View Full Version : Questions for Graham
Graham wrote:
I haven't really read everything on this thread. It's boring but if you are unsure about anything related to WSLPBVT from SLT to BCD then I will be happy to answer instead of any cloak and dagger BS. Sean is prepared to answer as well as Kev and T.ray will be so come on man!
Ok. Fair enough Graham! That thread was getting rather cumbersome! So I thought we could start out fresh. Thanks for offering to answer questions.
Let's start with this one. I asked it twice on the other thread and it was ignored both times:
1. What is the difference between saying that things can be used for more than one purpose (applied in various ways) and saying that you see them in an "abstract, non-specific way"? Doesn't "non-specific" imply that it can be done in more than one way?
2. I've seen it stated several times that Taan Sau is meant for training the elbow for the punch. I can see how this would be the case. But is Taan Sau used as a Taan Sau itself?
3. In regards to the movement in the Chum Kiu form pivoting between Bong Sau and Lan Sau, you said that this is only for improving the mechanics and concept of what Chum Kiu is teaching you, and that there should be no application attached to this action. So does it matter how you perform the Bong and Lan? In other words is there a "correct" and an "incorrect" way of doing the pivoting between Bong and Lan?
4. What do you guys mean by the term "applications"?
5. In general, how do you physically express the concepts taught in the forms? I know this sounds like a odd and very generalized question, but it was said that you train concepts, not specific techniques. So I'm wondering how you see that being done, if not by using specific techniques?
I think that's a good start? The intent here is to bring some clarity to recent discussions, so please guys don't take this off on a tangent with the typical name calling, lineage bashing, Johnson measuring and other fun stuff that we usually see! ;):D
1. What is the difference between saying that things can be used for more than one purpose (applied in various ways) and saying that you see them in an "abstract, non-specific way"? Doesn't "non-specific" imply that it can be done in more than one way?
The same difference between having various pre-conceived 1:1 applications for one specific technique, and the spontaneous application of concepts in action organically produced in a fighting situation. One is an art, the other is a skill.
2. I've seen it stated several times that Taan Sau is meant for training the elbow for the punch. I can see how this would be the case. But is Taan Sau used as a Taan Sau itself?
While we've established in the LSJC thread it's possible to be used that way, by far its preferred and primary function is the punch. Out of curiosity, what do you think a taan punch is?
3. In regards to the movement in the Chum Kiu form pivoting between Bong Sau and Lan Sau, you said that this is only for improving the mechanics and concept of what Chum Kiu is teaching you, and that there should be no application attached to this action. So does it matter how you perform the Bong and Lan? In other words is there a "correct" and an "incorrect" way of doing the pivoting between Bong and Lan?
Since it is for improving mechanics obviously there is a correct way to do it.
4. What do you guys mean by the term "applications"?
T_Ray made it pretty clear in the other thread. "The opponent throws this kind of punch and we use a _____". That is 1:1 application. But we don't do that.
5. In general, how do you physically express the concepts taught in the forms? I know this sounds like a odd and very generalized question, but it was said that you train concepts, not specific techniques. So I'm wondering how you see that being done, if not by using specific techniques?
See response #1.
Hey LJF, you aren't from the PB lineage? I recall them ridiculing you pretty thoroughly recently?
You didn't really answer half the questions. I'm still waiting for Graham.
WSLVT, and no, they conceded each one of my points eventually.
I answered each of your questions. I guess half of them went over your head. I don't think you'll do much better with Graham.
k gledhill
09-24-2013, 08:46 AM
LFJ is on the right path.
If you can see it....Why were you never taught this?
I'm also curious as to what KPM thinks a taan punch is if he can see it but has not been taught it.
What as in some kind of "application"? No.
Then you won't mind answering my question above:
4. What do you guys mean by the term "applications"?
A point that stands out for me... and if you dont mind me asking a question?
Yes, I do mind. Graham offered to answer questions to help clear up some of the mess in threads recently. You aren't going to turn this into another atttack on what I think.
WSLVT, and no, they conceded each one of my points eventually.
No. Not really. I guess you have a faulty memory.
I answered each of your questions. I guess half of them went over your head. I don't think you'll do much better with Graham.
Well, I guess congratulations are in order. It appears you passed their initiation hazzing. Now you are starting to sound just like them! ;):)
This question has been answered so many times, including right here in this very thread.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm only asking because that does not make it clear. If an opponent throws a punch, what do you do? Do you respond with a Pak Da? Do you respond with an excluding punch? Do you step off-line and strike under his arm? I know you are going to say that you respond in the moment with nothing pre-determined. But we all do that. What I am getting at, is that in my mind any 1:1 correspondence of one technique to another...however spontaneous...is still an "application" of that technique. In other words, if an opponent has punched at you and spontaneously you Pak and punch in return, that is a 1:1 application of the Pak Da to a punching attack....whether it is completely spontaneous and unplanned or not. So we've been doing all this arguing, and I keep thinking..."but that IS an application." That's why I said we were arguing semantics. So I'm asking you to clarify a little more clearly what you consider an "application", because I don't think its what I have been considering as an "application. Does that make sense?
So does this mean you only train partner work via Chi Sau? (And sparring)
You never, for example, have a partner agree to just feed you punches so you can work on, say, Pak Da with angling and/or footwork for entering?
I don't have the VHS anymore (maybe it's on YouTube), but it think WSL showed Tan Sau used as Tan Da in his Science of In-Fighting video, no?
YouKnowWho
09-24-2013, 01:49 PM
We dont do specific fighting applications.
We all need to be able to deal with the following situation:
- boxer's hook,
- MT guy's roundhouse kick,
- TKD's side kick,
- Judo guy's hip throw,
- wrestler's single leg,
- ...
We just can't "simulate" those scenarios in sticky hand training.
Maybe we just call it by a different name.
We train lots of development drills like this; aimed at working interception, footwork, taking balance, exploiting angles, improving timing and distance judgement, eating up space, closing off someone's attacking options.
We refer to them as applications as we're, well, applying stuff. :)
k gledhill
09-24-2013, 02:01 PM
Maybe we just call it by a different name.
We train lots of development drills like this; aimed at working interception, footwork, taking balance, exploiting angles, improving timing and distance judgement, eating up space, closing off someone's attacking options.
We refer to them as applications as we're, well, applying stuff. :)
You poor misguided tool , tsk , tsk , do you lean and redirect while all this is going on ?? ; )
Well, I try to follow your lead, Kevin, and exhibit extreme tension. :rolleyes:
But to answer your question, such as it was, sometimes there is redirecting. Pak Sau for example connects as a punch is still on it's forward path, so the action naturally moves it slightly off of its original path.
k gledhill
09-24-2013, 02:29 PM
Well, I try to follow your lead, Kevin, and exhibit extreme tension. :rolleyes:
But to answer your question, such as it was, sometimes there is redirecting. Pak Sau for example connects as a punch is still on it's forward path, so the action naturally moves it slightly off of its original path.
:rolleyes: so you stick to hands and redirect stuff, thought as much.
YouKnowWho
09-24-2013, 02:42 PM
We will never know what situations we will be dealing with, and dont train to try to use an x against a y. We train to assimilate Ving Tsun concepts, not techniques.
"Sticky hand" training is not a simulation tool for us.
You need to train your WC principle to deal with non-WC people. Most of the attack that come from a non-WC guy is in the list that I stated.
Since sticky hand training is not suitable for those non-WC guy's attack, other simulation training will be needed.
k gledhill
09-24-2013, 02:45 PM
You need to train your WC principle to deal with non-WC people. Most of the attack that come from a non-WC guy is in the list that I stated.
Since sticky hand training is not suitable for those simulation, other simulation training will be needed.
You leave the " sticky stuff " to us and we will leave the you know what to you know who ; )
YouKnowWho
09-24-2013, 02:49 PM
You leave the " sticky stuff " to us and we will leave the you know what to you know who ; )
I'm not talking about the "sticky stuff", I'm talking about the "specific fighting applications". I just don't understand why a WC guy only thinks about to fight another WC guy.
One partner training that I like is to ask my partner to attack me with full speed and try to knock me head off. What style am I training? I truly don't know and don't care.
The discussion started from BPWT's comment. I think it's a valid comment and need more in depth discussion.
So does this mean you only train partner work via Chi Sau? (And sparring)
You never, for example, have a partner agree to just feed you punches so you can work on, say, Pak Da with angling and/or footwork for entering?
:rolleyes: so you stick to hands and redirect stuff, thought as much.
How long does it take for Pak Sau to redirect? Not long. That's all the redirecting that's required.
Why do you insist on making a discussion an argument based on your deliberate misunderstanding of what others do? I gave the example of Pak Sau, and you know full well this doesn't require any sort of extended contact. T_Ray said PBVT has similar development drills to what I described.
Why does this create such a problem for you? :(
Yes. I really have been genuinely trying to explain... I wish I could do it better.
Yes we "apply" our Ving Tsun when we fight or are attacked, but in our training we dont practice doing any specific moves against a particular attack. Like say, having a guy attack us in a certain way and trying to apply a motion from the forms as a means of developing that as a response in a fight.
I'm sorry if this is still not clear.
Yes, thanks. That is clearer. But I assume you wouldn't be opposed to isolating a particular technique to practice it and develop it and correct any errors? Like my example of the tennis coach isolating the backhand for practice and then sending the player back in the game to use it spontaneously? Because that's how I see it. Not a choreographed "we do this move to counter against that move" kind of approach.
You poor misguided tool , tsk , tsk , do you lean and redirect while all this is going on ?? ; )
Come on. Be nice. This is what we are trying to avoid because it takes a discussion off into non-productive LaLa land fast!
We will never know what situations we will be dealing with, and dont train to try to use an x against a y. We train to assimilate Ving Tsun concepts, not techniques.
"Sticky hand" training is not a simulation tool for us.
I agree that Chi Sau is not a "simulation." It is the thing itself and should transfer over to fighting if trained properly. But I can see what John is saying as well. Certain things aren't going to show up in a Chi Sau exchange with another Wing Chun guy unless he purposefully does them for you...like a shoot for a takedown, an attempted grapple, or an extended sidekick. So how do you guys train to insure you will be ready for something like that? Something that is "non-Wing Chun"?
@KPM
Some folks fixate on "technique" application. So they ask questions like you; "what do you do if someone punches you like this?" with ideas of technique responses like paak-da and taan-da, etc.. In the end you're still asking what technique we will use to respond. If we do that, we are back to preset 1:1 application, and as we're trying to explain, we don't do that.
In application of concepts the tool used is not the point. So we don't train to develop specific technique responses to particular attacks. If you fixate on the finger you miss the big picture. No matter how spontaneously you apply your technique responses, that's still what they are, and that is not the same as applying concepts. Training to develop that is trying to replicate an art form that has already been painted for you, rather than training a skill to be mastered and uniquely employed by each individual. Don't be a slave to the system and all that...
Yes, thanks. That is clearer. But I assume you wouldn't be opposed to isolating a particular technique to practice it and develop it and correct any errors? Like my example of the tennis coach isolating the backhand for practice and then sending the player back in the game to use it spontaneously? Because that's how I see it. Not a choreographed "we do this move to counter against that move" kind of approach.
You're still talking about technique application no matter how spontaneous.
Structural errors are corrected by the training forms and chi-sau drills, not by conditioned technique responses, which would do more harm.
Some folks fixate on "technique" application. So they ask questions like you; "what do you do if someone punches you like this?" with ideas of technique responses like paak-da and taan-da, etc.. In the end you're still asking what technique we will use to respond. If we do that, we are back to preset 1:1 application, and as we're trying to explain, we don't do that.
No, that's not what I mean. If your Chi Sau partner suddenly shoves you away as he steps back and launches a hard kickboxer style sidekick, how do you respond? Maybe you sidestep, maybe you Gan Sau, maybe you Gum Sau...or something else. It's not "preset." But there is certainly a timing and distance and the element of the unexpected involved here that needs to be worked on to ensure that you are prepared for such a thing when sparring or fighting a non-Wing Chun guy. Same for someone shooting in for the takedown. I don't think "standard" Wing Chun training prepares you for things like that. Do you? In other words, how do you train or prepare for "non-Wing Chun" attacks that are very different from what you practice on a daily basis? How do you know for sure you can stop a boxer's tight hook if no one has ever thrown one at you?
Structural errors are corrected by the training forms and chi-sau drills, not by conditioned technique responses, which would do more harm.
Not a criticism, just a comment. Many people say there is so much more to Wing Chun than just forms and Chi Sau. That's one of the main criticisms we get from non-Wing Chun folk...that all we do is forms and Chi Sau.
We can isolate and work on errors in chi sao. Chi sao is a development environment for us, not a pseudo competitive thing. We work together. We drill in chi sao, both repetitively as well as spontaneuosly.
Ok. Thanks. Then it sounds like we are in agreement on this point, despite all the prior rhetoric. ;) But that would also suggest that there is a right and wrong way to do technique...yes? Therefore there would be a proper "position" for the Bong, Taan, etc. that defends you the best and sets up your own strikes?
Graham H
09-25-2013, 06:13 AM
No, that's not what I mean. If your Chi Sau partner suddenly shoves you away as he steps back and launches a hard kickboxer style sidekick, how do you respond?
Chi Sau is a co-operative drilling platform. You should know what the drill is improving and develop it. I doubt anybody in a street fight will push you back and do a "kickboxer style side kick" I've not witnessed that before lol
Maybe you sidestep, maybe you Gan Sau, maybe you Gum Sau...or something else.
You gan sau or gum kicks do you? oh dear :eek:
It's not "preset." But there is certainly a timing and distance and the element of the unexpected involved here that needs to be worked on to ensure that you are prepared for such a thing when sparring or fighting a non-Wing Chun guy. Same for someone shooting in for the takedown. I don't think "standard" Wing Chun training prepares you for things like that. Do you? In other words, how do you train or prepare for "non-Wing Chun" attacks that are very different from what you practice on a daily basis? How do you know for sure you can stop a boxer's tight hook if no one has ever thrown one at you?
Timing and distance is improved by the correct practice of chi sau - gor sau - sparring. As soon as you try and second guess what your opponent is going to throw you are in trouble.
The last thing on my mind when I go into a fight is "can this guy box, is he going to throw a right hook!?"
.......no way Jose!
k gledhill
09-25-2013, 06:22 AM
Yes. There are correct or incorrect positions and responses if thats what you mean?
If your response is incorrect you can/will be hit, and corrected. This is part of what we do for each other in chi sao.
It is where our VT first breaks down and we have to train to get to a level where we are not routinely making mistakes in chi sao...
Then we can move into goh sao, where our VT breaks down again. :)
Good post. High speed errors : / this where Philipp is jaw dropping fast . I get students asking what he is doing in clips because they can't see it after repeated attempts to decipher the speed.
Some folks fixate on "technique" application. So they ask questions like you; "what do you do if someone punches you like this?" with ideas of technique responses like paak-da and taan-da, etc.. In the end you're still asking what technique we will use to respond. If we do that, we are back to preset 1:1 application, and as we're trying to explain, we don't do that.
No, that's not what I mean. If your Chi Sau partner suddenly shoves you away as he steps back and launches a hard kickboxer style sidekick, how do you respond? Maybe you sidestep, maybe you Gan Sau, maybe you Gum Sau...or something else. It's not "preset."
:confused: You've done exactly the same thing. You've given a hypothetical attack and offered three possible responses. However spontaneously you apply them, those are your preset techniques to defend against the sidekick.
I assume you pull these out and drill them too? That's the type of conditioned technique response we don't do, 1:1 applications.
to ensure that you are prepared for such a thing when sparring or fighting a non-Wing Chun guy. Same for someone shooting in for the takedown. I don't think "standard" Wing Chun training prepares you for things like that. Do you?
Yes, I do. Is your Wing Chun designed to fight only other Wing Chun practitioners? That's like a sport or game, not a realistic approach to fighting.
In other words, how do you train or prepare for "non-Wing Chun" attacks that are very different from what you practice on a daily basis?
The VT I train is usable against any kind of fighter, as it should be. So I don't understand your question.
How do you know for sure you can stop a boxer's tight hook if no one has ever thrown one at you?
Well, first of all, I don't try to stop a boxer's tight hook and I will neither be in range nor stood in position for it like you see boxers doing all the time. The first school I had years ago was shared with boxing and MT trainers. We had a ring and sparred together regularly in the evenings. Good times.
YouKnowWho
09-25-2013, 11:58 AM
I take it you are one of those who practice "moves against a boxer",.."moves against a grappler" nonsense?
Where will you be able to develop your grappling skill if you don't deal with a grappler?
Let me use another example here.
When your opponent's left arm wraps your right arm, his right hand pushes on your neck, his right leg hooks on your right leg, What will be your best defense at that moment?
http://judoinfo.com/images/animations/blue/osotogari.htm
Your best defense is to move your left leg back, drop yourself into a low bow-arrow stance, and spin your body to your right. This way your have put all your weight on your right leg and it's harder for your opponent to unbalance you.
http://imageshack.us/a/img13/5448/oldpic22.jpg
Will you be able to apply this counter properly if you don't train "low bow-arrow stance"? Will you be able to train this in your normal sticky hand drill that your opponent don't attack you this way?
Yes. There are correct or incorrect positions and responses if thats what you mean?
Yes. Because on the other thread when I asked about correcting positions I got this whole "Bong Sau is not a position" non-sense, even after footage of PB correcting Obasi's Bong Sau positioning was pointed out. So hopefully you can see why it has been so frustrating trying to discuss things here.
Now, if you will follow my logic....if there is right and wrong way to do specific techniques, why would you say that they don't have any applications in the forms? Graham said that the movement in Chum Kiu pivoting between Bong and Lan was purely to train the concept and the pivot and the techniques themselves have no direct application. But if there is a right way to do the Bong and the Lan, wouldn't it be in reference to something? Wouldn't that "something" be how they are meant to be used? So how can you say that no application is implied by movements in the forms?
slick69
09-25-2013, 06:15 PM
Good post. High speed errors : / this where Philipp is jaw dropping fast . I get students asking what he is doing in clips because they can't see it after repeated attempts to decipher the speed.
Yes we know, he walks on water and turns water into wine.
Getting back to reality, what does he says his combat experience is?
thedreamer7
09-25-2013, 06:20 PM
Well, first of all, I don't try to stop a boxer's tight hook and I will neither be in range nor stood in position for it like you see boxers doing all the time. The first school I had years ago was shared with boxing and MT trainers. We had a ring and sparred together regularly in the evenings. Good times.
That what I do now train regularly with MT guys and boxing guys, so you can get your ranges right and adjust, etc.
k gledhill
09-25-2013, 08:00 PM
Yes we know, he walks on water and turns water into wine.
Getting back to reality, what does he says his combat experience is?
Hah whatever : )
Oh no!. Just when I thought we were getting somewhere :D
There are correct and incorrect positions in chi sao.
The forms are where we learn VT concepts...not applications of techniques.
"How they are meant to be used"??.... So... say the movement on dummy where you turn tan, palm and kick, at the same time......are you telling me thats how that movement is meant to be used?.. Because that is what many might say is implied?
There might be many implications.. And different lineages argue over which is correct... I'm saying I don't care about the "implication"... Thats not why that move is in the form. :D
Anyway....Regardless of if a movement has an obvious application or not ... It is a mistake to take that implied application and train it 1:1.
Bear with me. We are getting somewhere. ;) So how do you determine whether a movement is "correct" or not? Again, if a movement or technique can be correct or incorrect in the form, is it correct or incorrect in reference to what? And why is something repeated multiple times in a given form?
I don't think you're feeding him the answer he's hungry for. What he seems to be asking is; since the fuk-sau for example can be correct or incorrect in the form, what attack is its correctness in reference to? What's the 1:1 application, in other words. Conceptual approach not computing...
I think that maybe he's asking 'can you take something that is concept/principle based, and work it into a drill - perhaps even a 1:1 drill - in order to help correct, improve, make something happen as reflex'. (my words, not a direct quote)
So in LTWT we have this saying: When the head is pressed, the tail rises.
Usually it refers to one way Bong Sau is used by us. In this case, head being wrist, tail being the elbow. This motion appears in various drills, and if you wanted you could isolate this and train it specifically.
Jansingsang
09-26-2013, 11:19 PM
[QUOTE=BPWT;1250229]I think that maybe he's asking 'can you take something that is concept/principle based, and work it into a drill - perhaps even a 1:1 drill - in order to help correct, improve, make something happen as reflex'. (my words, not a direct quote)
It seems everyone's knocking KPM on this one . I think its to do with how he explained it at one point in a scenario type situation Suppose i do this now what you gonna do ? whereas the concepts and principles from the forms can be isolated and practiced 1:1 but is not the be all end all answer to the equation:)
Hence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YKxtTNlOv8
And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y
I think that maybe he's asking 'can you take something that is concept/principle based, and work it into a drill - perhaps even a 1:1 drill - in order to help correct, improve, make something happen as reflex'. (my words, not a direct quote)
So, can you take a conceptual approach and turn it into a technique approach? You can, many have, but a conditioned 1:1 response is what you'll be training. We try to avoid that.
As previously stated, structural errors are corrected first by the training forms and then in chi-sau/laap-sau drills and gwo-sau/sparring. If you are constantly failing at one stage you refer back to the previous. Everything should ultimately reference back to SNT.
We can concentrate chi-sau drills to work on certain things, but it is alive and not in a 1:1 fashion. I think the importance of wu-sau was the topic of PB's seminar Kevin hosted, but as you can see from his clips, it wasn't a 'how to use wu-sau in a 1:1' type of instruction.
whereas the concepts and principles from the forms can be isolated and practiced 1:1 but is not the be all end all answer to the equation:)
Hence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YKxtTNlOv8
And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y
None of that has ever been trained in a 1:1 application drill in any WSLVT school I've been to. To communicate an idea or illustrate a point such an isolation may be made, but that's not a training method.
Jansingsang
09-27-2013, 01:31 AM
None of that has ever been trained in a 1:1 application drill in any WSLVT school I've been to. To communicate an idea or illustrate a point such an isolation may be made, but that's not a training method.
Keep you knickers on mate :rolleyes: It's a idea and can be isolated and practiced regardless still Agreed it's not practiced in the Wsl method this way thats done via forms and Chi soa like I said nothings the be all and end all of everything :)
It seems everyone's knocking KPM on this one . I think its to do with how he explained it at one point in a scenario type situation Suppose i do this now what you gonna do ? whereas the concepts and principles from the forms can be isolated and practiced 1:1 but is not the be all end all answer to the equation:)
Hence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YKxtTNlOv8
And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPdl-mGKL-Y
Absolutely. It's not the be all and end all, just one training method in many. So we also train these things in Chi Sau, etc, too, much as LFJ has described. We just sometimes isolate a motion (1:1) as well - just to place emphasis on something particular... later it all gets incorporated into training that is not set/pre-arranged.
In some cases, this 1:1 approach can be useful if there's a fundamental problem. For example, I had a particular problem with lateral movement to my left side. No problem with my right side - my body just refused to move smoothly to the left (I'm no dancer, as my wife will tell you:D).
Rather than just try to correct this weirdness of mine during other training where multiple things are happening, and thus overload my dumbars*ness, my instructor got me working on some simple 1:1 movement drills with a partner until I could iron-out the problem.
An example of a 1:1 application you'll never see us do. A bong-sau isolation drill against a jab, by Phil's group. Not even gonna comment on the circling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D1VtWeH1CM
LaRoux
09-27-2013, 09:43 AM
An example of a 1:1 application you'll never see us do. A bong-sau isolation drill against a jab, by Phil's group. Not even gonna comment on the circling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D1VtWeH1CM
Yeah, who would think that kind drill is any good? It is also the kind of 1:1 application drill you will find in BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA and they are clearly wasting their time doing that. BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA also circle/move laterally, but clearly that must be a waste of time also.
Somehow I think Phil's approach is light years ahead of yours.
It is also the kind of 1:1 application drill you will find in BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA and they are clearly wasting their time doing that. BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA also circle/move laterally, but clearly that must be a waste of time also.
That's great. None of those are Wing Chun though, but neither is bong-sau in an isolation drill against a jab while circling around the opponent...
Some more form application nonsense. Instead of 1:1 application though, it's 4:1. But in reality it'd be more like 0:2, at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37CCiz0EuA
Somehow I think Phil's approach is light years ahead of yours.
Somehow I think Kevin is right when he says you know nothing about VT.
[QUOTE=BPWT;1250229]I think that maybe he's asking 'can you take something that is concept/principle based, and work it into a drill - perhaps even a 1:1 drill - in order to help correct, improve, make something happen as reflex'. (my words, not a direct quote)
It seems everyone's knocking KPM on this one . I think its to do with how he explained it at one point in a scenario type situation Suppose i do this now what you gonna do ? whereas the concepts and principles from the forms can be isolated and practiced 1:1 but is not the be all end all answer to the equation:)
Yeah. Both of you are basically right. Maybe it was my mistake to explain it as a "if I do this, you do that" kind of scenario. But that wasn't to imply that's the ONLY way to train. I realize that this can get you motorset to a single conditioned response where we want to remain fluid. That's why you limit this kind of training and immediately put it back into something more "alive" like Chi Sau or free sparring. What I don't understand is why anyone would object to isolating something for better development in their training. Its just good modern Sports Science, like I've said. To me, and no slight intended here, if you aren't doing "isolation training" to refine and develop a specific technique or skill, then you may be missing out on some important training.
But what I was really trying to get at without inciting another flame war, was that I completely understand the idea of things being "conceptual." I approach Wing Chun the same way. But like PBWT pointed out, those concepts are expressed physically in the form of techniques. Those techniques have certain intended applications that fit with the concept behind them. There is a right and a wrong way to do them in the forms or in practice for a reason. That reason is only partially related to the abstract "concept" behind them. To me, a bigger reason to do them a certain way is because that's how they were designed to work optimally in a given physical situation.....1:1. So I have had a hard time understanding the objection here to the whole idea of anything being "1:1." So to say that a given movement in the forms (like pivoting between Bong and Lan in Chum Kiu) is not intended to have any application but it is only for training the body mechanics makes no sense to me. I could train the same body mechanics doing the lousiest Bong and Lan around. I could train the same body mechanics pivoting between a punch and a Gan Sau. Now, to avoid misunderstanding, that's NOT to say that there is ONE and only ONE fixed application for techniques in the form. Things are still conceptually based. But the concept needs physical "definition" and expression.
And again, no offense intended, but to say you are prepared for a fight against anyone without doing any "isolation" training against the most common things you might see from .....say a street brawler with some boxing or grappling know how seems a little short-sighted. Sure, Wing Chun is designed conceptually to deal with anything. I get that. But even Yip Man encouraged his young guys to go out the "pressure test" their Wing Chun. Wong Shun Leung is famous for this. We can't exactly do that today, but we can spar with people from other systems and we can practice against partners using techniques from other systems. That's what I mean by "1:1, isolation training."
An example of a 1:1 application you'll never see us do. A bong-sau isolation drill against a jab, by Phil's group. Not even gonna comment on the circling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D1VtWeH1CM
Yeah, I wouldn't do a Bong Sau as "primary" defense like that. But maybe a Pak Sau. But how will I know if my Pak Sau will work well against a boxer's jab if I've never trained it that way?
But how will I know if my Pak Sau will work well against a boxer's jab if I've never trained it that way?
Spar with them.
Spar with them.
Absolutely! And if its a friendly session and you found your Pak Sau wasn't working so well against his jab, why wouldn't you say..."hey buddy, feed me a few of those jabs over and over so I can work on this and get it right!" That's "isolation training" in a 1:1 format.
why wouldn't you say..."hey buddy, feed me a few of those jabs over and over so I can work on this and get it right!" That's "isolation training" in a 1:1 format.
Because I don't use paak-sau like that.
LaRoux
09-27-2013, 10:47 AM
That's great. None of those are Wing Chun though, but neither is bong-sau in an isolation drill against a jab while circling around the opponent...
And that's exactly the reason that so many WC people can't fight worth beans. They are too concerned about "it's not WC" so we don't use it". Who cares if drilling against a jab while circling around the opponent is WC or not. If it works, it works.
Somehow I think Kevin is right when he says you know nothing about VT.
I never claimed to know that much about VT. What I do know is what works vs. what doesn't work against opponents in full-contact settings.
And that's exactly the reason that so many WC people can't fight worth beans. They are too concerned about "it's not WC" so we don't use it". Who cares if drilling against a jab while circling around the opponent is WC or not. If it works, it works.
I never claimed to know that much about VT. What I do know is what works vs. what doesn't work against opponents in full-contact settings.
That it isn't WC is not the point. The point is precisely that it won't work, which is why it isn't WC, or at least not WSLVT!
Think you're gonna bong-sau this or even paak-sau as KPM says? Be my guest. You will become a headless troll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2Ijsj6L0&feature=youtu.be
k gledhill
09-27-2013, 10:54 AM
Yeah, who would think that kind drill is any good? It is also the kind of 1:1 application drill you will find in BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA and they are clearly wasting their time doing that. BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, and MMA also circle/move laterally, but clearly that must be a waste of time also.
Somehow I think Phil's approach is light years ahead of yours.
Ah so if everybody does it vt should , brilliant deduction : ) lmao
Some more form application nonsense. Instead of 1:1 application though, it's 4:1. But in reality it'd be more like 0:2, at least.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37CCiz0EuA
I should add this clip here too, just cuz...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2Ijsj6L0&feature=youtu.be
LaRoux
09-27-2013, 10:56 AM
Ah so if everybody does it vt should , brilliant deduction : ) lmao
The less than brilliant deduction is rejecting a drill out of hand simply because one thinks it is "not WC".
The less than brilliant deduction is rejecting a drill out of hand simply because one thinks it is "not WC".
That wasn't the point. "It is not WC" is a nice way of saying we don't do that stupid sh!t because it won't work against real punches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2Ijsj6L0&feature=youtu.be
I should add this clip here too, just cuz...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2Ijsj6L0&feature=youtu.be
It's a good clip. But this is not how most of us use, say, Pak Sau.
It's a good clip. But this is not how most of us use, say, Pak Sau.
I would hope not, but thinking you're gonna do 4 things to the first jab like Phil shows or use a bong-sau... ...
LaRoux
09-27-2013, 11:08 AM
That wasn't the point. "It is not WC" is a nice way of saying we don't do that stupid sh!t because it won't work against real punches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2Ijsj6L0&feature=youtu.be
What doesn't work against real punches is doing the majority of your training doing forms, wooden dummy and chi sao type training.
What doesn't work against real punches is doing the majority of your training doing forms, wooden dummy and chi sao type training.
Right, but much less so silly isolation drills that hardly work even with a compliant partner.
Because I don't use paak-sau like that.
Dude! That wasn't the point! That is EXACTLY why it becomes so hard to carry on any kind of meaningful conversation! Stick to the POINT!
k gledhill
09-27-2013, 11:20 AM
What doesn't work against real punches is doing the majority of your training doing forms, wooden dummy and chi sao type training.
Laroux you're ignorant. Worse, is this ignorance of yours is blinded by an ajenda of prejudice.
Right, but much less so silly isolation drills that hardly work even with a compliant partner.
"Silly isolation drills"???? Again, that is exactly why it is so hard to carry on a legitimate civil conversation here. Should we just resort to "flaming" again??? I've pointed out that isolation drills are an accepted part of Scientfic training in the sports world. I've given an example of the tennis player working on his or her backhand. Laroux/stickfigher (whoever the heck he is) pointed out that such drills are used in BJJ, Muay Thai, etc. And yet you dismiss them out of hand as "silly." :rolleyes:
LaRoux
09-27-2013, 11:22 AM
I would hope not, but thinking you're gonna do 4 things to the first jab like Phil shows or use a bong-sau... ...
Go through the fight videos that Phil has posted. You will find several examples of his guys doing exactly that.
k gledhill
09-27-2013, 11:24 AM
"Silly isolation drills"???? Again, that is exactly why it is so hard to carry on a legitimate civil conversation here. Should we just resort to "flaming" again??? I've pointed out that isolation drills are an accepted part of Scientfic training in the sports world. I've given an example of the tennis player working on his or her backhand. Laroux/stickfigher (whoever the heck he is) pointed out that such drills are used in BJJ, Muay Thai, etc. And yet you dismiss them out of hand as "silly." :rolleyes:
Application drills iow one move gets the same answer memorized , then a guy doubles up the jab or feints and hello that bong memory just gave me your floating ribs.
Application drills iow one move gets the same answer memorized , then a guy doubles up the jab or feints and hello that bong memory just gave me your floating ribs.
No. Did you read what I posted just a few posts up in this thread?
k gledhill
09-27-2013, 11:35 AM
No. Did you read what I posted just a few posts up in this thread?
No disrespect Keith but you're still struggling to grasp Tray and our explanations.
wingchunIan
09-27-2013, 11:35 AM
I don't like what the guys in the clip with the jab were doing but it would be interesting to hear feedback from someone in that lineage as to where they take that training. Finding out what doesn't work / where the limits are and what you need to work on more (e.g. footwork) is an incredibly important part of learning. If this is early training then its all good, maybe the next step is to face punches in bunches and full on sparring.
LaRoux
09-27-2013, 11:51 AM
I don't like what the guys in the clip with the jab were doing but it would be interesting to hear feedback from someone in that lineage as to where they take that training. Finding out what doesn't work / where the limits are and what you need to work on more (e.g. footwork) is an incredibly important part of learning. If this is early training then its all good, maybe the next step is to face punches in bunches and full on sparring.
Here they are doing that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyQH4M550M0
LaRoux
09-27-2013, 11:53 AM
Application drills iow one move gets the same answer memorized , then a guy doubles up the jab or feints and hello that bong memory just gave me your floating ribs.
Clearly you have zero understanding and are completely ignorant about how real training works.
k gledhill
09-27-2013, 12:01 PM
Clearly you have zero understanding and are completely ignorant about how real training works.
Clearly you're totally ignorant of ving tsun : ) and how real training works. See I can also be right ; ) opinions are like arseholes laroux everyone has one. Yours seems to be overly active lmao.
sihing
09-27-2013, 01:06 PM
VT is for the most part development. What are we developing?
Structure = a stable frame by which we have the ability to accept force and give force, like a car, it has a frame so that the power of the engine can propel it forward/bkwrd, left or right, and go from point A to B. When in a crash it has the ability to fold and accept a certain amount of force while protecting the occupants, but this is limited, and cars are fixed objects, not dynamic like us Humans.
Mechanics = how we move, how we punch, kick, deflect, project. It's specific in VT so that we can gain some efficiency, non telegraphic movement, gain force within our movement (from body structure/ground), aim and line of attacks (we cut or shear obstructions away from our center on the way in, anything that goes around our projected "triangle" we beat them to the punch..)
Balance/Leverage/Recovery = We maintain a balanced frame, it's dynamic, but we don't lean in or lose integrity in what we are doing. When we meet force, it is channelled into our complete frame, not localized to the contact point. We recover to the place that our movement came from, this prevents over extension.
Simple/Direct/Efficiency = Self explanatory, just making ourselves less telegraphic, tight, simple and hard to see.
Now this is what we develop in a basic way when we train in VT, there are more things but this is just a simple list.
This is not application necessarily, some do look at it as application, but I don't. To learn how to apply the skill set above, you spar, or apply in realistic SD drilling, that is the next part, and up the the individual practicing...When someone asks me how to we handle a boxer, wrestler, kicker, etc...I tell them to go spar them, get in there with them, then you will know how your skill set can be used against that type of attack, we do have a general strategy for sure, get in close, take their space and hit, but ultimately nothing is better than getting in their with them and using what you have to know how to apply it, VT does have the answers for all of it IMO. So far this has worked for me and my guys, they have used it successfully against all those listed, of course, if someone is a pro or training much more it gets harder, nothing is guaranteed...as it's always your skills vs his skills..
J
Now this is what we develop in a basic way when we train in VT, there are more things but this is just a simple list. This is not application necessarily, some do look at it as application, but I don't. To learn how to apply the skill set above, you spar, or apply in realistic SD drilling, that is the next part, and up the the individual practicing
Well, James seems to agree with me.
No disrespect Keith but you're still struggling to grasp Tray and our explanations.
Then please explain where I am going wrong. That is what a discussion is for. I am certainly struggling with this point:
What I don't understand is why anyone would object to isolating something for better development in their training. Its just good modern Sports Science, like I've said. To me, and no slight intended here, if you aren't doing "isolation training" to refine and develop a specific technique or skill, then you may be missing out on some important training.
Can you explain that?
YouKnowWho
09-27-2013, 01:19 PM
To learn how to apply the skill set above, you spar,
You cannot learn how to apply your skill in sparring.
Here is a simple example. If your opponent just keeps moving back (or in a circle) and tries to stay out of your striking range, no matter how many rounds that you may spar with him, you will not be able to "learn how to apply your skill".
Another example, if you want to test your "single leg", the moment that you shoot at his leg, the moment that he lies down on the ground by himself. No matter how many rounds that you may wrestle with him, you will never have chance to test your single leg.
In sparring, you can only "test" the skill that you have developed. You cannot develop new skill in sparring. New skill can only be "developed" in "partner training". Whether you want to call that "application" or not, it's just a different term for "partner training".
What's "partner training"? You tell your opponent what skill that you want to train. he then provide you the opportunity that you need. After you have used your techniques 1000 times against a non-resistance opponent, you then test it against a resistance opponent. You may suddently find out that a fully resistance opponent just won't give you the opportunity that you need. You then know that you will need to train "how to create opportunity" in order to make your move work. You may have to go back to your "partner training" again.
There should be another step between solo form, sticky hands and free sparring. That step is "partner training".
sihing
09-27-2013, 01:26 PM
Everything is a learning opportunity, training is not realism, so the intensity is not really there when you train, no one is trying to take your head off. So it is a dbl edged sword, we need the training to refine our skill sets, but the fighting to make it come out under a sort of pressure, as even in sparring that is drilling too, not absolutely real.
One can only do so much to prepare, sooner or later one has to just do it, and then see what happens but there are never any guarantee's, if there was, every training camp would be the best one for each fighter, but one fighter has to lose, the other win, does that mean the training camp was a failure?? No I don't think so, you do what you can, what else can you do?
I agree, when you spar or SD training, and find a weakness then go back to the drills to fix it, then repeat up until you as the individual are satisfied,,none of us here are training to be a pro fighter, so it depends on what one wants out of it all...
J
guy b.
09-27-2013, 02:20 PM
I never claimed to know that much about VT.
Then why on earth are you on a wing chun forum all of the time? Are you insane?
Paddington
09-27-2013, 02:25 PM
I don't like what the guys in the clip with the jab were doing but it would be interesting to hear feedback from someone in that lineage as to where they take that training. Finding out what doesn't work / where the limits are and what you need to work on more (e.g. footwork) is an incredibly important part of learning. If this is early training then its all good, maybe the next step is to face punches in bunches and full on sparring.
Ian, you may be interested to know that George Foreman used the elbow raise quite extensively to fend off jabs. Unlike the wing chun practitioners in that video, George is ultra relaxed through out, does it slightly differently on account of his relaxation and he was, IMO, very effective with it.
Paddington
09-27-2013, 02:28 PM
Then please explain where I am going wrong. That is what a discussion is for. I am certainly struggling with this point:
What I don't understand is why anyone would object to isolating something for better development in their training. Its just good modern Sports Science, like I've said. To me, and no slight intended here, if you aren't doing "isolation training" to refine and develop a specific technique or skill, then you may be missing out on some important training.
Can you explain that?
Can I have a go at explaining Keith? I've no idea if my explanation will be the same as Kevin's or T-Ray's but, that said, I have strong opinions here and a bit of practical experience with this point.
k gledhill
09-27-2013, 05:20 PM
Then please explain where I am going wrong. That is what a discussion is for. I am certainly struggling with this point:
What I don't understand is why anyone would object to isolating something for better development in their training. Its just good modern Sports Science, like I've said. To me, and no slight intended here, if you aren't doing "isolation training" to refine and develop a specific technique or skill, then you may be missing out on some important training.
Can you explain that?
We are focused on perfecting striking skills that utilize Lin sil di da concepts. These require elbow focus to maintain the skill levels we will keep using at high speeds.
Unless you realize this then it is futile. Applications don't develop elbows.
The SKILL in developing this method is our focus, so ANY combat scenario I am in regardless of facing boxing , mt, axe wielding murderer, street fight will all have me presenting a SKILL SET of ving tsun striking and lsjc with mobility and angles created by intuitive , organically conditioned actions, with a high degree of hand skills.
Your thinking is that we make a plan and practice it over and over so it is memorized, but what if that plan can't be used ? What skills do you have other than standard issue human being stuff ? I will tell you , ZERO , yeah : )
Most vt schools actually teach hand chasing. Worst error besides worthless punch.
Your thinking is that we make a plan and practice it over and over so it is memorized, but what if that plan can't be used ? What skills do you have other than standard issue human being stuff ? I will tell you , ZERO , yeah : )
.
Really? Have you even bothered to read what I've been writing? That is NOT what I have said. Who "just doesn't get it" now?
This I agree with!
John wrote:
In sparring, you can only "test" the skill that you have developed. You cannot develop new skill in sparring. New skill can only be "developed" in "partner training". Whether you want to call that "application" or not, it's just a different term for "partner training".
What's "partner training"? You tell your opponent what skill that you want to train. he then provide you the opportunity that you need. After you have used your techniques 1000 times against a non-resistance opponent, you then test it against a resistance opponent. You may suddently find out that a fully resistance opponent just won't give you the opportunity that you need. You then know that you will need to train "how to create opportunity" in order to make your move work. You may have to go back to your "partner training" again.
James wrote:
I agree, when you spar or SD training, and find a weakness then go back to the drills to fix it, then repeat up until you as the individual are satisfied,,none of us here are training to be a pro fighter, so it depends on what one wants out of it all...
Its not training a "plan" Kevin. That implies a multi-step staged response. That isn't what ANY of us have been talking about. John is talking about the "isolation training" I referred to. James is talking about using drills to fix problems in your techniques....that sure implies a 1:1 application or "isolation training" to me as well, and is also what I was talking about before.
Kevin wrote:
The SKILL in developing this method is our focus, so ANY combat scenario I am in regardless of facing boxing , mt, axe wielding murderer, street fight will all have me presenting a SKILL SET of ving tsun striking and lsjc with mobility and angles created by intuitive , organically conditioned actions, with a high degree of hand skills.
But how do you know that YOU personally can make it work against boxing or a street fight if you have never tested it in that scenario? How do you know you have your angles and timing down for attacks you never face in your Wing Chun vs. Wing Chun training? How do you know that YOUR skill set is adaptable to multiple situations if you only ever train it against other Wing Chun?
This shouldn't be revelation. Wong Shun Leung tested his Wing Chun. I'll bet Phillip Bayer has as well. ;-) And I don't mean just by sparring or bouting.
k gledhill
09-27-2013, 06:51 PM
This I agree with!
John wrote:
In sparring, you can only "test" the skill that you have developed. You cannot develop new skill in sparring. New skill can only be "developed" in "partner training". Whether you want to call that "application" or not, it's just a different term for "partner training".
What's "partner training"? You tell your opponent what skill that you want to train. he then provide you the opportunity that you need. After you have used your techniques 1000 times against a non-resistance opponent, you then test it against a resistance opponent. You may suddently find out that a fully resistance opponent just won't give you the opportunity that you need. You then know that you will need to train "how to create opportunity" in order to make your move work. You may have to go back to your "partner training" again.
James wrote:
I agree, when you spar or SD training, and find a weakness then go back to the drills to fix it, then repeat up until you as the individual are satisfied,,none of us here are training to be a pro fighter, so it depends on what one wants out of it all...
Its not training a "plan" Kevin. That implies a multi-step staged response. That isn't what ANY of us have been talking about. John is talking about the "isolation training" I referred to. James is talking about using drills to fix problems in your techniques....that sure implies a 1:1 application or "isolation training" to me as well, and is also what I was talking about before.
John doesn't have a clue about vt. His posts seem random to me.
James may be referring to elbows. ?
You ? You're missing our thinking but still try to make sense with your thinking : )
Can I have a go at explaining Keith? I've no idea if my explanation will be the same as Kevin's or T-Ray's but, that said, I have strong opinions here and a bit of practical experience with this point.
Sure man! Go for it! Its an open forum. :) We've went wide of my intended purpose already.
sihing
09-27-2013, 07:01 PM
The errors I am talking about would be stuff like facing, elbows in, leverage line broken, balance broken, leaning or reaching too much, tension levels, things of this nature, not specific techniques not be done properly or something like that.
I think it's good to take the engine out for a try out sort of speak, putting it into situations that are not like VT training. So far the guys that have tried it out are really able to see how their training in VT has helped them out as compared to before they started training.
J
I've pointed out that isolation drills are an accepted part of Scientfic training in the sports world. I've given an example of the tennis player working on his or her backhand. Laroux/stickfigher (whoever the heck he is) pointed out that such drills are used in BJJ, Muay Thai, etc. And yet you dismiss them out of hand as "silly." :rolleyes:
I don't dismiss them out of hand. I dismiss what people do with wing chun because it won't work.
The problem with your sports analogy is that a tennis player is not in danger when training and applying a backhand as a conditioned response. The situation is also very different with other MA styles than with wing chun actions.
A couple reasons I disagree with isolation training in wing chun; besides the fact that Kevin already pointed out that it creates a conditioned response that may well lead to danger because it is misusing the wing chun actions, the more obvious reason is that this kind of stuff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s37CCiz0EuA) will work only at these speeds with a compliant partner, but is guaranteed to break down against this kind of speed and aggression (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNZ2Ijsj6L0&feature=youtu.be).
It simply will not work because this kind of isolation and application training is based on someone's ideas of what fighting is like.
YouKnowWho
09-27-2013, 09:57 PM
It simply will not work because this kind of isolation and application training is based on someone's ideas of what fighting is like.
It depends on how real your simulation is.
Your opponent runs toward you and punch at your face. He has to steps in his left foot, steps in his right foot before his punch can reach at to your face. If you can train how to take advantage on his left stepping, right stepping, will that be realistic training?
Can anybody be able to punch you without stepping? Will anybody be benefited from that simple drill?
It depends on how real your simulation is.
In the two videos I linked to in the last post, the application shown in the first will not work against punches at speed with real intent like shown in the second clip.
It is taking the actions in the dummy form at face value and trying to apply them directly. It is 4 actions (jat to hyun, paak and palm strike) to a single jab! In reality that arm will not be there for all that to be done to it. Even interrupting to block the second punch and redo the application on a third punch, it is totally unrealistic.
The man in the second clip throws three punches at speed and with intent. You think anyone can jat the first, biu the second, then jat - hyun - paak the third and hit him with a palm strike?
That's pure dreamland wing chun and should be proof enough that the system is not meant to be a collection of techniques with direct applications like that. Unless you believe the system is that unrealistic, you should realize there's a more conceptual approach that must be the way.
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 04:48 AM
In the two videos I linked to in the last post, the application shown in the first will not work against punches at speed with real intent like shown in the second clip.
It is taking the actions in the dummy form at face value and trying to apply them directly. It is 4 actions (jat to hyun, paak and palm strike) to a single jab! In reality that arm will not be there for all that to be done to it. Even interrupting to block the second punch and redo the application on a third punch, it is totally unrealistic.
The man in the second clip throws three punches at speed and with intent. You think anyone can jat the first, biu the second, then jat - hyun - paak the third and hit him with a palm strike?
That's pure dreamland wing chun and should be proof enough that the system is not meant to be a collection of techniques with direct applications like that. Unless you believe the system is that unrealistic, you should realize there's a more conceptual approach that must be the way.
And as WSL states, without movement, angling, kicking, many invent techniques because they don't understand the systems mobility in fighting.
the more obvious reason is that this kind of stuff will work only at these speeds with a compliant partner, but is guaranteed to break down against this kind of speed and aggression.
Well....boxers, MMA fighters, Muay Thai....they all use this kind of training to some extent. They obviously don't have a problem with it breaking down at speed and with aggression. Like John said, its all in how you do the drill.
In the two videos I linked to in the last post, the application shown in the first will not work against punches at speed with real intent like shown in the second clip.
We're not debating your videos. I could find a ton of boxing or MMA videos showing all kinds of "isolation training" that are much better than these. We're discussing why you think Wing Chun is so special or exceptional that it can't use a straight-forward training method that combat sports like boxing, MMA, and Muay Thai use all the time. You showed a boxing clip as a argument against doing isolation training, and yet boxers do isolation training all the time! Go figure! :rolleyes:
And as WSL states, without movement, angling, kicking, many invent techniques because they don't understand the systems mobility in fighting.
Do you train mobility? Do you do any kind of footwork drills for your beginners? Do you have them practice footwork and angling to move around a stationary partner to help develop their movement? Do you practice kicking a partner as he tries to close with you? All of that is "isolation training."
Or do you expect it all to develop on its own in Chi Sau?
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 04:55 AM
The errors I am talking about would be stuff like facing, elbows in, leverage line broken, balance broken, leaning or reaching too much, tension levels, things of this nature, not specific techniques not be done properly or something like that.
I think it's good to take the engine out for a try out sort of speak, putting it into situations that are not like VT training. So far the guys that have tried it out are really able to see how their training in VT has helped them out as compared to before they started training.
J
This is what I presumed based on your previous posts. Corrections of our positions, stances checked, alignment check, distance check, organically responding with right angles and elbows.
Because I don't use paak-sau like that.Dude! That wasn't the point! That is EXACTLY why it becomes so hard to carry on any kind of meaningful conversation! Stick to the POINT!
Well, I get your point. If you're having trouble getting your paak-sau to work on a jab it makes sense to you to isolate it in order to improve your timing or whatever- sports science and all that. It's just that I don't use my VT the way you use your WC or whichever, so I wouldn't do that. I'm not trying to paak a quick jab. If I do and miss or the opponent feints, then boom. You see, because paak-sau to me is a punch. If the opponent feints or I 'miss' the paak I'm still hitting them. So, any such isolation drill like 'paak vs jab' or 'this vs that' is counterproductive to my approach.
The errors I am talking about would be stuff like facing, elbows in, leverage line broken, balance broken, leaning or reaching too much, tension levels, things of this nature, not specific techniques not be done properly or something like that.
Ok James. Can you describe some of the drills you use to do this?
I think it's good to take the engine out for a try out sort of speak, putting it into situations that are not like VT training. So far the guys that have tried it out are really able to see how their training in VT has helped them out as compared to before they started training.
What are some examples of you "putting it into situations that are not like VT training"?
Just a comment....vids I have seen of Ernie training his guys with the pads were certainly what I would consider "isolation training." Do you use these?
Well, I get your point. If you're having trouble getting your paak-sau to work on a jab it makes sense to you to isolate it in order to improve your timing or whatever- sports science and all that. It's just that I don't use my VT the way you use your WC or whichever, so I wouldn't do that. I'm not trying to paak a quick jab. If I do and miss or the opponent feints, then boom. You see, because paak-sau to me is a punch. If the opponent feints or I 'miss' the paak I'm still hitting them. So, any such isolation drill like 'paak vs jab' or 'this vs that' is counterproductive to my approach.
No. You're still missing the point. But oh well. We'll go with it. So, just how do you respond to a jab?
Well....boxers, MMA fighters, Muay Thai....they all use this kind of training to some extent. They obviously don't have a problem with it breaking down at speed and with aggression. Like John said, its all in how you do the drill.
Because they aren't trying to misapply 'wing chun techniques'.
We're discussing why you think Wing Chun is so special or exceptional that it can't use a straight-forward training method that combat sports like boxing, MMA, and Muay Thai use all the time.
Not special, per se, just a different approach. Once you learn the conceptual approach you will find it is much more simple, direct, and effecient than a lot of the convoluted application-based garbage seen so often in the wing chun world.
You showed a boxing clip as a argument against doing isolation training, and yet boxers do isolation training all the time! Go figure! :rolleyes:
Never seen a boxer try to do that nonsense wooden dummy application Phil showed in his clip.
No. You're still missing the point. But oh well. We'll go with it. So, just how do you respond to a jab?
Back to this question again? omg... :confused: Woosh!
Back to this question again? omg... :confused: Woosh!
Well, since you continued to miss my point... what was my choice? :confused: You have to respond to a jab whether you are using an abstract conceptually based method or not. Don't you?
Because they aren't trying to misapply 'wing chun techniques'.
Who? Boxers, MMA fighters, and Muay Thai fighters?? :rolleyes: (see, I can twist things around too!)
Never seen a boxer try to do that nonsense wooden dummy application Phil showed in his clip.
See? Example of twisting. That's obviously not the clip I was referring to.
Because they aren't trying to misapply 'wing chun techniques'.
Who? Boxers, MMA fighters, and Muay Thai fighters?? :rolleyes: (see, I can twist things around too!)
Yes... that's what I was saying...
Never seen a boxer try to do that nonsense wooden dummy application Phil showed in his clip.
See? Example of twisting. That's obviously not the clip I was referring to.
You said boxers do isolation drills all the time. That's fine, because they aren't misapplying 'wing chun techniques' like Phil's clip shows.
You have to respond to a jab whether you are using an abstract conceptually based method or not. Don't you?
Sure, but you're trying to force a technique out of me because you don't understand what a conceptual approach is and that's all you can wrap your mind around. Not a reflection on your intelligence though, but rather on the type of instruction you've received.
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 05:50 AM
No. You're still missing the point. But oh well. We'll go with it. So, just how do you respond to a jab?
Who knows ? This is exactly the point. If I'd started to spout off the potential for that we would have to memorize endless permutations. Then the guy does a random action we didn't address in the " isolation drill " and you freeze.
The underlying concepts of vt are that nobody can tell you how to respond to a " jab " . I can only suggest maneuvers to deal with an arm from the high left or right southpaw , stepping in and tactical ideas that will raise your chances of dealing with an attack according to our " thinking ".
You might kick, you might intercept it with your own attack or angle away and counter the retraction of the arm leading as the following hand moved forward and the shoulders turned.
At what angle does the following arm come ? What height. Is it a high jab low right to body. ?? Low jab to same arm hook to head ? Followed by ?
I can teach you to fight and respond in real time to random actions rather than a boxers jab , do this over and over and over. Step in the ring and the boxer doesn't do it like we did it so FAIL , get it ?
No two boxers are the same, we shouldn't even address the style we face, but rather by two arms and two legs coming at you in varying ways. ; ) you might be bigger , longer arms than the guy. Why do you think boxing is weight restricted or you could get crazy differences of unfair fights. In combat you don't pick your fight and train for their specific moves you can see in previous fights.
You need a skill set with hand skills and ability to sustain relentless assaults at high speeds.
Who knows ? This is exactly the point. If I'd started to spout off the potential for that we would have to memorize endless permutations. Then the guy does a random action we didn't address in the " isolation drill " and you freeze.
But you don't think there is any value in having someone feed jabs for you and play with various responses at random? Other people that use isolation drills certainly don't have any problems with "freezing."
I can teach you to fight and respond in real time to random actions rather than a boxers jab , do this over and over and over. Step in the ring and the boxer doesn't do it like we did it so FAIL , get it ?
But step in the ring and you've never tried your defenses against a boxers jab....ever... and also a good possibility of FAIL. Why not increase your confidence level before entering the ring by training against someone throwing a boxer's jab at you?
And you didn't answer this:
Do you train mobility? Do you do any kind of footwork drills for your beginners? Do you have them practice footwork and angling to move around a stationary partner to help develop their movement? Do you practice kicking a partner as he tries to close with you? All of that is "isolation training."
Or do you expect it all to develop on its own in Chi Sau?
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 06:08 AM
Who knows ? This is exactly the point. If I'd started to spout off the potential for that we would have to memorize endless permutations. Then the guy does a random action we didn't address in the " isolation drill " and you freeze.
But you don't think there is any value in having someone feed jabs for you and play with various responses at random? Other people that use isolation drills certainly don't have any problems with "freezing."
I can teach you to fight and respond in real time to random actions rather than a boxers jab , do this over and over and over. Step in the ring and the boxer doesn't do it like we did it so FAIL , get it ?
But step in the ring and you've never tried your defenses against a boxers jab....ever... and also a good possibility of FAIL. Why not increase your confidence level before entering the ring by training against someone throwing a boxer's jab at you?
And you didn't answer this:
Do you train mobility? Do you do any kind of footwork drills for your beginners? Do you have them practice footwork and angling to move around a stationary partner to help develop their movement? Do you practice kicking a partner as he tries to close with you? All of that is "isolation training."
Or do you expect it all to develop on its own in Chi Sau?
Okay I tried. : )
Okay I tried. : )
Does that mean that the answer to all of the above is "no"?
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 06:45 AM
Does that mean that the answer to all of the above is "no"?
Somehow you went off in a tangent to argue about isolation drills so you could be "right" : ).
The arguement isn't isolation drills, its what you're isolating in the drill : )
Is it a preset response of actions misunderstood in vt forms as a sequence ? Or an elbow drill for striking that can be modulated into further skill modules.
OK. I admit it. I just don't get it. I must be a total tool and idiot. Oh, I get what you guys "don't" do. What I don't get is the "why" you don't do them. That hasn't been explained.
Here is what I don't get:
1. Why you would think that training isolation drills is "silly" and has no value.
2. Why you would think that none of the moves in the forms has any kind of direct applications, since abstract concepts have to be expressed through physical techniques.
3. Why you so strongly object to the idea of "applications."
4. Why you would so strongly oppose the idea that there is a correct position for something like Bong Sau when there is vid of PB clearly showing someone how to correct their Bong Sau position.
5. Why you would think that PB was the ONLY WSL student out of so many talented people that spent so many years with WSL that learned the "right" way of doing things. Why you would insult and disparage someone with a reputation like David Petersen. Why you don't see that this is a slight on WSL's own teaching abilities. After all, you guys have learned all this from seminars with PB. Yet out everyone that he taught, only PB was able to learn this from WSL? WSL MUST have really sucked as a teacher! Why you won't consider the alternative explanation...that PB, through his own skill and talent, has come up with a lot of this on his own.
I could on, but..... Yeah. You're right. I just don't get it.
One thing I have learned....how to use the now famous "Gledhill response"!!!! From now on, when a post is appropriately deserving....I will respond with:
Whatever dude! :rolleyes:
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 07:08 AM
OK. I admit it. I just don't get it. I must be a total tool and idiot. Oh, I get what you guys "don't" do. What I don't get is the "why" you don't do them. That hasn't been explained.
Here is what I don't get:
1. Why you would think that training isolation drills is "silly" and has no value.
2. Why you would think that none of the moves in the forms has any kind of direct applications, since abstract concepts have to be expressed through physical techniques.
3. Why you so strongly object to the idea of "applications."
4. Why you would so strongly oppose the idea that there is a correct position for something like Bong Sau when there is vid of PB clearly showing someone how to correct their Bong Sau position.
5. Why you would think that PB was the ONLY WSL student out of so many talented people that spent so many years with WSL that learned the "right" way of doing things. Why you would insult and disparage someone with a reputation like David Petersen. Why you don't see that this is a slight on WSL's own teaching abilities. After all, you guys have learned all this from seminars with PB. Yet out everyone that he taught, only PB was able to learn this from WSL? WSL MUST have really sucked as a teacher! Why you won't consider the alternative explanation...that PB, through his own skill and talent, has come up with a lot of this on his own.
I could on, but..... Yeah. You're right. I just don't get it.
One thing I have learned....how to use the now famous "Gledhill response"!!!! From now on, when a post is appropriately deserving....I will respond with:
Whatever dude! :rolleyes:
I don't recall insulting DP ?
The problem Keith is simple, you're still trying to use your thinking to explain a conceptual approach you're unaware of. It's no coincidence that others totally understand me and you don't.
Oh, I get what you guys "don't" do. What I don't get is the "why" you don't do them. That hasn't been explained.
Are you serious right now? Both Kevin and I have made several posts explaining it to you just today, as well as others further back (T Ray). Maybe scroll back and read some of their posts.
Here is what I don't get:
1. Why you would think that training isolation drills is "silly" and has no value.
Post #100 (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1250418&postcount=100)
2. Why you would think that none of the moves in the forms has any kind of direct applications, since abstract concepts have to be expressed through physical techniques.
3. Why you so strongly object to the idea of "applications."
Post #102 (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1250431&postcount=102)
4. Why you would so strongly oppose the idea that there is a correct position for something like Bong Sau when there is vid of PB clearly showing someone how to correct their Bong Sau position.
PB didn't really correct his position, but rather showed him to what height it needs to go in order for the action to function. Many folks in the Wing Chun world who take bong-sau as a blocking position to stick up, applying it just as it's done in SNT. It is not that.
5. Why you would think that PB was the ONLY WSL student out of so many talented people that spent so many years with WSL that learned the "right" way of doing things.
Even PB says there are others that have the same thinking as him. He had training brothers you know. But certainly there are many who don't get it. The longer the time people spent with WSL the more their approach matches PB's. Fact!
Graham H
09-28-2013, 08:37 AM
Even PB says there are others that have the same thinking as him. He had training brothers you know. But certainly there are many who don't get it. The longer the time people spent with WSL the more their approach matches PB's. Fact!
Very very true dat ;)
LaRoux
09-28-2013, 09:26 AM
It simply will not work because this kind of isolation and application training is based on someone's ideas of what fighting is like.
Unless you are doing full-contact, full-speed training (not chi sao, which is also based on someone's idea of what fighting is supposed to be like) with the opponent mixing everything up every time you drill, you are suffering from the same problems.
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 09:31 AM
Unless you are doing full-contact, full-speed training (not chi sao, which is also based on someone's idea of what fighting is supposed to be like) with the opponent mixing everything up every time you drill, you are suffering from the same problems.
This post shows me you don't undestand chi sao.
LaRoux
09-28-2013, 09:33 AM
This is what I presumed based on your previous posts. Corrections of our positions, stances checked, alignment check, distance check, organically responding with right angles and elbows.
All done in chi sao? If so, it's even worse than the isolation drills.
LaRoux
09-28-2013, 09:34 AM
This post shows me you don't undestand chi sao.
This posts shows that you don't understand fighting applications.
Wayfaring
09-28-2013, 09:36 AM
These posts show me you guys don't understand how to communicate ;):D:D
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 09:50 AM
This posts shows that you don't understand fighting applications.
We all know what your post show and it shows me you don't understand ving tsun.
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 09:51 AM
All done in chi sao? If so, it's even worse than the isolation drills.
Who said it was all in chee sow. ?
Unless you are doing full-contact, full-speed training (not chi sao, which is also based on someone's idea of what fighting is supposed to be like) with the opponent mixing everything up every time you drill, you are suffering from the same problems.
Like Kevin said, you obviously don't understand chi-sau (who says fighting should be like that?), but that doesn't matter. I'm always harping on the fact that many people get fixated on chi-sau and turn it into a fun game when they need to just spar.
One of my biggest peeves is when a Wing Chun practitioner from another system meets and all they want to do is chi-sau. It is a mutual developmental tool with ideas specific to one's system. If you do some other system with completely different ideas then the exchange will turn chi-sau into nothing more than a competition or fun game. You are not my sifu nor sihing-dai. I rather say, no. Let's just spar where we both use our own systems. If you can't spar then go play chi-sau elsewhere.
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 11:28 AM
These posts show me you guys don't understand how to communicate ;):D:D
This post shows me you're funny when you want to be. Lmao
I don't recall insulting DP ?
I think that was Graham. But then, he's managed to insult just about everyone! ;) As far as disparaging.....I recently reviewed DP's Chum Kiu video. Guess what? The way explains that pivoting movement between Bong and Lan is EXACTLY what I described in the other thread that Graham thought was "way off the mark" and "non-sense". And all the PB guys agreed with him.
This posts shows that you don't understand fighting applications.
Uh oh! You said "applications"! :eek:
LaRoux
09-28-2013, 02:07 PM
Let's just spar where we both use our own systems. If you can't spar then go play chi-sau elsewhere.
Of course there's zero evidence of any sparring going on in your lineage.
Post #100
You said that Wing Chun was being wrongly applied. That certainly depends upon who is doing the drill, doesn't it? You said it could lead to conditioned responses and problems. That certainly depends on how you progress the drill, doesn't it? Why would you take poor examples of a whole type of training to use to justify why someone shouldn't do it at all? If that was a "why" you don't do any isolation drills, then it was a pretty poor reason.
And Kevin posted this:
The arguement isn't isolation drills, its what you're isolating in the drill : )
Is it a preset response of actions misunderstood in vt forms as a sequence ? Or an elbow drill for striking that can be modulated into further skill modules.
After all the back and forth here, now he seems to be saying you guys DO do isolation drills of a sort! "The argument isn't isolation drills, its what you're isolating in the drill".....come on! That's certainly backpedaling on your PB stance up to this point! Because until that post, all of you were vehemently stating that you DON'T do isolation drills at all.
Post #102
Here you took one portion of the dummy form and showed how someone may have poorly applied it in application to justify why you think that none of the forms contain any direct applications. That's not exactly an explanation of "why."
PB didn't really correct his position, but rather showed him to what height it needs to go in order for the action to function.
Seriously? Are you reading what you write? He wasn't correcting his position, but he was showing him where to position it (height-wise)?????
But I give up. Reason and common-sense is obviously no counter to your all-pervading conceptual approach. I admit it. I don't get it. I've tried. I'm a tool.
Graham H
09-28-2013, 02:29 PM
I don't recall insulting DP ?
I think that was Graham. But then, he's managed to insult just about everyone! ;) As far as disparaging.....I recently reviewed DP's Chum Kiu video. Guess what? The way explains that pivoting movement between Bong and Lan is EXACTLY what I described in the other thread that Graham thought was "way off the mark" and "non-sense". And all the PB guys agreed with him.
Mate you need to get your facts straight! I've never insulted DP! Why are you even carrying on with this? Unlike you I know DP and PB personally. I have been to DP seminars and have been a student of PB for 4 years. I was taught that idea by DP and know all the drills that surround it.
PB and DP are two different entities when it comes to Ving Tsun. PB,s level of skill far surpasses that of DP and his thinking is very different. Rather than keep speculating about things that you clearly don't understand, why don't you get off your fat backside and do some proper research like I have?
You are way off the mark. Your thinking on Ving Tsun is the same as the most common rubbish out there. The same rubbish I used to practice. Whilst others have made an effort to end this stupid topic you have to keep it going just because somebody told you your ideas are nonsense. Now all you are doing is trying to justify yourself. You are a f"'&Ģing idiot!
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 02:45 PM
Of course there's zero evidence of any sparring going on in your lineage.
This post shows me you have no evidence of our sparring.
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 02:47 PM
Post #100
You said that Wing Chun was being wrongly applied. That certainly depends upon who is doing the drill, doesn't it? You said it could lead to conditioned responses and problems. That certainly depends on how you progress the drill, doesn't it? Why would you take poor examples of a whole type of training to use to justify why someone shouldn't do it at all? If that was a "why" you don't do any isolation drills, then it was a pretty poor reason.
And Kevin posted this:
The arguement isn't isolation drills, its what you're isolating in the drill : )
Is it a preset response of actions misunderstood in vt forms as a sequence ? Or an elbow drill for striking that can be modulated into further skill modules.
After all the back and forth here, now he seems to be saying you guys DO do isolation drills of a sort! "The argument isn't isolation drills, its what you're isolating in the drill".....come on! That's certainly backpedaling on your PB stance up to this point! Because until that post, all of you were vehemently stating that you DON'T do isolation drills at all.
Post #102
Here you took one portion of the dummy form and showed how someone may have poorly applied it in application to justify why you think that none of the forms contain any direct applications. That's not exactly an explanation of "why."
PB didn't really correct his position, but rather showed him to what height it needs to go in order for the action to function.
Seriously? Are you reading what you write? He wasn't correcting his position, but he was showing him where to position it (height-wise)?????
But I give up. Reason and common-sense is obviously no counter to your all-pervading conceptual approach. I admit it. I don't get it. I've tried. I'm a tool.
End of mate, you're arguing in circles.
LaRoux
09-28-2013, 02:59 PM
This post shows me you have no evidence of our sparring.
Of course I don't. That's because it is either non-existent or you are too afraid of negative criticism to put any evidence that would support the fact that you might spar.
k gledhill
09-28-2013, 03:37 PM
Of course I don't. That's because it is either non-existent or you are too afraid of negative criticism to put any evidence that would support the fact that you might spar.
This post shows me you think our sparring is non existent and you think we are afraid of negative criticism.
Mate you need to get your facts straight! I've never insulted DP!
Yeah Graham I apologize and wish to withdraw that statement. I could have sworn that was on the "WSL on LSJC" thread, but I just reviewed it and couldn't find anything specific. So it must have been just an impression I developed from the discussion going on. Again, I apologize.
Whilst others have made an effort to end this stupid topic you have to keep it going
Right again. I'm done now.
You are a f"'&Ģing idiot!
I admitted that, didn't I? Except the f"&$ing part. ;)
Of course there's zero evidence of any sparring going on in your lineage.
You mean you have not seen evidence of it, not that there isn't. But who cares? Focus on your own training. I'll do mine.
GlennR
09-29-2013, 05:25 AM
You mean you have not seen evidence of it, not that there isn't. But who cares? Focus on your own training. I'll do mine.
But you boys are quick to criticise other approaches to WC, that how you focus on your training?
Post #100
You said that Wing Chun was being wrongly applied. That certainly depends upon who is doing the drill, doesn't it? You said it could lead to conditioned responses and problems. That certainly depends on how you progress the drill, doesn't it?
No. If the drill is bad it's bad. If you're applying the actions as technique responses to specific actions, you're wrongly applying it, no matter who you are.
Why would you take poor examples of a whole type of training to use to justify why someone shouldn't do it at all? If that was a "why" you don't do any isolation drills, then it was a pretty poor reason.
There is no good example because while it may work for Boxers and Muay Thai fighters, it is a faulty training method for Wing Chun. Trying to apply Wing Chun as if it were another martial art stems from not understanding how Wing Chun is to function.
Post #102
Here you took one portion of the dummy form and showed how someone may have poorly applied it in application to justify why you think that none of the forms contain any direct applications. That's not exactly an explanation of "why."
No. He could have applied it in another way and it would have been equally as bad, because the actions are not direct applications like that.
PB didn't really correct his position, but rather showed him to what height it needs to go in order for the action to function.
Seriously? Are you reading what you write? He wasn't correcting his position, but he was showing him where to position it (height-wise)?????
Are you reading what I write? Didn't say where to position it height-wise. It's not a position. It's an action. The range of Shawn's action was too low. When PB showed it to him it was in motion, not stuck up as a block in a certain position. There was no position to speak of. Get it?
But you boys are quick to criticise other approaches to WC, that how you focus on your training?
Yes. I actually discuss good and bad points related to the system from my point of view and how it's trained. This is productive. I don't worry if I haven't seen people sparring or demand evidence from anyone while not discussing the system, which is unproductive.
guy b.
09-29-2013, 05:53 AM
Of course I don't. That's because it is either non-existent or you are too afraid of negative criticism to put any evidence that would support the fact that you might spar.
Lol at the idea of anyone caring enough about what you think to provide you with footage of sparring. You are the last person that anyone would provide with sparring footage.
guy b.
09-29-2013, 05:55 AM
You mean you have not seen evidence of it, not that there isn't. But who cares? Focus on your own training. I'll do mine.
You think he trains?
Are you reading what I write? Didn't say where to position it height-wise. It's not a position. It's an action. The range of Shawn's action was too low. When PB showed it to him it was in motion, not stuck up as a block in a certain position. There was no position to speak of. Get it?
OK Graham. I'm not trying to keep this dumb discussion going. But I couldn't NOT respond to this post from LFJ. But this is my last on this thread. I promise!
So LFJ....I think you need to go back and watch that clip again. PB stopped Obasi...made him pause in mid-air....and adjusted the height and therefore position of his Bong Sau....statically....not moving....even reached out and repositioned Obasi's arm....more than once if I recall. So no. I don't get it. You defy common sense. Its pretty obvious that there WAS a position to speak of. When something moves it goes through of series of positions. Action is just a multitude of points in time (and therefore positions) set into motion.
Now I'm done. Despite any ridiculous responses you may still have in mind.
Bong-sau is not applied as in SNT, as a block to stick up into a particular position. Hope you can understand there is no fixed position of bong-sau as many use it. It can be done at any level where needed to function. There are not two high bong and low bong positions. If all you got from PB's exchange with Obasi is a proper position of bong-sau you missed the point. If you are fixated on a particular position of bong-sau you may end up with very sore ribs, or face. Bong-sau is only a particular type of action with the elbow.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.