Lau Gar

Hi Tau

An interesting series of questions.  I'm not a Lau Gar guy, but I have a few observations.

Did Vince have a complete grasp of the system, or were things witheld from him?

I think things are always witheld in training, and not necessarily deliberately.  There is always a wealth of difference between the knowledge depth/breadth of the teacher and the syllabus.  That doesn't necessarily mean that Vince didn't have a complete grasp of the system, because the system per se is not necessarily the sum of the teacher's knowledge but what the teacher chooses to teach.  In addition any experienced student will do their own training, draw their own conclusions, adapt their own approaches and so forth.

Did he start making modifications even before splitting from the association?

He may well have, but I dpubt they would have deviated significantly from the established line while he was still teaching under the same banner.  Over the years, as my own syllabus has changed, I've generally trialled things in my own training for quite a while before trialling them with students and then adding them to the syllabus.

Given that he split from them twenty-one years ago, have they continued to evolve the style? Was Vince therefore essentially caught in a timewarp of teaching what he knew at the time? I certainly hope that the style has evolved.

It would be very unusual for someone not to change the way they teach or present the syllabus over 20 years.  

nice post and it bings another question to mind

at what point if ever show we be encouraged to vary our style to suit ourselves, i believe this was a common practice in tradtional martial arts but has just turned in to a time when people become masters becasue they are very good at copying another persons movements buthaven't put any thoruhg into it themselves.

for example, in ITF forms there are alot of movements that i practice differently now, i change the speed and timing of some of the movement and alter the heght of the kicks to more go along with my understanding of the possible applications. i would never teach that way of doing things though becasue it si not the standard that has been set out by the organisation. i thin some style are more open to interpretation than other, aikido for one in some stykes expect people to break away from foramal technique around 3rd dan but i think that is more to do with the philoshophy of aikido.

after the break i guess it would be up to a person to decide which teachniques they like better and if direct line to any sort of founder is more appealing to them.  I can understand both points of view, with some many charlatans around claiming lineage of secret schools and mystical teaching atop mountains it can be reassuring to have a standard international body backing a teacher up you know what you are getting and you can easily check out the style etc, but does that keep you away from a more progresive art as any changes have to be agree by committee and politics get in the way? and what happens if you yourself decdie to do something are little doifferntly despite not having a high grade in the specifc art

sorry for rambling slow day at work