(Youtube) Variations in Siu Lum Tao, what gives?

[Tom Kagan]

Is this another case of "I see the differences as inconsequential"?

I'm waiting, Tom...

and yes, I'm waiting patiently.

???

If you are referring to something in my last post, I do not understand exactly what you are asking me to respond to. Or, is it possible you are asking me for a counter-rebuttal of your rebuttal?

Since I'm a little dense, could you clarify what it is you are asking me?

[Li Ma-Keh]

Mr. Chaudhuri, Thank you,.and I agree! Taking a 'seminar' doesn't qualify anyone,(in my opinion), to teach that material,..unless it is stated by certificate , and was a five-day , four-hrs. everyday type of learning condition!,(which 'most' of them aren't,..lol'.). Maybe Si-Fu Yee was just 'name-dropping',...because as I mentioned, when I finally got to see a video of Master Fong doing Siu Lum Dao,...it wasn't the same as the one he taught. So,..I'm just trying to search-out the possible lineage. Thanks again, Li Ma-Keh.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm talking about this:

"There are NUMEROUS differences in the TWC SLT when compared to COM SLT....many of which are much more than "superficial".

Here, try this one on for size: the three fuk saos come out on 3 different "centerlines" within the TWC SLT (see the "Lost Footage" video, Andrew, if you don't already know what I mean - although I suspect you do).

The first corresponds to the middle-of-the-body vertical centerline....the second corresponds to the chest/pectoral area....the third to the shoulder/armpit area."


AND THIS:

"Is this another case of "I see the differences as inconsequential"?

.................................

What is your take on the first section of TWC SLT - as I described it?

Is this just another case of inconsequential differences, Tom?

Or what?

[Tom Kagan]

LOL, I thought you were making a joke as to my clarification of 'sub'.

As I said before:

Truth be told, without substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria, it's all the same.

So, I think a better question is not what I think may or may not be inconsequential, but what proof do you have to suggest there is a difference which has meaning?

Whether you explicitly emphasize three separate 'center lines' in your teachings or just leave such things implied, how does 20-40 minutes of standing meditation to become aware of how much dust is collecting on your body change the nature of of the form? Assuming you believe it does, what criteria did you use to objectively measure the obvious difference in shape as they relate to real, actual differences in result?

[Matrix]

Whether you explicitly emphasize three separate 'center lines' in your teachings or just leave such things implied,.....

Tom,
Sorry, but I would think that this difference in concepts cannot just be "implied". It would affect everything you do, since the centerline theory is one of first things taught. Therefore it would have to be explicitly stated, IMO.

It would have nothing to do with shapes, but more to how and where energy is being directed or received at any point in time. If you see a static image of someone doing SLT, or even watch someone doing it you cannot necessarily tell where their intent is at any point in time. Is it at the hand, wrist, forearm, elbow.... ? The shape may look the same, but the "results" would be different in each case, or do you disagree? The results would become obvious once you actually touch hands with that person.

[Tom Kagan]

Tom,
Sorry, but I would think that this difference in concepts cannot just be "implied". It would affect everything you do, since the centerline theory is one of first things taught. Therefore it would have to be explicitly stated, IMO.

It would have nothing to do with shapes, but more to how and where energy is being directed or received at any point in time. If you see a static image of someone doing SLT, or even watch someone doing it you cannot necessarily tell where their intent is at any point in time. Is it at the hand, wrist, forearm, elbow.... ? The shape may look the same, but the "results" would be different in each case, or do you disagree? The results would become obvious once you actually touch hands with that person.

Fair enough.

However, consider this: You have nearly all these "concepts" simply because you happen to speak the same verbal language as whomever you learned from.

Are they still there and can you learn them if circumstance were different and you couldn't communicate with a given teacher on a verbal level, but only physical? If so, then yes, the "concepts" are implied - regardless of whether you were "spoiled" by speaking the same verbal language as your teacher.

Anyway, my point isn't on the line of what you are speaking. Sure, for the sake of argument, the "results" of which you speak may very well be substantively different. But, in the absence of the ability to not only demonstrate different results, but show they are qualitatively unequal, my conundrum I outlined still remains unsolved. Just because you touch hands with a person and experience a different feeling than with someone else does not constitute "proof."


To use example outside our style to better illustrate my point:

Archie Moore's "Dracula style" peek-a-boo methodology obviously has a very different look than Cus D'Amato's. Not only that, but there is significant actual documentation that the results of either approach are effective in a relatively controlled level playing field and the advantages and disadvantages of each approach have been pretty clearly mapped out over the years. Yet, are they substantially different? Not really. The factors controlling one vs. the other come down to flair, preferences and personal expression.

In western boxing, there is only one peek-a-boo - with people merely at different starting points from which to approach the problem. A duality - when viewed from the perspective of results - simply does not exist because the difference expressed in shape are not the actual nature of what it does.

[Matrix]

However, consider this: You have nearly all these "concepts" simply because you happen to speak the same verbal language as whomever you learned from.

Tom,

Actually that is something I've been aware of for some time. Words and phrases offer a level of abstraction that is not necessarily universal in our system. Even though we often tend think of them as such, we can see on this forum that we use common words to enable our discussion, but under examination we seem to have different understandings of their meaning. For example, chi sao; just look on youtube and you will find several different perspectives on what people are doing as "chi sao". In fact you could probably do that with just about any wing chun term you might want to examine.

Are they still there and can you learn them if circumstance were different and you couldn't communicate with a given teacher on a verbal level, but only physical? If so, then yes, the "concepts" are implied - regardless of whether you were "spoiled" by speaking the same verbal language as your teacher. .

I absolutely agree. That's why words often fail us. We get hung up on the lexicon and fail to understand the complete meaning. If this training we are all doing is nothing more than a lesson in vocabulary, most of us would have "mastered" the system a long time ago.

Just because you touch hands with a person and experience a different feeling than with someone else does not constitute "proof."

It's not just a different feeling, although the feeling will be different. It will be clear in that person's ability to control you and dominate the situation at will.

In western boxing, there is only one peek-a-boo - with people merely at different starting points from which to approach the problem. A duality - when viewed from the perspective of results - simply does not exist because the difference expressed in shape are not the actual nature of what it does.

This concept would just as easily apply within our style. Using chi sao again, different people at different stages of development/understanding have a more limited or more advanced ability to apply the attributes that are developed through this exercise. This would be true assuming that they all have the same broad understanding of the chi sao concept. However, if we have different views of what we believe chi sao is - even though we claim to use the same term - we should see very different results based on a very real duality.

The shape of things tends to be a big distraction for many people. I myself am trying to get better at looking beyond the superficial and focus on what is substantial.

[Tom Kagan]

The shape of things tends to be a big distraction for many people. I myself am trying to get better at looking beyond the superficial and focus on what is substantial.

Bingo! Now you see why I took this position.


Still, I will point out that "feeling" you are suggesting is far from substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria. To go back to Victor's example, hitting three separate and explicit "center line" points vs. someone else explicitly choosing one with the other two implied, or some other variation, cannot be equated to a substantive difference in result - unless you can measure such transference objectively.

[Matrix]

Bingo! Now you see why I took this position.

OK, so we're in violent agreement.

Still, I will point out that "feeling" you are suggesting is far from substantial and consistent documented evidence of a significant result difference between one approach and the other using independently verifiable and objective criteria. To go back to Victor's example, hitting three separate and explicit "center line" points vs. someone else explicitly choosing one with the other two implied, or some other variation, cannot be equated to a substantive difference in result - unless you can measure such transference objectively.

What are you looking for? Some peer-reviewed paper published in the New England Journal of Martial Arts? You've obviously devoted a lot of time and effort to your training. Why? What "substantial and consistent documented evidence " do you have that what you are doing has produced any positive result?

As for Victor's example, my point on that issue was that if you are going to teach 3 centre lines ( or central lines or whatever) versus one center line, then you have to do so explicitly. It cannot just be implied. I thought we'd already concluded that one.

[Tom Kagan]

What are you looking for? Some peer-reviewed paper published in the New England Journal of Martial Arts? You've obviously devoted a lot of time and effort to your training. Why? What "substantial and consistent documented evidence " do you have that what you are doing has produced any positive result?

Good question.

As for Victor's example, my point on that issue was that if you are going to teach 3 centre lines ( or central lines or whatever) versus one center line, then you have to do so explicitly. It cannot just be implied. I thought we'd already concluded that one.

I don't disagree, but that was not my point. My point was: to develop a theory (one vs. three, implicit vs. explicit, etc.) there is difference beyond an an inconsequential one, such a theory also demands a method to actually show a demonstrably different result when in practice - if, indeed, such a difference were, in reality, substantive. As I've pointed out before on this forum, the difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than in theory.

There is a a decent body of evidence to show meditation - a contemplative, solitary practice of increasing self awareness - will show, over time, a demonstrable increase in skill regardless of whether there is any tangible "cause vs. effect" direct ties between its practice and its result. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that one form of meditation is any better or worse than any other form.

[BTW, you may find it interesting that I have always looked at the forms as, first and foremost, methods of standing meditation. SNT would be an expression of "stillness". CK would be an expression of "movement". And, BG would be an expression of "dynamics" (intersection of of movement with stillness and other external forces).]

[Matrix]

My point was: to develop a theory (one vs. three, implicit vs. explicit, etc.) there is difference beyond an an inconsequential one, such a theory also demands a method to actually show a demonstrably different result when in practice - if, indeed, such a difference were, in reality, substantive. As I've pointed out before on this forum, the difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than in theory.

True, otherwise you have a difference that may exist solely for the purpose of making it different. Having said that, the 3 center lines issue is Victor's thing, so I'll leave that to him to explain.

[There is a a decent body of evidence to show meditation - a contemplative, solitary practice of increasing self awareness - will show, over time, a demonstrable increase in skill regardless of whether there is any tangible "cause vs. effect" direct ties between its practice and its result. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that one form of meditation is any better or worse than any other form.

Implied dust-collection not withstanding, I think that meditation has some real benefits. One form of meditation may be better or worse to the degree that the person involved enjoys the practice. In the same way that the best form of exercise for any individual may be the one that they will enjoy doing, and therefore keep doing on a regular basis. I can't think of many things in life in which there is a one-size-fits-all solution.

[BTW, you may find it interesting that I have always looked at the forms as, first and foremost, methods of standing meditation. SNT would be an expression of "stillness". CK would be an expression of "movement". And, BG would be an expression of "dynamics" (intersection of of movement with stillness and other external forces).]

That's pretty much how I see it too, but since we are both from the same lineage, I'm not surprised one bit.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"As for Victor's example, my point on that issue was that if you are going to teach 3 centre lines ( or central lines or whatever) versus one center line, then you have to do so explicitly. It cannot just be implied. I thought we'd already concluded that one." (Bill/Matrix)


***AS you may have guessed already, Bill...in TWC it's more than implied. The 3 centerlines are taught as part of the overall Central Line Concept. And regardless of whether or not one agrees with or sees the efficiency in such a concept - it must (or should) be acknowledged that this DOES make for a difference that's more than "inconsequential"...

an acknowledgement which our good friend Tom is dancing all around of.

But hey...what else is new?

(I've heard through the grapevine that Tom won a few cha-cha contests in his day).

[Tom Kagan]

Victor,


I'm not dancing at all. I am skeptical of your claim it's consequential. I have laid out a some ideas as to how you could put such a claim to a test and prove it is, indeed, a consequential difference. If you have an alternate methodology you propose to prove it is anything more than a superficial difference in flair, choreography, sequencing, level of practitioner, and choice of emphasis, then let's hear it.

Is there a shortage of new threads for you to basically repeat "Cheung style is the best" or what? Regardless, If you wish to troll me on the subject further, Bullshido's "Your Martial Art Sucks" forum is a perfect venue for your attempts to bring these arguments towards ad hominem. This forum really isn't meant for that. If you'd prefer, I can put up the first post over there for you to get things off to a rip-roaring start.


[For the record: I have never entered nor won a Cha Cha contest. For a very brief time in my youth, however, I danced ballet professionally.]

[Ultimatewingchun]

No one is repeating the "Cheung's style is the best" mantra, Tom...

and therein lies your error. You're responding to yesterday's news. Read my posts on THIS thread carefully, Tom.

[Tom Kagan]

No one is repeating the "Cheung's style is the best" mantra, Tom...

and therein lies your error. You're responding to yesterday's news. Read my posts on THIS thread carefully, Tom.

You mean read where you insist that what you do is substantively different (i.e. unequal in value to the other methodology), right? I have already acknowledged twice now the "difference in flair, choreography, sequencing, level of practitioner, and choice of emphasis". Matrix said pretty much the same thing with: "I can't think of many things in life in which there is a one-size-fits-all solution."

Right here, this is the crux of what you are saying: "There are NUMEROUS differences in the TWC SLT when compared to COM SLT....many of which are much more than "superficial"."


Okay, so you think it's not only different, but there is a qualitative difference. Well, unless you were trying to suggest your method was worse than another, what is it that you are saying?

What exactly is it you are trying to get out of me - other than, in your words, I hadn't yet acknowledged your approach has a difference beyond what I already acknowledged? [Victor quote: "it must (or should) be acknowledged that this DOES make for a difference that's more than "inconsequential"..."]

I can't do that because I don't agree with you. I am skeptical. (And don't get the wrong idea by jumping to conclusions I think the opposite, either, because I don't). If you want me to acknowledge your claim, I already explained to you some ideas you might need to try and convince me. I even asked you for alternative ideas as to how you see you might prove it objectively.

So, what's your problem, other than I good natured and lightheartedly tweaked you in the mistaken assumption you could take it?