WSL on LSJC

[Paddington]

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]

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

[BPWT]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.