View Full Version : Application Based vs. Non-Application Based Wing Chun
This distinction is still not clear to me. It has been said that WSLVT is "non-application based" method compared to just about everything else that IS "application based." It has been said that you cannot watch a video of WSLVT/PB and understanding what is happening if you don't study the system because you cannot see this "non-application" Wing Chun in action. That just seems strange to me.
Most good ring fighters will tell you that they have a small number (maybe 5 or 6) techniques or "applications" that they are very good at and that they use in nearly every fight as their "go to" moves. So I see nothing wrong in a fighting method being rather simple and straight-forward. Its the "simple and straight-forward" that is going to work under pressure. Saying that a fighting method is "non-application" based just seems rather abstract to me. It doesn't really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation.
Every Wing Chun method that I have studied or encountered seemed to be a mix of application and theory/concept. The theory/concepts are what drives the understanding of various applications. They certainly have not been a "tit for tat"...."if you do this move I will always do X" kind of thing. But the instant you perform a technique to defend against what an opponent is doing, that becomes an "application." So I really don't understand what a "non-application based" Wing Chun means.
Anyone care to elucidate?
Sihing73
04-03-2017, 07:02 PM
Well to me it is about dealing with the energy rather than the "technigue" per se. When one applies concepts instead oc fixed "applications" you react to what is given. For example, using concepts to deal with an attack often will result in doing something different even though the attacks look tge same. The difference is the energy being provided which will dictate the response. If you allow the energy received to form the response it will never be application based because each attack will form it's own defensive response.
You can see this illustrated in many FMA with the idea of covering using angles. Everything cominv from one angle is responded to with a specific response. In the beginning this appears to be application based. However ic you delve deeper you begin to see it is not the application that is important but the idea of covering
Happy Tiger
04-03-2017, 07:09 PM
Application, to me, is kinda like 'suggested serving' on a pre package food.
zuti car
04-03-2017, 08:28 PM
It is very simple , if the system uses prearranged set of movements as an answer to incoming attack , and have drills that do the same it is application based system . Sadly (99% of all kung fu is application based ) . If the system works on developing reflexes and keeping the structre through sparring and drils ,it is not application based .
YouKnowWho
04-03-2017, 08:31 PM
"if you do this move I will always do X" ...
Since I'll always attack first, I only train, "When I do this, if you respond as ..., I'll do ...". My MA training is 100% application base.
This distinction is still not clear to me.
The sad thing? You've started similar threads years ago to have this explained to you by at least 5 people.
You didn't get it then, and still don't now.
If it bothers you that much and you are interested enough to keep coming back to this topic year after year, just go to a VT school already and find out about it!
Otherwise just give up.
wckf92
04-04-2017, 12:39 AM
Well to me it is about dealing with the energy rather than the "technigue" per se. When one applies concepts instead oc fixed "applications" you react to what is given. For example, using concepts to deal with an attack often will result in doing something different even though the attacks look tge same. The difference is the energy being provided which will dictate the response. If you allow the energy received to form the response it will never be application based because each attack will form it's own defensive response.
You can see this illustrated in many FMA with the idea of covering using angles. Everything cominv from one angle is responded to with a specific response. In the beginning this appears to be application based. However ic you delve deeper you begin to see it is not the application that is important but the idea of covering
Nice write up Dave
Well to me it is about dealing with the energy rather than the "technigue" per se. When one applies concepts instead oc fixed "applications" you react to what is given. For example, using concepts to deal with an attack often will result in doing something different even though the attacks look tge same. The difference is the energy being provided which will dictate the response. If you allow the energy received to form the response it will never be application based because each attack will form it's own defensive response.
You can see this illustrated in many FMA with the idea of covering using angles. Everything cominv from one angle is responded to with a specific response. In the beginning this appears to be application based. However ic you delve deeper you begin to see it is not the application that is important but the idea of covering
I agree with you Dave. That's what I meant by the theories and concepts informing and driving the applications rather than it being a "tit for tat" kind of thing. But this has been true for every version of Wing Chun I have studied. Hence why I don't understand the distinction that some try to make by saying something is "non-application based."
It is very simple , if the system uses prearranged set of movements as an answer to incoming attack , and have drills that do the same it is application based system . Sadly (99% of all kung fu is application based ) . If the system works on developing reflexes and keeping the structre through sparring and drils ,it is not application based .
So you are saying you study a version of Wing Chun that doesn't drill techniques? Do you know of versions of Wing Chun that don't work on developing reflexes and keeping structure?
Pin Sun Wing Chun probably comes the closest to what you are describing. It doesn't use the standard 3 forms, but instead organizes the curriculum in a series of short forms or "San Sik" of around 3 moves each. These San Sik are practiced solo, on the dummy, and as a two-man drill with a partner and eventually in Chi Sau. The two-man drills are meant to really drive home how the technique or concept in the San Sik is applied or used. It is an efficient and quick way to teach a student all the basics. But this does not mean that Pin Sun doesn't also have underlying overall theories and concepts that inform and drive the techniques. It doesn't mean that when Pin Sun sees a given attack coming that it is always going to do X technique in response. Pin Sun uses the two man drills and Chi Sau to develop reflexes and good structure and also does sparring. I'm told the local Ku Lo Pin Sun schools in Shaping China regularly win the sparring tournaments in the area. So even though the beginning levels are very "application heavy" compared to other versions of Wing Chun, I don't think I would call even Pin Sun "application-based" Wing Chun.
I just don't see a very clear distinction between "application-based" and "non-application based." Maybe a lot of Chinese Martial Arts other than Wing Chun fit into the "application-based" category more clearly?
The sad thing? You've started similar threads years ago to have this explained to you by at least 5 people.
You didn't get it then, and still don't now.
If it bothers you that much and you are interested enough to keep coming back to this topic year after year, just go to a VT school already and find out about it!
Otherwise just give up.
Trying to turn this into an argument already? Why not just try and participate in a fruitful discussion? I don't think the topic has ever been explained very well. It is still unclear to me. I'm guessing it isn't all that clear to others as well. So I started this thread in the interest of trying to figure it out better. If your answer is always going to be "just go and study WSLVT if you really want to know"....then as I said in the other thread....it seems to be becoming clear that you really aren't here to share what you know about Wing Chun or learn from others. You seem to only be here to criticize and tear down others.
sanjuro_ronin
04-04-2017, 04:12 AM
I have never been a fan of "If they do this, you do that" or things of that nature.
Seems always to REACTIVE and not enough PROACTIVE.
In grappling, because the pace is "slower", "sensing" and "feeling" the opponent and even "waiting" for the opponent to commit is a viable option.
Not so much in striking when fists and feet are coming at you at 40MPH.
It doesn't mean that when Pin Sun sees a given attack coming that it is always going to do X technique in response.
Having more than one technique to apply against a given attack doesn't make it non-application based.
It means you have even more possible application ideas for one given attack.
This is a reactive approach. A non-application based method is lat-sau-jik-chung / jeui ying bat jeui sau.
I have never been a fan of "If they do this, you do that" or things of that nature.
Seems always to REACTIVE and not enough PROACTIVE.
In grappling, because the pace is "slower", "sensing" and "feeling" the opponent and even "waiting" for the opponent to commit is a viable option.
Not so much in striking when fists and feet are coming at you at 40MPH.
Yes. ......
wckf92
04-04-2017, 04:38 AM
jeui ying bat jeui sau.
Ok...gotta ask :D
Could you please translate (?)
Thanks in advance!
Ok...gotta ask :D
Could you please translate (?)
Thanks in advance!
Chase center. Don't chase arms.
If your answer is always going to be "just go and study WSLVT if you really want to know"....then as I said in the other thread....it seems to be becoming clear that you really aren't here to share what you know about Wing Chun
Well, it wasn't always the answer.
It has always been the last resort answer to you, because you never understood any explanation.
This topic was explained to you in detail by 5 different people on this very forum 4 years ago.
Each one ended up having to suggest you go and find out in person,
because direct experience is apparently the only thing likely to get you there.
But you are so hung up on preconceptions of technique application that I'm not sure you aren't actually beyond help.
wckf92
04-04-2017, 06:38 AM
Chase center. Don't chase arms.
Thank you 👍
Well, it wasn't always the answer.
It has always been the last resort answer to you, because you never understood any explanation.
This topic was explained to you in detail by 5 different people on this very forum 4 years ago.
Each one ended up having to suggest you go and find out in person,
because direct experience is apparently the only thing likely to get you there.
But you are so hung up on preconceptions of technique application that I'm not sure you aren't actually beyond help.
Still arguing? You took the time to do a search and look this up on the forum, but you can't take the time to participate in a discussion?
Having more than one technique to apply against a given attack doesn't make it non-application based.
It means you have even more possible application ideas for one given attack.
This is a reactive approach. A non-application based method is lat-sau-jik-chung / jeui ying bat jeui sau.
Every Wing Chun system I have studied has that Kuen Kit and uses it. So how are they still "application-based"? The whole definition of "arm chasing" is probably the most contentious topic in Wing Chun!
Still arguing? You took the time to do a search and look this up on the forum, but you can't take the time to participate in a discussion?
No, and no. I just have a good memory.
You might do yourself a favor and look up the old conversations to see if you can make anything of them now, several years on.
The whole definition of "arm chasing" is probably the most contentious topic in Wing Chun!
That might be your problem then!
You will tell me this is not arm chasing or application-based thinking.
If you believe that, then there's no talking to you.
http://i411.photobucket.com/albums/pp195/LFJ3/cheung2_zpstysaegjd.gif
So I see nothing wrong in a fighting method being rather simple and straight-forward. Its the "simple and straight-forward" that is going to work under pressure. Saying that a fighting method is "non-application" based just seems rather abstract to me. It doesn't really doesn't sound like something that is going to work very well under pressure in a real fighting situation.
This is an assessment from ignorance.
You don't understand something you also haven't observed or experienced.
So, you are not in any position to be able to assess the efficacy of the method, and your assessment is unjustified.
It sounds like you are frustrated at not being able to understand it, and personal grudge has led you to take a negative stance on it, as opposed to the only honest position you could take, which is to say "I don't know".
If you really want to know, but no amount of explanation is making sense to you, I'm sorry to say it again, but you'll have to go find out in person. It's really the last option for you.
zuti car
04-04-2017, 07:14 AM
So you are saying you study a version of Wing Chun that doesn't drill techniques? Do you know of versions of Wing Chun that don't work on developing reflexes and keeping structure?
Pin Sun Wing Chun probably comes the closest to what you are describing. It doesn't use the standard 3 forms, but instead organizes the curriculum in a series of short forms or "San Sik" of around 3 moves each. These San Sik are practiced solo, on the dummy, and as a two-man drill with a partner and eventually in Chi Sau. The two-man drills are meant to really drive home how the technique or concept in the San Sik is applied or used. It is an efficient and quick way to teach a student all the basics. But this does not mean that Pin Sun doesn't also have underlying overall theories and concepts that inform and drive the techniques. It doesn't mean that when Pin Sun sees a given attack coming that it is always going to do X technique in response. Pin Sun uses the two man drills and Chi Sau to develop reflexes and good structure and also does sparring. I'm told the local Ku Lo Pin Sun schools in Shaping China regularly win the sparring tournaments in the area. So even though the beginning levels are very "application heavy" compared to other versions of Wing Chun, I don't think I would call even Pin Sun "application-based" Wing Chun.
I just don't see a very clear distinction between "application-based" and "non-application based." Maybe a lot of Chinese Martial Arts other than Wing Chun fit into the "application-based" category more clearly?
I do not kow anything about pin sun wck so I cannot comment , anyway , If you have to memorize a given set of movements as a response to an attack it is application based , like TWC , that is all they do . I do not practice any "techniques ' or aplications , nothing to memorize and drill memorized movements .
This is an assessment from ignorance.
You don't understand something you also haven't observed or experienced.
So, you are not in any position to be able to assess the efficacy of the method, and your assessment is unjustified.
It sounds like you are frustrated at not being able to understand it, and personal grudge has led you to take a negative stance on it, as opposed to the only honest position you could take, which is to say "I don't know".
If you really want to know, but no amount of explanation is making sense to you, I'm sorry to say it again, but you'll have to go find out in person. It's really the last option for you.
Ok. So can you provide video of it working in a fighting situation? That is what you asked of Phil. Can you provide it?
And I have already said "I don't know".....in the sense that I don't see the distinction you are making in such a hard-line fashion. It shouldn't be that hard to explain.
I do not kow anything about pin sun wck so I cannot comment , anyway , If you have to memorize a given set of movements as a response to an attack it is application based , like TWC , that is all they do . I do not practice any "techniques ' or aplications , nothing to memorize and drill memorized movements .
Is this drilling techniques? Is this "application based"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM1EcXTvQyo
How about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb9M4Onz6ys
Is Wong Shun Leung teaching applications of Siu Lim Tao here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAapB8g_XA
Is Wong Shun Leung showing applications of moves from Chum Kiu here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q8wgirkzgE&t=162s
guy b.
04-04-2017, 10:03 AM
Ok. So can you provide video of it working in a fighting situation? That is what you asked of Phil. Can you provide it?
And I have already said "I don't know".....in the sense that I don't see the distinction you are making in such a hard-line fashion. It shouldn't be that hard to explain.
Your basic dishonesty is the problem KPM. It has been explained to you many, many times.
Unless you wake every morning with no memory of the previous day, you are lying again. When you do it that often people just get bored I'm afraid.
I guess if you want answers then stop trolling and someone might (might) take the time to run through it again. But if you are just clowning around with your silly political games again then I doubt anyone will. I certainly can't be bothered myself.
Your basic dishonesty is the problem KPM. It has been explained to you many, many times.
Unless you wake every morning with no memory of the previous day, you are lying again. When you do it that often people just get bored I'm afraid.
I guess if you want answers then stop trolling and someone might (might) take the time to run through it again. But if you are just clowning around with your silly political games again then I doubt anyone will. I certainly can't be bothered myself.
So now you are calling me a liar and a troll???? Look, I thought this would be a good topic for a discussion. So why are you not willing to discuss? Isn't that why you participate in the forum??? You guys are turning what could have been a productive and interesting discussion topic into another nasty exchange. Why do you do that???
It has not been explained "many many times." And it has never been explained satisfactorily or I wouldn't be asking to discuss. And there may be other people following the discussion (that's the whole purpose of an open forum) that might be interested in the topic that have never heard the WSLVT explanation themselves. So get off of your egotistical high horse and either participate in the discussion or just ignore the thread!
guy b.
04-04-2017, 05:04 PM
If you want genuine answers then suggest you stop being a complete **** all of the time. Best of luck
I do not kow anything about pin sun wck so I cannot comment , anyway , If you have to memorize a given set of movements as a response to an attack it is application based , like TWC , that is all they do . I do not practice any "techniques ' or aplications , nothing to memorize and drill memorized movements .
I have never memorized a given set of movements as a response to a specific attack in TWC or any other Wing Chun method I have studied.
If you want genuine answers then suggest you stop being a complete **** all of the time. Best of luck
Really? Have I called anyone a liar and a troll here???? :rolleyes:
zuti car
04-04-2017, 06:29 PM
Is this drilling techniques? Is this "application based"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM1EcXTvQyo
How about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb9M4Onz6ys
Is Wong Shun Leung teaching applications of Siu Lim Tao here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAapB8g_XA
Is Wong Shun Leung showing applications of moves from Chum Kiu here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q8wgirkzgE&t=162s
I was never taught any application in scwc , what see on these videos are very basic drills with a sole purpose to teach people proper mechanics of the movement ,it is not fighting application . In scwc applicaton are shown rarely , only to illustrate the principle but these applications are never memorized nor practiced in any way . What is WSL doing I cannot tell , I don't speak cantonese . What you do not understand is the fact that a style can be based on principles and those principles can be expressed and trained through applications ,these two things do not exclude eachother , take 99% of kung fu for example .
What you do not understand is the fact that a style can be based on principles and those principles can be expressed and trained through applications ,these two things do not exclude eachother , take 99% of kung fu for example .
No, no Zuti! I understand that perfectly well! I essentially said the same thing in my original post! I noted that the concepts/principles are what drive the applications. How can you have a martial art without any application???? But that is what the WSLVT guys have implied in the past. That is why I never understood what they were getting at because it never made sense. They have even said in the past that there are no applications in any of their forms. Its all just concepts.
So it seems to me that there is a spectrum between applications on one side and concepts on the other. Some versions of Wing Chun may lean towards the application side and some may lean towards the concept side. But I just don't see how anyone could think that Wing Chun could have one without the other!
zuti car
04-05-2017, 03:38 AM
No, no Zuti! I understand that perfectly well! I essentially said the same thing in my original post! I noted that the concepts/principles are what drive the applications. How can you have a martial art without any application???? But that is what the WSLVT guys have implied in the past. That is why I never understood what they were getting at because it never made sense. They have even said in the past that there are no applications in any of their forms. Its all just concepts.
So it seems to me that there is a spectrum between applications on one side and concepts on the other. Some versions of Wing Chun may lean towards the application side and some may lean towards the concept side. But I just don't see how anyone could think that Wing Chun could have one without the other!
I have no applications , unless punch is the face is considered application . What most people consider as appication is what William Cheung ,Leung Ting and most of the others are teaching , a set of prederminated movements that should be meorized and practiced as a response to given attack. That is the reason why that "applications" do not work in a real fight and you can see one thing taught and practiced in a school and something totally different used in fights . Cheung is teaching blind side concept and 3 or more blocks on one punch , yet you can never see his students (nor himself) ever used that in a fight\sparring , when they fight , they cannot pull out any application they learned and practiced so hard and they are basically doing some kind of kick boxing. In essence , they are practicing two different, let's say sports, I cannot say TWC is a martial art . Now question is , why someone practice two martial arts and believe he is parcticing one , when it is so obvious that applications and what is done in a figth\sparring are two totally different things . I just want to add , I don't know what wsl gys are doing so i canno comment , but I did practice WT and TWC so I am very well awared what is going on there .
I have no applications , unless punch is the face is considered application . What most people consider as appication is what William Cheung ,Leung Ting and most of the others are teaching , a set of prederminated movements that should be meorized and practiced as a response to given attack. That is the reason why that "applications" do not work in a real fight and you can see one thing taught and practiced in a school and something totally different used in fights . Cheung is teaching blind side concept and 3 or more blocks on one punch , yet you can never see his students (nor himself) ever used that in a fight\sparring , when they fight , they cannot pull out any application they learned and practiced so hard and they are basically doing some kind of kick boxing. In essence , they are practicing two different, let's say sports, I cannot say TWC is a martial art . Now question is , why someone practice two martial arts and believe he is parcticing one , when it is so obvious that applications and what is done in a figth\sparring are two totally different things . I just want to add , I don't know what wsl gys are doing so i canno comment , but I did practice WT and TWC so I am very well awared what is going on there .
Ok. But if you do not learn that a Tan Sau can defend the upper outer gate against an incoming strike and do not learn to do that specifically (which is to say, that is how it is applied) then how do you teach someone the use of a Tan Sau? Just as an example.
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 04:58 AM
What most people consider as appication is what William Cheung ,Leung Ting and most of the others are teaching , a set of prederminated movements that should be meorized and practiced as a response to given attack. That is the reason why that "applications" do not work in a real fight and you can see one thing taught and practiced in a school and something totally different used in fights . but I did practice WT and TWC so I am very well awared what is going on there .
Zuti,
I would disagree with your assertion that LT teaches applications and specific responses for specific attacks. Unless you are referring to the Lat Sau program or the sections of chi sau which in the beginning would teach responses but the goal is to make responses based on the energy given not a specific attack. If you do not agree then consider what happens after you learn the program and then flow freely. If you stick to a specific response to speific attacks, then you have not achieved much of a level in this system, imho.
One of the examples I like to use over the years is the alphabet. When starting out one must learn and practice the letters and then building into words, sentences, paragraphs etc. It is possible to know the letters and yet be unable to write anything worth reading. However, if you not only learn the letters but also understand the structure of sentences, etc, then you can take those 26 letters of the English-American alphabet and create literary masterpieces. Of course there are also those who learn the same thing but couldn't write a sentence coherently.
Those able to write understand and master the "concepts" those who have trouble writing a grocery list have gotten the "technique" and "application". Perhaps they can write enough to get by on a daily basis but certainly have insufficient skill to impart that knowledge to a broad audience. Does that make any sense??
When discussing concept and application based consider that many Okinawan Masters were known to be able to pick up a weapon they had never seen before and wield it like the master they were. This was not based on application but an understanding of the concept behind using weapons. This could be one reason there are long range, short range, double and flexible weapon categories. If you understand the concept of how to use one type then you can more easily use that type even if the specific weapon may be unfamiliar.
FWIW, I trained in LT WT as well as some other lineages. I have also done some sparse training int TWC with Joe Grepo in NJ, certainly not enough to say I know anything of that system in depth. I have also, through working in Law Enforcement, had the need to utilize things I was taught in real life encounters which were not friendly. I can say that my knowledge worked for me so I would tend to disagree with your assertion that what is taught by those mentioned does not work. However, I would agree that trying to memorize a bunch of techniques to use against specific attacks does not work. But, that is not what LT taught, at least not while I was training under this system.
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 05:20 AM
Morning,
Just to provide some more perspective of where I am coming from:
For most situations I would postulate (big words in the morning make me feel smart :D )
The following WC techniques are enough to deal with the majority of situations:
Taun Da
Pak Da
Gaun Da
There are of course exceptions which would not fit so neatly into the above but for the most part if you really understand those three "techniques" and understand them and learn them you would have a fairly decent result in most situations.
Now here is where it gets interesting. Take Taun for example; some will argue that there are up to three different types of Taun. One for upper level, one for lower level and one for mid level attacks. If you train this way then you are using "application" or "technique" based training, imo. You learn a variation of each Taun to use depending on where the attack is coming from or where it enters you gates.
I always liked to say there is only one Taun and it varies depending on how it is needed. Sometimes this is easy to say but harder to explain in words. But, my feeling is that by learning "one" Taun and varying it depending on what is given trains the concept rather than the application. By understanding the idea or concept of the Taun it can be used regardless of where the attack comes from because it never changes but molds itself to the energy it encounters. Thus I do not care if you try to punch me high, low or whatever. Now if the attack goes outside of the area which can be comfortably covered by the Taun seed or shape then it will change to something else.
Think of an art like Hsing Yi which has 5 major fist movements yet countless variations. To me again this is about energy. If you understand you can adapt and deal with anything your opponent throws at you. You cannot do that if you learn "technique" or "application" alone. I once heard of a Hsing Yi master who demonstrated each of the Five Fists against a variety of attacks. The opponent attacked this master using various different attacks and the master would respond using only one of the Five Fists for each very different attack. He did this to show that if you understand each Fist the "concept" behind that Fist could be utilized even outside what may be considered standard "application".
I remember seeing Leung Ting at a seminar many years ago. He told us that you could not fight from a low stance, it was impractical. He then got into a low stance and defended against various attacks. This showed me that you can, if you understand, make even a less than ideal situation work for you. Of course, if you train based on learning a set of responses to a set of attacks you would not be able to do this or understand it.
Back to work now.
Enjoy your day.
guy b.
04-05-2017, 06:43 AM
Ok. But if you do not learn that a Tan Sau can defend the upper outer gate against an incoming strike and do not learn to do that specifically (which is to say, that is how it is applied) then how do you teach someone the use of a Tan Sau? Just as an example.
Tan Sau is not a block. As such "use" of a Tan Sau as an application to block strikes to the xyz gate is error
I always liked to say there is only one Taun and it varies depending on how it is needed. Sometimes this is easy to say but harder to explain in words. But, my feeling is that by learning "one" Taun and varying it depending on what is given trains the concept rather than the application. By understanding the idea or concept of the Taun it can be used regardless of where the attack comes from because it never changes but molds itself to the energy it encounters. Thus I do not care if you try to punch me high, low or whatever. Now if the attack goes outside of the area which can be comfortably covered by the Taun seed or shape then it will change to something else.
.
I agree with you Dave. When you understand the concept behind the Tan Sau, you can use it or "apply" it in a variety of ways. You aren't memorizing a "tit for tat" kind of exchange. You just understand how a Tan is meant to function! But the minute you actually use the Tan in the way it was intended, THAT is an "application." And this is why I have always found the explanations of why WSLVT is "non-application based" and "has no applications" as being unsatisfactory. How do you have a martial art that you don't "apply"??? You example of the WT Lat Sau program is another good one. It may seem like the student is memorizing a string of specific moves for a specific situation, but they are expected to go beyond that and use it as a way of developing an understanding of how how those moves are meant to work. Once you have that, then you can "apply" them in a free-flowing format. That is what Chi Sau is for....to be able to use or "apply" things in a flowing non-predetermined way.
So if you look at videos of various styles showing what they do, they can't help but stage it as a given technique defending against a specific attack. So it looks like they are just doing "applications." What you don't see is the principles and concepts driving how they are using that particular technique. Its not just a "self-defense move", like memorizing a series of escapes from an arm-grab in a short self-defense class.
Tan Sau is not a block. As such "use" of a Tan Sau as an application to block strikes to the xyz gate is error
Ok. So a wide hard swinging blow is coming in at your upper outer gate. What do you do?
I noted that the concepts/principles are what drive the applications. How can you have a martial art without any application???? But that is what the WSLVT guys have implied in the past. That is why I never understood what they were getting at because it never made sense. They have even said in the past that there are no applications in any of their forms. Its all just concepts.
Concepts and principles drive fighting behaviors, not which techniques to use against which kind of attacks.
Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.
Ok. But if you do not learn that a Tan Sau can defend the upper outer gate against an incoming strike and do not learn to do that specifically (which is to say, that is how it is applied) then how do you teach someone the use of a Tan Sau? Just as an example.
You don't. Taan-sau is a tool for punch training. It isn't used as a block in fighting.
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 06:55 AM
Ok. So a wide hard swinging blow is coming in at your upper outer gate. What do you do?
In that situation I probably would not use a Taun.
Possible a Biu or even a Bong depending on where it was aimed.
But the danger of trying to use a Taun is if you are too close the arm will hook around you and hit you anyhow.
Regardless you should, imo, be stepping into the opponent and perhaps jamming his shoulder.
Of course there are so many vairables it is pretty hard to say what one would do.
Ok. So a wide hard swinging blow is coming in at your upper outer gate. What do you do?
You're asking him to play your application game, after you've been told VT doesn't work like that?
You're asking him to play your application game, after you've been told VT doesn't work like that?
Its not a hard question. You are walking down the street and suddenly see a punch whipping toward your head. What do you do?
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 07:06 AM
Concepts and principles drive fighting behaviors, not which techniques to use against which kind of attacks.
Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.
You don't. Taan-sau is a tool for punch training. It isn't used as a block in fighting.
I would agree that WC, in general does not block.
However if you think the taun is "punch training" and WC is about economy why not simply train punches by, punching???
Everything is not a punch and everything is not a block.
The Taun is a dispersing movement which molds when it meets incoming energy.
If the energy coming in is greater than the elbow force projecting forward then the Taun will accept that energy and parry it. If the incoming energy is less then the Taun can continue forward and become a strike. However, this is not the same as "punch training".
While the forms train many things like structure and the seeds of the system, Taun, Fook, Bong for example. To may such a broad statement as: "Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for." is, imho, wrong. There can be no form without the ability to apply that form in application.
However, I am open to hearing an explanation of what you mean when you say actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.
In that situation I probably would not use a Taun.
Possible a Biu or even a Bong depending on where it was aimed.
But the danger of trying to use a Taun is if you are too close the arm will hook around you and hit you anyhow.
Regardless you should, imo, be stepping into the opponent and perhaps jamming his shoulder.
Of course there are so many vairables it is pretty hard to say what one would do.
Now see, that's a good answer!!!
Concepts and principles drive fighting behaviors, not which techniques to use against which kind of attacks.
Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.
You don't. Taan-sau is a tool for punch training. It isn't used as a block in fighting.
What are "fighting behaviors"??
Ok. So a wide hard swinging blow is coming in at your upper outer gate. What do you do?
If your choice is to use taan-sau, it'll probably end up failing like this guy's at 7:04.
He eats the punch in a slow and controlled demo where he asks for what punch he wants.
How do you think it's gonna work out for real??
And this is an entire video of nothing but ridiculous TWC applications, by the way. Worth a laugh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyJ5RTLWp3Y&t=1654s
However if you think the taun is "punch training" and WC is about economy why not simply train punches by, punching???
VT punching is a kind that requires a particular training method different from that required for a jab, for example.
The Taun is a dispersing movement which molds when it meets incoming energy.
Not for me.
If the energy coming in is greater than the elbow force projecting forward then the Taun will accept that energy and parry it. If the incoming energy is less then the Taun can continue forward and become a strike. However, this is not the same as "punch training".
I don't follow this method.
To may such a broad statement as: "Actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for." is, imho, wrong.
It's correct for the system I train. You train something else entirely.
There can be no form without the ability to apply that form in application.
Nonsense.
However, I am open to hearing an explanation of what you mean when you say actions in the forms should not be given applications. That's not what they're for.
Actions improve mechanics and refine position. They are not to be taken and applied as techniques against xyz.
What are "fighting behaviors"??
Already told you. For example, lat-sau-jik-chung / jeui ying bat jeui sau.
That you are still confused about this is sad.
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 07:56 AM
I understand the WC punching method is different but you seem to be implying that all of the "techniques" are really just means of training the punch. If this is the case then why not just practice punching by punching??
I would be interested in some detailed explanation as some others have also stated that the Taun is really about training the punch but been unable or unwilling to explain exactly how that works. I mean does the Pak also train the punch, how about the Fook? Both utilize elbow energy. If not please explain the difference and why the taun is special. What I am saying is that you seem to be trying to call an apple and an orange the same thing, then again both are fruit.
I would be interested in your explanation of Taun, in a little bit of detail not just something like "that's not how I train it"
My example is that all energy should be trained to be forward. Chi Sau helps with this. When one encounters something coming in then if the incoming energy is less you continue forward. If the incoming energy is greater you accept and yield and let it mold your response. I would think that if you believe that the taun is punch training you should be able to grasp what I just said.
Please explain why your system has forms if not for teaching which can be directly translated into applications? Why not do only San Sik and no forms at all if the forms have no function for application?
I am also interested in why believing form should promote function is "nonsense".
I do not believe I have advocated learning response abc to attack xyz. However I am curious as to how you respond to attacks without using actions? Also curious if any of your response are also in the forms.
If this is the case then why not just practice punching by punching??
Didn't you just ask that question?
I mean does the Pak also train the punch,
No.
how about the Fook?
Yes.
I would be interested in your explanation of Taun, in a little bit of detail not just something like "that's not how I train it"
It trains the elbow behavior of a punch.
When one encounters something coming in then if the incoming energy is less you continue forward. If the incoming energy is greater you accept and yield and let it mold your response. I would think that if you believe that the taun is punch training you should be able to grasp what I just said.
I know what you are describing, but I don't do WT. It's an entirely different approach to fighting.
Please explain why your system has forms if not for teaching which can be directly translated into applications?
Already did. The actions train mechanics and attributes, and introduce concepts, but are not to be misunderstood or applied directly as fighting techniques.
Why not do only San Sik and no forms at all if the forms have no function for application?
Training actions individually or strung together has nothing to do with application.
I am also interested in why believing form should promote function is "nonsense".
No one said that.
However I am curious as to how you respond to attacks without using actions?
?
Also curious if any of your response are also in the forms.
Our forms don't teach applications.
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 08:29 AM
I can see that no real answers will be forthcoming,
i can only assume it is because the understanding is not there to discuss in detail, which could be on my part as well.
zuti car
04-05-2017, 08:34 AM
Ok. But if you do not learn that a Tan Sau can defend the upper outer gate against an incoming strike and do not learn to do that specifically (which is to say, that is how it is applied) then how do you teach someone the use of a Tan Sau? Just as an example.
Explaination of this requirs time I do not have , neither I am willing to share what I do . Anyway , what you said here is one of the most basic ideas for beginners to help them grasp the basic foundation of the art , to understand the basic priciples . But I seldom use tan sao and not in a manner anyone else does .
why not just practice punching by punching??
Why not do only San Sik and no forms at all if the forms have no function for application?
It sounds like you've laid claim to the forms and actions in them, and want me to take up your method, or stop using them.
A bit arrogant.
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 08:52 AM
It sounds like you've laid claim to the forms and actions in them, and want me to take up your method, or stop using them.
A bit arrogant.
Seems like you are the arrogant one :D
I lay claim to nothing and certainly have no need or desire to impose my approach on others.
To be honest, I am getting older and really could care less if someone does not agree with me.
However, I am always willing and open to try and explain my views and approach.
Those who make broad bold statements implying that they have something others don,t but cannot or will not explain in detail are the ones I would consider not only misguided but arrogant.
Those who make broad bold statements implying that they have something others don,t but cannot or will not explain in detail are the ones I would consider not only misguided but arrogant.
They are not broad bold statements. They describe the system I train which is not the system you train.
To tell me I'm wrong is broad, in that you're applying your interpretation to all systems, and bold in that you don't even train my system.
That comes off as pretty arrogant, but okay then.
I have answered your questions. What are you having trouble with?
If your choice is to use taan-sau, it'll probably end up failing like this guy's at 7:04.
He eats the punch in a slow and controlled demo where he asks for what punch he wants.
How do you think it's gonna work out for real??
And this is an entire video of nothing but ridiculous TWC applications, by the way. Worth a laugh.
You are deflecting and not answering the question. Why is that?
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 09:12 AM
They are not broad bold statements. They describe the system I train which is not the system you train.
To tell me I'm wrong is broad, in that you're applying your interpretation to all systems, and bold in that you don't even train my system.
That comes off as pretty arrogant, but okay then.
I have answered your questions. What are you having trouble with?
Well, the most basic question I asked is why not just practice punching.
You have not replied with anything specific.
I accept that we do not train the same lineage. Still, there should be some basic common concepts.
You seem to prefer to tell others how they are wrong or can't make something work for real.
This is in spite of the fact that you also do not do their system so why is okay for you to tell someone they don't get it because they don't practice what you do but okay for you to tell people that actually train in a system they are wrong?
FWIW, Phil has been able to make what he shows work. Without going into too much detail, partly cause I do not know all the details and it is not my place, Phil has fought and trained fighters who have won fights. To imply that the system he teaches and has used is a total sham and will not work is.....................wait for it...................pretty arrogant.
I have been on the forum for a while now and while I do not always agree with everyone I would tend to think most would not find me or my approach "arrogant". However if you feel that is an apt description from you POV you are welcome to feel that way.
I train Wing Chun as well as Pekiti Tirsia, Malabar Silat and have dabbled in Hsing Yi. I am more than willing to post my lineage but that means little. Ultimately it is the person who defines the level of skill not the system trained.
What is the system you train again?
If you are willing to actually discuss your approach I am happy to do so. Does not mean I am right and you are wrong or vice versa if we do not agree. Who knows both of us may walk away with something of benefit.
If you do not want to discuss anything in detail that is also fine and your right.
Already told you. For example, lat-sau-jik-chung / jeui ying bat jeui sau.
That you are still confused about this is sad.
You are still deflecting and not answering questions. Why is that?
You are deflecting and not answering the question. Why is that?
I don't do applications. It's kind of stupid to restate your question asking me for an application when I tell you this.
Well, the most basic question I asked is why not just practice punching.
You have not replied with anything specific.
Elbow control for VT punching needs more isolated attention and systematic development than "just punching".
I accept that we do not train the same lineage. Still, there should be some basic common concepts.
Doesn't sound like there's much.
You seem to prefer to tell others how they are wrong or can't make something work for real.
This is in spite of the fact that you also do not do their system so why is okay for you to tell someone they don't get it because they don't practice what you do but okay for you to tell people that actually train in a system they are wrong?
I've only said someone is wrong when they are objectively wrong, like KPM saying Phil didn't take a direct sidestep.
If they say their forms are full of applications, I won't say that's wrong because mine aren't, which you did the reverse of, telling me I'm wrong in saying the actions in my forms shouldn't be given applications, just because yours are given applications.
I have expressed doubt about something being able to work for real, and haven't been shown that it does. So?
FWIW, Phil has been able to make what he shows work.
Maybe. That's what he says.
Without going into too much detail, partly cause I do not know all the details and it is not my place, Phil has fought and trained fighters who have won fights.
If you don't know the details, why say it? How do you know Phil's experience? I have never seen Phil fight or seen a fighting record of his. Not saying it isn't there, but I've only ever heard him say so.
I've seen his guys win fights, but not using anything in all the 100's of application videos they have.
I can see that no real answers will be forthcoming,
i can only assume it is because the understanding is not there to discuss in detail, which could be on my part as well.
Exactly what I have experienced in the past! And yet they will declare that this has now been explained to you in detail!!! :rolleyes:
Seems like you are the arrogant one :D
I lay claim to nothing and certainly have no need or desire to impose my approach on others.
To be honest, I am getting older and really could care less if someone does not agree with me.
However, I am always willing and open to try and explain my views and approach.
Those who make broad bold statements implying that they have something others don,t but cannot or will not explain in detail are the ones I would consider not only misguided but arrogant.
And this is EXACTLY how they manage to turn nearly every discussion into an argument! :eek:
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 10:04 AM
I've only said someone is wrong when they are objectively wrong, like KPM saying Phil didn't take a direct sidestep.
If they say their forms are full of applications, I won't say that's wrong because mine aren't, which you did the reverse of, telling me I'm wrong in saying the actions in my forms shouldn't be given applications, just because yours are given applications.
I have expressed doubt about something being able to work for real, and haven't been shown that it does. So?
If you don't know the details, why say it? How do you know Phil's experience? I have never seen Phil fight or seen a fighting record of his. Not saying it isn't there, but I've only ever heard him say so.
I've seen his guys win fights, but not using anything in all the 100's of application videos they have.
You have said TWC will not work and implied that their approach is unrealistic and "wrong". Yet, as far as I am aware you do not train TWC.
So I have to ask again, why do you train the forms? What are the "actions" for if they do not translate into some sort of "application"? Let me ask this to make it easier; do you train to punch? If yes, then if and when you punch someone is that an "action"? If yes is that "action" now an "application"? Maybe you think I am trying to attack you, I can assure you that is not my intent. I would just like more info. You can PM me or email me if you are uncomfortable discussing here.
I mentioned Phils experience because you attempted to cast doubt on whether or not he has used his art. You are still doing so, albeit a bit more politely.
A real fight is often ugly and chaotic. If you see anyone apply picture perfect moves then I would tend to think the fight was a set up or fake. Ren Gyi (spelling is probably wrong) does Tai Chi and, if I am not mistaken has fought with it but it hardly looks like traditional Tai Chi. The is the idea behind learning a conceptual system though, it may not look like the textbook examples but the seeds were planted by that textbook.
It is really a shame you do not seem willing to discuss things in detail. I have a feeling it would be an interesting discourse and many on this forum could benefit from differing points of view. After all, isn't that what the forum is for? Discussion and exposure to other ideas and points of view?
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 10:08 AM
And this is EXACTLY how they manage to turn nearly every discussion into an argument! :eek:
It takes at least two to argue.
One can disagree and have different opinions without having to argue.
You and I did not agree fully regarding the video clip in the other thread but I do not think we needed to attack each other.
We can differ but still be civil.
Heck, the fact that Phil seems to like you, he invited you to the seminar in May, makes me like you less. :p
Imagine being friends with a Marine :eek: I have to be his friend, Judges orders, LOL
I don't do applications. It's kind of stupid to restate your question asking me for an application when I tell you this.
So does that mean you are just going to stand there and get hit???? Its not a hard question to answer!!!
It takes at least two to argue.
One can disagree and have different opinions without having to argue.
You and I did not agree fully regarding the video clip in the other thread but I do not think we needed to attack each other.
We can differ but still be civil.
Heck, the fact that Phil seems to like you, he invited you to the seminar in May, makes me like you less. :p
Imagine being friends with a Marine :eek: I have to be his friend, Judges orders, LOL
Phil and I go way back. :)
Absolutely people can disagree without resorting to getting nasty and personal about it. That's what I mean about some turning every discussion into an argument. I guess I tend to get sucked into it.
Happy Tiger
04-05-2017, 01:06 PM
VT is at its heart a very serious play of paper/ rock/ sissor...this, because of body mechanics and the amazing potential of guile ,physical experience and limit of knowledge draw it's limits.
I was gonna say 'thus' but it sounded snotty.��
Sihing73
04-05-2017, 01:48 PM
When I was teaching in Philly most of my students were non white.
My ex is Black or African American, never sure which she preferred as she changed from time to time.
Me I could care less and have 4 beautiful children of mixed heritage.
Phil would doubtless tell you they did not get their looks from me.
Phil has been to my home for a short visit. You will get the joking reference if you know Phil. :p;)
Anyhow to my point.
I used to teach and at times would use racial comments to **** my students off.
Had nothing to do with race but everything to do with control.
See, if someone can get inside your head and get you mad they gain a level of control over you.
If I see that something will upset you I will try to use that in to my advantage.
My students came to realize what was happening and learned not to let things said get to them.
That way they could keep control and use it to their advantage.
Same thing on this forum.
Some people like to discuss and share their experiences and knowledge.
Others like to stir things up or prop themselves up at others expense.
But just like in the real world if you feed into those who are stirring things up they continue.
If you ignore them or don't rise to the bait then they will often get frustrated and either stop or go pick on someone else.
Like I tell my kids, words mean nothing.
What people think of you means little to nothing depending on the context.
What you think of yourself is important.
You should never do something because someone else wants you to, you do it because it is the right thing to do or because you want to do it. This is one reason people who try to make themselves into what their significant other wants almost always fail. Wrong motivation. If you want to lose weight do it for you. You would never be happy trying to do if for someone else.
Same on this forum.
If you want to post something don't do it with the hopes of imposing your ideas or views on others.
Do it cause you want to share and perhaps learn from others.
If you post just to try and impress and or get validation for your views then you need a different life, imo.
I often tell my kids and others that the secret to life is not to care.
What I mean by that is not to get stressed out over things.
guy b.
04-05-2017, 02:25 PM
Its not a hard question. You are walking down the street and suddenly see a punch whipping toward your head. What do you do?
Lol at having a pre-planned reaction in your head for this scenario.
But just to reassure you, doing a training action from a VT form as your pre-planned response to a punch in the face would indicate an extreme misunderstanding of the VT system and would be utterly ineffective.
You would achieve as much whipping out a big picture frame just in time for the guy to punch through and knock you out
Anyhow to my point.
.
Good post Dave! And good advice! Thanks!
Lol at having a pre-planned reaction in your head for this scenario.
But just to reassure you, doing a training action from a VT form as your pre-planned response to a punch in the face would indicate an extreme misunderstanding of the VT system and would be utterly ineffective.
You would achieve as much whipping out a big picture frame just in time for the guy to punch through and knock you out
It occurs to me that neither you nor LFJ will answer this question because you realize that the only way to answer it is to describe how you would react....which would be how you would "apply" your skills.....and this would be an actual "application." See, this is why what you guys have said has never made sense to me. How do you have a martial art where you don't "apply" what you know? Do you develop secret psychic skills by doing WSLVT where you can stop an attacker with just a look?
I think in the videos I posted earlier, WSL is clearly demonstrating and teaching how to use or "apply" various movements from the forms. This seems just as obvious to me as what you point out as "applications" from other videos.
There are only so many ways to move. So you have three empty-hand forms and a long dummy form. But there are no applications taught in any of those forms....only concepts? If this is true, it sure seems to me that your Wing Chun is either way over-complicated, or way inefficient in teaching. If it takes that many forms to teach someone how to use your concepts and yet still learn no applications of those concepts, then that doesn't seem like a good training paradigm to me. I would think you could learn the concepts and principles in a much more efficient fashion. After all, you have eliminated learning various applications from these movements in the forms compared to everyone else's Wing Chun, shouldn't your Wing Chun be more stream-lined and simple in comparison???
guy b.
04-05-2017, 04:05 PM
It occurs to me that neither you nor LFJ will answer this question because you realize that the only way to answer it is to describe how you would react....which would be how you would "apply" your skills.....and this would be an actual "application." See, this is why what you guys have said has never made sense to me. How do you have a martial art where you don't "apply" what you know?
It is answered above. Not my fault if you don't understand. Maybe re-read?
There are only so many ways to move. So you have three empty-hand forms and a long dummy form. But there are no applications taught in any of those forms....only concepts? If this is true, it sure seems to me that your Wing Chun is either way over-complicated, or way inefficient in teaching. If it takes that many forms to teach someone how to use your concepts and yet still learn no applications of those concepts, then that doesn't seem like a good training paradigm to me.
It seems that way because it is a method you don't understand. I don't feel bad that you wish to continue demonstrating your lack of understanding of the system, but fail to see what you think it will achieve in terms of my reactions to you.
I would think you could learn the concepts and principles in a much more efficient fashion. After all, you have eliminated learning various applications from these movements in the forms compared to everyone else's Wing Chun, shouldn't your Wing Chun be more stream-lined and simple in comparison???
WSL VT is very simple
guy b.
04-05-2017, 04:09 PM
So does that mean you are just going to stand there and get hit???? Its not a hard question to answer!!!
It isn't an either/or
It is answered above. Not my fault if you don't understand. Maybe re-read?
It seems that way because it is a method you don't understand. I don't feel bad that you wish to continue demonstrating your lack of understanding of the system, but fail to see what you think it will achieve in terms of my reactions to you.
WSL VT is very simple
Yeah, it looks like the truth of the matter is that you can't adequately explain what you mean. You won't answer a very simple question because it would reveal the flaw in what you have been inadequately trying to explain. But that's Ok. Just stop saying that "5 people have completely explained this to you in excruciating detail!" :p Because it really seems that you guys can't explain it very well!!! You can't even answer a very simple question!
You are walking down the street and suddenly a wide loopy punch comes whipping in at your head. What do you do???? Dave had no problem answering that question. So what's your problem?
You have said TWC will not work and implied that their approach is unrealistic and "wrong".
Where are you quoting this "wrong" from?
I have NEVER said TWC is wrong, because it is entirely unrelated to the system I train.
I have expressed doubt, and even gone so far as to say I believe something will not work, but I have not said it is wrong. It's correct for them.
Skepticism is not wrong. It is the default position to take. Do you understand why?
So I have to ask again, why do you train the forms? What are the "actions" for if they do not translate into some sort of "application"?
Why do you have to ask again? I have answered this twice now. What part of the answer are you having trouble with?
If you are looking for a different answer, don't just restate the same question for the third time. Tell me what you do not understand about my answer.
Let me ask this to make it easier; do you train to punch? If yes, then if and when you punch someone is that an "action"? If yes is that "action" now an "application"?
An application is the preplanned use of a technique applied against a given attack. For example, how you guys plan to use taan-sau or biu-sau against a round punch. It's a 1:1 application.
Even if you haven't planned to throw out one of those responses in the heat of the moment, you have trained those actions to be applied against those types of attacks. Meaning it is a planned application you have trained for.
A punch doesn't fall into that category.
I mentioned Phils experience because you attempted to cast doubt on whether or not he has used his art. You are still doing so, albeit a bit more politely.
Skepticism is the default position. Simply restating his claim does nothing to clear any doubt.
If you see anyone apply picture perfect moves then I would tend to think the fight was a set up or fake.
I have not expected to see picture perfect moves.
What I have been looking for is their overall strategy and tactics being employed in their fights.
They have 100's of application videos showing getting to the blindside and trapping the one arm while attacking.
If it actually worked for real, we would expect to see it achieved at least once in all their fight videos. But we don't see that.
So does that mean you are just going to stand there and get hit???? Its not a hard question to answer!!!
If you're saying we're walking down the street, probably with our hands down at our sides, maybe carrying bags and not poised to defend a punch, and then suddenly see a punch ALREADY on it's way to our face before we even detect the presence of an attacker, then yeah, most likely scenario is we get sucker punched. Same for you. Same for everyone.
To think you will have time to throw up a taan-sau or something to block a sucker punch like that is fantasy. The punch would have to be coming in super slow-motion.
Whether or not we'll be able to effectively defend against a sudden attack, and what we'll do to defend, depends on many factors, such that it is fantasy to plan for the unforeseen with specific techniques. This is why we don't train technique applications, but principles of fighting behavior.
Absolutely people can disagree without resorting to getting nasty and personal about it. That's what I mean about some turning every discussion into an argument. I guess I tend to get sucked into it.
No, KPM. You do not get sucked into anything. Over at the MT forum I get along with everyone else just fine when you're not around. Even gpseymour has been playing nice with me. They ask questions, I share what I know. No one argues or gets personal.
That only happens when you're there. It's much more civil when you're banned, suggesting the problem is you!
It occurs to me that neither you nor LFJ will answer this question because you realize that the only way to answer it is to describe how you would react....which would be how you would "apply" your skills.....and this would be an actual "application."
That's exactly what we have told you! We don't do preplanned applications! Of course we will not play your application game. That would be asking us to misuse VT.
How do you have a martial art where you don't "apply" what you know?
No one has said that. We do apply what we know, but what we know is not endless technique applications.
So you have three empty-hand forms and a long dummy form. But there are no applications taught in any of those forms....only concepts? If this is true, it sure seems to me that your Wing Chun is either way over-complicated, or way inefficient in teaching. If it takes that many forms to teach someone how to use your concepts and yet still learn no applications of those concepts, then that doesn't seem like a good training paradigm to me. I would think you could learn the concepts and principles in a much more efficient fashion. After all, you have eliminated learning various applications from these movements in the forms compared to everyone else's Wing Chun, shouldn't your Wing Chun be more stream-lined and simple in comparison???
VT is very simple and efficient in its training method. You simply do not understand it.
If you want to learn the system first, then see how you can simplify it and make it more efficient while not sacrificing important stages of development or outcome quality, be our guest!
You are walking down the street and suddenly a wide loopy punch comes whipping in at your head. What do you do???? Dave had no problem answering that question. So what's your problem?
Again?? Geez...
Dave had no problem because he has no problem with 1:1 applications.
Our "problem" is with 1:1 applications, like you've been told repeatedly!
If you're saying we're walking down the street, probably with our hands down at our sides, maybe carrying bags and not poised to defend a punch, and then suddenly see a punch ALREADY on it's way to our face before we even detect the presence of an attacker, then yeah, most likely scenario is we get sucker punched. Same for you. Same for everyone.
---Ok. So your answer IS that you will just stand there and get hit! Personally I would respond in some way.
No, KPM. You do not get sucked into anything. Over at the MT forum I get along with everyone else just fine when you're not around. Even gpseymour has been playing nice with me. They ask questions, I share what I know. No one argues or gets personal.
That only happens when you're there. It's much more civil when you're banned, suggesting the problem is you!
---Actually, things got much more civil there when Guy B. was banned. You manage to cloak your disdain in polite language. You say things like "you were dishonest" rather than saying "you're a liar!" So the moderators ignore it. The problem is that I get rather passionate about Wing Chun and "take your bait" more than the others. I need to follow Dave's and Geezer's advice and just ignore you. But believe me, most others in the MT forum view you and the way you post in the same way that I do! They are just better at not taking your baiting than I am!
That's exactly what we have told you! We don't do preplanned applications! Of course we will not play your application game. That would be asking us to misuse VT.
---And I pointed out that most of the videos you see and call "application based" are "pre-planned" only in the sense that they were doing a demo. No one goes out with the thought of "ok, if I see a wide loopy blow coming at my head I am going to throw up a Biu Sau as I angle away from the blow and do a punch up the center at the same time." Everyone in Wing Chun is going to react instinctively given the moment. If it was a rather tight punch someone might evade back like a boxer and then snap forward with a Pak Sau as the punch goes past. Who knows? It is NOT "pre-planned"!!! But.....the moment you DO respond...THAT is an application! Hence why I said I don't understand how you can have a martial art without applications! What I object to is saying that any Wing Chun method is "application-based." It may put more emphasis on applications than what you do. But that does not mean it is entirely based on applications! I still maintain that what WSL was doing in those videos I posted earlier is just as much an example of being "application based" as the videos you have called "application based."
Our "problem" is with 1:1 applications, like you've been told repeatedly!
---And as I have responded repeatedly....the second you use your skills and "apply" any technique, THAT becomes a 1:1 application! How do you have a martial art without 1:1 applications? What this really boils down to is a mindset in training, not a clear distinction between "application based" Wing Chun and "non-application based" Wing Chun. As I am understanding it, the mindset in WSLVT is to train for a "broader picture"..... to train for the "flow of the moment." But when you actually do a specific defensive technique to stop a specific attack, THAT is an "application" at that moment. Other Wjng Chun systems may have a mindset of training things more directly in the sense of working drills that teach how to use given defensive techniques in a given situation. But then they use other drills (like Chi Sau) to train for the "flow of the moment." They most certainly are not learning in a "tit for tat" approach like learning various escapes form a joint-lock in a self-defense class. So in the end both approaches result in "meeting at the middle" with similar results. You may say otherwise, but whenever you or other WSLVT guys have called something "application-based" it has been in a somewhat negative sense if not out-right derogatory. That is something else that I have always objected to!
---Ok. So your answer IS that you will just stand there and get hit! Personally I would respond in some way.
Sure, you would, if you're the Flash.
In reality, in the scenario you described where a punch is already incoming out of nowhere before you even detect a person, anyone would most likely be hit unless the punch is coming in super slow-motion or from a mile away, no matter what you think you might do.
If you can block that, then you should be invincible once you got your dukes up.
No one goes out with the thought of "ok, if I see a wide loopy blow coming at my head I am going to throw up a Biu Sau as I angle away from the blow and do a punch up the center at the same time." Everyone in Wing Chun is going to react instinctively given the moment.
With the hope that your repeatedly trained biu-sau or what have you against this kind of punch (1:1) is what you instinctively react with.
Who knows? It is NOT "pre-planned"!!! But.....the moment you DO respond...THAT is an application!
An application of a technique pre-planned in training to be used in a certain way against a given attack, trained in 1:1 drills until it can be applied instinctively...
There is indeed pre-planning in an application-based system.
What I object to is saying that any Wing Chun method is "application-based." It may put more emphasis on applications than what you do. But that does not mean it is entirely based on applications!
Your "principles" guide applications of techniques pulled straight from your forms. That's application-based.
I still maintain that what WSL was doing in those videos I posted earlier is just as much an example of being "application based" as the videos you have called "application based."
VT can't be taught in a couple minutes like TWC.
---And as I have responded repeatedly....the second you use your skills and "apply" any technique, THAT becomes a 1:1 application!
What technique do I apply against what to become 1:1 application?
As I am understanding it, the mindset in WSLVT is to train for a "broader picture"..... to train for the "flow of the moment." But when you actually do a specific defensive technique to stop a specific attack, THAT is an "application" at that moment.
I don't do specific defensive techniques to stop specific attacks. As I've been telling you. We don't do 1:1 applications.
Restating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.
They most certainly are not learning in a "tit for tat" approach like learning various escapes form a joint-lock in a self-defense class.
What do you call that escape from a wrist grab interpretation of the last 3 actions in SNT, then?
Here at 23:27. Seems to be exactly what you're saying. https://youtu.be/IyJ5RTLWp3Y?t=23m37s
So in the end both approaches result in "meeting at the middle" with similar results.
Entirely different.
whenever you or other WSLVT guys have called something "application-based" it has been in a somewhat negative sense if not out-right derogatory.
Most MAs are application-based, and that's fine. It's only negative if your applications are unrealistic.
Sure, you would, if you're the Flash.
--- I said you see it coming. Not quite the same as a sucker punch. But go on deflecting and avoiding answering the question as much as you want.
An application of a technique pre-planned in training to be used in a certain way against a given attack, trained in 1:1 drills until it can be applied instinctively...
There is indeed pre-planning in an application-based system.
---Whatever you think. You obviously aren't even trying to follow what I have been saying.
Your "principles" guide applications of techniques pulled straight from your forms. That's application-based.
---No. That's principles inform application. That doesn't mean it isn't "principle based." The applications all have a cohesive logic behind them that are guided by the principles and what you referred to as "fighting behaviors."
VT can't be taught in a couple minutes like TWC.
---Another insulting and derogatory comment directed at TWC.
What technique do I apply against what to become 1:1 application?
---Again, this isn't rocket science! When you use any technique to directly address any attack, at that moment in time it becomes an "application."
I don't do specific defensive techniques to stop specific attacks. As I've been telling you. We don't do 1:1 applications.
Restating the same falsehood doesn't make it true.
---Restating your logical fallacy doesn't make it any truer either! If you are doing something....anything...that is an application of your skills.
What do you call that escape from a wrist grab interpretation of the last 3 actions in SNT, then?
Here at 23:27. Seems to be exactly what you're saying. https://youtu.be/IyJ5RTLWp3Y?t=23m37s
---Just as much so as what WSL is doing here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAapB8g_XA
---He is showing a different interpretation of the "application" of this part of the form, but it is still an "application" nonetheless!!!
--- I said you see it coming. Not quite the same as a sucker punch. But go on deflecting and avoiding answering the question as much as you want.
Yeah, you see it coming, meaning already in motion toward your face. How long does it take to land from that point? A freaking nanosecond.
If you can get your taan-sau up to block something like that, you are the Flash, and should never be hit when you actually got your dukes up ready to go!
Unless of course, super slo-mo and/or mile away.
The applications all have a cohesive logic behind them that are guided by the principles and what you referred to as "fighting behaviors."
What do I refer to as fighting behaviors? Sounds like you haven't understood. There are no 1:1 applications in VT fighting behavior.
---Another insulting and derogatory comment directed at TWC.
No secret I'm not a fan.
What technique do I apply against what to become 1:1 application?
---Again, this isn't rocket science! When you use any technique to directly address any attack, at that moment in time it becomes an "application."
I don't do 1:1 applications.
---Restating your logical fallacy doesn't make it any truer either!
Which logical fallacy?
If you are doing something....anything...that is an application of your skills.
But not necessarily 1:1 technique application. You have changed the entire meaning.
---Just as much so as what WSL is doing here:
---He is showing a different interpretation of the "application" of this part of the form, but it is still an "application" nonetheless!!!
How is recycling and replacing lead hands an application? What is being applied against what?
guy b.
04-06-2017, 06:33 AM
If you are doing something....anything...that is an application of your skills.
No, application based MA is pre-planning to respond in some particular way to some particular type of attack. Like TWC doing multi blocks while trying to step around the opponent as they attack, or you pulling a tan to magically block when a punch appears from nowhere.
Attacking according to LLHS LSJC is not an application in this sense and WSL VT does not work in this way.
AS LFJ said, it isn't that pre-planning responses is inherently bad. It is pre-planning unrealistic responses that is the problem (like the two examples above). Many MA are application based.
If you weren't such a moron about it then it might be possible to discuss. Finger moon etc
No, application based MA is pre-planning to respond in some particular way to some particular type of attack. Like TWC doing multi blocks while trying to step around the opponent as they attack, or you pulling a tan to magically block when a punch appears from nowhere.
---But I've pointed out that it isn't really "pre-planning." You don't know what you are going to do in the heat of the moment. You react based upon instinct and training. I've said over and over again that it isn't "tit for tat."
Attacking according to LLHS LSJC is not an application in this sense and WSL VT does not work in this way.
---Ok. Then describe how you react to an attack. I'll reword the question for you since LJF was finding so many ways to deflect. You are walking down the street and see a mean looking guy with poor intentions step towards you and begin to throw a wide loopy punch towards your head. What do you do from a LLHS LSJC perspective?
AS LFJ said, it isn't that pre-planning responses is inherently bad. It is pre-planning unrealistic responses that is the problem (like the two examples above). Many MA are application based.
---Again, there is nothing "pre-planning" about it. But I can agree that training unrealistic responses is a bad idea.
If you weren't such a moron about it then it might be possible to discuss.
---Still with the insults and name-calling? :rolleyes:
---But I've pointed out that it isn't really "pre-planning." You don't know what you are going to do in the heat of the moment. You react based upon instinct and training.
...with techniques you've pre-planned and trained to be instinctively applied against a given attack.
...with techniques you've pre-planned and trained to be instinctively applied against a given attack.
Ok. So describe to us all the contrast from the way you train. You aren't responding instinctively with Wing Chun techniques that you have trained?
guy b.
04-06-2017, 02:00 PM
Ok. So describe to us all the contrast from the way you train. You aren't responding instinctively with Wing Chun techniques that you have trained?
VT not a technique based system and not a reactive system. It is a way of attacking other people.
guy b.
04-06-2017, 02:31 PM
You react based upon instinct and training. I've said over and over again that it isn't "tit for tat."
If you train to always bust a particular move in response to some stimulus then you will react in that way when that stimulus presents. This is why (for example) western boxers are easy to leg kick when presented with certain stimuli. The auto responses they tend to train are unfortunately often poor choices where leg kicks and knees are options. This is why MT doesn't look like western boxing, although both are training to compete under a similar comp format.
Ok. Then describe how you react to an attack
VT is not about reacting, it is about imposing upon. It takes the initiative, does not surrender it.
Again, there is nothing "pre-planning" about it. But I can agree that training unrealistic responses is a bad idea.
Training particular responses in response to particular stimuli is application based MA or "pre-planning". This is what TWC does and apparently what you and all of the other systems you have trained do as well.
Still with the insults and name-calling? :rolleyes:
When you keep on saying things like that below, despite the explanations you have received, then what else am I supposed to think? I know you hate for me to think of you as a malicious and dishonest troll- so you should be happy because just being a moron is an alternative which explains your actions quite well.
You are walking down the street and see a mean looking guy with poor intentions step towards you and begin to throw a wide loopy punch towards your head. What do you do from a LLHS LSJC perspective?
VT not a technique based system and not a reactive system. It is a way of attacking other people.
So, in the given scenario in my question, you wouldn't react to someone coming at you??? That makes no sense! Every fighter with any experience at all will tell you that you need both a good defense as well as a good offense!!!
If you train to always bust a particular move in response to some stimulus then you will react in that way when that stimulus presents. This is why (for example) western boxers are easy to leg kick when presented with certain stimuli. The auto responses they tend to train are unfortunately often poor choices where leg kicks and knees are options. This is why MT doesn't look like western boxing, although both are training to compete under a similar comp format.
---Yes, I agree with what you are saying. But all it would take is for the boxer to know he is going to be facing someone that will leg kick and then train to defend against it.
VT is not about reacting, it is about imposing upon. It takes the initiative, does not surrender it.
---So what do you do in a scenario where you are the one being attacked, if you can't react to the attack? What do you do in a scenario where you haven't been successful in keeping the initiative and the opponent has taken it from you? Do you just give up?
Training particular responses in response to particular stimuli is application based MA or "pre-planning". This is what TWC does and apparently what you and all of the other systems you have trained do as well.
---Once again, I don't know where you are getting this idea of "pre-planning." Reinforcing good reactions by training drills isn't "pre-planning" anything. When a musician practices scales, is he "pre-planning" a song?
When you keep on saying things like that below, despite the explanations you have received, then what else am I supposed to think? I know you hate for me to think of you as a malicious and dishonest troll- so you should be happy because just being a moron is an alternative which explains your actions quite well.
---Enough with the name-calling and insults.
---Look, I get what you are saying. I'm just trying to get you guys to see that there isn't the big distinction between the two approaches that you seem to think there is. But you refuse to even consider what I am saying. You can't have a martial art without "applications." The minute you actually do something in a fight you have "applied" your martial art. Using a technique or movement is "applying" that technique or movement. But I get that you don't train individual drills or techniques with the idea of learning how they are used. What you don't seem to get is that everyone else also has the principles and concepts of Wing Chun, just like you. Using the term "application-based" in a negative and derogatory fashion is just wrong (and don't try and deny that you guys have done so!). WSL was showing applications from the forms in those videos I posted. Now you may choose to de-emphasize applications from the forms, but anytime you move in a fight and are using the concepts of Wing Chun, how can you not be "applying" things from the forms? Like I wrote before, there seems to be a spectrum with versions of Wing Chun heavy on training applications on one side, and versions with very little training of applications on the other. But both versions have both the concepts as well as applications. Because, again, you can't practice a physical art without "applying" it in some way! You guys always want to talk in absolutes and show how much different your WSLVT is from everyone else. But there are no absolutes.
You aren't responding instinctively with Wing Chun techniques that you have trained?
As we've repeated, things from the forms, like taan-sau, are not techniques that we train, and we don't practice 1:1 applications.
What we develop through training are fighting behaviors like LLHS,LSJC, not throwing out the "correct" technique in response to a particular attack.
I don't know where you are getting this idea of "pre-planning." Reinforcing good reactions by training drills isn't "pre-planning" anything.
If by "good reactions" you mean like a taan-sau to block a round punch, obviously, if you train that in drills you are planning to use it when a round punch comes, rather than a gaang-sau, or rather than against a body shot.
You aren't planning your fights out step-by-step, but you are planning specific techniques to throw out in response to specific stimuli.
This is pre-planning, and this is 1:1 application. There is nothing wrong with this approach, so long as your applications aren't unrealistic.
---Look, I get what you are saying....
...You can't have a martial art without "applications."
Clearly, you do not.
The minute you actually do something in a fight you have "applied" your martial art.
You have changed the meaning of application to seem like we are doing the same thing.
This is a dishonest tactic.
Instead of trying to understand what we do, you are attempting to say it's no different from what you do. Clearly some sort of ego thing.
Using a technique or movement is "applying" that technique or movement. But I get that you don't train individual drills or techniques with the idea of learning how they are used.
So, you think we're training "techniques" in our forms, but then discard them and learn nothing?
You have been told the actions in the forms are not "techniques". Drilling them in 1:1 applications to "learn how they are used" is misunderstanding and misusing them.
Now you may choose to de-emphasize applications from the forms, but anytime you move in a fight and are using the concepts of Wing Chun, how can you not be "applying" things from the forms?
We don't "de-emphasize". There are no applications from the forms!
The forms train mechanics and attributes and introduce abstract concepts we will employ in fighting.
We are not applying actions directly from the forms like TWC and most others!
Like I wrote before, there seems to be a spectrum with versions of Wing Chun heavy on training applications on one side, and versions with very little training of applications on the other. But both versions have both the concepts as well as applications. Because, again, you can't practice a physical art without "applying" it in some way!
Again, you are changing the meaning of application to suit your dishonest conclusion.
guy b.
04-07-2017, 12:21 AM
Yes, I agree with what you are saying. But all it would take is for the boxer to know he is going to be facing someone that will leg kick and then train to defend against it
The point is that application trained fighters react as they have trained. If you train unrealistic applications then your reactions in fighting will be unrealistic.
So what do you do in a scenario where you are the one being attacked, if you can't react to the attack? What do you do in a scenario where you haven't been successful in keeping the initiative and the opponent has taken it from you? Do you just give up?
Recover, attack
Once again, I don't know where you are getting this idea of "pre-planning." Reinforcing good reactions by training drills isn't "pre-planning" anything. When a musician practices scales, is he "pre-planning" a song?
Training specific responses to specific stimuli is not analogous to a musician practising scales. Hitting a bag is more like running through scales. Training particular responses is the essential defining part of application based MA training.
Look, I get what you are saying. I'm just trying to get you guys to see that there isn't the big distinction between the two approaches that you seem to think there is. But you refuse to even consider what I am saying. You can't have a martial art without "applications. The minute you actually do something in a fight you have "applied" your martial art. Using a technique or movement is "applying" that technique or movement. "
Then you don't get what I am saying. You are using the term "applications" in two different ways here and conflating the different meanings. Application based training is the practice of specific responses to specific stimuli for use in fighting. Like learning multi-step block and step arounds in TWC.
But I get that you don't train individual drills or techniques with the idea of learning how they are used. What you don't seem to get is that everyone else also has the principles and concepts of Wing Chun, just like you.
Do they? Why is it that discussion of this well known conceptual approach makes the snowflakes on the other forum so angry then..?
Using the term "application-based" in a negative and derogatory fashion is just wrong (and don't try and deny that you guys have done so!).
There is nothing wrong with being application based. Bjj is heavily application based, at least in the beginning, and is an excellent martial art. The important thing with the application based approach is that the responses are realistic, efficient, effective.
Now you may choose to de-emphasize applications from the forms, but anytime you move in a fight and are using the concepts of Wing Chun, how can you not be "applying" things from the forms? Like I wrote before, there seems to be a spectrum with versions of Wing Chun heavy on training applications on one side, and versions with very little training of applications on the other. But both versions have both the concepts as well as applications. Because, again, you can't practice a physical art without "applying" it in some way! You guys always want to talk in absolutes and show how much different your WSLVT is from everyone else. But there are no absolutes.
We don't apply techniques from the forms because that is not what the forms are for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRAapB8g_XA
Right at the beginning: WSL teaching the application of the rear palms from the form. Breaking a bear hug. He even says you can use it to grab the genitals.
Then he shows how to apply the front palms as a Gum Sau to defend against low-line attacks.
6:18 WSL teaching how to properly apply the Jut Sau
17:50: WSL teaching how to apply Bong Sau to stop a front hug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q8wgirkzgE&t=162s
3:00 WSL showing how to apply the pivoting double Lan to trap in Chi Sau or to defend against a pulling wrist grab
4:00 WSL showing how to apply the “Jeep Sau” motions to defend against a lapel grab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phmq1_1yuk4
10:15 WSL showing how to apply the “neck pull” from the dummy form
12:10 WSL showing how to apply the Bong to Tan Da motion from the dummy form
19:30 WSL showing how to apply the Fak Sau from the dummy form
23:00 WSL showing how to apply the Po Pai palms from the dummy form
lol
As said, VT can't be learned in a couple minutes like TWC through applications.
You think that's what the forms are meant to teach? That's what VT is all about, huh? lol
As said, VT can't be learned in a couple minutes like TWC through applications. You think that's what the forms are meant to teach? That's what VT is all about, huh?
---Of course not! I don't think that's what the forms are all about at all! But you are the one that said that your forms do not teach any applications. That seems to be a false statement. As I have already said, it seems to me there is a spectrum of Wing Chun versions doing lots of application training on one end and Wing Chun versions that de-emphasize application training on the other end. Both have concepts/principles, they just train applications to varying degrees. But you can't do a martial art without learning how to apply it in some way! You can't perform a martial art without applying it in some way!
You have changed the meaning of application to seem like we are doing the same thing. This is a dishonest tactic. Instead of trying to understand what we do, you are attempting to say it's no different from what you do. Clearly some sort of ego thing.
---Absolutely wrong! In fact, exactly the opposite! I have been very clear what I mean by "applications" in the past and through-out this thread. I am using the generally accepted definition that "applications" means you are "applying" or "using" something. I have stated multiple times here that the moment you actually use a technique to defend against an opponent's technique, then you have "applied" that technique! YOU are the one that has tried to be very specific in how you define "application" and have used the term to suit yourself. So YOU are the one being dishonest here!! You are the one that has equated "application" with "pre-planned." That is NOT how the word is used or defined in general!
wckf92
04-07-2017, 04:47 AM
I think in the past the WSL VT folks have already stated that WSL had a sort of 'public' version he would do at seminars etc whereas it appears he would only pass on the essence of his VT to a select few. To the best of my knowledge this is par for the course within Chinese kung fu culture(?). Dunno. Just spitballing...
Maybe this is part of the reason for the spirited nature of this thread? :D
But you are the one that said that your forms do not teach any applications. That seems to be a false statement.
They don't, and you are simply uninformed and wrong.
As I have already said, it seems to me there is a spectrum of Wing Chun versions doing lots of application training on one end and Wing Chun versions that de-emphasize application training on the other end. Both have concepts/principles, they just train applications to varying degrees. But you can't do a martial art without learning how to apply it in some way! You can't perform a martial art without applying it in some way!
You have understood nothing.
I have been very clear what I mean by "applications" in the past and through-out this thread. I am using the generally accepted definition that "applications" means you are "applying" or "using" something. I have stated multiple times here that the moment you actually use a technique to defend against an opponent's technique, then you have "applied" that technique! YOU are the one that has tried to be very specific in how you define "application" and have used the term to suit yourself. So YOU are the one being dishonest here!! You are the one that has equated "application" with "pre-planned." That is NOT how the word is used or defined in general!
You started this thread with "it has been said that WSLVT is 'non-application based'".
Better then to listen to what we mean by that, rather than define things how you like.
In martial arts, if you are asked the application of an action from a form, and you can answer with something like "when the opponent does this, you can block it with this action, or hit them like this", that is an "application". When people ask what the application of a move is, that is what they mean and the kind of answer they're looking for.
In systems like TWC, that's the kind of answer you'll get, because it is an application-based system. All the moves have such applications.
But in our system, that action may be developing mechanics for say, hip-elbow connection. You can't block something with hip-elbow connection. Hip-elbow connection also doesn't attack anything. Therefore, it has no such "application". It is a behavioral principle, not a blocking/striking/grappling technique.
Does this make any sense to you?
They don't, and you are simply uninformed and wrong.
---Video of WSL himself would seem to suggest otherwise.
Better then to listen to what we mean by that, rather than define things how you like.
--You don't get to define something the way YOU like and then use it as a derogatory term when describing someone else's system. That is dishonest.
In martial arts, if you are asked the application of an action from a form, and you can answer with something like "when the opponent does this, you can block it with this action, or hit them like this", that is an "application". When people ask what the application of a move is, that is what they mean and the kind of answer they're looking for.
---Sure. The operative word you used is "can"....even you didn't use the term "must." There are lots of options in how you react or respond. And that's exactly the sort of thing WSL showed in those videos! It doesn't mean that's the only thing you can or would do. Just that it is one possibility. We all know that Wing Chun forms are not choreographed fights, like some martial arts. But that does not mean that there are not straight-forward applications and even deeper applications being taught in the forms.
In systems like TWC, that's the kind of answer you'll get, because it is an application-based system. All the moves have such applications.
---That's the kind of answer you'll get in any Wing Chun system, except evidently YOUR version of WSLVT!! That's the kind of answer you would have given if you had actually attempted to honestly answer my scenario question from before. But you recognized that, so you refused to answer.
But in our system, that action may be developing mechanics for say, hip-elbow connection. You can't block something with hip-elbow connection. Hip-elbow connection also doesn't attack anything. Therefore, it has no such "application". It is a behavioral principle, not a blocking/striking/grappling technique.
Does this make any sense to you?
---That makes perfect sense! I train the forms with the same idea in mind. But that doesn't mean I view the forms as ONLY teaching that! I see them as also teaching possible applications....just as WSL was showing in those videos. That's the beauty of the way the Wing Chun forms are constructed. They embody principles, biomechanics, AND techniques! You seem to be viewing them as much more one-dimensional.
zuti car
04-07-2017, 09:23 AM
[B]
---That makes perfect sense! I train the forms with the same idea in mind. But that doesn't mean I view the forms as ONLY teaching that! I see them as also teaching possible applications....just as WSL was showing in those videos. That's the beauty of the way the Wing Chun forms are constructed. They embody principles, biomechanics, AND techniques! You seem to be viewing them as much more one-dimensional.
The onlu problem is , TWC forms do not teach biomechanics and do not embody any principles .
They don't, and you are simply uninformed and wrong.
---Video of WSL himself would seem to suggest otherwise.
Because you are uninformed.
Better then to listen to what we mean by that, rather than define things how you like.
--You don't get to define something the way YOU like and then use it as a derogatory term when describing someone else's system.
What I described is what is meant by the word "application" in the martial arts world. Are you a complete newb or something?
We all know that Wing Chun forms are not choreographed fights, like some martial arts. But that does not mean that there are not straight-forward applications and even deeper applications being taught in the forms.
Maybe in your system. Not so in WSLVT.
In systems like TWC, that's the kind of answer you'll get, because it is an application-based system. All the moves have such applications.
---That's the kind of answer you'll get in any Wing Chun system, except evidently YOUR version of WSLVT!! That's the kind of answer you would have given if you had actually attempted to honestly answer my scenario question from before. But you recognized that, so you refused to answer.
It's not my version of WSLVT. I didn't invent anything.
Your scenario is stupid and your response is pure fantasy.
I could make up an application idea, but then it would not be VT.
THAT is why I refused to answer.
---That makes perfect sense! I train the forms with the same idea in mind. But that doesn't mean I view the forms as ONLY teaching that! I see them as also teaching possible applications....just as WSL was showing in those videos.
You go ahead and do that then. It's a very superficial, and in the case of your applications, very unrealistic interpretation.
That's the beauty of the way the Wing Chun forms are constructed. They embody principles, biomechanics, AND techniques!
Speak for your own system. VT forms don't teach techniques. That would undermine the entire conceptual basis of this approach to fighting.
What principles or biomechanics are embodied by a wrist grab escape?
Speak for your own system. VT forms don't teach techniques. That would undermine the entire conceptual basis of this approach to fighting.
Video of WSL himself suggests otherwise.
The onlu problem is , TWC forms do not teach biomechanics and do not embody any principles .
The ones I use certainly do. I'm not sure what you learned.
Video of WSL himself suggests otherwise.
Because you are uninformed.
Because you are uninformed.
Well, all I can say is that you must have a strange definition of what it means to "apply" something!
guy b.
04-07-2017, 02:45 PM
They don't, and you are simply uninformed and wrong.
---Video of WSL himself would seem to suggest otherwise.
Better then to listen to what we mean by that, rather than define things how you like.
--You don't get to define something the way YOU like and then use it as a derogatory term when describing someone else's system. That is dishonest.
In martial arts, if you are asked the application of an action from a form, and you can answer with something like "when the opponent does this, you can block it with this action, or hit them like this", that is an "application". When people ask what the application of a move is, that is what they mean and the kind of answer they're looking for.
---Sure. The operative word you used is "can"....even you didn't use the term "must." There are lots of options in how you react or respond. And that's exactly the sort of thing WSL showed in those videos! It doesn't mean that's the only thing you can or would do. Just that it is one possibility. We all know that Wing Chun forms are not choreographed fights, like some martial arts. But that does not mean that there are not straight-forward applications and even deeper applications being taught in the forms.
In systems like TWC, that's the kind of answer you'll get, because it is an application-based system. All the moves have such applications.
---That's the kind of answer you'll get in any Wing Chun system, except evidently YOUR version of WSLVT!! That's the kind of answer you would have given if you had actually attempted to honestly answer my scenario question from before. But you recognized that, so you refused to answer.
But in our system, that action may be developing mechanics for say, hip-elbow connection. You can't block something with hip-elbow connection. Hip-elbow connection also doesn't attack anything. Therefore, it has no such "application". It is a behavioral principle, not a blocking/striking/grappling technique.
Does this make any sense to you?
---That makes perfect sense! I train the forms with the same idea in mind. But that doesn't mean I view the forms as ONLY teaching that! I see them as also teaching possible applications....just as WSL was showing in those videos. That's the beauty of the way the Wing Chun forms are constructed. They embody principles, biomechanics, AND techniques! You seem to be viewing them as much more one-dimensional.
I've never encountered anyone in my life more concerned with appearing correct over being correct. With no audience on this deserted forum it is really a strange thing to understand.
guy b.
04-07-2017, 02:47 PM
Video of WSL himself suggests otherwise.
Do you have a lot of video of WSL?
Do you have a lot of video of WSL?
I provided all that is needed to bring into question the whole premise that WSLVT teaches no applications.
I've never encountered anyone in my life more concerned with appearing correct over being correct. With no audience on this deserted forum it is really a strange thing to understand.
And I've never encountered two people that were so dogmatic in their beliefs that they won't even examine simple logic. You two have truly "drunk the koolaide"!!! :eek:
zuti car
04-07-2017, 05:37 PM
The ones I use certainly do. I'm not sure what you learned.
Ok, tell me what principles second form teaches , or third , choose one and explain with accent on biomchanics . It doesn't have to be detailed explaination , I am really curious .
zuti car
04-07-2017, 06:31 PM
Here GM and his student are doing SLT form , notice how his lower and upper body are disconnected , no body structure , his elbows are outside the body line for all hand movements , no support of the body at all and he generates force in first section by his arm and shoulder( no power generation ) , and later he does the same and for souple of punches he uses hip rotation .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40V0KwykDHE
Here is are second and third forms, again , no conncetion between upper and lower body , stepping on the heels , all the beginner's mistakes , it is like he was doing everything wrong on purpose. Although many wing chun styles do not agree on anything , they all have some common points , like body structure which can vary but the purpose is the same , power generation, again it can vary but it requires good structure , keeping elbows "inside' , stepping on the balls of the feet , these are basic, and we don't see that in TWC .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7zpsvLlrkg
Here is TWC street fighting along with "principles "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlQCAJRTCA8&index=3&list=PL-5vLWODs18nFI0zU-_yJ5FVdGUvxbQRl
Well, all I can say is that you must have a strange definition of what it means to "apply" something!
What I described is what is meant by the word "application" in the martial arts world. Are you a complete newb or something?
Look up any martial art application video on Youtube and you will find demonstrations of 1:1 technique application, most often being uses of actions from forms. That's what everyone means by application in martial arts, except for you.
You will not find free fighting videos being called "applications". To "apply" one's skills is just called fighting.
If your approach to fighting is application-based, it means you use your technique applications in fighting.
If your approach to fighting is non-application based, it means your conceptual approach doesn't make use of such technique applications pulled directly from forms.
That this needs explaining to you is quite sad. You are either still a complete newb, or you are dishonestly playing with words to make it seem like we share the same method, when really you have no clue what is being explained to you.
guy b.
04-08-2017, 12:28 AM
What I described is what is meant by the word "application" in the martial arts world. Are you a complete newb or something?
Look up any martial art application video on Youtube and you will find demonstrations of 1:1 technique application, most often being uses of actions from forms. That's what everyone means by application in martial arts, except for you.
You will not find free fighting videos being called "applications". To "apply" one's skills is just called fighting.
If your approach to fighting is application-based, it means you use your technique applications in fighting.
If your approach to fighting is non-application based, it means your conceptual approach doesn't make use of such technique applications pulled directly from forms.
That this needs explaining to you is quite sad. You are either still a complete newb, or you are dishonestly playing with words to make it seem like we share the same method, when really you have no clue what is being explained to you.
Good summary. And still he plays for a crowd that isn't even there. You are right, sad is the word for it.
guy b.
04-08-2017, 12:38 AM
And I've never encountered two people that were so dogmatic in their beliefs that they won't even examine simple logic. You two have truly "drunk the koolaide"!!! :eek:
You seem to be under the illusion that I am getting something from answering you trolling. I am not. I get everything I need with WSL VT. I don't have the idea that it is somehow lacking lurking in my subconscious as you so obviously do in terms of the training you have done. And that is not surprising, seeing what you do and listening to how you think about the system.
If you want to learn something then you need to get over yourself first, because I don't have a lot of time to waste with pointless chatter. If not, and you just like to play for the crowd, then suggest you go back to martial talk- there is nobody here to watch your performance and it is wearing thin rapidly for me. Keep on trolling and evenyually you will just get silence as an answer.
go back to martial talk
He came back here only because they banned him there for getting personal and using profanity.
Ok, tell me what principles second form teaches , or third , choose one and explain with accent on biomchanics . It doesn't have to be detailed explaination , I am really curious .
Ok. Just quickly.....pivoting Bong Sau teaches the biomechanics of stepping with the pivot rather than just pivoting in place as most Wing Chun systems do. Doing it with the Bong Sau emphasizes the biomechanic of using the up to extend power to the arm as the rear foot engages the ground. Doing multiple Bong Saus is teaching the student that the Bong is a vulnerable position and must be changed quickly into something else...which is sometimes another Bong! Pivoting from Bong to Lop Sau is similar but now the biomechanic is how to extend power to the arm when the lead foot engages the ground. And again....Bong is vulnerable so you are learning to convert it immediately into something else, in this case a Lop on a different line.
The pivoting Bong Saus lead into the Jeep Sau section. But prior to the Jeep Saus you come out of the Bong with a circular inward Fook Sau. Most people are familiar with the Bong hand swinging inward to convert to a punch. But here the Bong hand swings outward. This teaches how to go around an obstacle, and is something very important to be applied when using the Butterfly knives. It uses the priniciple of circular motion but shows the student that this principle can be used in several different ways....different biomechanic.
The end of the Jeep Sau section where you go to a T stance with a Lop Sau. The priniciple here is to cover center when changing lines for better protection. The arm sweeps up and across the center before doing the Lop.
At several points in the form you step out on a 45 degree line rather than just using linear footwork on one line. One of the big principles in TWC is to take an angle and not face an opponent "head on" if you don't have to. You want to align your center at the opponent while preventing him from aligning his center at you! This is emphasized through-out the form with stepping out on the 45 degree line. It is also the priniciple behind the T steps that show up in the form in a couple of places.
The first section with Fak Sau out to the side followed immediately with a Jum Sau and strike teaches the principle of recovering center from an extended or awkward position, and then immediately counterattacking before the opponent can respond well. This is also the movement that emphasizes the body dynamic of "sink and rise" to help generate power because no step or pivot is used for this motion in the form.
The closing section with the Gum Saus is done with the pivot step to teach the principles that against low-line attackes you need to think of stepping off of the line of attack as your primary defense. The Gum Sau is really just there as a support or back up.
The finishing punches end with both hand extended because it is teaching more than just chain punching. This is the idea that you won't always "hit and return". You may "hit and stick" to trap and control as the next punch comes out. That's why the second punch stays out and waits for the third punch.
This is just a small bit off the top of my head, and I'm sure the "dynamic duo" will have criticisms and find fault. But I'm really surprised you never learned this Zuti!
He came back here only because they banned him there for getting personal and using profanity.
I was temporarily banned for half-jokingly telling you to "fxck off" after you had been acting like your typical dickish self. If I had told you to "sit on it" instead everything would have been fine. Two things get you banned at MT...challenging someone to a fight, and using bad words. Otherwise you can be as much of a ***** as you want....as you have personally demonstrated on multiple occasions.
Here GM and his student are doing SLT form , notice how his lower and upper body are disconnected , no body structure , his elbows are outside the body line for all hand movements , no support of the body at all and he generates force in first section by his arm and shoulder( no power generation ) , and later he does the same and for souple of punches he uses hip rotation .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40V0KwykDHE
Here is are second and third forms, again , no conncetion between upper and lower body , stepping on the heels , all the beginner's mistakes , it is like he was doing everything wrong on purpose. Although many wing chun styles do not agree on anything , they all have some common points , like body structure which can vary but the purpose is the same , power generation, again it can vary but it requires good structure , keeping elbows "inside' , stepping on the balls of the feet , these are basic, and we don't see that in TWC .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7zpsvLlrkg
Here is TWC street fighting along with "principles "
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlQCAJRTCA8&index=3&list=PL-5vLWODs18nFI0zU-_yJ5FVdGUvxbQRl
Oh man! Should I post videos of Wayne Yung for comparison??? That guy looks like he is about to fall over about half the time! :eek:
What I described is what is meant by the word "application" in the martial arts world. Are you a complete newb or something?
Look up any martial art application video on Youtube and you will find demonstrations of 1:1 technique application, most often being uses of actions from forms. That's what everyone means by application in martial arts, except for you.
.
Ok. And the examples I gave from WSL's videos also fit your definition. And I understand what you are explaining just fine. I just disagree with how you are using the terms and how you often use your term in a derogatory way when referring to other systems.
I don't have the idea that it is somehow lacking lurking in my subconscious as you so obviously do in terms of the training you have done. And that is not surprising, seeing what you do and listening to how you think about the system.
---No, it is exactly the opposite. I don't have some subconscious sense of lacking. You two have this subconscious sense of superiority, the snobbish sense that your WSLVT is so much better than everyone else's Wing Chun, that comes across in nearly every discussion. Its part of how both of you post. Its inherent in what you just said above. Maybe you are not even aware of it? That's what rubs me the wrong way.
---And for someone that showed up in MT at least twice and maybe three times after being banned under a faked identity to lie to the forum members and continue to stir up trouble, you really don't have room to lecture anyone else! :cool:
Ok. Just quickly.....pivoting Bong Sau teaches the biomechanics of stepping with the pivot rather than just pivoting in place as most Wing Chun systems do. Doing it with the Bong Sau emphasizes the biomechanic of using the up to extend power to the arm as the rear foot engages the ground. Doing multiple Bong Saus is teaching the student that the Bong is a vulnerable position and must be changed quickly into something else...which is sometimes another Bong! Pivoting from Bong to Lop Sau is similar but now the biomechanic is how to extend power to the arm when the lead foot engages the ground. And again....Bong is vulnerable so you are learning to convert it immediately into something else, in this case a Lop on a different line.
The pivoting Bong Saus lead into the Jeep Sau section. But prior to the Jeep Saus you come out of the Bong with a circular inward Fook Sau. Most people are familiar with the Bong hand swinging inward to convert to a punch. But here the Bong hand swings outward. This teaches how to go around an obstacle, and is something very important to be applied when using the Butterfly knives. It uses the priniciple of circular motion but shows the student that this principle can be used in several different ways....different biomechanic.
The end of the Jeep Sau section where you go to a T stance with a Lop Sau. The priniciple here is to cover center when changing lines for better protection. The arm sweeps up and across the center before doing the Lop.
At several points in the form you step out on a 45 degree line rather than just using linear footwork on one line. One of the big principles in TWC is to take an angle and not face an opponent "head on" if you don't have to. You want to align your center at the opponent while preventing him from aligning his center at you! This is emphasized through-out the form with stepping out on the 45 degree line. It is also the priniciple behind the T steps that show up in the form in a couple of places.
The first section with Fak Sau out to the side followed immediately with a Jum Sau and strike teaches the principle of recovering center from an extended or awkward position, and then immediately counterattacking before the opponent can respond well. This is also the movement that emphasizes the body dynamic of "sink and rise" to help generate power because no step or pivot is used for this motion in the form.
The closing section with the Gum Saus is done with the pivot step to teach the principles that against low-line attackes you need to think of stepping off of the line of attack as your primary defense. The Gum Sau is really just there as a support or back up.
The finishing punches end with both hand extended because it is teaching more than just chain punching. This is the idea that you won't always "hit and return". You may "hit and stick" to trap and control as the next punch comes out. That's why the second punch stays out and waits for the third punch.
This is just a small bit off the top of my head, and I'm sure the "dynamic duo" will have criticisms and find fault. But I'm really surprised you never learned this Zuti!
Fighting an imaginary opponent every step of the way!
Ok. And the examples I gave from WSL's videos also fit your definition.
He's not teaching the VT system in those videos.
And I understand what you are explaining just fine. I just disagree with how you are using the terms
Then you disagree with the entire world of martial arts.
and how you often use your term in a derogatory way when referring to other systems.
I don't.
Being application-based is not negative, unless your applications are unrealistic like TWC's.
This has been explained to you.
What WSL often showed to visitors was retarded applications people often come up with, and then a way to tweak them so they aren't so utterly impractical. But, and this is a big BUT, that is still not how VT functions and in fact undermines the conceptual basis to the whole method.
If you have time and want to learn VT, you need to drop this very superficial 1:1 sort of thinking altogether. That's what his longterm students did, and they laugh at the idea that these applications must be what VT is all about!
You two have this subconscious sense of superiority, the snobbish sense that your WSLVT is so much better than everyone else's Wing Chun, that comes across in nearly every discussion.
It's not subconscious. If I didn't think WSLVT were better, I wouldn't waste my time with it, much like I don't waste my time with the entirely useless TWC.
HOWEVER, you, and only you are taking things personally. Your inferiority complex is giving you the false sense that others feel superior to you, when we are engaging in purely technical discussion.
guy b.
04-08-2017, 06:49 AM
I don't have the idea that it is somehow lacking lurking in my subconscious as you so obviously do in terms of the training you have done. And that is not surprising, seeing what you do and listening to how you think about the system.
---No, it is exactly the opposite. I don't have some subconscious sense of lacking. You two have this subconscious sense of superiority, the snobbish sense that your WSLVT is so much better than everyone else's Wing Chun, that comes across in nearly every discussion. Its part of how both of you post. Its inherent in what you just said above. Maybe you are not even aware of it? That's what rubs me the wrong way.
What you seem to want is validation from others. The fact that some people refuse to validate when you are talking nonsense is what winds you up. You need to be told you are a very clever boy, no matter what you say, in order to be happy.
If you want approval then speak plainly and make sense. If you say something sensible then I will have no problem agreeing with you, and you will be able to relax and be happy. The main problem with your approach so far is that you are often dishonest, and you troll all of the time. This isn't something I have time for any more, sorry. Of course if you talk rubbish then I will point this out, so you will need to control the ego for the conversation to go anywhere.
If you can't manage to stop drama-queening and lying, and still need to feel validated all of the time, then martial talk is indeed the place for you to return to when your ban expires.
Frost
04-08-2017, 11:42 AM
I don't have the idea that it is somehow lacking lurking in my subconscious as you so obviously do in terms of the training you have done. And that is not surprising, seeing what you do and listening to how you think about the system.
---No, it is exactly the opposite. I don't have some subconscious sense of lacking. You two have this subconscious sense of superiority, the snobbish sense that your WSLVT is so much better than everyone else's Wing Chun, that comes across in nearly every discussion. Its part of how both of you post. Its inherent in what you just said above. Maybe you are not even aware of it? That's what rubs me the wrong way.
---And for someone that showed up in MT at least twice and maybe three times after being banned under a faked identity to lie to the forum members and continue to stir up trouble, you really don't have room to lecture anyone else! :cool:
Can i ask why are you bothering with this again? It's the same none answers everyone has been getting for years from these guys, the only one of them to actually put up a clip was Kevin and that was by accident and well, would you like to train with someone who performs like that?
Can i ask why are you bothering with this again? It's the same none answers everyone has been getting for years from these guys, the only one of them to actually put up a clip was Kevin and that was by accident and well, would you like to train with someone who performs like that?
Yeah, you are absolutely right Frost. I started the discussion thinking it would be interesting and get people here involved in posting again. But even though the thread has over 1500 hits, not many have bothered to contribute to the discussion. Dave stopped posting when it became clear that all he was going to get was vague answers and diversions. I did get better clarification of where they are coming from though, so not a total waste. But you are right in that you will never find a clip of LFJ or Guy B. on the internet!!! Or just about anyone from WSLVT putting on the gear and sparring.
I'll leave this here for those that look down their noses at "application-based" training.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2O6mQkFiiw
Phil Redmond
04-08-2017, 08:08 PM
https://youtu.be/i8Yd3KOaL_Y
zuti car
04-08-2017, 09:06 PM
Oh man! Should I post videos of Wayne Yung for comparison??? That guy looks like he is about to fall over about half the time! :eek:
This an argumen on the level of the 4 years old " my daddy is stroger than your daddy". Ok I admit ,TWC is the only original wck style superior to all others, It has no structure , nor power generation method but who cares , the important thing is what you believe.
GlennR
04-08-2017, 10:45 PM
Can i ask why are you bothering with this again? It's the same none answers everyone has been getting for years from these guys, the only one of them to actually put up a clip was Kevin and that was by accident and well, would you like to train with someone who performs like that?
Gee, you wander back in after a couple of years and nothings changed :)
Or just about anyone from WSLVT putting on the gear and sparring.
OMG! This same lie again?!
You have been shown sparring clips on this forum as well as on MartialTalk. Each time, you have had good things to say about it.
Then months later, you go back to the same LIE that you've never seen WSLVT in sparring!
So, what is it? Is that old case of amnesia flaring up again, or are you just a bitter troll?!
Your post on this forum from 3 years ago!
Good clip! Thanks! And the sparring even looked like Wing Chun! ;)
Your post on the MT forum 1 year ago!
I will say, that PB himself light-sparring looks very similar to PB doing his Chi Sau/Lop Sau training. Now how hard was that LFJ?
"How hard was that" you asked! Yet, here you are again LYING about what you've been shown.
This has always been your last resort go-to lie. And here we are again.
I'll leave this here for those that look down their noses at "application-based" training.
Another lie.
Nobody is looking down their noses at application-based training, only UNREALISTIC applications!
guy b.
04-09-2017, 01:52 AM
Can i ask why are you bothering with this again? It's the same none answers everyone has been getting for years from these guys, the only one of them to actually put up a clip was Kevin and that was by accident and well, would you like to train with someone who performs like that?
KPM bothers with this always and forever. It is like a life-quest for him.
guy b.
04-09-2017, 01:55 AM
Another lie.
Nobody is looking down their noses at application-based training, only UNREALISTIC applications!
Exactly, very hard to take seriously the questions of a known liar.
Given that nearly all MA is application based, that many WSL VT people do application based training in other systems (KPM knows this), and that many find it useful (KPM also knows this), it is hard to gather the motivation to engage.
Exactly, very hard to take seriously the questions of a known liar.
Given that nearly all MA is application based, that many WSL VT people do application based training in other systems (KPM knows this), and that many find it useful (KPM also knows this), it is hard to gather the motivation to engage.
The thing that gets me is how we'll say something numerous times, and he'll still turn right around and accuse us of the exact opposite!
Here are 3 examples from this very thread where I made it clear there's nothing inherently wrong with application-based training and where exactly the problem lies.
Being application-based is not negative, unless your applications are unrealistic like TWC's.
This has been explained to you.
This is pre-planning, and this is 1:1 application. There is nothing wrong with this approach, so long as your applications aren't unrealistic.
Most MAs are application-based, and that's fine. It's only negative if your applications are unrealistic.
And I know you, guy, made at least a couple posts expressing the same view as well.
But on the very next page we still get this:
I'll leave this here for those that look down their noses at "application-based" training.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2O6mQkFiiw
Now, this person is either clearly a compulsive liar or just autistic.
This an argumen on the level of the 4 years old " my daddy is stroger than your daddy". Ok I admit ,TWC is the only original wck style superior to all others, It has no structure , nor power generation method but who cares , the important thing is what you believe.
I've never said it was superior to all others. I'm simply pointing out that you are wrong about it having no structure or power generation method. I'm also pointing out that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Your Snake Crane Wing Chun is nothing to brag about from everything I've seen. You've made several statements about TWC that just don't match what I've learned. So I can only assume you had a pretty terrible instructor, or you didn't pay very good attention.
The thing that gets me is how we'll say something numerous times, and he'll still turn right around and accuse us of the exact opposite!
Now, this person is either clearly a compulsive liar or just autistic.
And yet, your comments about TWC is that is it clearly just all "application-based" hence it can be learned in minutes. Now tell me that isn't taking a negative view of something being "application-based". :rolleyes:
This is the typical modus operandi for you guys. You say one thing, but then clearly have a different intent behind your posting. Yet you call me a "troll" and a "liar."
This whole thread could have been a good back and forth discussion, but you guys immediately made it nasty and personal. And yet you call me a "troll."
Same on the Bong Sau thread. I did my best to describe the T step to you, but you turned it into an argument and got nasty with every criticism of TWC that you could. Yet you call me a "troll." :confused:
And yet, your comments about TWC is that is it clearly just all "application-based" hence it can be learned in minutes.
It is, and can.
Now tell me that isn't taking a negative view of something being "application-based". :rolleyes:
It's not. It's a negative view of TWC.
This is the typical modus operandi for you guys. You say one thing, but then clearly have a different intent behind your posting. Yet you call me a "troll" and a "liar."
There is no different intent. You are either a troll, liar, autistic, or just can't read.
This whole thread could have been a good back and forth discussion, but you guys immediately made it nasty and personal.
I've kept it technical the whole way until you turned around and blatantly lied about what I just said, actually repeated numerous times.
Same on the Bong Sau thread. I did my best to describe the T step to you, but you turned it into an argument and got nasty with every criticism of TWC that you could.
I disagreed with you. Never got nasty.
I've kept it technical the whole way until you turned around and blatantly lied about what I just said, actually repeated numerous times.
I disagreed with you. Never got nasty.
Really? Here is your very first post on this thread:
The sad thing? You've started similar threads years ago to have this explained to you by at least 5 people.
You didn't get it then, and still don't now.
If it bothers you that much and you are interested enough to keep coming back to this topic year after year, just go to a VT school already and find out about it!
Otherwise just give up.
You don't think that was personal and somewhat nasty??? :rolleyes:
You don't think that was personal and somewhat nasty??? :rolleyes:
Not at all. Just an observation and practical suggestion.
9 pages later, you still haven't gotten it. Should have listened.
Not at all. Just an observation and practical suggestion.
9 pages later, you still haven't gotten it. Should have listened.
And this is why it is so difficult to carry on any kind of real discussion when you are involved!
guy b.
04-09-2017, 05:56 AM
Really? Here is your very first post on this thread:
The sad thing? You've started similar threads years ago to have this explained to you by at least 5 people.
You didn't get it then, and still don't now.
If it bothers you that much and you are interested enough to keep coming back to this topic year after year, just go to a VT school already and find out about it!
Otherwise just give up.
You don't think that was personal and somewhat nasty??? :rolleyes:
There isn't anything nasty in that comment. He's trying to help you I think. Personally I have lost interest.
zuti car
04-09-2017, 08:33 AM
I've never said it was superior to all others. I'm simply pointing out that you are wrong about it having no structure or power generation method. I'm also pointing out that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Your Snake Crane Wing Chun is nothing to brag about from everything I've seen. You've made several statements about TWC that just don't match what I've learned. So I can only assume you had a pretty terrible instructor, or you didn't pay very good attention.
Show me one , one video of any twc practitoner who demonstrated bodystructure anywhere ? Power generation , is there any explaination for that , from GM , besides "it is coming from legs ? Now here is the differece between you and me . I left good part of my life practicing twc , I even learned "true" version of it from David Cheung and his art is extremly different from william;s approach ,but still no body structure , no power generation . You are talking about what I am doing bt you have no idea what is SCWC about ,what you see and what is actually done are completely different things and the style its self is very specific and veifferet from ll other styles a lot . About my instructors , when it comes to ethics and morality ...well ...that s another story , personal one and I will not say it here , but when we talk about their knowledge of TWC , they are far better that anyon else you can find today, even cheung;s closests students \followers\worshipers , whatever they are . The only thing i do not understand , whay are you even argue here , if you like what you do , if it is right thing for you , than just do it , as many hours daily as you can , stop wastng time on forums , .
@zuti car
If it weren't true, lack of structure and power generation wouldn't be a common complaint all ex-TWC practitioners I know of share!
All of them thought like KPM does now, until they learned something else. You only know what you know, you know?
They are all upset about the time wasted on a very superficial system.
This is what happens when a level 10 instructor of TWC meets basic force exchange. Lacks all stability and crumbles easily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvYzc8bl8A
Show me one , one video of any twc practitoner who demonstrated bodystructure anywhere ?
---The problem is, it wouldn't matter what I showed, you would still say "that isn't good body structure." You asked me to describe ANY principle or body mechanic from the Chum Kil form. So I did that and not surprisingly you had nothing to say about it.
I even learned "true" version of it from David Cheung and his art is extremly different from william;s approach ,but still no body structure , no power generation .
---That's strange. If William Cheung created TWC, how could you have learned the "true" version of it from his brother (which was extremely different) but not from him??? Maybe that is the problem? I know nothing about David Cheung. But maybe he taught you a somewhat....shall we say...delinquent version of TWC?? That's how it is sounding anyway.
you have no idea what is SCWC about ,what you see and what is actually done are completely different things
---Ah! The same argument used by the WSLVT guys! What we all see Wayne Yung or Wong Shun Leung do on video is just a sham and not what they REALLY do! :rolleyes:
but when we talk about their knowledge of TWC , they are far better that anyon else you can find today, even cheung;s closests students
---Since it was William Cheung who created TWC, how is what you say possible? You are saying they know the system even better than Cheung? Yet they didn't teach you the basic principles and biomechanics from the Chum Kil form that I briefly described? How is that possible?
The only thing i do not understand , whay are you even argue here , if you like what you do , if it is right thing for you , than just do it , as many hours daily as you can , stop wastng time on forums ,
----No Zuti. What isn't clear here is why you are choosing to post and try and bad-mouth TWC if you have gone beyond it and found something that you really like and that works for you. You haven't contributed to the discussions at all other than to tell us how you wasted your time on TWC and now hate everything about it. You never commented on whether or not what I was saying about the T step was accurate. All you have done is to post in an attempt to run down TWC. So if SCWC is the right thing for you, then just do it, as many hours daily as you can and stop wasting time bad-mouthing TWC on forums!
This is what happens when a level 10 instructor of TWC meets basic force exchange. Lacks all stability and crumbles easily.
How could you tell who was who? Just looked like 2 guys doing Chi Sau and one was a bit better at it than the other. Is that supposed to prove something? Maybe the TWC guy just wasn't as good at Chi Sau! After all, it seems that WSLVT schools do a LOT of Chi Sau! Just stands to reason they would be better at it! But Chi Sau isn't fighting. In contrast, I'm willing to be that the typical TWC school spends a lot more time gearing up and sparring!
zuti car
04-09-2017, 06:37 PM
Show me one , one video of any twc practitoner who demonstrated bodystructure anywhere ?
---The problem is, it wouldn't matter what I showed, you would still say "that isn't good body structure." You asked me to describe ANY principle or body mechanic from the Chum Kil form. So I did that and not surprisingly you had nothing to say about it.
I even learned "true" version of it from David Cheung and his art is extremly different from william;s approach ,but still no body structure , no power generation .
---That's strange. If William Cheung created TWC, how could you have learned the "true" version of it from his brother (which was extremely different) but not from him??? Maybe that is the problem? I know nothing about David Cheung. But maybe he taught you a somewhat....shall we say...delinquent version of TWC?? That's how it is sounding anyway.
you have no idea what is SCWC about ,what you see and what is actually done are completely different things
---Ah! The same argument used by the WSLVT guys! What we all see Wayne Yung or Wong Shun Leung do on video is just a sham and not what they REALLY do! :rolleyes:
but when we talk about their knowledge of TWC , they are far better that anyon else you can find today, even cheung;s closests students
---Since it was William Cheung who created TWC, how is what you say possible? You are saying they know the system even better than Cheung? Yet they didn't teach you the basic principles and biomechanics from the Chum Kil form that I briefly described? How is that possible?
The only thing i do not understand , whay are you even argue here , if you like what you do , if it is right thing for you , than just do it , as many hours daily as you can , stop wastng time on forums ,
----No Zuti. What isn't clear here is why you are choosing to post and try and bad-mouth TWC if you have gone beyond it and found something that you really like and that works for you. You haven't contributed to the discussions at all other than to tell us how you wasted your time on TWC and now hate everything about it. You never commented on whether or not what I was saying about the T step was accurate. All you have done is to post in an attempt to run down TWC. So if SCWC is the right thing for you, then just do it, as many hours daily as you can and stop wasting time bad-mouthing TWC on forums!
-Body structure is very simple thing , either you lower and upper body are connected or not and that is easy to see, there is no good or bad structure only there is a structure ir not , for those who know what is that all about it is easy to see whether someone have it or not . So , please , show me one TWC guy with any kind of structural connection , I'll accept tai chi , white crane , wck body structure , no matter , just show me one .
- I didn't say anything about Chum Kiu form simply because I have no time to elaborate how wrong it is and how these "principles' are wrongly expressed through the movements of the form , I could write the whole book about it , but for you to understand , you should know at least one other wck style , no matter what lineage they all teach and do pretty much same things .Simply put , what you said and what is done in a form are not the same things .
- David knows only one , first version of TWC and that is what he teaches , he also spent 6 years in WSL's school in HK , I think at same time when Garry Lam was there . Anyway , David's TWC has many valid points , it is simple and not application based ( who would believe it ) .
-WSL guys are right , if you don't know something , how can you make any valid points on the matter ? I practiced TWC for a significant time period and I can comment on it , I simply know what is the style all about . You saw couple of scwc videos and you comment but you know nothing about the style , let's say the structure which is different from all other WCK style and it shares many common points with white crane structure ( which I also practice for 4 years). Or the method of power generation , or chi sao platforms we use or ...do you know anything about SCWC? Or you just don't like what you see because it is not visually pleasing , not attractive enough?
-I never said anyone knows TWC better than Cheung , that is what you said , I simply said my teachers spent 30 + years practicing the style learned from Cheung , they know the style , they know what they have learned directly from Cheung .
-I talk truth about TWC . I know many things about Cheung that are not publically known and his followers did and still doing things to me in order to discredit me on every possible level ( I even got death threats when I debunked his original "history" in my country ) , he is a cult leader and I want to warn people what they can expect if they get involved with that person.
Anyway , I am done , I said what I wanted and thank you for the opportunity .
zuti car
04-09-2017, 08:39 PM
@zuti car
If it weren't true, lack of structure and power generation wouldn't be a common complaint all ex-TWC practitioners I know of share!
All of them thought like KPM does now, until they learned something else. You only know what you know, you know?
They are all upset about the time wasted on a very superficial system.
This is what happens when a level 10 instructor of TWC meets basic force exchange. Lacks all stability and crumbles easily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvYzc8bl8A
That is why TWC people do chi sao in front stance , because they have no concept of body structure and how to deal with an incoming force . This particular form of chi sao is used to reinforce structure and teach people how and what to do with the incoming force , if the structure if well traind it can be done on one leg and still keep the position
How could you tell who was who? Just looked like 2 guys doing Chi Sau and one was a bit better at it than the other. Is that supposed to prove something? Maybe the TWC guy just wasn't as good at Chi Sau! After all, it seems that WSLVT schools do a LOT of Chi Sau! Just stands to reason they would be better at it! But Chi Sau isn't fighting. In contrast, I'm willing to be that the typical TWC school spends a lot more time gearing up and sparring!
lol
This shows just how little you understand any Wing Chun.
What you are unable to perceive is the effect of basic issuance of lower body force from one guy, and the other guy entirely unable to hold the pressure because he never trained proper body structure even though he's a level 10 instructor of TWC.
You talk about being "better" or "not as good" at chi-sau as if it's all about practicing techniques (which TWC is). What you are missing is that the exchange of force is BASIC and TWC simply can't hold up because it doesn't teach whole body integration.
Yes, this is not fighting, but you think the guy with no stability, no structure, no power, and no defense is going to do better in free sparring or fighting??
Again, this shows how little you know about any Wing Chun, or indeed martial arts or fighting in general.
lol
This shows just how little you understand any Wing Chun.
What you are unable to perceive is the effect of basic issuance of lower body force from one guy, and the other guy entirely unable to hold the pressure because he never trained proper body structure even though he's a level 10 instructor of TWC.
You talk about being "better" or "not as good" at chi-sau as if it's all about practicing techniques (which TWC is). What you are missing is that the exchange of force is BASIC and TWC simply can't hold up because it doesn't teach whole body integration.
Yes, this is not fighting, but you think the guy with no stability, no structure, no power, and no defense is going to do better in free sparring or fighting??
Again, this shows how little you know about any Wing Chun, or indeed martial arts or fighting in general.
You have a video of one person, who again I know nothing about how good he is at Chi Sau or what his rank or background in TWC may be. Maybe he studied from the same guy as Zuti! But you think this proves something?
Body structure is very simple thing , either you lower and upper body are connected or not and that is easy to see, there is no good or bad structure only there is a structure ir not , for those who know what is that all about it is easy to see whether someone have it or not . So , please , show me one TWC guy with any kind of structural connection , I'll accept tai chi , white crane , wck body structure , no matter , just show me one .
--- What isn't clear here is why you are choosing to post and try and bad-mouth TWC if you have gone beyond it and found something that you really like and that works for you. You haven't contributed to the discussions at all other than to tell us how you wasted your time on TWC and now hate everything about it. You never commented on whether or not what I was saying about the T step was accurate. All you have done is to post in an attempt to run down TWC. So if SCWC is the right thing for you, then just do it, as many hours daily as you can and stop wasting time bad-mouthing TWC on forums!
- I didn't say anything about Chum Kiu form simply because I have no time to elaborate how wrong it is and how these "principles' are wrongly expressed through the movements of the form , I could write the whole book about it , but for you to understand , you should know at least one other wck style , no matter what lineage they all teach and do pretty much same things .Simply put , what you said and what is done in a form are not the same things .
--Yeah, right! :rolleyes: But you know me Zuti. You should remember I have studied Ip Man Wing Chun as well as Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun in addition to TWC. And like I said before, I don't do my TWC exactly like Cheung. Drawing on my background in Pin Sun, I likely do use more body structure and wholistic power generation. But I don't find TWC to be completely lacking in those things as you do. But there is room for improvement, which I feel like I have made in my own practice.
- David knows only one , first version of TWC and that is what he teaches , he also spent 6 years in WSL's school in HK , I think at same time when Garry Lam was there . Anyway , David's TWC has many valid points , it is simple and not application based ( who would believe it ) .
---So you are saying David has changed is Wing Chun from what his brother taught him to make it "non-application" based? But wait...didn't you say that the TWC you wasted 7 years on was all "application-based" and horrible....and...that it came from David Cheung? You aren't making any sense!
-WSL guys are right , if you don't know something , how can you make any valid points on the matter ?
---Now wait a minute. That is what I said on the Bong Sau thread when LFJ didn't get what I was saying about the T step.
I practiced TWC for a significant time period and I can comment on it , I simply know what is the style all about . You saw couple of scwc videos and you comment but you know nothing about the style , let's say the structure which is different from all other WCK style and it shares many common points with white crane structure ( which I also practice for 4 years). Or the method of power generation , or chi sao platforms we use or ...do you know anything about SCWC? Or you just don't like what you see because it is not visually pleasing , not attractive enough?
---You are the one that started with the video critiques. I just followed along!
-I never said anyone knows TWC better than Cheung , that is what you said , I simply said my teachers spent 30 + years practicing the style learned from Cheung , they know the style , they know what they have learned directly from Cheung .
---Uh...you said they know it better than William Cheung's closest students. Since Cheung would have taught his closest students that have now been with him directly for 30 years everything he knows, the logical implication is that your guys know TWC better than Cheung himself!
-I talk truth about TWC . I know many things about Cheung that are not publically known and his followers did and still doing things to me in order to discredit me on every possible level
---I don't doubt that. But if you are spending lots of time going around bad-mouthing them on public forums, you might be bringing some of it upon yourself!
Anyway , I am done , I said what I wanted and thank you for the opportunity
---Have a good one Zuti! No hard feelings. Glad SCWC is working out well for you!
You have a video of one person, who again I know nothing about how good he is at Chi Sau or what his rank or background in TWC may be. Maybe he studied from the same guy as Zuti! But you think this proves something?
Sifu in William Cheung's system, level 10 instructor, as I said twice.
The other guy is an ex-TWC sifu as well, but obviously learned a thing or two since leaving.
It is a demonstration of what commonly happens to TWC guys who have no concept of body unity.
All ex-TWC guys I know of, including sifu level, have this same complaint about that system. Coincidence?
--- What isn't clear here is why you are choosing to post and try and bad-mouth TWC if you have gone beyond it and found something that you really like and that works for you. You haven't contributed to the discussions at all other than to tell us how you wasted your time on TWC and now hate everything about it.
I know many people who have left previous systems, including TWC, and are very passionate MAists and indignant at having had years stolen from them.
It's not just that they have found something better and have moved on, but they feel they've been cheated.
People with such experiences tend to want to tell others about it. So?
You cannot hush people whose experience and views you don't like.
-WSL guys are right , if you don't know something , how can you make any valid points on the matter ?
---Now wait a minute. That is what I said on the Bong Sau thread when LFJ didn't get what I was saying about the T step.
lol
I know what the T-step is. It's not like it's something so hard to understand.
You were just wrong, as you so often are.
Sifu in William Cheung's system, level 10 instructor, as I said twice.
---But why should I take your word for it? You wouldn't believe Phil Redmond when he said he had successfully used the T step in competition. So...by extension....why should anyone believe what you say?
All ex-TWC guys I know of, including sifu level, have this same complaint about that system. Coincidence?
---Seems like most WSLVT guys I know are pretty full of themselves, pretty dogmatic, and rather difficult to have any conversation with. Most are convinced that they are right and everything else that differs must be wrong. They were the biggest part of the group of people that killed this forum back in 2014. Coincidence?
I know what the T-step is. It's not like it's something so hard to understand.
You were just wrong, as you so often are.
---I was wrong when I said that the T step is not a direct lateral step? I was wrong when I said that the T step is a flanking step to get an angle? I was wrong when I said the T step was a two-stage step that can vary the angle as desired? I was wrong when I said the T step does not give up distance from the opponent, but on the contrary is used to maintain distance? But you are such an expert on it, while having never actually studied the T step or TWC???? :rolleyes:
Sifu in William Cheung's system, level 10 instructor, as I said twice.
---But why should I take your word for it? You wouldn't believe Phil Redmond when he said he had successfully used the T step in competition. So...by extension....why should anyone believe what you say?
It's also on the video description and stated by the other guy in the video, who uploaded it.
If you doubt it, you can simply contact them and find out.
Whereas, when I asked Phil for proof of his claim, he gave nothing and there's no way for me to investigate further.
You refusing to investigate doesn't put your skepticism on the same rational grounds as mine.
---Seems like most WSLVT guys I know are pretty full of themselves, pretty dogmatic, and rather difficult to have any conversation with. Most are convinced that they are right and everything else that differs must be wrong. They were the biggest part of the group of people that killed this forum back in 2014. Coincidence?
Maybe not. Go learn WSLVT and see what there is about it that has them strongly disliking other systems they were a part of.
---I was wrong when I said that the T step is not a direct lateral step? I was wrong when I said that the T step is a flanking step to get an angle? I was wrong when I said the T step was a two-stage step that can vary the angle as desired? I was wrong when I said the T step does not give up distance from the opponent, but on the contrary is used to maintain distance?
No. You were wrong in stating that Phil was doing any of the above.
wckf92
04-10-2017, 05:54 AM
@zuti car
If it weren't true, lack of structure and power generation wouldn't be a common complaint all ex-TWC practitioners I know of share!
All of them thought like KPM does now, until they learned something else. You only know what you know, you know?
They are all upset about the time wasted on a very superficial system.
This is what happens when a level 10 instructor of TWC meets basic force exchange. Lacks all stability and crumbles easily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgvYzc8bl8A
Interesting to see the skill improvements of the dude in the red tank top. If I recall correctly, this was the high ranking twc dude who threw in the towel and went to train under Bayer(?). Couple of years ago?
Interesting to see the skill improvements of the dude in the red tank top. If I recall correctly, this was the high ranking twc dude who threw in the towel and went to train under Bayer(?). Couple of years ago?
Yes. 2010. He still has all the old videos up from his TWC days, including with Cheung, so you can see the contrast between then and now.
He was always enthusiastic and talented, but his skill has improved exponentially since getting into a good system.
Yes. 2010. He still has all the old videos up from his TWC days, including with Cheung, so you can see the contrast between then and now.
He was always enthusiastic and talented, but his skill has improved exponentially since getting into a good system.
Given that Bayer's system seems to be centered around Chi Sau, that shouldn't be any surprise. Now show me the same guy displaying an exponential improvement in his free-sparring ability and I'll be more impressed! ;)
Given that Bayer's system seems to be centered around Chi Sau, that shouldn't be any surprise. Now show me the same guy displaying an exponential improvement in his free-sparring ability and I'll be more impressed! ;)
Did I say anything about chi-sau? He has probably hundreds of vids if you're interested in what he does.
Did I say anything about chi-sau? He has probably hundreds of vids if you're interested in what he does.
Sure! I'd be interested in sparring videos. Link?
I'd be interested in sparring videos.
Because you think he didn't improve except for chi-sau? lol Why would a high ranking TWC sifu say it's ineffective and abandon it entirely, risking losing his large following, for something that didn't even improve his fighting skills?
How about you go learn some good VT and compare the result with TWC for yourself? That is if you care about possibly improving your skills versus arguing from ignorance on forums for the rest of your life.
Because you think he didn't improve except for chi-sau? lol Why would a high ranking TWC sifu say it's ineffective and abandon it entirely, risking losing his large following, for something that didn't even improve his fighting skills?
How about you go learn some good VT and compare the result with TWC for yourself? That is if you care about possibly improving your skills versus arguing from ignorance on forums for the rest of your life.
Hey, you were the one that said he had "100's of videos"! And now you don't want to even share the link??? :confused:
Sihing73
04-10-2017, 09:30 AM
Guys, it is pretty obvious that no one is going to change anyone's mind or point of view.
There really seems to be little point in continuing this thread if all we are going to do is see the same things posted over and over again.
While I do not think it is fair to belittle a system of Wing Chun or the head of that system, particularily when those deriding it don't seem able to post anything which would support their claims of having something better.
So, in the spirit of fairness to everyone here I am going to lock this thread.
If other threads pop up with the same deriding comments and lack of any benefit then those will be deleted.
Those who continue to try to promote their singular agenda and insult others will face further action.
This is directed at everyone involved not one person or group in particular.
If anyone wishes to discuss this with me feel free to email or PM me.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.