any funny ideas about blocking BUT and its a big but if somebody uses it and it works then great.

I have not used Tan Da in 5 years and I am yet to find somebody that can use it against my hook. Inside the Kung Fu school when you know your opponent isn't going to break your jaw and, like some people, you ask for a certain type of punch to be thrown so you can defend against it then you can make Tan Da work all day long.

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 08:01 AM

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 08:05 AM

Philipp explains the problem of using Tan Sau to defend against an arcing punch. The problem is that in order for it to stop the punch it has to make contact with the arm in a very specific position and because of the attackers elbow joint there is still a good chance you will be hit. He also says that in a real fight there is no time to guarantee you are going to get it right.
The other problem is the following punches. If you go to the arm and another punch follows quickly then you are in danger. He said that the idea of Tan Da is too 50/50 so the risk of getting a smack in the head is too high. He also shows the problem with Wing Chun lineages that use Tan Da to block two hooks. It means you have to pivot on the spot and there is not LSJC. If the attacker is lunging at you, you will get hit or pushed over.
Another problem is the speed at which a good puncher can throw a hook. There is no time to have any funny ideas about blocking BUT and its a big but if somebody uses it and it works then great.

I have not used Tan Da in 5 years and I am yet to find somebody that can use it against my hook. Inside the Kung Fu school when you know your opponent isn't going to break your jaw and, like some people, you ask for a certain type of punch to be thrown so you can defend against it then you can make Tan Da work all day long.

Agree , pb also mentions the force distribution of tan blocking 70% forwards takes away and leaves 30% to punch : /
I had " many " fights never used tan. Used with friends and they fractured my nose. Friends ! ; )

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 08:14 AM

As seen in what clip?

In the clip I posted he makes a point of not standing and pivoting or whatever, but moving into the opponent's body to shut down the round punch in it's infancy. It's not just turning into the arm (chasing arms), but into the center of mass and power source of the opponent's punch. He also shows how it is moving straight in on the dummy.

Here it is again at about 14:05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-nGwcE5B5A

Here is DP showing it in the exact same way, yet this is a video Graham said shows impractical nonsense which will get your nose broken!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSQgTu-v6EE

Anyway, I'm glad you can clarify that PB teaches it too. Apparently, Graham needs more class time, as I suspected! He's really misrepresenting his sifu.

Exactly. We all in WSLVT know that. But it is a part of WSL's teaching and is there for a valid reason. Yet, your friend Graham said it simply doesn't work and will get you a broken nose. He should go tell that to PB and break his nose with a round punch!

Agree on the first paragraph, might sound like I meant otherwise. But the idea is to cut the way, not directly into the pocket. Tan as a block is adapting not primary. I face boxers on a daily basis, I don't use tan sao except as my punching, it always works. Mainly because my primary ideas involve angling and striking with movement that prevents me being put into static pose offs like a demo ; ) and telepathy still isn't part of my repertoire. : )
Yes tan as a fixed long term approach to dealing with hooks round punches and standing still pivoting etc are bad ideas.
WSL referred to this type of thinking like being in water fights regularly.
You might pivot and rotate and block water sometimes but FIGHTING constantly using this approach and you will get wet. VT is being like water.
I am sure we agree in more than we disagree but without hands on it difficult.

Graham H

08-22-2013, 08:22 AM

Agree , pb also mentions the force distribution of tan blocking 70% forwards takes away and leaves 30% to punch : /
I had " many " fights never used tan. Used with friends and they fractured my nose. Friends ! ; )

Yes using Tan Sau to block punches is a foolish idea so after 8 years of trying to make that work when PB told me that using Tan that way is stupid and Tan actually trains your punch I was a little taken back. In fact I didn't really understand it at first because I hadn't been exposed to it. I was lucky to have it explained in person because if it had been explained via the written word I would not have fully understood how Tan Sau and Fook Sau form the basis of the whole punching strategy in Ving Tsun. Before Tan was for blocking hooks and Fook Sau was for controlling arms in chi sau. I always wondered why that sh1t didn't work :D

@LFJ I also asked why I never see this in WSL videos :)

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 08:30 AM

Yes using Tan Sau to block punches is a foolish idea so after 8 years of trying to make that work when PB told me that using Tan that way is stupid and Tan actually trains your punch I was a little taken back. In fact I didn't really understand it at first because I hadn't been exposed to it. I was lucky to have it explained in person because if it had been explained via the written word I would not have fully understood how Tan Sau and Fook Sau form the basis of the whole punching strategy in Ving Tsun. Before Tan was for blocking hooks and Fook Sau was for controlling arms in chi sau. I always wondered why that sh1t didn't work :D

@LFJ I also asked why I never see this in WSL videos :)

Me too , until I met pb NOBODY explains it this way. Not like he took stuff away and discarded it , he carries it ALL like a human vt sponge. ; )

LFJ

08-22-2013, 08:30 AM

@Graham

That must have been because you were learning with CP, who seems to have learned most of his stuff from video or something, because he doesn't even form the correct shapes and basic actions properly in SNT.

But in my experience, I'm learning what you guys call the "primary function" of taan, bong, and fuk-sau, but also the expansions that WSL taught, which you guys seem to disagree with or at least restrict yourselves from thinking.

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 08:37 AM

Another less known idea is tactical approach. Why don't I want to use tan, what do I gain by letting punches pass as I adopt angles to counter easily. If I do counter angle, what drills develop my ability to ko the guy in the same timing and never worrying about tan block ( bs ; ) ) ?
If I use arms to pivot and stand in front of a guy turning to block its like being a sitting target helping guys hit with their other hand as you stop their previous attempts. If they add simple boxers head slips your done !

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 09:22 AM

Wayfaring

08-22-2013, 10:46 AM

Philipp explains the problem of using Tan Sau to defend against an arcing punch. The problem is that in order for it to stop the punch it has to make contact with the arm in a very specific position and because of the attackers elbow joint there is still a good chance you will be hit. He also says that in a real fight there is no time to guarantee you are going to get it right.
The other problem is the following punches. If you go to the arm and another punch follows quickly then you are in danger. He said that the idea of Tan Da is too 50/50 so the risk of getting a smack in the head is too high. He also shows the problem with Wing Chun lineages that use Tan Da to block two hooks. It means you have to pivot on the spot and there is not LSJC. If the attacker is lunging at you, you will get hit or pushed over.
Another problem is the speed at which a good puncher can throw a hook. There is no time to have any funny ideas about blocking BUT and its a big but if somebody uses it and it works then great.

I have not used Tan Da in 5 years and I am yet to find somebody that can use it against my hook. Inside the Kung Fu school when you know your opponent isn't going to break your jaw and, like some people, you ask for a certain type of punch to be thrown so you can defend against it then you can make Tan Da work all day long.

Sure. Biu da IMO. Not rocket science. And PB is not the only rocket engineer.

Graham H

08-22-2013, 11:06 AM

Sure. Biu da IMO. Not rocket science. And PB is not the only rocket engineer.

Biu Da ? :D :D :eek::eek:

guy b.

08-22-2013, 11:36 AM

Wayfaring

08-22-2013, 11:42 AM

Biu Da ? :D :D :eek::eek:

Against a round punch or hook, yes. Or be out of the way.

But I'm not going to make faces at you - this isn't a dating site.

guy b.

08-22-2013, 11:43 AM

Why should anything come back to my experience? The information and evidence is there for anyone to examine. I'm only presenting it. I'm defending against the claim that WSL didn't teach certain things and that such things are nonsense in his view.

It is necessary to know who you learned from and how long you learned to ascertain your knowledge of WSL VT. You keep claiming that "all" WSL 1st generation guys do it your way. This is blatant BS. You can't know this unless you are someone very well known. And you aren't.

I think at this point my argument has been solidly presented with plenty of supporting evidence to defend it, while on the other side, the side that claims WSL didn't teach these things, which is actually the prosecution here, has really presented nothing but an appeal to the ultimate authority, PB.

Look, I really want you to persue this argument because it is interesting but you are just getting into the realms of trolling here. You say video proves your point. The PB guys have a convincing answer to this. But you just keep repeating the same thing over and over. It is necessary to know what you learned and who you learned it from to go forward.

As I said, I can't think of a member of the WSL Student Association that disagrees on LSJC or taan-sau. That's a whole list of 1st gen. students including senior coaches at WSL's HK school. Then of course the video footage and interview quotes from WSL himself, yet to be even logically refuted!

You are claiming to be a student of all members of the WSL student association? I don't think so.

Many 1st generation WSL students have Facebook accounts. They can be contacted anytime. Or catch them all in one place at the next WSLVT Worldwide Fellowship Gathering. Sure they all bring personal flavor to what they do as a result of their different personalities, physiques, unique talents, etc.. But they all agree on the foundational teachings they received from WSL.

You can only speak for the one or ones you have personally learned from. Who are they?

BPWT

08-22-2013, 01:34 PM

Lol you can't learn WSL VT from video, which is what most of you guys seem to be trying to do.

I'm not trying to learn WSL VT at all. I'm not looking to train the art via that lineage. But I'm always interested to see people from other lineages and think about what they do, and why.

And yes, what you can learn from a video is, of course, limited. That said, if someone on video explains something nice and clearly, then you don't necessarily have to be there, in person, to hear the same thing.

If someone says there are three Tan Sau motions in SNT... well, that is quite plain and straight forward, no? WSL is saying there are three tan motions in SNT.

Graham says "No, there isn't." I guess because PB told him this. It is normal for people to then draw the conclusion that PB does not subscribe to what WSL said.

If DP talks about springy, forward force in Chi Sau (as he did in his recent WCI article), and in that article talks about the need for stick (but why stick is not necessarily 'chasing hands'), that is also quite clear.

(DP writes well and is very easy to understand - I just wish he would stop CAPITALIZING important words). :)

Edit: Just to have a bit of a rant, anyone else find Wing Chun Illustrated a little frustrating? Articles that are way too generic, and, dare I say it, more material on the WSL method than anything else. Fairly nice layouts from their DTP guy, but often badly written articles (no editing from the editorial team, I fear). Can't bring myself to subscribe to it - just make occasional downloads. DP's articles are usually good. Rant over.

KPM

08-22-2013, 05:06 PM

Yes there is only one Tan Sau. It trains the punch. Yes WSL did show various uses of Tan Sau in seminars. Yes PB does not teach what WSL shows in the videos of seminars.

I've recently been reviewing some of my WCK resources. I've watched my DVDs of both Gary Lam and David Petersen presenting the SNT form. Both were done in a seminar format, but for their own students and the sake of filming. Both talked about the three Tan Saus in the SNT form. So you want us to believe that:

1. There is a grand conspiracy amongst WSL's direct students to teach a somehow "substandard" version of his WCK to public students.

Or

2. GL and DP learned a substandard version of WCK from WSL, and only PB learned the "right" way.

versus the more logical and apparent conclusion:

3. PB is a little different in what he teaches compared to what WSL taught.

I think I will stick with #3, despite what you keep saying, simply because you have provided no reason to believe anything else.

Don't get me wrong. I would never dream of suggesting that PB is lying. I think it is more likely that his seminar students have misinterpreted his intent. When he says he teaches exactly what WSL taught, I believe him. WCK is based upon concepts. One can take the concepts taught by one's teacher and apply them with your own interpretation or understanding and STILL be teaching what your teacher taught you...as long as it doesn't violate the concept behind it. Teaching exactly what your teacher taught does not necessarily mean you are copying his movement or curriculum move for move. WCK allows room for individual expression. "Be Wing Chun's master, not its slave."

k gledhill

08-22-2013, 07:14 PM

I've recently been reviewing some of my WCK resources. I've watched my DVDs of both Gary Lam and David Petersen presenting the SNT form. Both were done in a seminar format, but for their own students and the sake of filming. Both talked about the three Tan Saus in the SNT form. So you want us to believe that:

1. There is a grand conspiracy amongst WSL's direct students to teach a somehow "substandard" version of his WCK to public students.

Or

2. GL and DP learned a substandard version of WCK from WSL, and only PB learned the "right" way.

versus the more logical and apparent conclusion:

3. PB is a little different in what he teaches compared to what WSL taught.

I think I will stick with #3, despite what you keep saying, simply because you have provided no reason to believe anything else.

Don't get me wrong. I would never dream of suggesting that PB is lying. I think it is more likely that his seminar students have misinterpreted his intent. When he says he teaches exactly what WSL taught, I believe him. WCK is based upon concepts. One can take the concepts taught by one's teacher and apply them with your own interpretation or understanding and STILL be teaching what your teacher taught you...as long as it doesn't violate the concept behind it. Teaching exactly what your teacher taught does not necessarily mean you are copying his movement or curriculum move for move. WCK allows room for individual expression. "Be Wing Chun's master, not its slave."

It's best to be informed not opinionated.