Nope. But that's not the point I was making.
Wang Zhi Peng talks about feeling force, changing force, borrowing force, etc, and then what you see him doing in relation to this on the dummy or with his student is not connected to his throwing and joint-locking skills. Rather, it is in relation to striking and the positions etc, are clearly VT.
Of course, to change force and borrow force you first need to feel it/detect it... and of course this is done via contact. But in WSL lineage you don't want to make contact, feel force, redirect force, etc, right?
The point is that Wang Zhi Peng is talking about doing things within VT (not shuaijiao or qinna) that many people on this forum say don't exist in WSL VT.
No mocking, tongue-in-cheek signature here... move on.
Like I said before it all depends on the contact the student had with WSL and whether he shared his thinking. Is that hard for you to swallow or something???
It would be the same in any skill learning situation. If the information is flawed or you don't spend enough time learning and exchanging then how can you expect to have the correct ideas and way of Ving Tsun?
Anybody can say they are a close student of WSL. Look what Leung Ting did with Yip Man. It's no different.
I understand, and I am not disagreeing. But you can surely see the problem? If you listen to what Wang Zhi Peng says, and what David Peterson says, etc, and then you listen to what PB says... lots of different opinions.
How do you know who spend the most time with WSL? How do you know who WSL gave the details to? How do you know who could best understand the language and words of WSL? How do you know that stories back-up by others are not just about saving face and maintaining nice friendly martial respect for Kung Fu relatives?
You don't. You can never really know. But some people, like yourself, despite the above questions, are more than happy to tell others that what they do is wrong, misunderstood, etc.
Can you not see the irony? You train in your method and enjoy it (which is great), but cannot comprehend how something different, might also be correct/right (even within your own lineage).
No mocking, tongue-in-cheek signature here... move on.
Yes very true.I understand, and I am not disagreeing. But you can surely see the problem? If you listen to what Wang Zhi Peng says, and what David Peterson says, etc, and then you listen to what PB says... lots of different opinions.
I'm not going to explain why again. Like you said...it has been beaten into a bloody pulp.
No need to explain again. But everyone thinks they have the secret sauce. If you met a current student of Clive Potter and asked him if Clive teaches good, accurate, comprehensive WSL VT, he/she would probably say 'Yes!"
Ask the same lineage-based question to any student, from any lineage, and you will hardly ever hear the response: "Well, I like what I train but I realize it is more to do with the abilities and personality of my teacher, than about it being accurate, good, comprehensive VT."
For example, I get the impression you cannot comprehend how PB might have missed something, not been taught something, misinterpreted something, etc. He's clearly very talented, but you can't know that he got the full picture (just like we can't know that David Peterson did, etc etc).
In short: There's more than one way to skin a cat. What's the right way? Many ways might be right - different, but right.
The only constant that is always wrong, always making a mistake, always getting things ar*e backwards... is Graham.
No mocking, tongue-in-cheek signature here... move on.
Yes.
I don't consider for example LTWT and WSLVT to be the same system at all. Even though both are generally called "Wing Chun" and have the "same" forms, their philosophies are so different they can hardly be considered the same art. What you do in LTWT does not apply in WSLVT. It is not "within VT". It is foreign.
My point is that some of what WZP is doing "within VT" is just as foreign as the shuaijiao or qinna he adds to it. Although it may resemble things from your art, remember, we (you, he, and I) don't train the same system at all.
Is he wrong? Well, no. He can do whatever he wants. Whether or not it's WSL's method is another question.
So, basically, I think that if your VT doesn't include ideas on how to: Redirect force,
change direction, borrow force, etc, then your VT might be missing something.
There's enough direct students of Yip Man who talk about these things to make it viable to think it came from Yip Man. Even with WSL lineage there are those who talk about it.
So if you VT doesn't have it... that's a shame
No mocking, tongue-in-cheek signature here... move on.
You never give up do you?No need to explain again. But everyone thinks they have the secret sauce. If you met a current student of Clive Potter and asked him if Clive teaches good, accurate, comprehensive WSL VT, he/she would probably say 'Yes!"
Yes a student of Clive Potter would think he was right until he met PB.
Yes but I chose to investigate. Many don't or don't feel the need to. I wasn't happy with my previous Wing Chun. I thought it was all sh1t.Ask the same lineage-based question to any student, from any lineage, and you will hardly ever hear the response: "Well, I like what I train but I realize it is more to do with the abilities and personality of my teacher, than about it being accurate, good, comprehensive VT."
I've yet to find something he may have missed. I'm the one that keeps making discoveries and the more I find out the more I stand by what I say.For example, I get the impression you cannot comprehend how PB might have missed something, not been taught something, misinterpreted something, etc. He's clearly very talented, but you can't know that he got the full picture (just like we can't know that David Peterson did, etc etc).
yes but when it comes to VT I want to know I'm practicing the best with no gaps and any questions or uncertainties. many of the explanations about WC on this forum sound like people are just fumbling around in the dark.In short: There's more than one way to skin a cat. What's the right way? Many ways might be right - different, but right.
If you say so but I'm yet to read anything you write that makes sense.The only constant that is always wrong, always making a mistake, always getting things ar*e backwards... is Graham.