Central Line Bong Sau vs. Center Line Bong Sau

[guy b.]

I don't think you believe yourself either, but you already went too far endorsing this stuff to admit it now.

Exactly right. It looks like KPM started this support of TWC because he wanted to show you criticising "something you didn't understand", like he certainly does when talking about WSL VT. The problem is that TWC is so ridiculously basic and simple to understand in terms of its application based approach, that KPM just ends up defending something that is clearly nonsense while inferring hidden depths that do not exist.

[guy b.]

I'll say it again....you don't know what you are talking about. But you go on believing whatever you want to believe. It is pretty clear that you don't care what I have to say. There is obviously nothing I can say that will change your opinion because you are just looking for something to argue about.

If you say something sensible then people will care. If not then...

I am surprised you picked this variant of wing chun to use in an attempt to make LFJ look bad. It is a very straight forward application based approach and there is nothing here that is difficult to interpret.

[KPM]

I think we're done, now that your argument has come to the end of its road.

Its only to the end of its road because I'm done trying to discuss something with someone who really doesn't care what I have to say!

[KPM]

Exactly right. It looks like KPM started this support of TWC because he wanted to show you criticising "something you didn't understand", like he certainly does when talking about WSL VT. The problem is that TWC is so ridiculously basic and simple to understand in terms of its application based approach, that KPM just ends up defending something that is clearly nonsense while inferring hidden depths that do not exist.

Let me point out that I started this thread to show an interesting clip illustrating two approaches to the Bong Sau. Then LFJ criticized the footwork on the clip. So I tried to explain the T step and LFJ turned it into an argument (as usual). So I provided other clips to try and clarify what I was saying. So then LFJ criticized the hand techniques being used by Cheung and turned that into an argument as well. It struck me that he was doing EXACTLY the same thing he accuses others of doing when they criticize clips of Phillip Bayer. So I pointed that out. Its not like I had some nefarious plot to discredit LFJ! You two are quite the pair!!!

It should be clear to anyone following along, then neither of you really care to talk about Wing Chun, learn about other systems, and share what you do. You are clearly here simply to citicize and tear down anything that is different from your own Wing Chun. I asked LFJ to start another thread on a topic I thought people would find interesting and that would generate some traffic here and he refused.

So you just go on believing whatever you want to believe. You certainly are never going to listen to me!!!

[Happy Tiger]

TWC did not come from YM.



No idea what you're talking about.

Yes, of course you are right. TWC didn't come from Ip Man. However, most from HK who Trace their line by Ip Man who learned this variety must realize lp Man was well schooled in it. Un less theres truth to a theory I've heard that William Cheung learned it from Garrett Li��

[Happy Tiger]

Yes, of course you are right. TWC didn't come from Ip Man. However, most from HK who Trace their line by Ip Man who learned this variety must realize lp Man was well schooled in it. Un less theres truth to a theory I've heard that William Cheung learned it from Garrett Li��

my little soap box I've been on lately is that the older masters didn't bicker on Kung Fu tech the way we do now. GM Ip Man knew TWC, Pin Sun as well as the local street versions. However he showed little partiality to the various 'styles and flowed seamless from one to another

[LFJ]

LFJ criticized the footwork on the clip.

Actually, I was talking about the whole strategy.

LFJ turned it into an argument (as usual)...
...and turned that into an argument as well.

Realize nothing would turn into an argument if you didn't deny the blatantly obvious.

It struck me that he was doing EXACTLY the same thing he accuses others of doing when they criticize clips of Phillip Bayer. So I pointed that out.

Not the same thing at all. As I had to tell your twin on the other forum;

One can usually look at videos of TWC and know what's going on because it's a pretty straightforward, application-based system.

But since WSLVT is not, you can't often just look at videos of it and know what's going on if you aren't familiar with the system.

When someone like Phil R. does a video saying 'this is how you do this movement in the TWC form, and this is how you apply it against this attack', we can take him at his word. There's nothing else to see. Unless he is lying.

When, however, you look at chi-sau videos from WSLVT, without explanations, you can assume nothing. Actually you assume a lot, but you are always entirely off the mark, because WSLVT isn't the application-based system you're familiar with.

[wckf92]

...GM Ip Man knew TWC, Pin Sun as well as the local street versions. However he showed little partiality to the various 'styles and flowed seamless from one to another

This is an interesting comment. Would perhaps make an interesting thread topic?
How do you know this?
And what do you mean by "local street versions"?
And how did one man come to inherit all these versions? (perhaps through that Dai Duk Lan alley?)

Just curious. Thanks for any input Happy Tiger

[LFJ]

Its not like I had some nefarious plot to discredit LFJ!...
...I asked LFJ to start another thread on a topic I thought people would find interesting and that would generate some traffic here and he refused.

Sure, there was no such plot at the start of this thread, but there's no other reason to start up the same topic that already went 30+ pages on another forum where you tried your hardest to discredit me by dishonestly rewriting my position with absolute absurdities I never made.

And you're surprised I refused to have you do that again here?

Besides, that topic is wholly irrelevant to almost everyone else's current Wing Chun, and I don't really care what anyone else's opinion of it might be.

[LFJ]

TWC didn't come from Ip Man. However, most from HK who Trace their line by Ip Man who learned this variety must realize lp Man was well schooled in it. Un less theres truth to a theory I've heard that William Cheung learned it from Garrett Li��

YM never had anything to do with TWC. Cheung quite obviously invented the style, copying superficial bits and pieces from others.

GM Ip Man knew TWC, Pin Sun as well as the local street versions. However he showed little partiality to the various 'styles and flowed seamless from one to another

Come on, you're just making sh!t up now.

[KPM]

my little soap box I've been on lately is that the older masters didn't bicker on Kung Fu tech the way we do now. GM Ip Man knew TWC, Pin Sun as well as the local street versions. However he showed little partiality to the various 'styles and flowed seamless from one to another

And just what makes you think that??? Sounds like a topic for another thread!

[KPM]

One can usually look at videos of TWC and know what's going on because it's a pretty straightforward, application-based system.

But since WSLVT is not, you can't often just look at videos of it and know what's going on if you aren't familiar with the system.

.

Ok. I've studied Ip Man Wing Chun under Augustine Fong. I've studied Pin Sun Wing Chun under Henry Mui. And I've studied TWC. None of the three was either more or less "application based" than the others. I'm not quite sure what distinction you are really making between WSLVT and everthing else that is "application based." It sounds like a good topic for a different discussion. So how about you start another thread detailing what you see as the difference between "application based" Wing Chun and WSLVT?? Zuti jumped on that idea as well. So he would likely have something to contribute to the thread. So please start another topic thread so we can explore this idea.

[KPM]

Sure, there was no such plot at the start of this thread, but there's no other reason to start up the same topic that already went 30+ pages on another forum where you tried your hardest to discredit me by dishonestly rewriting my position with absolute absurdities I never made.

And you're surprised I refused to have you do that again here?

Besides, that topic is wholly irrelevant to almost everyone else's current Wing Chun, and I don't really care what anyone else's opinion of it might be.

Well no. In that thread on the other forum your theory seemed to morph and change somewhat as the discussion went on. You were somewhat evasive and non-specific in many of your responses. So I assumed the theory is a little better developed in your head now and you would be able to give a nice detailed synopsis of it...which is something you never did in the other forum. And given that the majority of people study Ip Man based Wing Chun, why would you assume your theory of Ip Man Wing Chun's origins would be "irrelevant to everyone else's current Wing Chun"??? I think people would find it interesting! The fact that you don't want to put it out there again suggests to me that you really don't have that much belief in the theory yourself. Or you really aren't interested in sharing ideas on these forums and are only here to criticize and tear down others. Which is it?

[LFJ]

So how about you start another thread detailing what you see as the difference between "application based" Wing Chun and WSLVT??

There's really not that much to it.

It's just; here's this move from a form, and here's how you apply it against this attack.

WSLVT doesn't do that. TWC does.

given that the majority of people study Ip Man based Wing Chun, why would you assume your theory of Ip Man Wing Chun's origins would be "irrelevant to everyone else's current Wing Chun"???

Current being the operative word. Most YM derived WC no longer functions in a way that would make this relevant to them.

I think people would find it interesting! The fact that you don't want to put it out there again suggests to me that you really don't have that much belief in the theory yourself. Or you really aren't interested in sharing ideas on these forums and are only here to criticize and tear down others. Which is it?

In this case, I really don't care what anyone else's opinion of it is if they don't even train something remotely similar.

So yeah, I'm not interested in sharing that idea. I only brought it up on the other forum because someone was trying to say YM invented his own pole form, which is demonstrably false.

[Happy Tiger]

This is an interesting comment. Would perhaps make an interesting thread topic?
How do you know this?
And what do you mean by "local street versions"?
And how did one man come to inherit all these versions? (perhaps through that Dai Duk Lan alley?)

Just curious. Thanks for any input Happy Tiger

Well
..One of GM Ip Man earliest students was a big talented pugilist known as Leung Shung. One of his last was a so called closed door student which we know as sigong Leung Ting. If you take a moment to view it from a anthropological perspective you will likey see they Were/ are doing VT in pretty well exactly the same way. Now I never had the honor of studying Pin Sun but it seems to have many of the points that define it to be it.