POINT 1: Sifu Kan learnt the system in 7-8 years but his students are taking at least 20.
ANSWER: You can arrive at all sorts of conclusions if you compare apples with pears. Yes, VK learnt in 7 years but this was full time - 3-4 hours a day, 7 days a week. Few VT/WC/WT students can train like that these days. Therefore, 20 years part time is more like 5 or 6 full time. And people learn at different rates from one another as well.
POINT 2: He is only teaching part of the system.
ANSWER: This is just plain wrong. He WILL teach you the dummy, third form etc. In fact, some of his senior students ARE learning them.
POINT 3: Sifu Kan did not learn the entire system under Yip Man.
ANSWER: Also simply wrong. Just ask any of his kung fu brothers, not many of whom are still alive. Remember - most of the people teaching outside of Hong Kong started training after VK left. Ignore Rene Ritchie on this - he not even Yip Man lineage anyway.
POINT 4: He does not know the entire system anyway.
ANSWER : Wrong again. He offers courses and private lessons in the dummy, third form and weapons. This would be impossible if point 4 were true.
POINT 5: Because you never see any advanced techniques, he lacks ability.
ANSWER: As I may have said before, it not how MANY techniques you need to defeat an opponent, but how FEW that is a measure of true skill in Wing Chun. Do not misinterpret this as saying that advanced techniques should never be used either. You should do what is necessary to nullify what threat is there, nothing less, nothing more. This is a basic VT/WC/WT principle. Most people haven seen VK do any advanced stuff because few people have managed to pose a real threat.
POINT 6: He is ripping his students off by charging too much money and by teaching the
advanced stuff above Chum Kil privately.
ANSWER: His training fees are not excessive. He does now only teach stuff above Chum Kil privately, but so did Yip Man. People within the organisation reckon Sifu Kan should have done this from the beginning because such advanced techniques are best taught in a one to one context.
POINT 7: The title of Chi-sao?is unsubstantiated since it self appointed.
ANSWER: title was given to him by his kung fu brothers (NOT his students as one misguided soul thought). If it not true, why has none of those who trained with him complained?
POINT 8: His title of Grandmaster is also self appointed.
ANSWER: Which therefore applies to the Yip brothers, Leung Ting, William Cheung, Wong and anyone else called randmaster?after Yip Man.
POINT 9: He is engaged in a political war of words.
ANSWER: Unfortunately, Wing Chun has become very political as you all know and everyone seems to be engaged in that war, not just VK. The trouble with the politics is that if you state your case, you?e accused of having an ego. If you remain silent, then this is an admission of guilt.
POINT 10: He? got people doing stances for three months before they learn anything else.
ANSWER: If so, then I? training at a different school. I have NEVER, EVER seen this. Even in the old days when the training was even slower than it is now, this never happened.
POINT 11: All his senior students leave when they get to the dummy, because they can? advance any further.
ANSWER: Who knows why people leave? This happens in all schools. People? lives change along with their priorities. Others think they?e not advancing when in fact they are. It is simply untrue that ALL of his seniors leave. There are those who have stuck with Victor Kan through thick and thin and are still training under him.
POINT 12: He verbally abuses his students and has no respect for them.
ANSWER: I would never train at such a school. VK never shouts at his students or insults them. He does, however, correct their mistakes and it seems that some people are misinterpreting this as verbal abuse for some reason that is beyond me. It could be the old east/west cultural divide - the Chinese are very direct and just tell you what to do without all the strange niceties Westerners expect. I once knew a British man whose wife was from Hong Kong - this sort of thing nearly ended their relationship.
Of course, I? sure that many of you don? see eye to eye with me on the above - if so, let? hear why.
PS: VK is NOT guilty of the following: altering the system, owning a wool covered pension fund, acquiring the title of nth level of whatever, been taught secret foot work, death touches or other closed door things Yip didn? teach his own sons, or doing Kali, Escrima, cardio workouts or other non VT/WC things. What he is guilty of is demanding high standards and teaching quality Kung Fu. I suspect the latter is what is getting up some people's noses.