Don't bother to read this

[roache]

Before the thread on "Seeking the Bridge" was pitched in the rubbish bin my classmate asked me a question. I respect my brother's enthusiasm and commitment to learning and I know him well enough (I think) to know he is a good guy and he deserves an answer. But since I don't really know who he is I have to answer here.

So the question was: Are you telling me you don't "rotate"?

My answer is yes, but not past my target and only when appropriate. (ymmv)
Now here is what might seem like the (really) odd part, as a teaching method I am o.k. with a school that teaches "rotation is a human error" because I have seen that it is apparently all too easy to do wrong. To say it "never" should be done is not how I have been taught, but I can appreciate the subsequent emphasis on position and facing. Two key components of good w.c. (in my opinion).

Over rotation of your body past your target, as well as habitually rotating with every motion, are mistakes that can be easily taken advantage of. Furthermore, my opponent's action as well as their inaction should be cues for me to strike. If I am always allowing their action to initiate my rotation I can quickly fall one step behind and be overrun. Rotation does have its place in our school, but it is not given a free pass either.

Now since we have all encountered the problems inherent in writing about wing chun, rather than hands on instruction, let me give only a very basic example of what I feel are some of the limitations of rotation using pak da.

Please consider:
How much can you rotate with pak before your punch is adversely affected?
How much can you rotate with your punch before your pak losses effectiveness?
If you rotate to the shoulder line with each motion how much of a gap in time between the (now) 2 motions do you allow before the whole thing losses effectiveness during the speed of a fight?

Obviously how you use pak da will depend on the situation and I understand there are nuances in describing a physical motion. But this is a basic example, only showing a simple limitation. There are others as well.

WC1277 I appreciate your efforts to share your understanding of Sifu's teachings. But to say "For us, we don't train to maintain square center facing" I feel goes too far. You have gone past your rhetorical target. And you may feel you have not been representing me or Fong, but by using an alias you are not necessarily representing yourself either. It leads to confusion, for awhile Joy thought I was posting as WC1277. So please forgive me if I felt a clearer distinction was necessary. I don't want to repress you, I am encouraging you to boldly state what YOU have to say. I hope you don't limit what you share because of me. I am barely here at all. Look at my post count (and I joined in 2002!).

-e

[WC1277]

Before the thread on "Seeking the Bridge" was pitched in the rubbish bin my classmate asked me a question. I respect my brother's enthusiasm and commitment to learning and I know him well enough (I think) to know he is a good guy and he deserves an answer. But since I don't really know who he is I have to answer here.

So the question was: Are you telling me you don't "rotate"?

My answer is yes, but not past my target and only when appropriate. (ymmv)
Now here is what might seem like the (really) odd part, as a teaching method I am o.k. with a school that teaches "rotation is a human error" because I have seen that it is apparently all too easy to do wrong. To say it "never" should be done is not how I have been taught, but I can appreciate the subsequent emphasis on position and facing. Two key components of good w.c. (in my opinion).

Over rotation of your body past your target, as well as habitually rotating with every motion, are mistakes that can be easily taken advantage of. Furthermore, my opponent's action as well as their inaction should be cues for me to strike. If I am always allowing their action to initiate my rotation I can quickly fall one step behind and be overrun. Rotation does have its place in our school, but it is not given a free pass either.

Now since we have all encountered the problems inherent in writing about wing chun, rather than hands on instruction, let me give only a very basic example of what I feel are some of the limitations of rotation using pak da.

Please consider:
How much can you rotate with pak before your punch is adversely affected?
How much can you rotate with your punch before your pak losses effectiveness?
If you rotate to the shoulder line with each motion how much of a gap in time between the (now) 2 motions do you allow before the whole thing losses effectiveness during the speed of a fight?

Obviously how you use pak da will depend on the situation and I understand there are nuances in describing a physical motion. But this is a basic example, only showing a simple limitation. There are others as well.

WC1277 I appreciate your efforts to share your understanding of Sifu's teachings. But to say "For us, we don't train to maintain square center facing" I feel goes too far. You have gone past your rhetorical target. And you may feel you have not been representing me or Fong, but by using an alias you are not necessarily representing yourself either. It leads to confusion, for awhile Joy thought I was posting as WC1277. So please forgive me if I felt a clearer distinction was necessary. I don't want to repress you, I am encouraging you to boldly state what YOU have to say. I hope you don't limit what you share because of me. I am barely here at all. Look at my post count (and I joined in 2002!).

-e

Emmet,

I appreciate your candid response and I apologize if I offended you in any way.

First off, I should of been more careful in my wording with "we" and it is something I try really hard not to do but do admit I've have slipped a few times. I also hope my response to you wasn't too brash, as once again, it's easy to mistake intentions in written words. So I apologize for that as well. I do wish to remain anonymous despite any of this "misunderstanding" and I think you may know why. There's many a "traditional" attitudes in our school and it's a drama I wish to avoid.

I do agree with you that "over" rotation is not a good thing. It's easy to dip in and out of a "topic" in multiple threads thinking that everyone has the same continuum of thought as you. I don't know if you've been following my posts over the past few months but my main message was with regards to "balanced" rotation. Even Joy, in so many words, has agreed by acknowledgement with many of my points.

I was speaking of Chum Kiu principles in relation to this as well. Every horozontal motion that goes to the left or right of target, the very next motion must come back to center/zero point. Every vertical motion that goes up/down must go vice versa in the next motion. Every rotation of shoulder side forward, opposing footwork must ensue. i.e. bracing. I spoke about it in the following post a few weeks back:

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1242617&postcount=1

If you read that you may recognize that drill that I challenged people to try. And you may also have noticed that I stated to "not go past your partners shoulder". There IS a limit of shoulder rotation Emmett that I do recognize and advise.

The reason I said "we don't train to maintain square center facing" was because, our system, the way I understand it, only does square center on first contact to "wedge". But once force is exchanged, it is of my understanding that rotation occurs or "chiseling". And yes, depending, it may flucturate back and forth, but it is of my opinion, that a lot more of our training is focused on this "chiseling" for a reason. "Wedging" is not an incredibly difficult thing to do in a lot of respects and has little to do with non-sparring chi sao IMO.

The other point that I probably didn't convey too well in my discussion with LFJ was that if you were to take a snapshot in time of "balanced" rotation and looked at the big picture, you would see that the positioning is of a square on stance but not necessarily in relation to the opponents center line. This is because the "attacking line" and "defending line" are relative to your own position and by consequence of keeping the rear hand on your "own" center despite rotation there is always a straight line to the opponents "central" line. And the "chiseling" creates this dynamic. For instance, I wedge into my opponent, there's a clash, I let him turn me, so to speak, so as to not fight the force, no further than his shoulder line. Momentarily, with proper balanced rotation and footwork, I am essentially in a forward facing position but NOT square to him. But since I "rotated" my shoulder side, my rear hand now has a direct line to his center(open or not) despite the non-square facing. The "attacking line". On the flip side, if I initiate the balanced rotation myself I setup the same dynamic but in reverse. Since every "active" motion has that side shoulder going forward with the balanced footwork every time the opponent tries to reface he's actually not facing you. He'll be "mirroring" your shoulder side forward. And if you lose your timing and he catches you, all that happens is square one, "wedging". I don't know if any of that made sense, as it is always hard to convey in words, but you see, there is very little "square center facing" going on in an actual exchange. And that was my point. And it follows chum kiu principles to the T. I think too many misinterpret sil lum tao to mean "square shoulder facing" when it in fact is just teaching to keep "your" own hands on center despite rotation. And "chum kiu" shows this as well.

Now to the big picture. The real big picture. We're obviously not going to be using chi sao in a real altercation. So what's the overall point? Of course there's many attributes developed but why so much emphasis on adjustment to attack center? What about if there's absolutely no arm contact? And most likely there won't be.

It is of my opinion, and an opinion that has been validated, so to speak, that by training this "balanced" rotation of the body with regards to facing, one is developing the skill to simply "face" quickly while maintaing a balance of attacking side forward, opposite side foot forward. That position delivers the most force and allows the most balance. Now a lot of people will look at that statement and just say "no sh!t" but those people also don't realize how hard it would be to stay true to that positioning with "every" motion in a real situation. You know the footwork Emmett and you know the jist of the rotation. Now, just connect the dots... ;)

[Graham H]

Can anybody decipher what the f*&k that WC1277 is talking about? :confused::confused:

[BPWT]

Can anybody decipher what the f*&k that WC1277 is talking about? :confused::confused:

Rotate when you you need to, don't rotate so far that it impedes your ability to strike (or over-exposes you), always return to the optimum point.

-----------

Over rotating, and/or over turning, is a common fault with every WC/WT/VT practitioner, regardless of lineage, IMO. God only knows I am often guilty of it. Not least because when you train with people better than you they will not only exploit it, but also position in a way that makes you do it.

[LFJ]

Rotate when you you need to,

WC1277 was talking about allowing his opponent to rotate him.

[Graham H]

WC1277 was talking about allowing his opponent to rotate him.

Yes and that idea is complete nonsense.

[Buddha_Fist]

I didn't bother. :D

[k gledhill]

Wc1277 is confused.

[k gledhill]

WC1277 was talking about allowing his opponent to rotate him.

Crazy idea.

[WC1277]

To paraphrase a regular used line from you guys. 'You don't understand the method'. I can only "try" to explain so much through words alone just as you. Often phrases are used thinking that others understand the context...

[Wayfaring]

WC1277 I appreciate your efforts to share your understanding of Sifu's teachings. But to say "For us, we don't train to maintain square center facing" I feel goes too far. You have gone past your rhetorical target. And you may feel you have not been representing me or Fong, but by using an alias you are not necessarily representing yourself either. It leads to confusion, for awhile Joy thought I was posting as WC1277. So please forgive me if I felt a clearer distinction was necessary. I don't want to repress you, I am encouraging you to boldly state what YOU have to say. I hope you don't limit what you share because of me. I am barely here at all. Look at my post count (and I joined in 2002!).

-e

So basically, in "going past his rhetorical target", he over-rotated on the internet?

LOL :D:D:D

Good times.

[KPM]

Yes and that idea is complete nonsense.

I don't think so. If I am "square on" to an opponent and in contact and he is applying force to my "bridge", I have several options. Some of them include:

1. stand my ground, brace and push back to break his structure, possibly taking a step into him

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

[wtxs]

Can anybody decipher what the f*&k that WC1277 is talking about? :confused::confused:



4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

Crazy idea indeed :rolleyes: Where did WC come up with the stupid idea of "using your opponent's force against him"?;) Close eyes - close mind.

[k gledhill]

I don't think so. If I am "square on" to an opponent and in contact and he is applying force to my "bridge", I have several options. Some of them include:

1. stand my ground, brace and push back to break his structure, possibly taking a step into him

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."


Those aren't VT options. Typical attempt to assign basic chi sao to combat.

[k gledhill]

Crazy idea indeed :rolleyes: Where did WC come up with the stupid idea of "using your opponent's force against him"?;) Close eyes - close mind.

You're on the right track but not the way of redirecting crap. Keep eyes open and mind will follow.

[WC1277]

Those aren't VT options. Typical attempt to assign basic chi sao to combat.

Coming from the man whose video examples are chi sao. And the one video, that kung fu quest one, that has "light" sparring that young man is trying to fight with chi sao as well.

The "redirection" in chi sao is for developmental to learn how to re-face with a balanced structure(if one trains that way). The application for when there is no arm contact is a "balanced" response to an opponent when you F up. Your chi sao partner is simply trying to force you to turn through contact. In a real situation it might be loss of balance, good footwork from the opponent, a nice solid hit, etc. Like I've tried to explain before, proper chum kiu rotation "sinks" the bridge with or without contact and works off of opposing forces. To know if one is truly doing it balanced without contact, one must "test" it with contact.

[k gledhill]

Coming from the man whose video examples are chi sao. And the one video, that kung fu quest one, that has "light" sparring that young man is trying to fight with chi sao as well.

The "redirection" in chi sao is for developmental to learn how to re-face with a balanced structure(if one trains that way). The application for when there is no arm contact is a "balanced" response to an opponent when you F up. Your chi sao partner is simply trying to force you to turn through contact. In a real situation it might be loss of balance, good footwork from the opponent, a nice solid hit, etc. Like I've tried to explain before, proper chum kiu rotation "sinks" the bridge with or without contact and works off of opposing forces. To know if one is truly doing it balanced without contact, one must "test" it with contact.

You're clueless, jaw dropping confused.

[roache]

I probably shouldn't post a reply because my brain is fried after weeks of overtime, but here goes. WC1277 I appreciate your attempts to clarify, but I think we might have to agree to disagree. Although, definitions might be the main contention.

When I say shoulder line, I hope we both agree it is not the outside edge of their body, but rather just inside their shoulder joint. More like 1/2 way from the centerline to the outside edge of the body. This is the limit of my rotation during practice. If yours is further, then try this as an exercise: rotate less, only to this "inside" shoulder line and notice the adjustment in positioning that needs to be made to have a clear line of attack. I think a significant portion of the time that you feel you need to rotate will be alleviated with a better use of positioning (and by significant I mean as little as 1/5). As sifu has said "Positioning first, before your hands" and "Position is never static/stationary".

I don't agree that our system only does square center on 1st contact to "wedge". Because I am constantly targeting my opponent's center and I want to be able to attack with either hand equally. For me, this leads to square body facing their center (of mass). I also dislike the phrase "wedging" as, for me and others here, it implies a disposition to arm contact. I just want to target directly with a clear line of attack.

I also don't think "chiseling" necessarily means rotation. Chain punches with a stationary body and chain punches with a rotating body are both "chiseling motions". Or in chi sau if you have 2 hands on the outside (hi/low fook) this is "chiseling" but you are not rotating your body with one side and not the other.
Anyway,
IF you do rotate, it is in your best interest that it is accomplished/accompanied with an attack. And the "return to center" should be an attack as well. [But, be careful as sifu has warned us "If you are turning your feet with every motion, like windshield wipers, you are stuck in w.c. kindergarten"] In a previous thread you describe balanced rotation as our bread and butter. I think striking to the center is the bread and butter of wing chun. If these two statements can mean or reference the same thing to you, then we agree. If not, we should agree to disagree. No biggie.
I do strongly agree with you in a balanced body approach to an attack. The body must back up and power what the hands are doing (Always).

The dots I am trying to connect are my center, thru a unified body, into the center of my opponent (no matter which way they are facing). Chase the center, not the hands. My hands do stay on my center, but I am trying to maintain a targeting of my opponents center. I want all of my motions to affect his center of gravity. I want to bring him into my strike or plant him in the ground while I strike. If I am not facing him, that process is slowed down. Maybe just a little, but maybe a lot. I'm a slow dude anyway so no sense in making things worse.

me go sleep now.
cheers,
-e

[WC1277]

I probably shouldn't post a reply because my brain is fried after weeks of overtime, but here goes. WC1277 I appreciate your attempts to clarify, but I think we might have to agree to disagree. Although, definitions might be the main contention.

When I say shoulder line, I hope we both agree it is not the outside edge of their body, but rather just inside their shoulder joint. More like 1/2 way from the centerline to the outside edge of the body. This is the limit of my rotation during practice. If yours is further, then try this as an exercise: rotate less, only to this "inside" shoulder line and notice the adjustment in positioning that needs to be made to have a clear line of attack. I think a significant portion of the time that you feel you need to rotate will be alleviated with a better use of positioning (and by significant I mean as little as 1/5). As sifu has said "Positioning first, before your hands" and "Position is never static/stationary".

I don't agree that our system only does square center on 1st contact to "wedge". Because I am constantly targeting my opponent's center and I want to be able to attack with either hand equally. For me, this leads to square body facing their center (of mass). I also dislike the phrase "wedging" as, for me and others here, it implies a disposition to arm contact. I just want to target directly with a clear line of attack.

I also don't think "chiseling" necessarily means rotation. Chain punches with a stationary body and chain punches with a rotating body are both "chiseling motions". Or in chi sau if you have 2 hands on the outside (hi/low fook) this is "chiseling" but you are not rotating your body with one side and not the other.
Anyway,
IF you do rotate, it is in your best interest that it is accomplished/accompanied with an attack. And the "return to center" should be an attack as well. [But, be careful as sifu has warned us "If you are turning your feet with every motion, like windshield wipers, you are stuck in w.c. kindergarten"] In a previous thread you describe balanced rotation as our bread and butter. I think striking to the center is the bread and butter of wing chun. If these two statements can mean or reference the same thing to you, then we agree. If not, we should agree to disagree. No biggie.
I do strongly agree with you in a balanced body approach to an attack. The body must back up and power what the hands are doing (Always).

The dots I am trying to connect are my center, thru a unified body, into the center of my opponent (no matter which way they are facing). Chase the center, not the hands. My hands do stay on my center, but I am trying to maintain a targeting of my opponents center. I want all of my motions to affect his center of gravity. I want to bring him into my strike or plant him in the ground while I strike. If I am not facing him, that process is slowed down. Maybe just a little, but maybe a lot. I'm a slow dude anyway so no sense in making things worse.

me go sleep now.
cheers,
-e

I appreciate your response and I think we will have to agree to disagree. And as you said it mostly has to do with definitions. I'm describing more big picture in my descriptions. Of course, there is always intention to maintain target and to make every motion a strike to center. I digress mainly with you in the wedging and chiseling actions and your intent to stay square shouldered facing "so as to use two hands equally". You should know that both hands always work together even despite rotation. And you should also know that you "hammer the nail" with your body when attacking. A phrase I'm sure you've heard before. Also, I think you're confusing "cutting" with chiseling to an extent. While they both are interrelated, when I speak of rotation I'm talking about where the force is to an extent that the cutting drives the rotation into the center. Not gentle chi sao play. As far as the moving the feet with every motion as WC kindergarden. I've heard that before too. But once again that applies to a kindler, gentler, chi sao, so to speak. Just like with the "cutting" there is a point to which movement becomes necessary. As far as, the big, big picture, all of this ultimately applies to a balanced rotation to reface and strike in a real situation when there is no arm contact and your opponent doesn't sit there stationary in front of you. If you don't believe me, you can ask him.

Regardless of anything Emmett, I appreciate you pointing out my choice of words with regards to "representation" and I'll make sure to do better in the future.

btw you do the morning classes, correct? I havn't seen you at the evening classes in ages.

[wtxs]

Crazy idea indeed :rolleyes: Where did WC come up with the stupid idea of "using your opponent's force against him"?;) Close eyes - close mind.


You're on the right track but not the way of redirecting crap. Keep eyes open and mind will follow.

Eyes wide open, but what do you see? In this case, your mind did not follow. Where is my reference to "redirecting" as you've stated?

WC is more than three dimensional, an concept many had not fully understand, the rotation which WC1277 talk about had little to do in the sense of your definition of redirection. I think it's more like spinning the arms of the turnstile, if you don't get out the way, due to the rotation, the next set of arm will smack you.

[tc101]

WC is more than three dimensional, an concept many had not fully understand, the rotation which WC1277 talk about had little to do in the sense of your definition of redirection. I think it's more like spinning the arms of the turnstile, if you don't get out the way, due to the rotation, the next set of arm will smack you.

Do you know of any videos that show your turnstile turning used successfully by wing chun people in full contact sparring or fighting?

[wtxs]

Do you know of any videos that show your turnstile turning used successfully by wing chun people in full contact sparring or fighting?

I'm not sure you are being an smart a$$ or just can't see the forest because of the tree.

Please go back to digest and at least try to comprehend of what WC1277 had posted.

[wtxs]

This video was found by Hendrik ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8V4KLReQ6o&feature=youtube_gdata

WC1277 - As in the video, you can initiate or be forced to rotate, either way, the counter rotational action can be used to launch an attack. Is this what you have in mind?

[YouKnowWho]

This video was found by Hendrik ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8V4KLReQ6o&feature=youtube_gdata

WC1277 - As in the video, you can initiate or be forced to rotate, either way, the counter rotational action can be used to launch an attack. Is this what you have in mind?

At 0.13 of the above clip, when your opponent uses his left arm to rotate your right arm, you can borrow his rotated force and throw a right hook punch at his head. Your opponent's left palm strike may not hurt you as much as your right hook can hurt him on his head.

[WC1277]

This video was found by Hendrik ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8V4KLReQ6o&feature=youtube_gdata

WC1277 - As in the video, you can initiate or be forced to rotate, either way, the counter rotational action can be used to launch an attack. Is this what you have in mind?

No, that is to the extreme, and while it could have it's place as a recovery, it's definitely not something desired.

While these clips below are chi sao, and the latter two not necessarily perfect, you may get a better idea on which I'm speaking:

http://youtu.be/sVl2JzhoDSQ

http://youtu.be/h2chOzs-2Xg

http://youtu.be/s5ey4JLuhQ8

[tc101]

This video was found by Hendrik ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8V4KLReQ6o&feature=youtube_gdata

WC1277 - As in the video, you can initiate or be forced to rotate, either way, the counter rotational action can be used to launch an attack. Is this what you have in mind?

That is not fighting or sparring.

[tc101]

I'm not sure you are being an smart a$$ or just can't see the forest because of the tree.

Please go back to digest and at least try to comprehend of what WC1277 had posted.

I do to care about arm chair musings.

I am asking if you have a video of this being used in sparring or fighting. Do you or not?

[WC1277]

I do to care about arm chair musings.

I am asking if you have a video of this being used in sparring or fighting. Do you or not?

TC101, whatever you and wtxs are on about, I don't really care. But ffs man, if you don't like "analysis talk", so to speak, then it's simple. Don't participate. Most guys on this forum have a good enough understanding of basic ideas to at least discuss certain functions, concepts, principles, etc. Even if there's disagreement. You're constantly on about "show me the video". Everyone should just start referring to you as "Cuba"! ;) How bout for once, you show us a video? Just paste a link of any clip YOU find acceptable. Then, at least, you have a position to stand on in this forum. Because right now you just sound like an overbearing conservative shouting NO by reflex.

[WC1277]

Do you know of any videos that show your turnstile turning used successfully by wing chun people in full contact sparring or fighting?

btw just about every major successful fighting art uses rotation of some kind. Regardless of whether you obtain your beloved video or not, is it too far a stretch for you to understand the correlation?

[KPM]

Those aren't VT options. Typical attempt to assign basic chi sao to combat.

Really? You're serious? :confused: Not only are those viable Wing Chun options taught in the dummy form, they are also options you see in just about any fighting method that features a clinch-like contact. Ever watch a UFC fight? You see these things all the time. One guy will overwhelm the other, one guy will rotate out of the clinch, or one guy will manage to step back and proceed with striking.

[k gledhill]

Eyes wide open, but what do you see? In this case, your mind did not follow. Where is my reference to "redirecting" as you've stated?

WC is more than three dimensional, an concept many had not fully understand, the rotation which WC1277 talk about had little to do in the sense of your definition of redirection. I think it's more like spinning the arms of the turnstile, if you don't get out the way, due to the rotation, the next set of arm will smack you.

Ah thanks for clearing up his intentions ; )

[WC1277]

Really? You're serious? :confused: Not only are those viable Wing Chun options taught in the dummy form, they are also options you see in just about any fighting method that features a clinch-like contact. Ever watch a UFC fight? You see these things all the time. One guy will overwhelm the other, one guy will rotate out of the clinch, or one guy will manage to step back and proceed with striking.

Good example

[LaRoux]

That is not fighting or sparring.

Not only that, they are done by a guy who doesn't fight or spar.

[k gledhill]

Really? You're serious? :confused: Not only are those viable Wing Chun options taught in the dummy form, they are also options you see in just about any fighting method that features a clinch-like contact. Ever watch a UFC fight? You see these things all the time. One guy will overwhelm the other, one guy will rotate out of the clinch, or one guy will manage to step back and proceed with striking.

Maybe in your dummy and clinching dhi sao.

[tc101]

btw just about every major successful fighting art uses rotation of some kind. Regardless of whether you obtain your beloved video or not, is it too far a stretch for you to understand the correlation?

No one is saying that there is no rotation at all in wing chun. However different people have different ideas of how to use it. My perspective is most of these views are arm chair musings of this is what I think I would do based on my forms and drills and not let me explain what I do in sparring fighting and how it works for me. So I ask for a video to see if I am wrong. I see that I wasn't wrong.

It's funny when two people argue about how things will really work in fighting and neither person is basing their view on their experience fighting.

Please continue explaining how you really know how things work.

[roache]

WC1277 To be clear I AM advocating moving the feet with every strike. Just not in a windshield wiper fashion. More stepping and bracing.

I also want to be clear that rotation is not the only way to generate force and it is not the only way to "hammer the nail". (although it is clear you seem to feel rotation is the "best" way(?)). The other way is simply stepping and forward step slide. If this is not immediately obvious please try the exercise below, and if that doesn't work ask sifu to explain it.

Even though I don't really want to be insulting, this painfully simple exercise will come across that way, but I guess I feel the need to be blunt. But, you have thick skin, so I think we'll still be good.

For this exercise I want you to stand in your favorite room. Now, without rotation, twisting or bracing walk straight into the wall. It may take a few times to convince yourself that it can involve the whole body and really "hammer that nail". And it may take a few more times before it feels "natural". But isn't that king fu training? there are no free rides. If it still feels like this action would lead to a kinder, gentler chi sau, try it faster and allow no hesitation in your intent.




The application for when there is no arm contact is a "balanced" response to an opponent when you F up. ......... To know if one is truly doing it balanced without contact, one must "test" it with contact.

I want to understand what you are saying, but I don't. Hopefully we can share ideas face to face in the future. Maybe sifu can help us both out.

And yes, I do the morning classes, because in the evenings my primary responsibility is as a family man. But I do make it to the end of the month seminars, May seminars and when my family is out of town I try to make it to all the classes (I was there last month).

We can be done here.

Peace,
-e

[GlennR]

For this exercise I want you to stand in your favorite room. Now, without rotation, twisting or bracing walk straight into the wall. It may take a few times to convince yourself that it can involve the whole body and really "hammer that nail". And it may take a few more times before it feels "natural". But isn't that king fu training? there are no free rides. If it still feels like this action would lead to a kinder, gentler chi sau, try it faster and allow no hesitation in your intent.


And make sure you post a video of that!

[WC1277]

WC1277 To be clear I AM advocating moving the feet with every strike. Just not in a windshield wiper fashion. More stepping and bracing.

I also want to be clear that rotation is not the only way to generate force and it is not the only way to "hammer the nail". (although it is clear you seem to feel rotation is the "best" way(?)). The other way is simply stepping and forward step slide. If this is not immediately obvious please try the exercise below, and if that doesn't work ask sifu to explain it.

Even though I don't really want to be insulting, this painfully simple exercise will come across that way, but I guess I feel the need to be blunt. But, you have thick skin, so I think we'll still be good.

For this exercise I want you to stand in your favorite room. Now, without rotation, twisting or bracing walk straight into the wall. It may take a few times to convince yourself that it can involve the whole body and really "hammer that nail". And it may take a few more times before it feels "natural". But isn't that king fu training? there are no free rides. If it still feels like this action would lead to a kinder, gentler chi sau, try it faster and allow no hesitation in your intent.





I want to understand what you are saying, but I don't. Hopefully we can share ideas face to face in the future. Maybe sifu can help us both out.

And yes, I do the morning classes, because in the evenings my primary responsibility is as a family man. But I do make it to the end of the month seminars, May seminars and when my family is out of town I try to make it to all the classes (I was there last month).

We can be done here.

Peace,
-e

Wow!

You're right. We are done here.

[WC1277]

It's funny when two people argue about how things will really work in fighting and neither person is basing their view on their experience fighting.

Please continue explaining how you really know how things work.


Not only that, they are done by a guy who doesn't fight or spar.

How would either one of you know that? :confused:

for the record, I've done both

[WC1277]

WC1277 To be clear I AM advocating moving the feet with every strike. Just not in a windshield wiper fashion. More stepping and bracing.

I also want to be clear that rotation is not the only way to generate force and it is not the only way to "hammer the nail". (although it is clear you seem to feel rotation is the "best" way(?)). The other way is simply stepping and forward step slide. If this is not immediately obvious please try the exercise below, and if that doesn't work ask sifu to explain it.

Even though I don't really want to be insulting, this painfully simple exercise will come across that way, but I guess I feel the need to be blunt. But, you have thick skin, so I think we'll still be good.

For this exercise I want you to stand in your favorite room. Now, without rotation, twisting or bracing walk straight into the wall. It may take a few times to convince yourself that it can involve the whole body and really "hammer that nail". And it may take a few more times before it feels "natural". But isn't that king fu training? there are no free rides. If it still feels like this action would lead to a kinder, gentler chi sau, try it faster and allow no hesitation in your intent.





I want to understand what you are saying, but I don't. Hopefully we can share ideas face to face in the future. Maybe sifu can help us both out.

And yes, I do the morning classes, because in the evenings my primary responsibility is as a family man. But I do make it to the end of the month seminars, May seminars and when my family is out of town I try to make it to all the classes (I was there last month).

We can be done here.

Peace,
-e

btw Emmett, you're not my Sihing, just so you know...

[LaRoux]

How would either one of you know that? :confused:

Because the guy who is demonstrating in the video thinks he would land fatal blows to his opponent's chest and kill him. People who actually fight and spar full contact know this not to be the case.

[WC1277]

Because the guy who is demonstrating in the video thinks he would land fatal blows to his opponent's chest and kill him. People who actually fight and spar full contact know this not to be the case.

My apologies then. You must be referring to the video Hendrik posted.

[guy b.]

TC101, whatever you and wtxs are on about, I don't really care. But ffs man, if you don't like "analysis talk", so to speak, then it's simple. Don't participate. Most guys on this forum have a good enough understanding of basic ideas to at least discuss certain functions, concepts, principles, etc. Even if there's disagreement. You're constantly on about "show me the video". Everyone should just start referring to you as "Cuba"! ;) How bout for once, you show us a video? Just paste a link of any clip YOU find acceptable. Then, at least, you have a position to stand on in this forum. Because right now you just sound like an overbearing conservative shouting NO by reflex.

Lol, exactly

[tc101]

How would either one of you know that? :confused:

for the record, I've done both

Sure sure yes anyone can say that just like people can claim anything. I know better because people with lots of canned ideas and theory like yourself never put on gear and bang. If they ever do they quickly realize most of their ideas do not work like they think they should and they also see that people with different ideas or ways of doing things are beating them like a rented mule. So they learn that there are many different ways of doing things and what matters is how well you can perform what you do not how your idea is better than the other guy.

[tc101]

TC101, whatever you and wtxs are on about, I don't really care. But ffs man, if you don't like "analysis talk", so to speak, then it's simple. Don't participate. Most guys on this forum have a good enough understanding of basic ideas to at least discuss certain functions, concepts, principles, etc. Even if there's disagreement. You're constantly on about "show me the video". Everyone should just start referring to you as "Cuba"! ;) How bout for once, you show us a video? Just paste a link of any clip YOU find acceptable. Then, at least, you have a position to stand on in this forum. Because right now you just sound like an overbearing conservative shouting NO by reflex.

Here is the thing I am not trying like you are to tell people there is a so called right way to do things. Since you are saying you know how things should be done I am asking you to show us you can do them. Same with Hendrik the poster boy for arm chair wing chun.

Yes yes everyone has a foundation in the ideas but guess what? We do not fight with ideas we fight with actions. If you want to say that you do this or that in training that is cool but when you start talking about having an understanding of how things work in fighting that begs the question what do you know about fighting?

There are two kinds of analysis talk. How do you deal with a boxer? The first kind has people who have put in the time sparring with boxers telling what worked for them, what did not work for them, what their observations were, what to look out for, and so forth. This is the view of experience. The second kind has people who have not done that and are not doing that telling us how they think it should be done with principles and concepts and physics lol. This is the view from the arm chair.

You are right about one thing my reflex is to not believe the arm chair guys because I know from experience they do not know what they are talking about when they start talking about anything beyond forms and drills since that is all they do.

[KPM]

Maybe in your dummy and clinching dhi sao.

You know Kevin, sometimes you post some good stuff, and then other times I really have to scratch my head and wonder! I've been impressed with the limited CHI SAO video I have seen of PB....haven't seen any actual sparring/fighting video. But you guys make his approach sound very one-dimensional. So far you have suggested that in PB's version of Wing Chun:

1. You never step into the opponent
2. You never step back from the opponent
3. You never pivot or rotate
4. You never use "springy" energy
5. You don't engage the opponent with arm to arm contact


What I described are essential actions from a clinch-like position. A clinch-like position is any position where you are within punching range of the opponent and he has obstructed you in some way...which usually involves each persons arms in contact. Boxers end up in this position, Muay Thai ends up in this position, MMA ends up in this position......what makes you think Wing Chun is any different? Chi Sao is not fighting. But Chi Sao trains some essential things from this "clinch" range and how to react from this arm contact. Should such contact be avoided? Sure! In a perfect world! But it happens. For you to deny such footwork that I mentioned above is part of Wing Chun shows a very one-dimensional approach to Wing Chun! I doubt very seriously that PB sees it that way. So again, I have to wonder where you are coming from. :confused:

[GlennR]

You know Kevin, sometimes you post some good stuff, and then other times I really have to scratch my head and wonder! I've been impressed with the limited CHI SAO video I have seen of PB....haven't seen any actual sparring/fighting video. But you guys make his approach sound very one-dimensional. So far you have suggested that in PB's version of Wing Chun:

1. You never step into the opponent
2. You never step back from the opponent
3. You never pivot or rotate
4. You never use "springy" energy
5. You don't engage the opponent with arm to arm contact


What I described are essential actions from a clinch-like position. A clinch-like position is any position where you are within punching range of the opponent and he has obstructed you in some way...which usually involves each persons arms in contact. Boxers end up in this position, Muay Thai ends up in this position, MMA ends up in this position......what makes you think Wing Chun is any different? Chi Sao is not fighting. But Chi Sao trains some essentially things from this "clinch" range and how to react from this arm contact. Should such contact be avoided? Sure! In a perfect world! But it happens. For you to deny such footwork that I mentioned above is part of Wing Chun shows a very one-dimensional approach to Wing Chun! I don't very seriously that PB sees it that way. So again, I have to wonder where you are coming from. :confused:

I agree with you on this Keith. Kevin and the boys contradict themselves all the time as far as I'm concerned and I've only recently had a running battle with graham to concede that they do have to deal with those "pesky arms".

But I guess when all you o s bong-lap then things aren't that hard ;)

[KPM]

btw Emmett, you're not my Sihing, just so you know...

I don't know you, and I don't know Emmett. But that was rather a tacky thing to say. Where did Emmett suggest he was "pulling rank" on you, or anything of the sort? I agree with what he wrote. Like Kevin, you tend to make your understanding of Wing Chun sound very "one-dimensional." Sure there is rotation...when appropriate. But there is also straight line action! I will direct you to my previous post where I listed some essential actions when engaged with an opponent. Only one of them involved rotation.

[KPM]

I agree with you on this Keith. Kevin and the boys contradict themselves all the time as far as I'm concerned and I've only recently had a running battle with graham to concede that they do have to deal with those "pesky arms".

But I guess when all you o s bong-lap then things aren't that hard ;)

Yeah. Like I said, Kevin can post some good stuff. Brooklyn isn't that far from D.C. Sometimes I think it would be a good idea to pop up there and spend some time with Kevin to see what this PB approach to Wing Chun is all about. Then he posts stuff like this and comes across as a total @%$$, and I think...."naw, maybe not!" ;)

[k gledhill]

You know Kevin, sometimes you post some good stuff, and then other times I really have to scratch my head and wonder! I've been impressed with the limited CHI SAO video I have seen of PB....haven't seen any actual sparring/fighting video. But you guys make his approach sound very one-dimensional. So far you have suggested that in PB's version of Wing Chun:

1. You never step into the opponent
2. You never step back from the opponent
3. You never pivot or rotate
4. You never use "springy" energy
5. You don't engage the opponent with arm to arm contact


What I described are essential actions from a clinch-like position. A clinch-like position is any position where you are within punching range of the opponent and he has obstructed you in some way...which usually involves each persons arms in contact. Boxers end up in this position, Muay Thai ends up in this position, MMA ends up in this position......what makes you think Wing Chun is any different? Chi Sao is not fighting. But Chi Sao trains some essentially things from this "clinch" range and how to react from this arm contact. Should such contact be avoided? Sure! In a perfect world! But it happens. For you to deny such footwork that I mentioned above is part of Wing Chun shows a very one-dimensional approach to Wing Chun! I don't very seriously that PB sees it that way. So again, I have to wonder where you are coming from. :confused:



You're changing up the list I referred to. You implied from chi sao and the context was discussion of using turning etc. from chi sao correlations. In other words you're attempting to use a drill position of complying students who allow the proximity and arm equalization for drills as a 1:1 fighting application. : )

If you're in NYC drop by its easier to show you a diagonal line is better than straight into the face of a clinch.

[WC1277]

Here is the thing I am not trying like you are to tell people there is a so called right way to do things. Since you are saying you know how things should be done I am asking you to show us you can do them. Same with Hendrik the poster boy for arm chair wing chun.

Yes yes everyone has a foundation in the ideas but guess what? We do not fight with ideas we fight with actions. If you want to say that you do this or that in training that is cool but when you start talking about having an understanding of how things work in fighting that begs the question what do you know about fighting?

There are two kinds of analysis talk. How do you deal with a boxer? The first kind has people who have put in the time sparring with boxers telling what worked for them, what did not work for them, what their observations were, what to look out for, and so forth. This is the view of experience. The second kind has people who have not done that and are not doing that telling us how they think it should be done with principles and concepts and physics lol. This is the view from the arm chair.

You are right about one thing my reflex is to not believe the arm chair guys because I know from experience they do not know what they are talking about when they start talking about anything beyond forms and drills since that is all they do.

Where do I insist my way is the one and only right way? I usually get attacked or made fun of for any statement I make and I spend my time defending it. :confused:

[WC1277]

I don't know you, and I don't know Emmett. But that was rather a tacky thing to say. Where did Emmett suggest he was "pulling rank" on you, or anything of the sort? I agree with what he wrote. Like Kevin, you tend to make your understanding of Wing Chun sound very "one-dimensional." Sure there is rotation...when appropriate. But there is also straight line action! I will direct you to my previous post where I listed some essential actions when engaged with an opponent. Only one of them involved rotation.

Tacky? Did you read his response to me after I tried to apologize and further explain my perspective?

[WC1277]

Sure there is rotation...when appropriate. But there is also straight line action! I will direct you to my previous post where I listed some essential actions when engaged with an opponent. Only one of them involved rotation.

No sh!t!

People's responses is becoming ridiculous on this forum with the loss of context. It's like you have to post a complete bible on WC for someone not to throw a fit. For the last time, it is of my opinion, that "balanced rotation" is the cornerstone of good WC and if trained well will significantly improve your WC. When in a real situation there will most likely be NO arm contact! You will have to MOVE. If you want to think straight lines of movement is going to give you a leg up, more power to you, but I think you will probably get knocked out trying to chase a moving target that way. :rolleyes:

[k gledhill]

Where do I insist my way is the one and only right way? I usually get attacked or made fun of for any statement I make and I spend my time defending it. :confused:

This statement is wrong on so many levels .

[WC1277]

This statement is wrong on so many levels .

Thanks for proving my point...

[LFJ]

If you want to think straight lines of movement is going to give you a leg up, more power to you, but I think you will probably get knocked out trying to chase a moving target that way. :rolleyes:

Think, think, think.

Do you have free sparring in your school?

The majority of schools I've been to even in HK are maybe 10% form and 90% chi-sau with 0% actual sparring, but a whole lot of thinking and theorizing about what fighting is like and why their approach will work. That's including WSLVT schools. :rolleyes:

[WC1277]

Think, think, think.

Do you have free sparring in your school?

The majority of schools I've been to even in HK are maybe 10% form and 90% chi-sau with 0% actual sparring, but a whole lot of thinking and theorizing about what fighting is like and why their approach will work. That's including WSLVT schools. :rolleyes:

That's funny!

You're under David Peterson, right? ;)

btw I've done plenty. Is it part of class time? No. Do students do it and other things after class? Yes. You don't need to waste the time for drills and development on sparring. I love how some think that because it's part of their 'class time', that somehow that validates it. :rolleyes:

[LFJ]

You're under David Peterson, right? ;)

No.


You don't need to waste the time for drills and development on sparring. I love how some think that because it's part of their 'class time', that somehow that validates it. :rolleyes:

Sparring too is developmental and is not real fighting. It's not good to never spar under the eye of your sifu.

[WC1277]

No.



My bad. I thought you were for some reason. You're WSL right? Who do you train with?

[k gledhill]

That's funny!

You're under David Peterson, right? ;)

btw I've done plenty. Is it part of class time? No. Do students do it and other things after class? Yes. You don't need to waste the time for drills and development on sparring. I love how some think that because it's part of their 'class time', that somehow that validates it. :rolleyes:

You don't have to waste time for drills and development on sparring ! Classic

[KPM]

You're changing up the list I referred to.

What list are you talking about?

You implied from chi sao and the context was discussion of using turning etc. from chi sao correlations. In other words you're attempting to use a drill position of complying students who allow the proximity and arm equalization for drills as a 1:1 fighting application. : )

Uh no. Have you read what I posted? WCxxx made the comment that it was possible for the opponent to make you pivot. You and Graham said this was nonsense. So I provided a brief list of some of the actions that can take place from a contact position, the last of which was a pivot. Then to make it clearer I said this applied to any "clinch-like" position and provided examples from Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA.

So, are you still maintaining that my list of 4 actions doesn't apply to fighting? Are you still maintaining that Wing Chun never ends up in a "clinch-like" position like Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA does?

If you're in NYC drop by its easier to show you a diagonal line is better than straight into the face of a clinch.

And where did I say anything about diagonal vs. straight lines? My list included stepping in and stepping back. Either of these could be on a straight line or diagonal line. Why are you so quick to dismiss what someone has to say without even making an effort to understand what they mean? Again, this makes your understanding of PB's Wing Chun sound very one-dimensional.

[KPM]

Tacky? Did you read his response to me after I tried to apologize and further explain my perspective?

Yes I did. I didn't see anything wrong with it. He said this:
Even though I don't really want to be insulting, this painfully simple exercise will come across that way, but I guess I feel the need to be blunt. But, you have thick skin, so I think we'll still be good.

Sounds to me like he was afraid you would take offense and was making an effort to avoid that. Sounds like it didn't work.

[k gledhill]

You're changing up the list I referred to.

What list are you talking about?

You implied from chi sao and the context was discussion of using turning etc. from chi sao correlations. In other words you're attempting to use a drill position of complying students who allow the proximity and arm equalization for drills as a 1:1 fighting application. : )

Uh no. Have you read what I posted? WCxxx made the comment that it was possible for the opponent to make you pivot. You and Graham said this was nonsense. So I provided a brief list of some of the actions that can take place from a contact position, the last of which was a pivot. Then to make it clearer I said this applied to any "clinch-like" position and provided examples from Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA.

So, are you still maintaining that my list of 4 actions doesn't apply to fighting? Are you still maintaining that Wing Chun never ends up in a "clinch-like" position like Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA does?

If you're in NYC drop by its easier to show you a diagonal line is better than straight into the face of a clinch.

And where did I say anything about diagonal vs. straight lines? My list included stepping in and stepping back. Either of these could be on a straight line or diagonal line. Why are you so quick to dismiss what someone has to say without even making an effort to understand what they mean? Again, this makes your understanding of PB's Wing Chun sound very one-dimensional.

Never mind stay in DC ; )

[KPM]

People's responses is becoming ridiculous on this forum with the loss of context. It's like you have to post a complete bible on WC for someone not to throw a fit.

Well, you post was rather long and involved and hard to follow. Its not so much loss of context, but understanding what the heck you were talking about! Wasn't that clear from the responses you got? But you did say this:

It is of my opinion, and an opinion that has been validated, so to speak, that by training this "balanced" rotation of the body with regards to facing, one is developing the skill to simply "face" quickly while maintaing a balance of attacking side forward, opposite side foot forward. That position delivers the most force and allows the most balance. Now a lot of people will look at that statement and just say "no sh!t" but those people also don't realize how hard it would be to stay true to that positioning with "every" motion in a real situation.

That certainly sounds like your position was that pivoting or rotating was used in just about every motion, and that your definition of when it is appropriate may differ widely from others.


For the last time, it is of my opinion, that "balanced rotation" is the cornerstone of good WC and if trained well will significantly improve your WC. When in a real situation there will most likely be NO arm contact! You will have to MOVE. If you want to think straight lines of movement is going to give you a leg up, more power to you, but I think you will probably get knocked out trying to chase a moving target that way. :rolleyes:

It sounds to me like you are using any kind of angling as part of your "balanced rotation", while most of us are talking about using the classic Wing Chun pivot or turning stance. Maybe that is why people are not following your explanations. BTW, just who are you? I hate meaningless screen pseudonames.

[KPM]

Never mind stay in DC ; )

There you go sounding like an %%&&$ again. You guys are giving PB a bad name around here. Do you realize that?

[Wayfaring]

If you're in NYC drop by its easier to show you a diagonal line is better than straight into the face of a clinch.

I don't need to go to NYC to understand that a diagonal line is better than a straight line in the face of a clinch. I see this several times a week already.

[k gledhill]

There you go sounding like an %%&&$ again. You guys are giving PB a bad name around here. Do you realize that?

I can't reply without giving a play by play on fighting with wsl pb vt everytime. If you want to follow wc1277 turning ideas that's your perogative.

[k gledhill]

I don't need to go to NYC to understand that a diagonal line is better than a straight line in the face of a clinch. I see this several times a week already.


Why machine guns were placed in the corners of open fields in combat, you didn't have to turn back and forth in the center of the field missing more than you hit, and staying nicely centered for incoming fire from a whole forward line advancing on you. ; )

[WC1277]

Yes I did. I didn't see anything wrong with it. He said this:
Even though I don't really want to be insulting, this painfully simple exercise will come across that way, but I guess I feel the need to be blunt. But, you have thick skin, so I think we'll still be good.

Sounds to me like he was afraid you would take offense and was making an effort to avoid that. Sounds like it didn't work.

No, it was sarcasm.

"For this exercise I want you to stand in your favorite room. Now, without rotation, twisting or bracing walk straight into the wall. It may take a few times to convince yourself that it can involve the whole body and really "hammer that nail". And it may take a few more times before it feels "natural". But isn't that king fu training? there are no free rides. If it still feels like this action would lead to a kinder, gentler chi sau, try it faster and allow no hesitation in your intent."

I'm give him the clever choice of words. But this whole conversation in general was unnecessary, simply started because I used the word "we" the possibly one out of five times I have out of some 500 posts. Joy was always cool with me and used a lot more tact if he felt the need to correct something.

[WC1277]

You don't have to waste time for drills and development on sparring ! Classic

Classic! Taking it out of context, again!

[KPM]

I can't reply without giving a play by play on fighting with wsl pb vt everytime. If you want to follow wc1277 turning ideas that's your perogative.

No, a "play by play" isn't necessary. Simply responding to points people make and questions they ask are enough. I don't follow all of WCxxxx's turning ideas. Did you miss this?.......

Uh no. Have you read what I posted? WCxxx made the comment that it was possible for the opponent to make you pivot. You and Graham said this was nonsense. So I provided a brief list of some of the actions that can take place from a contact position, the last of which was a pivot. Then to make it clearer I said this applied to any "clinch-like" position and provided examples from Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA.

So, are you still maintaining that my list of 4 actions doesn't apply to fighting? Are you still maintaining that Wing Chun never ends up in a "clinch-like" position like Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA does?

You chose not to respond to any of the points I've made. You just say that it isn't "VT". You're as bad as Hendrik! ;)

[k gledhill]

No, a "play by play" isn't necessary. Simply responding to points people make and questions they ask are enough. I don't follow all of WCxxxx's turning ideas. Did you miss this?.......

Uh no. Have you read what I posted? WCxxx made the comment that it was possible for the opponent to make you pivot. You and Graham said this was nonsense. So I provided a brief list of some of the actions that can take place from a contact position, the last of which was a pivot. Then to make it clearer I said this applied to any "clinch-like" position and provided examples from Boxing, Muay Thai, and MMA.

So, are you still maintaining that my list of 4 actions doesn't apply to fighting? Are you still maintaining that Wing Chun never ends up in a "clinch-like" position like Boxing, Muay Thai and MMA does?

You chose not to respond to any of the points I've made. You just say that it isn't "VT". You're as bad as Hendrik! ;)


You still are missing my point. To answer you I need to give a response encompassing my whole way of thinking so you can understand my reply. I can't say if you do that, I will do xyz because , who knows. What I can say is YOU don't understand our way of thinking either. For a guy to turn me I would have made and error to recover from or try to react and reface ASAP. Our repertoire is based on NOT being turned by others but to let others turn themselves or give them a hand ( fist ) instead.
It's hard to be clear about our thinking unless you have met it personally. I know because until I met pb years ago I too thought I knew vt.
A lot of guys like wcxxx whoever she is, use turning and gates etc... This is fine as long as the partner is equally clueless. : )

[KPM]

For a guy to turn me I would have made and error to recover from or try to react and reface ASAP. Our repertoire is based on NOT being turned by others but to let others turn themselves or give them a hand ( fist ) instead.

Ah! See! That wasn't so hard, was it? Let me recap what I posted before:

If I am "square on" to an opponent and in contact and he is applying force to my "bridge", I have several options. Some of them include:

1. stand my ground, brace and push back to break his structure, possibly taking a step into him

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

Sounds like you're saying that #4 would not be a preferred option, but something done when you have no other choice. #2 would also definitely not be a preferred option, and #3 would be lower on my preference list as well. But hey, **** happens! Now let me point out that previously you said NONE of this "is VT." So it sure seems to me that you haven't even made an effort to understand what I was writing. Just a "knee jerk" reaction...this isn't VT! Can you see where that would be a bit off-putting? Just like some of Hendrik's responses?

[k gledhill]

For a guy to turn me I would have made and error to recover from or try to react and reface ASAP. Our repertoire is based on NOT being turned by others but to let others turn themselves or give them a hand ( fist ) instead.

Ah! See! That wasn't so hard, was it? Let me recap what I posted before:

If I am "square on" to an opponent and in contact and he is applying force to my "bridge", I have several options. Some of them include:

1. stand my ground, brace and push back to break his structure, possibly taking a step into him

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

Sounds like you're saying that #4 would not be a preferred option, but something done when you have no other choice. #2 would also definitely not be a preferred option, and #3 would be lower on my preference list as well. But hey, **** happens! Now let me point out that previously you said NONE of this "is VT." So it sure seems to me that you haven't even made an effort to understand what I was writing. Just a "knee jerk" reaction...this isn't VT! Can you see where that would be a bit off-putting? Just like some of Hendrik's responses?

You're reading your ideas into your #'s not ours. Like I said if your in NYC drop in.

[YouKnowWho]

2. be pushed over backwards and off-balance with my own structure broken

3. take a step back, essentially "giving ground"

4. absorb his force very briefly and use it to redirect him and possibly cause him to over-balance by pivoting my stance

It seems to me that option #4 is essentially "allowing the opponent to rotate me."

The 2, 3, 4 can be just 1 move.

- Your opponent comes in too strong.
- You step one leg back,
- "rotate" your body to be outside of your opponent's striking path, and
- throw a 45 degree downward "haymaker" right in front of you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYw9Q3Eti5A

Your haymaker may knock your opponent's straight punches down. If your opponent moves in too fast, your haymaker may even knock on the back of your opponent's head and drop him.

[k gledhill]

The 2, 3, 4 can be just 1 move.

- Your opponent comes in too strong.
- You step one leg back,
- "rotate" your body to be outside of your opponent's striking path, and
- throw a 45 degree downward "haymaker" right in front of you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYw9Q3Eti5A

Your haymaker may knock your opponent's straight punches down. If your opponent moves in too fast, your haymaker may even knock on the back of your opponent's head and drop him.

Your ving tsun response ?

[KPM]

You're reading your ideas into your #'s not ours. Like I said if your in NYC drop in.

Ok. Thanks for the invite. I may yet! :)

[LFJ]

You're WSL right? Who do you train with?

I'm LFJ. I train with anyone who is in town. ;)

[WC1277]

I'm LFJ. I train with anyone who is in town. ;)

Ok then.... :rolleyes: