Ip Man Wing Chun?

[Graham H]

It's good that you are honest when saying it doesn't concern you. It shouldn't, as you have no way of knowing one way or the other. Yet you continue to talk about 'closed door students' (mainly referring to Leung Ting, I suppose) and say what they do is BS and that they (he) didn't learn much from Yip Man. Which is something you also have no way of knowing.

Correct but I listen to people with more know then you and I put together and they say the same things.

It's quite funny really. I had an feeling you would jump in at some point. I've no time to discuss Leung Ting. In my world he really is insignificant and has done more bad things to the system than most.

If LT was all we had I would not be practicing Wing Chun. Fortunately I am lucky he is not. He shines a bad light on Yip Man Kung Fu IMO

So I guess this is where the thread heads down so that's all I have to say...........

Ciao

[BPWT..]

@ Graham

Yes, people always talk, I guess. But if you'd grace us with a little more info it would be appreciated (rather than just issuing an insult and then leaving the thread without backing up why you believe what you believe).

Did you meet with WSL and he told you that Yip Man had told him that LT learned nothing much from him?
Or did you hear this from PB, who heard it from WSL, who heard it from YM?
Or did you hear it from PB and it's his opinion only?
Or did you hear it from other WSL students who, like PB, never actually met YM?

[BPWT..]

I've no time to discuss Leung Ting.

And yet when you come to the forum and post, you consistently make negative reference to him. You have no time to discuss him, but you seem to keep finding the time.

[LFJ]

Yes, people always talk, I guess. But if you'd grace us with a little more info it would be appreciated

Info one way or the other won't compare to a possibly eyeopening firsthand experience of the approach Graham feels is on a completely different level.

People will love and defend what they do all their life if that's all they ever know. But the people who have switched systems and share the same opinion and could never go back likely number in the thousands. I suppose it's possible not everyone will have the same experience and opinion, but that point of view will never be understood through discussion alone.

[BPWT..]

I agree, LFJ.

But Graham's talk of others being BS, and how he's heard this, that and the other about LT and what he learned/didn't learn from YM should at least be explained with reference to who Graham actually heard this from. Otherwise the only BS is that coming from Graham himself.

As Graham never met YM, and I doubt that Graham met/spent much time with WSL - I find it more than likely that this nonsense comes from PB (a man with a grudge against LTWT, and someone who himself never actually met YM).

I never heard that WSL and LT were best buddies, but they were both alive and learning from YM at a time that intersects. There are photos of the two of them together (WSL and LT) at events. LT makes reference to WSL in his books (positive reference to WSL's fighting ability), and there is (or once was) a WT sign above LT's school (hand written calligraphy) that WSL wrote and gave to LT as a gift when LT opened his own school.

It is not impossible, I suppose, but I find it hard to believe that WSL would himself have said that LT "learned next to nothing from Yip Man" (Graham's assertion, based on hearing it from 'someone').

[LFJ]

I don't know or care much about stories because they are just that. It doesn't matter who told what to whom. Experience speaks louder than any testimony.

The point is if someone trains in one system and then switches to another and finds it to be on such a different level that nothing in the previous system is logical to them anymore (an understatement), then this would only cause them to have doubts about how much the founder of the previous system learned. It wouldn't compute that such a skilled master would end up teaching something like that to their "last closed-door disciple" when what a previous student taught is on such a different level.

Of course this doesn't conclusively prove anyone's story true or false, technically. But it's strong enough for those who've had the experience to form very strong opinions. Until one also has that experience those opinions may not make much sense.

[BPWT..]

I don't know or care much about stories because they are just that. It doesn't matter who told what to whom.

Well, I think if I said to you that I'd heard someone senior in the YMWCK family say that "WSL learnt next to nothing from Yip Man", you'd probably ask me who said it. Of course, if it was just me saying it that would be dumb. Just like Graham is dumb for saying it and then not saying who he heard it from. Though I think we all know

Experience speaks louder than any testimony.

Sure, I agree. My experience with LTWT from Hong Kong has been a positive one. I haven't trained in every WCK lineage, but I know people (far better and more experienced than me) who have trained LTWT and also spent time with a direct student of WSLVT - and still carried on learning LTWT. Which is fine with me - just like it is fine with me that you train WSLVT, and Graham trains PBVT. My problem is not with who people train with... my problem is with Graham's lies.

The point is if someone trains in one system and then switches to another and finds it to be on such a different level that nothing in the previous system is logical to them anymore (an understatement), then this would only cause them to have doubts about how much the founder of the previous system learned.

Well, this is the eternal argument/debate, isn't it? All I would say is that Graham has never studied LTWT the way it is taught in Hong Kong. So what is his training point of reference when calling LTWT bullish!t? Is he basing this on training he's done with people who left the EWTO? If that's the training point of reference you are meaning, then he's sitting backwards in the canoe and paddling the wrong way.

I've never studied PBVT... so I don't call it BS. I'd say it looks different to what I do, but I wouldn't call it BS.

I'm sure you'd agree that Ho Kam Ming spent much time with Yip Man. But Graham and Kevin have panned Joy's Wing Chun. Presumably because it is not the same as PB's. What about Leung Sheung? Are people from his school training the way WSL guys do? They are not. Yet LS spent many years learning from YM. What about Tsu Sheung Tin? Many years with Yip Man - but his Wing Chun looks different to WSL's, no?

Would you question "how much the founder of the previous system learned" for all of these teachers?

It wouldn't compute that such a skilled master would end up teaching something like that to their "last closed-door disciple" when what a previous student taught is on such a different level.

But is it on a different level?

When we talked about Chi Sau and I said that in the LTWT system it is teaching us to strike and to control bridge work, for example, yourself and Graham disagreed. That's fair enough, as your WSL method sees things differently. But the definition and description I gave in previous discussions (from a LTWT perspective), the descriptions you disagreed with, fit not just with LT's understanding but also fit closely with what LS, TST, HKM, etc, taught/teach. They fit well with what Hawkins Cheung teaches, too. They also fit, often very closely, with WCK lines outside of the YM line.

They are all wrong? Only WSL is correct, in your opinion? What doesn't compute, to me, is that such a skilled master would end up teaching only one person the correct way. Or is WSL wrong and all the others and their methods are correct?

I don't like to think of any of those scenarios in absolute terms.

Rather, I would not say that WSL's method is wrong. It is just his method, based on what he was taught and how he interpreted that and then developed it - based on his own experiences and understanding. If you train that method and find it logical, that's great.

I'd say the same for Leung Ting, the same for TST, the same for LS, etc.

Of course this doesn't conclusively prove anyone's story true or false, technically.

Indeed. So maybe people who bandy around the word "Bullsh!t" when describing LTWT should not do so. Especially in Graham's case... he's never even studied it.

But it's strong enough for those who've had the experience to form very strong opinions. Until one also has that experience those opinions may not make much sense.

Well I agree. Again, until Graham spends some time learning the LTWT Hong Kong method, he should reserve judgement on it. If he were to do so (actually learn it) and then reached the conclusion that it's BS... okay.

I might not agree with him, but I'd respect his opinion because he'd actually be in a place to make a real judgement. As opposed to him listening to PB bad mouth the LT system when he, Graham, pops over to Germany occasionally to attend a seminar.

[Faux Newbie]

Kung fu lineages don't lend themselves to uniformity. Teachers cannot enforce norms beyond their own schools, pretty much, and that's not always a bad thing.

[Wayfaring]

Sure, I agree. My experience with LTWT from Hong Kong has been a positive one. I haven't trained in every WCK lineage, but I know people (far better and more experienced than me) who have trained LTWT and also spent time with a direct student of WSLVT - and still carried on learning LTWT. Which is fine with me - just like it is fine with me that you train WSLVT, and Graham trains PBVT. My problem is not with who people train with... my problem is with Graham's lies.

Far be it from any of us on the forum to cast doubt upon the supreme almighty enlightened master of the universe (or the whatever similar title bestowed upon LT as rank before he was forced to remove it due to laughter injuries ) OR any of his underlings with similar Star Trek like titles.

Now someone NEEDS to do a dubstep remix of the KK slow flow chi sau vids.

[Grumblegeezer]

Kung fu lineages don't lend themselves to uniformity. Teachers cannot enforce norms beyond their own schools, pretty much, and that's not always a bad thing.

Agreed. Unfortunately a lot of WC people approach the system more like a religious cult and can't accept different points of view. This is especially true when it comes to personalities like William Chung and Leung Ting each of whom made exaggerated claims and tried to establish themselves as the preeminent figure in WC (WT).


Now Graham might not accept this, but like many here I have been exposed to a few different lineages. I also had the opportunity to train personally with LT. It is true that he has made exaggerated claims. It is also true that he has some truly exceptional skills and a very interesting perspective which has contributed to the overall body of knowledge in the the "universe" of WC/WT/VT.

[BPWT..]

Far be it from any of us on the forum to cast doubt upon the supreme almighty enlightened master of the universe

People can cast doubt. But that 'doubt' (that is to say, the comment that "Leung Ting learned almost nothing from Yip Man") should come from some actual evidence, rather than out of Graham's arse.

[LFJ]

All I would say is that Graham has never studied LTWT the way it is taught in Hong Kong. So what is his training point of reference when calling LTWT bullish!t?

This is what I've been trying to get at. It's all about perspective. Of course from a LTWT perspective you aren't gonna say anything bad about PBVT, only that it's different than what you do. That's because it's obviously a good system. At most, people say it's boring because it's the same thing over and over. But it's the simple things. Simplicity is one of the driving principles. From a LTWT perspective you will think LTWT is good and PBVT is good.

From a PBVT perspective, on the other hand, just looking at LTWT is enough. I've pained myself to sit through a couple of those really old LTWT overviews/tutorials, and watched the chi-sau "sections", and everything is so far away from what I'd want to do, I couldn't make myself actually go join a class and go through the motions. My body and mind would be screaming at me, telling me why I shouldn't do it that way.

So it's all perspective. If that's all you know, of course you'll think it's great and want to defend it. But if you have a different perspective that perhaps shows why those things are "bullsh!t", then you don't need to go through the motions to form an opinion of it. And naturally you'll have to doubt its origin.

So I'd say Graham's point of reference is his experience with really, really efficient VT.

Regarding other first generation Yip Man students, it just takes a comparison of their systems to see where things start to diverge. As Graham said, there's a lot of similarity in the first form, but as you get further into the system things start to change, sometimes drastically. Some for good, and some for baaaaaad. Besides interpretations of BJ, we can take for example LT's knife form. It's the most ridiculous of them all. Even beyond Yip Chun's.

[BPWT..]

This is what I've been trying to get at. It's all about perspective. Of course from a LTWT perspective you aren't gonna say anything bad about PBVT, only that it's different than what you do. That's because it's obviously a good system. At most, people say it's boring because it's the same thing over and over. But it's the simple things. Simplicity is one of the driving principles. From a LTWT perspective you will think LTWT is good and PBVT is good.

I wouldn't say PBVT looks boring, but yes - I would say it looks "simple", as you say. Perhaps the most bare-bones VT. Simple is good, of course, but I think there is more to WCK than just this singular interpretation. And that's how I see it. PB's interpretation of WSL's interpretation of Yip Man's teachings. So yes, I wouldn't say that PBVT is bullish!t. Equally, something that contains simple but also has more to it than just simple, is not bullish!t either, IMO.

From a PBVT perspective, on the other hand, just looking at LTWT is enough. I've pained myself to sit through a couple of those really old LTWT overviews/tutorials, and watched the chi-sau "sections", and everything is so far away from what I'd want to do, I couldn't make myself actually go join a class and go through the motions. My body and mind would be screaming at me, telling me why I shouldn't do it that way.

Putting aside the fact that there is nothing online from LT that is very detailed or comprehensive (in the sense that what you see is just short, simple bits of seminars explaining things), and that I have yet to find a clip of the Chi Sau sections that actually - really - explains what is behind them, again... simple snippets; and also putting aside the fact that the sections themselves are just the beginning of CS work, they are a single platform.... I can see what you're saying. If your Chi Sau is not about striking with bridge control, if it looks to avoid 'stick', however short, and is looking to disengage and simply strike alone, then yes - I can see that your mind would be screaming at you.

That doesn't mean, IMO, that the LT method is BS. If you experienced it with a good teacher, I think you'd see that. It is indeed not as simple as the method you train and describe - I give you that.

And naturally you'll have to doubt its origin.

If this simple, bare-bones VT is your marker then I can see where your views come from. But by that token, this means that you are saying Ho Kam Ming, Leung Sheung, Tsu Sheung Tin, etc - people who spent many years with Yip Man - are also teaching "bullish!t". Hawkins Cheung... bullish!t too? Duncan Leung? Less time with Yip Man, but more detail than simple VT you describe.

As its easier to do something simple than something more detailed, why would all of the above people not train the way you describe? Everyone's WC/VT/WT would look like PB's... if this is all that Yip Man taught. Yet pretty much all lines from Yip Man seem to have more detail than the method someone like PB is employing. Your argument seems to be that everyone else is training BS, and only the WSL guys are training the real system from Yip Man. I just don't see that as logical.

What about lines outside of Yip Man, lines that Yip Man exchanged with? Are they bullish!t too, because they have detail in their approach? YKS and Sum Nung taught BS in their Chi Sau?

Simple is good. But that doesn't mean that something more complex in its teachings is BS.

[LFJ]

If this simple, bare-bones VT is your marker then I can see where your views come from. But by that token, this means that you are saying Ho Kam Ming, Leung Sheung, Tsu Sheung Tin, etc - people who spent many years with Yip Man - are also teaching "bullish!t". Hawkins Cheung... bullish!t too? Duncan Leung? Less time with Yip Man, but more detail than simple VT you describe.

I wouldn't exactly say what some of these guys teach is bullsh!t, but much of it is not so efficient. But look at it this way, the further along you go in the system the more drastically they all diverge. I agree with Graham in that this suggests they have filled in their own gaps.

As its easier to do something simple than something more detailed, why would all of the above people not train the way you describe?

Simple doesn't mean easy. To sharpen your tools to a high level takes a lot of natural skill and training. Many people simply lack the ability, or didn't get that deep into fighting to address certain issues. That ultimately affects their understanding of the system and the practicality of their fighting theory.

Everyone's WC/VT/WT would look like PB's... if this is all that Yip Man taught.

We know Yip Man simplified what he taught quite a bit coming from the mainland, and then even further throughout his teaching career in Hong Kong. It was a process of making it more efficient. So it really depends on what period a student was with YM, how long they were with him, how studious they were, and how much fighting experience they got. Those are a lot of factors that can lead to many different (mis)interpretations.

[BPWT..]

Yes, simple doesn't mean easy. But simple, with hard work, is easier than something more complex, with hard work. It is illogical to think people would lack knowledge or understanding and so make what they do 'more' complex and therefore more difficult to make functional.

The vast majority of YM's long term students train WCK that has more in common with each other than with the WSL method. Perhaps WSL chose to strip the art down further, to make it more easily functional.

But that doesn't invalidate a more complex or detailed method. Those with more detail all say they learned it from YM. I don't think that a) they are lying, b) they 'all' misinterpreted.

To add: Imagine the scenario. Various names train for many years with Yip Man, and all of them misinterpret the system, add to it and make it more complex, all somehow do so in similar ways (and in ways that have a connection to how other WCK styles do things), and at no point during all of those years does Yip Man (their teacher and a person they spent so much time training with) say to these people, "You know, you're all doing it wrong."

As simpler is easier to understand and use than something more complex, and as YM refined the art over time, this would mean all of those who learned from YM in the later years (rather than the earlier years) in Hong Kong, would... what... have WC/VT/WT that looks more like WSL's, right?

I mean, it is easier to misinterpret something complex than it is to misinterpret something simple, and harder to train it too. And yet...

Leung Ting's contact with YM was in YM's later years. By your logic, what he learned would have been the most stripped down and simple version yet. And yet...

WSL fought, and this had to have had an impact on how he practised the art in his early VT years (teens and in his early to mid 20s). But Hawkins Cheung fought also, as did Duncan Leung. Both of these people do things in their Chi Sau training that you and Graham say are misinterpretations. Elmond Leung, a teenager when he started learning under YM, went on to learn with LT after YM retired. He's never said that what LT taught was grossly different to what YM had been teaching him.