If you are applying the principles based on your talent than it's pure VT as your actions are pure reflex-actions and how much purer do you need :wink: Just my 2cents worth 8)
To me this makes a lot of sense and with regards to WSL VT - the only person that can really claim their VT is WSL VT is Wong Shun Leung himself.
Others can claim to be practising or teaching VT according to the concepts of Wong Shun Leung (WSL) but only the man himself had WSL VT.
hi doug i cant tell you how many times ive heard nino say this!!!! honestly thats his way of thinking, and as he puts it " The only person qualified to teach WSL VT is sadly no longer with us, but i can teach you what i 'think' i learned off him"
It is ok to express oneself at a time when we have trained to a point where we understand what is laid out in the system. The problem occurs when we do not understand it through lack of knowledge. If this lack of knowledge is present it will lead to situations where other things are put in areas that have not been learnt in order to complete the puzzle. The truth is for those that were taught by WSL and those who pocessed the abilty to cultivate what was being taught these are the ones that have "pure" WSLVT and to them there is no puzzle. Its simple.
As a basic example many people argue the concept of the elbow. I have heard people with in our own linegae that say that we learn to bring the elbow in through SLT but when we undestand it we can bring the elbows back out again. This is pure bollox. We learn to bring the elbow in through not only SLT but CK, The dummy and the pole as well. Every action in VT teaches us to do things that are not natural to our everyday movements. That is the reason for the whole system. It teaches us a different behaviour for our bodies. A behaviour for fighting.
One of the reason for bringing the elbow in is because it allows us to punch freely and defend at the same time. This basic concept must have come from YIp Man. It must of come from WSL himself and it comes from my Teacher as well. Anybody on this forum that doesn't put 100% emphasis on the usage of the elbow have not been taught correctly or understood WSL. That is a fact. This isn't based on interpretation its based on knowledge. My Teacher's VT is as WSL's was. WSL's VT was as Yip Man's was. Their usage of the tools in VT might vary as every situation requires a different response but the VT will ALWAYS be the same. If it is not it will not work so it has to be the same.
I had a conversation not so long back with another WSLVT guy from a different organisation. He showed me his new way of applying VT. He was in fact making a wedge shape with his arms and the elbows were out. When he made contact with the arms (which is wrong) he said that the idea was that the other guys arms were supposed to bounce off this wedge and allow you to "bridge the gap". This was the biggest load of nonsense I have heard and it is not the thinking of WSLVT. Anything I read and hear that does not contain emphasis on the correct usage of the elbow, rotation of the elbow, cutting the way, syncronicity of movement, mobility, balance, structure, development of punching power I have to say to myself this is not WSLVT because this WAS the thinking of WSL.
I had another guy come to my school from another branch of WSLVT and he claimed that the stepping Bong Sau action in CK was an emergency technique to fend off surprise attacks. Then I had to explain to him what it was really for. If I teach somebody about the concept of cutting the way you can only cut one way. This concept goes against what most other VT teachers say. In fact they go in the opposite direction. If anybody can explain to me why this happens I would like to know. If you go the opposite way VT does not work and it will lead to error.
It is easy to see that the reason for the "interpretation" of WSLVT is because of misinterpretation and lack of knowledge. Not expression, not evlolution. If this doesn't conform to what Robert Chu says I don't care. Robert Chu is not WSLVT and I'm not Robert Chu.
My Teacher told me that when WSL was asked about his style of VT he replied that it is the style of Yip Man. WSL taught what he was taught by Yip Man so why does every other person in VT do it differently to WSL????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The answer is simple or at least it should be.
It is not a competition to see who is the strongest, who can beat up who, who can bench press 200kgs but there is an arguement about waht is correct and what is not correct and I am willing to argue all day long about it whoever you are.
Seeing as my name has been mentioned, and there are a lot of words flying around. This is my brief take, during my lunch break. As I have many other duties to perform instead of slaving to a forum
I am of the opinion that WSLVT will not be as it is with in 2 or 3 generations. Actually I have seen within one generation it has been tipped on its head, but this is not the norm. There are many good teachers of WSLVT, very few not so good
As for the elbow, yes for sure it is one of several important concepts to be understood and trained. But Sifu did say this time and time again the elbow belongs to the person and not the person belongs to the elbow.
Anyone that had met and chi saued (maybe this word needs to be added to a dictionary somewhere :) ) with Sifu, knew for sure that his elbows where not glued to the centre. It felt more like driving a bus, where he pushed and pulled the opponents balance, this to me initially felt like Sifu has telling us one thing and yet doing another.
From my own reckoning is this.
For sure you need to train the elbows to centre, but it is your elbow going to the opponent and not on the line. I for sure do not want to be tight and locked, but I need to be able to come back to the centre when need be. I can firmly remember at a seminar back in 1991, stopping everyone in their tracks and Sifu saying if you are so tight then how can your opponent in chi sau hit you, and how can you learn to defend
So what I get my beginners to do initially is to hug the centre, when they are more conversant, then to open up slightly, but slightly is the key word, so there is no muscular tension affecting the shape. But there is no wedge. Elbows in and down at all times when punching.
When you do chi sau with a beginner you can do almost anything, maybe even stand on one leg but your Ving Tsun theory should be able to hold true for an advanced person, not a beginner as manyn other WC do, then you will find out if this theory is correct. Dont just say Oh well because my teacher said so.I am up front with all of my students and tell them, maybe I am lying, go out and prove it. Of yet none of them have proved me wrong.
There is more to Ving Tsun than elbow,elbow,elbow, but yes this is a very important concept. Sifu did not speak like this exactly. I am not saying for one moment that this is wrong, as it is a very simple and effective way to get the message across and holds all of the concepts for what we need.
But WSL Ving Tsun was not the same as Yip Mans and I can only hypothetically reply as I believe WSL took VT the next step further. If you have read my previous posts then you would have noted this.
As for all of WSL students being the same, then I am sorry they are not, no one is. As all have their unique way of conveying the message akin to Chinese whispers. But the majority normally have a similar look and feel. I think I can say this with conviction as I have been there done that.
Your teacher from what I have heard is a fine example of WSLVT. I am not going to argue here.
What I said was about the punch, not about the verticle palm, please take note.
Obviously this is about the use of elbow in an intelligent way, if I kept my elbow in here when in on the inside then for sure I can be hit.
You have made no mistake/error, must a different mince on words. It is so difficult to explain the positions of WSLVT on-line. Better done in person.
Lastly whether something is directly of Wong Shun Leung's thinking or not, I personally will use it, if it proves itself to me. That to my thinking is progression and not stagnation.
That is why Robert Chu's motto:
"Let application be your sifu; let function rule over form." Is so important and in fact I suspect that would tie in very neatly with Wong Shun Leung's thinking!!
Good point Doug
Wing chun has a progression to take you from ignorance to knowledge - the forms and drills are the vehicle to do that - but some rules (like keep the elbow in and stay facing) are a stage in learning (i.e. teh beginners level), not the end destination. When you are at a high level you learn to express wing chun naturally. You dont have to have a pigeon toed stance, the elbow doesnt have to be down and in and you dont have to be facing forward. These are just ways to teach how to absorb force and issue force through correct structural alignment of your joints and not local muscular force. When you are at a certain level you can root from all angles and positions and you can strike in all different directions. IMO this is what BJ is really trying to tell you. However you cant start with that as the result would be a mess.
When I met Robert he told me that wing chun contained the distilled essense of all the systems he'd studied - its just less obvious in wck esp. since the learning progression has a different emphasis. Therefore many people never realise this as they get stuck in the form (elbow in, pigeon toes, facing, straight punches down the centre) and forget the function.
What is goog to see :?:
You must be a member to post in this forum