Some thoughts on application

[Ben Gash]

I was teaching last night and I've been thinking about it a fair bit today. I've always reflected on my practice, analysed it and looked for ways to improve, and sometimes this opens up new avenues of thought.
My class last night was fairly application heavy, and inspired somewhat by ideas in Ross' book intro in the MMA forum, I worked a lot on dealing with common street attacks (I always do this a bit, I just placed a bit more emphasis on it last night). Because I was working a lot on instinctive counters, body placements and direct techniques that put you in control, I found I was doing a lot of covers, overhooks, underhooks and standing grappling. As the session wore on, part of me was worrying that there was too much of a Sanda influence, but people (including me) were enjoying it, I could see they were picking it up quickly and there were some very useful skills involved, so I went with it.
As the class progressed, it dawned on me that although my left brain was saying "this is Sanda", my right brain was telling me very clearly that it was Kung Fu. It felt like Kung Fu, and it even looked like Kung Fu, so surely it must have been Kung Fu?
So I've been thinking about it today, and realised that what I did was what I've always done, and certainly a true reflection of what I've done in real situations. I've always done parry and cover, and I've always done underhooks and over hooks, I've just thought of them as soft blocks and wraps. Certainly underhooking has been a major part of my applications in-close for a decade, and overhooking for 5 years or more. See for me an essential part of Kung Fu is that it's a "hands on" art, it's why I switched from TKD and it's why I still love it today. Making contact with your opponent and controlling his space has always been where it's at for me.
So I thought about it some more, and underhooks and overhooks are both expressions of Chuen (threading) Poon (encircling/entwining) and Chum (sinking) , all good, solid Choy Li Fut principles, so therefore by definition they ARE Choy Li Fut. :eek::eek::eek:

[banditshaw]

I was teaching last night and I've been thinking about it a fair bit today. I've always reflected on my practice, analysed it and looked for ways to improve, and sometimes this opens up new avenues of thought.
My class last night was fairly application heavy, and inspired somewhat by ideas in Ross' book intro in the MMA forum, I worked a lot on dealing with common street attacks (I always do this a bit, I just placed a bit more emphasis on it last night). Because I was working a lot on instinctive counters, body placements and direct techniques that put you in control, I found I was doing a lot of covers, overhooks, underhooks and standing grappling. As the session wore on, part of me was worrying that there was too much of a Sanda influence, but people (including me) were enjoying it, I could see they were picking it up quickly and there were some very useful skills involved, so I went with it.
As the class progressed, it dawned on me that although my left brain was saying "this is Sanda", my right brain was telling me very clearly that it was Kung Fu. It felt like Kung Fu, and it even looked like Kung Fu, so surely it must have been Kung Fu?
So I've been thinking about it today, and realised that what I did was what I've always done, and certainly a true reflection of what I've done in real situations. I've always done parry and cover, and I've always done underhooks and over hooks, I've just thought of them as soft blocks and wraps. Certainly underhooking has been a major part of my applications in-close for a decade, and overhooking for 5 years or more. See for me an essential part of Kung Fu is that it's a "hands on" art, it's why I switched from TKD and it's why I still love it today. Making contact with your opponent and controlling his space has always been where it's at for me.
So I thought about it some more, and underhooks and overhooks are both expressions of Chuen (threading) Poon (encircling/entwining) and Chum (sinking) , all good, solid Choy Li Fut principles, so therefore by definition they ARE Choy Li Fut. :eek::eek::eek:

Good Post.
Sounds like you got a good program going on.
Do you also train for possible multiple attack situations as well within that format?

[gwa sow]

ya, there ae a lot of moves in choy lay fu that i have found very similar to a lot of mma techniques. Of course if your one of those people like "this technique has to be done exactly at 45 degrees and from a bow stance" you will never see them. i think that everyone should look and try to adapt what they are learning to what they need. thats how we have so many different styles. learn and adapt it to what you need. fighting is fighting who cares if you look like a kickboxer, or shaw brothers extra.

[Ben Gash]

I don't care if they look like a kickboxer, as long as they look like a good kickboxer ;) It's all these guys who look like bad kickboxers that upset me ;)
I'm not doing multiple scenarios yet, but it will come. One of my projects for this year is to develop a situational self defence programme as part of my classes, so it may come up as part of that.

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Of course if your one of those people like "this technique has to be done exactly at 45 degrees and from a bow stance"

Reply]
This is not really true. Every move has both direct, and indirect applications.

Direct applications are where the move is used EXACTLY as it is seen in the form. Indirect applications are where a slightly modified version of the move is used but you still adhere to the core principals of that move.

Now, since each fight is unknown territory, you are more likely to see indirect applications because you are adjusting to fit the situation at hand, BUT there will also still be another situation that will call for the direct application as well.